A 'Fortean' Subject Of Which You're 100% Convinced

[Fats_Tuesday]

You're welcome to all these beliefs you express, but they are merely your own form of religion, so will be regarded as bizarre by most people, myself included.

There is absolutely no evidence for dinosaurs coexisting with humans, and much evidence that their existences are separated by millions of years.

Radiocarbon dating is only one of several dating techniques and is only useful for dating objects up to 60,000 years old, so is irrelevant to examining dinosaurs and older remains. But whilst you're on carbon dating, care to explain what your problem is with it, rather than just writing it off with belief?

The fossil record alone makes the likeliness of this dinosaur claim at least to be so infinitessimally small as to be not worthy of serious scientific consideration.

Be very careful when using the coelacanth as an example. The discovery of the coelacanth in the 20th century is often portrayed as a rediscovery of a creature which vanished from the fossil record at the end of the Cretaceous, but this is misleading and inaccurate.

We have never found any fossils of the extant coelacanth species at all, as deep water animals rarely generate fossils that we gain access to. Most fossils we find of water creatures were formed in shallow seas, as these rocks are far more likely to reach the surface through geological activity.

All the fossils of coelacanth we have are from extinct species, which look to have inhabited shallow waters, whilst the extant species are deep water fish, hence their absence in the fossil record.

 

[PeniG]

Mr. Ford knows people will think it's bizarre - he says right up front that he's expecting strange looks. I think it's brave to post about believing things that are so far off the beaten path, especially given how prone people have been to picking on each other around here lately.

Living, as I do, in the midst of people who believe equally bizarre things on evidence that wouldn't hang a dog (frequently amounting to "my parents said"), I don't find any of these beliefs especially out-of-the-way. We're all convinced, or not, based not only on the evidence but on our own experience, our sources, and our capacity to understand what is presented to us, and we all take certain things on faith because nobody can investigate everything and still have time to live. Although carbon dating is explained in almost every archeology or paleontology book I read, I can't retain the way it works worth beans, so I take that on faith, because of the way I see it used and the people I see using it. That it's still in the process of refinement doesn't upset me because I don't require perfection, just improvement over time.

This is not just a matter of my lay ignorance, either. This weekend I heard an archeologist I respect very much dismissing genetic evidence as flawed and stating his firm belief that the Texas Longhorn is descended from the aurochs on the basis of species morphology. I prefer the opinion of the project's paleontologist on the matter, but I understand - and so does she - that he finds cave paintings more convincing than genetic data and there's room in the field for disagreement. After all, our genetic knowledge is growing exponentially and will need refining over time. Eventually, some consensus will probably be reached.

I wouldn't be able to follow a technical discussion of the issues, but I am curious, Mr. Ford, as whether other dating methods, such as potassium-argon and thermoluminescence, also seem to you flawed enough to be invalid? The arguments against all scientific dating procedures that I have heard from Christian Fundamentalists who advocate young-earth creationism are all based on a misunderstanding of how these dates are cross-checked and a blithe refusal to look at advances in the field, but I presume you are on sounder ground than that.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

But I really don't understand how anybody could choose to throw their weight of belief into something they don't understand or have insufficient evidence for.

If I don't understand an issue or don't have all the facts, I don't assign arbitrary belief. I just admit I don't know.

I find the question in the title of this thread puzzling. How can anyone be 100% certain about any unproven phenomenon? If someone asks me "do you believe in ghosts?" I have to answer no. I'm not discounting their existence at all. I just don't need to throw belief in their existence into the equation to investigate the phenomenon. All I know is that there is a phenomenon of people reporting ghost sightings. Whether there is something physical, psychological, sociological or supernatural at the root, all I can say is I don't know until I have all the facts.

Scientific scepticism is the only healthy intellectual stance to avoid prejudice and bias when examining phenomena. Don't forget, "lack of belief" absolutely does not equal "belief in lack".

Mr Ford says earlier on that "I believe without a shadow of a doubt in the Ancient Astronaut Theory " Even if there was good evidence for this theory, why would you remove your healthy shadow of a doubt, which allows you to be proven wrong and change your mind? That implies you can never be shaken in your effectively religious faith on the matter. I can't see how this is a useful or helpful position to take on anything. Even the most entrenched scientific theory is set up to be knocked down by the first piece of evidence that disproves it.

 

[Beakmoo]

I've come to realise that most people really do need to believe something. I don't understand this myself; I'm perfectly happy just to not know. But the average human has a deep psychological need to think that everything has to happen for a reason that they can understand. I actually remember as a child having a conversation with family members and realising that I must be missing the religious part of my brain or something. What a relief to grow up and realise I was just a Fortean all along!

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Absolutely agree beakboo. I've had the same feeling with girlfriends and family memeber who came up with the old gem "but you have to believe in something!" as a way of justifying religion. Why exactly? I've never felt the need at all myself to hold unsupported beliefs, and I live a perfectly happy little existence.

 

[colpepper1]

Scientific scepticism is the only healthy intellectual stance to avoid prejudice and bias when examining phenomena.

I'm not sure what healthy means in this context but I guess it's 'resorting to the favoured model' or something like that. The only unusual factor is Mr Ford appears to belong to a modern democracy where such beliefs are in a minority, if he was an Amazonian villager we would (hopefully) not dismiss him as an ignorant fool. I feel no need to judge the validity of his notions and compare them to a dominant hegemony and am always mildly shocked when others do.
There may be something in what he says, I find it only moderately likely but within its own terms its reasonably consistent. It's based heavily on beliefs rather than evidence but so far as I can see there's nothing contradictory or oxymoronic about it.

 

[colpepper1]

realising that I must be missing the religious part of my brain or something.

It may be meant flippantly but there's a serious point there. I'm increasingly convinced the subject is divided into those who believe human beings are capable of absolute objectivity and those who don't. AOs don't see the irony of belief entering their daily life in numerous ways but claim it's based purely on experiential factors, without sentiment or predisposition, while believers are prone to allow non-provable beliefs - even possible or likely ones - to let increasingly unlikely ones invade their mindset.

Deductive reasoning, when taken to its conclusion and applied to all daily processes, can resemble autism. It may be completely logical for the individual to pursue the goal of objectivity but it puts them outside group currency. One can only conclude that society applies logic unevenly and to expect it of anyone is itself, unreasonable.
Which is a round about way of saying live and let live.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I'm increasingly convinced the subject is divided into those who believe human beings are capable of absolute objectivity and those who don't.

Science is the only tool which has predictive power over the world around us with actual reproducible results, unlike the fantasy of belief. I realise I'm constrained to some extent by my own senses and mental capabilities, and do not believe I will ever achieve absolute objectivity, but I certainly see it as an ideal.

There is clearly an objective reality out there which holds many secrets beyond our current understanding, and possibly beyond our understanding for eternity, and pursuing knowledge of this objectively is more useful than simply making up random beliefs to explain away events we don't understand.

I really wouldn't want to share a taxi with someone who actually ignores objective evidence in favour of contradictory self-held beliefs. I find it profoundly intellectually dishonest and such people are incapable of rational debate, as evidenced by the creationists and their ilk. We wouldn't get very far with civil law, ethics and scientific progress if we somehow held the two approaches as holding equivalent value.

 

[colpepper1]

as evidenced by the creationists and their ilk.

Personally speaking, I think creationism is hogwash. That still leaves a stack of repeated occurances and anomalies that have a consistency about them but are inexplicable. To say 'I don't believe because I haven't experienced it' is an honourable position. To say 'it can't exist because I haven't seen it' is simple prejudice.

Science may yet prove the key that unpicks these mysteries, then again science (or our understanding of it) may be entirely orthogonal to the forces at work. Saying there's no forces and no work is purely a matter of opinion.
A lot of the time religions seem like metaphors, half remembered metaphors at that, for explaining fundamental truths which is why I go easy on them. Few people are on a witch hunt against poetry or consider it lies but religion is being subject to a scientific method and found wanting. Should religion be seen entirely as imps planting fossils like whoopee cushions, or the wisdom and sexiness of the Song of Songs? I don't see creationism and religion as the same thing at all, and that's not meally mouthed prevarication.
In a similar way spooks can't exist but they seem to because I've seen something that fits the bill. If somebody has an explanation that feels better than you were tired, neurotic or lying, I'm all ears. Once that zoo door opens nothing ever seems quite the same.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Cool that you've seen a ghost! Being a Fortean sceptic, I'd love nothing more than to see one. That obviously places you in a different position to me, as you have personal experience. If that happened to me, I'd probably quit my job and become a ghost hunter.

Of course the flipside is I can't take your claim at face value, and I can't personally yet rule out that you are lying or you were hallucinating or misinterpreting something, as those would be naturalistic explanations, and would certainly be the most probable explanation. That's just objectivity at work. Of course, it's also entirely possible you did experience something outside our current understanding, so I'm not ruling anything out at all. Again, all I can truly say is that I don't know what happened to you.

To me, with my own lack of ghostly experiences and the available evidence, ghost story telling appears most likely at present to be a sociological phenomenon; a kind of benign lying involved in social bonding. I hope my own theory is proved wrong though, as a new phenomenon which laid outside our current knowledge of physics would certainly provide a more interesting scenario, and would expand our knowledge of how the universe works.

I'll just have to keep hoping to have such an experience myself or at least hoping that some supporting evidence is obtained for a genuine non-psychological phenomenon.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

... That's just objectivity at work. Of course, ...

No. That's actually just you, attempting to be objective, 'Objectivity' is not something free standing and autonomous. It is an activity. Something people do, or at least attempt to do, like marathon running, or mountain climbing, only more cerebral. Or, like chess, only with more variables, possible moves and squares.

Some may cast up an idol, name it 'Objectivity' and worship at the foot of its plinth. But, others know that its apparent simplicity hides eldritch horrors.

As old HPL once wrote: 'Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal...'

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I disagree. Objectivity is free standing. If you see a cliff ahead, you don't not walk off the edge because of belief. You don't do so, because of objective evidence that to do so could be painful.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I disagree. Objectivity is free standing. If you see a cliff ahead, you don't not walk off the edge because of belief. You don't do so, because of objective evidence that to do so could be painful.

That's not 'objective evidence,' that's surmise and conjecture. You may be right, stepping off the cliff might well be dangerous, but you're the one doing the reasoning, not some abstract concept, like 'objectivity.'

 

[UsedtobChrisFord]

My problem with radiometric dating is the scientific communities belief that what they are seeing is a constant. I'll use radiocarbon dating as an example. Carbon isotope 14 has a half-life of approx. 5500 years. The only way science knows this is by measuring how much it deteriorates in the lab or testing it against samples with a known calendar date. This doesn't take into consideration outlying factors such as an unforeseen influx of carbon14 or an unexpected acceleration of the deterioration of the atoms themselves.

I can measure the speed of a kangaroo by timing it in the last 4 inches of its hop but wouldn't I get a better representation by timing it as it hopped down a 100 meter straightaway?

Mr Ford says earlier on that "I believe without a shadow of a doubt in the Ancient Astronaut Theory " Even if there was good evidence for this theory, why would you remove your healthy shadow of a doubt, which allows you to be proven wrong and change your mind? That implies you can never be shaken in your effectively religious faith on the matter. I can't see how this is a useful or helpful position to take on anything. Even the most entrenched scientific theory is set up to be knocked down by the first piece of evidence that disproves it.

Yes, I will admit, my belief structure is more or less a religion. As for good evidence, it would take "God" himself to appear before me, prove his omnipotence/omnipresence and tell me that "aliens" did not jumpstart the human race and that the bible is his word.

 

[rynner2]

My problem with radiometric dating is the scientific communities belief that what they are seeing is a constant.

This is plain wrong, I'm afraid. Science is well aware of variations in C14 production, and there is continuing research to refine the calibration, allowing for natural variations and even man-made ones. See (eg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating#Calibration

The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I disagree. Objectivity is free standing. If you see a cliff ahead, you don't not walk off the edge because of belief. You don't do so, because of objective evidence that to do so could be painful.

That's not 'objective evidence,' that's surmise and conjecture. You may be right, stepping off the cliff might well be dangerous, but you're the one doing the reasoning, not some abstract concept, like 'objectivity.'

It is objective, because if you look at animal behaviour, their instincts and senses also attune them to the same objective reality. Natural selection has selected that only those that don't walk off cliffs will survive and reproduce. Objectivity just means the results are reproducable independantly of the observer.

If we run an experiment that produces the same set of results or at least a good statistical correlation repeatedly, with controls, independant of the actual experimenter's thoughts, that will obviously give a clearer picture of how the universe works than just making up fanciful beliefs to explain away what we don't understand.

I really can't see what your point is you are trying to make. If you think following objective reasoning is akin to a religion, I really wouldn't want you defending me in a court of law or trying to cure disease. I'd probably end up being burnt as a witch or dying from blood poisoning after my blood letting, whichever took me first.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Instincts, I realised the other day that I'd forgotten how important instinct is and does indeed play a big part in not stepping off cliffs. There seems to be a natural inbuilt fear of heights, which is not an intellectual, or reasoned thing. Like a fear of spiders, or snakes. Not at all an 'Objective' thing, much more on a visceral gut instinct level.

However, when you refer to an outside, 'Objective Reality' that does not mean the same thing as ' Objectivity.' I'd also refer you to the fact that Reason and Science have increasingly questioned the nature of that ' Objective Reality' and called it into question. Quite the opposite of what you might expect from your model of Objectivity.

Objective Reasoning is like a Religion in one very important respect, it is and artificial, human construct and Culturally defined. A set of models and tools designed by people, to try and make sense of whatever 'Objective Reality' might actually exist and humanity's place in it.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I'd also refer you to the fact that Reason and Science have increasingly questioned the nature of that ' Objective Reality' and called it into question

That's the whole purpose of science, and what it has always done.

Science itself relies on objectivity in experimentation. That's how it irons out bias.

I don't deny that objectivity is a human construct, as is anything phrased into our language and explained in context, but I do argue that it's very different to religion and provides information about reality in a way that religion and belief are entirely incapable of doing.

As I point out, if we hadn't adopted objective reasoning, we'd no doubt still be burning witches, persecuting homosexuals, applying quack medicine and dying in our early thirties in misery.

Are you proposing we move back to the good old days of mysticism?

 

[colpepper1]

As I point out, if we hadn't adopted objective reasoning, we'd no doubt still be burning witches, persecuting homosexuals, applying quack medicine and dying in our early thirties in misery.

Are you proposing we move back to the good old days of mysticism?

That would be true if the purpose of religion and mysticism was to explain the universe, like science.
Faith loses its way when it gets into functional mechanics, which is why creationism is so shakey, but is on much firmer ground on the 'how to live' aspects upon which science has almost nothing to say, except through the quasi-religion of rationalist humanism.
Although RH purports to be logical from what I understand it's a mix of ethics, socialism and philanthropy - nothing wrong with any of that but no reason for its persuasiveness over other philosophical disciplines.

Religions have creation myths which fewer people believe in a literal sense but are still potent metaphors for the early days of existence while scientists in the C21st are still arguing about how creation began, if indeed 'it' 'did'. Whether by big bang or clashing multiverse on a day to day level the explanation would mean less to the average person than a good trope to live by, a moral compass backed by extensive visionary poetics.

Mainstream religions have nothing to be proud of in their treatment of believers or unbelievers but then atheistic regimes are not known for their laissez faire treatment of vying ideologies either. One can only conclude that at a basic level mankind sucks and needs all the help it can get wherever it can get it.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Morality and ethics are a social concesnsus; they are not dictated by religion. Ask a Christian if they think adulterers should be stoned to death and the vast majority will say no. they are therefore applying something higher than religion to decide their morality, as their holy book clearly states that adulterers should be stoned and is supposedly the infallible woord of God.

Humanism, I would argue merely takes a rational approach to ethics, discarding the hogwash such as persecution of homosexuals and concentrating on the golden rule, which is merely a rational rule which leads to least stress in social animals like ourselves, hence a happier society.

Religion has absolutely nothing of value to contribute to ethics, as all the ethical content it has hijacked can be dervied from other sources and it nearly always comes mixed in with horrific extra stuff that non-believers find abhorrent.

Besides the fact, you can't fill gaps in knowledge by simply making stuff up. The correct answer to "how was the universe formed?" is "I don't know", at least in my own case - can't speak for others. Plumping for a religious answer on anything is simply making a decision before you have all your facts.

If you defend belief as a foundation for ethics and morality, you simply cannot condemn the likes of suicide bombers, who deeply believe that what they are doing is good and holy, based on their own religious beliefs. Who is to arbitrate what constitutes a good or bad belief?

With regards to atheist regimes you accuse of horrific behaviour, look at the structure of the communist states - the leader is set up as a surrogate god and the politics is elevated to the level of religion. They may have dropped their traditional religions, but they still have religious fervour. Christopher Hitchens covers this argument well in his debates - well worth checking out on Youtube if you haven't seen any of them.

The closest thing we have to a country founded on truly secular ideals is the USA, which, for all its flaws, I would argue is a very successful and great country. Even there, the state is under attack from religious fundamentalists though.

 

[colpepper1]

The closest thing we have to a country founded on truly secular ideals is the USA

We might have to disagree on that one! Where we part logically is over the issue of human objectivity. Even the language we reply in is a convention, we paint word pictures in the hope that someone else will deduce our meaning but there's no way of knowing my consciousness is your consciousness or anyone elses's, or indeed what consciousness is?
Human emotions like love, an appreciation of music or scent may be a stimulus on certain parts of the brain but human beings are incapable of rationalising or contextualising them, we live them out in the same way that moral laws are underwritten by empathy.

If that weren't the case ethics would be just more Big Brother empowered by a martial structure to stop us exercising our free will. As it is, ethics appeals to higher human emotions and values, not to scientific principles. Science and humanism are connected purely through convention, it has no more inherent value than the appeal of wicca, the Free Church of Scotland or Zoroastrianism. Humanism is not logical.

Edit: And we could never agree on Christopher Hitchens!

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

If you don't agree, at least please come up with counter-arguments.

I don't take your point on consciousness. again, you seem to imply that because we don't know something, it's OK to just make up random answers. I don't agree that that is true.

Humanism is founded on the golden rule. This rule of reciprocal altruism is seen at work across the animal kingdom in many social creatures, so appears to be a natural product of evolution of social animals. This is very well documented, as are the ideas that it leads to reduced stress, therefore more successful reproduction, hence passing on more genes. How can you argue that that is therefore not logical? It's also picked up by pretty much every religion, in an attempt to add weight to their dodgier ideas. Humanism makes very little appeal to belief and none to mysticism.

What are "higher emotions"? Emotions are just basic reactions to stimuli, again products of natural selection. Do you not think that pair bonding animals experience a sensation somewhat akin to love when they bond? Hormones are released, sensations of bonding are generated. Why are you looking to mystify basic biology?

I'm not undermining the value of emotions here. Being in love is just as important to me as it is to any religious person. It's just I view it as a part of nature, for which there is plenty of evidence, rather than something mystical, for which there is no evidence.

What's your problem with Hitchens? He's a sound debater and I've seen him trounce all comers when it comes to religious debates.

 

[colpepper1]

If you don't agree, at least please come up with counter-arguments.

I don't take your point on consciousness. again, you seem to imply that because we don't know something, it's OK to just make up random answers. I don't agree that that is true.

I'm not saying you haven't got a point. I'm suggesting you might not have the point, the one that makes all others redundant. Hominids have had to get by for half a million years give or take, without much science beyond basic astronomy. I don't think fresh tools wipe all that instinct out, in that sense I don't believe in 'progress'.

Humanism is founded on the golden rule. This rule of reciprocal altruism is seen at work across the animal kingdom in many social creatures, so appears to be a natural product of evolution of social animals. This is very well documented, as are the ideas that it leads to reduced stress, therefore more successful reproduction, hence passing on more genes. How can you argue that that is therefore not logical? It's also picked up by pretty much every religion, in an attempt to add weight to their dodgier ideas. Humanism makes very little appeal to belief and none to mysticism.

I simply don't get altruism in the animal kingdom. Some species exhibit it, others show little and many none at all. Pike eat other fish quite happily including other pike and their own young. Other animals perform what we'd describe as 'genocide' and 'mass rape' in a human context. I don't think animals are a consistent exemplar for human behaviour.
If science proved there was a criminal gene, one that could only be eradicated by extinction of anyone who carried it leading to a near perfect moral society, would it be incumbent on decision makers to ensure it happened? It might be logical if say, 90% of people survived, forever, in utopian conditions that did away with theft, murder and the obscenity of war. As an appeal to morality some might say the idea stunk.

What are "higher emotions"? Emotions are just basic reactions to stimuli, again products of natural selection. Do you not think that pair bonding animals experience a sensation somewhat akin to love when they bond? Hormones are released, sensations of bonding are generated. Why are you looking to mystify basic biology?

I'm not undermining the value of emotions here. Being in love is just as important to me as it is to any religious person. It's just I view it as a part of nature, for which there is plenty of evidence, rather than something mystical, for which there is no evidence.

I'm suggesting that some emotions define us as human, which is not to say other species don't experience a version of them but we're back to consciousness again and the impossibility of reciprochal equivalence. Few who've experienced love (in any form) would reduce it to a hormonal imperative. It's not a case of mystifying it, though a little mystique goes down well romantically and a complete lack of it may well hinder your opportunities with a mate of choice. It's one of a bunch of human emotions that enable us to co-exist as a species, not through a dialectic pyramid that is topped off with the 'right' answer but by being capable of balancing vying emotions and mutual interest some of which may be extremely self-sacrificial.
I'm not advocating a religious interpretation of the world, I'm attempting to demonstrate the shortcomings of one that sees science as the root of rational humanism.

What's your problem with Hitchens? He's a sound debater and I've seen him trounce all comers when it comes to religious debates.

That truly is beyond words, much like The Daily Mail.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Colpepper, I'd suggest you read up on RECIPROCAL altruism. This is different to pure altrusim. It is very common in SOCIAL species and appears to be one of our built in instincts. It simply means doing favours for others and expecting them to return the favour and is included in all major religions in one form or another. That's the core of humanism and the fact it's common amongst other successful social animals shows it is a successful strategy for survival which provides a lower stress environment to breed in in a spirit of cooperation.

 

[colpepper1]

the fact it's common amongst other successful social animals shows it is a successful strategy for survival

As I said, I don't believe that's the case. Too many highly successful animals don't exhibit anything of the sort - it's idealised by simple anthromorphism. Some creatures temporarily come together to hunt or mate while being territorial and aggressive the rest of the time. Human strategies to perform tasks like say, flight take very little from the animal version. It isn't consistent and I fear we're moving away from the thread anyway but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[BuckeyeJones]

Greetings,

I have towing straps, I can get some 60ton railroad jacks.....

Maybe we can get this train back on the track

Peace!
=^..^=217

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Colpepper, the examples you keep resorting to are not social animals. I did point out I was referring to social animals, such as humans, dolphins, meerkats, chimps and many more. I also never said it was the only successful strategy, just a very successful strategy for social animals.

I agree, we've drifted a couple of miles off-route, so we should maybe stop here, but thanks for the debate any way.

 

[colpepper1]

Not sure I'm 100% convinced of any phenomenon, including the mundane reality of being here and replying to the thread. Concensus reality is only one type but the darkness keeps shining out of the cracks, enough at any rate to let the weird stuff slip through.

 

[Cavynaut]

I think that the only thing that we can all be 100% certain of is that the universe is a far stranger place than we can imagine.

On a personal level however, I'm 100% convinced that the UFO/abduction phenomenon is directly related to fairy lore and suchlike. The common motifs of the two are too much alike to be mere coincidence.

 

[stu neville]

Quite agree - there's something going on there, whatever its true nature may be. It just tends to get dressed up as best suits the fashion of the day.

I'll leave the objectivity/belief etc discussion in situ as we've veered back on topic, and besides I think removal would render this thread a bit disjointed.