Alex Tsakiris and Tom Jump Debate Near Death Experience Sceicne |408|

#21
k, but I think we gotta remind ourselves that TJump is essentially mouthpiecing the position still held by science as we know it
We keep on making the mistake of thinking there is this thing called Science which has agreed POVs. This is a complete misrepresentation of reality on two counts. One - such that Science exists it is constituted by many difference sciences and many different efforts at performing science - and no large consensual POV has been developed. Atheists misrepresent this situation persistently by claiming what they say is representative - it is not. Two - scientists as individuals do not have shared beliefs. It may be hard to discover what portion of current scientists are materialists - but there' no evidence to confirm it is a majority. Certainly, from an historic perspective we do know that the majority of scientists who contributed major findings to our canon of scientific knowledge were not materialists. And, contra Dawkins, a religious belief does not impede the performance of good science.

TJump may be mouthpiecing the position of some scientists - who may be an influential minority - but that does not mean sqaut. One need only observe the tortured objection to Quantum science to appreciate that diehard denialists clung onto their obstinate refusal to budge until there was no longer any chance of being right.

Materialism is a dying duck kept alive as an illusion only because some scientists have taxidermied it and people like TJump are running around calling "Quack quack!"
 
#22
This hardline dogmatic materialistic attitude is an absolute poison. And I wish the general public realized it for what it is, a belief system carried by many in mainstream academia. It certainly isn’t “the conclusion of science”, as we are lead to believe.
And we give this nonsense added life by engaging with materialists as if they had anything useful to say. Quite some time ago I found materialism useful because it helped me focus my attention on what contradicted it. I thought it found the weaknesses in contrary arguments and exploited them, and that was a useful thing to know. But then the counter argument got better and materialists did not evolve so that we had an engaging debate. They 'devolved' into silly argument and insults.

Intellectually they are a one trick pony and we keep on letting them do that trick and then respond to it as if it is interesting. It isn't. Its simple and no longer impressive. Now we need to pat them on the head and tell them to run along. The thing is that they are not going to go off and come up with new trick. Nobody takes them seriously any more.

I can't claim to know the inner politics of academic science, and I'd love to hear from somebody on the inside. I do get the impression that materialism is no longer the assured position to take.

Jeff Kripal, whom has been on Skeptiko several times (and will, be on again soon - won't he Alex!) has written a lovely little book called The Flip. It is precisely aimed at educated (probably fellow academic) folk who are used to the materialist POV (and can't move on because they don't know how) with the view to 'flipping' them. Jeff lays out compelling evidence for at least getting on the fence, if the reader cannot quite make it all the way over.

I'd be prepared to listen to a materialist who read The Flip and came back with a properly reasoned objection - by that I mean they did more than employ undergraduate arguments and actually demonstrated a thoughtful and informed grasp of the case. But -fat chance!

Wormwood, I know you said you post was long (it was), but it was a passionate objection to silly arguments. You didn't convince TJump, I'd guess - or his ilk. You didn't need to convince forum regulars. Maybe it was a good thing for you to do to get your argument straight. Perhaps that was useful.

I spent a few years writing to Phillip Adams who was, at one stage, Australia's most public atheist. Phillip no longer says that after he pissed off Australian atheists at a conference by suggesting they be not so cocky. He is an impressively smart guy and I had to write to him with great care. I learned a lot from doing that.

So, silly arguments can be useful as an instrument to hone one's skills. But nothing more. Give them credence for a hypothetical opportunity to counter - knowing that if you countered with that argument in reality the materialist would not care - but others not yet 'flipped' might be persuaded.

I am not often moved to be unkind, but I make an exception for materialists. Their logic is tortured and weak - and, as you discovered, countering it can be demanding and not always fruitful. Hence I now prefer to be dismissive, and not give them credence. I have slightly more charity for Flat Earthers. Now here's a point. We know Flat Earther's gently mad, rather than totally stupid - and we don't take them seriously for good reason. Why do we treat materialists differently? Is it because they invoke the magic charm of 'Science"? That's a fake claim. Science gives them nothing, and to suggest otherwise is downright dishonest.

Here's a possible fun fact. In the whole of human history materialists probably constitute less than (I don't know) less than 0.0001% (no, thats way too much - but it will do). Humans have had no difficulty being animistic until about 500 years ago when a bunch of upper class white men decided that thinking otherwise was the bee's knees of cleverness. But what made made materialism such fun was not the intellectual component but the extrication of humanity from any sense of moral contract with the divine - and that permitted profit in ways hitherto unimaginable. That's what has hurt us.

Materialism is not just weak intellectually it is weak morally. We need to remember that how we see reality is how we value it. Materialistic morality is tortured intellectualism and politics (look at our laws) and gives us confused notions like social justice. Just so you know I believe in compassionate public policy - just not the confused and crude notions that come from ideas of social justice (which come from atheistic Marxist notions). Materialism fought environmentalism concerns for years - with the focus on profit and not place or people. Materialism has given us an economic and political system that benefits the upper class white people above all else - which is why they started it and maintained it.

Materialism is not the same as the scientific benefits we have from knowledge of the material world - but it is the corrupting influence because it denies any fundamental moral imperative not enshrined in laws humans (upper class rulers) have made. Thats why we need policies and legislation now - to undo what has been done contra divine law. This isn't the law of the Bible, but a deeper law and lore that both Christianity and materialism have worked hard to keep from us.

What few of us have notices is that materialism has co-opted Christianity superbly. The rise of fundamentalism has been a reaction against the materialism of the Church - and promptly become yet another outpost of materialism. Ever noticed how Christians side with materialists in denying the magical and supernatural elements of their faith? Christianity has devolved from being a faith steeped in animistic and magical understanding to one obedient to its materialist masters. We all 'revere' science - as an expression of materialistic thought.

Time we stopped this nonsense.
 
#23
Actually Alex, I am not sure that science holds this position. Fake skeptics, who pretend to represent science, sell this position falsely in the name of science. Science does not comment upon the probability of NDE validity or the reality of an afterlife. Such propositions of absence are the NULL. The null is a placeholder in science, used to adjudicate alternatives. Only the scientifically illiterate then regard the null as

1. An actual hypothesis.​
2. Something they are to believe as probable.​
When I ran our lab - we always worked with and venerated a null hypothesis of absence... no one believed the null hypothesis however..... because

The least scientific thing a researcher can do is to believe the null hypothesis.
from our friends at Wikipedia:
Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system.[1] It is a multidisciplinarybranch of biology[2] that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, mathematical modeling and psychology to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits.[3][4][5][6][7] The understanding of the biological basis of learning, memory, behavior, perception, and consciousness has been described by Eric Kandel as the "ultimate challenge" of the biological sciences.[8]

so, at the end of the day, aren't they back to saying the same thing "consciousness is an illusion"... " you are a biological robot meaningless universe."
 
#24
He only ever said it was unlikely for it to be so.
Yes I know. However, that assessment of "unlikely" on his part seems arbitrary and based on underlying ideology - to wit; the "supernatural" is stupid, ridiculous and obviously false, so it must be some yet undiscovered physical phenomenon.

Yet, in fairness to TJump and people like him, most of the time his assumption about the nature of reality is correct. Honestly, most people claiming paranormal phenomena are mistaken, delusional or outright frauds. This has particularly been true in the past before material science had advanced methods, tools and understanding of the physical world. I can imagine that makes people coming from TJump's position very self-assured.

His position is the least risky. He is risk adverse and, again, if anyone was betting good hard cash on the nature of a phenomenon they'd come out wealthier going with his explanation.

However, some of us have had direct experience with paranormal phenomena and we are intelligent analytical people. We have sought to understand our own experiences and, in doing so, have reviewed carefully, other cases and evidence and we find that the paranormal is the only explanation that fits.

Still, outside personal experience, cases that can be presented clearly and accurately to an audience and that demand a paranormal explanation are few and far between. We are familiar with the details because we seek to understand. TJump types less so because they don't see a need to understand in an alternative way because they don't have skin in the game and they have a system that works 99% of the time.
 
#25
Here’s an issue I have. Skeptics have no problem accenting that the NDEs which they can debunk happen. What I mean by this is that the typical “I saw a bright white light and did such and such” can be debunked by saying, “it was some sort of a hallucination.” But the trickier phenomena are just totally ignored and never seem to enter the discussion. And people who experience these phenomena (which I’ll list below) are not dealt with or are simply called liars. But these people do not seem any less credible whatsoever than the people who experience the more “mundane” NDEs. Here are some examples of what I mean.

1) Shared Death Experiences

These are experienced by people who are completely healthy who just so happen to be near somebody who is dying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1BuI-DugnU&t=8s


2) The Blind seeing for the first time during NDE's, and the deaf hearing for the first time. There are several reports and testimonies of this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azIh8gsXVRg&t=84s

3) Veridical NDE's

People floating outside their bodies (often to other rooms) to report conversations and events which later check out as accurate. There are a great deal of these on record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gGqpxa32og

4) These events are life altering. People change permanently. They report a non-existence of time. Those are two (there are many more) rather bizarrely common reportedly themes of NDE's. This doesnt fit the notion that they are Hallucinations, which are disorganized and bizarre and rarely make sense, and generally have no typical after effects. In contrast, NDE's are reported as being more real and clear than everyday real life, and that they make every day existence seem like a mere dream. This is nothing like a hallucination or dream.

5) People very frequently encounter dead people during their NDE's. Notice, they're not meeting living people. Strange coincidence if its a dream that all the people they run into just so happen to be dead isn't it? And why are people hallucinating something which is like what we would think the afterlife would be? Why arent people hallucinating their 57 Chevy? Why are there profound and intelligent moral lessons which are learned? Why this undescribable state of love expressed during these experiences? Sounds a lot like what we would expect an afterlife to be based upon the religious writings of the wise man, sages, holy men, and shaman of the past.

6) There are a lot of reports of people given information about the future, which eventually came true

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EydWO5vqT80

7) Miraculous healings which people were told would occur during their NDE's, and actually occur


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPmtfW3BIGs

In the cases of the more explainable NDEs, skeptics are happy to admit that people are having these experiences, because they have a skeptical explanation or two on hand. But with regards to these other circumstances, the only real explanation for many of them is that they are essentially lying. Especially with regards to the SHARED death experience. But the problem is, these people aren’t any less credible than the other experiencers. And this holds true for all the areas im mentioning, which have been thoroughly studied and documented. But you won’t understand the true power of these testimonies until you listen to the people tell their stories on video. When hundreds upon hundreds of these stories come through through sincere and emotional people, that’s when they pure weight and power of the testimony comes through. And skeptics virtually never take the time to even listen to any of these people. The “research” is usually so shallow and involves usually no contact with experiencers whatsoever. And there’s two things that will can change you, listening to all of these people, and having the experience yourself.

Then, when you dive into the PSI research which has demonstrated through hundreds of experiments that psychic abilities seem real, and you dive into the essentially unassailable research and studies in the field of re-incarnation done on University levels, and you realize that quantum physics seems to be showing us that consciousness shapes measurement of the world, and you look at Dr Julie Bieschels work on Mediums (Triple blond studies using proxy sitters) and you combine all of this with the near consensus of all of mankind in all points of history in all parts of the world (except the modern day western world) that we are not our bodies, and the hard problem of this bizarre downright magical property of consciousness, under what ground is the a-priori explanation of NDEs that they must some hallucination? It’s an a-priori explanation to those who practice materialism.

To properly unpack this topic I think you need to consider all the research that has been done in the aforementioned topics. To me, they blatantly point in the same direction. And this isn’t even mentioning dozens of other areas of documented research such as terminal lucidity, bedside visitations etc etc etc. At some point, when can we trust our experiences and the testimony of others when it’s so incredibly obvious and overwhelming? I get it that it’s hard for people. This illusion of materialism is overwhelming due to every day experience. But this sort of intuition based on everyday experience says nothing about ultimate reality.

When you have one of these experiences, you become converted permanently. There is no believing at that point. Only a knowing. I think a lot of skeptics think that if they had one of these experiences that they would be rational enough to realize it for what they think they are, some sort of dream. And then it happens to them, then they change their tune. Happens essentially every time.

Mainstream academia buried their head in the sand with regards to the strangeness of consciousness, philosophy of quantum physics, telepathy, precognition, the placebo effect, death bed visitations, healing through prayer and intention, NDEs, mediumistic abilities, the remarkable reincarnation evidence etc, because it’s a serious challenge to their beliefs. I think current Western society tends to think of itself as advanced due to our scientific prowess and technology, whereas I think we are one of the most ignorant cultures of alltime with regards to our understanding of the nature of reality and what it is to be a conscious agent. We’ve backwards with regards to the most important questions. In the future, this era will be looked back upon and considered silly. This hardline dogmatic materialistic attitude is an absolute poison. And I wish the general public realized it for what it is, a belief system carried by many in mainstream academia. It certainly isn’t “the conclusion of science”, as we are lead to believe.

I realize my post is too large and shotgun like to be tackled or properly addressed. I just felt compelled to share my feelings.
All true. All good points. But the issue is not the data... I mean, this is the whole skeptiko level 1 level 2 level 3 thing. I started out thinking it's about the data, but as this throwback-style interview demonstrates if it was about the data the debate would be over. Objectively, Tjumps position is weak/silly... and one could argue that debating him only legitimizes it, but the crazy thing is his position is the mainstream science position. so, you got to ask yourself what's going on? clearly not everyone believes this crap so why are they pitching it so hard why are they defending an indefensible position? that's level 2 :)
 
#28
All true. All good points. But the issue is not the data... I mean, this is the whole skeptiko level 1 level 2 level 3 thing. I started out thinking it's about the data, but as this throwback-style interview demonstrates if it was about the data the debate would be over. Objectively, Tjumps position is weak/silly... and one could argue that debating him only legitimizes it, but the crazy thing is his position is the mainstream science position. so, you got to ask yourself what's going on? clearly not everyone believes this crap so why are they pitching it so hard why are they defending an indefensible position? that's level 2 :)
Alex,
As I said a few minutes ago, it is the conservative, risk adverse position to hold and it deals with 99% of what needs to be dealt with in life as far as societal success goes.

We know it is ultimately wrong as far as big picture and truth goes, but it does have practical value.
 
#30
Alex,
As I said a few minutes ago, it is the conservative, risk adverse position to hold and it deals with 99% of what needs to be dealt with in life as far as societal success goes.
I don't quite agree Eric. if we assume there is a reality out there and that science is supposed to figure out what that reality is, then the risk-averse position doesn't really hold up. it's just another version of the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" myth.

I mean, nothing could be more unscientific than to suggest that our search for the truth has an undefined meta-truth that should guide the limits of our inquiry.
 
#31
I don't quite agree Eric. if we assume there is a reality out there and that science is supposed to figure out what that reality is, then the risk-averse position doesn't really hold up. it's just another version of the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" myth.

I mean, nothing could be more unscientific than to suggest that our search for the truth has an undefined meta-truth that should guide the limits of our inquiry.
Hey. I'm with you, Alex. Fearlessly go where the data/evidence leads.

We're a rare breed.

Most people are political. The TJump crowd certainly tends to be. I'm just explaining how/why they might be justified from a political standpoint.

I'm actually ok with the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. That's my conservative side talking. Otherwise, we have people believing all manner of whacky stuff on flimsy evidence. But I don't just apply that to the paranormal. I apply it to what politicians say, conspiracy theorists, drug manufacturers....you name it.

If you tell me you have a drug that slows the progress of cancer...well, ok. We'll put it through the usual clinical trials. If it shows an effect at whatever the normal P value is, then you pass.

If you tell me that you have a drug that cures all cancer - not slows progress, but actually wipes it out and leaves the patient with a clean bill of health, we're going to have to go to greater lengths to prove that claim. Because it's extraordinary.

TES can tell me where I'm wrong in that thinking. I'm willing to be convinced that I am.
 
Last edited:
#32
so, at the end of the day, aren't they back to saying the same thing "consciousness is an illusion"... " you are a biological robot meaningless universe."
Well, two things:

First, I think most ethical scientists leave the question of monism open. There are those who have failed in the philosophy of science, skepticism - and regard a slight bit of induction, 1% into the domain, as constituting sound basis from which to draw inference as to a final claim of material monism. These are fake skeptics - who don't actually understand philosophy, so consequently they fail at science. They use pluralistic ignorance as a cover - because, if you are incompetent, it is often advantageous to be a social bully in order to compensate.

Second, there is indeed a biological basis for learning, consciousness, memory, the hard problem and the 'me' problem. The critical path question is: Do they regard that biological basis as monist in its scope? The reality is no. Scientists must speak in qualified language so as tender the appearance of complying with fake skeptic bullies enforcing the religion of material monism.

The example you provide involves some scientists speaking in qualified code if you will... It does not actually say what you are contending.

I am a proponent of increasing the value/role/price of gold in the international markets... but that does not imply, nor can one infer that I want global currency to also be therefore 'backed by gold'. But, by speaking in qualified language which does not broach this critical path understanding, it keeps me out of trouble with the gold-currency pundits. I keep them as allies through clever language - which avoids the topic. That battle cannot be fought now, so I postpone it for a day when we are better informed.

The problem is, that this lends a false perception to material monist bullies, that their religion is indeed the prevailing opinion of scientists. A false feedback model which then encourages them to up their bully game.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's Spiral of Silence

A bully does not have to therefore, argue their point. Their job is to simply come in and state its one-liners, and your job is to accept it. Such is the world we live in...

Oh, and Wikipedia... Never obatin any deontology from Wikipedia. Stay with mundane facts.
 
Last edited:
#34
I mean, nothing could be more unscientific than to suggest that our search for the truth has an undefined meta-truth that should guide the limits of our inquiry.
Spot on! I mean if you perform research under some overarching restriction like that, then scientists should say so explicitly, and refrain from commenting on theories that are not restricted in that way.

A blinkered science can over give limited information. It is logically most useful in delineating those areas where unrestricted scientific effort would be most useful. - consciousness (including all death-related phenomena), the origin of life, and evolution.

David
 
#35
If you tell me that you have a drug that cures all cancer - not slows progress, but actually wipes it out and leaves the patient with a clean bill of health, we're going to have to go to greater lengths to prove that claim. Because it's extraordinary.

TES can tell me where I'm wrong in that thinking. I'm willing to be convinced that I am.
Respectfully, I disagree Eric. And here is why. :)

The famous Sagan quip 'Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence' is flawed as a philosophical principle of science from four standpoints:

1. What is gauged to be extraordinary is measured to be so by its contrast with what is 'simple'. Simple is an illusion to a large degree, therefore quod erat demonstrandum, so is 'extraordinary'.​
2. An extraordinary claim can be inferred from a simple matter of a single deductive observation, or single instance of falsification. There is nothing extraordinary about such single pieces of evidence. What follows thereafter is only social in its nature. The world is populated with extraordinarily boneheaded people.​
3. In patenting and science, an observation is not a claim. If I observe a hexagonal closepack metal to allow an interstitial boron placement in its gamma phase at 1350 degrees Farenheight, that is not a claim - it is an observation. I document the observation for the team to review on Monday morning.​
No One.... Not one scientist on Monday morning should say "Ohhhh, that is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.' They would be stupid to say such a thing. In similar fashion, when Navy pilots as a group observe things flying in the sky, groups of children see spirits in their home, or park ranger sees an 8 ft hairy bipedal muscular 'man' walking 12 ft in front of them replete with rather large set of male genitals,.... these are OBSERVATIONS NOT CLAIMS.​
To dismiss them as 'claims'... (they are not the 'simplest explanation' in some fantasy play the skeptic carries in their head) means that one is pulling a trick, and does not want to catalog the 'claims' nor do any science. It is pseudo-science - justified by this errant one liner.​
4. We are social animals. Science is 90% social in its exercise. We knew that h. pylori caused ulcers back in 1962 - but because proton pump inhibitor manufacturers were making a fortune off treating its symptoms... they enforced 44 years of 'skepticism' on the 'extraordinary claim'. The reality is, that ONLY AFTER EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT H. PYLORI WAS CAUSING ALIMENTARY CANAL CANCERS, did they finally say.... 'aawwwwwwww OK... so maybe h. pylori can be eradicated....shit.... we were making so much damn money off that bacterium.' So they cut a deal to have doctors prescribe the stuff as 'acid reducers' ... and sell them over the counter, first, and vastly overpriced. Only AFTER that was done, did they allow the PrevPak CURE for ulcers to be released onto the market.​
The only thing extraordinary in the whole matter was the level of human dishonesty and suffering involved... Billions of people suffered at the hands of a few mega-millionaires and fake skeptics....​
And in reality... that is all it ever is...​
Extroardinary stupidity, greed and power-lust demand extraordinary measures.​
 
Last edited:
#36
Respectfully, I disagree Eric. And here is why. :)

The famous Sagan quip 'Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence' is flawed as a philosophical principle of science from four standpoints:

1. What is gauged to be extraordinary is measured to be so by its contrast with what is 'simple'. Simple is an illusion to a large degree, therefore quod erat demonstrandum, so is 'extraordinary'.​
2. An extraordinary claim can be inferred from a simple matter of a single deductive observation, or single instance of falsification. There is nothing extraordinary about such single pieces of evidence. What follows thereafter is only social in its nature. The world is populated with extraordinarily boneheaded people.​
3. In patenting and science, an observation is not a claim. If I observe a hexagonal closepack metal to allow an interstitial boron placement in its gamma phase at 1350 degrees Farenheight, that is not a claim - it is an observation. I document the observation for the team to review on Monday morning.​
No One.... Not one scientist on Monday morning should say "Ohhhh, that is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.' They would be stupid to say such a thing. In similar fashion, when Navy pilots as a group observe things flying in the sky, groups of children see spirits in their home, or park ranger sees an 8 ft hairy bipedal muscular 'man' walking 12 ft in front of them replete with rather large set of male genitals,.... these are OBSERVATIONS NOT CLAIMS.​
To dismiss them as 'claims'... (they are not the 'simplest explanation') means that one is pulling a trick, and does not want to catalog the 'claims' nor do any science. It is pseudo-science - justified by this errant one liner.​
4. We are social animals. Science is 90% social in its exercise. We knew that h. pylori caused ulcers back in 1962 - but because proton pump inhibitor manufacturers were making a fortune off treating its symptoms... they enforced 44 years of 'skepticism' on the 'extraordinary claim'. The reality is, that ONLY AFTER EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT H. PYLORI WAS CAUSING ALIMENTARY CANAL CANCERS, did they finally say.... 'aawwwwwwww OK... so maybe h. pylori can be eradicated....shit.... we were making so much damn money off that bacterium' So they cut a deal to have doctors prescribe the stuff as 'acid reducers' ... and sell them over the counter, first, and vastly overpriced. Only AFTER that was done, did they allow the PrevPak CURE for ulcers to be released onto the market.​
The only thing extraordinary in the whole matter was the level of human dishonesty and suffering involved... Billions of people suffered at the hands of a few mega-millionaires and fake skeptics....​
And in reality... that is all it ever is...​
Extroardinary stupidity, greed and power-lust demand extraordinary measures.​
TES,
I can't argue with your points. In fact, I agree with them - at least at a philosophical level.

I'm just trying to reconcile them with points I have read from you, which I also agree with; 1. People are dishonest and 2. People are boneheads.

I think TJump would say that, in light of those points, how can say that a "claim" is really a valid "observation"?
 
#37
Hey. I'm with you, Alex. Fearlessly go where the data/evidence leads.

We're a rare breed.

Most people are political. The TJump crowd certainly tends to be. I'm just explaining how/why they might be justified from a political standpoint.

I'm actually ok with the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. That's my conservative side talking. Otherwise, we have people believing all manner of whacky stuff on flimsy evidence. But I don't just apply that to the paranormal. I apply it to what politicians say, conspiracy theorists, drug manufacturers....you name it.
Well the problem is, the whole concept isimpossibly vague. I mean if it were clearly marked when an extraordinary claim had passed the ordinary tests, and further tests were then specified, that might either be passed or be shown to be ridiculous, I might cautiously go along with the idea.
If you tell me you have a drug that slows the progress of cancer...well, ok. We'll put it through the usual clinical trials. If it shows an effect at whatever the normal P value is, then you pass.

If you tell me that you have a drug that cures all cancer - not slows progress, but actually wipes it out and leaves the patient with a clean bill of health, we're going to have to go to greater lengths to prove that claim. Because it's extraordinary.
Well if it really did cure all cancers - i.e. essentially everyone recovered - you wouldn't need to worry about P values, and it would be very easy to test!

David
 
#38
I think TJump would say that, in light of those points, how can say that a "claim" is really a valid "observation"?
By understanding what the true claim is. Never let an implied claim slip by, especially from yourself.

Observation - first hand witness documentation of an object, cause, state, presence or outcome (sometimes called the PICO model).

Claim - an extrapolation/proposition from above and beyond what was observed - conducted upon the basis of no observation, or one or more observations.

1. People are dishonest, but to dismiss all people's observations based upon this principle, is itself a claim. People are more dishonest in their claims than in their observations.

2. If one dismisses deductive and falsifying observations and accepts or develops a contrasting claim - that is being a bonehead.

3. Therefore, make no implicit claim. Be patient and catalog even those observations you find distasteful.

4. Lies, left without sponsorship, will eventually betray themselves.
 
Last edited:
#39
By understanding what the true claim is. Never let an implied claim slip by, especially from yourself.

Observation - first hand witness documentation of an object, cause, state, presence or outcome (sometimes called the PICO model).

Claim - an extrapolation/proposition from above and beyond what was observed - conducted upon the basis of no observation, or one or more observations.

1. People are dishonest, but to dismiss all people's observations based upon this principle, is itself a claim.

2. If one dismisses deductive and falsifying observations and accepts or develops a contrasting claim - that is being a bonehead.

3. Therefore, make no implicit claim. Be patient and catalog even those observations you find distasteful.

4. Lies, left without sponsorship, will eventually betray themselves.
This is a bit of an aside. Do you have any recommendations on how someone could learn logic from a beginners ability to an experts?
 
#40
This is a bit of an aside. Do you have any recommendations on how someone could learn logic from a beginners ability to an experts?
Whew, LetsEat... Wow.

I mean I could recommend books. But what I have found is that they are usually a good bit behind what life will teach you, if you pay attention with a philosopher's mindset. Most books simply become a ceremony in confirmation of what is already known. Watch people, and especially people who are out to sell agency.

Schopenhauer is OK - But I find his The Art of Being Right - to not touch on even 15% of the material in the Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation - plus, as the name of the Tree implies, he has misjudged that our goal is NOT to 'be right' - rather it is the purpose of philosophy to 'discover/become exposed to the outcome of being proved wrong'. For the latter circumstance is much more informative than is the former. We do not celebrate 'being right', rather we celebrate no longer being wrong.

Another thing Schopenhauer does, and this is high school level, is that he conflates ethics and morality. Once a person does that - there is no discussion to be had thereafter. It is just social rhetoric from that point on. It would be like trying to discuss how a jet flies with a person wanting to know what makes the jet wings flap up and down and how do they replenish its feathers.

Whitman, Walt. Leaves of Grass: Complete Poetry and Collected Prose delivers philosophical tenets in exemplary prose and poem - but one must suffer near to a lifetime in order to extract them all.

Taleb, Nassim, N. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable is a great treatise establishing the 'why' of rationale behind rejecting our fake version of skepticism so popular today.

But the one book (not really a book, per se) which led me, and challenged my thinking was Wittgenstein The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Academics say that Wittgenstein has been 'dismissed' much in the same way that UFO's have been 'debunked'. Horse shit wishful thinking from people who never understood nor looked in the first place.

Finally, most of my philosohpical development simply comes from doing strategies for Fortune 500 companies. I have argued with CEO's CFO's and VP's for decades on end, and must substantiate my point in front of the smartest and most forthright people in the world - and regarding a subject which they live and breathe each day of their life. If you do not have your shit in line, you will get your ass handed to you, and have your contract terminated.
 
Top