EeneyMinnieMoe
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 7,221
Scroll up three posts from yours.
So if a cat with all-black coat crosses my path and he turns out to have a white spot under his chin, it's not bad luck?
Scroll up three posts from yours.
So if a cat with all-black coat crosses my path and he turns out to have a white spot under his chin, it's not bad luck?
I always thought the superstition was that if a black cat crossed your path, it meant you were already screwed.
I have two black cats, Merry and Pippin. Their bad luck force fields cancel each other out. It's very scientific, you see.
Why is that most cats I see dead on the road are black. Not much luck on the cats part. Maybe the cat should use more luck for themselves instead of the observer.
We had a pretty unlucky black cat..... if you define "unlucky" as "was hit by all 18 wheels".
I guess, as cats, they're about averagely lucky themselves, otherwise they'd have died out/taken over the world by now.
Hi
'Extraordinary' has evolved from 'extra - ordinary'.
'Extra' means 'outside'.
So 'Extraordinary' means 'Outside of the ordinary'.
An 'ordinary' point of view, is what is generally accepted, and held to be true by the majority, so it follows that an extraordinary claim would be that which is outside of the ordinary - in other words, a minority viewpoint.
The other point you made about the word 'skeptic'.
'Skeptic' is a word which refers to the way in which someone thinks. The word 'skeptic' does not imply what the person is skeptical of, and so its meaning does not by definition, correlate with any particular point of view
To dogmatically state a fact without proof, is not the scientifically skeptical way of doing things, especially when it goes against the generally accepted view. I do not know of any definitive tests on this matter.
It is true that we generally use our 'common sense' or 'feelings' to decide what we believe in, (or don't believe in), but, as discussed in another thread on Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, common sense is not always a good guide, and most people judge things on their feelings.
But we skeptics know better than to do that - Don't we?
Everyone's feelings lead to different conclusions, and are far too subjective - which is why we need definitive scientific proof before adopting a 'dogmatic' stance - especially if it is against the prevailing majority ideas.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
There is no such thing as luck. Many deluded people believe that there is, but they are also wrong.
You can make up your own definitions for things if you wish, but don't expect anyone else to respect them.
Luck, as Phil Plait so eloquently puts it, is taking probability personally.
For those who doubt "luck" exists, please explain why the following are not actually very, very bad luck:
Pulling a rip-cord at 100 feet and the 'chute not opening.
Hurtling down a straight road with a sharp corner at the end, only to find 200m from the corner, that your brakes have failed.
Diving at 180' and running out of air.
Poor skydiving skills. You'd be very lucky indeed if it did open, however it would hurt like hell on every openning if it were designed and packed to open that fast. No parachute is going to deploy in time to arrest a fall if activated less than a second from impact (average freefall speed for skydivers is 120 mph or 176 fps). At those speeds you would be just a little less than a half second off the deck. All parachutes (even reserves) are designed to open sequentially (the canopy has to clear the bag and the lines have to reach full extension before air is allowed to inflate the canopy) to prevent, or at least minimize malfunctions (and to keep the jumper from snapping their neck)Pulling a rip-cord at 100 feet and the 'chute not opening.
Poor maintenace practices. Car brakes don't commonly just fail. The redundancy of braking systems assures that at least two separate circuits operate independently of each other, and when one leaks or loses pressure it is very noticeable, but there is still braking capacity on at least two wheels.Hurtling down a straight road with a sharp corner at the end, only to find 200m from the corner, that your brakes have failed.
Sheer stupidity, or nitrogen narcosis. SCUBA diving is unsafe below depths of 130 feet without special gas mixes (available only to specially trained and certified sport, military or commercial divers) as the concentration of oxygen in a standard air tank becomes toxic below 130 feet. Deep diving safety regulations require extra air tanks, not to be used except in emergency. Any certified deep diver would be foolish to ignore safety and dive with just their primary air source. Of course surviving a SCUBA dive to 180 feet with standard air tanks and back to the surface would be incredibly lucky.Diving at 180' and running out of air
<snippage by TjW>
Us skeptics often state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - and as I said in another post, it is in this context that I thought the definition of 'extraordinary' meant 'against the prevailing mindset'.
For example, if everyone believed that the earth was flat, then thinking it was round, would be defined as an extraordinary view, and thus would require extraordinary proof.
But if I now claim that the earth is really flat, this would require extraordinary proof, becaue it is against the present prevailing view.
I had a black cat some to live with me in 1995 and she crossed my path constantly. The only effect I can think of that having on my luck was when I tripped over her after I'd been drinking.
Ah, but just think how much luckier you would have been without the black cat. By now, you'd be a millionaire with three Lear jets and a retinue of blondes to put Hefner to shame.
