Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, May 9, 2016.
because A has never once been verified to have actually occurred, while B is not only a verified phenomenon but actually quite common in the grand scheme of things - or are you going to claim you've never experienced a themed party?
That's the point of examining the evidence and posting several examples of it. So we can see that there IS verification of it occurring. And no, I have never witnessed nor attended a party held during the daytime where people in a whole area in multiple homes dressed in period costumes and acted out the customs and chores of that historical era. Never. That's why I needed evidence for that ridiculous claim. Which is what I found. You should be applauding me for that instead of petulantly whining about it.
All that is required to provide an explanation is possibility.
No..a possibility based on no evidence is not an explanation. I'm not going to repeat this point over and over while you deny it. A possibility explains nothing. That's why we don't settle for them and look further into the matter to establish what was more than just possible. Which is exactly what I did. I don't buy your claims of somehow knowing from the start that a phenomenon is too implausible to occur. Like I said, the implausible occurs. People win the lottery, get struck by lightning several times, and experience paranormal events. You assume what you pretend to conclude, that timeslips are too unlikely to ever occur. But if they are occurring, as the numerous accounts of it suggest, then they certainly AREN'T too unlikely to occur.
If a given person claimed to win the lottery then I would not accuse them of lying (I would have no evidence to support it) but I would indeed initially think it a possibility.
The difference with the lottery wins is that they can be verified - and thus we do know they happen. Not only that but we know the exact maths behind it such that we can predict with near certainty the odds of it happening.
Right..We don't base our view on a matter on mere given possibilities. We need more evidence to reach a conclusion. You, in your weird paranoid mindset, would have to confirm with the state lottery commission whether this person is lying or not. You require evidence more than that it is just a possibility that they are lying. You require exactly what I require--evidence for the claim that an account is either a lie or an error of perception.
Evidence that also fits with the theory of it being a themed party whether or not someone provides confirmation of such a party in the vicinity.
The fact that someone subsequently did confirm that a party was going on merely makes it increasingly likely that this was the cause of the observations.
But you just said a mere possibility needs no evidence because it is not a claim. So now you say the account itself is the evidence you need to claim that the account was a party. Much as you might say that a claim of winning the lottery is evidence of lying about winning the lottery. But seeing that so-called "evidence" doesn't decide between the possibilities of a timeslip or a party, you now require more evidence to weigh the account itself in your favor. Which is exactly what I provided. Evidence weighing for the proposition that it was a party event instead of a timeslip.
Who said it was an entire area? Multiple homes?
And several examples, that each have more likely alternative explanations, is not verification of the extraordinary claim! This is simply your bias.
Well, this certainly clarifies your deviation from what most people consider to be critical thought.
A possible explanation IS an explanation, whether you accept it as such or not.
Is it the reality of what happened? If it fits the observed facts and is more likely than other explanations then it IS the explanation that should be rationally accepted.
This is not the same as claiming the reality matches the eplanation, but in the absence of verification of a specific explanation, the most likely explanation should be the one that is rationally accepted.
That you can't see / accept this merely highlights your deviation from what most people consider rational thought.
1. It is more probable that B happened than that A happened.
2. Why is it more probable that B happened?
3. Because it is more improbable that A happened.
This is not Sarkus' argument.
Not that this hasn't been addressed already but I'm really tired of what is either inadvertent or advertent obtuseness.
It is more probable that B happened because we have confirmed accounts of it happening. It is mundane.
It is very improbable that A happened because there has never been a confirmed case of it happening AND because there is no known mechanism by which it mght happen.
I confess, MR, I find it hard to believe that you are sincere in your arguments. I think you know the things you say are flawed, but are simply playing a game.
Right..We don't base our view on a matter on mere given possibilities. We need more evidence to reach a conclusion.
Only if we wish to claim/conclude that the phenomenon is the truth. Otherwise we merely reach the rational conclusion that the more likely explanation should be accepted as the rational explanation until such time as observations no longer fit that explanation.
You, in your weird paranoid mindset, would have to confirm with the state lottery commission whether this person is lying or not.
So if I told you I won the lottery you would simply believe me? If anyone told you they had won the lottery you would simply believe them? Seriously?
You require evidence more than that it is just a possibility that they are lying. You require exactly what I require--evidence for the claim that an account is either a lie or an error of perception.
you misunderstand... I wouldn't claim that they are lying. It merely resins the most likely explanation until such time as evidence/observation arises that no longer matches that theory. If someone verifies that they have won then this no longer fits the theory that they have lied.
This is precisely why lottery companies require vefification... because people do lie about it.
And the company does not claim that people do lie, only that until the win is verified they assume it is not true.
Why do you struggle with this notion?
But you just said a mere possibility needs no evidence because it is not a claim. So now you say the account itself is the evidence you need to claim that the account was a party. Much as you might say that a claim of winning the lottery is evidence of lying about winning the lottery. But seeing that so-called "evidence" doesn't decide between the possibilities of a timeslip or a party, you now require more evidence to weigh the account itself in your favor. Which is exactly what I provided. Evidence weighing for the proposition that it was a party event instead of a ttimeslip.
For hopefully the last time, no-one is claiming it was the party, only that it was more likely to be a party than a timeslip.
And the evidence in favour of the themed party being more possible than a timeslip simply that a themed parTy is a rather mundane occurrence... even if you have never attended one you can not be so sheltered as to not accept that people do hold themed parties... Bond, Disco, Titanic, toga etc. Are you seriously saying you are not aware of hem actually occurring?
So it doesn't need specific evidence of a party at that particular location to make the explanation of a themed party the more likely explanation. Only if you want to claim the themed part as the definite truth would you need to provide evidence, as you did. But one does not need to do that if one is merely offering it as a possibility. And past experience provides the necessary rationale for accepting the themed party as the more rational explanation of the two.
No..a possibility based on no evidence is not an explanation. I'm not going to repeat this point over and over while you deny it. A possibility explains nothing. That's why we don't settle for them and look further into the matter to establish what was more than just possible.
But this is a science forum, not a creative writing forum. And that's all this is - creative writing.
Science doesn't operate by looking for the most exotic possible explanation; it operates by looking for the least exotic explanation that fits the evidence.
You are welcome to expound at great length on really far out possibilities that make for great story-telling, but again - since this is a science forum, we are free to poke gaping holes in them. Just don't try to defend them as scientific, or even plausible. That's where you'll get destroyed.
Wrong. We had no confirmed accounts of parties held in multiple homes of people dressed in period costumes UNTIL I found the (alleged) account of that Frenchman who lived in that area. Did we have evidence of timeslips? Yes..I cited 5 such accounts. It doesn't matter if we have no mechanism to understand it with. Quantum entanglement occurs without a mechanism. Science recognizes the phenomenon itself before it has an explanation.
Considering the source and your past lies about what I've said and your persistant ad hom attacks on my character, that allegation is hardly surprising to me. You'll say anything to win an argument.
Wrong. We had no confirmed accounts of parties held in multiple homes of people dressed in period costumes UNTIL I found the (alleged) account of that Frenchman who lived in that area. Did we have evidence of timeslips? Yes..I cited 5 such accounts.
You are pulling our collective leg.
Nope..a possibility isn't an explanation. The women could have been abducted by aliens and hypnotized by them. It's certainly possible. Is it an explanation? No..not until there is some evidence for it.
Ofcourse I would. Until I have some compelling reason they are lying, I'd totally believe they are telling the truth. I see these people on TV all the time. I'm not so paranoid that I do a Google search on them to confirm their claims.
So you are saying you are requiring evidence they aren't lying. That the mere possibility of lying isn't adequate to reach a conclusion. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Right..you're requiring verification, not settling for the mere possibility of lying. That's exactly what I did. Verified that there was a party occurring in that area at the time. Why are you still griping about that?
You have no idea how likely a timeslip is. It may happen all the time but rarely be noticed. You were not issued at birth a book detailing the probability of every event that is possible in our universe. So quit pretending to know a priori what you can only find out a posteriori.
No..I have never heard of historically themed parties held across several properties in the daytime. It's not a mundane occurrance. It's a rather strange occurrance, and needs evidence to support it.
So it doesn't need specific evidence of a party at that particular location to make the explanation of a themed party the more likely explanation.
But you say you aren't claiming it was a party. You are saying it was just a possibility that doesn't need evidence. But that's still just a possibility among many other possibilites. We need actual evidence to prove it was an actuality. Which is exactly what I provided.
Only if you want to claim the themed part as the definite truth would you need to provide evidence, as you did. But one does not need to do that if one is merely offering it as a possibility. And past experience provides the necessary rationale for accepting the themed party as the more rational explanation of the two.
I have never heard of such parties ever being held anywhere. I HAVE heard of accounts of timeslips occurring. So guess which is more plausible based on the evidence?
I have never heard of [themed] parties ever being held anywhere. I HAVE heard of accounts of timeslips occurring. So guess which is more plausible?
You are definitely pulling our collective leg.
But this is worth calling out, for all the world to see.
Misquoting. The last refuge of the loser.
You are so predictable. I bet myself a dollar you would think this was a misquote. It is not.
Square brackets are a common, accepted way of clarifying meaning. The "such parties" you are referring to is a direct response to a quote where the quotee said "themed part".
We'll add quoting to the list of things are are unfamiliar to you.
But let's be pedantic, and hear it from the horse's mouth.
Only if you want to claim the themed part as the definite truth would you need to provide evidence, as you did.
I have never heard of such parties ever being held anywhere.
Please define to what - in Sarkus' quoted text - you were referring when you said "such parties".
"We had no confirmed accounts of parties held in multiple homes of people dressed in period costumes."
So not only did you misquote and twist my meaning, you are now lying again that you didn't misquote me. You just pile one lie on another don't you?
Nope. You quite carefully broke the discusson into multiple parts so that there would be no confusion as to exactly which of Sarkus' comments you were responding to.
This is simply not how critical thinking works.
We don't need to treat 'a strange party' with equal weight as time travel.
There's quite a wide margin between 'strange' and 'barking mad'.
What you want, really, is a creative writing forum. There is a place where you are free to explore what is possible. And you don't need to have skepticism or critical thinking - at least not the extent that you do on a science forum. That's why these fanciful ideas are being cut to ribbons.
Not that it really matters what kind of party you're referring to.
It obviously matters to you what I meant or you wouldn't have taken the trouble to lie about it. I know what I said and meant by "such parties" and I know why you misquoted me. It's just your usual pathetic attempt to depict me in certain light to some imagined audience of yours rather than effectively arguing a valid point. It's what you do here. It's called trolling.
I already posted 5 accounts of time slips here. And I could post many more. If you can't accept that evidence that's your own problem, not mine.
What you want, really, is a creative writing forum. There is a place where you are free to explore what ispossible. And you don't need to have skepticism or critical thinking - at least not the extent that you do on a science forum. That's why these fanciful ideas are being cut to ribbons.
I just checked the forum I'm in and yep..it's still the Fringe forum. So it's precisely the place for the threads I post. If Fringe topics upset you so much, you know where the exit door is.
That's why these fanciful ideas are being cut to ribbons.
The only thing you have cut to ribbons here is your own credbility with your repeated failed attempts at lying about what I say and mean while posting to other people. Maybe someday you will learn how to debate properly instead of ad homing from the sidelines. But as long as you keep lying and ad homing me as a person, that's not going to happen. Because I will expose you as the liar you are every time, just as I always have.
And if being critiqued about how unscientific your threads are upsets you so much, you also know where the exit door is.
Remember, you're in the fringe section of a science forum, not the science section of a woowoo forum.