Comments on: Sermon on Worry http://pathstoknowledge.com/230/sermon-on-worry/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sermon-on-worry Your map to happiness and personal growth Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: lostone http://pathstoknowledge.com/230/sermon-on-worry/comment-page-1/#comment-307 lostone Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:00 +0000 http://pathstoknowledge.com/230/sermon-on-worry/#comment-307 Might be some sort of theory which attempted to explain how the dualism, or the appearance of dualism, even if there is none, and it is all monistic, occurred, what made it possible. A theory to hang it on that might be verified by some sort of objective testing. God help me, do I sound like Logical Positivist? One struggles with one's personal demons! :) Might be some sort of theory which attempted to explain how the dualism, or the appearance of dualism, even if there is none, and it is all monistic, occurred, what made it possible. A theory to hang it on that might be verified by some sort of objective testing. God help me, do I sound like Logical Positivist?

One struggles with one’s personal demons! :)

]]> By: Anonymous http://pathstoknowledge.com/230/sermon-on-worry/comment-page-1/#comment-308 Anonymous Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:15:00 +0000 http://pathstoknowledge.com/230/sermon-on-worry/#comment-308 I generally assume that I have a bias toward the... well, not exactly supernatural, but at least panpsychic. But skepticism can, in my opinion, be even blinder to it's own prejudices than the blindness of the believer. I remember reading an interview with the Great Randi regarding the experiments with Uri Geller. I'll grant that Geller deserves a healthy dose of skepticism. But Randi's objection went beyond simply a distrust of Geller. When asked about a particular experiment, he insisted that there were insufficent controls. Why did he think there were insufficient controls? Not becasue he specifically knew of any deficiency, but because (I paraphrase from distant memory) "such a result is inherently impossible if there are sufficient controls". In other words, any experiment showing a result other than the one he wanted was, by that very fact, defective. This is a profound, perhaps insurmountable bias - all the more fatal because the skeptic is more likely to think himself free of bias. I generally assume that I have a bias toward the… well, not exactly supernatural, but at least panpsychic. But skepticism can, in my opinion, be even blinder to it’s own prejudices than the blindness of the believer. I remember reading an interview with the Great Randi regarding the experiments with Uri Geller. I’ll grant that Geller deserves a healthy dose of skepticism. But Randi’s objection went beyond simply a distrust of Geller. When asked about a particular experiment, he insisted that there were insufficent controls. Why did he think there were insufficient controls? Not becasue he specifically knew of any deficiency, but because (I paraphrase from distant memory) “such a result is inherently impossible if there are sufficient controls”. In other words, any experiment showing a result other than the one he wanted was, by that very fact, defective.

This is a profound, perhaps insurmountable bias – all the more fatal because the skeptic is more likely to think himself free of bias.

]]>