tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post3193494311721620090..comments2024-02-09T18:16:45.614+00:00Comments on The Psy-Fi Blog: Science, Stocks and Superstitiontimarrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254802085744425067noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-79202122443941476532009-09-10T23:49:55.887+01:002009-09-10T23:49:55.887+01:00Hi
Maybe this conversation has moved on, but I'...Hi<br />Maybe this conversation has moved on, but I've only just found it...<br />I have a problem with all of the above arising from the simple fact that the term "supernatural" seems not to have been defined. I think it means "things which happen (or are alleged to happen) by means that are not currently explicable by science."<br />If you accept a definition of that sort, then you either have to accept that events commonly termed "supernatural" could indeed occur or you have to take the position that the only events remaining for science to investigate and explain are those with which it is already conventionally engaged (such as the less-than-obviously rational search for Higgs' boson). The second of these two options seems to involve an arbitrary limitation of scope - I can see no justification for it.<br />Science needs to accept the challenge of proceeding in either of two directions: (1) by starting with a theory that predicts a certain behaviour and seeing whether that behaviour actually occurs (2) by starting with an observed phenomenon and "explaining" it with maximal parsimony.<br />There is a subset of supernatural events which people find impossible to reproduce reliably. This may be because they do not occur. We cannot rule out, however, that these events might be real (or at least no less real than Higgs' boson) and that our difficulties in reproducing anything to study are part of the puzzle. This would in passing explain why so many of us have the subjective conviction that such things are in fact real - they happen, not very often, and we can't make them happen.<br /><br />For example, I could hallucinate an explanation why ESP is so difficult to reproduce, starting from the idea that human performance is largely state-dependent and observing that the appropriate state for high performance in ESP is probably not elicited by sitting the subject in a lab surrounded by strangers with white coats and clipboards. (Elves are notoriously geek-averse, you know). If something like that were the case, an experimental approach would not get off the ground until it had addressed the need to recreate an appropriate state in the "subject". It is not down to the subject to tell the exprimenter what the state is , nor how to elicit it. So many attempts at AI failed because they proceeded by rule-elicitation from experts, based on the assumption that experts used rules, and that they knew how to explain what they were. These assumptions are now thought to be false, although the experts' expertise did not fall into question along the way.<br /><br />Investigating hard-to-reproduce phenomena requires a very open-minded approach from the experimenters as to what exactly the nature of the experiment might have to be. I don't know for sure, but I doubt whether much, if any, of the investigation of "supernatural" things proceeds in that way.<br /><br />In the meantime we are left with something worryingly like the average IT Helpdesk approach to most PC problems. We have no idea whether the problem as reported ever existed, but since they rebooted and it went away, we can (sort of) happily ignore it - until next time.Jameshttp://www.personalbest.ltd.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-22126246613139271552009-09-02T02:23:52.844+01:002009-09-02T02:23:52.844+01:001) I never stated that the supernatural explanatio...1) I never stated that the supernatural explanation is correct, but since nothing existed before the big bang <br /><br />- don't know that<br /><br /><br />a natural explanation is simply not in the cards. <br /><br />- again, who knows - a natural explanation may exist that we'll never understand, discover, explain...<br /><br /><br /><br />The only other option is that the universe is uncaused. <br /><br />- why not?<br /><br /> <br /><br />As for 3, evolution builds upon a replicating mutator and deals nothing with origins. <br /><br />origins for biological replication? how about amino acids?<br /><br /><br /><br />Point 4 is also quite weak. To say we co-evolved objective morals is equivalent to saying objective morals don't exist. <br /><br />don't think it's equivalent. <br /><br />If that is the case Hitler's Germany was fully justified in their campaign. <br /><br />what you're saying doesn't make sense to me. <br /><br />If rationality has evolved (as ilene presupposes) how can you trust it? That would make science futile. <br /><br />the idea would be not to trust your "rationality" - which is not what science is based on. <br /><br />Personal biases ruin good people.<br /><br />Agreed.ilenehttp://www.philstockworld.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-81184662206355412572009-09-01T22:33:30.876+01:002009-09-01T22:33:30.876+01:00Some more comments
1) I never stated that the sup...Some more comments<br /><br />1) I never stated that the supernatural explanation is correct, but since nothing existed before the big bang a natural explanation is simply not in the cards. The only other option is that the universe is uncaused. The question then becomes what is the best explanation. <br /><br />As for 2 I agree it's a weak point. As for 3, evolution builds upon a replicating mutator and deals nothing with origins. Point 4 is also quite weak. To say we co-evolved objective morals is equivalent to saying objective morals don't exist. If that is the case Hitler's Germany was fully justified in their campaign. <br /><br />My argument was that we as humans naturally dismiss evidence simply because of our egotistical bias. Thus weather you think your right or not, the four points I listed above do make a decent case for the supernatural. <br /><br />If rationality has evolved (as ilene presupposes) how can you trust it? That would make science futile. <br /><br />Personal biases ruin good people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-55689815978390314212009-09-01T17:50:45.003+01:002009-09-01T17:50:45.003+01:00A few quick comments in response to the above argu...A few quick comments in response to the above arguments:<br /><br />1. the argument that because science can't explain something (yet) doesn't suggest that a supernatural explanation is correct. <br />a. initial and final states - our brains measure time linearly but there may be no initial and final states, e.g., the way our brains process information limits our ability to understand way more than we think we know.<br /><br />2-4. generally agree with Tim <br /><br />My comment: The irrationality that is a core human trait may have to do with vastly more years spent in the evolutionary process of brain development that came before the newer part of the brain that has capacity for some level of rationality (but still very hard to silence the more powerful input of our irrational selves...) <br /><br />Ilene <br />at www.philstockworld.comilenehttp://www.philstockworld.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-13316696875227655852009-08-31T19:47:23.732+01:002009-08-31T19:47:23.732+01:00Hi Kevin
Terrific response. But, since you insis...Hi Kevin<br /><br />Terrific response. But, since you insist :)<br /><br />1. Science can’t answer questions beyond the limits of the universe – before the Big Bang for instance. It doesn’t deal in initial or final states. That’s why most scientists are agnostic, not atheistic. <br />2. The fine tuning of the universe can be explained by a Creator or by the possibility of an infinite number of universes of which we happen to live in the right one. Occam’s Razor cuts both ways. <br />3. DNA might look like design but the nerve paths in a giraffe’s neck suggest otherwise. The existence of long, random and useless parts of the genome indicate random mutation not deliberate intervention.<br />4. Objective morality is based on co-evolution of social traits not design. It’s only objective from our subjective human position.<br /><br />From a scientific viewpoint I think the weak point could be 2. By which I mean that I can conceive of a scientific, testable hypothesis that might prove this one way or another. <br /><br />Much of this depends on whether you believe science is just one way of looking at the universe or the only way of doing so. I think there are more things in the universe than science, but I’d never fly in a plane designed by an artist.timarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06254802085744425067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-15792894101279607432009-08-31T19:19:15.882+01:002009-08-31T19:19:15.882+01:00I would dispute any argument that the supernatural...<i>I would dispute any argument that the supernatural is real</i><br /><br />I would like you to dispute the following arguments for the Supernatural:<br /><br />1) What is the cause for the universe/big bang? <br />2) Fine-tuning of the cosmos for life on earth. Mathematically the odds look very good for a supernatural mind.<br />3) DNA – It definitely looks like design. Wouldn’t a rational person be perfectly reasonable to conclude that humans were designed? Why does science run in the opposite direction despite the obvious evidence? (The answer, I believe, leads to the next argument)<br />4) Moral argument. What is the basis for objective morality?<br /><br />Science is constantly equated to being intellectual, yet when presented with the arguments listed above science runs in the opposite direction. Why not rule out the obvious first, that being a supernatural mind/creator? That said, I don’t know of any way we can examine or observe the supernatural since science can only examine the natural world. On the other hand, that doesn’t allow us to rule out the possibility of the supernatural because we lack the methodology.<br /><br />Our personal biases are the greatest hindrance to determining almost anything. Unless a person is willing to admit they are/were wrong more than they are/were right they will be ruled by their personal biases. That is why a person will act irrationally in the face of overwhelming evidence, because they still believe they are right. <br /><br />For me, the first step of critical thinking is to look long and hard at all information that is contrary to your beliefs. If you can’t find any you haven’t begun the process. (This is perhaps Rob's point above)<br /><br />Interesting blog...<br />KevinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-11952423243525878342009-08-31T19:10:41.097+01:002009-08-31T19:10:41.097+01:00There's a vast amount of data, especially arou...<i>There's a vast amount of data, especially around mutual fund flows, that shows that most people get their investment timing hopelessly wrong so it's clearly the case that timing doesn't work for these people. </i><br /><br />Thanks for your kind words, Timarr.<br /><br />My view is that the reason why this is so is that most "experts" say that timing doesn't work. If we would all drop the "timing doesn't work" stuff and spend our efforts explaining what kinds of timing work and what kinds don't work, just about everyone would be able to time effectively.<br /><br />The claim that "timing doesn't work" is circular. Few know how to time effectively today because it is only a small number of "experts" who dare to talk about the realities. But if you ask why more don't talk about the realities, the response you get is "Well, there's no point in doing so because we know that most are not today able to time effectively."<br /><br />People don't know how to time because we don't tell them! If we told them, the "studies" would tell a very different story.<br /><br />RobRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-54554488879784640072009-08-31T16:24:48.608+01:002009-08-31T16:24:48.608+01:00Hi Rob
An insightful comment, as usual. You'...Hi Rob<br /><br />An insightful comment, as usual. You're correct, I think, that I've rather begged the question. However, I would dispute any argument that the supernatural is real - unless by this you're making some kind of post-modern deconstructionist all realities are equally valid type of comment. Which, of course, would be equally non-scientific and equally begging the question.<br /><br />As a scientist I'd love it if some of paranormal or supernatural phenomena turned out to be true. But as Carl Sagan explained in his masterly "The Demon Haunted World" when tested under controlled conditions every instance of supernatural behaviour has so far failed to be substantiated. So I don't personally presume this, even if the article does.<br /><br />The analogy with beliefs about investment timing is stretched, I judge. There's a vast amount of data, especially around mutual fund flows, that shows that most people get their investment timing hopelessly wrong so it's clearly the case that timing doesn't work for these people. If the point is that timing can be made to work for everyone, all the time, then you're somehow suggesting that everyone can conquer their involuntary biases. I doubt that. On the other hand if you mean that the small set of people who can come to grips with the psychological demons within can vastly improve their investment timing and performance then I'd agree. However, the rest of us should avoid the issue and invest long-term and passively.timarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06254802085744425067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366878066073177705.post-91142190804911009382009-08-31T15:04:32.564+01:002009-08-31T15:04:32.564+01:00even highly educated people often believe in the s...<i>even highly educated people often believe in the supernatural: this doesn’t make much sense unless it’s somehow built into the fabric of our beings.</i><br /><br />This is a fine article. You dig deep. That's what we need to do to come up with good answers to the puzzles of investing.<br /><br />I question the statement quoted above. There is an assumption inherent in it that nixes the point supposedly being made.<br /><br />Could it not be that many highly educated people believe in the supernatural because the supernatural is <i>real?</i> It sure seems so to me.<br /><br />If you presume that the supernatural is not real, you head down one path in all your subsequent thinking. If you presume that the supernatural is not real, you head down another path. The conclusions all logically follow from the premises. But they are not necessarily accurate. The "findings" were determined at the moment the premise was elected.<br /><br />I see this in investing all the time. People who believe that timing doesn't work will go into these long convoluted arguments "showing" that their belief is the right one. But if you check you see that the hidden premise that they started with is that timing doesn't work. What a surprise that their "investigations" ended up showing that!<br /><br />We're idiots, babe. It's a wonder we can even feed ourselves.<br /><br />Bob Dylan said that.<br /><br />RobRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comnoreply@blogger.com