In conversations between me and people who believe that it is possible to predict the future, to diagnose and cure diseases in ways that contradict all scientific knowledge, to summon events from the universe, etc., the discussion soon boils down to a few permanent "punch arguments".
In conversations between me and people who believe that it is possible to predict the future, to diagnose and cure diseases in ways that contradict all scientific knowledge, to summon events from the universe, etc., the discussion soon boils down to a few permanent "punch arguments".
One of them is "I don't need scientific proof, I know it works", which we have encountered before, and I will not elaborate on it this time.
If I continue to press, explaining about all the cognitive biases and how personal impressions and personal experience can be misleading, the claimant has no choice and he uses the following argument to defend his belief:
"It cannot be tested with scientific tools."
When I continue to make it difficult and ask why in his opinion it is impossible to test this with scientific tools, one or more of the following reasons are raised:
- "There are still no devices capable of measuring this thing (energy/powers/beings)".
- "Every person is different and it works differently for them."
- "There are many factors that influence and work together. Science is unable to deal with this complexity."
- "This thing (energy/powers/entities) has its own will, and if the person is skeptical, either it is an experiment aimed at discovering this thing, or there are negative energies in the crowd, or the person (or humanity as a whole) is not ready to be exposed to it - it can decide not to show his presence, and the experiment will fail."
The following excerpt is based on a real conversation that took place on some mysticism forum, and it will help clarify the issue.
She: "You try to harness spirituality and mysticism to your tools, and it won't work, because these are two different things and sometimes even parallel.
There are things you just need to know from the inside, feel, experience and trust yourself and not any external factors, who will validate what you feel. When you fall in love, are you going to test it scientifically or do you just feel it? When the food is delicious, do we ask ourselves what scientific tool will tell us if the food is tasty? Or just feel and know? Don't try to close spirituality in the box of logic, because it won't work and it's not right to do so."
Me: "As long as you are talking about internal subjective experiences - I agree. You can't measure love, you can't measure personal meaning, you can't measure a good feeling, vitality, peace, inner strength. And it's also irrelevant. (By the way, progress in brain research already provides initial tools to measure subjective experiences objectively)."
"But when you talk about areas such as medical diagnosis, healing, predicting the future, summoning events, the influence of thought on objects, telepathy - you are talking about external, objective, measurable things. If a person moved an object through thought, this is an objective phenomenon in the external world, not an interpretation or personal meaning."
"If a person is able to distinguish who from a group of people in front of him is sick with a certain disease and who is not, based on looking at his "aura" / Tikshaur / Reiki or in any other supernatural way, this is an objective phenomenon in the external world. It can be measured. Different people will agree with the result of the measurement: "He diagnosed these 8 people with liver cancer, and 7 of them do have liver cancer."
"Every claim about something external to us can be measured, even if statistically. (as is done in medicine, psychology, epidemiology, sociology, etc.). Where do you see problems with such a measurement? I do not understand. Try to give an example of something external that cannot be measured."
She: "What tools will you measure with? Tools you know? And if the measuring tools capable of measuring this have not yet been invented? And if they are inaccurate or measure things completely different from what they are supposed to measure, for example, they measure heat energy instead of healing energy that they still don't know how to measure, and other elements that make the attempt to measure ridiculous."
Me: "I'm not talking about measuring the energy itself. It cannot be measured because no one knows what it is. Moreover, it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to measure it, since the claim is that it is a non-physical/material entity, and all the measuring tools that science can develop are only capable of measuring physical/material things.
But it doesn't matter at all what that "energy" is. I'm talking about measuring the impact of the energy on the people. The effect is something physical - for example some kind of healing. Therefore your argument is irrelevant, because the impact should not be a problem to measure. If the effect cannot be measured either, then what is the claim that someone predicted something based on? Healed anyone?
She: "It is impossible to measure energy and the effect of healing, because it varies from person to person, from disease to disease and from therapist to therapist, each one has different energies. A therapist can send 100% of his energy to the patient but this, due to doubt, inability to receive, unwillingness to receive or even a lesson that he has to go through and must go through experiencing difficulty or illness, will only receive 50% or even less of the treatment."
Me: The challenge you raised is faced by many research professions such as medicine and psychology. After all, they also deal with individual people, who are different from each other, and seek to reach more general conclusions (is a drug effective, what happens to people when they face a loss, etc.). Thanks to the use of research methodologies and statistical tools, it is possible to reach more general conclusions, to identify the general trends above the multifaceted details, to see the forest without sinking into the leaves of each tree. Thus, "from a bird's eye view", it is possible to notice that the forest is sparse in one area and dense in another, that the trees are lower here but taller there, etc., things that cannot be seen if you carefully examine each tree individually.
By statistical research it can be found that those who eat a lot, weigh more than those who starve themselves, on average. Although everyone is different, the genes are different, the environmental influences are different, the level of physical activity is different, still - those who indulge themselves regularly will weigh more than those who starve themselves regularly, on average. This is the power of statistics. There is no contradiction that every detail is different.
If proper research is done, I don't see any problem knowing whether a certain healing method "works with amazing efficiency" in reality or if it is just an illusion. On average, a group of people who received treatment according to some method, even if tailored individually and differently for each person, should be healthier than a group of people who remained untreated.
Let's move now to the second argument that you incorporated here: "Energy has its own will, and if the person is skeptical, or cannot receive, or does not want to receive (consciously or unconsciously), or is not yet ready to receive, or deserves not to receive, then the energy will not reveal the Her presence and the person will not get well / the experiment will fail."
In another wording: "the thing" cannot be disproved, that is, it is not possible to think of an experiment that would show that the thing does not exist (if it really does not exist).
According to the accepted definitions, a claim that cannot be refuted indeed cannot be an object of scientific investigation, because there is no way to determine whether it is true or not, and therefore any discussion regarding its correctness becomes irrelevant. In other words, no one can know whether such a claim is true or not. He can only believe that she is true. Such a claim was called "not even wrong".
She: "The causes of the disease are so many that there is no way to weigh them all with the existing scientific tools. The factors exist and influence, but science fails to deal with this complexity. Fact is, for every study that finds that something causes a health problem, there is another study that finds exactly the opposite."
Me: I agree that it is often very difficult to isolate the factors, to identify the hidden legality (if it exists of course), because life is really very complex. But in that case, how is it possible that someone discovered the same internal legality other than with scientific tools, if it is so elusive? (By scientific tools I mean orderly observations, isolating variables, conducting experiments, etc.).
After all, all those New Age people claim to have discovered some legality. Discover order in chaos. Discovered a correlation between thoughts and their effect on events, discovered a correlation between waving hands and the health of the person being waved for, discovered a correlation between the alignment of the stars at the moment of birth and the ways of human life, and so on, the good hand of imagination.
If someone claims to have discovered law in chaos, then it can be scientifically investigated. This is exactly the essence of science - to discover laws in the world!
She: "Not everything is discovered through organized observations and controlled experiments. There is intuition for example. A therapist's intuition, which is based on years of personal experience.
"How does a chess champion know what the right move is? Does he do billions of calculations one after the other, weigh and compare them all and only then choose the best one in some conscious process? No. And yet it can successfully compete against the most powerful computers in the world! The power of intuition is amazing!"
Me: You're confusing the way you arrive at an idea, and the way you check if it's true.
Intuition is a blessed tool. Intuition can yield really brilliant ideas, but intuition can also be wrong, and more often than not we think so. Our brain takes a lot of "shortcuts" that prove to be effective in some cases, but lead to wrong conclusions in other cases.
The way someone arrived at his "potential knowledge" does not reduce the need to examine that knowledge in an orderly (ie scientifically) way. Only through a controlled and informed examination can the right ideas be sorted out from the wrong ones, separating real legality from simulated legality.
Apart from this, numerologists, astrologers, diagnosticians and healers of all kinds boast very detailed methods. The therapist does not stare at the client and describe his heart's thoughts, but bases his words on extremely complex symbol systems: angles between planets, wrinkles on the palm, precise acupuncture points, etc. How can one know that these complex teachings do correspond to reality (that is, correct) without checking it in an orderly research way (that is, scientifically)?
***
We will go back and briefly summarize the four arguments that came up on the subject, and my answers to them:
1) "There are still no devices capable of measuring this thing" -
There is no need to measure "it". It is enough to measure its effect on the world of reality perceived by our senses. And if there is no such effect, then what are we even talking about?
2) "Every person is different and it works differently for them" -
Statistical tools were developed for this. If there is no general legality whatsoever, then what are we even talking about? What is the meaning of such a "method" that has no rules and regulations? And if they discovered legality, it can at least be confirmed in a statistical study.
3) "There are many factors that influence and work together. Science is unable to deal with this complexity" -
If science is unable to deal with this complexity, there is no way to verify whether the claim of someone who claims to be able to deal with this complexity (intuitively for example) is correct or not.
4) "This thing (energy / forces / entities) has its own will, and if the person is skeptical, either it is an experiment aimed at discovering this thing, or there are negative energies in the crowd, or the person (or humanity as a whole) is not ready to be exposed to it - it can decide not to show his presence, and the experiment will fail" -
A claim that cannot be refuted in principle - there is no way to determine whether it is true or not, and therefore any discussion about its correctness becomes irrelevant.
I also don't think it is necessary to give so much weight to the terms "science", "scientific testing". In the end -
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking - Albert Einstein
Therefore, to say about something that should have an expression in external reality - "it is impossible to test it scientifically" is equivalent to saying "it is impossible to test it" which is equivalent to saying - "it is impossible to know if it is true".
(We talked about "what it is to know" before here).
what do you think?
Can you give an example of a phenomenon that has an expression in the external world, but it is impossible, in principle, to investigate it with scientific tools?
And regarding such a phenomenon:
1) What exactly is the problem that prevents the ability to test it scientifically?
2) How can anyone know anything about this phenomenon in any other way?
for further reading:
Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?
Channeling, barbuzz and invisible dragons
News, strange claims and spilled minds
_______________________________
32 תגובות
Thank you Ernst, indeed the last time I looked in the mirror I saw that I had a human face. 🙂
I guess they don't mean that I'm not allowed to express opinions, heaven forbid, but only that I should express their opinions.
my father
In every article you will attach an affidavit, preferably with the signature of two witnesses in the presence of a lawyer, that you are a human being, not a computer.
Why do you ask ?. Because some readers complain that you are not objective and even imply
that you have your own views and opinions..
Barak, you should not underestimate the science site either. The articles get a very high ranking on Google (no foils - only good content) and people enter old articles every day.
Lightning,
I am aware of the problems you raise.
In my opinion, there are people who "swing". Such articles strengthen them to continue to adhere to the path of logic and not to the path of self-delusions. I hope. And if I saved one soul in Israel...
The very invention of such articles on the Internet, in Hebrew, contributes. You never know who came across it, and in what context.
I will continue to do what I can, and others are definitely welcome to join, each contributing in their own approach and style.
I think there are some problematic things in the article:
1) You are trying to convince the convinced - this is published in the science and not in Ynet for example
2) You cannot logically convince someone who consciously chooses not to think logically. He will not accept your argument, even if you point out to him a very serious internal contradiction in his beliefs.
He will ignore your arguments as he is able to live with all the internal contradictions in his beliefs which are more "on the ground" than your arguments.
3) You are trying to point out arguments that counter logical contradictions in the opponent's arguments, which I think is fundamentally wrong, any person who tries to undermine his basic beliefs immediately reacts with opposition and rejection, in my opinion scientists should spread the success stories of science, explain in detail successful scientific processes, and theories that were accepted in the world and were flowered after serial use of scientific tools. There will be less rejection against it, it will convince more people (even those who were not convinced before) and it is also more interesting in my opinion.
Take aim, the New Age era is really annoying, it is a modern form of idol medicine and I think that taking it out of the world is a very important goal.
In the brain and body of every living creature there is an extremely extensive activity that works automatically, and never stops. Of course this includes the nervous system in the brain and other parts of the body. In my opinion, there is no brain activity that is not affected by those automatic processes, even though it seems to us that our decisions can be devoid of emotions that are not related to the decision itself.
And so over the years those random emotional/material influences on thinking and feeling have been given a definition as subconscious activity, and it is true that it is really an uncontrolled, unconscious activity. But there is no connection whatsoever between her and the spiritual mind and mysticism.
Only a lifeless body can make a decision free of influences unrelated to the decision, and that is the computer.
Strange, I thought so too, but I didn't like to mention it, still professor 🙂
Now I understand... thanks for the clarification (:
And by the way, it sounds to me that a medical professor has a purely semantic problem with the term, and that his definition is the same lady with a change of mantle.
to Diogenes,
I meant the term subconscious as it is presented according to the psychoanalytic theory based on Sigmund Freud, because it is still a theory and not a fact and there are scientists who even deny the existence of a subconscious, such as Prof. Yaakov Rufa from Bar Ilan University, who claims that there are no layers of consciousness at all and that all psychoses are adaptations of an individual to an uncomfortable reality for him regardless of consciousness.
The connection to fate is actually very clear according to the example I gave, that the subconscious conveys opposite messages to the conscious, for example in relationships that always fail as a result of negative messages, coming from the subconscious and that cannot be controlled without an understanding of the root of the problem or psychological treatment
All of this causes (according to a spiritual interpretation of course) the victim to believe that this is his destiny and that everything he does in order to succeed comes to nothing and it is also possible to sail to the interpretation of the reward and punishment, etc...
Everything you said is valid, except for the last sentence: "There's really no logical explanation..." etc. There has been a lot of research on the subconscious mind and its influence on our behavior for over a century, starting with Freud's psychoanalysis which relates the environmental influences of the person to the subconscious (relationships with a parent, past traumas, etc.) and ending with the young evolutionary psychology which puts human behavior in a much broader perspective.
So it is true that there is still much to learn, but it is not true to say that "there is really no logical explanation".
And I didn't understand how it has to do with Lugoral and Karma.
I will give an example to simplify my words and also to strengthen your words that the subconscious behaves in a way that is contrary to our conscious:
For example, when we approach a job interview, even when we know on a conscious level that the job fits our skills and believe in our diligence, then if there is an inner voice that says that we do not deserve success and a good living - even if we conduct the interview in the best way,
There is a chance that the power of the subconscious will influence the interviewer and fail us in accepting the job.
Even people who experience repeated disappointments in relationships are sometimes influenced by the power of the subconscious that sends a message that they are not entitled to love and happiness.
There is really no logical explanation for all these phenomena and it gives a lot of interpretations to spiritual people: such as fate, the universal law of karma or reward and punishment according to Judaism.
from the sleepy summer,
I haven't gotten to the bottom of your mind as to your interpretation of autogestation and its relevance to the discussion. The subconscious does not *react* to our feelings and thoughts, there is a process of extremely complicated interrelationships between feelings, thoughts and the subconscious: one is affected by the other as the second is affected by the first. The process of assimilation can happen either actively (the assimilation of reflexes in people engaged in self-defense is a good example), or passively, i.e. everyday experiences that 'seep' into the subconscious.
It is true that the whole placebo field we have to believe that it will work in order for it to work (and it is true, even if we are not aware that we believe it). This disconnect between the conscious and the subconscious does exist, but it is infinitely more complicated and convoluted than the somewhat simplistic interpretation you gave.
This uncertainty in the unconscious part that exists in us, is a mystery that at the dawn of history fascinated believers in the mysteries of the human soul: from philosophers and different thinkers to believers from all ends of the different religions in the world and even well-known neuroscientists there marveled at the functioning of this mysterious entity.
This subconscious is a mysterious part of the soul. And it is beyond our voluntary control, it is difficult to deal with it because it does not accept logical dictates, and it does not even remind us of its existence.
from summer
The explanation about the subconscious is interesting, but it is not certain that it exists, even though they decided that it does, and even defined and analyzed it
its characteristics..
Our subconscious responds only to the nature of our thoughts and feelings, to our beliefs
that we embedded in it. That is, even if we believe or know something that is not true
Either it is not true or it is not possible and we believe it...
The subconscious will act to realize it even if it is not true!
L-Vick: Compares to you, and adds - you don't need brain research to know the effect of autogestation on ourselves. Each of us can sit in a circle and tell anecdotes about how a mother lifted a car to save her son, etc. The conclusion - placebo works! However, since we are not talking about fresh energies and dancing on a full moon night, but something tangible that can be tested and measured (the placebo effect), it can be concluded that our bodies and minds naturally produce the components we need for healing. If we manage to isolate what these processes are that lead to healing in patients who "have no reason to be healed", then we can, in turn, upgrade the world of medicine many times over and thus also finally put an end to all the money-grubbing and charlatanism under the auspices of holistic therapists.
Gilad, Danny and …….
When "something, unknown" is discovered, some take it to laboratories, and some associate it with facts.
And any attempt to bring back their "fact", for examination, consideration and criticism, is predestined for failure.
Since "laboratory people" pop up immediately, I wanted to ask you what your goal is in such a discussion?
There is a claim that the placebo effect is due to the fact that the patient feels that he is allowed to heal. Just like a sprinter nearing the finish line feels that he can speed up because he has no problem putting out more power towards the finish line and he knows that he will be able to cross it.
Science examines phenomena that we do not know how to explain and tries to find an explanation for them.
Imperfect measuring tools and still incomplete theories are what still allow a lack of knowledge in all kinds of fields such as brain research.
At the same time, there are areas in which it seems as if science does not have an answer and will not soon.
For example - the axioms. And why are they like this and not others? All human knowledge shows that they are true. Why? No one has an answer.
I do not believe in someone who will tell me stories about things that cannot be measured and then ask for a donation or alms.
There was a case at work where the employee listened to an admissions program in which they gave answers to people who were having a hard time. The "expert" of opening cards/coffee and other things and I opened my ears and listened. Our answers were the same except for the element of "holiness" and mystery.
Without solid proofs and such, Iztigenins of their kind have no right to exist and their livelihood from human hardships simply seems to me to be exploitation.
Danny, the publication here is simply a copy of what was published on the blog.
A long and fascinating discussion did develop. You are all welcome to read.
I answered there, and other people refined points.
I wasn't convinced by his claims, and I didn't get to the bottom of his mind.
Gilad, Amit answered you nicely in the original post.
http://sharpthinkingblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/%D7%90%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%96%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D/#comment-2350
But here you decided to ignore the contradictions he set for you.
First of all, I liked the essence of the points of disagreement with mysticism..
I think that the main and root of the problem is the 4th principle that you brought at the beginning of the article. Does the universe run according to absolute and fixed laws from time immemorial and forever
Or is it completely controlled and managed by entities and all the "laws" that science has discovered work because the entity decides that "this time too" they will work but if it wanted something completely different would have happened?
There is also a middle point, a universe with fixed laws but with beings more developed than us who know how to circumvent them...
Bottom line: you can't argue with anyone on the religious level. Faith always has a refuge, an excuse and an explanation for what actually happens. Faith is not a process that constantly checks itself like science.
Gilad, I wholeheartedly believe that it is possible to predict the future, and it is really inappropriate that in science they bring an article that claims that it is not possible, well yes it is possible, the problem is, and this is proven, that there is a sequence of random cosmic disruptions that severely damage the mystical environment and therefore the prophecies never come true.
Regarding the healing of diseases, and this is also tested, the healing of a disease and no matter what, is never the result of conventional medical treatment, and no matter if it is an injection, surgery or other treatment, the healing is always by the same mystical spiritual forces.
Today it is already clear and mostly tested, that there is a close connection, between prophecy and healing powers, every time the mystical powers heal a patient, the same known cosmic disruption (momentary lack of energy) is caused, which damages the global balance, and disrupts the fulfillment of the prophecies.
I will deal with the placebo issue soon. It is very complex, and not everything you think about is backed by evidence. The power of the placebo is limited.
Brain research is indeed in its infancy, but at least regarding the direct effect of thoughts on the environment - there is no evidence for the existence of such a possibility, whether we understand it or not - first of all, the existence of a phenomenon must be shown.
Hundreds of people were cured when medicine raised its hands, that says nothing about the reasons they were cured. Usually there is no connection to one or another sham treatment that they underwent at the time. Sometimes it is a wrong original diagnosis.
Even self-confident therapists can actually be deceiving themselves. Shouldn't it be worth making sure that medical treatments that have no grip on reality will not be given in any case (regardless of whether the therapist believes in them or not)?
I think you are forgetting something important..
One of the more obscure fields in science is the study of the brain. As far as I know, it is still not clear what the limits of mental capacity are - in its effect on the body, mind and even the immediate environment (if at all).
What we do know is the effect of "placebo" drugs, that they do "work".
And if those believers manage to be cured with the help of such and such treatments...why should we destroy them and refute their faith?!
There were hundreds of cases about people who managed to be cured of an illness when medicine raised its hands..so, why not?!.. 🙂
(and it is also desirable to limit this branch, so that there are as few charlatans as possible (with a determined forehead - not those who believe in themselves))
Peace,
Indeed, the respondents raised some rather elusive and difficult to measure issues here,
But the emphasis is on the second question: if this is the case, how can someone know something about this phenomenon in another way?
After all, all those enthusiasts of mysticism / New Age / alternative therapies claim that, based on their method, *yes* they can know things that scientifically cannot be investigated...
And here is the paradox.
For age
In medicine there is certainly a documented placebo effect. It may be theoretically possible to investigate its origin, but, at least in my opinion, it originates from within the patient. This is also, in my opinion, the reason why most supernatural theories deal with healing from diseases because the placebo effect, by virtue of which there is sometimes a cure or retreat in the disease, causes a cognitive bias of the healing ability that exists in the therapeutic method.
age,
You are mixing up some things here that relate to our inability to understand things
1) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is fundamental and not a measurement problem.
2) The reason it is not possible to know what happens at a singular point is that the equations that exist today accept infinite values under singularity conditions, although it is clear that they are not suitable to describe the situation and until there is no theory + new equations it will not be possible to calculate.
3) Regarding the pendulum, the problem is that its behavior is deterministic and chaotic. I want to say that it depends on the initial conditions. Although we have equations that accurately describe the movement, since it is impossible to measure the initial conditions with the required precision, the calculation fails to really predict its movement. This is similar to a coin thrown in the air. Although it behaves exactly according to the laws of physics, it exhibits pseudo-randomness, due to its chaotic behavior.
And one more thing…
About a year ago, the Income Tax conducted a raid on all kinds of self-proclaimed people, fortune-tellers and fortune-tellers. For some reason they failed to predict the raid... Does this say something from a scientific point of view about their prophetic ability?
What about quantum mechanics where every intervention of a detector changes the results? It's not exactly a principle, but a measurement problem, and still maybe the problem indicates a principle?
Or the measurement of what happens at the singular point of a black hole from which no information can escape. Again a problem with measuring devices and maybe a problem that indicates a principle?
And what about her pendulum movement has several joints and as far as I know is not predictable
I highly recommend visiting the blog of the author "Sharp Thinking".
A fascinating collection of eye-opening articles that teach what scientific critical thinking is.
WOW, this is one of the most delusional correspondences I've read... but Tefuz gives a wide platform to all of these, so no wonder...
You reminded me of a similar correspondence of mine with "Khodritbor" in the "Communication and Press" forum of "Tafoz" (click on each line to read the text):
http://www.tapuz.co.il/forums2008/viewmsg.aspx?forumid=391&messageid=162562939
I did it for fun. I knew that it was impossible to argue with believers (and it doesn't matter what they believe. As someone who grew up in an ultra-Orthodox society, this is completely clear to me).