True Believer's Syndrome

TheOne

www.MetroPool.club
Silver Member
Hmmm, is evolution flawed, possibly, are there gaps, definately...BUT put me down for evolution anyway. From what I have seen its a lot more believable than creatism. I don't doubt we all evolved from the sea but the real question is what/who created the unniverse. Sure evolution as far as I'm concerned explains how life on earth started but the most mind boggling question is what started it all...

This is probably why I've moved towards being agnostic from atheist.

:confused:
 
Last edited:

shanesinnott

Follow Through
Silver Member
ShootingArts said:
On the other hand, I saw a heavier than air craft fly without any motor or means of propulsion other than electrical and magnetic fields generated by itself and acting on itself. "Anybody" knows that is impossible, yet it flies. Under the direction of the inventor/discoverer I built a flying model myself.

Hu

Hu,

Off topic, but do you have any info on this you can send me a link to? I am a pilot and am always interested in cool designs for aircraft.
 

jjinfla

Banned
TheOne said:
Hmmm, is evolution flawed, possibly, are there gaps, definately...BUT put me down for evolution anyway. From what I have seen its a lot more believable than creatism. I don't doubt we all evolved from the sea but the real question is what/who created the unniverse. Sure evolution as far as I'm concerned explains how life on earth started but the most mind boggling question is what started it all...

This is probably why I've moved towards being agnostic from atheist.

:confused:


Why that is easy Craig, the first one, the uncaused cause, is God.

Too mind boggling for the human mind to understand though.

It happened back there in time somewhere around infinity.

Jake
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
space charge propulsion

My old partner is probably long dead by now. He held the patent on Space Charge Propulsion and it was submitted to the NASA SBIR program at least three times, my involvement being around 1990-92.

I did a search and found that someone else was submitting research on it at the same time, interestingly even using our name for the process. Probably a clear case of theft but far too late to care now.

Here is a link to the other research to give some idea. My drone was to have a real fifties look to it because SCP hates sharp corners and edges. We never got a contract yet silent aircraft were reported over the battlefields of Desert Storm, years after Glenn Hagen's first submission to NASA. Makes me go hmmmmm.

Hu



http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/2001/PV2001_3667.pdf

shanesinnott said:
Hu,

Off topic, but do you have any info on this you can send me a link to? I am a pilot and am always interested in cool designs for aircraft.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
I thought it made a nice break!

I thought it made a nice break from flogging another dead horse, the IPT.

The IPT has a lot in common with evolution/intelligent design. Nobody knows much but we will happily argue about it for months!

Hu

cuetique said:
BTW, and FWIW, this will be my last post in this thread. This is a dead-end street, and no good comes from beating it to death.

Peace
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
cuetique said:
OF COURSE Darwin's theory was flawed in the 19th century -- that doesn't mean it was not the correct starting point. Unlike religious dogma, science makes no attempt to keep its truths frozen in time. Darwin took the baby steps, and subsequent researchers have refined, expanded upon, and applied new knowledge, building on the initial insights of Darwin.

Evolution is the process in which natural selection operates. Trying to hair-split between them is pointless. Evolution is also the undeniable cornerstone of all modern biology and medicine. So, unless you refuse all medical treatment, you are accepting the legacy of Darwin, albeit in a new and improvement "model year 2006" form.

No one "blindly" follows it --- that is pure disinformation generated by the "Intelligent Design" "think tanks". In science one fact leads to another; useful, helpful, lifesaving, tangible results ensue from it, and its accomplishments end up speaking for themselves.

The dogma peddlers had to be brought kicking and screaming into the reality of the heliocentric universe and the round earth, but in the end, they were swept away in the tsunami of obvious truths. All these handy dandy anti-evolution oneliners will meet the same quaint fate.


One smart cat here. Are you paying attention?
 

Island Drive

Otto/Dads College Roommate/Cleveland Browns
Silver Member
jay helfert said:
One smart cat here. Are you paying attention?

Jay, saw on national news this morning, all of Einsteins works (except 1 is missing) are now on-line free to the public. Copy/paste ????
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
ShootingArts said:
I spent years in R&D. My end of the stick was putting theories into practice or proving them unworkable. A lot of perfectly sound seeming theory failed when proto-typed despite lots of pretty numbers and pictures. On the other hand, I saw a heavier than air craft fly without any motor or means of propulsion other than electrical and magnetic fields generated by itself and acting on itself. "Anybody" knows that is impossible, yet it flies. Under the direction of the inventor/discoverer I built a flying model myself.

Hu

Yeah, that's like the SR-71 Blackbird has about 70% of it's thrust at higher speeds from the shape of the thingies on the wings riding the sonic wave that it produces.

Hard to believe it would work, harder to believe someone thought of it.

Cheers,
RC
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
sixpack said:
Yeah, that's like the SR-71 Blackbird has about 70% of it's thrust at higher speeds from the shape of the thingies on the wings riding the sonic wave that it produces.

Hard to believe it would work, harder to believe someone thought of it.

Cheers,
RC

Like someone else said on here earlier. There is a lot more we don't know about the physical properties of the Universe we reside in, then we already do know.

Do you know that most, if not all, of the gadjets that will be in common use ten short years from now, have not been invented yet. Yes, read that sentence again.

100 years from now, our civilization will seem as archaic as the turn of the last century is to us. Hey, cars have been around for about 100 years or so. 100 years from now (or less), we may not be using them. I see people flying around with personal jetpacks. Makes more sense to strap on a 20-30 pound apparatus, than to get into a 4,000 pound behemoth to transport a 150-200 pound body around. And there's is a lot more room up there than on the ground. No roads necessary.

The rockets we are using today won't be around long either. Look at how huge the fuel containers are. Much larger than the rocket itself. Scientists already know that Nuclear Fusion is the propellant we need for faster and more efficient space travel. These ships will travel about nine to ten times faster than current vessels. And require much less fuel. This will be good enough to get us around the solar system, but not beyond. That may take a while longer to figure out.

And cross continental trips will take 30 minutes or less, in a vacuum tube. This has already been built on a small scale as well. It will take us cross country at speeds approaching 18,000 mph. It takes a few minutes to get up to speed and a few to slow down. Otherwise, it is a 10-15 minute trip.

These will be in use before the end of this century. Our children should be using them by mid century. Sound fantastic. It will be as ordinary as cars and planes are today. How fantastic did flying seem a short 100 years ago.

My father used to go to the same barber shop as Wilbur Wright in Dayton, Ohio in the 1950's. Wilbur was in his 80's then.
 

!Smorgass Bored

Hump ? What HUMP ?
Gold Member
Oy-Vey !

Jay Helfert scares me with:
100 years from now, our civilization will seem as archaic as the turn of the last century is to us. Hey, cars have been around for about 100 years or so. 100 years from now (or less), we may not be using them. I see people flying around with personal jetpacks. Makes more sense to strap on a 20-30 pound apparatus, than to get into a 4,000 pound behemoth to transport a 150-200 pound body around. And there's is a lot more room up there than on the ground. No roads necessary.


Man, I can see it now...... <insert futuristic music here> little old tennis shoe wearing, blue haired, old ladies, zooming around Florida's skies at 15 m.p.h. with their left turn signal on and a befuddled look on their face....
Doug
( Official space helmet ON Captain Video )
 

jasper

Banned
Dr. Dissent said:
True-believer syndrome

The need to believe in phony wonders sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity.
--The Rev. Canon William V. Rauscher

The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?
--M. Lamar Keene

True-believer syndrome is an expression coined by M. Lamar Keene to describe an apparent cognitive disorder characterized by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that the event was fraudulently staged. Keene is a reformed phony psychic who exposed religious racketeering—to little effect, apparently. Phony faith healers, psychics, channelers, televangelist miracle workers, etc., are as abundant as ever.

Keene believes that "the true-believer syndrome is the greatest thing phony mediums have going for them" because "no amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie." That those suffering from true-believer syndrome are consciously lying to themselves hardly seems likely, however. Perhaps from the viewpoint of a fraud and hoaxer, the mark who is told the truth but who continues to have faith in you must seem to believe what he knows is a lie. Yet, this type of self-deception need not involve lying to oneself. To lie to oneself would require admission that one believes what one knows is false. This does not seem logically possible. One can't believe or disbelieve what one knows. (Belief is distinct from belief in, which is a matter of trust rather than belief.) Belief and disbelief entail the possibility of error; knowledge implies that error is beyond reasonable probability. I may have overwhelming evidence that a "psychic" is a phony, yet still believe that paranormal events occur. I may be deceiving myself in such a case, but I don't think it is correct to say I am lying to myself.

It is possible that those suffering from true-believer syndrome simply do not believe that the weight of the evidence before them revealing fraud is sufficient to overpower the weight of all those many cases of supportive evidence from the past. The fact that the supportive evidence was largely supplied by the same person exposed as a fraud is suppressed. There is always the hope that no matter how many frauds are exposed, at least one of the experiences might have been genuine. No one can prove that all psychic "miracles" have been frauds; therefore, the true believer may well reason that he or she is justified in keeping hope alive. Such thinking is not completely illogical, though it may seem pathological to the one admitting the fraud.

It does not seem as easy to explain why the true believer continues to believe in, that is, trust the psychic once he has admitted his deception. Trusting someone who reveals he is a liar and a fraud seems irrational, and such a person must appear so to the hoaxer. Some true believers may well be mad, but some may be deceiving themselves by assuming that it is possible that a person can have psychic powers without knowing it. One could disbelieve in one's psychic ability, yet still actually possess paranormal powers. Just as there are people who think they have psychic powers but don't really have any such powers, there may be people who have psychic powers but think they don't.

wishful thinking?

A study done by psychologists Barry Singer and Victor Benassi at California State University at Long Beach illustrates the will to believe in psychic powers in the face of contrary evidence. They brought in a performing magician, Craig Reynolds, to do some tricks for four introductory psychology classes. Two of the classes were not told that he was a magician who would perform some amateur magic tricks. They were told that he was a graduate student who claimed to have psychic powers. In those classes, the psychology instructor explicitly stated that he didn't believe that the graduate student or anyone else has psychic abilities. In the other two classes the students were told that the magician was a magician. Singer and Benassi reported that about two-thirds of the students in both groups believed Craig was psychic. The researchers were surprised to find no significant difference between the "magic" and "psychic" classes. They then made the same presentation to two more classes who were explicitly told that Craig had no psychic abilities and that he was going to do some tricks for them whereby he pretends to read minds and demonstrate psychic powers. Nevertheless, more than half the students believed Craig was psychic after seeing his act.

Singer and Benassi then asked the students whether they thought magicians could do exactly what Craig did. Most of the students agreed that magicians could. Then they asked the students if they would like to change their estimate of Craig's psychic abilities in light of the negative data they themselves had provided. A few did, reducing the percentage of students believing in Craig's psychic powers to 55 percent. Then the students were asked to estimate how many so-called psychics were really fakes using magician's tricks. The consensus was that most "psychics" are frauds. The students were again asked if they wished to change their estimate of Craig's psychic powers. Again, a few did, but the percentage believing in Craig's psychic powers was still a hefty 52 percent. [Benassi and Singer; Hofstadter]

For many people, the will to believe at times overrides the ability to think critically about the evidence for and against a belief. The concept of the true-believer syndrome, however, does not help us understand why people believe in the psychic or supernatural abilities of admitted frauds. Since by definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them. Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error.

kinds of true believers

In any case, there are at least three types of true believers, though they are clearly related. One is the kind Keene was referring to, namely, the type of person who believes in paranormal or supernatural things contrary to the evidence. Their faith is unshakable even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, e.g., those who refused to disbelieve in "Carlos" once the hoax was revealed, or those chiropractors who would rather give up randomized, double-blind controlled experiments than admit that applied kinesiology doesn't work. Keene's examples are mostly of people who are so desperate to communicate with the dead that no exposé of fraudulent mediums (or channelers) can shake their faith in spiritualism (or channeling).

More at: http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
Whats with the book.
Did you really think anyone would actually read this ?
 

Russ Chewning

Short Bus Russ - C player
Silver Member
jjinfla said:
Why that is easy Craig, the first one, the uncaused cause, is God.

Too mind boggling for the human mind to understand though.

It happened back there in time somewhere around infinity.

Jake

There's an idea that given two choices between highly improbable events, the simpler is much more often statiscally going to be true.

1. God was always in existence, and there is nothing that caused him to be in existence. Then, he created the universe with the power of will.

2. The universe was always in existence, and there is nothing that caused it to be in existence.

I can see which one has the extra, more complicated step in it. Can you? Of course, this does not "prove" anything. I am only asking the question:

If "God" has to be accepted as always having been in existence, with no cause...

Why can't the universe be accepted as always having been in existence, with no cause?

And I will discuss one more question I have for mainly Christians:

(Note, I am NOT against Christianity, I just have certain question about Christian beliefs)

Christians, or at least certain denominations, believe in Hell as a final place of punishment, with eternal torture, blah blah, rey rey.

When asked, "What justifies Hell? And eternal punishment?" The answer is almost always the same.

You made the personal choice to deny God/Jesus Christ, so you made the choice yourself.

Nice try, but no ceegar for you!

Here's why that doesn't work. Christian belief structure attributes three core properties to God:

Omniscience: Knows Past, Present, and Future

Omnipresence: Is Present all throughout time, everywhere.

Omnipotence: He can do anything, i.e. all powerful.

Every Christian I ever talked to acknowledges these fundamental properties.

Well, unfortunately, "free will" cannot existence within the construct of a universe with this being.

Here's why: Before God "created" you, he knew everything you would ever do in your life. Therefore, if he knew you would "sin" and would not ask forgiveness, and he created you anyway, then he is directly responsible for your actions. His mere act of creation condemned you to Hell. Furthermore, he creating you to be the being you would be, all your actions are preordained.

You can't have "free will" in a system where everything you ever do is preordained.

Just an interesting discussion. I normally wouldn't discuss this stuff on here, but you guys started it!

FWIW, I lean much more towards agnosticism than atheism. Reading the Bible all the way through three times in high school has given me a solid foundation on what the Christian religion consists of, however. Just keep that in mind if anyone wishes to debate me on this.:D

Russ
 
Last edited:

jjinfla

Banned
Hey Russ are you from Chicago? Were you in my grade school? I swear I heard the same questions then. And in High School and College. And of course I couldn't answer them then either.

God, Universe, Religion are mind boggling.

I am unable to understand God or Universe but have come to believe that religion was created by man to keep the masses in place.

Jake
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
jay helfert said:
Like someone else said on here earlier. There is a lot more we don't know about the physical properties of the Universe we reside in, then we already do know.

Do you know that most, if not all, of the gadjets that will be in common use ten short years from now, have not been invented yet. Yes, read that sentence again.

100 years from now, our civilization will seem as archaic as the turn of the last century is to us. Hey, cars have been around for about 100 years or so. 100 years from now (or less), we may not be using them. I see people flying around with personal jetpacks. Makes more sense to strap on a 20-30 pound apparatus, than to get into a 4,000 pound behemoth to transport a 150-200 pound body around. And there's is a lot more room up there than on the ground. No roads necessary.

The rockets we are using today won't be around long either. Look at how huge the fuel containers are. Much larger than the rocket itself. Scientists already know that Nuclear Fusion is the propellant we need for faster and more efficient space travel. These ships will travel about nine to ten times faster than current vessels. And require much less fuel. This will be good enough to get us around the solar system, but not beyond. That may take a while longer to figure out.

And cross continental trips will take 30 minutes or less, in a vacuum tube. This has already been built on a small scale as well. It will take us cross country at speeds approaching 18,000 mph. It takes a few minutes to get up to speed and a few to slow down. Otherwise, it is a 10-15 minute trip.

These will be in use before the end of this century. Our children should be using them by mid century. Sound fantastic. It will be as ordinary as cars and planes are today. How fantastic did flying seem a short 100 years ago.

My father used to go to the same barber shop as Wilbur Wright in Dayton, Ohio in the 1950's. Wilbur was in his 80's then.

Yes, it's pretty fantastic when you think about it. I watch for things like this when I watch older TV shows or movies. Even in a relatively new show like 'friends' it's fun to look at how many of the situations they are in could have been avoided if only they had a cell phone....and that was just 10 years ago!

When I look at the advances in every field it's amazing. I really can't wait to see the next thing.

Those vacuum tubes sound great. I also can't wait for the personal flying machines of some sort. I think just making ride above the streets via EM fields will cut down on fuel costs and road repair costs dramatically, even though there will be some capital outlay for the road system.

I think the medical advances will be phenomenal the next 10 years. We are very close to cures for cancer and other ailments. The treatment out by Genentech that cures macular degeneration has already helped thousands of people regain their sight, an impossibility just a few years ago.

Cheers,
RC
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
Smorgass Bored said:
Jay Helfert scares me with:
100 years from now, our civilization will seem as archaic as the turn of the last century is to us. Hey, cars have been around for about 100 years or so. 100 years from now (or less), we may not be using them. I see people flying around with personal jetpacks. Makes more sense to strap on a 20-30 pound apparatus, than to get into a 4,000 pound behemoth to transport a 150-200 pound body around. And there's is a lot more room up there than on the ground. No roads necessary.


Man, I can see it now...... <insert futuristic music here> little old tennis shoe wearing, blue haired, old ladies, zooming around Florida's skies at 15 m.p.h. with their left turn signal on and a befuddled look on their face....
Doug
( Official space helmet ON Captain Video )

Hey Doug,

You can imagine how frightened people were of the first automobiles and airplanes. Very few people would get in a car 100 years ago and even fewer would get on an airplane, even 80 years ago.

100 years (or less) from now, every kid will have his own hi powered back pack, and walk into his front yard and buzz over to his buddy's pad. Quick to, "as the crow flies".
 

jjinfla

Banned
Jasper,

Psychology sure is fun isn't it? Many times I wished I had gone on and worked on a Mater's Degree. It is fascinating.

True believer usually equates to a fool or dolt. Or at the very least an uninformed person.

There are many in the churches. Also in the wrestling matches. Followers of UFO's.

Jake
 

Russ Chewning

Short Bus Russ - C player
Silver Member
jjinfla said:
Hey Russ are you from Chicago? Were you in my grade school? I swear I heard the same questions then. And in High School and College. And of course I couldn't answer them then either.

God, Universe, Religion are mind boggling.

I am unable to understand God or Universe but have come to believe that religion was created by man to keep the masses in place.

Jake

Oh! Roger that! Seems we are on the same page then.

(For some reason, I was thinking your OP meant you bought into the whole religion thing)

Russ
 

!Smorgass Bored

Hump ? What HUMP ?
Gold Member
Stop Grandma, You're Killing Me

jay helfert said:
Hey Doug,

You can imagine how frightened people were of the first automobiles and airplanes. Very few people would get in a car 100 years ago and even fewer would get on an airplane, even 80 years ago.

100 years (or less) from now, every kid will have his own hi powered back pack, and walk into his front yard and buzz over to his buddy's pad. Quick to, "as the crow flies".


My grandmother, born 1901 and died on my birthday in 1980, never drove a car or rode on a plane. Whenever she rode in a car, she always held on to those granny straps above the door or clutched the dashboard. She had a tv, but listened to the radio every day instead....
She had never ridden on an escalator either and we took her to the beer brewery in Houston (I can't remember which one it was, but it had an escalator on the outside of the building), after much cajoling, begging, threats and explanations of how it worked, we convinced her to simply 'step on' and the escalator would do the rest. Well, she reluctantly placed her foot on the moving stair and then leaned back and changed her mind, but her her foot kept going up the escalator. A few of us grabbed her and held her up, but her feet were eight steps above us. It wasn't a pretty site and damned difficult to do while lauging uproarously.....
Doug
( she wasn't a drinker either, but she drank the Free beer THAT day )
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
Smorgass Bored said:
My grandmother, born 1901 and died on my birthday in 1980, never drove a car or rode on a plane. Whenever she rode in a car, she always held on to those granny straps above the door or clutched the dashboard. She had a tv, but listened to the radio every day instead....
She had never ridden on an escalator either and we took her to the beer brewery in Houston (I can't remember which one it was, but it had an escalator on the outside of the building), after much cajoling, begging, threats and explanations of how it worked, we convinced her to simply 'step on' and the escalator would do the rest. Well, she reluctantly placed her foot on the moving stair and then leaned back and changed her mind, but her her foot kept going up the escalator. A few of us grabbed her and held her up, but her feet were eight steps above us. It wasn't a pretty site and damned difficult to do while lauging uproarously.....
Doug
( she wasn't a drinker either, but she drank the Free beer THAT day )


Not unusual for her generation. If you ask a dozen people if they would strap on a backpack and fly, most would say no way. Ask again in 50 years, if you're still here. I may not make it.
 
Top