Skeptics ( Unwitting ) dupes?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Pseudogenes are something else. You are talking about non-coding RNA:

Non-coding RNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But the homeobox gene is not a good example, because it is only the box that is conserved, not the entire gene. Unless he can do some arithmetic to show that there is simply not enough variation between the DNA of humans and chimps to account for our differences, then he isn't saying much.


Have you got an animal that can regrow an eye regardless of what sort of mutilation occured? In any event, why can't there be multiple signal chains to grow the eye from various starting points?

~~ Paul

Well you still have not quantified your original assertion that the small number of conventional genes is made up by a vast number of non-coding RNA!

I keep on saying that it is the lens, not the whole eye. Why on earth would there be functioning signaling pathways available to fix a totally artificial mutation. RS's point is that this is evidence that something holds the end structure - the intact animal - not just masses of signaling steps that make an intact organism.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Well you still have not quantified your original assertion that the small number of conventional genes is made up by a vast number of non-coding RNA!

Here's a paper from 2005 that cites 218 mammalian microRNAs with 2,000 genes having target sites:

Human MicroRNA targets. [PLoS Biol. 2004] - PubMed Result

There are many other types of non-coding RNAs, too. I'm not sure why you're using the word vast. Please don't speak as if we know exactly how much control information we need to make a human.

I keep on saying that it is the lens, not the whole eye. Why on earth would there be functioning signaling pathways available to fix a totally artificial mutation. RS's point is that this is evidence that something holds the end structure - the intact animal - not just masses of signaling steps that make an intact organism.

Lens, eye, whatever. What totally artificial mutation? Could you please point me at something that describes what you're talking about?

~~ Paul

[misterkeene]

Originally Posted by hoggworks

Why would we hunt something we don't think exists?

That's for you to answer, not I. Seeing the interest that skeptics have in the subject of the paranormal, one can only wonder why.

Originally Posted by hoggworks

Look, the thing about skeptics is that they're open to considering ideas; they just need a reason to believe. Most of the people here who are skeptical of claims of woo and paranormal just don't find the evidences presented as compelling to change their views, but that doesn't for a moment mean that if sufficiently persuasive evidences were presented that our views wouldn't be realigned.

The fact is that millions of people, everywhere and from every era, have experienced phenomena that current science has not adequately explained. Current polls indicate 60% to 70% of the population has some experience or belief in these phenomena. Roughly speaking, I'd say most of the people who ever lived on the planet earth appear to accept the paranormal. And this huge amount of empircal data puts skeptics in the minority of human experience. Skeptics are in no position to judge or qualify things which they've never experienced.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by misterkeene

That's for you to answer, not I. Seeing the interest that skeptics have in the subject of the paranormal, one can only wonder why.

Myself, I'm quite interested in the question of why people believe in such things.

The fact is that millions of people, everywhere and from every era, have experienced phenomena that current science has not adequately explained. Current polls indicate 60% to 70% of the population has some experience or belief in these phenomena. Roughly speaking, I'd say most of the people who ever lived on the planet earth appear to accept the paranormal. And this huge amount of empircal data puts skeptics in the minority of human experience. Skeptics are in no position to judge or qualify things which they've never experienced.

A person or group of person's belief in something is in no way empirical data. Human history is a history of people believing things that we find laughable today. Millions of people thought it was perfectly reasonable to crap in the streets, to piss at the dinner table, that the heart was the seat of human intelligence. People today believe that legs can cure disease (and kill people with such "lucky" legs). We believe nonsense all the time.

We seem to be wired to believe such things, not because they're true, but because it's a side-effect of other, useful evolutionary traits; we see patterns everywhere because it makes sense for us to, because it's far better to take the chance that there's a tiger over there than to assume that there isn't. The cost of choosing poorly in that case is death. This faculty of the brain, however, causes us to see patterns where none exist, and the trouble we face now is mitigating such disruptive behaviors. It's not unlike our desire for sugar and fat: in the wild, such cravings are useful, because we ought to pounce on things in such limited supply. In civilization, though, this backfires on us, because while we have access to sugars and fats our desires are still keyed to older levels, and we end up with the obesity crisis.

There's a very interesting book that's just come out called Super Sense: Why We Believe the Unbelievable. It's pretty interesting, and posits that we're keyed to believe in the supernatural (for reasons I state and others), and makes the interesting connection between belief in supernatural and superstitions things and our stress levels: when we're more stressed and more frightened, we're more likely to believe in these things, because we seem to have a large scale need for control, and the supernatural gives us the illusion of control.

A need for control doesn't make the belief true, however.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by anonymous

The problem for Doyle is that once you've been in materialization seances the things you are willing to belive increases. So to you and me it seem obvious that his he lacked common sense to believe those pictures of paper cut out faries were real. But if you had the experiences that he had, they would not seem as outlandish.

I've been searching YouTube in vain for actual video of a spirit materialization. Scores of materialization mediums seem to have no problem putting themselves in front of a camera as long as it's not during one of their impressive materializations. At 3:34 I've finally found a materialization that can't be blown off as cigarette smoke or fog from a dehumidifier!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Materialization is out of favor today. Too many spiritualists were found to be frauds.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Materialization is out of favor today. Too many spiritualists were found to be frauds.

~~ Paul

Many of those 'mediums' were in fact magicians, who bought equipment from magic shops .... and guess what .... those former fraudulent magicians founded organized skepticism!

While today, organized skepticism pretends to be founded in the 1970s after Uri Geller came on the scene ... it is a myth .... the history is are rather more embarassing one for skeptics.

Something to think about, Paul, next time you write a cheque?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Many of those 'mediums' were in fact magicians, who bought equipment from magic shops .... and guess what .... those former fraudulent magicians founded organized skepticism!

While today, organized skepticism pretends to be founded in the 1970s after Uri Geller came on the scene ... it is a myth .... the history is are rather more embarassing one for skeptics.

Something to think about, Paul, next time you write a cheque?

You'll have to point me to a history book, because I don't know what you're talking about. Are you saying there were magicians who pretended to be mediums, or that there were magician/mediums who went over to the other side?

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You'll have to point me to a history book, because I don't know what you're talking about. Are you saying there were magicians who pretended to be mediums

Yes absolutely. Made money from it. Wrote books on how to fake it. Equipment was sold in magic shops

, or that there were magician/mediums who went over to the other side?

Yes magicians who made money from being fake psychics, who later became debunkers of psychic claims (some even had the audacity to still sell themselves like genuine psychics in advertising, while debunkers) .... arguably these are the real founders of organized skepticism ... they weren't scientists ... magicians with prize challenges decades before Randi copied their idea.

It is ridiculous today that people like Shermer (in video), Hyman (in interview) and others I won't name claiming organized skepticism began in the 1970s with Randi after Geller came on the scene .. for example how can they miss out Harry Houdini and his band of magician spies who were about to be sued in millions of dollars lawsuits ... just two weeks before Houdini's death ..... but Houdini died.... shame these court cases didn't go ahead in my opinion.... they would have been fascinating insight into the early methods of organized skepticism

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes absolutely. Made money from it. Wrote books on how to fake it. Equipment was sold in magic shops.

Fine.

Yes magicians who made money from being fake psychics, who later became debunkers of psychic claims (some even had the audacity to still sell themselves like genuine psychics in advertising, while debunkers) .... arguably these are the real founders of organized skepticism ... they weren't scientists ... magicians with prize challenges decades before Randi copied their idea.

I was asking whether there were "real" mediums who became skeptics.

So why is this interesting?

for example how can they miss out Harry Houdini and his band of magician spies who were about to be sued in millions of dollars lawsuits ... just two weeks before Houdini's death ..... but Houdini died.... shame these court cases didn't go ahead in my opinion.... they would have been fascinating insight into the early methods of organized skepticism.

Houdini was not part of what we would call modern organized skepticism.

~~ Paul