Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 02:35 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PS. I'd also appreciate the inclusionary language of "That's likely a confirmation bias." I realize I should likewise confine my remarks to something like, "You may have a bias there" in turn. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 02:35 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  PS. I'd also appreciate the inclusionary language of "That's likely a confirmation bias." I realize I should likewise confine my remarks to something like, "You may have a bias there" in turn. Thanks.
It is a confirmation bias. There is no 'likely' in the scenario you gave.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
26-02-2013, 02:46 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:It is a confirmation bias. There is no 'likely' in this scenario.
Okay, what is your evidence that that instance is a confirmation bias? Søren Kierkegaard discussed the principle that no person can get inside another's mind. What is your evidence that God has not spoken inside someone's mind?

I don't want to get off on a tangent and want to keep going with the evidentiary trail but... not having evidence that Søren Kierkegaard existed or was a famous writer does not mean that Søren Kierkegaard did not interact with another's mind through documents. I would think the most enlightened position on a Christian's mind is that God may not exist and for Atheists, that He might. Possibilism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:49 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 02:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Your definitions are incomplete. Vosur said yes; I do not. The most important part is the removal of personal bias at all stages. When it comes to psychology the experiments must be done by a third party. In other words, you cannot experiment on yourself. The observer cannot also be the subject of the experiment, because it introduces personal biases.
I would gladly assent to your addition to the definition except for two questions:

1. What is the practical limit for removing personal bias? We want (and make it a conditional point of law in some cases) our scientists to remove bias, we desperately want the same for judges, attorneys, jurors, police and etc. What are the practical limits of doing anything worth doing while still having a personal bias(es)?

2. In psychology, if we say "third party", we're on slippery ground, since religions and not just Christianity say it's an individual's opportunity not applicable to third parties. How would you handle that? What practical steps might you add to our testing? For Christian counselors who affirm free will, this takes a tremendous burden off the counselors' shoulders. They can safely say, "God desires healing and restitution for all but I'm a third party here and the individual has to want to get help as well." Since metaphysics touches on what we understand about psychology, yet religions of mystery apply to individuals, how would you resolve this issue. Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Peer review and reproducibility are the keys to removing biases.

And your second point goes to the heart of the difference between experience and evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Peer review and reproducibility are the keys to removing biases.

And your second point goes to the heart of the difference between experience and evidence.
Okay, I think we've met the first instance, reproducibility. Peer review would depend on who qualifies as a peer, right? As for the second point, when is experience evidence? In a court of law, eyewitness testimony may qualify as evidence, right? Don't you really mean, the reliability of the one with the experience? You sound as though evidence is a physical thing and experience is all metaphysics. But peers tend to accept scientific position papers that describe testing without always demanding to see the physical items which were tested. Please help me understand. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Put it this way say you buy a scratch card every week. You never win anything then one day you put on an old tshirt, you buy the scratchcard and you win some money you then assume that wearing the tshirt caused you to win.


You continue buying the scratchcards every week putting that same tshirt on before you go out to buy it. You don't win anything but you continue buying them each week regardless. Eventually you get another winner which you attribute to wearing that 'lucky' tshirt ignoring the countless times when you won nothing.


That is how prayer works. Believers do it, ignore all the times they don't get what they pray for and focus on the occasional times they get what they ask for.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
26-02-2013, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 03:11 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 02:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Okay. Defining terms is very, very cool. I'm sorry I've allowed for so many tangents and it was not my intention to waste people's time including mine. I would be willing to say that others have met the criteria above and proven (beyond a reasonable doubt and so forth) that they do exist IF I can get some clarification on something first, please.

I'm NOT saying this is my proof of God, but I've heard testimonies like this:

"Prove it for yourself and pray." "I prayed, I received."

  1. Empirical - the individual has made observation; even to testing via the scriptural "rules" for testing
  2. Testable - a procedure was followed; the individual was skeptical and unwilling/unwanting to be converted but felt that way too many things had happened to be mere statistical coincidence
  3. Verifiable - further experiments (prayers, in this example) continued on daily for years, further observations were made and further conclusions were drawn


The flaw I see in the logic, I think, with the above "evidence" is that it is touching metaphysics. A naturalist would say an invisible deity was invoked and then a self-fulfilling prophecy was achieved. But it still seems to me to meet empirical/testable/verifiable measures. Please explain to me so I understand better. I may not deconvert but I'd at least know whether I have evidentiary or blind faith, right? Thanks!
Yes, you can find that out indeed.

Your example does not, unfortunately, meet these criteria, because it is a single piece of unverifiable testimony. Here is how it would have to look like:
  1. Empirical - The causal relationship between the act of prayer and the fulfillment of said prayer can be observed.
  2. Testable - The causal relationship between the act of prayer and the fulfillment of said prayer can be tested repeatedly.
  3. Verifiable - The causal relationship between the act of prayer and the fulfillment of said prayer can be established as fact in an experiment.
By the way, several studies on the effectiveness of prayer have been conducted and have found it to be ineffective at best and entirely useless at worst.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:08 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 03:15 PM by cheapthrillseaker.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 02:46 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:It is a confirmation bias. There is no 'likely' in this scenario.
Okay, what is your evidence that that instance is a confirmation bias? Søren Kierkegaard discussed the principle that no person can get inside another's mind. What is your evidence that God has not spoken inside someone's mind?

I don't want to get off on a tangent and want to keep going with the evidentiary trail but... not having evidence that Søren Kierkegaard existed or was a famous writer does not mean that Søren Kierkegaard did not interact with another's mind through documents. I would think the most enlightened position on a Christian's mind is that God may not exist and for Atheists, that He might. Possibilism.
Your post has compelled me to respond with one of the worst movies I have survived to date: Twilight. There's this one character named Edward Cullen who is a vampire who sparkles. To get shit out of the way, he's a douche in my opinion. Not having evidence that Edward Cullen existed or was ever really can be really good in bed, does not mean that Edward Cullen did not interact with so many lonely married women and teenagers minds through the shitty Twilight novel series.

And to get right down to it, Edward Cullen is the same as god: a character in a book of fiction.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
26-02-2013, 03:18 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Put it this way say you buy a scratch card every week. You never win anything then one day you put on an old tshirt, you buy the scratchcard and you win some money you then assume that wearing the tshirt caused you to win.


You continue buying the scratchcards every week putting that same tshirt on before you go out to buy it. You don't win anything but you continue buying them each week regardless. Eventually you get another winner which you attribute to wearing that 'lucky' tshirt ignoring the countless times when you won nothing.


That is how prayer works. Believers do it, ignore all the times they don't get what they pray for and focus on the occasional times they get what they ask for.
I agree with your definition of superstition and coincidence. However, a God system is not a closed system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:19 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 03:33 PM by kim.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Possibilism. <-- Not a word. Drinking Beverage At least not in the context in which you used it.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: