2011 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[SPX]

So if you came up and told me that, what would the proper response, in your eyes, be? Because I'd probably be speechless and avoid your crazy ass.

I don't know. I'd be skeptical, too.

But my point is that various stories of unexplainable phenomena permeate world history. Like I said, I know at least 5 people with such stories. You could easily find several on the street. A lot of times they're not likely to just come out with the shit immediately, but once they realize you're not trying to ridicule them, they'll be like, "Well, you know, there was this one time when. . ."

What?

Well if you ask someone how their day was, and they say, "I went to the store, and someone cut me off in traffic, and then Sally was a fucking bitch because she wouldn't share her Skittles with me," and you believe it, then you are relying on anecdotal evidence.

[SPX]

Fair, but I think an adequate correction would be. "Anecdotal evidence is extremely weak evidence." As in, so weak to be negligible when up against other facts that make it implausible.

I hope I can at least get you to believe this much: If there really were another sort of parallel world poking through into this one (in the form of visible ghosts, angels, eternal souls, etc.) it would be by far the most fascinating scientific discovery ever, and scientists all over the world would be flocking to study it as soon as the slightest bit of evidence in its favor presented itself. The idea that the global scientific response to evidence for these phenomena would be to turn a blind eye out of sheer dogmatism and stubbornness is nuts.

I think the biggest problem is that nothing in "science" is valuable if it can't be replicated. And shit like this can't be replicated. However, there are credentialed scientists (and in the case of near-death experiences, doctors) like Dean Radin, Stanislov Grof, Gary Schwartz, Pim van Lommel and Ian Stevenson who are actually pursuing the area of study of such phenomena in an academic or medical setting.

Also, in the 1800s many of the greatest scientific minds of the time did set out to study the same things. Their conclusion, essentially, was that something was going on but they didn't know exactly what. And that's why I think that science has largely just said fuck it. But since we're recommending books, if you're interested in coming out of your cubby hole and taking the time to read something that doesn't just reinforce what you already believe, then this is a good historical study on the movement in the 1800s:

http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Search-Scientific/dp/B000VPP9RI/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320814447&sr=1-6

[SPX]

By the way, Svino, for the record, I never said that I believe anything is poking through anything else. I am just open to the possibility and feel that there is more evidence to support the idea than many people give it credit for, and that's vaguely annoying.

[Svino]

I think the biggest problem is that nothing in "science" is valuable if it can't be replicated. And shit like this can't be replicated.

Not quite sure what you mean there. I don't see how reports of ghosts (if real) would be intrinsically less replicable than reports of seeing a rare animal.

However, there are credentialed scientists (and in the case of near-death experiences, doctors) like Dean Radin, Stanislov Grof, Gary Schwartz, Pim van Lommel and Ian Stevenson who are actually pursuing the area of study of such phenomena in an academic or medical setting.

Well, I wish them the best of luck.

[Svino]

By the way, Svino, for the record, I never said that I believe anything is poking through anything else. I am just open to the possibility and feel that there is more evidence to support the idea than many people give it credit for, and that's vaguely annoying.

I understand. But I do think zY hit the nail on the head with attacking the issue of anecdotal evidence.

There are many different cognitive biases that lead us wrong. One of those biases is that almost all people naturally feel that anecdotal evidence has a much much stronger value than it really does. It turns out that people are easily misled, sometimes deluded, and prone to exaggerate to a far greater degree than we typically appreciate.

[SPX]

Not quite sure what you mean there. I don't see how reports of ghosts (if real) would be intrinsically less replicable than reports of seeing a rare animal.

I think the difference is the ground rules.

Like, if Bigfoot exists then we can assume some shit, like it's a mammal, it's made of flesh and blood, and it basically acts like other animals but we just haven't quite been able to pin it down yet.

But with something like a ghost, we don't know what the fuck it is. We don't even know it's most basic characteristics. Really, we don't know shit, and therefore don't know how to begin to track it down or study it.

[SPX]

I understand. But I do think zY hit the nail on the head with attacking the issue of anecdotal evidence.

There are many different cognitive biases that lead us wrong. One of those biases is that almost all people naturally feel that anecdotal evidence has a much much stronger value than it really does. It turns out that people are easily misled, sometimes deluded, and prone to exaggerate to a far greater degree than we typically appreciate.

I actually completely agree.

I just don't like it when this is used as an excuse to dismiss everything out of hand.

[zY|]

Well if you ask someone how their day was, and they say, "I went to the store, and someone cut me off in traffic, and then Sally was a fucking bitch because she wouldn't share her Skittles with me," and you believe it, then you are relying on anecdotal evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The scenario you described is run-of-the-mill, daily nonsense, and there is no real reason why I shouldn't believe it. That said, no, I wouldn't testify under oath that it was true because they said so.

[poopoo333]

http://www.espn.co.uk/ufc/sport/story/115769.html

[SPX]

Interesting. I think he'll actually only be a middle-of-the-pack MW in the UFC.

[poopoo333]

http://msn.foxsports.com/boxing/story/dana-white-feeling-lucky-as-ufc-goes-mainstream-110711

[Vandelay]

that would take about 15 minutes to read.

[SPX]

that would take about 15 minutes to read.

I didn't even realize there was shit to read. I just watched the video.

[poopoo333]

that would take about 15 minutes to read.

You read slow as fuck.

[SPX]

Anyone here ever seen this shit. . .?