The Boy Who Lived Before - Documentary about a childs memories of another life

[Randall]

Belief and critical thinking only go hand in hand in Ufology's world. Not the real one. Everything else in your post is just the world according to you and no one else. Yes, we should all use "critical thinking" to arrive at the truth of our beliefs. WTF!?

Why shouldn't we use critical thinking in an effort to arrive at the truth of our beliefs? Would you prefer blind faith? How about unsubstantiated opinion? Or maybe pure nonsense? Where does critical thinking fail? Here's the link again to the Foundation For Critical Thinking website: Critical Thinking Index Page Provide us with examples and explain your position. The phrase "WTF" isn't valid counterpoint.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Beliefs are convictions or assembled perspectives. Because our beliefs may hold little truth, if we go looking for facts to fit into the scheme of our beliefs, we all find them in abundance.

My point is that critical thinking should render facts that result in subsequent beliefs or hypothesis. Not vice versa.

Most of the time beliefs are culturally based interpretations. How little weight could they possibly have? (do you really understand what I just stated?)

I have stated it before and will state it again. Phenomenological considerations are many times completely illusory because of how the mind supplies and formulates information.

Imagine if we attempted to ascertain the amount of nutrition contained in a room behind a given locked door simply because we believed it to be filled with fruit based on what we again believe, to be solid and reliable information. We can use critical thinking to locate the warehouse, a refrigerated section within that warehouse, and even the door of a particular room marked "fruit". Curiosity at this point looks to be a somewhat safely satisfied bet, so we turn and pull the handle, and there much to our delight, approximately 25 feet away, we observe a huge pile of fresh mixed tropical and native fruit. It even smells awesome and fruity! Surely now we can determine exactly, or at very least make a certain close approximation, of precisely by portion on average, how much good this fruit will do nutritionally at the local soup kitchen where we volunteer our time and effort.

The only difficulty in this case is that we are not allowed past the threshold of the room's door where the fruit is contained to ascertain the level of nutrition contained herein. We must observe the pile of fruit from no closer, and we are to do our best to make a critical and accurate determination as to the pile of fruit's nutritional value for the sake of the kitchen's patrons.

We study our situation carefully, critically, we might even go as far as to state. We determine the rooms exact dimensions, height, width, available floor space. We study and identify as many different observable varieties of fruit possible and we further investigate the average contained nutrition of each variety. We even do our very best to visually examine the fruit via the magnifying capability of our field glasses. The fruit looks great. It does not even appear to have begun to over ripen in the least. Lastly, we check and regulate climate control right down to the external dew point. Things are good. The fruit is plentiful, fresh, and being contained in an environment that best insures it's preservation for fresh nutritional edification.

In leaving the warehouse we are assured that when we return, we and our crew will be allowed inside the room to transport the fruit firsthand, via any means we best see fit to do so with.

We return as agreed with a full crew and several trucks to hall the fruit back to our kitchen. Life is good. That is, until we get to the room and upon entering and smelling all that fresh fruit, we discover much to our horror that approximately half of the fruit is fake. That's right, FAKE. As in plastic look alike fruit. Who would have known or thought it? I mean, the city is paying for the fruit, but this is for charity for pete's sake! How could we have possibly known?

Much like an observably indeterminable amount of plastic fruit inexplicably mixed in with an assortment of real fruit, from a considerable distance, we simply cannot tell them apart unless our critical processes allow for their physical examination. This is why phenomenalism is far more important than critical thinking with respect for base considerations of a Fortean nature.

Culture defines progress ultimately. How much more so our individual perceptions within as much? It cannot be understated.

 

[Randall]

Beliefs are convictions or assembled perspectives. Because our beliefs may hold little truth, if we go looking for facts to fit into the scheme of our beliefs, we all find them in abundance. My point is that critical thinking should render facts that result in subsequent beliefs or hypothesis. Not vice versa.

You definitely score points for the above perspective. It's one of the most sensible things you've said recently. Now let's elaborate a little and I think you'll agree that this also makes perfect sense: Many of us form our beliefs about things before we develop our critical thinking skills, and many of our beliefs are also perfectly justified to start with. For example if we witness an accident we may be asked for a statement, and when we are writing that statement, unless we are being dishonest, we are writing what we believe we witnessed. Later however, accident reconstruction experts who apply various elements of critical thinking to their investigation may find that what we believed at the time to be true was in fact in error, and when we learn this ourselves, we should be prepared to accept it gracefully.

Additionally, we may have grown up with certain beliefs that were programmed into us that we later come to question, and when we do, and we apply critical thinking to our existing beliefs, we may come to learn that what we believe isn't entirely accurate. At that point some people can be very resistant to changing their beliefs, responding with denial and other forms of counterpoint that aren't valid. However if we're open to considering the evidence in the light of critical thinking, perhaps we may bring ourselves closer the truth.

Most of the time beliefs are culturally based interpretations. How little weight could they possibly have? (do you really understand what I just stated?)

We can't determine what weight any belief has until we've applied some objective evaluation. Critical thinking is an excellent tool for that task.

I have stated it before and will state it again. Phenomenological considerations are many times completely illusory because of how the mind supplies and formulates information.

Imagine if we attempted to ascertain the amount of nutrition contained in a room behind a given locked door simply because we believed it to be filled with fruit based on what we again believe, to be solid and reliable information. We can use critical thinking to locate the warehouse, a refrigerated section within that warehouse, and even the door of a particular room marked "fruit". Curiosity at this point looks to be a somewhat safely satisfied bet, so we turn and pull the handle, and there much to our delight, approximately 25 feet away, we observe a huge pile of fresh mixed tropical and native fruit. It even smells awesome and fruity! Surely now we can determine exactly, or at very least make a certain close approximation, of precisely by portion on average, how much good this fruit will do nutritionally at the local soup kitchen where we volunteer our time and effort.

The only difficulty in this case is that we are not allowed past the threshold of the room's door where the fruit is contained to ascertain the level of nutrition contained herein. We must observe the pile of fruit from no closer, and we are to do our best to make a critical and accurate determination as to the pile of fruit's nutritional value for the sake of the kitchen's patrons.

We study our situation carefully, critically, we might even go as far as to state. We determine the rooms exact dimensions, height, width, available floor space. We study and identify as many different observable varieties of fruit possible and we further investigate the average contained nutrition of each variety. We even do our very best to visually examine the fruit via the magnifying capability of our field glasses. The fruit looks great. It does not even appear to have begun to over ripen in the least. Lastly, we check and regulate climate control right down to the external dew point. Things are good. The fruit is plentiful, fresh, and being contained in an environment that best insures it's preservation for fresh nutritional edification.

In leaving the warehouse we are assured that when we return, we and our crew will be allowed inside the room to transport the fruit firsthand, via any means we best see fit to do so with.

We return as agreed with a full crew and several trucks to hall the fruit back to our kitchen. Life is good. That is, until we get to the room and upon entering and smelling all that fresh fruit, we discover much to our horror that approximately half of the fruit is fake. That's right, FAKE. As in plastic look alike fruit. Who would have known or thought it? I mean, the city is paying for the fruit, but this is for charity for pete's sake! How could we have possibly known?

Much like an observably indeterminable amount of plastic fruit inexplicably mixed in with an assortment of real fruit, from a considerable distance, we simply cannot tell them apart unless our critical processes allow for their physical examination. This is why phenomenalism is far more important than critical thinking with respect for base considerations of a Fortean nature.

Culture defines progress ultimately. How much more so our individual perceptions within as much? It cannot be understated.

If you want to live under the delusion that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli, be my guest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism

I've already been through this debate and it has the same problems that are associated with Subjective Idealism. A question of key importance is that if physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli, then how do we know about all the things that have existed prior to humans evolving to consciousness? Is it really "justifiable" to simply ignore all the scientific evidence that physical objects existed long before humans did? And it gets worse from there. Phenomenalism is a house of cards, but I'll give you credit for at least coming up with valid counterpoint this time.

 

[Jeff Davis]

If you want to live under the delusion that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli, be my guest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism

Nice wiki quote, but hardly adequate, and in fact, it utterly sucks with respect to a decent overview. The quote above from wikipedia is the most embryonic definition of Phenomenalism or Phenomenology I have ever read. Maybe on the first day it was thought of it could be viewed with such a ridiculously simplistic and unrefined perspective or process, but not today as evidenced by the hundreds of empirically reviewed volumes devoted to the matter. Not to mention the immense overlap of Quantum Mechanics that offers up tremendous theoretical support to the science itself.

If you want simple: Google

phe·nom·e·nal·ism
fəˈnämənəlˌizəm/
noun
Philosophy
noun: phenomenalism
1.
the doctrine that human knowledge is confined to or founded on the realities or appearances presented to the senses.

You see, I think it is you that is delusional for not accepting and willfully conveying the very scientific edge that supports as much. I have shown it to you, and you deny it like someone would deny a basic religous belief system because it does not "fit"your belief system, when in fact, it's hard science. This is your choice. It is also my prerogative, as it is yours, to consider you delusional, for blindly declaring as much to be mysticism.

You do understand that the entirety of all Fortean considerations are ALL UNFOUNDED TRUTHS, correct? This would mean that everything considerable with the realm of Fortean observations with respect to interpretation, would be the product of delusion. No, critical thinking does not apply. How can you apply critical thinking to that which has no hard definition in the real world? The answer is that you cannot, but I know that you will never concede to that fact, so here we are as usual.

 

[Randall]

Nice wiki quote, but hardly adequate, and in fact, it utterly sucks with respect to a decent overview. The quote above from wikipedia is the most embryonic definition of Phenomenalism or Phenomenology I have ever read.

So what, that doesn't mean it's not accurate. The core principle remains the same whether it's Wikipedia or whatever else, and BTW, I've done more than just read the Wikipedia article.

You see, I think it is you that is delusional for not accepting and willfully conveying the very scientific edge that supports as much. I have shown it to you, and you deny it like someone would deny a basic religous belief system because it does not "fit"your belief system, when in fact, it's hard science. This is your choice. It is also my prerogative, as it is yours, to consider you delusional, for blindly declaring as much to be mysticism.

You haven't "shown me" anything. You've just made a series of proclamations, rarely supported by example or rational explanation. In contrast I posed these questions: if physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli, then how do we know about all the things that have existed prior to humans evolving to consciousness? Is it really "justifiable" to simply ignore all the scientific evidence that physical objects existed long before humans did? I would have thought that by now you would have learned that valid counterpoint means responding to the issues in a way that rationally addresses them.

You do understand that the entirety of all Fortean considerations are ALL UNFOUNDED TRUTHS, correct? This would mean that everything considerable with the realm of Fortean observations with respect to interpretation, would be the product of delusion. No, critical thinking does not apply.

Critical thinking can be applied to any topic of discussion.

How can you apply critical thinking to that which has no hard definition in the real world? The answer is that you cannot, but I know that you will never concede to that fact, so here we are as usual.

Apparently you already have your mind made up, so what would be the point of linking to examples, like the numerous ones in this thread, where I've applied elements of critical thinking to claims that some people have lived past lives by examining the evidence and premises upon which the claim is founded, such as what constitutes a past life, personhood, consciousness, and how given what we can establish about those things, determine whether or not it is possible for a person living in the present to have been someone else in the past, and how we might otherwise explain the evidence.

But if the above isn't good enough for you, perhaps you would like to pick another topic that you assume critical thinking cannot be applied to, and we'll discuss it using the principles of critical thinking. I'll show you exactly how it's done:

• Purpose | Determine if critical thinking can be applied to Fortean phenomena.
• Question | Dose the claim of "PICK YOUR TOPIC" constitute a claim of a Fortean nature?
• Information | If "Yes" above what evidence is there to support the claim?

The above are the first three steps in the process. You can refuse to engage in this process in which case you'll be demonstrating denial, or you choose to engage, in which case you'll be participating in critical thinking. The choice is yours. We're not enemies here. Accepting critical thinking won't reduce you to slavery or second class citizenry or anything like that. You might even find it useful outside of our discussions, particularly with other people who have similar interests to yours and who have not been introduced to the benefits critical thinking can offer.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You are correct Sir. I am going with the investigative means that aligns itself most closely with actual science, and NOT Star Trek. I HAVE SHOWN YOU, and you have denyied as much. To say otherwise is to be a liar.

 

[Michael Allen]

Ufology/Jeff,

The term "fortean" in my understanding is just a synonym for "paranormal." The issues and concerns regarding the term "paranormal" has been hashed out in this forum many times--my position is that the world "paranormal" is meaningless at worst or otherwise a truism of incomprehension at best. "Paranormal" or "Fortean" are simply labels applied to a class of phenomena that defy current human comprehension or in some cases even description. Unfortunately these labels cannot be categories, since we may learn something about the said phenomena later on that helps fill in the gaps of our understanding. To use the term in a static manner is equivalent to giving up the investigation--and I doubt seriously anyone here would take this homeostasis thesis literally, so I won't dwell on it.

Critical thinking most certainly can be applied to all phenomena, regardless of its label--this includes the "fortean" or "paranormal" variety of the same.
Questions regarding a topic as being constitutive of a "fortean" nature are examples of the WRONG questions to ask--they neither aid or develop our understanding. A truism at best, because any phenomenon (i.e. a positron-electron appearing out of "nowhere" and vanishing ) that would at one point defy human intuition, comprehension or analysis would be considered constitutive of a "fortean nature"

The only "evidence" that a claim can be of a "fortean nature" is the lack of evidence regarding the claim--this is a circularity that just gets us back to the point where we started only to begin our investigation anew with the scientific method.

<more opinionated statement>
Also, I think to truly understanding phenomenalism, one must pass through the naive players in this game and go straight to the best 20th century thinker on the topic: Martin Heidegger. (believe it or not, he was a realist--however he has the most clear and rational exposition of phenomenalism bar non: Go read Being and Time)
</more opinionated statement>

 

[Jeff Davis]

Ufology/Jeff,

The term "fortean" in my understanding is just a synonym for "paranormal." The issues and concerns regarding the term "paranormal" has been hashed out in this forum many times--my position is that the world "paranormal" is meaningless at worst or otherwise a truism of incomprehension at best. "Paranormal" or "Fortean" are simply labels applied to a class of phenomena that defy current human comprehension or in some cases even description. Unfortunately these labels cannot be categories, since we may learn something about the said phenomena later on that helps fill in the gaps of our understanding. To use the term in a static manner is equivalent to giving up the investigation--and I doubt seriously anyone here would take this homeostasis thesis literally, so I won't dwell on it.

Critical thinking most certainly can be applied to all phenomena, regardless of its label--this includes the "fortean" or "paranormal" variety of the same.
Questions regarding a topic as being constitutive of a "fortean" nature are examples of the WRONG questions to ask--they neither aid or develop our understanding. A truism at best, because any phenomenon (i.e. a positron-electron appearing out of "nowhere" and vanishing ) that would at one point defy human intuition, comprehension or analysis would be considered constitutive of a "fortean nature"

The only "evidence" that a claim can be of a "fortean nature" is the lack of evidence regarding the claim--this is a circularity that just gets us back to the point where we started only to begin our investigation anew with the scientific method.

<more opinionated statement>
Also, I think to truly understanding phenomenalism, one must pass through the naive players in this game and go straight to the best 20th century thinker on the topic: Martin Heidegger. (believe it or not, he was a realist--however he has the most clear and rational exposition of phenomenalism bar non: Go read Being and Time)
</more opinionated statement>

Your understanding of Fortean is correct. It is simply "observed phenomena for which there is no KNOWN explanation". Please explain to me how you will use critical thinking in a formulaic sense to define the observed nature of the undefined.

 

[Michael Allen]

Your understanding of Fortean is correct. It is simply "observed phenomena for which there is no KNOWN explanation". Please explain to me how you will use critical thinking in a formulaic sense to define the observed nature of the undefined.

Well, if no KNOWN explanation is the criterion, then this is probably the easiest question to answer. There are many examples in the history of science where a phenomenon with no KNOWN explanation was studied/observed in a systematic way which were later shown to be understood (after many years). Think about Maxwell, Faraday and Gauss with their studies of the electric and magnetic fields. It wasn't like they had a known explanation for every phenomenon that showed itself in the laboratory or accidentally in the field, they had to start by making observations, measurements, and proposing hypotheses for which they could further test and experiment. To be undefined does not mean cannot be systematically studied--nor does it mean that a formula doesn't exist.

If Michelson and Morley had abandoned their interferometry experimentation of light on account of a label such as "fortean" we'd still be walking around talking about some magical ether that spans the known universe.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Well, if no KNOWN explanation is the criterion, then this is probably the easiest question to answer. There are many examples in the history of science where a phenomenon with no KNOWN explanation was studied/observed in a systematic way which were later shown to be understood (after many years). Think about Maxwell, Faraday and Gauss with their studies of the electric and magnetic fields. It wasn't like they had a known explanation for every phenomenon that showed itself in the laboratory or accidentally in the field, they had to start by making observations, measurements, and proposing hypotheses for which they could further test and experiment. To be undefined does not mean cannot be systematically studied--nor does it mean that a formula doesn't exist.

If Michelson and Morley had abandoned their interferometry experimentation of light on account of a label such as "fortean" we'd still be walking around talking about some magical ether that spans the known universe.

But what you are referring to is NOT Fortean phenomena. You cannot call accidental lab results Fortean. Charles Fort was simply a man that literally cataloged the observation of strange phenomena. I am hoping that by being in a "paranormal forum" that as much would be understood. So no, what you are referring to is not the same in the least.

These are examples of Fortean Phenomena: Bigfoot, UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, etc. Lightening or Magnetic Fields are obviously not examples of Fortean Phenomena.

Please cite how critical thinking has been used to define such a phenomena.

This is the bottom line. Critical Thinking is supposed to be a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.

How can you do this with these unexplained phenomena as a whole?

If one accepts the ridiculous notion that "critical thinking" is merely the "ethics of the thought process", who exactly can be determined as being objectively critical? Only that person, that's who. That's BS.

 

[Randall]

These are examples of Fortean Phenomena: Bigfoot, UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, etc. Lightening or Magnetic Fields are obviously not examples of Fortean Phenomena.
Please cite how critical thinking has been used to define such a phenomena.

I can't speak for Michael or all the phenomena you've listed, but here's your citation for the word UFO: http://ufopages.com/Content/Reference/UFO-01a.htm If you don't like it, I won't be getting into a debate about it with you in this thread because it's not appropriate for this thread. It's also been debated at some length elsewhere in the forum, so you can defer to my existing answers elsewhere for any of your objections. I've also debated the issue at length with skeptics over at the JREF forum, so you can also sift through all their diatribe if you're actually interested. If after all that you haven't found something relevant to whatever objection you may have, then post your objection in the appropriate thread and I'll deal with it there.

In the meantime, the topic of what constitutes a past life has been discussed here using the principles of critical thinking. Through that process it has been determined that the assumption that a person in the here and now can be the same person as someone who lived in the past ( e.g. The Boy Who Lived Before ) is so full of holes as to be complete nonsense. The best that can be legitimately demonstrated to be true is that people living in the present have acquired information about someone else who allegedly lived in the past. Furthermore this information cannot be shown to be created as a result of a real time firsthand experience, and therefore cannot represent anything the person in the present has actually experienced. At best such information can only be a copy from the original experiencer that has been imparted by some unknown process, and if that's all we've got to draw conclusions with, it's hardly sufficient to conclude anyone has lived a "past life".

 

[Michael Allen]

But what you are referring to is NOT Fortean phenomena. You cannot call accidental lab results Fortean. Charles Fort was simply a man that literally cataloged the observation of strange phenomena. I am hoping that by being in a "paranormal forum" that as much would be understood. So no, what you are referring to is not the same in the least.

These are examples of Fortean Phenomena: Bigfoot, UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, etc. Lightening or Magnetic Fields are obviously not examples of Fortean Phenomena.

Please cite how critical thinking has been used to define such a phenomena.

This is the bottom line. Critical Thinking is supposed to be a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.

How can you do this with these unexplained phenomena as a whole?

If one accepts the ridiculous notion that "critical thinking" is merely the "ethics of the thought process", who exactly can be determined as being objectively critical? Only that person, that's who. That's BS.

I had to scratch my head a bit when I read this and I went back to your original definition to check if I misread something:

It [Fortean Phenomena] is simply "observed phenomena for which there is no KNOWN explanation"

That allows for anything that is observed for which there is no known explanation to fit the definition, far more than the claims regarding UAP/UFOs, Loch Ness, Ghosts, etc. Of course when you use the term "known" you should do as the neuro-semanticists do and apply a year index: i.e. "known[1097 AD]" is not the same as "known[1900 AD]" or "known[2013]" the very flux of our understanding prevents your definition from being a enduring category of nature.

Had you been around during the time before "meteors" -- of which there was no known explanation-- you would have considered them (i.e. if you weren't religious or superstitious) as Fortean phenomena, by the same definition.

And of course I didn't mean accidental lab results alone, I meant observations in nature which are later translated into experimental proposals in the lab--for better or worse.

Calling a phenomenon "Fortean" does not mean that there can be no a priori explanation of the same, nor does this necessarily mean that such "strange phenomenon" couldn't occur in a lab (not sure why you put that arbitrary restriction on the term). I am assuming the challenge you are presenting is to show that critical thinking has yet to break down and discover explanations for UFOs, Bigfoot and Loch Ness, etc., and so you are basically saying that puts critical thinking on some kind of probationary period--either that or your "fortean" examples are supposed to be some kind of counter-example to the universal applicability and reliability of critical thinking due to the current status of our current known facts of the universe. This of course is a non sequitur, since as I have shown there are many phenomena in the history of the world (both in nature and in the lab) that have been truly mysterious, marvelous or even seemingly paradoxical to which later investigations revealed the mechanics of the phenomenon. Even if we accept at face value that there are no current knowledge bases which make certain phenomenon comprehensible that does not mean that we might not later find the answers we are seeking.

I hope this has adequately answered your question -- so far we cannot say that critical thinking fails to ascertain the nature of the currently unexplained category you posit ("fortean"), for certainly no one would have said that regarding the study of meteors before we knew about the nature of celestial bodies orbiting the sun--at least not the investigators who actively dismissed the current banalities that passed for an "explanation"--like "devils" or "spirits" falling to the earth--in favor for a more satisfying theory. In all likelihood the categorists who applied a label like "fortean" would simply catalog the event and move on, neither seeking for an explanation nor even allowing themselves to entertain that such explanations would ever exist. To apply such labels is equivalent to giving up. Its the "god of the gaps" argument -- its saying, in effect, that "since we can't understand it therefore its fundamentally mysterious or incomprehensible to all but the infinite creator himself..."

This is the bottom line. Critical Thinking is supposed to be a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.

I prefer the term "scientific method" over "critical thinking." A true test that an investigator is applying "critical thinking" is in the work and the results in his/her showing and reporting on the corroboration of their hypotheses to their testing or field observations.

How can you do this with these unexplained phenomena as a whole?

Well you don't. Not all unexplained phenomenon is connected by some kind of vast inter-cosmic conspiracy of eventualities. Some events are unknown simply because we don't have enough data to support any hypotheses or theories to test; other events are simply made up or confabulated stories passed from one ear to the next; still others we don't even have any way to make the phenomenon intelligible in any sort of model for which we might begin our search for explanations or hypotheses. All of these are "unexplained" each for their own reasons and the final structure or mechanics behind the understanding are not always interrelated. Lumping all unexplained phenomenon into a kind of metaphysical category actually covers up what could be a more involved understanding leading to proper investigatory methods. These methods are not merely a systematic cataloging of events but an active searching (deeply) for patterns and causality that might help us construct a model which increases our understanding toward that final explanation.

If one accepts the ridiculous notion that "critical thinking" is merely the "ethics of the thought process", who exactly can be determined as being objectively critical? Only that person, that's who. That's BS.

Well this is precisely why a systematic method is called upon--we don't each take each other's word that a method works, we hand over the tools and the methods and allow them to discover or reproduce what is already taken in each our own domain of understanding (the explanatory framework will reveal itself a bogus or valid...either way).

 

[Randall]

... I prefer the term "scientific method" over "critical thinking." A true test that an investigator is applying "critical thinking" is in the work and the results in his/her showing and reporting on the corroboration of their hypotheses to their testing or field observations.

Critical thinking does not preclude the use of evidence gained via the scientific method, plus it takes into account issues and evidence that the scientific method alone cannot address, specifically evidence that is not empirical. For this reason, critical thinking is at least as good or better than the scientific method alone, and therefore according to logic, should be the preferred choice.

To illustrate further, a critical thinker can ask, "Is there any valid scientific evidence?" and if the answer is, "No." they can then ask, "What other evidence is there and why should it be given weight?" If the answer [ to the first question ] is, "Yes" then the critical thinker can include the scientific data in the analysis. However when a scientist asks, "Is there any valid scientific evidence?" and the answer is, "No." that's where the analysis ends until someone comes up with some scientifically valid evidence.

Scientists are very good at specific tasks that get repeatable results, but they aren't always as good at determining what those results mean. Some of the experiments we've been discussing here ( e.g. double slit, quantum entanglement, etc. ) are examples. For the scientist, those experiments should only prove that a certain phenomenon exists, yet we see more than one scientist engaging in speculation that sometimes rivals the quantum mystics. Harzan's comments on multiple dimensions during this week's Paracast show are another problem, as are some scientists renditions of time travel. The possibility of these things is better left to philosophers and critical thinkers than scientists who choose not to utilize such tools.

 

[Michael Allen]

Critical thinking does not preclude the use of evidence gained via the scientific method, plus it takes into account issues and evidence that the scientific method alone cannot address, specifically evidence that is not empirical. For this reason, critical thinking is at least as good or better than the scientific method alone, and therefore according to logic, should be the preferred choice.

To illustrate further, a critical thinker can ask, "Is there any valid scientific evidence?" and if the answer is, "No." they can then ask, "What other evidence is there and why should it be given weight?" If the answer [ to the first question ] is, "Yes" then the critical thinker can include the scientific data in the analysis. However when a scientist asks, "Is there any valid scientific evidence?" and the answer is, "No." that's where the analysis ends until someone comes up with some scientifically valid evidence.

Scientists are very good at specific tasks that get repeatable results, but they aren't always as good at determining what those results mean. Some of the experiments we've been discussing here ( e.g. double slit, quantum entanglement, etc. ) are examples. For the scientist, those experiments should only prove that a certain phenomenon exists, yet we see more than one scientist engaging in speculation that sometimes rivals the quantum mystics. Harzan's comments on multiple dimensions during this week's Paracast show are another problem, as are some scientists renditions of time travel. The possibility of these things is better left to philosophers and critical thinkers than scientists who choose not to utilize such tools.

Empirical: n. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
[Just a minor crotchety point: this is a bad definition, if by "theory" one is referring to a scientific theory, which is more than simply an exercise of pure logic--if on the other hand, they mean "purely theoretical" then perhaps I could let it pass]

First I don't think there's any such thing as non-empirical evidence (and indeed it even sounds like a straightforward contradiction to be sure), which is probably why I had to read that first paragraph a few times before I caught on to what you were saying. Problematic also is the notion that you can divide the world of critical thinking from the references that thinking is applied to--i.e. in the world of tools, equipment, and practices, all external and yet essential to the very thinking you are talking about. It isn't as if you can take flight on the pure effervescent clouds of thought free from the world of particulars that they entail. Logic without the world of references, materials, equipment and practices is simply a formal void of interconnected voids. While it may be useful to formally indicate matters at hand and then work through the particulars in the shared world of reality, it is not some kind of a priori foundation of pure reason. The reason why I prefer "scientific method" over "critical thinking" is a terminological one--I don't want people to think their way to a solution, but to work their way to a solution. Working implies a kind of striving and "getting one's hands dirty" with a plan to manipulate the world and coaxing its secrets out for observation. Thinking is an essential component of this aforementioned exercise, but without the methods, tools, equipment and dealings/copings with the surrounding "world" there is nothing to which even the best of critical thinkers can cling.

There simply isn't anything in the world that the scientific method cannot address with the proper inputs. Without the proper inputs (evidence, observation and experience) there can be no real question or issue. It isn't as if we could imagine the proper inputs in order to facilitate a flight of fancy and call it "non-empirical evidence" all the while taking the guise of rational or critical thinking. Of course I am not saying you are following this track, but it seems as though it is implied if you carry out the application of your premises regarding the same.

The fact that many scientists balk at areas that go beyond their accepted science culture understanding and current grasp should not an accusation against the method, but of the scientists poor understanding of the very roots of their own overt scientific knowledge bases. The problem of course is that once the bases of speculation on strange and novel observed events is supplanted by a more rigorous application of the methods to delve into the phenomena, the more they develop a kind of amnesia concerning the roots that led them to address the phenomena in the first place. I don't think we should bend over backwards and then post-facto create a realm of the speculative and metaphysically "non-empirical" region just so we can placate their need to have a complete ontology that addresses their former ignorance. To do so would actually do considerable harm to your campaign of "critical thinking"--and ...I hate to say it..."hang the corpse of science over the gallows of speculative philosophy" or otherwise hoist critical-ratiocinative-scientific-praxis by its own petard.

 

[Randall]

The reason why I prefer "scientific method" over "critical thinking" is a terminological one--I don't want people to think their way to a solution, but to work their way to a solution. Working implies a kind of striving and "getting one's hands dirty" with a plan to manipulate the world and coaxing its secrets out for observation.

I'm sure you've heard the expression, "Work smart, not hard".

If you want to restrict your mode of inquiry to the scientific method, that's fine, but if you also want to inquire beyond that, then critical thinking fully embraces the scientific method + evidence that isn't empirical. To appreciate this one needs to know that the scientific method is largely dependent on empirical evidence ( evidence that can be directly observed or measured ). However there are other excellent tools beyond the empirical as well, including reason ( a rationalist approach ), direct firsthand subjective experience., and statistical analysis. Critical thinking is the Swiss Army Knife of the truth seeker, allowing the seeker to choose the best tool for the job at hand. Why prefer to limit your choice to a bread knife alone? By doing so you only limit your scope of inquiry.

What is applicable to your personal preference is that in a hierarchy of available evidence, assuming that we have valid scientific evidence, such evidence is generally deserving of more weight than other forms of evidence. Also, like you, I respect the work put in by scientists to obtain empirical evidence. Field work is seldom a picnic.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I had to scratch my head a bit when I read this and I went back to your original definition to check if I misread something:

Yes Michael, you missed something. It's called the Fortean Phenomena. Nothing you have referred to so far is Fortean in nature. Meteors certainly are not. Sure, they could be described, or better put, interpreted, (another by-product of critical thinking that I think is oft over looked with respect to cultural context) as religious phenomena, or whatever. This does not make them Fortean Phenomena as they have no appearance of an identifiable archetype. Fortean phenomena involves repeated demonstrations of an archetypical, observed, phenomena. Something that has a clear and apparently definite, but astonishingly elusive, appearance. Are you seriously not familiar with Charles Fort? He's the guy that basically started the process of documenting paranormal occurrences.

Let me show you the dangers of applying self interpreted "critical thinking" to a particular Fortean Phenomenon: Ufology Society International (USI) - Explore the UFO Phenomenon (whatever this is, I could not find any UFO speeding ticket citations or whatever it was that Ufology referred to)

UFOs HAVE NO DEFINITION. This is the view of the rationally minded. Those that accept that we can identify UFOs as being strictly an observable Fortean Phenomenon for which there is no KNOWN definition. Just as a side, it's what Gene and Chris of the Paracast claim. Deny that.

I hope this has adequately answered your question

As stated, not even close.

Your example shows the process of looking back through history via the context of today's relevance and describing past culturally based superstition as interpreted via contemporary context. You are as subject to failure and misidentification as the scientist that lived 400 years ago. Are you any less human? Can we demonstrate that our powers of perceptive determination are superior to those of our former subjects of human study? Via the act of observation alone, no we cannot. Whereas "critical thinking" can help to surmount facts whose logically combined weight can assemble a legitimate current hypothesis, your interpretations of archetypical phenomenological observations are constantly subject to your own contextual relevance. Context in this case being relevant analogous projections and determinations based on the contemporary status of your own social existence, learned or unlearned. As much cannot be understated.

[/quote]

 

[Michael Allen]

I'm sure you've heard the expression, "Work smart, not hard".

If you want to restrict your mode of inquiry to the scientific method, that's fine, but if you also want to inquire beyond that, then critical thinking fully embraces the scientific method + evidence that isn't empirical. To appreciate this one needs to know that the scientific method is largely dependent on empirical evidence ( evidence that can be directly observed or measured ). However there are other excellent tools beyond the empirical as well, including reason ( a rationalist approach ), direct firsthand subjective experience., and statistical analysis. Critical thinking is the Swiss Army Knife of the truth seeker, allowing the seeker to choose the best tool for the job at hand. Why prefer to limit your choice to a bread knife alone? By doing so you only limit your scope of inquiry.

What is applicable to your personal preference is that in a hierarchy of available evidence, assuming that we have valid scientific evidence, such evidence is generally deserving of more weight than other forms of evidence. Also, like you, I respect the work put in by scientists to obtain empirical evidence. Field work is seldom a picnic.

I cannot with a straight face continue a discussion on non-empirical evidence

 

[Randall]

I cannot with a straight face continue a discussion on non-empirical evidence

What is so particularly funny? Have you got some joke I haven't heard about the empiricist and the rationalist who walk into a bar?

 

[Michael Allen]

Yes Michael, you missed something. It's called the Fortean Phenomena. Nothing you have referred to so far is Fortean in nature. Meteors certainly are not. Sure, they could be described, or better put, interpreted, (another by-product of critical thinking that I think is oft over looked with respect to cultural context) as religious phenomena, or whatever. This does not make them Fortean Phenomena as they have no appearance of an identifiable archetype. Fortean phenomena involves repeated demonstrations of an archetypical, observed, phenomena. Something that has a clear and apparently definite, but astonishingly elusive, appearance. Are you seriously not familiar with Charles Fort? He's the guy that basically started the process of documenting paranormal occurrences.

Let me show you the dangers of applying self interpreted "critical thinking" to a particular Fortean Phenomenon: Ufology Society International (USI) - Explore the UFO Phenomenon (whatever this is, I could not find any UFO speeding ticket citations or whatever it was that Ufology referred to)

UFOs HAVE NO DEFINITION. This is the view of the rationally minded. Those that accept that we can identify UFOs as being strictly an observable Fortean Phenomenon for which there is no KNOWN definition. Just as a side, it's what Gene and Chris of the Paracast claim. Deny that.

I was just following the definition you set out -- if all you have of the meaning "fortean" is that which is undefined, I really don't know where we can continue this discussion. If you say that and then turn on a dime with the "identifiable archetype" then your original definition is false. You cannot have it both ways--what you are saying is the following:

Fortean phenomena is that which involves repeated demonstrations of undefined yet archetypical observables.

Which does not exactly jive with your first definition:

"Your understanding of Fortean is correct. It is simply 'observed phenomena for which there is no KNOWN explanation' "

So it is not "simply" observed phenomena without an explanation--because you are now adding the "archetypical" term into the mix and trying to ascertain some kind of unifying structure of causality or relevance behind the observed unknowns.

UFOs HAVE NO DEFINITION. This is the view of the rationally minded. Those that accept that we can identify UFOs as being strictly an observable Fortean Phenomenon for which there is no KNOWN definition. Just as a side, it's what Gene and Chris of the Paracast claim. Deny that.

And I can show the sheer irrationality of this "rationally minded" approach -- where it fails, and how both Gene and Chris (if that's what they think) are completely off in left field on this matter:

The motivation behind this no-definition definition is that too much material has been subsumed under the umbrella of "UFO" barring any unifying analysis or explanation. It's as if you took all of the objects on the earth as objects for study under the guise of "looking for an explanatory framework behind ripening oranges" The problem is not the lack of definition, it is an excessive promiscuity toward treating all strange and hitherto inexplicable events under ONE unified umbrella. It is as if your car broke down due to a distributor wire or fuel pump and you began your investigation by treating every part as equal participants in the failure.

....As stated, not even close.

Your example shows the process of looking back through history via the context of today's relevance and describing past culturally based superstition as interpreted via contemporary context.

And so the scientists before did the same -- what's your point? They re-interpreted their "context" in a similar manner from prior superstitions and context...so you have layers of context on context. Sounds even as if you might have a structure of contexts.

You are as subject to failure and misidentification as the scientist that lived 400 years ago. Are you any less human? Can we demonstrate that our powers of perceptive determination are superior to those of our former subjects of human study?

If you take away the artifacts that arose from this, sure...but you are living in a shared world of infrastructure laid down by decades, even hundreds of years of human shared experience and collaboration -- human, non-human...more perceptive, less perceptive...one thing is for certain, they didn't have houses with electricity full of people with wristclocks and cell phones watching moving pictures of human built spaceships launching from the earth into orbit in 1776.

Via the act of observation alone, no we cannot. Whereas "critical thinking" can help to surmount facts whose logically combined weight can assemble a legitimate current hypothesis, your interpretations of archetypical phenomenological observations are constantly subject to your own contextual relevance.

But they are not my own--they are your's as well--we all live in a shared world of intersubjective experience. If what you were saying was true, then I could dismiss your very words as a mere automaton created by my own brain for my own amusement--I don't think you would like this. Being subject to my "here" vs your "there" is not enough to dismiss the "objectivity" of the relevant structures of our shared experiences. Throwing it out as "my interpretation" doesn't make your interpretation any better--if anything you are destroying your thesis by asserting that the explanation or definition of fortean phenomena is that it has no definition or explanation.

Context in this case being relevant analogous projections and determinations based on the contemporary status of your own social existence, learned or unlearned. As much cannot be understated.

Which is a shared social existence that grew out of thousands of years of human inter-subjective experience...a point that you understated

Every overstatement is an understatement of something else...either leads to confusion and a fuzzing of common sense.

 

[Michael Allen]

What is so particularly funny? Have you got some joke I haven't heard about the empiricist and the rationalist who walk into a bar?

If you would, please explain to me what you mean by non-empirical evidence. Perhaps I am being too clinical with my terms...help me out here.