Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

[The_Sage]

>Reply to article by: "John H." <john at faraway.com>
>Date written: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:37:20 +1000
>MsgID:<3f1e1ea1 at dnews.tpgi.com.au>

>No, she does not regularly call me, most people don't because I tend not to
>answer the phone anyway. Hate the bloody things because when I studying I
>hate distraction of any kind. (I'm the sort of person who will be buried in
>words for 10 hours plus a day when in work mode.) Nor is it a miraculous
>phone call, just a puzzling one. The event in itself was surprising and I
>would have dismissed but when I re-iterated this event and some told me how
>this has happened to them on a number of occasions, then I became
>interested.

Interested in what? The storytales or the facts? Is this an example of
people's misinterpreation of facts?

>Sure, one could argue that these others had falsified memories,
>but the onus there is to demonstrate that these others had falsified
>memories.

Proper logical thinking tells us that there is nothing to disprove
where nothing has been demonstrated outside of the storytale that it
happened. Take for example flying saucers. Lots of people report them,
but reports of flying saucers does not prove that flying saucers exist
or that any person has ever seen one. People report all kinds of
things that don't exist anywhere outside their imagination: Loch Ness
like monsters, ESP, ghosts, Mothman, invisible pink elephants, and so
on. People often delude themselves into believing in things that don't
exist, and they do not bother or even care to follow up on their
beliefs to see if they actually reflect reality or fantasy. So it
shouldn't surprise you to hear so many stories, storytelling is a very
common thing.

>An ad hoc explanation that they did is not evidence, it simply a
>possible explanation, not a proven one.

There is nothing to explain where nothing can be demonstrated to exist
in the first place. Explainations are only for when valid evidence is
first demonstrated, not before.

>Yes, I am well aware of
>confabulation and the labile nature of memory, but these things in
>themselves, while useful in investigating such incidences, must not be used
>as proof these were the processes by which such associations came to be
>formed unless one can demonstrate that precisely in those given incidences.
>ie. You can't use a general argument to refute a specific incidence unless
>it can be proven to be applicable in that particular incidence. Have studied
>neuroscience for a number of years that has been a lesson I have had to
>learn on many occasions.

You are correct. That is the proper attitude to have (which is
surprizing to hear coming from someone who claims to hate
rationalism). What is missing from your rule of behavior though, is
before you do anything else, determine if anything actually happened
or not. You do not take somebody at their word because storytales are
not evidence. People do not make good eyewitnesses or objective
observers. The more personal the event is to the person, the more
suspect the subjective biasing in telling the report becomes. Until
there is evidence, hard physical evidence, the report is filed away as
a storytale.

There is absolutely no valid evidence that the universe is spooky. But
the way people imagine the universe working can be very spooky.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you still
exist, but you have cease to live" -- Mark Twain
=============================================================