From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:46:55 EST

In article <1992Jul30.210218.23136@news.uiowa.edu>, boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes:
> In article <4643@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca
> (Gary Katch) writes:
>> Karl Boyken writes [*]: 
>> >This is the point of view of a skeptic--that the theory with the most votes 
>> >wins? ...  
>> > ...  If the entire population of the world were to 
>> >vote on what's real and what isn't, I'm pretty sure you'd be in the
>> >minority on quite a few issues.
>> 
>> That's exactly right.  What science attempts to do is describe
>> the world with theories that work for everyone's common
>> experience.  It provides you with a method to test your own
>> theories, and then have other people try them out too.  What
>> we percieve to be "reality" is that which is generally agreed
>> upon.  If someone claims that little green devils fly about
>> his head, will you assume their existence and then try to
>> figure out why the rest of humanity is unaware of them?  Or
>> will you assume that it's all in his head?  After all, it is
>> "real" to him!
> 
> No, you misunderstood my post.  The person I responded to implied that the
> scientific model of the world had the most adherents of any belief system,
> and I claimed that that is probably not true.
You are probably _reasonably correct here, but I would suspect that most people
live in a world of cognitive dissonance, balancing two (or more) world
interpretations to varying degrees.
>  I'm sure that vastly more
> people subscribe to some other model of the world that includes belief in
> supernatural or paranormal events.  Even many scientists also hold such
> beliefs--you can find them in mosques, churches, and temples from time to
> time, practicing them.
> 
> This is because scientific theories do _not_ work for _all_ of everyone's
> common experience, despite what you claim. 
No, they work.  People are just afraid or unwilling to accept the hard truths
of science; that the universe doesn't give a damn if we are here or not and can
explain it or not.  Life's tough.

> For example, science has no
> applicability to a person's emotional life.  Science is of little help in
> dealing with interpersonal relationships. 
Demonstrably false.  There are models where medical science has dealt with the
chemical aspects of a person's emotional experiences.  And stabilizing mental
illnesses with medicine clearly affects changes in that person's interpersonal
relationships.  Second order effect maybe, but it is there.
> In fact, for the majority of the
> population of the planet, science is largely _outside_ the common, everyday
> experiences of their lives.
Calculators, television, ozone layer, weather prediction, war, ?  All rather
involvement some aspect of the technological implications of science on the
common everyday experiences of their lives.  Hell, look at what you're typing
on!
> 
>> 
>> If you claim the existence of any paranormal ("outside the
>> common experience") phenomenon, naturally you find yourself
>> in the minority.  Why?  Because you have not found any way to
>> demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon to the rest of
>> the world.
> 
> No, those who hold a purely scientific outlook on the world are in the
> minority, because they have not found a way to convince the rest of the
> world to ignore the vast majority of their everyday experience and focus
> solely on an abstract, narrow view of the world.
Mostly because people refuse to think.

> 
>> 
>> I have no doubt that people who experience OBEs and such
>> consider them "real".  But that is a personal reality.  Then,
>> if they find out that other people experience the same things,
>> they start to postulate such explanations as "higher
>> frequencies", "thought forces", other "dimensions".  In other
>> words, they look for some connection, some explanation which
>> would explain the _common experience_, i.e. what we call,
>> ironically enough, a "scientific theory".
> 
> I don't think there is any type of reality other than personal reality.
> Anything else is just an abstraction, a tacit agreement among people that
> serves as a basis for discussion.  Some people do seem to feel the need to
> translate their paranormal experiences into another belief system; not all
> choose the scientific belief system.  Some try to view their experiences in
> religious terms.
>> None of us wants to be alone in this world.  We are desperate
>> to find others who share our own views, beliefs and experiences.
>> Personally, I like the scientific method because I have a way
>> to test my own reality, to compare it with the common reality.
>> How else do you know you're not crazy?  
> What this means to me is that the scientific view of the world is the lowest
> common denominator, what's left after you throw out everything someone else
> blackballs.  Conformity that reaches into your life and stamps out anything
> that makes you unique.  No room for intuition or inspiration or anything else
> that might be considered "crazy".  A nice, safe, gray world to hide in.
This shows a clear misunderstanding of science.  If you think that this is the
case, then I conclude that you have not ever been exposed to competent
scientists.  If you think that science is a nice, grey world, you have clearly
never been there, IMHO anyway.  Not a flame, just reading the words.
[...] 
> And now you don't have to think about those interesting, seemingly inexplicable
> events ever again, because your model of the world has safely tucked them away.
> How sad.

Nope.  Given the scope of the interesting, possibly explicable things that are
around, why spend time on events that have had little to no impact (except
removing money from one person's pocket and moving it to another's), can't be
reliably demonstrated, remain consistently vague, are fun to talk about, and
never seem to affect the real world.  

I'll take science, guitar, dance, sports, waves, sunsets, weather, hiking,
etc., any time over worrying about whether or not my OBE was real or lucid
dreaming.  The physical world is much too interesting.

GXKambic
standard cynical evil-minded narrow scientific disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic