A Separate Reality - A Kossack way of Knowledge: REPUBLISHED from GOS

In 1971, Carlos Casteneda published "A Separate Reality"; a follow on to his first work "The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge". These, and more to follow, purportedly recounted his training in mesoamerican shamanism by the shaman he called Don Juan. His works were at first accepted by many as non-fiction, and there are still some who buy into them. For further revelations, and relevance, jump with me through spacetime to the diary below --

Before I address the link to our community here, I would like to expand a bit upon the fact that many bought into Casteneda's first books. Look at the date. Don Juan and Casteneda purportedly used psychotropic drugs, and much experimentation with a large variety of such drugs had been conducted by scientific researchers, curious dabblers, seekers of all sorts and sundry others. There was also a some serious research into Yoga and other physical and meditative regimes that indicated that mankind had the ability to achieve altered states of consciousness without drugs. Beyond a seeming resurgence in belief in mysticism, there was an edge of science peering into these same corners. And, what was "crazy" if not a coherent self-fulfilling alternate truth system?

There was, above and beyond all of that, the spreading inescapable awareness that there is a very real sense in which we, each of us, dwell in a purely private, unique and separate reality. Reality is, after all, a construct. The problem of perception versus reality, idea versus reality, model versus reality and all of the other forms of the "self versus other" duality had spit up volumes of approaches, analyses and answers; scientific, philosophical and inspirational, as well as an awareness of the existence and surprising prevalence of self-fulfilling truth systems.

Which finally brings us to The Daily Kos. Second only to "This is a Democratic Blog" is the admonition that this is a "Reality Based" blog, yet I often find myself asking "Whose reality?". Shortly after I first arrived somebody responded to a suggestion that candidate Obama might do/be doing something or other with "I have met Obama and he's a great guy and would never do anything like that". Huh? Recently, I mentioned Holder using the State Secrets Doctrine in a situation which would deny somebody their right to their day in court. I was attacked and a link was demanded, even though this event had been widely publicized and many diaries thereon had been published here. When I stated that I don't provide links for common knowledge, my comment was dismissed as essentially fictive. (Binyan Mohammed/Jeppson Dataplane for those of you who have been asleep) Argumentum ad hominem is used daily, as are almost all of the other classic informal fallacies (discussed here:http://www.dailykosbeta.com/story/2009/12/15/814540/-Logic-RefresherClas...(Informal)-Fallac ies).

We are, of course, fact based, and diaries must be well researched with links and citations, even if not logic. God help you if you show up here with a "conspiracy theory". Yet faith based positions and assertions abound. (For example, I just recently saw that lame "you cannot disprove god" argument raised, as if there could ever be an obligation to disprove anything for which there was no shred of evidence.) The mainstream formal organized religions come up, of course, but also myriad manifestations of the equally faith based "it is 11 dimensional chess at work" and claims of secret plans and schemes, maneuvers and strategems that can neither be proven nor disproven and for which no evidence can be presented. I won't even start on economics. We are incessantly told with respect to many subjects that if we do or don't do some thing x, then some other thing y will surely follow based on either absolutely nothing or else on convoluted applications of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy that would leave David Hume in tears.

Yet, it is unavoidable that we all have unique backgrounds, life histories and experiences, educations and the like; leading unavoidably to unique frames of reference and, yes, the uniqueness of the resultant constructs or models we each call reality. However, there is a certain agreement in broad general terms between these separate realities, certain "objective" "facts" - water is wet, rocks are generally harder than brie, fire burns and the like. A lot of this is as much language as it is fact, but that's ok. For the most part, we base our models on their utility and the degree to which they map "reality", as determined by their agreement with the consensus model and their ability to successfully predict things. In short, at some level, we are all, to at least some degree, empiricists but in our own little self-constructed but very similar and parallel worlds.

What is my point? I don't want a "reality" based discussion. I want an empirical reality based discussion. We can skip the evidence and go to the facts, but only if we have evidence supporting those facts; not in the sense of links to Wikipedia or newspaper articles, but in the sense of things one can determine. Magik, sekrit plans, 11 dimensional chess moves and never demonstrated "laws" of political, social and economic cause and effect are not evidence and have no scientific evidence supporting them (not even if Milton Friedman swears that they are so). God "this that and the other" is horseshit because irrelevant. Regardless of the profundity of one's spectacular spiritual experience, it can't be documented to or exactly duplicated by another. Let us limit our interpretations, theories and arguments to those which can have an empirical basis, which can have some discernible and replicable evidence. "Spooky action at a distance" only works for quantum entanglement.

For example, assume that it is the late sixties and I am sitting in my pad doing some homebrew pranayama and meditating upon some of the seeming discrepancies between east and west and in particular the power of meditation. What, I wonder, if the autonomous nervous system were not truly so? What if it could be influenced or controlled by the mind with sufficient practice or focus? Heck, if you take a hit to the solar plexus, any of 16 or so different kinds of hell can break loose, so what if you could manipulate energy flows though it by focusing on it and on those flows and etc., visualize it like a multiposition switch or rheostat regulating metaboic and nervous processes or something. As I muse I find myself tucked up against the southwest corner of the ceiling looking down at me. Yeeps. Holy shit and all that and what am I doing and what if I screw up and can't get back or give myself anoxia damage or somesuch. Poof, stop fooling around and get back to normal.

So, I later do a ton of analysis, introspection and review enabling me to form a pretty solid idea of the probability that this really happened, that I had at least a perceived out of body experience, that my metabolic rate, heart rate and breath rate came scarily close to zero while I was doing it. OK, I can describe and discuss this, but I could never sell it to even the least skeptical person. There is no possible way I could ever have or provide evidence, so there is no point in my screaming at doubters, or maligning them or casting aspersions upon them. I should not expect belief, but disbelief. It simply isn't something that can be empirical fact because it cannot be duplicated or observed by another. Only if I am discussing meditative techniques or theories with somebody should it even come up. It would be pointless to run around proselytizing or pontificating based on something that is irrevocably non-fact to the non-participants, which is to say, everybody but me.

There are those who always rush to point out that if one cannot disprove something, then one doesn't know that it is non-existent. This is argumentum ad ignorantum, a classic fallacy, but there is no point in ever getting to that point. To Quote a slightly snarky statement from Bertrand Russell:

I wish to propose a doctrine ... which may, I fear, appear wholly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing that it is true.

I would go further and say that if we know that there is not any evidence, especially if we know that such evidence is not possible, then we shouldn't even bother discussing it. I am reminded that there was once concern over an underlying yet inaccessible reality, something with which, by definition we could not interact, something which could not be seen measured, heard felt or touched, which did not interact with matter, spirit or energy. Such things can have no impact on ourselves and our world and can have no effect on the near future or the far pasture and are therefore completely irrelevant to us. We can never know the truth or falsity of assertions about such things other than that they are totally irrelevant, so why bother discussing them. (Philosophy profs once frowned upon this line of argument, but seldom tried to refute it.)

So, Along with my extract from the book of Bert, I'll toss in something from the book of Isaac:

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and
reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything,
no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The
wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more
solid the evidence will have to be.

--Isaac Asimov

Why not stick to things that are believable by that standard? It would greatly increase the odds of finding areas of agreement. It would almost certainly be vastly more productive and more capable of engendering rational discussion than attributing things to 11 dimensional chess, invisible hands, or gods and deamons.

/Rant

This was originally published on January 25, 2011 at Daily Kos: link to original I have decided to republish this here for the independent value it has regarding empiricism, reality, communication, and such matters.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

PriceRip's picture

          With common ground, we have a common footing from which to maintain stability as we explore the less tenuous mutual interests.

up
0 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

that it used to drive me absolutely crazy.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

PriceRip's picture

          On the face of it it's a penetrating universal truth. On the other hand he is uttering these words at a time of deep and disturbing lies getting us into and sustaining an unpopular "war". Hum, sounds familiar. I chose to think Robert McCloskey was speaking on several levels at that moment. But, then I was young and naïve, so there is that to consider.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

History is made up of bad (R)s and good (D)s. All (R) doctrines are bad unless otherwise proclaimed by Obama or one of the Clintons -- then they're good. Morality is a device used to make Republicans look bad, unless it's a device used to make Bernie Sanders or his supporters look bad. Nobody believes this because they're paid to do so -- and you're not allowed to ask. Incrementalism is the route to the Promised Land, which is why it's the liberals' fault that the Republicans won big in 2010 and 2014 -- they strayed. Nader is the Devil; Trump is merely Hitler.

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

enhydra lutris's picture

real communication requiring sufficiently similar weltanschauungs that we can have meaningful exchanges. Most importantly, it is about avoiding things that cannot be known, proven or disproven, such as somebody's motive, emotional state or most academic economics.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Cassiodorus's picture

is anyone over there interested in such a thing? I thought the point of eight years of ceaseless reportage of high-profile Republicans dolled up to look like the movie/ TV series Jackass was to enforce a particular ideological perspective so that true believers could go to Daily Kos for daily confirmation. Backing up this perspective is, of course, a cadre of hall monitors and wannabe hall monitors who hold to the above-described ideological perspective and who will no doubt tolerate adventures in logic as long as you don't stray into, say, specifics, or anything like that.

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Yes, I clicked over there slumming a bit, but it's not like I provide that many clicks anymore either.

Little if any text by MB in that post, but the false equivalency stuff was being floated - as if Dems and Pubs are really that much different anymore, but of course they have to claim there are huge differences so they can maintain appropriate cognitive dissonance.

Republicans want everyone drinking Trickle down Lemonade, and Turd Sandwiches. Democrats want everyone to be happy about their menu selections of Feces Sandwiches and everyone drinking Jonestown Kool-Aid.

Also in there was an image with text re: 'criticism and - if you want to see who rules over you…' - Funny how you can't criticize Clinton on that site. It is obvious to whom the site owner has sworn fealty.

As for that old quote - Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe… - I was never overly impressed by it. I don't want or need anyone interpreting what I do or what I believe for me. Talk about asking people to give up the sovereignty of their own thoughts and positions. No thanks and Hell no.

up
0 users have voted.
Sandino's picture

Also in there was an image with text re: 'criticism and - if you want to see who rules over you…' - Funny how you can't criticize Clinton on that site. It is obvious to whom the site owner has sworn fealty.

Looks like he managed to sneak a message through to his followers in exile. Thanks for passing it on.

up
0 users have voted.
Meteor Man's picture

we see the world as WE are.

An old quote. Anaiis Nin I think.

I'm working on a 30 day chip for complete abstinance from The Pie Fight Place. Fortunately, I have also been able to restrain myself from clicking on articles at The Daily Upchuck that cite to diaries there as if anyone over there had even a smidgeon of credibility.

Go figure.

up
0 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Hawkfish's picture

It's just boring.

up
0 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Cassiodorus's picture

I'm working on a 30 day chip for complete abstinance from The Pie Fight Place

You should extend your period of abstinence to some nice even number like, say, 666...

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

HoundDog's picture

the first Casteneda book came out. I was one of those who bought into them hook, line, and sinkers. I read all of the books on psychedelics I could and had just discovered the wonders of sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

Even after skeptics raise doubts and I read about the academic controversy I kept reading the sequels which drifted off into la, la land.

I've never had any trouble understanding how cults and other communities can develop for themselves self-referential systems of reality.

I never thought I see such a descent as I have at TOP. Evidence of SAP level documents being on Clinton's server are not even known by many there. They believe all of the e-mail issues are just like the bogus Benghazi witch-hunt.

up
0 users have voted.

It would be pointless to run around proselytizing or pontificating based on something that is irrevocably non-fact to the non-participants, which is to say, everybody but me.

in a way that didn't leave the average co-conversationalist baffled. It is a difficult one.

These days, I often find myself telling people, "Yes, I understand your argument, but the problem is that you and I do not inhabit the same universe." And we don't, not even for the purpose of dialogue, because that person is not willing to limit our discourse to that intersection of our two universes that you would describe as "empirical reality".

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

enhydra lutris's picture

that we build models and that they alone are reality for us is at odds with centuries of teaching.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

shaharazade's picture

Politics and religion along with most of the humanities and arts are human constructs that do not seem to lend themselves to empirical, factual or even provable reality. Kind of like the story of Roshoman perception vs. reality is in the eye of the beholder.

I have no problem believing that you had an out of body experience. I've had a few myself both on drugs and off. I saw the universe in a grapefruit half I had just cut and I sat under a tree in Kansas at a HS art camp and it's big leaves became the world around. I like the sweet mysteries. My dad a mechanical engineer and science man would tell me tales of the universe being nothing but an atom in a giants big toe.

Hard science and empirical proofs are to me descriptors rather then 'reality'. Reality is subjective and objective. Music for instance is constructed with time and mathematics, fiction and movies create stories or pictures that create a plausible reality. They create their own reality which requires ....

Suspension of disbelief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbeliefWikipedia

The term was coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgement concerning the implausibility of the narrative.

Politics are not reality based at dkos or in the media's narrative. It does not suspend my disbelief. Neither does the kabuki show in DC. Whose reality indeed when nothing is what it seems regardless of the numbers and facts of mass deception the pols use to have us believe their version of 'the world as we find it'.

They create their own sick dark reality to get our consent for giving them the power to turn their nightmare into reality. Self evident truths and inalienable rights are not provable concepts. They are in the realm where the human spirit and imagination live. In the authoritarian dkos world reality is what ever they decide it is in order to get your consent to their fantastic horror show.

up
0 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Ken in MN's picture

...and the reason I know it was real was because the person I was with at the time had the exact same experience at the exact same time, but from her perspective instead of mine. It was a near-death experience on her part that I got sucked into. No drugs were involved, only a great amount of stress due to the illness.

up
0 users have voted.

I want my two dollars!

flitedocnm's picture

I thought it was TOP here.

Let's see: Great Orange Satan?? --

up
0 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

and got taken up as shorthand.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

enhydra lutris's picture

of disbelief, but they are keepers of different gates. The latter opens any gate I choose to let it. The former has a more exclusionary role. It segregates that which is or can be evidence based from that which cannot. For example, let's consider

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." (Henry David Thoreau)

It may be strong evidence, but there is no certainty, and we can kick around what alternative interpretations and possibilities exist, what additional evidence might convince us, and the like. It is evidence because we can both see and touch the trout.

If, however, I claim that I momentarily sensed a fishy aura around the milk, or the voices in my head said that the milk had been diluted, we don't go directly to the explanations for how this could've occurred in the same manner. We don't ask who but the milkman could be responsible, but what drugs am I on, how often I hear voices or see auras, and if we feel like momentarily going along, how accurate those voices and visions have turned out to be over time.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

shaharazade's picture

I had a vintage early edition of Ripley's Believe It or Not, that a smart, crazy hippie friend from college loved, borrowed and never returned. I figure it's got a good home. He taught me to garden organically. He taught me an arachnophobic, to respect spiders instead of fearing them by explaining their empirical purpose on this earth He also was a proponent of all things are possible and hosted a fun Tuesday night showing of Bunuel movies.

If my lying eyes see a trout in the milk I believe it. How it got there is open for discussion but I know a trout when I see it. When I take LSD and the universe is revealed in a grapefruit I believe it as my doors of perception are wide open . When a true believer in the church of partisan politics without democracy tells me that my only choice is binary and yet start talking about lesser evils and incrementalism my bs. meter goes to full tilt.

I think you need to both your gates open and often trust your own perception of reality espeacially when dealing with politics. My brother is a full blown schizophrenic who in moments of lucidity would sigh and say in another culture or society i would be considered a shaman and not a lunatic. Chemical imbalance, DNA, faulty wiring or one hit too many explains his condition or does it? I do think in my perception reality has a liberal bias but then again that opens up a whole other can of worms as what is liberal is open for grabs.

Thank you so much for this fun essay. I can't believe I never read you at TOP but so glad your writing here. As a mystery fiction addict this evidence stuff is right up my intuitive alley.

up
0 users have voted.
EdMass's picture

at Carlos Castenada.

Use a backpack. Keep your hands/fingers curled while you walk. Respect the button and the shroom.

Man, long time.

Sorry, didn't read your story. Didn't need to cause you got me at hello.

Not sure how long you been here. read you ToP. Rather read you here.

I will come back and read your story.

Peace Out.

up
0 users have voted.

Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!

Firesign Theater

Stop the War!

enhydra lutris's picture

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

elenacarlena's picture

the nature of reality were not well received over there.

Researchers recently posted an article, the original at WaPo IIRC, that cops have "reverse racism" in the laboratory. Cannot be applied to the real world, but of course they tried.

So I'd like to point out that not all empirical evidence is created equal. Look for the logical and procedural fallacies. And realize that it's when studies are replicated sufficiently that there is general scientific agreement, under the auspices of no one with an agenda, that we begin to attain knowledge.

The results of a single study do not reality make.

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

enhydra lutris's picture

If others cannot see, feel, hear or touch it, it isn't evidence. If the same results cannot be reached by ordinary mortals performing the same experiment, it isn't evidence. That means that folks may agree with it at will, but, if they don't, you can't really sell it.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

elenacarlena's picture

even though it is able to be replicated, it will not be replicated, because of its poor relation to anything happening in the real world. Most researchers will recognize the logical fallacies and steer clear.

While I believe in God, I don't see any reason to try to convince someone who is happy without one. As you note, this is not something that can be proven or disproven.

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

lotlizard's picture

or gets buried in a landfill on Staten Island or shipped to China to be melted down, before any empirical inquests can be done on it?

up
0 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

destroyed, then it is no longer evidence, n'est ce pas?

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

lotlizard's picture

::sounds of Renaissance-era scientific instruments being destroyed::

up
0 users have voted.
Sandino's picture

as the evidence we find depends on where we look. The questions we ask determine the answers, so 'evidence' is also constructed and partial. The process of discovering and evaluating is active and subjective, so we are easily swayed by immediate appearances, and often avoid deeper investigation. That is the essence of media manipulation of our worlds. It leads to a healthy skepticism, and we take a hostile approach to it as a result. If I watch Fox News, it is to find out what lie they're pushing so I can guess which truths are threatening them.
It has taken a while for us to develop this understanding of the media. I think muscovites reading Pravda in the 60's were probably well ahead of us, both in knowing that their media was propaganda, and in knowing that ours was. Compare Lee Harvey Oswald or those Tonkin Gulf attacks on the US to, say, Bush's WMDs or the 9/11 story. How long did it take for people to raise serious questions about those narratives?
Unfortunately this skepticism produces a toxic loss of trust, and can splinter our consensual reality into self-reinforcing bubbles, as we tend to preferentially accept information that confirms our beliefs. I think this is especially troubling when the propaganda is disguised as scientific results. The destruction of the credibility of scientists is being achieved by corrupting institutional imperatives and human venality on the inside, and coordinated propaganda attacks from industries which failed to capture their observers. It is basically another deadly consequence of the market-worshipping suicide cult that has captured the global levers of power.

up
0 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

things for which it can exist as to inveigh against propositions:
1) where evidence for and/or against is simply impossible. An extreme case is "The Platonic Ideal of a ship has a figurehead, so ordinary ships should also" Since The Platonic Ideal of a ship cannot be seen, felt, heard, or otherwise sensed or measured, no evidence of any type can be provided for assertions about its characteristics
2) using non-evidentiary assertions such as "god said" or "its obvious" to support factual or predictive assertions.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

but if you say you've had an out of body experience that's ok things happen, but for conspiracies I like to puzzle things out with Newtonian and newer physics rather than political/spiritual dogma, and connected or not, enough dots can make a picture

up
0 users have voted.

bygorry

enhydra lutris's picture

for whatever reason, it is impossible for others to see what you see, you will have trouble convincing any doubters of the reality of what you saw.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Sandino's picture

To convey truths that cannot be directly perceived.

(p.s. That's not just hippie romanticism, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates the existence of truths that cannot be proven.)

up
0 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

I was trying to get people not to make assertions of "facts" like "If LBJ had known 'k', he would've done 'a' instead of 'b'" or "If Obama had tried to do 's', then "blah, blah, blah'.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

You mentioned the Conspiracy Theory talking point.

One problem w/DKos is that they squelched the entire process of creating a hypothesis (a logical argument that could be tested, later, by seeing if it matched up with empirical data, and/or could accurately predict new events). They demanded that everything have a legal standard of proof off the bat. What that does is basically suffocate what used to be investigative journalism and academic inquiry.

This is how academic inquiry, in my experience, actually works:
You notice something, anecdotally, or you think you see a pattern. It interests you, and you wonder whether it actually exists.

You form that pattern into a hypothesis ("I *think* this, that, and the other are going on"), defining the terms of what you wish to prove or disprove.

You go out and test the hypothesis against the data.

All this depends on a system of both moral values and methods which are taught, or used to be, in academic circles, and possibly elsewhere. These values and methods guide your choice of what data is valid and applicable to the hypothesis and what data is not valid or has nothing to do with your proposition for one reason or another. The reason for excluding data CAN NEVER BE that it disagrees w/your hypothesis (this is what, IMO, really sank Carmen Reinhardt's argument a couple years ago, not the error the grad student found in her spreadsheets, though that was unconscionably sloppy; no, it was the exclusion of countries whose data didn't fit into her hypothesis on how debt affects the economy--Canada and New Zealand, among others.)

There are other moral precepts underlying this system of analyzing data and forming conclusions, but the idea of being evidence-based was never meant to discourage or squelch the forming and testing of hypotheses. \

I guess you could say that you shouldn't talk in public about unproved hypotheses, but given that Markos' site was originally supposed to have something to do with journalism--a lot more than it was supposed to have to do with being a legal advocate in a courtroom--that seems a thin argument for bludgeoning people because they don't yet have an airtight case. There's a stage at which your case should be solidly based on facts. It's not at the beginning.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

the moral precepts and methods that determine the manner of forming a hypothesis and the choice and evaluation of data as being applicable, or not, are not perfect, and are also objects suitable for study and criticism.

I like them, very much, and they are as close, I suppose, to a religious dogma as I've gotten; but I (generally) keep a critical eye on even my religious dogmas.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

enhydra lutris's picture

in various ways, including uprating stuff and explaining why. I finally used something akin to reverse psychology to get Elfing to step in and correct my purposefully erroneous definition.

Alleged CT doesn't really cross that threshhold unless the theorem being asserted is well and widely known to be false. That means, for example, that mere denial by a government agency doesn't trigger it, because it is so well and widely known that our government lies with great frequency that a mere statement by government cannot establish a fact of any kind.

When I wrote that piece, I was writing to try to get people to think about what they were saying with an eye toward eliminating unknowable or unfalsifiable propositions. I mentioned CT in passing as a polar opposite from the obvious fact that logical fallacies and unknowable or unfalsifiable statements were common.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

What was going on at DKos was a double standard, in which people with my sort of views were required to meet practically a legal standard of proof, while the people on, say, Denise Velez' side of things were required to meet, pretty much, no standard of proof.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Sandino's picture

Which is sad because conspiracies are real and common, but 'pathological conspiracy theories' also exist, and are a sort of fascinating trap for pattern matching animals struggling to stick with logical thought. I think if you get a theory where sufficiently powerful forces are trying to suppress any revelations about their existence, you can make it unfalsifiable by interpreting the lack of evidence as proof of evidence being cleaned up, or interpreting contrary evidence as fabrications which thus prove the conspiracy. Then coincidences will appear to have extraordinary significance. Unfortunately this diagnosis also describes a model for disguising actual conspiracies as figments of apophenia, the tendency to perceive patterns in random data.

Or maybe that's just they want us to think.

up
0 users have voted.