On 12/10/07 8:35 AM, "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
> Well, I obviously can't deny that you *experience* something, but
> until you can come up with some reasonably hard data rather than
> feelings and anecdotes, I don't think you've got any real
> justification for your belief that there's anything more than
> coincidence involved. (02)
Which leads us into .... (03)
Probability and statistics! (04)
I am surprised this group has never had a discussion on this topic or had
someone present on P&S (irony - there is a chance I might be wrong). For
some scientific axioms, tenets, etc. there seem to be a search for proof by
verifying that the one universal truth is not mere coincidence. For
example, if I state here are 10 random numbers and give you these: (05)
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 (06)
You really don't know if they are truly random. Knowing how they are
generated helps ( for example - knowing how the Java.Math.Random class works
and the core algorithm is written and run on the metal) but other than that,
there is no verification that these are truly random. The chance they are
random is equal with every other possible 10 random numbers. (07)
So what does a scientist do? Observe until they are reasonably satisfied
there is a norm or baseline then look for statistical anomalies? Isn't this
somewhat flawed too since we can never really be 100% sure we have truly
tested everything? I got into an argument with a friend last weekend over
the existence of god. He stated that since there is no positive evidence
god exists, it proves there is no god. His inference takes a quantum leap
in logic obviously as what it really means is that god's existence cannot be
scientifically verified. God may exist or may not exist was my position. (08)
So how does this conflict with the topic of the thread. The experience that
you think of someone and they call you? Statistically, unless it had been
studied (I am sure it has), there is a small but real probability than some
human beings have capabilities beyond our perceptions. Just like my friend
stating "it proves god does not exist", the correct statement is probably
more along the lines of "telekinesis has not been scientifically resolved to
a point where it can be satisfactorily quantified". It does not mean it
does not exist or is not real. (09)
Duane (010)
--
**********************************************************************
"Speaking only for myself"
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
********************************************************************** (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|