Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden0 min ago
Raelism...more Religious Drivel It Would Seem.
86 Answers
Never heard of Raelism until I saw it in today's Gaurdian :::
http://
How can any sane, educated person actually believe this nonsense. It makes Scientology look normal !
http://
How can any sane, educated person actually believe this nonsense. It makes Scientology look normal !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I take your point jim, regarding abstract and classical sculpture. However most abstract art tends not to look like anything it represents and we have to be told by the artist what it is. I find it remarkable that although the helicopter looks exactly like one, because it doesn't fit into the correct time zone it possibly couldn't be one. I also find it remarkable that an ancient Egyptian sculptured an abstract piece of art and it just happened to look like a modern day helicopter.
This assumption that I must think everyone who disagrees with me is delusional is something you bring up rather often. But each time you do, I tell you that I do not think that -- and yet you stick to it.
The problem is not that such people as believe in, say, dowsing, are delusional, but that their claims do not stand up to scrutiny. So why do they make these claims? Clearly such people genuinely believe that what they are seeing is real. That is not in itself a sign of delusion, it's just human nature. But, as I have said before and will say again, humans are just not that good at interpreting what they see in a lot of cases.
For example, there is a tendency to spot patterns where there are none, or to jump to conclusions on small evidence, as described here:
http://
Meanwhile, human memory can be suggestible, mistaken or even implanted entirely (see, for example, Human Suggestibility: Advances in Theory, Research, and Application, Routledge, (New York), 1991., or Loftus, Elizabeth F; Pickrell, Jacqueline E (December 1995). "The Formation of False Memories". Psychiatric Annals 25 (12): 720–725)
Even if what has been seen has happened, such as people getting better after having taken a medicine that is known not to work, there is the risk of people finding causation when it was just coincidence, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which is probably the source of many ideas that can (at least for now) be called paranormal.
Yet more fallacies, each of which needs to be ruled out as the source for some claim, are very common and influence everybody to some extent. I've mentioned these before, but here's the comprehensive list:
http://
Then of course there is the wonderful human capacity for imagination. It is clear in reading attempts to predict the future two things: that people's imaginations can turn out to be wonderfully accurate, and also that they can be completely wrong. Very often the same people can manage both at the same time:
http://
All of this is just normal human experience, and should show that it's risky to base a theory solely on such experiences and accounts, without corroborating evidence that is free -- or at least, as free as possible -- from such biases and risks.
The problem is not that such people as believe in, say, dowsing, are delusional, but that their claims do not stand up to scrutiny. So why do they make these claims? Clearly such people genuinely believe that what they are seeing is real. That is not in itself a sign of delusion, it's just human nature. But, as I have said before and will say again, humans are just not that good at interpreting what they see in a lot of cases.
For example, there is a tendency to spot patterns where there are none, or to jump to conclusions on small evidence, as described here:
http://
Meanwhile, human memory can be suggestible, mistaken or even implanted entirely (see, for example, Human Suggestibility: Advances in Theory, Research, and Application, Routledge, (New York), 1991., or Loftus, Elizabeth F; Pickrell, Jacqueline E (December 1995). "The Formation of False Memories". Psychiatric Annals 25 (12): 720–725)
Even if what has been seen has happened, such as people getting better after having taken a medicine that is known not to work, there is the risk of people finding causation when it was just coincidence, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which is probably the source of many ideas that can (at least for now) be called paranormal.
Yet more fallacies, each of which needs to be ruled out as the source for some claim, are very common and influence everybody to some extent. I've mentioned these before, but here's the comprehensive list:
http://
Then of course there is the wonderful human capacity for imagination. It is clear in reading attempts to predict the future two things: that people's imaginations can turn out to be wonderfully accurate, and also that they can be completely wrong. Very often the same people can manage both at the same time:
http://
All of this is just normal human experience, and should show that it's risky to base a theory solely on such experiences and accounts, without corroborating evidence that is free -- or at least, as free as possible -- from such biases and risks.
"I also find it remarkable that an ancient Egyptian sculptured an abstract piece of art and it just happened to look like a modern day helicopter."
A couple of links I provided earlier give a possible reason for this: that in the case of the hieroglyphs at least it is a number of images overlapping to give the impression of modern technology. It's noteworthy that they don't look exactly like modern-day planes, or helicopters, but look "close enough" -- and, because we are familiar with such objects, we interpret them as such.
For what it's worth, I look at those images and see planes and helicopters too. But what is important is not what I see, but an Egyptian is likely to see. And as long as there is no independent evidence to suggest that they would see such things, it seems more reasonable to say that it's coincidental, or modern brains seeing a pattern they are used to and being unable to see anything else. Not unlike seeing faces all over the place even though it's just a random distribution of bubbles, or paint, or what have you. We just cannot help but see things.
A couple of links I provided earlier give a possible reason for this: that in the case of the hieroglyphs at least it is a number of images overlapping to give the impression of modern technology. It's noteworthy that they don't look exactly like modern-day planes, or helicopters, but look "close enough" -- and, because we are familiar with such objects, we interpret them as such.
For what it's worth, I look at those images and see planes and helicopters too. But what is important is not what I see, but an Egyptian is likely to see. And as long as there is no independent evidence to suggest that they would see such things, it seems more reasonable to say that it's coincidental, or modern brains seeing a pattern they are used to and being unable to see anything else. Not unlike seeing faces all over the place even though it's just a random distribution of bubbles, or paint, or what have you. We just cannot help but see things.
Jim, //This assumption that I must think everyone who disagrees with me is delusional is something you bring up rather often.//
It seems to have escaped your notice, but everything is not about you. My post was addressed to no one in particular.
Octavius, //Well with that level of counter argument, how can I not be convinced.//
Because you think that the notion of supernatural gods and their magic is more sensible? Just a suggestion.
It seems to have escaped your notice, but everything is not about you. My post was addressed to no one in particular.
Octavius, //Well with that level of counter argument, how can I not be convinced.//
Because you think that the notion of supernatural gods and their magic is more sensible? Just a suggestion.
-- answer removed --
Perhaps not that specific post, but you have laid that charge at my door in the past. And anyway, whom it was addressed to doesn't matter to much, as the remainder of my post is about the point itself -- and those are points you ought to address in turn, and explain why all these concerns either do not matter, or how you have accounted for them in your "critical" evaluation of the evidence.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Wow, so aggressive. It wasn't a question.
My "more sensible" proposal was to do with the creative intelligence and artistic mind of ancient humans. If your only productive response to me is along the lines of "because you are black, white, ginger, jewish, mormon, a god believer...." etc, then the discussion really is ended.
My "more sensible" proposal was to do with the creative intelligence and artistic mind of ancient humans. If your only productive response to me is along the lines of "because you are black, white, ginger, jewish, mormon, a god believer...." etc, then the discussion really is ended.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.