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

[Randall]

While I think your line of thought is interesting, the story can also just mean "shut up and drink your tea." The professor was probably so busy talking and babbling about his thoughts he forgot to drink his tea ("empty his cup") .

The cup/mind notion is actually a trap the Zen teacher wants the unwary student to fall into--so yes, you are right about the allegory, but the realization of the same is not really the point. Indeed its the paradox in (4) that probably will trip up the student. Where are the "proven" methods? The student who thinks they should keep their cup filled or empty is missing the point entirely...the world and the mind are not separate and yet not the same. Not two, not one...As one teacher put it, "you nothing more than a swinging door..."

In the course of one's life, the cup is empty, the cup is full, the cup is half-empty, the cup is broken, the cup is sitting still in the cupboard, the cup is handed from one person to the other, the cup is overflowing...all are part of the cup's nature and neither state is a simple logical negation of the former. If you want to break up the world through vivisection then try to fill a cup by attaching and gluing sides to a block of water--you can't do it. Neither can you box your own mind with your mind.

Once again you haven't let me down. With respect to the paradox, you ask the question, "Where are the 'proven' methods?" and in doing so, you have shone your laser pointer right on the problem. The paradox might best be described as The Zen of Critical Thinking™. How can we live in the Zen of the moment if we're constantly subjecting it to analysis? It turns out that key points in the Standards and Elements of Critical Thinking include observation, experience, frame of reference, perspective, and orientation. These concepts seem entirely compatible with Zen, allowing us to experience it as intended. Then when we step out of Zen mode we can look back and ask ourselves what conclusions we might come to based on the experience and how it relates to the goals and objectives we had for getting into it in the first place. Also, we cannot be fairly accused of missing the point.

Something else about the teacup allegory is that it actually portrays the Japanese Master as the one exhibiting prejudice. The professor had come freely seeking knowledge, but the Master presumed the professor was already filled with so many preconceptions that it would be impossible to teach him. The professor could quite fairly have responded by saying, "You do not know me, yet you have already filled me with your own opinions and speculations." So this allegory also illustrates the arrogance of these guru types who assume that their "spiritual" teachings are so far above the unwashed masses that their prejudice is justified. Have you ever noticed that if anyone disputes what they say, they automatically label that person unworthy or unintelligent or something else that defends their guru status rather than addressing the issue?

 

[Randall]

Just as a quick observation, btw, I love you Ufology, whether you realize it or not. I am not giving up hope on you no matter how stuck in the dark ages of contemporary empirical science you are ...

Well, thank the goddesses there's still hope for me yet !

 

[Jeff Davis]

"Then the subject himself who is doing the demonstration cannot show the subjectivity...*brain aneurysm* this is so....hilariously...wrong!"

Hi Michael! Honestly glad to see you back posting here. I'm afraid both the double slit experiment and bell's theorem conclusively waste that line of speculative reasoning. Consciousness interactively defines matter's relationship to us. This is not to say that the human mind manufactures material reality, but rather it adapts to it's energetic representation via native sentient consciousness/matter evolutionary survival. The reality we experience does not exist apart from our entrained observation of it, thus the personal manufacture of it's experience.

Can you demonstrate it to be different?

The question is not which came first, the chicken, or the egg, the question is, how does the informational construct that we adapt to, provide the anticipated interaction that we experience routinely? I would propose that the answer lie in the duel nature of the universe itself as it mirrors our bi-hemispherical interpretation of it, and our interactive relation to all things. In this hypothetically modeled sense, memory is not solely relegated to a cataloging or storage of temporally former information. It's more or less like a computer's processor cache that holds consciousness field relevant possibility. Cognition is a command execution that is designed to instinctively choose information best facilitating the articulation taking place within the consciousness/matter experience.

 

[Randall]

I'm afraid both the double slit experiment and bell's theorem conclusively waste that line of speculative reasoning. Consciousness interactively defines matter's relationship to us.

Actually neither the double slit nor Bell's Theorem are connected to consciousness in the way that you suggest above. It's yet another example of the unfounded assertions of Quantum Mysticism that its purveyors tend to parrot without knowing what they're actually talking about. The double slit experiment and Bell's Theorem deal with what seems to happen ( or is predicted to happen ) when the states of particles are measured, usually by some sort of detector. Quantum mystics however, have confused the act of detecting with that of human observation and leapt to the unsupported conclusion that because human observation requires consciousness, it is consciousness that is the causal factor behind the results. It's not.

This is not to say that the human mind manufactures material reality, but rather it adapts to it's energetic representation via native sentient consciousness/matter evolutionary survival. The reality we experience does not exist apart from our entrained observation of it, thus the personal manufacture of it's experience.

Sure, just like the superposition of our nonlocal awareness on the fabric of spacetime manifests itself in multiple quantum states resulting in the transient materialization of reality within our temporal matrix. In other words, you're speaking gibberish again.

Can you demonstrate it to be different?

No. I can't demonstrate that you're not speaking gibberish again.

The question is not which came first, the chicken, or the egg, the question is, how does the informational construct that we adapt to, provide the anticipated interaction that we experience routinely? I would propose that the answer lie in the duel nature of the universe itself as it mirrors our bi-hemispherical interpretation of it, and our interactive relation to all things. In this hypothetically modeled sense, memory is not solely relegated to a cataloging or storage of temporally former information. It's more or less like a computer's processor cache that holds consciousness field relevant possibility. Cognition is a command execution that is designed to instinctively choose information best facilitating the articulation taking place within the consciousness/matter experience.

All I can do is .

 

[Michael Allen]

"Then the subject himself who is doing the demonstration cannot show the subjectivity...*brain aneurysm* this is so....hilariously...wrong!"

Hi Michael! Honestly glad to see you back posting here. I'm afraid both the double slit experiment and bell's theorem conclusively waste that line of speculative reasoning. Consciousness interactively defines matter's relationship to us. This is not to say that the human mind manufactures material reality, but rather it adapts to it's energetic representation via native sentient consciousness/matter evolutionary survival. The reality we experience does not exist apart from our entrained observation of it, thus the personal manufacture of it's experience.

Can you demonstrate it to be different?

The question is not which came first, the chicken, or the egg, the question is, how does the informational construct that we adapt to, provide the anticipated interaction that we experience routinely? I would propose that the answer lie in the duel nature of the universe itself as it mirrors our bi-hemispherical interpretation of it, and our interactive relation to all things. In this hypothetically modeled sense, memory is not solely relegated to a cataloging or storage of temporally former information. It's more or less like a computer's processor cache that holds consciousness field relevant possibility. Cognition is a command execution that is designed to instinctively choose information best facilitating the articulation taking place within the consciousness/matter experience.

Nice to be back, Jeff. Sorry I had a momentary lapse/breakdown when I first read your statement and I am afraid I was all to brief in explaining why I did--so here goes again
Getting back to the quote:

The very fabric of reality has been demonstrated to be ambiguously subjective at best by more than credible scientific sources over the last 30 years.

The verb phrase "has been demonstrated" means something that goes beyond mere subjectivity, as anything that can be demonstrated is only done so under the auspices of some kind of objectivity (what I termed "inter-subjectivity"). Now the noun phrase corresponding calls our collective (not subjective) attentions to something we are formally designating as "reality;" with the added modifier "fabric" we are supposed to understand it as something that is unambiguously there for both of use, otherwise we'd have no grounds for saying that something was demonstrated.

The term "demonstrated" is an act carried out by one subject to another subject, and when such acts are performed by a "credible source" we have already admitted the objectivity of the event demonstrated under our combined examination. This combined inter-subjectivity is precisely that which we both agree makes the witnessing as formally unambiguous. In short, if your statement was correct, then bells theorem and the double-slit experiment would both be condemned by the same ambiguities you have posited by the statement. What you are claiming is that you cannot make any demonstrable claim regardless due to the ambiguity problem--your statement is hoisted by its own petard.

Now I had more to write about some of your other statements (which on the whole I agreed with--with some caveats) in the edit, but this forum swallowed it when I hastily punched the backspace key--a grim reminder of the objectivity of experience

 

[Tyger]

Actually neither the double slit nor Bell's Theorem are connected to consciousness in the way that you suggest above. It's yet another example of the unfounded assertions of Quantum Mysticism that its purveyors tend to parrot without knowing what they're actually talking about. The double slit experiment and Bell's Theorem deal with what seems to happen ( or is predicted to happen ) when the states of particles are measured, usually by some sort of detector. Quantum mystics however, have confused the act of detecting with that of human observation and leapt to the unsupported conclusion that because human observation requires consciousness, it is consciousness that is the causal factor behind the results. It's not.

Not so.

I'm not going to get a dog in this fight - a bit beyond my expertise. However, that said, this is an area that is cutting edge and there are tons of dialogs going on questioning whether it's a simple matter of measurement. The jury is out - the scientific debate is on. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner introduced the idea of the 'active agency of the mind', suggesting that reduction takes place by the action of the mind in the moment of cognition. I'm not sure how anyone can be making black-and-white statements about such a fluid area at the moment.

The idea that we actually cohere reality with our thoughts - as one physicist says 'if there is a reality' - is far from new, too - in the mystical sense.

 

[Randall]

Not so.

I'm not going to get a dog in this fight - a bit beyond my expertise. However, that said, this is an area that is cutting edge and there are tons of dialogs going on questioning whether it's a simple matter of measurement. The jury is out - the scientific debate is on. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner introduced the idea of the 'active agency of the mind', suggesting that reduction takes place by the action of the mind in the moment of cognition. I'm not sure how anyone can be making black-and-white statements about such a fluid area at the moment.

Truth is not a matter of consensus, so if you want to know the truth, instead of taking the jury's word for it, do some independent research. One thing you could do is setup a simple home version of the double slit experiment and watch what happens. If the claim is true that consciousness alone as indicated by human observation collapses the wave, then simply looking at the experiment in action should result in the interference pattern disappearing as soon as you look at the experiment. But the fact of the matter is that you could stand and watch your experiment all day and it won't make any difference to the pattern.

If building your own experiment is too much for you, consider the higher tech experiments done with sealed units and single photon emitters. In those experiments it's impossible for anyone to observe what is happening inside the equipment. The photons are measured by internal detectors ( not any conscious person ) and yet the same results are produced whether anyone is monitoring the experiments or not. This is a fact and it's proof positive that consciousness as indicated by human observation has nothing to do with the phenomenon of wave particle duality.

But if that's still not good enough for you, consider yet another fact. Even if the high tech units weren't sealed from outside light ( and hence any human observation ), it's not possible for human vision to observe a single photon traveling between an emitter and a detector. Not only does it happen too fast and with too little energy to be detected by human vision, even if a single photon carried enough energy to be visible to the human eye, the only way to see it ( and by extension be conscious of it ) is by the photon striking the retina where the photon's energy would be converted to nerve pulses, and in such a case the photon would never reach the detector.

At some point, if accuracy and truth are what you're interested in, you need to make more of an effort to acquire objective and conflicting evidence and sift through it to see what is backed up by facts and what has been spun into some form of nonsense. It's not always easy, and it may not help in your quest to become some sort of New Age quantum mystic, but after all, which is more important to you, becoming Guru Tyger or being sure that you actually know what you're talking about?

 

[Tyger]

When you are caught in a quandary - you resort to dismissive hectoring - 'Guru Tyger' - and other oratorical flourishes. I've noticed the trend towards the ad hominem end of the spectrum. You are floundering.

I don't have a dog in this fight - as I said, not my area of expertise (even though btw I have done the double slit - and your tiresome rendition of the double slit - meant to impress, I'm sure - was wasted) - but if you were paying attention (and really understood what you were reading rather than hearing dog whistles) you know I was referencing Bell's Theorem not the double slit. There are points of debate. It seems you are adept at googling text and copy-and-paste. Doing so means you miss some points - like where the ideas are originating and that there is an on-going debate.

 

[Tyger]

Incidentally, for those possibly reading this thread who greatly revere science as an arena of pure intellectual debate with the loftiest of motives and intentions - I think what has been demonstrated here is exactly what science more often is - a low-grade knocking about. This is what idealistic young people going into science have to deal with - nothing about truth, but all about one person's vested interest in one entrenched way of looking at a question. Parrot back the professor's views or don't get chosen for a project. Truly innovative thinking doesn't have a chance, never mind Truth.

 

[Michael Allen]

Incidentally, for those possibly reading this thread who greatly revere science as an arena of pure intellectual debate with the loftiest of motives and intentions - I think what has been demonstrated here is exactly what science more often is - a low-grade knocking about. This is what idealistic young people going into science have to deal with - nothing about truth, but all about one person's vested interest in one entrenched way of looking at a question. Parrot back the professor's views or don't get chosen for a project. Truly innovative thinking doesn't have a chance, never mind Truth.

It's delicious sausage making at best. While I sympathize with what you are saying here, I think the characterization is a bit much, there is value in what I have read in this thread. Sure we get emotional, obtuse, pedantic or even downright ridiculous at times, but I think there's something to what ufology is saying about QM mysticism. We really need to look hard and make sure we don't confuse popular science culture with actual science--while there is a tremendous amount of non-intuitive and mysterious happenings in QM experimentation, much of it has been exaggerated by well-meaning popularizers.

 

[Michael Allen]

Truth is not a matter of consensus, so if you want to know the truth, instead of taking the jury's word for it, do some independent research.

While I agree with most of what you have said, Ufology, I cannot take this thesis for granted. There is much in scientific discourse that takes the form of "consensus" even when the very people involved make claims to the contrary. Of course there is observation (who's observation?), experimentation (who's experimental setup?), interpretation (who's interpretation?) and publication (which peers review?--more importantly, who didn't review it..but should have); these are all questions that cannot exist in the vacuum de-worlded space of "pure objectivity" or pure presence-at-hand. From the non-experts point of view, there is only consensus--so what is everyone to do? Are they supposed to all become experts in the field of quantum mechanics or can they just accept the scientific consensus and move on?

Think about the problems when you apply the consensus-negation thesis to science, what do you end up with? You end up with a situation where anyone can make any claims based on their own "interpretations," "experimentations", "observations", and "publications" -- when asked why their results do not make any scientific sense, they can say, "well its not like I need a consortium or consensus to agree with my findings, they simply do not understand the subject as well as I do" This is a problem, and a problem that can only be dissolved by accepting a certain critical mass of scientific informed consensus on the matter. This is not to say that critical mass is 100% personal opinions, it is understood that an expert's decision accounts for the referential totality of objects and artifacts in each their own respective fields.

 

[Jeff Davis]

As a young man, I studied all the people I wasn't supposed to. The experience revealed more truth to me analogously than the entirety of my formal education. It also turned out to be a far more useful knowledge in a practical sense. It was information that I have never stopped using. There are two kinds of learning that one can do. Real, or Formal. It is extremely rare that the latter yields anything of substance apart from participatory mediocrity. Sometimes, if you're lucky, a paycheck.

The only type of critical thinking that's worth a damn is that which you use in real life or death situations. That's critical. The rest of this is just intriguing speculative folly no matter how important you make yourself out to be.

 

[Randall]

While I agree with most of what you have said, Ufology, I cannot take this thesis for granted.

I wouldn't want you take anything for granted that isn't suitable for being taken for granted, that's the whole point. If something doesn't make sense to you, then by all means do some independent research, ask probing and relevant questions, and provide valid counterpoint. I want the truth as bad as you do ( or so I would presume ).

There is much in scientific discourse that takes the form of "consensus" even when the very people involved make claims to the contrary. Of course there is observation (who's observation?), experimentation (who's experimental setup?), interpretation (who's interpretation?) and publication (which peers review?--more importantly, who didn't review it..but should have); these are all questions that cannot exist in the vacuum de-worlded space of "pure objectivity" or pure presence-at-hand. From the non-experts point of view, there is only consensus--so what is everyone to do? Are they supposed to all become experts in the field of quantum mechanics or can they just accept the scientific consensus and move on?

Disclosure ( scientific or otherwise ) is a separate issue from that of truth. All disclosure amounts to is a claim, and claims are only true when they accurately correspond to some alleged state of affairs, and because such states of affairs can exist whether anyone knows about them or not, they are independent from opinion, belief, or the popular vote. The absence of such states of affairs is also a condition that is independent of opinion, belief, or the popular vote. So either way, the answer to the question of whether or not a claim is true or false has nothing to do with consensus. A simple example is when someone claims that there is oil under the ground on a piece of land. Until the oil is found, we don't know whether or not the claim is true or false, however the state of affairs is still one way or the other whether or not any oil is found. All the geologists and rig workers might agree that there is no oil, but they could also still be wrong.

 

[Randall]

When you are caught in a quandary - you resort to dismissive hectoring - 'Guru Tyger' - and other oratorical flourishes. I've noticed the trend towards the ad hominem end of the spectrum. You are floundering.

Posing the rhetorical question of whether you want to know what you're talking about, or pursue guru status among quantum mystics is perfectly valid and in no way qualifies as ad hominem content. In fact, if you consider the definition of ad hominem, it's completely on the opposite end of the "spectrum" because I'm appealing to your ability to think rather than your emotions and beliefs:

ad hom·i·nem [ad hómmə nem, ad hómmənəm] adjective
appealing to emotions: appealing to people’s emotions and beliefs rather than their ability to think (formal)​

Source: Encarta World English Dictionary​

I don't have a dog in this fight - as I said, not my area of expertise (even though btw I have done the double slit - and your tiresome rendition of the double slit - meant to impress, I'm sure - was wasted) - but if you were paying attention (and really understood what you were reading rather than hearing dog whistles) you know I was referencing Bell's Theorem not the double slit. There are points of debate. It seems you are adept at googling text and copy-and-paste. Doing so means you miss some points - like where the ideas are originating and that there is an on-going debate.

Once again you aren't dealing with the issues and therefore aren't providing valid counterpoint. My comments on the double slit experiment have been in response to what @Jeff Davis claimed, and your objection here, which consisted simply of "Not so". Also, my time spent here isn't wasted. Even if you don't value my contributions at this point in time, my posts remain for others to consider. Plus, even if nobody else but me cares, the time spent thinking and writing is good exercise.

Lastly, if you think I've missed some points, by all means identify them and explain why missing them is relevant to the discussion and how they relate to the points I have made. Simply saying "Not so." doesn't advance the discussion. At best it merely states your unsubstantiated position. I suspect you can do better. Why not make the effort? Do you not have a genuine interest in this subject?

 

[Michael Allen]

Disclosure ( scientific or otherwise ) is a separate issue from that of truth. All disclosure amounts to is a claim, and claims are only true when they accurately correspond to some alleged state of affairs, and because such states of affairs can exist whether anyone knows about them or not, they are independent from opinion, belief, or the popular vote.

And yet the adjudication of that correspondence requires a person disclosing such statements regarding the state of affairs under examination as well as the adjudicator--this is cause for serious "real-world" doubt in many of the claims disclosed. To apply the label of "accurately corresponds" requires the intervention of someone who is not only versed in the essentials of the "state of affairs" but of the terminological intricacies of the same. This translation of course in the form of a "report" is not a mere replaying of these correspondences, but a summary of the paths chosen by the first-hand investigators.

The absence of such states of affairs is also a condition that is independent of opinion, belief, or the popular vote. So either way, the answer to the question of whether or not a claim is true or false has nothing to do with consensus. A simple example is when someone claims that there is oil under the ground on a piece of land. Until the oil is found, we don't know whether or not the claim is true or false, however the state of affairs is still one way or the other whether or not any oil is found. All the geologists and rig workers might agree that there is no oil, but they could also still be wrong.

This "absence" again is not something that can be merely pointed to as something effectively "obvious," but arises from the condition of the possibility for all to come to terms with the phenomena under the methods applied by the investigator. The "popular vote" is something of a distraction in this case, it is the lacuna of the replaying of the findings in another following similar methods and practices. Without these shared methods and practices there is no "con-sense-us" or collective intelligibility. To say that these states of affairs and their co(r) - respond - ence to claims are in-depend-ent of the methods, practices and terms of the investigator is to say that such correspondences would be intelligible without any personal manifestation of intelligibility. This is the main failure of the "correspondence theory of truth"--which attempts to de-world or de-humanize the essential forms and modes of the very beings that are supposed to perform the adjudication of the "correspondence." While this does not imply a "subjectivism" or "anarchy against truth," it does show that our own models of understanding truth are self-referencing and self-defeating in that they try to dismiss the very means and source of their application.

All the geologists might agree that there's no oil, but they will never know this unless some one uses the very shared methods and practices to prove otherwise. The "correspondence" you seek would be an afterthought--a hindsight-20/20 application of a metaphysic to fill out a form unknown into something concrete. This concretion is not "correspondence," but a label applied by the collective after the subjects have taken a turn in their understanding.

 

[Randall]

And yet the adjudication of that correspondence requires a person disclosing such statements regarding the state of affairs under examination as well as the adjudicator--this is cause for serious "real-world" doubt in many of the claims disclosed. To apply the label of "accurately corresponds" requires the intervention of someone who is not only versed in the essentials of the "state of affairs" but of the terminological intricacies of the same. This translation of course in the form of a "report" is not a mere replaying of these correspondences, but a summary of the paths chosen by the first-hand investigators.

OK ... but that still doesn't change anything.

This "absence" again is not something that can be merely pointed to as something effectively "obvious," but arises from the condition of the possibility for all to come to terms with the phenomena under the methods applied by the investigator. The "popular vote" is something of a distraction in this case, it is the lacuna of the replaying of the findings in another following similar methods and practices. Without these shared methods and practices there is no "con-sense-us" or collective intelligibility. To say that these states of affairs and their co(r) - respond - ence to claims are in-depend-ent of the methods, practices and terms of the investigator is to say that such correspondences would be intelligible without any personal manifestation of intelligibility.

OK ... but that still doesn't change anything.

This is the main failure of the "correspondence theory of truth"--which attempts to de-world or de-humanize the essential forms and modes of the very beings that are supposed to perform the adjudication of the "correspondence." While this does not imply a "subjectivism" or "anarchy against truth," it does show that our own models of understanding truth are self-referencing and self-defeating in that they try to dismiss the very means and source of their application.

Something about the above just isn't computing. Perhaps some clarification would help. It seems like your saying that the correspondence theory of truth ( no particular version specified ), "... attempts to de-world or de-humanize the essential forms and modes of the very beings that are supposed to perform the adjudication of the 'correspondence.' " If I have that correct, then the comment must be something new you are introducing rather than counterpoint to anything specific.

We can revisit this if you think it's relevant, but to maintain focus, the principle we're dealing with in respect to the issue under discussion, is that the state of affairs by which a claim is judged to be either true or false is independent of those who make the judgment. I used the example of oil exploration to emphasize that our context involves detectable reality. The specific issue under discussion involved the detection of photons in the double slit experiment. We may have a consensus among scientists who claim that there is no interference pattern, however if there is an interference pattern, then their claim is untrue. It doesn't have to be any more complex than that right now.

All the geologists might agree that there's no oil, but they will never know this unless some one uses the very shared methods and practices to prove otherwise.

OK ... but that still doesn't change anything.

The "correspondence" you seek would be an afterthought--a hindsight-20/20 application of a metaphysic to fill out a form unknown into something concrete. This concretion is not "correspondence," but a label applied by the collective after the subjects have taken a turn in their understanding.

Correspondence in this context isn't an afterthought, it's a realization that happens in the moment of discovery, for example when the oil is struck or the interference pattern changes. This realization might be considered a transformation into something concrete and even a label as you suggest, and here's what that label looks like:

 

[Randall]

As a young man, I studied all the people I wasn't supposed to. The experience revealed more truth to me analogously than the entirety of my formal education. It also turned out to be a far more useful knowledge in a practical sense. It was information that I have never stopped using. There are two kinds of learning that one can do. Real, or Formal. It is extremely rare that the latter yields anything of substance apart from participatory mediocrity. Sometimes, if you're lucky, a paycheck.

You can get your information from whatever source you prefer, formal or otherwise. The point I'm making is that it's whether or not it's true that makes the biggest difference to how useful it is to you, and sometimes that takes more than pure instinct to figure out.

The only type of critical thinking that's worth a damn is that which you use in real life or death situations. That's critical. The rest of this is just intriguing speculative folly no matter how important you make yourself out to be.

So you don't believe that knowing the truth in general is "worth a damn" eh? Because that's exactly the result of you kicking critical thinking to the curb above does. It takes away your ability to make an accurate analysis of any problem you might come across. You probably even use a watered down version of critical thinking every day and don't even realize it. How many non critical screw-ups does it take before it starts to matter to you? If someone ripped you off, would it not matter to you whether or not the thieves were caught? Apparently not. If your children or spouse started lying to you would you prefer not to be able to figure it out? Critical thinking is integrated into science and the justice system. Where would we be now without those things? Apparently you wouldn't care. Your attitude reduces your scope of what matters to whether or not you can run faster than the animal that wants to eat you for dinner. Clearly you're not thinking your answers through.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You can get your information from whatever source you prefer, formal or otherwise. The point I'm making is that it's whether or not it's true that makes the biggest difference to how useful it is to you, and sometimes that takes more than pure instinct to figure out.

So you don't believe that knowing the truth in general is "worth a damn" eh? Because that's exactly the result of you kicking critical thinking to the curb above does. It takes away your ability to make an accurate analysis of any problem you might come across. You probably even use a watered down version of critical thinking every day and don't even realize it. How many non critical screw-ups does it take before it starts to matter to you? If someone ripped you off, would it not matter to you whether or not the thieves were caught? Apparently not. If your children or spouse started lying to you would you prefer not to be able to figure it out? Critical thinking is integrated into science and the justice system. Where would we be now without those things? Apparently you wouldn't care. Your attitude reduces your scope of what matters to whether or not you can run faster than the animal that wants to eat you for dinner. Clearly you're not thinking your answers through.

You are completely mistaken. Knowing the truth and critical thinking are in NO WAY synonymous. Critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false. No, critical thinking does not equal the truth.

My point is that what you are proposing in terms of the theoretical is in reality totally speculative. You have no evidence to prove your position, so you advertise to employ "critical thinking" in an attempt to bolster your beliefs and opinions. Plain and simple. This gives them no weight in anyone's mind but yours.

Exercising critical thinking is no guarantee of the truth. In fact, using the concept of critical thinking with respect to the anomalously hypothetical may impart bias due to an absence of established facts. The reality is that many claiming to use as much have merely made an effort to support their own beliefs.

 

[Randall]

You are completely mistaken. Knowing the truth and critical thinking are in NO WAY synonymous.

You've misinterpreted what I was saying. I never said truth and critical thinking are synonymous. The point was that critical thinking is a tried and true method of analysis that is useful in establishing the truth.

Critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.

Very good quote. It looks like it's from Wikipedia. It makes the same point I do.

No, critical thinking does not equal the truth.

Again, that's a misinterpretation of the point I was making.

My point is that what you are proposing in terms of the theoretical is in reality totally speculative. You have no evidence to prove your position, so you advertise to employ "critical thinking" in an attempt to bolster your beliefs and opinions. Plain and simple. This gives them no weight in anyone's mind but yours.

Actually, contrary to your claim I tend explain my position with examples, sometimes including links to relevant information, and it is that effort that gives weight to my posts. You've followed me enough to know this so I suspect you're just heckling me now for some unknown reason.

Exercising critical thinking is no guarantee of the truth.

OK ... No problem there. I never claimed otherwise.

In fact, using the concept of critical thinking with respect to the anomalously hypothetical may impart bias due to an absence of established facts.

Critical thinking is designed to minimize bias though objective analysis. The absence of sufficient evidence is taken into consideration and what evidence there is, is weighed accordingly.

The reality is that many claiming to use as much have merely made an effort to support their own beliefs.

Great! That's what it's supposed to be used for. The whole point is that exercising critical thinking is preferable to unsubstantiated opinions, mere proclamations, faith, and nonsense. If using it doesn't support our current beliefs, then there may be good reason to change our beliefs, and being able to adapt to more accurate information is the key to advancing ourselves toward the truth. So if you want to change my viewpoint, all you need to do is provide counterpoint that stands up to critical analysis, and what's more, I welcome it at any time. I want to be proven wrong with good reasons that stand up to analysis. Try it and it will serve you well. It's a much more satisfying way to explore and debate an issue than relying on simple denial and unsubstantiated proclamation.

 

[Jeff Davis]

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!?