Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
But not people putting on costume parties in the middle of the day. That's implausible. Even in a near infinite universe of near infinite duration.
You didn't read my updated post did you?
But not people putting on costume parties in the middle of the day. That's implausible. Even in a near infinite universe of near infinite duration.
So that's a mia culpa?You didn't read my updated post did you?
So that's a mia culpa?
True.But it's not proof there aren't time slips.
It's not proof that there aren't time slips, but it rules it out as a rational explanation for that case, right? You agree on that, that this case is unlikely to have been a time slip?It's a raising of reasonable doubt. But it's not proof there aren't time slips.
It's not proof that there aren't time slips, but it rules it out as a rational explanation for that case, right? You agree on that, that this case is unlikely to have been a time slip?
Out of curiosity, until you had read the explanation in Wikipedia, why would you not have accepted it as a more likely explanation?Yes..I agree after having run across that explanation.
Out of curiosity, until you had read the explanation in Wikipedia, why would you not have accepted it as a more likely explanation?
Evidence for what? The existence of there having been a party? Why would you need evidence of it?I needed some evidence for the party theory. It's not sufficient to merely raise the possibility of it. I need evidence.
Evidence for what? The existence of there having been a party? Why would you need evidence of it?
There is no claim being made, MR, other than it is a possibility that it was a party.Right..evidence of the party. A claim needs evidence to back it up. And a mere possibility isn't a claim OR an explanation. I'm surprised you don't know this by now.
There is no claim being made, MR, other than it is a possibility that it was a party.
No one is claiming that it definitely was - and if they were they would indeed need the evidence to support that claim.
But the fact that it is a possibility, and it would be a possibility whether or not there was evidence of an actual party taking place, means that one should apply reason and critical thinking to determine which possibility (party or time-slip) is more reasonable to accept as the likelier cause.
Your need to see evidence that it was a possible alternative before considering it as such seems to be the cause of your bias toward the paranormal. Rather all one needs to do is show how the observations could be explained by a more likely alternative, and this should then result in that more likely alternative being rationally accepted as the likeliest explanation.
But you take the paranormal explanation as given until it can be proven that it was (not just could be but was) an explanation that is usually considered far more mundane.
Your thinking thus lacks being sufficiently critical.
The way he works seems to be:I must say I continue to believe this is all a pose on MR's part. I don't believe he is really so stupid as to think a "timeslip" is more likely than a themed party. He's just got some sort of antirational agenda, in my view.
The way he works seems to be:
1. Observation of phenomenon.
2. Initial interpretation as paranormal taken as the default position.
3. Alternative explanations must be proven to be the result before they can replace the default interpretation.
Whereas most would adopt the following:
1. Observation of phenomenon.
2. Initial interpretation as paranormal noted.
3. Other interpretations collected.
4. All interpretations considered and the most likely one that fits the observations accepted as being the most rational, until such time as a more likely interpretation arises.
It seems MR takes the initial observation as evidence only for the paranormal, when in actuality the initial observation is merely the evidence that the interpretation then has to fit, and the paranormal is but one interpretation.
There is no claim being made, MR, other than it is a possibility that it was a party.
No one is claiming that it definitely was - and if they were they would indeed need the evidence to support that claim.
But the fact that it is a possibility, and it would be a possibility whether or not there was evidence of an actual party taking place, means that one should apply reason and critical thinking to determine which possibility (party or time-slip) is more reasonable to accept as the likelier cause.
Rather all one needs to do is show how the observations could be explained by a more likely alternative, and this should then result in that more likely alternative being rationally accepted as the likeliest explanation.
Butyou take the paranormal explanation as given until it can be proven that it was (not just could be butwas) an explanation that is usually considered far more mundane.
I must say I continue to believe this is all a pose on MR's part. I don't believe he is really so stupid as to think a "timeslip" is more likely than a themed party. He's just got some sort of antirational agenda, in my view.
Indeed - nor is a mere interpretation, such as "time slip".But a mere possibility is not sufficient to establish what happened.
We are at square one in terms of defining what the possibilities are. The next step is to establish which is more likely, as this will determine the rational interpretation.I could counter your party possibility with the possibility of a time slip. Boom. We are back at square one.
I'm not claiming that it was a party - only that it could possibly have been.What I maintain is that if you are going to counter my claim that it is a time slip based on the the evidence of the two women's account with a claim of it being a party, you need to provide evidence for that.
I am merely highlighting that you have come to the right conclusion by following entirely the wrong thought process that rational people would follow. And yours is a thought process that leads to you reaching irrational conclusions.And that is exactly what I did. Why you would complain about that is strange to me, like you are opposing objective evidence for claims.
A time-slip that has never been verified to occur, versus a themed party... hmmm... which do you think is more likely?You don't know which is more likely in this case. For all we know this may be the one time a time slip occurred out of billions of people and places.
If a given person claimed to win the lottery then I would not accuse them of lying (I would have no evidence to support it) but I would indeed initially think it a possibility.Again, it's like if you encountered someone who claimed to have won the lottery. By your logic that person is lying because it is more likely they are lying than that they won the lottery. But you would be wrong. People DO win lotteries, despite the unlikelihood of them doing so.
Evidence that also fits with the theory of it being a themed party whether or not someone provides confirmation of such a party in the vicinity.Right. I take the explanation to be a time slip based on the evidence of the account.
All that is required to provide an explanation is possibility. Once you have multiple possibilities the rational person looks at which would be the most likely.If someone provides evidence of an alternative explanation, then I'll reconsider. But not on the basis of something just being more plausible. Plausibility is not adequate to even make a claim, much less provide an explanation.
Lol!This is your fallacy Sarkus:
1. It is more probable that B happened than that A happened.
2. Why is it more probable that B happened?
3. Because it is more improbable that A happened.