On 2012-03-05 17:13, jonm wrote:

If a theory is not probable, or provable only to the person with the theory, then either:

a) the theory can not be proved
b) that person has heightened senses of some type or
c) the person making the claim sees things which are a creation of their own mind.

If the person has heightened senses, then nobody else is going to be able to share the ideas because they don't have the facilities to be able to do so.


On the other hand, if a theory might be provable to others, then it might be helpful to get critical feedback so that the proposer can improve their method of communication?

On 2012-03-05 21:37, Runemage wrote:
There are some very good points raised here.

It's a really difficult situation and hopefully we can reach some agreement as to how we can progress in our discussions instead of being endlessly bogged down.

I don't think it's a question of theories being right or wrong, it's more
about finding a way to discuss those theories in a way that benefits everyone and on occasion getting past the stalemate of proof. We'll never know the Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples' intentions but it is fun to speculate and bounce ideas around.

For example, we all know that orientation of passage mounds can't be proved to have been intentional, but when you take into account the direction they face and the time of year and the sun/moon's rise and set patterns, then some of them do definitely pass [at least my] balance of probability threshold. Does it follow that all passage mounds are deliberately aligned, I don't know but would prefer not to come up against the brick wall of intentionality can't be proven so there's no point in further discussion. There's a lot that could be researched in there, dates of construction in comparison to orientation, which are definitely for burial and which aren't, which ones point at what and do they have any art that's illuminated on certain days. All of these things and more would be a good place to start and may increase our collective knowledge.

Peoples' individual findings and theories are a lot more difficult to classify and discuss. Jonm said If a theory is not probable, or provable only to the person with the theory...
Maybe the first part is the way to go. I know some posters are becoming increasingly frustrated as they feel their individual research, repeatedly tested and verified by themselves is forever being questioned for veracity and their ideas and theories are not being heard.

On that basis, how many people also finding that same thing - for the sake of argument, a spiral shape dowsed at a certain spot - would be acceptable to get past the 'how do you know there's a spiral there and prove it exists' type of questions. How many people would it take to dowse that spiral in that location before the forum posters considered it probable that it existed and would discuss the finder's theories?

Rune

On 2012-03-05 17:13, jonm wrote:
I'm not so sure that George isn't right here.

If a theory is not probable, or provable only to the person with the theory, then either:

a) the theory can not be proved
b) that person has heightened senses of some type or
c) the person making the claim sees things which are a creation of their own mind.

If the person has heightened senses, then nobody else is going to be able to share the ideas because they don't have the facilities to be able to do so.


On the other hand, if a theory might be provable to others, then it might be helpful to get critical feedback so that the proposer can improve their method of communication?

Peoples' individual findings and theories are a lot more difficult to classify and discuss. Jonm said If a theory is not probable, or provable only to the person with the theory...
Maybe the first part is the way to go. I know some posters are becoming increasingly frustrated as they feel their individual research, repeatedly tested and verified by themselves is forever being questioned for veracity and their ideas and theories are not being heard.

On that basis, how many people also finding that same thing - for the sake of argument, a spiral shape dowsed at a certain spot - would be acceptable to get past the 'how do you know there's a spiral there and prove it exists' type of questions. How many people would it take to dowse that spiral in that location before the forum posters considered it probable that it existed and would discuss the finder's theories?

On 2012-03-06 03:32, rogeralbin wrote:


[quote]
On 2012-03-05 08:08, tiompan wrote:
Could you give some examples Roger ,and where do you draw the line ? .
George
[quote)

George
First off I do not want to point the finger at anyone personally, some of the stuff proposed has in my opinion been so far off the wall that I have ignored it as a wind up.
At the other end of the scale this is not a criminal court, absolute proof is not required, as an example O.J. Simpson was found not to be guilty of murder in the criminal court but that did not prohibit him being sued for damages in the civil court which has a lower probability threshold.
On a purely personal basis I would not be interested in a long drawn out cycle of claim and counter claim, I would state my piece and maybe reply once or twice but folks accept it of they don't, I personally do not believe that it is possible to win a reasoned arguement with a faith based belief because that belief is based on faith not logic.
As an observation I suspect that those of us with Rhino hides will post but we miss the shrinking Violets imput.
Rog

On 2012-03-06 19:22, Runemage wrote:


but if it is a case of something like “ I believe that Stonehenge was not built by human agency and is entirely natural “ we can discuss this , it will not go away without a lot of claim and counter claim but it is debateable and something will learnt along the way .

It depends I think on each individual subject that arises. That one could be countered in one go with documented evidence of human activity and probably doesn't need claim and counter-claim. The topics that do tend to have claim and counter-claim could perhaps be shortened to three each side then an agreement to disagree, otherwise the topic itself is never discussed, it's just buried under all the claims. I appreciate it's difficult trying to formulate examples of this, each topic is different.

On 2012-03-06 19:40, tiompan wrote:
I disagree , we hold on to our beliefs no matter how illogical and it would take a lot more than three rounds to convince a true believer, e.g. round one : human activity ? where is the evidence they actually raised the stones ?
George

Quote:

On 2012-03-06 19:22, Runemage wrote: but if it is a case of something like “ I believe that Stonehenge was not built by human agency and is entirely natural “ we can discuss this , it will not go away without a lot of claim and counter claim but it is debateable and something will learnt along the way . It depends I think on each individual subject that arises. That one could be countered in one go with documented evidence of human activity and probably doesn't need claim and counter-claim. The topics that do tend to have claim and counter-claim could perhaps be shortened to three each side then an agreement to disagree, otherwise the topic itself is never discussed, it's just buried under all the claims. I appreciate it's difficult trying to formulate examples of this, each topic is different.

On 2012-03-06 08:26, jonm wrote:

Quote:

Peoples' individual findings and theories are a lot more difficult to classify and discuss. Jonm said If a theory is not probable, or provable only to the person with the theory... Maybe the first part is the way to go. I know some posters are becoming increasingly frustrated as they feel their individual research, repeatedly tested and verified by themselves is forever being questioned for veracity and their ideas and theories are not being heard.

Not sure that the point of a forum is to validate ideas. Surely a better reason for a forum is to provide somewhere where ideas can be tested?

Quote:

On that basis, how many people also finding that same thing - for the sake of argument, a spiral shape dowsed at a certain spot - would be acceptable to get past the 'how do you know there's a spiral there and prove it exists' type of questions. How many people would it take to dowse that spiral in that location before the forum posters considered it probable that it existed and would discuss the finder's theories?

Isn't that the same thing? Even if posters here would accept the ideas, doesn't it help to see how the outside world would view the ideas?

Some types of argument (for example sarcasm, questioning motivation and straw men) are very unhelpful, but that doesn't tend to happen here. If the question is valid, it's something that the person is genuinely asking (eg how many spirals), isn't that person's theory of criticism just as valid as the theory being criticised?

On 2012-03-06 20:24, ledgehammer wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-03-06 19:40, tiompan wrote: I disagree , we hold on to our beliefs no matter how illogical and it would take a lot more than three rounds to convince a true believer, e.g. round one : human activity ? where is the evidence they actually raised the stones ? George Quote: On 2012-03-06 19:22, Runemage wrote: but if it is a case of something like “ I believe that Stonehenge was not built by human agency and is entirely natural “ we can discuss this , it will not go away without a lot of claim and counter claim but it is debateable and something will learnt along the way . It depends I think on each individual subject that arises. That one could be countered in one go with documented evidence of human activity and probably doesn't need claim and counter-claim. The topics that do tend to have claim and counter-claim could perhaps be shortened to three each side then an agreement to disagree, otherwise the topic itself is never discussed, it's just buried under all the claims. I appreciate it's difficult trying to formulate examples of this, each topic is different.

George,

Im not sure I follow, can you speculate on this, I tend to formulate my beliefs based on dowsing results (if we are talking about dowsing), contrary to the perception dowsing is a physical interpretation of ones beliefs. If I see something which contradicts my beliefs then I re-evaluate my beliefs, this can be inconvenient but true?

I think adopting different viewpoints is important, it is the only way as individuals we can progress.

Tom

On 2012-03-06 20:09, tiompan wrote:
As an example of how long it takes , even in relation to something simple like the meaning of two words . When first asked by Sem about the meaning of the oxymoron “ Lunar Solstice “ Cropredy took 7 posts trying to talk himself out of an impossible situation before finally saying “I do not buy the accepted, thus I cannot give a reference to something I see as fake. “ . If it takes all that for two words clearly oxmoronic a concept could take much longer . One bloke here argued for much longer about one point before finally admitting that it was all due to getting the wrong info in a pub . Does that mean we should ignore and not question such nonsense ?

George

On 2012-03-06 20:43, tiompan wrote:

Tom ,Dunno if this helps .Our beliefs take a bit of shifting and I was using the example of someone who believes the stone setting at Stonehenge was not the result of human agency , I believe (and it will take more than rounds to convince me otherwise ) that it would take a lot more than the three rounds of claim and counter claim suggested by Rune to get them to change their belief . In some simple cases it should only take one round e.g. a “lunar solstice “ is clearly oxymoronic ,”the Stonehenge ditch was built by the Romans “ but even these can take more .
George

Quote:

On 2012-03-06 20:24, ledgehammer wrote: Quote: On 2012-03-06 19:40, tiompan wrote: I disagree , we hold on to our beliefs no matter how illogical and it would take a lot more than three rounds to convince a true believer, e.g. round one : human activity ? where is the evidence they actually raised the stones ? George [quote] On 2012-03-06 19:22, Runemage wrote: but if it is a case of something like “ I believe that Stonehenge was not built by human agency and is entirely natural “ we can discuss this , it will not go away without a lot of claim and counter claim but it is debateable and something will learnt along the way . It depends I think on each individual subject that arises. That one could be countered in one go with documented evidence of human activity and probably doesn't need claim and counter-claim. The topics that do tend to have claim and counter-claim could perhaps be shortened to three each side then an agreement to disagree, otherwise the topic itself is never discussed, it's just buried under all the claims. I appreciate it's difficult trying to formulate examples of this, each topic is different.

George,

Im not sure I follow, can you speculate on this, I tend to formulate my beliefs based on dowsing results (if we are talking about dowsing), contrary to the perception dowsing is a physical interpretation of ones beliefs. If I see something which contradicts my beliefs then I re-evaluate my beliefs, this can be inconvenient but true?

I think adopting different viewpoints is important, it is the only way as individuals we can progress.

Tom

On 2012-03-06 20:57, cropredy wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-03-06 20:09, tiompan wrote: As an example of how long it takes , even in relation to something simple like the meaning of two words . When first asked by Sem about the meaning of the oxymoron “ Lunar Solstice “ Cropredy took 7 posts trying to talk himself out of an impossible situation before finally saying “I do not buy the accepted, thus I cannot give a reference to something I see as fake. “ . If it takes all that for two words clearly oxmoronic a concept could take much longer . One bloke here argued for much longer about one point before finally admitting that it was all due to getting the wrong info in a pub . Does that mean we should ignore and not question such nonsense ? George

I do not appreciate My name used upon here been associated with some pub info.
Is this a thread about spirals, or WTF is it about???
cropredy