Peace...
~P is more likely from an objective point of view. A scientist however is not trained to ignore evidence which suggests the existence of an anamolous occurance simply because it is extremely irregular. Therefore from a cursory view ~P is the best option, however, as you have indicated, if there is additional evidence substantiating the claim, the claim becomes more credible. If experimentation which includes repeatabilty justifies a conclusion which supports P, it would not be reasonalbe to ignore the results because of what would thereafter be an extremely reduced set of ~P. What Dr. Jackson would lack is the benefit of peer review and corroboration. So on one hand he the benefit of the scientific method and on the other he lacks objective review. The question I posed was #1 would it be reasonable for Dr. Jackson to believe his own account considering the full magnitude of E(1) thru E(3).
theVOID, I get why you would be inclined to review the process, however, I don't think it helps to define it since it is most probable that any experiment would have occured within the delusion and the results would probably be completely unreliable. With that said, let us assume that he remembers using the finest methods and also recalls being meticulous in performaning all test.
I would like to establish first if it is irrational for S to believe P. I support the position P < ~P and that upon first glance this should be the initial determination of everyone including S, however, as was stated previously, the degree of improbability reduces with the presentation of good evidence supporting P. The question here is who must evaluate the evidence to make P > ~P for S ?
I think we are on the same page here...Now...lets further this.
Let us now say that after intense medical and psychological evaluation it was determined that poor Dr. Jackson, like the fictional character Lemuel Gulliver was diagnosed as one suffering from some form of mental defect, and was admitted into a psychiatric facility for care...While there, Ookla appears with Thundarr, and transports Dr. Jackson to Philadelphia in the year 1778 A.D... Dr. Jackson is provided new attire, however, he mistakenly places the business card of one of his physicians in his pocket. While in Philadelphia of 1778 his assignment is to warn the scientific community of the impending doom. While there he is quickly arrested and examined by the local physicians.The doctors of 1778 come to the same conclusion as those in the present.. mental defect..He is thoroughly ridiculed and told repeatedly that he is not from the year 2011 at all since that would be impossible..
Within this period of time (1778), P must include any belief suggesting that S is from the year 2011. Despite the clarity S has when he recalls automobiles, computers, movies, the NFL, airplanes, microwaves, et al. None of the aforementioned are known to any of those in 1778 which makes the portion of P which deals with S being from 2011 as unlikely as S being transported to the future to meet Ooklah the Mok . It would be irrational for Dr. jackson to believe that he was from the year 2011 and that he ever experienced any of the aforesaid technology. Just as he is grappling with this, he remembers the business card which clearly includes a telephone number and an email address printed in raised font. all he has to confirm his story is the eyebrow job, his memories, and a business card...From this perspective would the previous logic still apply? Would it be rational or irrational for S to believe P ?
Whirling Moat
Quote:Which would be along the lines of what I did below, if he carefully considered the evidence he would see that his experience is more likely given delusion and therefore conclude it was one. If he came back with a time machine or something though... That would be evidence that is much more likely if he met time traveling Oolak.
~P is more likely from an objective point of view. A scientist however is not trained to ignore evidence which suggests the existence of an anamolous occurance simply because it is extremely irregular. Therefore from a cursory view ~P is the best option, however, as you have indicated, if there is additional evidence substantiating the claim, the claim becomes more credible. If experimentation which includes repeatabilty justifies a conclusion which supports P, it would not be reasonalbe to ignore the results because of what would thereafter be an extremely reduced set of ~P. What Dr. Jackson would lack is the benefit of peer review and corroboration. So on one hand he the benefit of the scientific method and on the other he lacks objective review. The question I posed was #1 would it be reasonable for Dr. Jackson to believe his own account considering the full magnitude of E(1) thru E(3).
Quote:Then you would have to present the method and not just assert that he used some undefined method to determine that his experience was in objective reality. I bet you could find no method to do so, let alone inside a psychotic episode.
theVOID, I get why you would be inclined to review the process, however, I don't think it helps to define it since it is most probable that any experiment would have occured within the delusion and the results would probably be completely unreliable. With that said, let us assume that he remembers using the finest methods and also recalls being meticulous in performaning all test.
I would like to establish first if it is irrational for S to believe P. I support the position P < ~P and that upon first glance this should be the initial determination of everyone including S, however, as was stated previously, the degree of improbability reduces with the presentation of good evidence supporting P. The question here is who must evaluate the evidence to make P > ~P for S ?
Quote:So not only can a person tell what the cause of such an experience is, real or imaginary, but there is really no analysis that they could do that would rationally determine that his experience was not subjective other than considering how likely each hypothesis is given the available evidence.
I think we are on the same page here...Now...lets further this.
Let us now say that after intense medical and psychological evaluation it was determined that poor Dr. Jackson, like the fictional character Lemuel Gulliver was diagnosed as one suffering from some form of mental defect, and was admitted into a psychiatric facility for care...While there, Ookla appears with Thundarr, and transports Dr. Jackson to Philadelphia in the year 1778 A.D... Dr. Jackson is provided new attire, however, he mistakenly places the business card of one of his physicians in his pocket. While in Philadelphia of 1778 his assignment is to warn the scientific community of the impending doom. While there he is quickly arrested and examined by the local physicians.The doctors of 1778 come to the same conclusion as those in the present.. mental defect..He is thoroughly ridiculed and told repeatedly that he is not from the year 2011 at all since that would be impossible..
Within this period of time (1778), P must include any belief suggesting that S is from the year 2011. Despite the clarity S has when he recalls automobiles, computers, movies, the NFL, airplanes, microwaves, et al. None of the aforementioned are known to any of those in 1778 which makes the portion of P which deals with S being from 2011 as unlikely as S being transported to the future to meet Ooklah the Mok . It would be irrational for Dr. jackson to believe that he was from the year 2011 and that he ever experienced any of the aforesaid technology. Just as he is grappling with this, he remembers the business card which clearly includes a telephone number and an email address printed in raised font. all he has to confirm his story is the eyebrow job, his memories, and a business card...From this perspective would the previous logic still apply? Would it be rational or irrational for S to believe P ?
Whirling Moat
