Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Scientific Anomalies

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 9:38:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.newscientist.com...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 12:32:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 11:06:34 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 9/17/2011 9:38:16 PM, Tiel wrote:


Good ol placebo. Makin ppl sh*t bricks.

Actually, they only thought that they were. They were given a placebo, rather than real bricks to sh*t.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 7:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 1:32:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
Have you ever heard of Thomas Kuhn and the "paradigm shift?"

I have and I agree with his perspective for the most part. It is a group bias to make facts fit into a specific model of the times. That's why I won't be so naive to think that another shift won't happen and change the way humans think about the universe all over again. I keep my mind open to all the possibilities that can be derived from facts and logic.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:38:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 7:59:53 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/18/2011 1:32:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
Have you ever heard of Thomas Kuhn and the "paradigm shift?"

I have and I agree with his perspective for the most part. It is a group bias to make facts fit into a specific model of the times. That's why I won't be so naive to think that another shift won't happen and change the way humans think about the universe all over again. I keep my mind open to all the possibilities that can be derived from facts and logic.

Do you have the ability to prioritize your beliefs?

That is, if I say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and someone else says the earth was created millions of years ago, do you have the intellectual capability to say "while both are possible, I agree with x."

Or are you intellectually incapable of sustaining anything but a neutral stance due to the possiblity of anything happening?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 2:47:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 1:38:36 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/20/2011 7:59:53 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/18/2011 1:32:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
Have you ever heard of Thomas Kuhn and the "paradigm shift?"

I have and I agree with his perspective for the most part. It is a group bias to make facts fit into a specific model of the times. That's why I won't be so naive to think that another shift won't happen and change the way humans think about the universe all over again. I keep my mind open to all the possibilities that can be derived from facts and logic.

Do you have the ability to prioritize your beliefs?

That is, if I say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and someone else says the earth was created millions of years ago, do you have the intellectual capability to say "while both are possible, I agree with x."

Or are you intellectually incapable of sustaining anything but a neutral stance due to the possiblity of anything happening?

The former of the two. I have the intellectual capability to process that multiple perspectives are possible, but that I personally agree with "X" at this time. From that position I accept other information unto the table of possibility. Some of that information may oppose my current perspective, some may support my current perspective. I then reassess all the possibilities on the topic again, while including the new information. I then revise my perspective to include, dismiss, or keep neutral the new information that has come into my awareness. My perspective of reality is continually shaped in this way.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 2:49:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is really no such thing as an event that makes no sense, just events that our limited knowledge cannot yet explain.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 6:02:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 2:49:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is really no such thing as an event that makes no sense, just events that our limited knowledge cannot yet explain.

I agree.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 7:38:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think scientific anomalies represent potential "paradigm shifts". They would seem to be more indicative of a fundamental lack in our collective understanding of natural phenomena. That is to say, our current theories aren't wrong per se, but rather incomplete. Theories are generally derived from conclusions interpreted from measured evidence. How the evidence was generated (and measured) and the a priori assumptions inherent in the model being used to study the system in question has a tremendous impact on determining what the data mean and how it can be applied.

I also disagree with Thomas Kuhn. It is my belief that scientific theories are continually being fine-tuned vis a vis competing theories, and very rarely undergo major shifts that fundamentally change the way we view and understand the world around us.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:32:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 2:47:05 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/21/2011 1:38:36 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/20/2011 7:59:53 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/18/2011 1:32:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
Have you ever heard of Thomas Kuhn and the "paradigm shift?"

I have and I agree with his perspective for the most part. It is a group bias to make facts fit into a specific model of the times. That's why I won't be so naive to think that another shift won't happen and change the way humans think about the universe all over again. I keep my mind open to all the possibilities that can be derived from facts and logic.

Do you have the ability to prioritize your beliefs?

That is, if I say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and someone else says the earth was created millions of years ago, do you have the intellectual capability to say "while both are possible, I agree with x."

Or are you intellectually incapable of sustaining anything but a neutral stance due to the possiblity of anything happening?

The former of the two. I have the intellectual capability to process that multiple perspectives are possible, but that I personally agree with "X" at this time. From that position I accept other information unto the table of possibility. Some of that information may oppose my current perspective, some may support my current perspective. I then reassess all the possibilities on the topic again, while including the new information. I then revise my perspective to include, dismiss, or keep neutral the new information that has come into my awareness. My perspective of reality is continually shaped in this way.

So if I showed you ten pieces of evidence for side b as opposed to side c, you would change your probability calculation as to which is more likely accordingly?

Would enough evidence get you to change your current perspective?

What kind of evidence would make you raise the possibility that common descent of humans and chimps occurred without aliens popping by?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 4:05:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:32:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/21/2011 2:47:05 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/21/2011 1:38:36 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/20/2011 7:59:53 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/18/2011 1:32:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
Have you ever heard of Thomas Kuhn and the "paradigm shift?"

I have and I agree with his perspective for the most part. It is a group bias to make facts fit into a specific model of the times. That's why I won't be so naive to think that another shift won't happen and change the way humans think about the universe all over again. I keep my mind open to all the possibilities that can be derived from facts and logic.

Do you have the ability to prioritize your beliefs?

That is, if I say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and someone else says the earth was created millions of years ago, do you have the intellectual capability to say "while both are possible, I agree with x."

Or are you intellectually incapable of sustaining anything but a neutral stance due to the possiblity of anything happening?

The former of the two. I have the intellectual capability to process that multiple perspectives are possible, but that I personally agree with "X" at this time. From that position I accept other information unto the table of possibility. Some of that information may oppose my current perspective, some may support my current perspective. I then reassess all the possibilities on the topic again, while including the new information. I then revise my perspective to include, dismiss, or keep neutral the new information that has come into my awareness. My perspective of reality is continually shaped in this way.

So if I showed you ten pieces of evidence for side b as opposed to side c, you would change your probability calculation as to which is more likely accordingly?

Yes, I would use the new information to weigh all the new possibilities that can be derived from the new information. Though this does not mean that I will agree with or accept your version of the explanation. I might take your information and think of other possibilities in which you do not agree with or prefer to believe are possible in any probable kind of way.


Would enough evidence get you to change your current perspective?

Get me to change my current perspective? Why would I need to do that? Funny, you are still trying to convince me of your perspective. Either way, any new information can possibly change my perspective.


What kind of evidence would make you raise the possibility that common descent of humans and chimps occurred without aliens popping by?

It's not possible to give me that information. There are far too many factors that we could never have the accurate answers to about history and what may or may not be possible in terms of genetic manipulation. Humans may think they know and then some genius figures out something that changes the paradigm.

I'll give you this. Your perspective would have to be unquestionable fact. The proof that shows this to be true would convince me. Though, it's not possible to this. There are far too many logical possibilities when looked at from an open perspective about actuality. So in the end, you can present new information to me that I may not have and that information may change my perspective or sway me in your direction. There is no way for me to conjure up what information I think would convince me. If I knew that, then I would have already researched the possibility and have come to a conclusion about that information already. Though even that is probable to change. The fact is that even if humans came from chimps (which is not probable in my opinion), that still does not change the fact that extraterrestrial entities could have been the ones to implement a genetic change in a certain primate species which resulted in human beings. In this sense, chimps or another primate species could indeed have been one of the main ingredients that the human recipe was built from, while extraterrestrial genetic information being some of the other ingredients. I am personally leaning towards the possibility that everything happened naturally all the way through to the Neanderthal era. I believe that Neanderthal species and maybe a genetic relative of the Neanderthal species were the basic building block/s that humans were created from.

That's just the possibility I'm leaning towards at the moment however, that could change, I could be wrong. Or I could be right and my perspective won't change.

http://www.eva.mpg.de...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."