ooooooooooooooou!
The fairies and woodnymphs are gonna knock jab1 dead dead dead!
All winning streaks must end some day. All losing streaks must end some day. Why? The Laws of Probability. Let the Yanks and the Sox play another thousand years and maybe their records will become more even! Also, even the best players need a great manager. Who were the Red Sox managers? Who were the Yankee managers in that same time span?
I realize you were joking, but there may be an answer: The scheduling.
Though it doesn’t explain why the Red Sox didn’t succeed since they played the same crappy American League teams the Yankees did. Maybe it’s the ballparks. Maybe it’s Boston’s colder climate. Maybe it’s baked beans. Maybe it’s a combination of many things.
Bill Buckner fucked up because both his ankles were hurting?
Nope, that inning was much more than that. Three consecutive batters for the Mets were within one strike of losing the game and he Series entirely. They managed to foul off about 11 times, got 4 balls called and one wild pitch in between the hits. That was 16 chances of one final strike going through before the Buckner error. I don’t think there was any set of circumstances like that happening before in any baseball game.
*Originally posted by JohnnyIsGood *
No, maybe because you don’t know what the meanings are of words you use every day. People are ruining a perfectly nice Pit Thread with idiocy. Perhaps you should get a dictionary, and learn a few things about our language.
In other words, most people have no idea how most of the things they use in every day life really work. From the microwave, to the TV, they simply assume that someone else knows how it works. And that’s enough faith for them.
or how about this:
Now true, it goes on to talk about religion specifically, but it mentions science as well. Nobody has the time to go back and verify every single assumption they make. If a scientist had to re-perform the experiments that led to the pricipals he uses every day, he wouldn’t have time to learn anything new. So he takes it on faith that those “laws” are actually correct.
This is a perfect example of the arrogance I was talking about. You take **one ** definition of the word, and assume that it’s the only definition there is. That’s like saying that since 5 + 5 = 10, the only way of adding two number together to get 10 is 5 + 5. Just because you have one answer to a problem, doesn’t mean there aren’t other answers that are equally valid.
goboy–
Just a few comments on your replies…more later when I don’t have so much work to catch up on.
Then how can “science” demand proof for something outside it’s domain? In other words, how can I prove something to “science” if it’s not something that can be weighed and measured? If science lacks even the tools to measure things like faith, courage, bravery, or belief, how then can it state that these things do not exist? Are we, as a society, stating that if something cannot be quantitatively measured and tested, then it doesn’t exist? Love? Hate? Greed? Envy? Is there a scientific test for love? A way to check the amount of hate in a person, to stem it before it consumes them? Or are you saying that none of these things has an actual physical affect on the world?
I’ll grant you this…to an extent. However, realistically, how easy do you think it would be to get a job researching different methods to achieve telepathy? Do you honestly think that large grants would be made to a scientist studying something like that? Not to mention the problem of where to go to get a degree that would allow you enough prestige to even get your foot in the door. Look at the skepticism right here on this board. Do you really think that any type of serious research into the paranormal could be done that wasn’t simply a repetition of previous viewpoints?
The problem with that, I believe, is that as an observer, you’ll carry your own opinions with you into the test. If you can’t even conceive of another way of doing things, or of something that cannot **by it’s nature ** be measured, how can you be opened minded about it’s existence.
Take the blind race example that I gave before. If you have a race of totally blind people, and periodically, there are born individuals that can perceive color, how could that be measured? Or tested? And since it was something totally foreign to their worldview, it’s doubtful that any two would describe it exactly the same way. “Bingo”, they can’t even agree with each other on what it looks like, it must not exist. There is no such thing as color.
Do you see my point? I’m not saying that these things do exist as a measurable item. I am open to the idea of their existence, and acknowledge the fact that I can neither prove, **nor disprove ** them.
You’re right. It’s extremely unlikely that that set of circumstances will ever happen again. However, it’s very likely that that set of circumstances will happen at least once, especially when you consider how many major league games have been played in the last 100+ years.
It’s like a state lottery: It’s very unlikely that you will win the big prize. However, it’s very likely that someone will, eventually.
Every question has just one correct answer. The only correct answer to the question “What is 5+5?” is “10.” The correct answer to the question “What does the word faith mean?” begins “The word faith has many definitions, depending on the context…”
It can’t. It shouldn’t. It doesn’t.
It’s never claimed that things you listed do not exist.
First, one has to establish that telepathy truly exists. Before we could figure out how to generate electricity, we had to establish that electricity existed.
I can imagine a lot of ways of doing things. Unfortunately, a lot of them would not work. (Flying by flapping my arms, for example. Making it rain by dancing around a camp-fire for another. Throwing salt over my shoulder to ward off evil for yet another.)
What the fuck? Einstein says “There are only two things I’m sure of…”, but you’ve got your worldview so defined that you can make observations such as “Every question has just one correct answer?”
Does it ever occur to you that there’s almost nothing we know that is certainly correct, yet alone the only correct answer.
Interestingly, that will hold true if, and only if, you believe, on faith, that Peano’s Induction Axiom is true, i.e.,
{F(1) & (Am)[F(m)—>F(m+1)]}—>(An)F(n)
or
(AF){F(1) & (Am)[F(m)—>F(m+1)]—>(An)F(n)}.
- Originally posted by jab1 *
So you admit that there are things that you know about that exist that can’t be measured scientifically? Then are you also open to the possibility of things that you don’t know about that can’t be measured can exist?
Lib, if I were to place five quarters in one hand and five quarters in the other and ask you, “How many quarters are you holding in your hands?” what would your answer be?
If your answer is anything other than “10,” I will conclude that you don’t know how to count.
Abstract concepts like faith, courage, bravery and belief cannot be measured scientifically. Concrete things can be measured and to a high degree of accuracy. If magic (I refuse to spell magic with a “k”) truly existed, it would be a concrete thing that can be tested and measured scientifically like the strength of the Earth’s gravity or electrical voltage or the size of a dinosaur bone or the number of flies in a glass jar or…
Surely you see the difference now?
Look, it’s quite simple:
Person A says “I can do magic!”
Person B says “Okay, do some magic now.”
Person A says “No, I can’t do it now; my aura isn’t right.”
Person B says “Fine. You’re BS-ing.”
The scientific method shows that things occur the same way every time a particular process is followed. If you put a pan of water on a stove and crank up the heat, the water will boil off and disappear. Doesn’t matter who does the experiment; if the same procedure is followed every time, the same results will occur every time.
Because much of magic (as perceived by the general public) involves breaking natural laws, it leaves practitioners open to the charge of “fraud” if they claim the magic is real. I’m not saying I want to be able to actually make someone levitate or read another’s mind, but anyone who claims they can actually do these things is gonna have to prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. That means doing the magic over and over and over, under controlled conditions, until I’m sure there’s no trickery involved. Then I’ll concede that yep, you’re breaking natural laws, and so you’re doing magic. Until then, it’s smoke and mirrors.
Every other major scientific discovery has gone through the same process of experimentation. In many cases, the people who made the initial claims were ridiculed and derided until their hypothesis was proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why should proving the existence of magic be any different?
The difference here is that we know where things like bravery, courgage, etc, come from. We just do not know exactly how these processes occur. Once we understand the brain better, (I.e have it mapped further)we can delve into the psychological reasonings of why these things are natural processes. There is nothing magical about courage or bravery. Only to a person totally ignorant of these things may they seem mystical or miraculous.
C’mon, what has that got to do with “stupid fucks who believe in magic”? Somehow I doubt a spell was used to design that TV set…
First I think that is too broad as a definition, “that which is believed on any subject”. Even then, my problem is you took definition 4 to make a point about definition 1. That is to say, if people don’t know how a TV works but rely on someone who has the knowledge through study and science (4), how can they doubt magic (1)?
jab1, let’s say I give you a piece of paper that has a perfect circle, a perfect square, an equilateral triangle, and a rectangle on it and I ask, “Which one doesn’t belong in the set?”
There is more than one answer to this question.
The circle doesn’t belong because it has no edges.
The triangle doesn’t belong because it’s angles don’t add up to 360 degrees.
I’m sure reasons could be made for why the square and rectangle don’t belong, but this is so much easier when it can be actually drawn instead of described.
As jab1 indicated in his post the one correct answer is: “There are several criteria possible when analyzing that question and the results would vary as follows…”
I don’t agree with what he said but that is how he said it. For him to be correct, in my opinion, requires a stretching of the definition of “one correct answer” to a degree similar to defining “magick” such that just about anything qualifies.
Okay, Jab, so math and its history is not your strong point. No problem. Maybe you think ignorance only matters with regard to the things you know.
So, if you don’t know how to prove that 5 + 5 = 10, and you don’t know that the Induction Axiom is required to prove it, that’s okay. Your ignorance is not something bad like the ignorance of the people you nag and taunt, now is it?
Yeah, as Rodney Dangerfield would say, “Looks good on you!” 
I do see you’re point. However, I believe you’re missing mine. You’re so caught up in the “throw fire from your ass” ideal of “magic” that you’re missing what a lot of people here have said. If someone chants a spell (or whatever they do) to bring luck and good fortune on themselves, how do you measure that? As I said before, if I relate things that have happened in ** my ** life that I attribute to “divine intervention”, then you’ll simply scoff it off as “luck”. But you admitted that abstract things cannot be measured by science, how then can you either prove, or **disprove ** the existence of magic?
For example, suppose in my mind I defined science and technology as the ability to…I don’t know, let’s pick something…umm…walk on the sun. Now you may say that that’s a totally unreasonable expectation. Doesn’t matter. If that is the way I define it in my own mind, how can you prove that science and technology exist?
Excellent point. And I really don’t have an argument to rebut it. But let me make this statement. While I personally don’t believe that there’s anyone out there that’s floating in the air by the power of their minds, or moving books across the room. I do admit to these thing being possible. I believe that we understand so little about our own minds, that there are many things that are possible, but mearly undeveloped. Take insight for example. Have you ever been able to look at the way a person is sitting, or looking at something, and knew what they were thinking about? Or having a conversation with someone…you make a comment, and you can judge by their expression, what their response will be? I know I have…Now I know that part of what’s happening is that I’m reading their body language and other little clues, to reach a conclusion. But if we don’t know how things like hate, greed, love, or insight work, how can you rule out the existence of other “abilities” that may exist. While we’re doing a great job of mapping the human body, and exploring how things work mechanically, without looking at how are minds work from a different perspective, (say meditation), I don’t think we’ll ever realize the potential that we have.
I was watching a program the other night about contortionist(sp?). And they said that while not every person can bend themselves in knots, or crawl into a 2’x2’ box, most people could have a range of flexibility far greater than they currently posses. But those stretching exercises have to be started at a fairly young age, and kept up throughout your life. While I don’t think that everyone could run the mile in under 4 minutes, most people do have the ability to run a good distance, at a good pace. Everyone just doesn’t pursue that ability of their own bodies. Now these are just physical traits of our bodies, what about the other things that we don’t understand. If we knew exactly how certain people are able to make those great leaps in logic, those insightful glances that lead them to greater understanding, or allow them to overcome a hurdle of research, perhaps that’s something that we could foster and develop. Then maybe something like “mind-reading” won’t be “magical”, simply “insightful”
Do we? We understand that they are functions of the brain, and we know certain things that may cause these traits to occur, but I think that’s a far cry from saying that we know where they come from.
Correct, and that’s my point. If you take on faith every day that things exist that you (generic you) don’t really understand. Then I believe that you should be open to at least the possibility of other …“forces” that we may not be able to test and measure with our current methods. I’m ** not ** saying that I think you’re going to find a group of fairies dancing in a mushroom circle under a full moon. Or that I can go down to the occult book store and by me an instruction manual for creating a flying carpet. What I am stating is that I personally believe that we as a society are far to arrogant in are assumptions about the nature of the universe. I would be far happier if people would say “This is not possible, based upon are current understanding of the laws of nature”, instead of “This is not possible at all”. Do you see the difference between the two statements? One of them at least admits to the possibility that we don’t know everything, while the other says that because we can’t measure, test, and evaluate it today, then it can’t exist.
This is exactly the position I take. It would tickle me no end to discover that certain people could do magic. But until they prove they can do it under controlled conditions, repeating the same effects time after time, then I’m gonna think they’re doing trickery, not magic.
I’m a practical person. Let me tell you a story (which may be apocryphal, but the underlying philosophy still holds true):
Edison was trying to perfect the light bulb and he told one of his assistants that he needed to know the volume of the bulb so they’d know how much air needed to be pumped out to achieve a near-vacuum. After that, Edison went to lunch.
Upon his return, Edison was suprised and angry to discover that his assistant was still working on the problem. Not only that, he had asked for help and none of the others had figured out how to solve the problem either. They were trying to figure out the interior dimensions of the bule by measuring it and using these dimensions to calculate the volume of the bulb. But the bulb shape was complex and they couldn’t figure out how to use the data.
Angrily (and Edison was famous for his anger), Edison took the bulb and filled it with tap water, then poured the water into a measured beaker.
If I want to prove 5+5=10, I’m gonna count two groups of five items. Granted, this would be difficult with much larger numbers, but let’s save the proofs for when we really need them.
Another point: 5+5=10 even if you can’t prove why. Numbers are objective, not subjective. 5 is 5 everywhere.