Habitual irrational thinking.

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:26 am

Remote viewing has been tested and failed.

What you fail to realise is that scientific testing must be done with rigor. Loose testing often yields weird results, and most especially when the tester actually WANTS a particular set of results. That is why replicability is vital. Some 'true believer' tests his/her favorite superstition, like remote viewing, and due to the loose nature of the test, gets a weird result. Only when the test method is tight will the truth appear.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby gorgeous » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:32 am

wrong-----------------NSA Stargate remote viewing file -----PSYCHOENERGETICS RESEARCH
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE
7 August 1984 - 2.00MB (pdf file)


Key highlights from the document are:
------- Psychoenergetics has its place somewhere between psychology and the other social sciences. It has not been reduced to mathematics and there is no physical model, but psychoenergetics does have many characteristics that are common to all science.

The first of these characteristics is replication. If an area of endeavor is to be considered a science, experiments must be replicable. When the results obtained in one laboratory cannot be obtained under the same experimental conditions in other laboratories, the work will be neglected and will be considered to fall outside the parameters of science.

The work in psychoenergetics at SRI has been replicated by several laboratories:
~ Remote Viewing (ESP)
- Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
- Institute for Parapsychology, Durham, NC
- Mundelein College, Chicago, IL
- University of California at Davis, CA
~ Remote Action (psychokinesis)
- Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
- Mind Science Foundation, San Antonio, TX
- Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY
- Psychophysical Research Laboratory, Princeton, NJ
- Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
- Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OH.

These are all bonafide scientific research and development institutes. In all, there have been 28 formal published replications of the remote viewing work at SRI. Obviously, this phenomenon is not an invention of SRI; it has been duplicated on a number of occasions.
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:39 am

gorgeous wrote:wrong-
So Gorgeous, you are claiming that your remote viewers can see the future and thus know everything that will happen now Clinton is President?
Hillary Clinton remote view.jpg


That's why you are so funny Gorgeous. Everyone of your posts here is an example of you shooting yourself in the foot. :lol: :lol: :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:50 am

The US government spent about $20 million on assorted parapsychological studies. They stopped every such program in 1995 for the simple reason that they were getting nothing out of it. That included remote viewing, because they thought it might be a good spying tool. However, since all their studies showed remote viewing gave no information at all, it was useless. I suspect that the government people who approved the original expenditure got really embarrassed.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby gorgeous » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:53 pm

not true...it likely went underground...see above post--got results...predictions might not happen as an event remote viewed is the most likely at that moment..can change in an instant as events change....Hillary as pres. was seen early in the year...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:23 pm

gorgeous wrote:not true...it likely went underground...see above post--got results...predictions might not happen as an event remote viewed is the most likely at that moment..can change in an instant as events change....Hillary as pres. was seen early in the year...

Soooo...
Remote viewing is like guessing, then? Forecasting if I'm being charitable?
In other words: nothing much.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby gorgeous » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:26 pm

it works...as the NSA file said^^^
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Genaro
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:18 pm

One person's rational, can be another person's irrational, and vice-versa.

As the old Chinese saying goes; "The only normal people are those who you do not yet know well".

The same applies to "normal". One persons normal, is another person's paranormal, and vice-versa.

Which of course is primarily predicated by experiential knowledge.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:25 pm

gorgeous wrote:it works...as the NSA file said^^^

If it works, why do you need to continually explain away everytime they're proven wrong? (Which is pretty much every time they're not being tactically obtuse)

Basically an 80s relic this one. Real "remote viewing" today is done online by nsa etc. Although nice plotline in "Stranger things".

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby gorgeous » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:45 pm

it only works as skilled as the viewer is
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:27 pm

Gorgeous

Imagine this scenario.

You are standing there and your friend says. "Look out! There is a man sneaking up behind you with a knife in his hand to stab you."
You say : "Nonsense."
The man stabs you.
As you fall down, your last words are : "Total nonsense. There is no man with a knife."

Metaphorically, this is what you are doing. You claim remote viewing is valid. The USA government spends $20 million to prove it is not. You still claim, as you fall down, that it is valid. Can you not see the nonsense in your approach?

ahhell
Poster
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:43 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby ahhell » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:54 pm

A lesson we should learn from skepticism, irrational thinking is the natural habit of all mankind, it takes a great deal of effort and diligence to avoid it.

User avatar
ThePragmatic
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:11 pm
Custom Title: Non-believer
Location: Sweden

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby ThePragmatic » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:33 pm

ThePragmatic wrote:...His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition...

vs
gorgeous wrote:see above posts^^ for allegiance to science dogma...


Hmm, yes... yes I see. Er... well no, I don't.
So what you are saying, gorgeous, is that when new evidence arrives and beliefs are adjusted accordingly, that is to be dogmatic?
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

User avatar
ThePragmatic
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:11 pm
Custom Title: Non-believer
Location: Sweden

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby ThePragmatic » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:42 pm

gorgeous wrote:wrong-----------------NSA Stargate remote viewing file -----PSYCHOENERGETICS RESEARCH
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE
7 August 1984 - 2.00MB (pdf file)
...

Would you care to enlighten me as to how it can be that you are in possession of secret NSA files? Do you use Google to find them?
Are you not afraid to just post about your possession of those files on public Internet sites?

Hmm, "NSA Stargate remote viewing file".
Stargate? As in the Movie and TV-series?
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:49 pm

[list=][/list]
gorgeous wrote:it only works as skilled as the viewer is

So... who's the good ones? You know, the ones that dont miss consistently and are not so vague as to mean anything? (The clinton presidency ones clearly are bull artists who are already proven wrong) How do you seperate a "good" viewer from a poor one?

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby gorgeous » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:38 pm

Stargate Project - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project


The Stargate Project was the code name for a secret U.S. Army unit established in 1978 at Fort .... Originally tested in the "Phase One" were OOBE-Beacon "RV" experiments at the American Society for Psychical Research, under research ...
‎Background · ‎History · ‎Methodology · ‎Civilian personnel


-------------------------------------- Star Gate documents - RemoteViewed.com



http://www.remoteviewed.com/star-gate-documents/


A small collection of Project Star Gate documents released by the CIA through FOIA. ... To determine whether progress in RV training carried over to operational ... -------------------the good viewers were more consistant in describing more details of say a target in Russia or the Iraq war...they were tested to find out the best viewers...they don't keep an expensive program for decades unless they got results...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Genaro
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: The USA government spends $20 million to prove it is not.




That is an incorrect statement.

The US government (specifically the CIA, NSA, and DIA) did not waste 23 years and millions of dollars just to disprove the Stargate Project and remote viewing.

That also applies to the Soviets covert remote viewing programs during the same time period.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:34 pm

Hillary Clinton remote view.jpg
gorgeous wrote:not true......predictions might not happen as an event remote viewed is the most likely at that moment..can change in an instant as events change....Hillary as pres. was seen early in the year...
You really are an idiot. You are claiming "remote viewers" can clearly see future events and write entire books about what they saw. Yet you simultaneously say that "the future may change" which means the same remote viewers are making everything up.

It gets better. You may now realise how you just shot yourself in the foot again. Logically, you are claiming that remote viewers are seeing all possible futures and therefore none of their predictions will be right.

You just destroyed remote viewing. :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:41 pm

gorgeous wrote:wrong-----------------NSA Stargate remote viewing file -----PSYCHOENERGETICS RESEARCH
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE
7 August 1984 - 2.00MB (pdf file)

You are lying again Gorgeous. You already got caught posting this known forgery from a remote viewing fansite. Here is a link to your forged document.

http://www.remoteviewed.com/blogdocs/James%20Randi.pdf

Where does this document say it is from the NSA? In fact, it doesn't even mention the NSA, does it? It mostly talks about James Randi. :lol:

Genaro
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:40 am

Matthew, the majority of the remote viewing programs that began at the Stanford Research Institute were overseen by the CIA, DIA, and Army INSCOM, not the NSA. However, the NSA did have some peripheral involvement at various times with the programs.

http://www.remoteviewed.com/star-gate-documents/


19 Oct 1983 GRILL FLAME PROJECT REPORT DIA Directorate for Scientific and Technical Intelligence


“PREFACE:
This report summarizes results of the three-year GRILL FLAME project, which terminated at the close of FY 1983. -It contains key findings from the various project activities, and identifies potential follow-on efforts.

In addition to this DIA evaluation, the GRILL FLAME project also has been reviewed by an independent Scientific Evaluation Team that met in August and September of 1983. The scientific evaluation and recommendations will be forwarded separately”

“FINDINGS:
1. SUMMARY (U)
Key findings of the GRILL FLAME project are:

o Remote viewing is a real phenomenon, and is not degraded by distance or shielding.

o Remote viewing ability can be improved by appropriate training procedures.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is also important to know that Ingo Swann remote viewed the ring around Jupiter 3 years prior to the ring being
discovered by Voyager.
o Remote viewing has potential for US intelligence applications. However, at this stage of development, descriptive content (e.g., sketches, configurations) is more reliable than analytic content (e.g., function, complex technical data).

o A potential threat to US national security exists from foreign achievements in psychoenergetics. In the USSR and in China, this research is well funded and receives high-level government backing."

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby OutOfBreath » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:57 am

Doesn't look like it was that big a success:
https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm

In 1995 the American Institutes for Research (AIR) was contracted by CIA to evaluate the program. Their 29 September 1995 final report was released to the public 28 November 1995. A positive assessment by statistician Jessica Utts, that a statistically significant effect had been demonstrated in the laboratory [the government psychics were said to be accurate about 15 percent of the time], was offset by a negative one by psychologist Ray Hyman [a prominent CSICOP psychic debunker]. The final recommendation by AIR was to terminate the STAR GATE effort. CIA concluded that there was no case in which ESP had provided data used to guide intelligence operations.


Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:33 pm

Genaro wrote:One person's rational, can be another person's irrational, and vice-versa.

As the old Chinese saying goes; "The only normal people are those who you do not yet know well".

The same applies to "normal". One persons normal, is another person's paranormal, and vice-versa.

Which of course is primarily predicated by experiential knowledge.


Normal is one person.
Paranormal is a pare o persons.
A co incident ?
Left to ur own accord ~ u r normal.
Incorporate others and normal gets
blurred by intentions. Temptations!!!! Hehe
Desires!!!!!!!! LoL
There is no real want when u like
being alone. ;-)
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Genaro
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:04 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:Doesn't look like it was that big a success:
https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm

In 1995 the American Institutes for Research (AIR) was contracted by CIA to evaluate the program. Their 29 September 1995 final report was released to the public 28 November 1995. A positive assessment by statistician Jessica Utts, that a statistically significant effect had been demonstrated in the laboratory [the government psychics were said to be accurate about 15 percent of the time], was offset by a negative one by psychologist Ray Hyman [a prominent CSICOP psychic debunker]. The final recommendation by AIR was to terminate the STAR GATE effort. CIA concluded that there was no case in which ESP had provided data used to guide intelligence operations.


Peace
Dan


In the context of the claims that remote viewing is impossible, it was a huge success.

Again, the US government didn't waste 23 years and millions of dollars on multiple RV programs if it believed that RV was non-existent.

The RV probe and subsequent observations of Jupiter by Ingo Swann that were later confirmed by Voyager cannot be debunked.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby OutOfBreath » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:52 pm

Genaro wrote:In the context of the claims that remote viewing is impossible, it was a huge success.

Well, it seems the standards of success is set very low then, since it was concluded not useful for anything.

Again, the US government didn't waste 23 years and millions of dollars on multiple RV programs if it believed that RV was non-existent.

The us military routinely throws away millions and billions on weapon systems not panning out, research going nowhere and so on. Once in a while a fringe project actually comes through with something, which makes it worthwhile to spend a few millions checking out farfetched stuff. (especially if rumours say "the other guys are doing it") The assessment here was basically "nothing worth investigating further". Not surprising if the best case was 15% correct, which is a nice way of saying wrong 7 out of 8 times. For the last 1 of 8, could be chance (dumb luck), leading questions and so on. For control they should have checked with a controlgroup of non-viewers and see how much right they would get by chance or conjecture. Cold reading skills perhaps?

The RV probe and subsequent observations of Jupiter by Ingo Swann that were later confirmed by Voyager cannot be debunked.

Could be a lucky hit that. It would be weird if they never got anything right, actually. Also depends how they got that answer. So one celebrated hit proves nothing.

Anywhos, not useful for anything was and is the verdict. If it was reliable it would have continued, and it would have had knock-on consequences for physics and society in general.
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

Genaro
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:46 pm

Well, it seems the standards of success is set very low then, since it was concluded not useful for anything.


Source please?

As to Ingo Swann's "lucky hit". There is no such thing as luck.

But Swann hit on a lot more observations regarding Jupiter than just the ring, that were later confirmed by Voyager.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby gorgeous » Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:12 pm

the govt has reasons to let the public believe it didn't work...they don't want all people to know they too have this ability......and police and corporations have also used psychics...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby OutOfBreath » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:33 pm

[list=][/list]
Genaro wrote:
Well, it seems the standards of success is set very low then, since it was concluded not useful for anything.


Source please?

I provided it a few posts ago. Check back.

As to Ingo Swann's "lucky hit". There is no such thing as luck.

Oh but there is. Random chance can even be calculated some times. Check out probabilities math. Also placebo effects, confirmation bias and potentially cold reading skills could play into it. Chance hits is actually to be expected.

But Swann hit on a lot more observations regarding Jupiter than just the ring, that were later confirmed by Voyager.

It depends how they were asking and how they interpreted the results. If remote viewing was a thing, it should work consistently. Which it never did. The existence of "hits" doesnt validate the concept. That could be due to the methodology used lending itself to such positive interpretations.

If these jupiter thingies were confirmed and it then went on to reliably show other stuff, then maybe there could be something. The asessment of that was negative.

Seems to me gorgeous' claim that it's really about guessing seems the most likely so far.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:45 pm

Remote viewing is crap.
I Have seen some of the drawings that the 'remote viewers' produced. They are nearly always so amorphous that they can be interpreted any way you want. A TRUE BELIEVER will see them as valid. A skeptic will see them as showing nothing. It is all in the attitude of the interpreter.

On Jupiter.
When I was a teenager, no probes had been sent to Mars. I was discussing the first one with some friends in the months before it reached Mars, and we were making guesses as to what it would see. My guess was craters, like on the moon. My friends rather dismissed my suggestion, but I was right. Did I 'remote view'? No, of course not. My guess was based on simple logic. Such examples are not valid as arguments.

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Ken Fabos » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:58 pm

ThePragmatic wrote:It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it.
His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.
- Bertrand Russell


The thing about truisms is that they are rarely universally true. Unless you are extraordinary gifted you will have to rely on the authority of experts and if your opinion differs greatly from theirs you need compelling reasons - compelling enough to alter the authority position. The authority position should and usually does make note of differing valid differences and areas of uncertainty - even if the summaries and soundbites inevitably lose the nuances. A large and complex scientific field will exceed the capabilities of any individual. For those in positions of trust and responsibility in our societies, expected to make decisions in the absence of personal expertise - and that is very often the normal case - it can be legally actionable negligence to fail to heed expert advice. Criminal negligence if people came to harm as a result.

I am willing to trust the institutions with their professional standards as well as the conventions and methodologies of science, those in my view having earned their respected place and I don't think that is dogmatic; science is published and it's always available and subject to ongoing review and revisions but I don't have to confirm each element myself. I would dispute that anyone, expert or not should routinely reject the work of others as a default position; to do so would render us incapable of making informed decisions and actions for as long as that rejected authoritative knowledge remains unreviewed. If people want to review the work of others, that's good but you better be competent to do so; the reviews done by competent, qualified others suffices in most cases. I think each element passes through such review to gain it's credence whilst the greater body of knowledge has credence through the collected reviews of it's parts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:21 am

Good points, Ken.

I have often thought that the old business of 'argument from authority fallacy' is not actually a fallacy, as long as the authority is sufficiently educated, smart, experienced etc.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:47 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Good points, Ken.

I have often thought that the old business of 'argument from authority fallacy' is not actually a fallacy, as long as the authority is sufficiently educated, smart, experienced etc.

The authority is authority...and the only way to think rationally about things.

the fallacy of argument from authority.........IS NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.

Don't CONFLATE the two separate ideas JUST BECAUSE they both touch on the concept of "authority."

Cancer Fraud is not the same thing as Curing Cancer.... just because they both touch on the concept of Cancer.

"We think with words.........." //// EDIT: READ any definition of what the Falacy of Reliance on Authority actually says: its just what you already know, relying on an authority from one field for statements he makes in another area for which he really does not have any authority. THAT is the fallacy....not relying on qualified authorities IN THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE. this gets confused more often than not.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:45 am

Bobbo

If I want to learn about black holes, which is way beyond my competence, then I will read and quote someone like Stephen Hawking. I am confident that his utterances will be based on current knowledge. In an argument, I will happily use that level of expertise, and stuff your ideas on fallacy from argument by authority.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:11 am

Genaro wrote:Matthew, the majority of the remote viewing programs that began at the Stanford Research Institute were overseen by the CIA, DIA, and Army INSCOM, not the NSA. However, the NSA did have some peripheral involvement at various times with the programs.

http://www.remoteviewed.com/star-gate-documents/


That's right. Gorgeous' document is a forgery. It was a forgery the first ten times she posted it and still a forgery the the last ten times she posted it. It has nothing to do with the NSA

The document you have linked to is probably also a forgery. It is supposedly a 1983 DIA document yet the "Approved for release mark" from 2007 claims the CIA approved its release. There are two totally different agencies. Secondly the "independent scientific evidence proving that remote viewing is real" is supposedly in another document that doesn't seem to actually exist. Thirdly, when you look at the "citations" it includes OMNI magazine, which was a science fiction series published by Penthouse.

However the obvious "give away" is that the experiments cannot be repeated today.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:17 am

gorgeous wrote:the govt has reasons to let the public believe it didn't work....
No Gorgeous. The Remote Viewers, themselves, can't get remote viewing to work and haven't for 40 years. No government agency is stopping any of these remote viewers from doing serious experiments and publishing them in science publications.

You may have worked out that the government also doesn't stop local fortune tellers at county fairs, or Magicians doing mind reading shows on stage.
:lol:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:47 pm

Here's my habitual irrational thinking.
Thinking that anybody is even able
to speak the truth. They do not speak
the truth out of fear of speaking the
word of God.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:30 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Good points, Ken.

I have often thought that the old business of 'argument from authority fallacy' is not actually a fallacy, as long as the authority is sufficiently educated, smart, experienced etc.

One of my earliest inspections on this came from Plato's works where Socrates took the position of arguing for a "Philosopher King". This is partly what was troubling to the then 'democracy of Athens'. Socrates was against the democratic ideal precisely because of this point. However, in PRACTICE, where we DO accept trust in some authority, this comes at the cost of such authorities to have a tendency to PASS ON their authority to their emotionally favored inheritors and so the 'next' Kings tend to be relatively spoiled in their power by mere compassion, not actual intellectual integrity. This is like if we were to trust Einstein's children as being likely as intellectual simply because of genetics. This then becomes a 'genetic fallacy':

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.[Wikipedia/Google search of the term]


This is also what Karl Marx pointed out using Hegelian "material dialectic" on history and politics. When we initially find some novel political condition that is 'revolutionary', we embrace it and it is relatively functional AT FIRST. But the faith we place in the institution based on initial conditions makes us lose our critical eye when it is needed later. Those institutions (or political bodies) then begin to pass on to those they 'favor' just in kind to the very anti-intellectual means we deemed to prevent. As such, trust will lead to faith and faith will lead to abuses that create skepticism that eventually requires a new revolution to overthrow.

I think we ARE in such a phase where 'science' BY INSTITUTIONS is at a pivotal point where it is becoming a matter of faith. The faith in the weirdness of QM and, to me, the Big Bang theory, are examples of institutionalized 'faith' such that these cannot even rationally be challenged when most of the institutions simply close the door to ANY skepticism of these to an extreme. You would NOT get published if you did not first PRE-ASSUME the authorities. It also places the burden on those who do challenge these to UNDO too much of what is trusted in order to even POSIT something novel.

As such, I think we always require skepticism even with what we call, 'science'. What WAS initially valid in its origins can and WILL likely become the next religion if we don't demand the skepticism continue, even if many will be as justly 'illegitimate' in their own motivations. Humans by our nature our emotional and this takes such precedence over the intellect. As such, no matter how logically valid we can be at some point, if this is the standard we then opt to place 'faith' in of another, this is where the con artist wanting to exploit this for their own emotional needs finds their own invitation to step in. And this doesn't imply that even the 'con artist' believes they are a con. So we need to be cautious to simply trust authority. It is ONLY a practical and equally emotional justification for us to trust in anything at all.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:03 pm

Angel wrote:Thinking that anybody is even able to speak the truth. They do not speak the truth out of fear of speaking the word of God.
Thank you for your Classical Example of Habitual thinking

You are mindlessly following a 2000 year old Middle Eastern religion. There is no such thing or person as "God".

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:27 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:Thinking that anybody is even able to speak the truth. They do not speak the truth out of fear of speaking the word of God.
Thank you for your Classical Example of Habitual thinking

You are mindlessly following a 2000 year old Middle Eastern religion. There is no such thing or person as "God".


Are you able and willing to speak
only the truth?

And your irrational thinking is that you
think I should behave like you on here.

Please explain how this is irrational thinking~
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-12/

Take care . :-)
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10535
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:27 pm

Angel wrote:Here's my habitual irrational thinking.
Thinking that anybody is even able
to speak the truth. They do not speak
the truth out of fear of speaking the
word of God.

I agree. That is you thinking irrationally. But, it seems you are rational enough to recognize the irrationality . . .
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:26 am

Russell Targ is a physicist who spent several decades working in a US government program exploring "remote viewing" - an apparently anomalous extended characteristic of the mind. Targ is convinced the effect is real. This talk was originally slated as part of a TEDx event in Hollywood in 2013, but the organization pulled their support when they learned about the subjects. https://youtu.be/hBl0cwyn5GY
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest