• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

#141: Oct. - Dec. 2015 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Interbane, you imply that "Ayurvedic = Bad Thinking" solely on the basis of your prior opinion, and without any evidence of bad thinking on the part of Renay Oshop. I have no knowledge of her work beyond this link, but it looks to me that the bad thinking in this instance is not from her. Renay states that the source of the dictionary is referenced at the end of the article, as well as full access to the program she developed for it.

http://www.ayurastro.com/articles/and-i ... eaner-data presents the following extraordinary data analysis, showing that usage of non-dictionary words in Amazon reviews (primarily misspellings) peaks during Mercury retrograde against a sine wave function. This claim demands proper scientific investigation.

Image
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Interbane, you imply that "Ayurvedic = Bad Thinking" solely on the basis of your prior opinion
Perhaps my opinion is that Ayurvedic = Bad Thinking, but this doesn't mean my opinion is whimsical. If you go by anecdote, ayurvedic works. If you go by scientific evidence, it's negative across the board. Holding onto a belief in spite of scientific evidence is bad thinking. Wishful thinking.
This claim demands proper scientific investigation.
It warrants a peer review perhaps.

Yet I suspect this is an example of precisely what I mentioned in an earlier post. How much time will other scientists spend peer reviewing or following up on this study? How much time has Oshop spent studying this?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Perhaps my opinion is that Ayurvedic = Bad Thinking, but this doesn't mean my opinion is whimsical.
In terms of relevance to this thread, it definitely does mean that your opinion is an ad hominem fallacy, and therefore an example of bad thinking. The fact that this researcher may or may not accept some dubious folk traditions is not relevant to the statistical significance of the empirical findings.
Interbane wrote: If you go by anecdote, ayurvedic works. If you go by scientific evidence, it's negative across the board. Holding onto a belief in spite of scientific evidence is bad thinking. Wishful thinking.
The claim regarding spelling mistakes and Mercury is not based on Ayurvedic medicine or anecdote, but on a claimed rigorous statistical analysis. The peer review question should be about the rigor of this analysis.
Interbane wrote: How much time will other scientists spend peer reviewing or following up on this study? How much time has Oshop spent studying this?
It is an important and simple scientific hypothesis. Reviewing it would not take much time or difficulty at all if the methods are sound. Those who would find themselves too busy to examine the details are just a pack of scaredy-cats whose real worry is that their reputation would be damaged if they let the protection of the ignorant mass of believers.

This actually raises an important point that Harrison makes later in his book, where he discusses considering systems as a whole. I will find the quote and share it.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:The fact that this researcher may or may not accept some dubious folk traditions is not relevant to the statistical significance of the empirical findings.
:?:

I didn't mention her bio to attack her findings. I mention it because it's an excellent example of what the book "Good Thinking" is about. The time she wastes on dubious folk traditions is relevant to chapter 1.
Robert Tulip wrote:The claim regarding spelling mistakes and Mercury is not based on Ayurvedic medicine or anecdote, but on a claimed rigorous statistical analysis. The peer review question should be about the rigor of this analysis.
I understand we're juggling two subjects here. But they are both equally dubious.
It is an important and simple scientific hypothesis. Reviewing it would not take much time or difficulty at all if the methods are sound. Those who would find themselves too busy to examine the details are just a pack of scaredy-cats whose real worry is that their reputation would be damaged if they let the protection of the ignorant mass of believers.
It is a hypothesis that Mercury, the messenger god, manipulates Earthly communications by the motion of his namesake heavenly body? This is quack.

As far as peer review, I think it should be done. But it should be done in the same way that we peer review the influence of sugar pills on depression. The subjects believe the cause is one thing, but the true mechanism is placebo. Placebo is worth studying. It is powerful, and a part of the way we work.

Are you suggesting there is another mechanism at work besides placebo? Can you even conjecture here? Even remotely? I know you don't believe the god Mercury is responsible, which is the source of this myth. So why pursue it?

By placebo, I mean that there is an effect because people believe there is an effect.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:The fact that this researcher may or may not accept some dubious folk traditions is not relevant to the statistical significance of the empirical findings.
:?: I didn't mention her bio to attack her findings. I mention it because it's an excellent example of what the book "Good Thinking" is about. The time she wastes on dubious folk traditions is relevant to chapter 1.
Wow Interbane, that really is bad thinking on your part. I introduced this discussion of astrology to illustrate how Harrison fails in his own standards of good thinking when it comes to the analysis of subjects that he does not understand. He argues to the effect that because some astrologers are wrong, therefore all are. That is a basic logical fallacy. And now, after extensive discussion of that problem in logic, you make the same blunder, and try to divert the discussion to a different topic. The likely falseness of some Ayurvedic beliefs is not relevant to why we are discussing Renay Oshop, which is that she has presented a novel scientific claim based on objective analysis of data, against which all your talk about Ayurvedic errors is a giant red herring. Her claim, which refutes Harrison's assumption and yours, stands and falls on evidence, not on whether some other ideas are true or false.
Interbane wrote: we're juggling two subjects here.
No, it is not juggling. I introduced one subject, relevant to the thread, and you introduced another one that is irrelevant. The simple juggle here is to address the relevant point and stop talking about the irrelevant point. Pick up and put down is an easy juggling technique.
Interbane wrote: But they are both equally dubious.
No, ayurvedic medicine is far more dubious than the claim that statistical evidence from objective data may support a scientific hypothesis. I know you like to be like the Pope mocking Galileo for looking through a tube when it comes to heresies against scientific myths, but we are not in fact talking about two equally dubious propositions, even if you try to use the fallacy of argument from incredulity.
Interbane wrote: It is a hypothesis that Mercury, the messenger god, manipulates Earthly communications by the motion of his namesake heavenly body? This is quack.
No, it is a hypothesis that data presents a statistically significant anomaly which can be tested and replicated by anyone using the scientific method.
Interbane wrote: Are you suggesting there is another mechanism at work besides placebo? Can you even conjecture here? Even remotely? I know you don't believe the god Mercury is responsible, which is the source of this myth. So why pursue it?
My view on how it is possible is based on scientific understanding the solar system as the environmental niche of the evolution of life on earth. I will explain this in more detail in the thread on Chapter Three of Critical Thinking, where Harrison provides a key comment explaining how it is possible.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:. . . My interest in this regard is to explore the extent to which modern rational views conceal a covert faith element. For example it is really touching to see Harrison state that archaeologists have proved how ancient Egyptians built the great pyramids, as an expression of his faith that they could not have involved aliens. In fact, archaeologists have proved nothing about how the pyramids were built, which remains among the most controversial mysteries of our planet.

The issue here is that talk of aliens is so discomforting and conjures up such a range of speculative fantasy that it becomes easier to go to the other extreme. Instead of a proper scientific agnosticism, Harrison makes the building of the pyramids a matter of religious faith, saying the fact that our ancestors could build such magnificent monuments is a great testament to human abilities. Despite a complete absence of evidence for this strong claim, and the convenient ignoring of the myriad problems of his dubious hypothesis, Harrison casts into the outer darkness any pariah who would challenge such bien pensant thinking.
I see your main point, Robert, but I would differ with how you frame our assumption as an act of faith that humans built the pyramids. We assume humans built the pyramids because it's logical and the most parsimonious explanation. To invoke aliens simply because we don't know how the pyramids were built is an argument from ignorance. We can assume humans built the pyramids and remain open to other explanations if evidence warrants it. That's very different from an act of faith, which is to believe something and assert its truth without evidence to support it.

Harrison says that "ancient people were smart enough and capable enough to build pyramids and other large structures on their own with no assistance from aliens, as archaeologists have shown." While Harrison may overstate the archaeological evidence to some extent, human-built pyramids remains the best explanation by leaps and bounds. Are you suggesting otherwise?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Robert wrote:And now, after extensive discussion of that problem in logic, you make the same blunder, and try to divert the discussion to a different topic
You didn't introduce me to this thread Robert. My comments fit in this thread like a glove. What's really confusing to me is even though I made the comment as a sidenote to our discussion, her bio specifically mentioned Jyotisha, which is Hindu astrology. You brought up Ayurvedic, and I went with it, assuming I missed something. It doesn't change the fact that these dubious beliefs are the topic of chapter 1. I haven't done anything wrong here. I'll even double down on what I said about Oshop. Her bio is an excellent example of how time is wasted on bad thinking.
Robert wrote:
Interbane wrote:It is a hypothesis that Mercury, the messenger god, manipulates Earthly communications by the motion of his namesake heavenly body? This is quack.
No, it is a hypothesis that data presents a statistically significant anomaly which can be tested and replicated by anyone using the scientific method.
Just to be clear, you're saying that the hypothesis is that Mercury, the messenger god, manipulates Earthly communications? Are we practicing methodological supernaturalism?
He argues to the effect that because some astrologers are wrong, therefore all are. That is a basic logical fallacy.
No, he argues that "There is no evidence for astrology, no logical argument, nor credible research to support it." - Pg 32 He commits no fallacy. If he is guilty of anything, it is not knowing of Oshop's study. But can we call that credible research? A study of the hypothesis that the god Mercury affects Earthly communication? No, it's ridiculous. I'd like to see your naturalistic hypothesis in chapter 3.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Interbane wrote:You brought up Ayurvedic, and I went with it, assuming I missed something.
The beauty of the booktalk format is that we can all see exactly what everyone says unless they go back and change it, at which point we can see that they have edited their post.

I raised the topic of this empirical study at http://www.booktalk.org/post152296.html ... 3c#p152296 without mentioning Ayurvedic. I had no reason to mention Ayurverdic because it was not relevant to my point. Your statement that I brought it up is false. What happened is that in the next post in the thread, you trawled the link I gave to find something to discredit it, and you brought up Ayurvedic, not me.

You did miss something, which was the basic point of my comment. A scientific study has found that when Mercury passes between the earth and the sun people tend to make more spelling mistakes. It has nothing to do with Gods or supernatural magic, but suggests a purely natural effect like a tide.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

Robert wrote:The beauty of the booktalk format is that we can all see exactly what everyone says unless they go back and change it, at which point we can see that they have edited their post.
I went back to my post and hit CTRL+F to search for Ayurvedic. It actually came up, included in the quoted bio of Renay Oshop, within my post. :hmm:
Renay Oshop
was accepted to MIT, Oxford, and Harvard at age 15 and accepted a faculty position at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center at age 21 to specialize in early bioinformatics.

She subsequently attended Dr. Vasant Lad's Ayurvedic Institute, a kind of Hogswart's, and embarked on an international 18 years-and-counting journey to study Jyotisha

Now, she teaches, does private readings, and focuses on advanced studies and scientific research of Jyotisha.
I had no clue she was also interested in alternative medicine. The only thing I mention in that post is her interest in astrology, which I picked up from the parts of her bio where it mentions Jyotisha, which is Hindu astrology. I completely overlooked the word Ayurvedic in her bio - the word was unfamiliar to me(the name of an institute perhaps?). Jyotisha was also unfamiliar, but I looked that one up. The entire thrust of my post was toward Jyotisha - Hindu astrology, not alternative medicine.
Robert wrote:It has nothing to do with Gods or supernatural magic, but suggests a purely natural effect like a tide.
Does it also suggest a possible mistake on Oshop's part? Does it also suggest a potential placebo effect? I think it suggests these things more than it suggests an actual psychological zeitgeber from the motion of Mercury. Post your conjecture in the chapter 3 thread so I can take a look.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 1: The Case for Good Thinking ("Good Thinking" - by Guy P. Harrison)

Unread post

I'm thinking about the peer review that would help determine the validity of Ostop's study. A good idea, for sure, but how will it happen unless she submits it to some journal that does peer review? And if her study passes muster, it then would be published and part of the world could further consider it and argue over it, as should be the case always. If, though, she tries to have it peer-reviewed, but it's not accepted even for that, would we ever know about it? As the study stands, it's merely of interest, but you can't say of significance without being vetted really at all.

Just anticipating, Robert, forgive me if this sounds like prejudging, but I can hear you saying that bigotry of the sciences would be to blame if she can't get a scientific journal to take a look at her work.
Post Reply

Return to “Good Thinking: What You Need to Know to be Smarter, Safer, Wealthier, and Wiser - by Guy P. Harrison”