The only reason we're so smart is because we are so stupid, and vice versa.
psychic chess masters
Sort:
It's funny that you refer to me as a skeptic, as if that's not what we all are. You just choose to accept certain propositions without evidence that I don't.
I'm the king of France? Believe me?
I once gave birth to a beetle? What you reckon?
My oesophagus is made of cheese?
Yeah you don't have any hard evidence against any of that do you? But are you perhaps skeptical? Those claims may seem too self-evident to need contensting to yourself, well consider that claims you make may seem self-evidently false to others.
May 24, 2013
0
#424
reflectivist wrote:
The only reason we're so smart is because we are so stupid, and vice versa.
wtf?????
May 24, 2013
0
#425
Tmb86 wrote:
It's funny that you refer to me as a skeptic, as if that's not what we all are. You just choose to accept certain propositions without evidence that I don't.
I'm the king of France? Believe me?
I once gave birth to a beetle? What you reckon?
My oesophagus is made of cheese?
Yeah you don't have any hard evidence against any of that do you? But are you perhaps skeptical? Those claims may seem too self-evident to need contensting to yourself, well consider that claims you make may seem self-evidently false to others.
Well said.
sapientdust wrote:
"This has to be the worst abuse of Occam's Razor I've ever seen. "
[Image deleted by mod - no photo spamming, please]
reflectivist's response to moderator deletion of photo and stated 'reason':
What is "photo spamming"? What is the image insertion button there for? Where are the rules that pertain to using it? I posted a picture of someone's wrist who was lightly cut with a razor as an example of misuse of a razor by metaphor. It's one thing if the picture is distastful or inappropriate for the forum for some reason, but to lump it in under 'no spamming' doesn't make any sense whatsoever!
Tmb86 wrote:
It's funny that you refer to me as a skeptic, as if that's not what we all are. You just choose to accept certain propositions without evidence that I don't.
Whoa! Stop right there. Do you have any evidence of me accepting propositions without evidence? I'd really like to see that. I am not aware of a single post in this thread where I've done that.
Anyway, if you're not a 'skeptic' fine. Maybe I spoke to soon. I've been at this all day with people and after awhile distinctions blur. Hey, I'm only human.
May 24, 2013
0
#428
aland420 wrote:
So, Corrijean, would you care to answer?
What question?
Sound like Holmes and M in here.
No I suppose you're right. You haven't been so bold as to make any claim, all you've done is dismiss doubt and skepticism outright. Well what a logical absurdity that leads us to. I suggest you put a bit more thought into what you say, or continue going round in endless pointless circles on chess website forums, if that's what pleases you.
May 24, 2013
0
#431
aland420 wrote:
Yes Corrijean, thank you. My response to you on post 461 and 463, when you said I did not address the time/energy constraints.
OK.
I think it is possible.
However, so far we have only had the OPERA study (later falsified) that showed any glimmer of hope for faster than light travel. So if aliens did come here, they'd have to spend generations doing it. Also, the high level of technology in their civilization would have to correspond with us in tme, which seems pretty unlikely.
So I do not think it is probable.
Tmb86 wrote:
No I suppose you're right. You haven't been so bold as to make any claim, all you've done is dismiss doubt and skepticism outright. Well what a logical absurdity that leads us to. I suggest you put a bit more thought into what you say, or continue going round in endless pointless circles on chess website forums, if that's what pleases you.
No I didn't dismiss doubt and skepticism outright. When I was discussing those specific terms earlier today with another poster, I mentioned that they are useful if they facilitate or maintain a proper perspective in the pursuit of the truth, and aren't a means or ends to themself. They are good tools if they motivate objective inquiry, but not if they are negative for the sake of negativity, bias or stubborness. I've also said that many so-called skeptics go too far, and believe their own hype to the point of it becoming a religion, and aren't as pure or objective as they believe they are or pretend to be. Anyway, while you're misquoting or misrepresenting my perspectives, why stop there... It's almost entertaining.
And further, I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, if I believe I am, such as when I called you or someone here a skeptic recently, and realized I may have spoken too hastily there.
I'm pretty sure there are "psycho" chess masters, though.
"aren't a means or ends to themself"
At no point has anyone said that doubting is important for the sake of doubting.
"I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong"
Well i congratulate you on that, and i even suspect you might be telling the truth. If you are indeed so rational then I think you should admit that you were arguing against 'skepticism' simply on the basis that people weren't agreeing with you when you thought they should.
Tmb86 wrote:
"At no point has anyone said that doubting is important for the sake of doubting. "
============
I didn't say anyone said that, What some were posting and how they posted it made that the logical inference. I was referring to skeptics who were posting tangents and hyperbole, mocking, and using statstics pulled out of their derrier to deny things as though they were being objective and making conclusive statements, when neither was the case.
So what will it take to make you stop arguing with me? Agreeing with you? I mean what kind of nonsense is that? I have had a perspective on pseudo skepticism for a long time prior to this thread, and of course when I see examples of it, and people challenging, putting me down, or putting words into my mouth, in that vein, I'm going to assert and subsequently defend that persepective.
Nice try though.
May 24, 2013
0
#436
aland420 wrote:
corrijean wrote:
aland420 wrote:
Yes Corrijean, thank you. My response to you on post 461 and 463, when you said I did not address the time/energy constraints.
OK.
I think it is possible.
However, so far we have only had the OPERA study (later falsified) that showed any glimmer of hope for faster than light travel. So if aliens did come here, they'd have to spend generations doing it. Also, the high level of technology in their civilization would have to correspond with us in tme, which seems pretty unlikely.
So I do not think it is probable.
Oh no, I do not say alien space travel is probable. Just that perhaps whatever other-planetary technology may be outside the parameters of any contemporary Earth study about the light speed of travel.
Now, if the speed of light is a "hard limit," then yes, intergalatic travel with living beings may be impossible... Unless, some beings have found a way to stay alive for centuries or more? Then it still would be possible, no?
I really don't think we disagree. 
corrijean wrote:
aland420 wrote:
Yes Corrijean, thank you. My response to you on post 461 and 463, when you said I did not address the time/energy constraints.
OK.
I think it is possible.
However, so far we have only had the OPERA study (later falsified) that showed any glimmer of hope for faster than light travel. So if aliens did come here, they'd have to spend generations doing it. Also, the high level of technology in their civilization would have to correspond with us in tme, which seems pretty unlikely.
So I do not think it is probable.
Let us take this step by step.
Faster means speed. Speed means they are limited how much power they can produce to cross a distance. Power means something is limiting their ability to cross distance.
Well if they are advanced they will have found material that would the ship to be as light as a feather when it reaches a high velocity. The surface of it would have a value very close to zero with friction.
Other case they have ship but it does not travel in space. Some device just tranports the ship within x amount radius of destination. Could be the reason why we never see them coming or going from our planet.
If you want to talk about aliens i can go all day. I started when i was in Junior High School with my science homework. Mine was so freakish the teacher game an A just to get of the desk.
May 24, 2013
0
#439
pdela wrote:
trysts wrote:
pdela wrote:
but if they are not mystical beings, how do they do to rule out physics laws?
It is amazing to me how a homo-centric viewpoint can stop the imagination from contemplating the idea that we don't know much? And how such a viewpoint has created laws of the universe which must be adhered to? I don't even "know" what these UFOs are, but I am very skeptical of the explantions for the reports I've read about them. The comfortable world of conformity is not my cup 'o tea, pdela.
homo-centric viewpoint is the only one I have do not pretend myself to have an alien-centric viewpoint. Physics laws are not a property of the universe itself but of our knowledge of the universe, since pretended aliens would be part of that universe they should behave in conformity with the way we have millions of observations (good, tested and controlled measurements that can be reproduced by anyone) about how things behave in the nature, I more confident about these that I rely in what a person said he has viewed but could not take a picture (a not blurred one)... credit is just above the credit I give to any other lunatic who starts to tell how the virgin appeared in front of his eyes. Yes, there are also hundreds of reports about the virgin making special appearences and all other kind of miracles, poltergeists and mysterious various. With such strong evidences the belief of aliens coming around the earth is as the belief in any deity, a question of faith.
I just don't find that the alien-hypothesis is unbelievable or irresponsible. I can imagine an alien civilization over-coming our idea of the universe, and what is possible to do in the universe. I mean, civilizations around the world had to deal with diseases and viruses without at first knowing why people would suddenly change physically and die. It had to be just an unbelievable notion that something invisible to them like a virus could cause such horrible effects.
I remember reading in "Of Grammatology", I believe, of a group of people in the last century coming upon a primitive tribe in Africa. At one point one of the modern men wrote upon a piece of paper for one of his colleagues to bring him some tools. He handed the note to one of the tribesmen and pointed towards his colleague across the village. The tribesman went to the colleague who, upon receiving the note, followed it's instruction to bring the tools. The tribesman was amazed! He appeared to think there was magic in the pencil!
I believe that we can't think ourselves so advanced as to reject the advancement of others, but instead to allow for errors in our theories of the universe and what aliens might be capable of. The invisible may be seen with the right instrument, and the extraordinary may be ordinary to them.
However Occams Razor assumes the most likely explanation rules over the non-likely. What is likely about UFO sightings is that they are real, they have shown technology which far exceeds our own and so Occams Razor begins to break down. Where we look for the most reasonable answer may not actually be all too reasonable at all... not everything concerning UFO activity has reasonable explanations which is why they are a phenomenon, and one recognized worldwide.
This has to be the worst abuse of Occam's Razor I've ever seen. What would be the point of a heuristic that says the most likely hypotheses for some unexplained phenomenon are more likely to be true (I assume that's what you mean by "rules over") than the non-likely hypotheses? Well, yeah, the "most likely" is a better bet than the "non-likely", but we don't need Occam's Razor or anything else to know that, since it's true practically by definition.
Occam's Razor says that when there are multiple hypotheses that are consistent with the data, prefer the simpler hypothesis, all other things being equal. It's not that you'll never be wrong doing this, but that on average, you'll be wrong less with this strategy than with other strategies that many people prefer, such as "trust what people you know believe", "trust the opposite of what the government says", "trust what you want to be true", "trust what is consistent with your deepest held beliefs", etc.