Why you can't trust your eyes

I thought this was gonna be another article on how stats do/don't lie

Pretty cool

Minor White > Ansel Adams

by say hey nation on Jul 7, 2009 1:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought this was going to be about Fred Lewis

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 7, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The accompanying blog post is asinine, though. A visual artifact based on color theory is not the definitive example of the difference between perception and reality. Of course, trust the Skeptics and Scientistians to seize on it as the latest revelation of their sole access to objective truth.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 1:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A visual artifact based on color theory is not the definitive example of the difference between perception and reality.

I don’t see how it isn’t. You perceive green to be blue.

Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at second.

by marcello on Jul 7, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m referring to the Discovery blog post, which goes on to say anyone who thinks they’ve seen a UFO should learn, from seeing this illusion, that they shouldn’t believe their eyes. It’s a leap that the commenters then seize upon to chant to their god Skepticism.

All I can see is one of the usual tricks such as interior designers use when trying to effect a feeling in a space, or graphic designers use in controlling the impressions of their work. And if it is useful to me to perceive a certain blue green, in some situations, as blue, I refuse to impute moral values of trust and lack thereof onto the effect.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, I see

Agreed, they might be taking it a bit far. I’d say the illusion is a reminder to always question what you see, not outright discard it.

Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at second.

by marcello on Jul 7, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had no idea that that optical illusion disproved the existence of God. Whodathunkit?

Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...

by rotorueter on Jul 7, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you’re reading too much into one innocent comment. Also, I’m pretty sure that most people who believe in Jesus don’t believe in him because they think they physically saw him. In fact, isn’t believing basically accepting something as true without requiring any physical evidence?

Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.

:-(

by Cookyman on Jul 7, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not quite. Believing is accepting something as true because it has been presented to you by a source you have decided to accept as trustworthy.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK. I don’t see how this changes what I said.

Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.

:-(

by Cookyman on Jul 7, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s a mediating step involved between what is being presented as something to believe, and the person who will or will not believe; that mediator is typically another person, who is giving testimony: this man rose from the dead; this planet revolves around the sun. Otherwise you’re not believing, you’re just assuming, or imagining. But imagination is something else altogether.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right. So based on what you’re saying, believing in Jesus doesn’t require actually seeing Jesus. If you don’t believe in Jesus until you actually see him, then you’re not really believing in him, right? So, if physically seeing Jesus isn’t part of the Christian faith, what’s wrong with my statement that “most people who believe in Jesus don’t believe in him because they think they physically saw him”? What does the writer’s comment about people not actually seeing Jesus have anything to do with what you call “God skepticism”?

Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.

:-(

by Cookyman on Jul 7, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn’t trying to argue against your overall point, actually. It may have come out that way.

It’s not “God skepticism”, it’s “their god Skepticism”. I’m pointing out people who worshipping Skepticism, or Science, like a god, rather than using it as a tool to probe their own assumptions. I missed a comma.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought it was the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.

by Roger on Jul 7, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s faith, the gift. Belief is the act which may or may not be used in the theological Christian sense.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

“God is my favorite fictional character.”

I totally meant to throw that in the favorite Simpsons line thread the other day.

A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.

by Roger on Jul 7, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now you’re just baiting me.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

After ranting about Skeptics and Scientistians, he’s baiting you?

Duane Kuiper: Hall Of Fame broadcaster.

by Johnny Disaster on Jul 7, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I was assuming he wanted to discuss what I said. Do you?

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, but if I posted something about Jesus Freaks and Idiot Mystics, I would forfeit my right to outrage when one of them in turn mocked my personal beliefs.

Duane Kuiper: Hall Of Fame broadcaster.

by Johnny Disaster on Jul 7, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, not that you’ll believe me now, but I wasn’t all that outraged. Just disappointed. If I had been outraged … but what’s the point? What’s done is done.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Outraged, disappointed, it doesn’t matter. If you think Roger shouldn’t have made his comment, you shouldn’t have made yours.

Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.

:-(

by Cookyman on Jul 7, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know the point you’re making, and believe me I am sorry I ever started this, but I did not mean to imply “shut up” when I said “Now you’re just baiting me”. I was preparing for a riposte from him and it has plainly gotten out of hand.

I visit this site frequently but often don’t say anything precisely because I feel people will take umbrage at what I will say. It’s difficult, but I am trying to become a better member while still having honest responses, which often differ from most of us here. So many things happen in the heat of a game thread that truly does make me upset, but it would be awful for me to complain about it. So I keep quiet. In this attitude I feel like everyone else can say whatever they like, but I can’t.

My original response to Marcello was the same as what I wrote to a friend who had sent me this link a few days ago. It led to a discussion with Marcello that got my original point across. Then we started our conversation, and I made mistakes of judgment that led to this escalation. I am sorry I ever did it and will use much less incendiary language in the future, should I not be banned.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

See, you can’t really say something like “trust the Skeptics and Scientistians to seize on it as the latest revelation of their sole access to objective truth”, and then claim that someone is baiting you.

Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.

:-(

by Cookyman on Jul 7, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But I didn’t know Roger would take umbrage at that; to bait something, you have to know how it will react, and I didn’t. In fact, for a moment there I thought I had an ally.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the record, I took no umbrage at all, and could, I think, have reasonably been said to have baiting you with my Simpson’s line, though I would choose to interpret it more as a mischievous wink.

A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.

by Roger on Jul 7, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sorry, but that’s a silly argument. You didn’t say it to Roger, you wrote it in a general reply to the thread. Baiting is saying something you know will make whoever you’re talking to upset. If you’re upset by Roger’s comment, but can’t see how your comment could make anyone feel the same, then I really don’t know what to tell you.

I wasn’t really upset by your comment in any way. I just think that, once you say something like that, you pretty much forfeit the right to claim that anyone is baiting you. You know, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah”. A Jewish guy said that 2000 years ago. Not that Jewish guy, but still.

Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.

:-(

by Cookyman on Jul 7, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But that’s my only defense: I didn’t know it would make anyone here upset. (I could also explain that I wasn’t all that upset by Roger’s comment, but it’s so far back in the thread now who would believe me?) I can only testify as to my intent. Now, to my thinking, the only person I would have been baiting would have been Marcello. But that moment passed, in my way of thinking, and developed into a different conversation.

You may not accept this, but it’s all I have to offer, and like you to me, I don’t know what else to say.

by shanghaijim on Jul 7, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah. I think by belief, you mean to use the word faith (belief is another matter altogether, of which there are many species; btw, physical evidence itself still needs belief, and in fact, needs a narrative in order to have any meaning at all).

There is a long tradition of trying to define the term from numerous standpoints, and one has to pay careful attention to the group in question. Since this discussion has floated around Christianity, it should be noted that there are wildly different position within that camp (though i don’t think all versions are defensible).

Generally, and this is key, ‘evidence’ isn’t strictly associated with physical evidence (things such as logic/reason, testimony, authority, elucidation, and others can all be rightly considered evidence depending on the case). Also, sight need not be the primary metaphor.
If one takes ‘faith’ in its latin sense (and this is where most of the discussion in the west has jumped up from), it is fiducia, and could as easily be translated as trust. Thus, faith is the trust that the presently unfulfilled will become so (the biblical sense of the term).

In terms of this discussion, faith would be trusting that the belief which is presently under some degree of ambiguity, is true in fact.

Not that this fundamentally changes this discussion, but it might clarify it, should anyone wish to continue it.

ahh, the shadows of Graduate School do haunt me, though sometimes happily.

Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball

"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson

by haverecords on Jul 8, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs