Thread: Sceptics vs. Science ... Like Kindergarten!

So how was last nights sleep? <_<

You wanna talk about wankers? Alright, let's talk about you. I made a thread just like this almost two years ago! Try getting your own material.

PS

In before lock.

I am skeptical of your claim Mark, I need proof! Links please.

I am skeptical of your claim Mark

I'm skeptical of YOUR skepticism

Who are these 'wankers' you're arguing with? :l

If you've got something specific to say, just spit it out.

But no rational person would believe that something must be demonstrated for it to exist. Nobody is arguing what you are arguing against.

There are many things we will never know; for example, we'll never know anything about objects outside of the observable universe.

Nobody would say that this proves that there is nothing outside of the observable universe.

It's just that nobody has any reason to believe you if you claim of the existence of some specific object or phenomenon; e.g. 'there is an elephant at X location outside of the observable universe'.

There are skeptics everywhere who think science is God. You can't really blame them. It's good that you're aware of the limitations of science though.

Originally Posted by Posquant

"if it's not demonstrated it's not real"

You know that nobody says that, right?

The thing (most/sensible) sceptics say, is that if something is not somehow demonstrated, proven or if we don't even have any sensible reasons or clues to think something is real, then we shouldn't blindly accept that something as being real.

Sure, it might still be real, but do we have any real reason to think so, really?

That is what scepticism is all about.

"Look, here's a picture of a UFO."

In stead of going "OK, UFOs exist", sceptics would go "alright, what things do we really have to think UFOs exist. We have a picture. Is it a reliable source? Is it likely that this is a valid picture? What other leads do we have?" etc. etc. etc.

Imagine I say gnomes exist. Why would anyone accept that claim? "Just because it's possible"?

I think not. If we say that, then anything that someone says can be accepted as truth.

(analogy warning!) But when there are twenty tiny little pointy red hats drying outside of your doorstep the next morning, then you at least have something to base your claims on.

So, in short: sensible sceptics do not say that something 'is not real'.
It might very well be real. The real question is whether we have good reason to assume something is real, and why.

And what's one of the tools that we can use to see if it is? Exactly. Science.


So, for example: do ghosts exist?
Maybe. I don't know. All I know is that, right now, I have no real reason to believe that they do.

So, indeed, they might still exist... But if you claim that they do, then give me some evidence. Why do you believe so? Show me reliable information from reliable sources. Show me that you have a good basis to have based that claim on.

And the same thing applies to any other claim. The existence of God, the existence of elves, the existence of skyfish, the multiverse, whatever. Sure, they're possible, but how likely? Show me evidence, reliable info from reliable sources, and we can see just how likely they really are.



If you have any objection to this way of reasoning and gaining of knowledge, please, please tell me why. Why can we assume something as being real without actually having reliable information about it from reliable sources.

Why can we assume gnomes as being real without ever having any kind of reliable information from reliable sources? Just "because they can"?




P.S.
Please give me a short summary of that book, in stead of just being judgmental/borderline insulting about not having read the thing. The general message or something. Or at least tell me why I should read it or not. -_-'

lOGIC / SCIENCE. Yes. Logic OVER science.

A point of logic, I said. Not science.

Friend, you're confused. It's not about what is. That simply ... is.

It's about what might be... and what we can say cannot.

So, what can you say is not, or cannot be? Tell me.

And if you can say it in a particular circumstance, can you say it for all? One and all?

You say:
----------
"Look, here's a picture of a UFO."

In stead of going "OK, UFOs exist", sceptics would go "alright, what things do we really have to think UFOs exist. We have a picture. Is it a reliable source? Is it likely that this is a valid picture? What other leads do we have?" etc. etc. etc.

Imagine I say gnomes exist. Why would anyone accept that claim? "Just because it's possible"?
----------
Facts are facts. The more facts the better. Try this.

http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html

Ok. Hoax? Read again.

Point is, if they didn't accept that gnomes MIGHT exist, generally, even though scientifically possible... how deny t? Really. How? In theory? Based on what? Science? There's a fine line between crazy mystics and mundane sceptics. Both so devout!

The issue, inchoate, lies at the border between "may be" and "is not"... and "what if"?

Another critical devide is between the specific and the general. Disproof of a particular hoax does not disprove an otherwise plausible possibility... it only proves a particular hoax. See?

"May be" means maybe.

And if you can't say "cannot", you must entertain "what if". See now? No.

You have not yet grasped the essence of the quantum. That is ... probability. For anything of "possibility over zero "0"", you cannot still validly assume "actuality = zero". Then what? If you can't assume "actuality = zero"... Bro... you gotta' somehow conditionally deal with it as real! If not here, then somewhere? See?

If "possibility > 0" then one MUST assume "actuality > 0".

That is ... the broad view. Something about empathy. Imperative. Undeniable.

You wrote...
----------
"But if you claim that they do, then give me some evidence. Why do you believe so? Show me reliable information from reliable sources. Show me that you have a good basis to have based that claim on.
I purposefully linked to constructive/critical comments on the book.
-----------
What the f***?

I gave you the link. Opened the door. What do I need to do to "give you some evidence?".

Why ask me to reproduce that all here?

Hyperlinks scare you? No wonder. Shit internet. Info fakes. Get over it.

Try to be more discerning... to discern discerning posters. ThEre are a few of us.

Anyway... click the bloody link and do your own research.

Peace & Easy. You're on the right track. But I have seen such sceptics, deep in devout denial.

So. I respect ghosts ... just because they might be...even if they might not. See?

PQ

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

I am skeptical of your claim Mark, I need proof! Links please.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=40659

Strawman strawman strawman... Yeah just keep ignoring everybody.

Originally Posted by Xei

Who are these 'wankers' you're arguing with?

If you've got something specific to say, just spit it out.

But no rational person would believe that something must be demonstrated for it to exist. Nobody is arguing what you are arguing against.

There are many things we will never know; for example, we'll never know anything about objects outside of the observable universe.

Nobody would say that this proves that there is nothing outside of the observable universe.

It's just that nobody has any reason to believe you if you claim of the existence of some specific object or phenomenon; e.g. 'there is an elephant at X location outside of the observable universe'.

Who? Names? Not my game, to casually name names. You can find these sceptics on your own, easily enough.

Have you never proposed, expounded, illuminated here any possibility from the edges of science? Offer the possibility ... demand attention ... or a rational denial?

"Ghosts may exist." "Our quantum-brain-based dreams may connect us to the actual multiverse". "Our dreams, our DQs, may be more real than you admit." That is my method.

Denial is immediate, but never justified by reference to either science or its logic.

Have you really never noticed the sceptical response? Do you just respond, react?

Try it some time.

PQ

Originally Posted by Posquant

"Ghosts may exist." "Our quantum-brain-based dreams may connect us to the actual multiverse". "Our dreams, our DQs, may be more real than you admit." That is my method.

The method of making shit up?

"Ghosts may exist", may? Is there any evidence or knowledge that suggests such a thing?

Most of the time this 'may be' doesn't translate as "it's within the limits of current science, so it maybe be", but rather "if we discovered that the science against this is wrong, then it could be", and by that reasoning anything is a possibility.

I'm going to type up an answer, but I don't have the time right now...

Still, are you the G-man?

Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it can't exist. It just means that there's no real reason to believe it.

It is possible that there is a race of garden gnomes in the Andromeda Galaxy that are orange, secrete oil and use pogo sticks as their main form of transportation. However, there is no rational reason to believe there are.

Yep, Souperman and Scatterbrain are another two who have pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Posquant, the only vibe I'm getting is that you're just a bit pissed off at reason for not supporting your ideas.

We'd all love certain things to be true. It's just that some people aren't able to doublethink their way into believing things just because it makes them happier.

"Denial is immediate, but never justified by reference to either science or its logic."

Ya'll still don't get it. S'ku. Keep trying as best you can.

souperman22 writes:
--------------It is possible that there is a race of garden gnomes in the Andromeda Galaxy that are orange, secrete oil and use pogo sticks as their main form of transportation. However, there is no rational reason to believe there are.---------

The point is: their possibility is THE reason .... not to believe (did I ever write that on my own behalf)... but to to allow that they might be.. and act like it.

Point of logic and set theory: what is possible... is.

PQ

No we all understand exactly what you are saying and nobody agrees with you.

How am I supposed to act like there are a race of garden gnomes within the Andromeda galaxy? More to the point, why should I?

There are an infinitude of things which might be. How can you possibly live to reflect that? And why would you if the probability is infintessimal?

Point of logic and set theory: what is possible... is.

Now you're just making no bloody sense at all.

No, I'm pretty sure we get it. We can't deny the existence of anything because it's possible that anything exists. But we don't have any reason to believe certain things in our universe exist.

Unless you're saying that the possibility of something existing proves that it exists. In that case, you're dead wrong.

Edit: Xei beat meh... That'll teach me to stall my reply so I can browse the forums and go flashchatting.

Originally Posted by Mark75

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=40659

You faked this somehow.

Once you give me a reason to believe that the orange oil-secreting gnomes exist that makes sense, by all means, I will believe in them. As of right now, just being possible is no reason to believe in something that doesn't make any damn sense.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

You faked this somehow.

199% real, my friend.

That's awfully close to 200%, Mark...1% away from being absolute truth, which still leaves me with a tinge of doubt.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

No, I'm pretty sure we get it. \

"Pretty sure" ... ain't sure enough.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Unless you're saying that the possibility of something existing proves that it exists. In that case, you're dead wrong.\

That's EXACTLY what I am saying. Relax. Take a deep breath. Unfocus.

---

You gotta' deserve your name, friend. You're not the first to use it.

But if you read before you speak... better. Can you read the whole thing? And you are NOT entitled to assume that "hypothetical" in this context means "sky-high semi-literate hash-smoking hippy talking out his ass..."

If you amigos can't tell the difference between real science / math / logic.... and new age tripe... that's totally your problem.

Want to learn?

Do this... get a good cite, look up the internal references.

Just read, ask....on this basis .... consider. You cannot justify youRself... or reach anything you might... if not.

PQ

--------------------I QUOTE--------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

The multiverse (or meta-universe (metaverse)) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of reality. The different universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes. The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered.

Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. The specific term "multiverse" was coined in 1895 by psychologist William James.[1] In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", etc.

Contents [hide]
1 Multiverse hypotheses in physics
1.1 Tegmark's classification
1.1.1 Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon
1.1.2 Level II: Universes with different physical constants
1.1.3 Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
1.1.4 Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble
---
[edit] Multiverse hypotheses in physics

[edit] Tegmark's classification
Cosmologist Max Tegmark has provided a taxonomy of universes beyond the familiar observable universe. The levels according to Tegmark's classification are briefly described below.[2][3]


[edit] Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon
A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.

An infinite universe should contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes. All will have the same physical laws and physical constants. However, almost all will be different from our Hubble volume regarding configurations such as how matter is distributed in the volume. But since there are an infinite number of such volumes, then some of these will be very similar or even identical to our own. Thus, far beyond our cosmological horizon, there will eventually be a Hubble volume identical to our own. Tegmark estimates that such an identical volume should be about 10118 meters away.[4]


[edit] Level II: Universes with different physical constants

"Bubble universes", every disk is a bubble universe (Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles, they have physical constants that are different from our universe), our universe is just one of the bubbles.In the chaotic inflation theory, a variant of the cosmic inflation theory, the multiverse as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles, like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread. There exists an infinite number of such bubbles which are embryonic level I universes of infinite size. Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking resulting in different properties such as different physical constants.[4]

This level also include John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe theory and Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory.


[edit] Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics. In brief, one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations correspond to a different universe. Suppose a die is thrown that contains 6 sides and that the result correspond to a quantum mechanics observable. All 6 possible ways the die can fall correspond to 6 different universes. (More correctly, in MWI there is only a single universe but after the "split" into "many worlds" these cannot in general interact.)[5]

Tegmark argues that a level III multiverse does not contain more possibilities in the Hubble volume than a level I-II multiverse. In effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a level III multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some Hubble volume in a level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that "The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelg&#228;ngers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space." Similarly, all level II bubble universes with different physical constants can in effect be found as "worlds" created by "splits" at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a level III multiverse.[4]

Related to the many-worlds idea are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.


[edit] Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble
The Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis of Tegmark himself. This level considers equally real all universes that can be defined by mathematical structures. This also includes those having physical laws different from our observable universe. Tegmark writes that "abstract mathematics is so general that any TOE that is definable in purely formal terms (independent of vague human terminology) is also a mathematical structure. For instance, a TOE involving a set of different types of entities (denoted by words, say) and relations between them (denoted by additional words) is nothing but what mathematicians call a set-theoretical model, and one can generally find a formal system that it is a model of." He argues this "it implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be described at Level IV" and "it subsumes all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be say a Level V."[6]

J&#252;rgen Schmidhuber, however, says the "set of mathematical structures" is not even well-defined, and admits only universe representations describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs. He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time, although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a halting program, due to Kurt G&#246;del's limitations.[7][8][9] He also explicitly discusses the more restricted ensemble of quickly computable universes.[10]

Wondeful but the existence of multiverses doesn't entail the existence of absolutely anything.

For example, no matter how many universes pop into existence, the creator of all of reality - i.e. a God - will never be created in any of them, as that is a contradiction.

Other laws may be universal; such as the conservation of mass-energy or momentum.

And many completely mundane things won't exist either. There are only hypothesised to be a finite number of multiverses. So that race of garden gnomes still doesn't exist.

Basically the whole idea that possibility entails reality is still complete bunk.