Fact: people cannot see the future

[flyboy217]

I'm starting this thread because of a discussion that seems to be spanning multiple threads. I am of the impression that claims like "reading the future is impossible" and "crops just don't form natural circles" are not facts, and should not be regarded as such. I would think the strongest assertions one can make are "there is no evidence for X," "there is no logical reason to believe X," and the like. This arose from my objection to the use of a statement of the form "X is impossible" in a thread about the evidence for X.

Several members here seem to disagree, however (names have been changed to preserve anonymity):

e.g.,
Flyboy217:

This is no different from claims like "people just can't see the future," "astrology just can't work," and "reindeer just can't fly." Do you believe those are valid claims, too?

Someone:

They are not only valid claims, but facts.

Flyboy217:

Do you not see the difference between those and valid claims like "we don't have any reason to believe that people can see the future," "astrology has never been shown to work," etc.?

Someone:

These claims are valid as well, and facts also.

Your logic would have people believing in psychics and mediums...........but you do, don't you?

What is the general consensus here (if there is indeed one)? Is it valid and factual to claim such things? If one does not treat claims like "crop circles cannot form naturally" as a fact, does that make one a woo? I'd answer "no" to both.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Seeing the future is impossible, that is a fact. The future does not exist, it never does, it is simply a concept humans have developed to deal with the dynamically changing universe.

It is also a fact that crop circles do not form naturally. Every crop circle ever discovered was made by humans.

 

[Ceinwyn]

I'm unclear here. What exactly are you asking?

 

[Pixel42]

If you said something that implied that the earth was round, and someone said "well I believe the earth is flat", you wouldn't say "well of course you're entitled to your opinion on that, your opinion is as good as mine ...". There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round, and the position that the earth is flat is completely unsupportable. No-one is ever going to produce any evidence to suggest that the earth has really been flat all along. So "the earth is not flat" is an incontrovertable fact.

"People cannot see the future" is more difficult because, although no-one has yet produced a scrap of evidence that anyone can see the future, the possibility exists that some day someone will do so. The sceptic's position is that if, after all this time, no-one has yet managed to provide evidence that seeing the future is possible, then it's sensible to assume that "People cannot see the future" is fact until and unless someone produces some evidence that proves otherwise.

 

[Carn]

I am of the impression that claims like "reading the future is impossible" are not facts, and should not be regarded as such.

Depends on what you mean by reading and what is predicted.

If i would have to get into the ring with Vladimir Klitschko for a fight and some astrologer tells me beforehand, that he is certain i will lose, the stars told him, i certainly would not say, its impossible for you to know the future, i would at most ask him why he needs the stars (either those in the sky or in hollywood), to make that prediction.

If someone would predict via astrology, that one of my great-grandchildren will achieve a new world record in running 100m, i would say that this is according to current scientific knowledge(QM, there is no non-material thing attached to or communicating with humans) impossible.

If someone predicted, that next racing season Michael Schumacher will not win again, i would not say impossible(after all maybe its possible to see some pattern in his form and from that one could conclude, that his chances are bad next year), though i would remain sceptical about the methods used, even if it would come true, and would think it more likely, that the astrologers subconcious is just good at evaluating the different drivers racing skills.

Carn

 

[Mojo]

If one does not treat claims like "crop circles cannot form naturally" as a fact, does that make one a woo?

If someone repeatedly makes assertions which are completely unsupported by evidence then, yes, they are probably a woo.

The skeptical position on, for example, the statement quoted above is not "crop circles cannot form naturally" but "there is no evidence that crop circles form naturally." The fact that every crop circle investigated has been found to be the work of humans is supporting evidence that they do not form naturally, but of course doesn't prove it. It tends to be kind of tricky to prove a negative, remember (have you got an invisible dragon in your bathroom? Are you sure?).

When the supporting evidence is good enough, it is sensible to make the assumption that something is not possible, even if this cannot be proven.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, it depends where I am. If I'm down the pub, then I'll say: "People don't have precognition" without qualification. Round here, I say, "The evidence which I have seen for precognition is not sufficient to convince me, but please do present me with some more, if you know of any". Because:

(a) That's what I'm here for
(b) If I didn't, a woo would start explaining to me that I'm No True Sceptic... oh, they do that anyway... darn...

 

[Mojo]

Actually, it depends where I am. If I'm down the pub, then I'll say: "People don't have precognition" without qualification.

I tend not to make unqualified statements of that sort down the pub these days. I have almost come to blows with a (usually reasonable) friend because he insists that men have never walked on the moon, and has now started making up evidence to support this. Contradicting him does not tend to go down well, so I now restrict myself to singing Sympathy for the Devil (under my breath, of course, apart from the backing vocals) whenever he raises the subject.

 

[flyboy217]

Re: Re: Fact: people cannot see the future

If someone repeatedly makes assertions which are completely unsupported by evidence then, yes, they are probably a woo.

Which is, of course, nothing at all like what I asked.

The skeptical position on, for example, the statement quoted above is not "crop circles cannot form naturally" but "there is no evidence that crop circles form naturally."

Which was precisely my stance.

The fact that every crop circle investigated has been found to be the work of humans is supporting evidence that they do not form naturally, but of course doesn't prove it.

Which is my point

It tends to be kind of tricky to prove a negative, remember (have you got an invisible dragon in your bathroom? Are you sure?).

Perhaps I am just strange like that. If someone were to ask me if I had an invisible dragon in my bathroom, I'd say something like "erm... uh... I don't think so..." And if they pressed with "are you sure," I'd probably respond "No... how the hell should I know? Who cares?"

When the supporting evidence is good enough, it is sensible to make the assumption that something is not possible, even if this cannot be proven.

I personally find it dangerous to declare something as fact just because there is insufficient evidence to show otherwise. I've brought this up in another thread, but consider the case of Lavoisier in 1790, reported to have declared that rocks do not fall from the sky because there are no rocks in the sky. And so, not wanting to look foolish, (purportedly) many museums threw out their meteorite collections.

Perhaps the story is apocryphal, but that's the point I'm getting at. Why make foolhardy statements like "X is simply impossible" when it does essentially no good to make them? It's almost as though people feel that they're somehow not taking a staunch enough position against "the woos" were they only to declare that "there is no evidence for such-and-such, so a belief in it is absurd." And the people who don't agree with the dogmatic assertions that certain things simply can't ever be possible are also labeled as woos.

It seems that once someone takes up the position that "X is factually impossible," they will be at least less likely to consider good evidence for X. Sometimes this serves as a good filter for the thousands of wacky claims rolling in, but it also might end up blocking some good stuff.

 

[CFLarsen]

flyboy217,

What will it take for you to say that a paranormal phenomenon does not exist?

Don't we at some point have to move on?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think he just wants to be semantically correct about the paranormal. I care not for politics of language, I will state that paranormal phenomena does not exist.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think he just wants to be semantically correct about the paranormal. I care not for politics of language, I will state that paranormal phenomena does not exist.

I think it can be compared to when we say "It has been scientifically proven." It is understood to be true "until contrary evidence arrives".

 

[flyboy217]

flyboy217,

What will it take for you to say that a paranormal phenomenon does not exist?

Don't we at some point have to move on?

Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on." I'm fine with the moving on part. I just don't think something has to be declared impossible before one moves on. I can go on ignoring that invisible dragon in my bathroom as long as it's not pestering me.

One problem, I think, is that deciding for good that something is impossible probably does make one less likely to consider good evidence for it in the future. This can be countered by the simple argument that "staunch" skepticism in this sense is practical--if 1 in a million claims are real, then it saves a lot of time to give each claim just a bit less time than it might otherwise warrant.

Being reasonably new to this whole thing, it's quite possible that I, too, will eventually decide I've had enough of paranormal silliness and become more staunch to save myself time and energy. But I've got all the time in the world for that.

(edited to remove a paragraph)

 

[CFLarsen]

Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on." I'm fine with the moving on part. I just don't think something has to be declared impossible before one moves on. I can go on ignoring that invisible dragon in my bathroom as long as it's not pestering me.

But nobody is saying that it is impossible. E.g., what Ken says is that it doesn't exist (because we haven't seen any evidence of it, and there doesn't seem to be any forthcoming). That's a very different thing.

Being reasonably new to this whole thing, it's quite possible that I, too, will eventually decide I've had enough of paranormal silliness and become more staunch to save myself time and energy. But I've got all the time in the world for that.

Well, one thing you need to do is to realize that there is a difference between "impossible" and "doesn't exist". And who is saying it.

 

[Darat]

I'm starting this thread because of a discussion that seems to be spanning multiple threads. I am of the impression that claims like "reading the future is impossible" and "crops just don't form natural circles" are not facts, and should not be regarded as such. I would think the strongest assertions one can make are "there is no evidence for X," "there is no logical reason to believe X," and the like. This arose from my objection to the use of a statement of the form "X is impossible" in a thread about the evidence for X.

...snip...

What is the general consensus here (if there is indeed one)? Is it valid and factual to claim such things? If one does not treat claims like "crop circles cannot form naturally" as a fact, does that make one a woo? I'd answer "no" to both.

It's shorthand for saying "According to everything we know, or can verify at the moment there is no reason or evidence that requires the ability of people to see the future, furthermore many of the proposed hypothesis that include the possibility of people being able to see the future would require major re-working or throwing out of existing theories that have proven immensely and incredibly predictive and there is no reason or evidence to consider these hypothesis until such time that incontrovertible evidence is produced that would require people to be able to see the future to explain."

Or something along those lines, I hope you get my drift.

It is much easier to say "People cannot see the future." and leave the long windedness for pedants or people who are trying to get you to believe they can see the future.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on." I'm fine with the moving on part. I just don't think something has to be declared impossible before one moves on. I can go on ignoring that invisible dragon in my bathroom as long as it's not pestering me.

One problem, I think, is that deciding for good that something is impossible probably does make one less likely to consider good evidence for it in the future. This can be countered by the simple argument that "staunch" skepticism in this sense is practical--if 1 in a million claims are real, then it saves a lot of time to give each claim just a bit less time than it might otherwise warrant.

Being reasonably new to this whole thing, it's quite possible that I, too, will eventually decide I've had enough of paranormal silliness and become more staunch to save myself time and energy. But I've got all the time in the world for that.

(edited to remove a paragraph)

Let me use your above paragraphs to explain why the level of accuracy you are suggesting people use is just not practical if you want to communicate with people.

"Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on."

Surely that should be more like:

"Like the invisible dragon, I would (in most cases but probably not in all cases) be more (more being a relative comparative term between how I would feel (feel being an internalised subjective state that I cannot provide objective evidence that I do actually feel (however that does not preclude the fact that at some future time (future time being not infinite but bounded by the life of the universe (the life span of the universe is currently unknown (there are several conflicting theories what it even means to say the "end of the universe" (universe referring to the expanse of the universe that we know about (know about is referring to a mental state of having an awareness of a fact (awareness of a fact is a subjective state that can only be deduced by the observation of third parties .... ))))))))))))))....."

Do you begin to see the problem if you don’t want people to use shorthand? It’s all about a balance and trying to use the right amount of detail depending on what you are trying to communicate.

 

[flyboy217]

Do you begin to see the problem if you don’t want people to use shorthand? It’s all about a balance and trying to use the right amount of detail depending on what you are trying to communicate.

Thanks for the reply. Your point is well taken. That's why I probed deeper, asking if he meant only that there was insufficient evidence, or if he claimed that it was established as a fact. The response that it was "not only a valid claim, but a fact" is what threw me. Seems like odd shorthand (especially for a forum such as this), but I suppose it's something I'll get used to.

 

[Darat]

Thanks for the reply. Your point is well taken. That's why I probed deeper, asking if he meant only that there was insufficient evidence, or if he claimed that it was established as a fact. The response that it was "not only a valid claim, but a fact" is what threw me. Seems like odd shorthand (especially for a forum such as this), but I suppose it's something I'll get used to.

I think it is just about "picking your battles" wisely and challenging people appropriately, whilst appreciating that people do tend to not include the "... as far as we know", or "…to the best of our current knowledge…" in every statement.

There is also something I think of as "accurate enough". For example if we were having a general conversation and I said "The earth is a sphere" that is accurate enough although technically it isn't accurate. However if the discussion was about planetary formation then we probably need to use a more accurate statement of the shape of the earth.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

I'm not sure why anyone would expect certainty regarding anything other than logically obvious statements - and why anyone would feel the need to qualify statements particularly far when they fall only a little short of that certainty.

I wouldn't say it's logically impossible that my bottom isn't going to turn into subwoofer within the next five minutes, but I think that I'm perfectly well justified in saying that it won't without any qualifications. In fact, when it comes to things knowable with absolute certainty I generally note them as special cases of knowledge - not only do I know that it's impossible for two contradictory statements to both be true, I know it to be necessary.

Arguing that I, on some level, need to admit the possibility that my bottom might turn into a subwoofer within the next five minutes strikes me as nothing more than a refusal to admit that along with logical impossibility there is also physical impossibility - it's not as strong, or as certain, but it's good enough for knowledge.

 

[The Don]

Thanks for the reply. Your point is well taken. That's why I probed deeper, asking if he meant only that there was insufficient evidence, or if he claimed that it was established as a fact.

It's not just a lack of evidence, it's also the lack of a rational theory as to how such a thing is possible. There is no evidence that Middlesbrough Football Club have ever won the Premiership (because they have not), but there are a set of circumstances in which they could in the future. There has not yet been adequate evidence for precognition, neither is there an acceptable theorem for a mechanism for it to happen.