I think that's where an important part of the debate went wrong, saying "it is intellecutally dishonest to say that I am wrong and dismiss my evidence". As you later acknowleged, I wasn't saying this.
You are still claiming I am wrong though, with neither sufficient evidence to back your claim, nor an attempt to counter my evidence, nor enough knowledge on the subject to make that claim. This is what is intellectually dishonest.
Also,
thestrangequark said:
The science behind the fallibility of our perceptions is not "conjecture based on our own personal perceptions" at all. Okay, I see where I misunderstood you. Yes, it is my position that a given observation make without evidence is untrustworthy, and I have given sufficient evidence to support that position.
Well, you have provided links to a couple of blogs which I checked out and to several books listed on Amazon, but I obviously can't read the books on-line. So, given that you have read them, can you describe as briefly as you can some of the prominent tests that were done to show the cognitive, social and motivational processes that distort our thoughts, beliefs, judgements and decisions?
I've already done so, beginning with the basic mechanism by which our brain constructs our narrative of reality and the problems that arise between the primitive brain and the cerebrum. If you have even a basic understanding of that mechanism, then you can see that not only is our reconstruction of the world flawed, it
must be flawed, for you can't put together a complete puzzle when you haven't all the pieces. You still seem to be operating under the false assumption that I'm saying that we
sometimes mess up, when what I'm saying is that we
never get it quite right. Most of the time Mostly Right is good enough, though, so we don't notice. One of the easiest and most revealing tests is any optical illusion. Attention blindness was displayed in the Color Changing Card Trick video, did you watch it? Attention blindness is also demonstrated every time someone tries to walk or drive while on a cell phone, of course -- I could describe a study in which people walking and talking on a cell phone fail to notice a unicycling clown directly in their paths, if you want that much information. Again, I'm slightly confused about how much evidence you want, because the last time I wrote a long post you said it was too much to read.
While I can appreciate how there are tests to show how people's perceptions can be distorted and that there is a propensity to do so, I don't see how it can be completely conclusive. If test subjects are exposed to a distortion of reality and in turn report misinformation, it proves that the human mind is capable of being deceived and report distortions.
Where did you get the idea that they are being exposed to distorted reality? That wouldn't be a test of perception at all! This is another logical fallacy, you're starting with the conclusion that the reality must be distorted for people's perceptions of it to be distorted. You have to start at the question: Are our perceptions of reality perfect? The answer is, definitively, no.
Yet, it doesn't conclusively say that it happens all the time. It simply shows that it is possible.
How can you make that statement without having read the evidence? Again, to go back to the basic mechanism by which our brain constructs our narrative of reality and its inherent fallibility, the most probable conclusion is that it does happen all the time, and the evidence bears that hypothesis out. Again, Mostly Right Most of the Time, never All Right All of the Time, or even All Right, Some of the Time.
The point I'm trying to make is that observations can be flawed but aren't guaranteed to be always or completely flawed. Sometimes flaws aren't significant. For example, a phenomenon was observed but the observer can't recall the exact time. They have a recollection of a time before and after the incident but not the exact moment of occurrence. It's a flaw, but not one that invalidates the observation, unless there's a specific timing relating to another event that is dependent or influential.
I never said otherwise, and I completely agree with this statement.
Anecdotal evidence is always flawed.
Yes that's true, but what I'm talking about is empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences).
No, that is still anecdotal evidence.
To varying degrees, yes.
It may be insufficient or innaccurate based on a given scope. Because direct observations are used in part of the scientific method. If a person is observing activity in a microscope, and their work isn't duplicated by anyone else, then it's their observations of that study being solely relied upon.
The fact that a person is working with the scientific method is what distinguishes their evidence from anecdotal evidence. It doesn't automatically mean their evidence is good enough, but it means it is better.
If the individual happens to have an interest in a certain outcome, then it is possible for data to become inadvertently skewed to suit it. Of course in the scientific community, there is a certain degree of cross checking and validation performed, but it's not always possible to be thorough.
I don't think you have a very thorough understanding of how scientific studies are done and how scientific evidence is evaluated. Here is a breakdown:
- Anecdotal evidence is when someone notices something, like "This herb seemed to help in the recover of my cold!" or, "I saw a ghost!" Anecdotal evidence can point science where to look, but it is worse than worthless in judging the reality, because of the very biases and skewed data you were concerned about. For the reasons I discussed, anecdotal evidence is
always biased and skewed data.
- Scientific testing comes in various degrees of quality. Studies are designed specifically to eliminate the biases and skewed data, and that is what makes them scientific and not anecdotal. Studies have controls, and should be blinded, double blinded, or even triple blinded to control for bias. The quality of a study's design is one of the determining factors of its worth. The better designed a study, the more reliable the results. This doesn't mean, of course, that there are not poorly designed studies, bad science, or flukey results sometimes, that is why independently replicable results are necessary, and why there is a peer-review process to help determine if the science is good enough.
Oh come on, don't try to make it sound as if I'm trying to silence anyone. You can't apply this specific debate over a specific scientific topic to the whole board and every topic discussed. Talk about a logical fallacy!
Well, you could apply it as every topic has some kind of empirical data involved, in one way or another.
You're misrepresenting my stance with a slippery slope logical fallacy: just because I demand real evidence of a ghost doesn't mean I demand real evidence of what everyone ate for dinner last night! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Evidence must be proportionate to the claim. And, no, not every topic has some kind of empirical data involved. Opinions are not science, and there are things that lie outside the realm of science -- for example, the Intelligent Design proponents' argument that if god could design the universe to look anyway he wanted, then he could have designed it to look as if it evolved over billions of years. This is an untestable claim, and therefore lies outside the realm of science.
In any case, it would be silly to go into the go into the Dinner thread and demand proof that
Iguana ate pie for dessert last night. But it is really fucking (for emphasis, not because I'm angry or anything) reasonable to demand evidence if someone claims a new medical treatment, or an experience that would completely change our understanding of the nature of reality, like seeing a ghost.
And that's the point I'm trying to make, that while there is certainly a potential for flawed data, empirical observations are sometimes all we have to rely upon and perfectly fine to consider regarding non-scientific pursuits.
You are using the word empirical wrong. Unscientific observations are not empirical data.
For example, somebody talks about seeing a small animal swimming in a pond and when it gets out it turns out to be a cat! In your experience, it might be that all you've ever known is for cats to be afraid of water. Do you believe them? Did they hallucinate and really see a racoon or other animal instead? You then later find that there's this whole indoctrination process, whereby cats are introduced to water and become accustomed to it. Pretty cool, by the way.
Again, evidence must be proportionate to the claim. A cat in a pool is not an extraordinary claim, it does not require as much evidence as the claim that there is a ghost.
Anyway, if there's one thing that can definitely said about ghostly encounters is that there are plenty of reported hauntings that have been disproven, but also many cases of observations that can't be proven or disproven. We simply don't know.
Really? I think it's your turn to provide some evidence, because I've never heard a ghost story that could not be explained naturally.
I will concede after giving the subject more careful consideration that it's very possible my experience regarding my grandfather's "spirit" was a subliminal hallucination, and that the scent I detected was my subconscious mind fooling me (and my wording to my friend may have planted the suggestion for him to agree). No doubt many people have such experiences.
Thanks for the link to "How We Know What Isn't So". I've added it to my future book list.
It's a good one! I'd also highly recommend Richard Weisman's (yes, the guy in the video)
Quirkology.
Carry on!
