Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
William Topaz McGonagall was a missunderstood genious!
Who else could have written poems like:
first three verses of
Burning of the Exeter Theatre
'Twas in the year of 1887, which many people will long remember,
The burning of the Theatre at Exeter on the 5th of September,
Alas! that ever-to-be-remembered and unlucky night,
When one hundred and fifty lost their lives, a most agonising sight.
The play on this night was called "Romany Rye,"
And at act four, scene third, Fire! Fire! was the cry;
And all in a moment flames were seen issuing from the stage,
Then the women screamed frantically, like wild beasts in a cage.
Then a panic ensued, and each one felt dismayed,
And from the burning building a rush was made;
And soon the theatre was filled with a blinding smoke,
So that the people their way out had to grope.
from
http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/
Gem of the day.
oh isn't it grand?
Gotta love poetry like that, no matter how bad it is
This article on the Scotsman newspaper's site is interesting in light of the suggestion by Bubblehead that Randi might be hoaxing us all this time.
Clearly that idea is bollocks, but this Price feller seems to be the sort of figure that Bubbles sees Randi (or whoever he chooses to direct his anti-sceptic ire towards) as being. Someone who co-opts science, without the relevant experience, to further their own agenda of discrediting other frauds in order to make his own work in the same field seem more legitimate.
Needless to say, Randi does not peddle his own brand of woo, so comparisons would be pointless, and I'm NOT trying to make any. If anything, this guy is more of an Alison DuBois; noted for claiming that most other "psychics" are frauds, and she's one of the few "real" ones. But I've not come across another figure like this, who has so bare-facedly played both sides for a percentage. Any active "debunking" from within the woo community is normally bad for business for all concerned!
The threats the author has received are worth noting too; amazing after all this time.
Clearly that idea is bollocks, but this Price feller seems to be the sort of figure that Bubbles sees Randi (or whoever he chooses to direct his anti-sceptic ire towards) as being. Someone who co-opts science, without the relevant experience, to further their own agenda of discrediting other frauds in order to make his own work in the same field seem more legitimate.
Needless to say, Randi does not peddle his own brand of woo, so comparisons would be pointless, and I'm NOT trying to make any. If anything, this guy is more of an Alison DuBois; noted for claiming that most other "psychics" are frauds, and she's one of the few "real" ones. But I've not come across another figure like this, who has so bare-facedly played both sides for a percentage. Any active "debunking" from within the woo community is normally bad for business for all concerned!
The threats the author has received are worth noting too; amazing after all this time.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
In view of the mention of William Topaz McGonagall, perhaps a Tay value would be more appropriate.
Buckaroo
Graduate Poster
He furiously reminds me of a TimeCube disciple gone bad ...
And he reminds me of a roommate I had a couple of years ago. This guy decided that he was going to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, despite having no mathematical training, formal or otherwise, and despite the fact that the theorem had already been proven (he believed that proof was incorrect
). No matter how patiently and slowly I explained why his "proof" was wrong, he stubbornly refused to see it. 
Guys like this are insufferable.
Last edited:
kieran
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2004
- Messages
- 294
Sorry - got to this one late so I'm dragging the thread back a day or so ...
The third option exists but one needs to exercise judgement about its use ... if it is defended too strongly then we end up in a world where is only one value of "truth" ... and that is neither "true" nor "false" ... sounds like the slippery slope to the land of woo to me ...
... and how did you come to the absolute conclusion that the flying spagetti monster is false?
... and how do you know absolutely that these are "fictional" characters? It is possible that they are real and that the accounts of their life adventures are just represented as fiction?
The third option exists but one needs to exercise judgement about its use ... if it is defended too strongly then we end up in a world where is only one value of "truth" ... and that is neither "true" nor "false" ... sounds like the slippery slope to the land of woo to me ...
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It sounds like you're talking about "fuzzy" logic, that which employs probabilities rather than boolean (true or false) values. This is one of the bases of artificial intelligence.
Fuzzy logic can handle certain problems well, while boolean logic handles other problems well. Many people make the claim that skeptics use only boolean logic, but that is a false assumption. Skeptics are well aware that there are many things that can't be quantified absolutely, but out of these there are some (such as paranormal phenomena) where the probability can be safely judged to be extremely close to zero.
This "third value" terminology might make you seem insightful, but it's nothing that hasn't been considered many times before and at much greater depth, I'll wager, than you've gone into it.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
And he reminds me of a roommate I had a couple of years ago. This guy decided that he was going to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, despite having no mathematical training, formal or otherwise, and despite the fact that the theorem had already been proven (he believed that proof was incorrect
Guys like this are insufferable.
Have you read "Fermat's Enigma" by Simon Singh? By far the most interesting book about math I have ever read.
I loved how he described experts who would receive proof after proof from amateur mathemeticians, and would respond with "I have an amazing refutation of your proof, but space doesn't allow me to write it here..."
sinnikal
Muse
Hey Bubba (hope you don't mind if I call you that), I know of another hotbed of rationalists that could do with their ideas being 'crumbled'. They're so arrogant they even call it a 'clear-thinking oasis'. Go check out the Richard Dawkins forum, they could sure do with some reason over there, and I suspect you're just the guy to be 'reasonable'.
PS. "double-blind" doesn't really mean poking a skewer through both eyes into grey matter, perhaps that was your erroneous interpretation of what the BadSciencers were trying to learn ya!
PPS. Sorry 'brights', but I think you might just have fun with him.
PS. "double-blind" doesn't really mean poking a skewer through both eyes into grey matter, perhaps that was your erroneous interpretation of what the BadSciencers were trying to learn ya!
PPS. Sorry 'brights', but I think you might just have fun with him.
No, you are completely misunderstanding my point. I have never said or implied that not knowing something makes it unknowable, only that not knowing does not magically alter the truth of an objective statement.
So far, you have failed to define this "third value" in a meaningful and consitent way for anyone but yourself.
"Certainty" is a description of personal knowledge. No, it doesn't have a clear value at all, and is highly subjective.
Now we get to the meat of.
First off, "bivalent" is a chemistry and genetics term, it is totally meaningless here.
I will assume you are misusing the word to mean something like "bifurcated".
Randi making a claim that Steorn is a fraud doesn't affect in the slightest whether or not they really are. Randi could be wrong, or they could actually be a fraud. Randi's opinion won't change that, nor will his perspective of them as a company.
If you're only claiming that his opinion can shape whether they're seen as a fraud, that's fine. But remember, being seen as something and actually being something are different.
If you want to claim that whether or not they really are fraudulent is affected by Randi's opinion, you'll need to provide some kind of evidence.
No, you don't. You have consistently misstated my position on various matters.
Again, personal opinion means nothing.
It simply does not matter what any of us thinks. Steorn is either fradulent or non-fradulent. Details and opinions may color the context of this, but will not affect whether or not they are fradulent.
We invaded Iraq for many reasons that I won't get into here, because this isn't the politics forum. Please choose another, simpler example.
If they are simply a tech company that legitimatly believes they are able to build what they claim, that makes them non-fradulent. No opinion needed, it's true because of the definition of the word "fradulent".
They might still be mistaken about their technology, but they wouldn't be frauds.
Now, if they then found out they could never make the device work and still tried to sell it, they would be fraudulent. Again, this is a question of definitions.
Actually, NDAs are designed to counter such hostile tendencies, as they are legally binding documents.
You haven't shown any change. Either they are frauds or not. Either their device works or it doesn't. Those two things aren't necessarily linked, but they are either true or false. They can't both be frauds and not be frauds at the same time, and their device cannot both work and not work simultaneously.
So what? What does this have to do with anything? If Randi wants to say something, he's free to say it. He can also feel however he wants about himself, or anything else for that matter.
It still doesn't make Steorn one grain more or less able to produce what they claim.
I'm sorry, but the things you say indicate you misunderstand key points of my argument.
Now you're talking about using this "third value" as if its a tool. I thought it was a value of "truth", not something you can use. You will have to define your "third value" more distinctly, please.
Again, my claim is either true or false. I cannot both move metal and not move metal at the same time, so where is the "third value"?
So what? It is the duty of every person on this planet to look at what is said critically. If they trust Randi blindly, that's their own problem.
No, it isn't. Saying that someone's claims are unlikely and asking them to prove it or shut up isn't libel or defamation.
Again, I must question your education: Have you ever taken a law class?
Do not insult me, am perfectly capable of understanding your arguments, I simply do not agree with them. Do not mistake these two things.
No, you are misunderstanding terms.
Objective, defintion 4.
Subjective, defintions 1-5.
An objective statement is either objectively true or false. A subjective statement is neither objectively true nor false. Subjective statements are not "'false' relative to the true", they are simply subjectively true or false.
Your understanding of these terms is not elegant, it is invented. If you choose not to use the commonly accepted definitions for these words, discussion is going to be difficult.
If he's talking about fuzzy logic, he's doing a pretty bad job of conveying that. He didn't even pick problems in which fuzzy logic is useful.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
'When [SIZE=+1]I[/SIZE] use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
Look, I'm not asking you to believe in the third value, I am requesting that you apply strict critical thinking to my argument, point for point, deconstructing my argument and examples and show where the third value is not relevant, or it exists, or is or not valid.
Right, I got that, and then I pointed out where I believed you to be mistreating the third value in this regard. You're defining, to yourself, the third value incorrectly if I can take you on your words alone. Your framing it poorly, your confusing it as something esoteric or philosophically cute, and it's not, it's nothing more than a simple and natural function of our intelligence when we are honest.
Honesty is essential in critical thinking, and we dont stop applying critical thinking to just reality outside of us, we must also apply critical thinking to ourselves as individuals.
Yes, but that's irrelevant to my argument. Again, your assuming that the third value, as well as the first and second, actually exist as 'things'. true, false, and mystery do not exist except inside of our minds. To paraphrase Richard Rorty, 'there is no truth out there'
To me, your simply arguing against bivalent frameworks here, not the third value. I think you could have given a better example. If someone cannot percieve an object under any circumstances, the third value does absolutly nothing to them that would make them conclude the sun does not exist, or have any bearing on the sun.
now that's a real poet! nice touch
BF
ETA: Bubblefish owned me on this one. Stupidity on my part minimized for de-emphasis.
Bivalent is a chemistry/genetics term and means nothing outside of those contexts, please stop using it incorrectly. It does not make you sound smarter, it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
Not only is it not a term used in terms of ideas or logic, it means nothing in those contexts. It refers to the bonding of atoms, or to genetic characteristics.
Keep your reasoning simple, and use language you are familiar with if you want to argue your point effectively.
Last edited:
Curnir,
Your being annoying, not critical, and rather petty.
for my own satisfaction, yes. To you? I dont care to bother proving reality to the delusional.
No, I don't truly think that no living person can have the same name as a fictional character.
delusional boy, it means I called you 'little flower' after I said 'your welcome' to your 'thank you' or equivalency.
so because of a misspell, my meaning magically changed?
You must believe in hokus pokus.
pay attention to the natural process going on here
0=my meaning of text
1=text
2=interpretations of text
I have evaded nothing. If I were to evade, i would not respond.
your supplying metaphor soley as your argument, not logic. or at least that's how it appears to me.
little flower, your having a discussion with an imaginary bubblefish in your head....
if you can come to me with honest questions or rebuttals that dont employ imagination, annoyances , or petty gripes over misspells of your and your're, I will address in kind.
nor a clue..
I also have a perfect tush, but please try to keep your hands off that.
I'll keep that in mind on my next trek to India, thanks
When you can make the simple distinction between sarcasm, humor, rational thought, and logic, please contact me again. Until then, go over to badscience.com, they could use a mind like yours to help them reinforce their irrationality.
BF
Your being annoying, not critical, and rather petty.
for my own satisfaction, yes. To you? I dont care to bother proving reality to the delusional.
No, I don't truly think that no living person can have the same name as a fictional character.
delusional boy, it means I called you 'little flower' after I said 'your welcome' to your 'thank you' or equivalency.
so because of a misspell, my meaning magically changed?
You must believe in hokus pokus.
pay attention to the natural process going on here
0=my meaning of text
1=text
2=interpretations of text
I have evaded nothing. If I were to evade, i would not respond.
your supplying metaphor soley as your argument, not logic. or at least that's how it appears to me.
little flower, your having a discussion with an imaginary bubblefish in your head....
if you can come to me with honest questions or rebuttals that dont employ imagination, annoyances , or petty gripes over misspells of your and your're, I will address in kind.
nor a clue..
I also have a perfect tush, but please try to keep your hands off that.
I'll keep that in mind on my next trek to India, thanks
When you can make the simple distinction between sarcasm, humor, rational thought, and logic, please contact me again. Until then, go over to badscience.com, they could use a mind like yours to help them reinforce their irrationality.
BF
For the sake of clarity to others.
I am not here to promote my ego.
I have for over four years been developing an online dialectic that uses three truth values. My hopes for this project are conflict resolution and problem solving. It's still a work in progress, but has just entered a critical phase.
http://www.highintelligence.com
I dont talk about myself in these discussions until someone else does. The more I try to make the discussion about the ideas, the more irrational posters bring me into it, and then accuse me of talking about myself, which is surely an irrational projection, as any observer could honestly note.
Dr. Shui Yin Lo is a friend of mine, he is not assosciated with this project. He is a lifelong academic with professorship in physics at Cal Tech, University of Melbourne, Stanford University, and I believe the University of Chicago. He also has something like 7 or 8 patents. I find him to be charmingly similar to the absent minded professor of movies mixed with the excitement and passion of an artist and the naivte of a young boy. He has controversial theories that many don't agree with.
http://www.shuiyinlo.org
I think it is derogatory to insult people for thier honest theories, be it Rupert Sheldrake, Dr. Lo, or even Neal Adams. Rather, discuss with them their points and either prove them mistaken or don't engage. I find any other approach simply irrational and a perfect example of fundamentalism.
I imagine my arguments are getting somewhere, as I note that this thread now contains more remarks about me than my ideas.
Bubblefish
sinnikal
Muse
That's because, Bubba, as usual you are a phenomenon that is arguably worth discussing, your 'ideas' however..............
It's just the same as your assertion that despite the lack of double-blinding in Dr. Lo's 'experiment' we can safely put that flaw to one side and carry on the discussion. We can't, there's nothing left to discuss, flawed is just, well, flawed.
Oh my god this is how I come to love this process so much! You are almost absolutly correct! I cant believe for years no one else brought this to my attention til now. I had no idea that bivalent was a term commonly used in genetics!
However, a correction, bivalent logic is a term commonly used in logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivalent_logic
see how often it is used in this regard?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q="bivalent+logic"+&btnG=Search
I read through that paper you linked to, Bubblefish, and I have a couple questions regarding it:
1) Do you believe that ternary logic represents a useful device outside of formal logic problems? If so, why?
2) How is ternary logic at all useful in the realm of critical thinking outside of formal logic problems?
While I can see a use for quantifying uncertainty in formal logic problems, you have generalized this into a way of thinking about truth informally. That position is not supported by the paper you link to, which talks about formal mathematical logic constructions.
The linked paper deals with mathematical formal logic constructions, which have a very specific format and rules. When speaking informally about, say, a paranormal claim, it isn't necessary to quantify concepts like "we don't know the answer", because there isn't a formal logic construction that relies on quantification.
Your claim that people are using only two values to think (or however you want to word it) is incredibly deceptive. Your "third value" is taken from a particular approach to formal logic problems, which you have then over generalized into an approach to all thinking when the concept invoked by the formal construct is already present in the thinking of any person honest enough to admit they are ever uncertain.
Now that you've finally linked me to the formal construction (and I've had the chance to read it), I utterly fail to see how this is special. This is another way of formalizing a hazy concept, much like fuzzy logic (as I understand it) formalizes the shades of gray in statements like "the water is hot".
1) Do you believe that ternary logic represents a useful device outside of formal logic problems? If so, why?
2) How is ternary logic at all useful in the realm of critical thinking outside of formal logic problems?
While I can see a use for quantifying uncertainty in formal logic problems, you have generalized this into a way of thinking about truth informally. That position is not supported by the paper you link to, which talks about formal mathematical logic constructions.
The linked paper deals with mathematical formal logic constructions, which have a very specific format and rules. When speaking informally about, say, a paranormal claim, it isn't necessary to quantify concepts like "we don't know the answer", because there isn't a formal logic construction that relies on quantification.
Your claim that people are using only two values to think (or however you want to word it) is incredibly deceptive. Your "third value" is taken from a particular approach to formal logic problems, which you have then over generalized into an approach to all thinking when the concept invoked by the formal construct is already present in the thinking of any person honest enough to admit they are ever uncertain.
Now that you've finally linked me to the formal construction (and I've had the chance to read it), I utterly fail to see how this is special. This is another way of formalizing a hazy concept, much like fuzzy logic (as I understand it) formalizes the shades of gray in statements like "the water is hot".