It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How do we know what we think we know?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Emotion can cloud data collection, analysis, interpretation.

Emotion can AID data collection, analysis, interpretation.

BOTH ARE TRUE.




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: intrptr

Emotion can cloud data collection, analysis, interpretation.

Emotion can AID data collection, analysis, interpretation.

BOTH ARE TRUE.

Just the forensics, please. I want to see it, review it, discuss it, then decide. Or not.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I think the old program

COLUMBO

sp?

depicted well how observations and proper application of emotional stuff tended to lead to solving the crime puzzle

. . . a VERY forensics heavy situation.

The same can be true in psychological forensics for court cases.

edit on 2/8/2016 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I think the part that I'm still trying to articulate better is

that

you SEEM to be oblivious to the . . . uhhhh . . . FACT . . .

that an obsession with tangible "scientific" "proof" sorts of evidence can obliterate awareness of

often

a VERY CRUCIAL PIECE of a highly important puzzle.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

You mean eyewitness reports. Taken in conjunction with all the physical evidence, sure. Open court testimony by reliable witnesses, cross examined by both benches in front of the jury... ok.

Still, give me actual forensics over eye witnesses any day.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

[cont]

Another way such problems in strategies to KNOW TRUTH arise out of that compulsive addition to an almost exclusive risk of a false negative error.

I've talked about that a fair amount hereon.

I would like to add that:

1. I don't think it's likely for such folks to see THE TRUTH--certainly not in the short-term and not without dramatic things falling in their laps--things they cannot refute by their compulsive rationalizations.

2. I believe that the addiction to clinging to an almost exclusive risk of a false negative error is virtually REQUIRED in order for them to be able to avoid confronting their own values and behaviors as flawed to dreadfully WRONG. i.e. they HAVE to maintain a death grip on that perspective. One of their greatest fears would likely be to begin to face facts, truth, reality.

3. RAD fostered insecurities also make virtually certain that the individuals so afflicted MUST cling to something to calm those insecurities. UNCERTAINTY is virtually a terror to them--particularly in world view terms, construction on reality terms. Therefore, they MUST cobble together whatever they can that APPEARS to give, GIVES A SEMBLANCE OF perfection, solidity, certainty. And the "scientific method" gives that semblance more than most any other system.

4. One of the contexts of uncertainty that is anathema to such folks is PARTICULARLY FRIGHTFUL, unnerving to them . . . are those things that are fuzzy in terms of ultimate realities, eternity, God, reality. So, they are compelled to run the other direction in order to sleep better at night.

5. It is likely that one or both parents--particularly a dad--had some strong element or personality largely given over to at least a surface persona of PERFECTIONISM. Many were likely dyed-in-the-wool rigid and intense perfectionists in at least a major area of their life. And, they likely did their best to batter their children--particularly sons--into being more "PERFECT."

6. Of course, that is a NO WIN horrific situation--particularly for a growing child. Typically, the child will strive to be ever more perfect for years. Some do so for a lifetime--long after the dad is dead. Some will strive for years to be more perfect and then rebel against the whole schema of the father in fierce rebellion.

7. Any value orientation; construction on reality; philosophy; interpretation of reality that they CANNOT tie down tangibly in a laboratory will only fan the fires of insecurity with such folks either consciously and/or unconsciously. Whenever the feel close to or threatened by such a philosophy or construction on reality, they will be very inclined to feel horribly inadequate, worthless, a failure, etc. etc. Such feelings tend to be at least threatening and many experience them as intolerably fearful, intolerably anxiety producing--to be avoided at all costs.

8. That HAS to be the most likely explanation for the tenacious, compulsively clinging to such a value orientation regarding the more tangible ways of knowing--particularly the 'scientific method.' The DELUSION IS that therein is security, certainty, predictability--regardless of how untrue those assumptions about security, certainty and predictability are.

9. Life is too complex for even that method to provide comprehensive and lasting security, certainty, predictability. But it is the best available. So they cling to it extremely tenaciously. They have nothing better that calms their anxieties more.

10. And, given that life is complex and far from perfectly in detailed predictable order, they must react with hostility and smugness toward alternative non-tangible explanations for events and realities.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Certainly we all LOVE to have very precisely tangible PROOFS of reality.

It's particularly felt to be dependable, comforting, predictable, reliably supportive--compared to alternative explanations, descriptions of reality.

The major problem is for those folks who CANNOT/WILL NOT understand and consider additional evidence.

It is a risky problem to automatically WRITE OFF EVERYTHING that is not 'tangibly "proven." '

It is a risky problem to ASSUME that even the reliably tangibly proven "facts" and "truths" are totally dependable. Science is rife with a long list of things that were very carefully and tangibly PROVEN only to be proven piles of horse biscuits later on.

I think that's as good a summary as I have about why I rant so against such rigid, narrow assumptions.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

But it does matter. Two examples.... OJ and Casey Anthony. OJ got off because his lawyers generated reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury about evidence that may or may not have been planted by the LAPD to make OJ look guilty.

The DA's office never had it so good. OJ's blood was found at the scene (from a cut on his finger he lied about). His, Ron Goldman's, and Nicole's blood were found mixed at the scene, in his bronco, at his house, in his house. His gloves and shoe prints were found at the scene and at his house. He had a history of domestic violence on Nicole, he had motive, no alibi and opportunity.

But all that gets called into question because the jury accepted the 'emotional' notion that one detective that had a racist background (Mark Furhman) planted evidence. Even though there was no direct evidence he did so. The trial stopped being a murder trial examining forensic evidence, becoming an indictment of the LAPD's racist background instead. That appeal to peoples emotions obfuscated the forensics.

See how emotion led to dismissal of the forensics?

In Casey Anthony's case the states evidence was contrived to make her look guilty of killing her daughter. Except, as the defense attorney showed in every instance, the states evidence wasn't sufficient to convince the jury she had done anything to hurt her daughter, at all.

At Casey's trial, the jury ignored the emotional appeal by the state, finding her innocent by focusing on the forensics.

The only acceptable method for discovering the truth is to focus on the direct evidence. Emotions have nothing to do with it. How upset somebody is is irrelevant.
edit on 3-8-2016 by intrptr because: spelling

edit on 3-8-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

So now I'm replying twice. I have seen spirits, I know they exist. I can't prove it. This does not change the knowing they are real in my head.

I don't have to prove these events really occurred to anyone, I don't care to. But thats different. This is not a court trial whether or not the spirit world exists.

There is no forensics on that, thats impossible. The spirit transcends the flesh, it can't be put in a test tube or a court exhibit. But then nobody is accusing abc spirit deity of killing someone, there isn't a suspect or defendant to place in the docket anyway, lol.

Carried further, just believing what others have told us or written about the spirit world is not forensics like we see in court. Just believing isn;'t proof of anything. On the other hand, I know what I saw, I need no proof, nor do I have to present any. No crime was committed during the events.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Shockingly, I mostly agree with both your replies.

I do think that the emotional issues must be factored in fittingly to get a more robust an more accurate picture of reality.

And when emotions are involved in motivation, decisions etc. it becomes more crucial to understand them, account for them and deal with them fittingly.

Thanks for your kind replies.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: rickymouse

Agreed. But I'm unclear about how you are relating that to the topic very specifically or generally.


We learn by observing, if you are very good at observing, you find that things are not as we are led to believe they are. We are taught to follow the leader, to trust in those who make the evidence but is the evidence even relevant? Are the systems even relevant?

In your example of archeology, someone could have buried a bunch of artifacts many moons ago so they would not be found by theives and now the distorted evidence is considered real because the people in that area buried their belongings. People always buried their valuable stuff in the past. It is still happening today.

I actually researched on how the policies governing evidence originated on some things. There is a lot of room for error as many of the policies that are now found to be incorrect actually set the table to form other policies which remain in place.

So what we believe we think we know may be wrong. Our knowledge is a belief based on consensus of the time. Every day some bits of accepted science is discredited and replaced making our beliefs misinformation. Sometime what replaces the evidence is more inaccurate than what we replaced because it is not applied properly. So everything is actually based on consensus of the time. Even scientific evidence because the reason the evidence is collected can actually govern how it is utilized.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BO XIAN

But it does matter. Two examples.... OJ and Casey Anthony. OJ got off because his lawyers generated reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury about evidence that may or may not have been planted by the LAPD to make OJ look guilty.

In Casey Anthony's case the states evidence was contrived to make her look guilty of killing her daughter. Except, as the defense attorney showed in every instance, the states evidence wasn't sufficient to convince the jury she had done anything to hurt her daughter, at all.

At Casey's trial, the jury ignored the emotional appeal by the state, finding her innocent by focusing on the forensics.

The only acceptable method for discovering the truth is to focus on the direct evidence. Emotions have nothing to do with it. How upset somebody is is irrelevant.


As far as I'm concerned both people got away with murder here. But I fear we have drifted from the original topic. Box was originally talking about ways we know things, the Greek vs the Hebrew. It wasn't about court cases and lawyers. A lawyer's job is to get their client acquitted, whether they did it or not. It's not about "truth." It's about convincing just one person out of 12 on a jury that you are correct.

The Greek way of knowledge is to analyze and explore issues. Let's use an example. Medical science has written encyclopedias about human sexuality. Masters & Johnson, for example, hooked people up to sensors and measured heart beat, respiration, GSR, etc. while they were engaged in sexual activity and produced voluminous reports with charts, graphs, and figures that "explained" sex.

Compare that method of knowledge to actually experiencing the act. Who knows more about it? Who actually understands it? If you had never had sex and read Masters & Johnson's two volumes, memorized its contents, would you then proclaim yourself an expert in the field? I imagine you could study the subject academically for a lifetime, even get a PhD in it....

but never actually understand what it is and completely miss the point.

The academic is telling you all the nuances about heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration in infinite detail while the actual experiencer is saying, "My God! That was GREAT!"

Two different kinds of knowledge entirely. The scientist who insists that studying a subject in infinite detail is the only path to knowledge is missing a whole lot. That's the point.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

AGREED.

Consensus . . . even to the point of GROUP THINK . . . is a major issue in "reality" and "truth" knowing.

Great points. Thanks.

Therefore what? . . . do you suggest the average person do about those facts re consensus defining truth?

The opposite is hardly more sensible!



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Thanks for saying it better than I did.

VERY WELL PUT. EXCELLENT.

Bears repeating, imho.


originally posted by: schuyler

As far as I'm concerned both people got away with murder here. But I fear we have drifted from the original topic. Box was originally talking about ways we know things, the Greek vs the Hebrew. It wasn't about court cases and lawyers. A lawyer's job is to get their client acquitted, whether they did it or not. It's not about "truth." It's about convincing just one person out of 12 on a jury that you are correct.

The Greek way of knowledge is to analyze and explore issues. Let's use an example. Medical science has written encyclopedias about human sexuality. Masters & Johnson, for example, hooked people up to sensors and measured heart beat, respiration, GSR, etc. while they were engaged in sexual activity and produced voluminous reports with charts, graphs, and figures that "explained" sex.

Compare that method of knowledge to actually experiencing the act. Who knows more about it? Who actually understands it? If you had never had sex and read Masters & Johnson's two volumes, memorized its contents, would you then proclaim yourself an expert in the field? I imagine you could study the subject academically for a lifetime, even get a PhD in it....

but never actually understand what it is and completely miss the point.

The academic is telling you all the nuances about heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration in infinite detail while the actual experiencer is saying, "My God! That was GREAT!"

Two different kinds of knowledge entirely. The scientist who insists that studying a subject in infinite detail is the only path to knowledge is missing a whole lot. That's the point.


Personally, BTW, while I appreciate understanding a wealth of details, I think I prefer the immersive personal experience viewpoint, when it comes to sex.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

The longer I live and the more I study the more I appreciate I do not know 'the truth' in any absolute way but I have a damn good idea what is not 'the truth' my gut and intuition are well honed quite often I will 'know' the answer before I look it up for example my gut tells me half the population chasing imaginary demons with cell phones cant be a good thing then ill look it up and even without the spiritual aspects just the spyware/malware aspects of that app should scare off any sane person.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

We are in no position to change consensus. The common person can only try to open the minds of others to see the truth. I am not talking religion here, but many religions try to get people to be reasonablel and to not blindly believe what those that are corrupt in society would have them believe. Some times these religions are controlled by corruption also, but some have improved lately.

Deception does control this world, it has for a while. The ones controlling what we hear and see can steer us to believe in things and steer us away from the truth. Media is just a tool, but that tool can be owned by corrupt people. As with any tool, it can be used for good or bad. Some things we consider bad can actually be good because society was led to believe a lie generations ago already. People can't usually see the long term benefit of fixing something, they want instant gain from things.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Honestly, I know my early experiences and perceptions can cloud my perceived observations even scientifically. I have to thank ATS for bringing some balance to my emotional response to truth.

It is a frustrating juggling act to be sure! Not just with my own perception based experiences and observations, but to recognize that every individual or opinion of fact is based on unique individual perceptions of truth! Egad!

I was running in circles and honestly, still am to a certain extent. The only real humbling truth I discovered was that I cannot know the truth of everything.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler


As far as I'm concerned both people got away with murder here.

Tilt. I followed that trial daily. I saw the lack of evidence first hand. The emotional appeal won out in the media though. Casey was convicted in the media before the trial began.

Casey didn't kill her daughter.


Box was originally talking about ways we know things, the Greek vs the Hebrew. It wasn't about court cases and lawyers. A lawyer's job is to get their client acquitted, whether they did it or not. It's not about "truth." It's about convincing just one person out of 12 on a jury that you are correct.

My point was that each us has a responsibility to look at things closely enough to see the truth of it. Not ride along with emotional sentiment or jump to conclusions. That kind of surety of what the truth is comes from discovering the lies, like they do in open court.

Of course knowing isn't like lawyers trying to get their client off, the examination we make of whether seeing something is true or not should be carried out like it is in court, only deciding once we have done this.

We can make presumptions but should never affirm before we know enough. I presume and assume too, everybody does. I did it yesterday on a Mars rock thread. Trying not to.
edit on 3-8-2016 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Of course knowing isn't like lawyers trying to get their client off, the examination we make of whether seeing something is true or not should be carried out like it is in court, only deciding once we have done this.


Then why bring it up and throw the thread off topic? We weren't talking courts and a justice system here. We were talking ways of knowledge. We weren't even talking emotions, which you seem to have inserted into the discussion as well. These things that you keep bringing up are superficial to the discussion. The scientific method can only get you so far. I've given you examples. Would you rather READ about sex or HAVE it? Which ones gives you a better understanding of the subject? Scientific knowledge of the subject is beside the point. If THAT'S what you think "knowledge" is, you just blew it. You missed the whole point.

And even when you use the scientific method, you can get into some pretty strange areas. Quantum Mechanics tells us that without something to observe an object, it doesn't exist, i.e.: Existence is a relationship between object and observer. Light is both a particle and a wave, depending on how you observe it. The Many Worlds Theory absolutely proves mathematically that every decision spins off a new universe, one for each side of the decision.

Go explain these things in a courtroom to a jury of 12 and see how far you get "proving" any of them. You'd get a room full of bewildered people who didn't get it and would wind up not believing it, contrary to the truth of the matter. Don't confuse logic with knowledge. Logic is a method, not truth. Your courtroom analogy is completely inappropriate here. It misses the point.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

I just want to address one tiny portion of your little crusade here: RAD. you have mentioned it repeatedly. attachment disorder, you call it. I looked it up...



Reactive attachment disorder is a rare but serious condition in which an infant or young child doesn't establish healthy attachments with parents or caregivers. Reactive attachment disorder may develop if the child's basic needs for comfort, affection and nurturing aren't met and loving, caring, stable attachments with others are not established.


www.mayoclinic.org...

Apples and oranges much? I have friends with this disorder, its nothing to do with what you are on about. Dont use terminology if you dont know what it means. Also, i feel like we have already seen this thread from you. ah here it is. didnt go so well. Not to mention that it just tickles me to think of taking criticism on science from a user who mistakes thunderstorms for interdimensional portals. Get outta here rofl
edit on 3-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join