Image: Matt Collins
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Why do people see faces in nature, interpret window stains as human figures, hear voices in random sounds generated by electronic devices or find conspiracies in the daily news? A proximate cause is the priming effect, in which our brain and senses are prepared to interpret stimuli according to an expected model. UFOlogists see a face on Mars. Religionists see the Virgin Mary on the side of a building. Paranormalists hear dead people speaking to them through a radio receiver. Conspiracy theorists think 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. Is there a deeper ultimate cause for why people believe such weird things? There is. I call it “patternicity,” or the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise.
Traditionally, scientists have treated patternicity as an error in cognition. A type I error, or a false positive, is believing something is real when it is not (finding a nonexistent pattern). A type II error, or a false negative, is not believing something is real when it is (not recognizing a real pattern—call it “apatternicity”). In my 2000 book How We Believe (Times Books), I argue that our brains are belief engines: evolved pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes A really is connected to B; sometimes it is not. When it is, we have learned something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that aid in survival and reproduction. We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns. This process is called association learning, and it is fundamental to all animal behavior, from the humble worm C. elegans to H. sapiens.
Unfortunately, we did not evolve a Baloney Detection Network in the brain to distinguish between true and false patterns. We have no error-detection governor to modulate the pattern-recognition engine. (Thus the need for science with its self-correcting mechanisms of replication and peer review.) But such erroneous cognition is not likely to remove us from the gene pool and would therefore not have been selected against by evolution.
In a September paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, “The Evolution of Superstitious and Superstition-like Behaviour,” Harvard University biologist Kevin R. Foster and University of Helsinki biologist Hanna Kokko test my theory through evolutionary modeling and demonstrate that whenever the cost of believing a false pattern is real is less than the cost of not believing a real pattern, natural selection will favor patternicity. They begin with the formula pb > c, where a belief may be held when the cost (c) of doing so is less than the probability (p) of the benefit (b). For example, believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is only the wind does not cost much, but believing that a dangerous predator is the wind may cost an animal its life.
The problem is that we are very poor at estimating such probabilities, so the cost of believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind is relatively low compared with the opposite. Thus, there would have been a beneficial selection for believing that most patterns are real.
Through a series of complex formulas that include additional stimuli (wind in the trees) and prior events (past experience with predators and wind), the authors conclude that “the inability of individuals—human or otherwise—to assign causal probabilities to all sets of events that occur around them will often force them to lump causal associations with non-causal ones. From here, the evolutionary rationale for superstition is clear: natural selection will favour strategies that make many incorrect causal associations in order to establish those that are essential for survival and reproduction.”
See what we're tweeting about
76 Comments
Add Comment"We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns." Ancestors, or Descendants?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Unfortunately, we did not evolve a Baloney Detection Network in the brain to distinguish between true and false patterns. We have no error-detection governor to modulate the pattern-recognition engine."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat explains the fundie "Religionists".
My Baloney Detection Network is firing right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand it's telling me that Science'ists are often people (typically teens but not exclusively) using whatever is handy to attack any institutions that advocate any form of personal responsibility.
They don't really care about science anymore than they do religion, they only care that they attack and dismantle any institutions that might have some influence in curtailing self-oriented behavior.
The same Baloney Detection fires whenever I see a Religion'ist attack science or scientists not because they think the science is wrong but because they think science undermines religion.
In BOTH cases, there is ulterior motive and respect for truth is pushed aside.
There is NO inherent conflict between science and religion.
All of science _starts_ explaining things _after_ the creation of the universe, it does not explain how you get something from nothing, it never has.
Big Bang?
Where did the stuff that exploded come from? where did the stuff it exploded into come from?
Evolution Science Completely FAILS on explaining ultimate origins so how can it conflict with any religions explanation for Ultimate Origin? it's rhetorical, it can't because it doesn't conflict.
Science is currently incapable of making the leap required to support the inescapable evidence of that simple observable fact of life: that something is born from nothing is the fundamental law of the universe.
origin itself cannot be evolutionary, because the further back along the line of change you go, the more you begin to realize that something had to come from nothing, at some point.
When we REALLY understand that, we will see that the Universe is far more fantastical than either science or religion currently fully comprehends.
imo.
re: Pattern Recognition as Darwinian survival tool.
There's the survival aspect, but also I think that maybe there's something else going on, the ability to make leaps in understanding seems to come from putting otherwise unconnected things together.
Maybe that part of the brain is also active? you could probably check if you had access to a lab with an advanced form of MRI to see what areas of the brain are lighting up when people see patterns that aren't there (rustling in the bushes) and comparing them to brain images taken when people create surreal art that imparts understanding to a viewer.
That'd be my sugg anyway.
Michael X.
Actually, you're doing what you accuse scientists of doing: disregarding anything that disagrees with what you just stated. You know. It bothers me that the kind of people reading this magazine are incapable of critical thinking, or critiquing their own writing to see if it makes sense. If you can't go out there and google 10 different theories, hypothesis, and factoids about what came before the big bang, then you would have to be pretty foolish. Your "supporting evidence" comes from a book that you can't even prove who wrote or where it came from, no? And your mocking people who can at least repeat the results of the information they purport is true? What a hypocrite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that our brain functions are to a significant extent co-determined by their proven ability to allow the reproductive "meeting" of different and often simultaneous environmental "challenges" - suitably sorted into adversities and "opportunities" (the primary aspect of the Evolutionary Patterning Totality) that if "taken" are directly or indirectly procreation-promoting) - amongst our brain functions there must inevitably exist some functions that allow us to be selectively insensitive to and staunchly emotionally and cognitively 'stupid' about not only physically inescapable immediate environmental sources of potentially overloading onerous stimulation, but ALSO about past but then "CONDITIONED-IN" such sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConditioned-in (neural) such sources will insidiously "generate" stimulation (or "PTSD") that must and tends to (in ALMOST all situations) be kept sufficiently specifically synaptically gated (=blocked) in order to not fuel a neural circuit that when predominantly energized within the Central Nervous [or Actention Selection (Serving)] System will amount to a self-defeating (fatally futile and/or fecundity forfeiting) paying/focus of actention.
In the phylogeny of fauna, such as *not the least* us folk, primarily positive or constructively procreation promoting "opportunities" (e.g. environmentally available potential feeds, foods, mating partners....) frequent overlap with a subset of equally natural and (in a similarly Darwinian sense) "negatively selective" (or perhaps more appropriately put "naturally pruning") adversities.
Not only idiots don't realize the explanatory philosophical traction provided by this dichotomy; IOW, it is as far from inEPT as can be. ;)
This subset of selective adversities may be described&defined as any predicament the individual survival of which implores (=demands) "specific hibernation"(SH) [in contrast to "general (typically seasonal) hibernation" (GH) - which as a matter of seasonally metabolism muting course also imply aestivation; That is, the common physiological denominator' of SH and GH is: "Both are adaptive metabolism muting states". The important difference being that in case of SH the muting of metabolism is localized with "post-synaptic precision" and does typically neither totally stop the (neural) individual from behaving nor does it cancel its relevant capacity for "Consciousness" the way GH does.
[Apropos Consciousness: Any of its levels, or "lines", and specific contents, are obviously dependent on a sufficient degree of brain-space-time-specific metabolism.]
Pattern recognition or the lack there of in terms of human survival where death or serious injury is a real possiblility is something that needs to be experienced in its extreme before you can begin to understand. If you survive a war zone you will get it otherwise I do not think so. On the other hand this "mag" is the "Readers Digest" of the science world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPattern recognition seems to me to be dependent on your focus. I am a musician and I hear music in white noise. My friend who believes in ghosts sees faces of ancestors in photographs. We both find patterns where there are none.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis would explain why the adherents to the religion of evolutionism make the incorrect causal association of impotent natural forces as god(s) rather than the correct causal association of a transcendent, omnipotent, intelligent designer. For, if they did not do this, it would lead to their extinction!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissee what carl sagan had to say:http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
Who determines what seperates white noise from data?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, we do. There is no objective logical statement that equates one thing as white noise or another thing as a pattern. No matter what pattern you chose you would find people stating it wasn't enough to be a pattern, and another set of people who stated it was way beyond what should be considered a pattern. A very subjective way of doing it would be to see if those not within the membership of whatever community was making this claim of patternship (for example, a non-musician seeing a pattern in what those of that group considered patterned, repetitive music) could agree has a pattern. Even better would be a program that used a determination, never having itself heard such music before. Again, it would come down to the programmer who decided what the program should consider to be a pattern :(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncidentally, as for this mag being the Readers Digest of the scientific world, i prefer that to the seclusion of people within my own field where all i hear are corroboration or attacks as to different theories of how something does or does not work. As stupid as some of the statements are, including more of them at least provides new information, even if lots of it is wholly ridiculous. If you stick within your own field for too long, that seems like a good way for a human being to become very very stuck in the rut of their own way of thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, even if one person finds a pattern in some sort of noise (like a noise in the bushes) and another person dismisses it as such (noise), if the first person benefited in any way from it, than it does not matter if there is a 3rd party judgment. Say he thought there was something in the bush, he quickly turns around and looks, seeing it was just the wind. Yes, the pattern was noise, BUT he honed his instincts with that experience. His reactions are getting better, while his decision making abilities have another experience to learn from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess now you need a 3rd party to determine if what he learned/practiced was useful...
Some people just find joy in these sort of things. I love when I hear musical patterns in things. It may not be beneficial, or actually there, but it do get a smile out of it.
And who's the third party :) What, persay, at this point in evolution, ultimately determines whether or not you were able to produce more young that will live better because you heard a noise in the bushes that you thought might be some murderer trying to sneak up on you? No one, except perhaps Michael looking on with the Omnitio and making sure that you took that cue properly (reference to book "Stranger in a Strange Land", last chapter, by Robert A. Heinlein). Even having seen whether the "pattern" existed in truth or not, who to judge whether its effect was beneficial, ultimately, to the reproductive goal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do we calculate speed while driving a car, bring attention on mystery, try to discover what is not known?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that our brain is a masterpiece in the art of "filling the blanks".
Sometimes we even add on the reality in order to stress the message that we need to communicate.
What is better... if you hear a strange noise and run or to hear a strange noise and stay?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that is clear that if there is no more information... running would not be a bad idea. At least the chance of being attacked is addressed.
In the case of staying and being attacked...
Of course if the noise was the wind... then the running boy and the staying one could go home happy with a nice story... and ready to try the reproduction thing :)
Humans are programed to hear words in their own language and see faces in a din or noise and camouflage. This is how we can hear our own name in over the loud conversation and music around us. This is also how any two dots and line will make a face : ) See. 8 P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem arises when we don't take Occam's Razor to heart. The theory with the least assumptions is usually correct. This is where EVP, Mary in the toast, and all that fails. If people realize the limitations of our own biology it will cut through the countless occurrences of a water stain being a message from the invisible sky wizard. Why is it that ghosts with EVP only speak the language of the person listening for it?
Michael X, if you would do some research before you spat off your thoughts you would realise there are explanations which are scientifically proven which support the opposite of all your points. Try it, i know blindly following a religion is easier, but sometimes you need real facts in life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToothfull : 'Evolutionism' is not a religion and neither is Science. Religion is by definition a belief, based on unproven writings, and not on reproducable evidence. The universe is certainly an entity ruled by certain natural laws that can be demonstrated, but this in no way implies that it was created by any intelligence. The laws governing Chaos Theory have evolved, and are quite adequate to explain reality as we know it. This should be quite adequate to satisfy the quest for truth by intelligent minds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the article is quite valid, and goes to show that with what natively insufficient genetic baloney detection mechanisms we have in place, we have parlayed the recognition of our lack of sufficient baloney detection into the whole realm and technique of scientific investigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another ancilliary related note, I find it amazing that our (that is, our scientifically oriented community) collective baloney detectors have let slip the absolute acceptance of manmade global warming. There is so much evidence out there that the data and theories used to base this idea upon are just ingenuous and unreliable. And yet smart people used to the ways of science have wholeheartedly accepted it as a fact on par with evolution.
Scientific American as an editorial entity is one of the worst offenders, being in a position of moral authority in all things science. The least they could do out of respect for Science, is say this is what we think the evidence shows - not OMG the sky is falling, we must act NOW!
My 2 scents ;-))
As Carl Sagan once put it...unquote...Tell someone that there are a billion planents out there in space and they'll believe you right away. Tell someone that the bench by his side has wet paint, they have to touch it to believe you!...unquote...I call it basic human tendency...probably at the cost of science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny, I was going to say it explains evolutionists; a prime example of the brain seeing patterns where none exist because of an overwhelming desire to have them exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMessage to the kiddies currently attempting to use this thread to attack religion
and the kiddies attempting to use this thread to attack science:
Those of us that are here for the SCIENCE are bored with your pedantic childish arguments.
Get it straight, we (and I in particular, you would have noted, had you actually read my msg) am not interested in defending science or religion, we simply have had it up to 'ere with your using virtually every article here as an excuse to grind your juvenile axe against religion or science.
To those of us that don't subscribe to EITHER of your narrowminded philosophies:
That is, BOTH you lot.
1. You religion-attacking pseudo-scientists.
2. You science-attacking religious-fundamentalists.
Before either of you lot open mouth insert foot and echo internationally again, You really need to take a basic reading comprehension course.
There is NO INHERENT CONFLICT between science and religion, save for those that insist on making one.
If you can't see that, then regardless of which side you subscribe to, you're behaving like a dunderheaded twonk.
The point in either case is: This is a SCIENCE site.
I don't appreciate your juvenile antics (however old you may be, whatever side you purport to represent) infringing on my science lessons.
I do not appreciate it when the science discussion is derailed by religious-fundamentalists and right now, I do not appreciate the pseudo-scientists using this thread to attacking religion.
BOTH sides need to Grow up.
There are more interesting things afoot than are dreamed of in your asshat'eries.
Michael X.
Its funny how quickly they rely upon attacking personally when they find people attacking their information and beliefs. Interestingly, your thesis (on this message) is correct. Religion is based on faith and beliefs, and does not intersect with science at all. Unfortunately, you're always going to be attacked as you have been because people branch the two back and forth all the time, either on purpose to cause furvor, as was easily demonstrated by you, or just to cause confusion, since they benefit from uneducated people -- they're easier to manipulate. Next time you'd like to try and demonstrate something, instead of filling it up with diatribe and insults to half of your reading audience, why don't you try some simple points and then see where you go from there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn a side note, as for global warming, i've honestly never seen anyone that didn't have their study funded by a side-interest come up with viable facts that showed anything to the contrary of the stated beliefs of the mass of international scientists who seem to be able to prove that it in fact is occurring.
"Evolutionists?" I'm not even touching that one. If you can't look at the possibilities on the grounds that they may all be interrelated and just disregard the whole thing in two sentences, you're probably not worth discussing it with, i doubt you'd seriously consider anything other than your own beliefs, frgough.
I've often wondered if AGW is the ultimate case of this issue; play around with data long enough until the pattern you want emerges. As a good friend of mine once commented about the earth sciences, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't have believed it".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi've listened to shermer "debunk" lots of stuff...what comes across to me is that NO ONE should ever be believed about anything they might have witnessed or experienced. if you really listen to him you'd think no human should EVER be allowed to testify in a court of law or document findings in a patient's chart or in scientific literature...from what he says none of us humans (except shermer himself) are reliable witnesses...so based on HIS own assumptions, i don't believe HE is reliable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael X : You seem to enjoy attacking both the defenders of Religions and Science, that is everyone. As you say this is a Science site, so why don't you make some comment on pattern recognition? This is the whole point of my comment....For example : Why not work on pattern recognition algorythms? There is much to be done, but one major hurdle is that the programs are patented. Is this good for scientific progress?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the issue of seeing patterns: In Arctic Canada 500 narwhals are stranded 50 miles behind open water and are unable to escape. The acrtic ice froze so quickly that it cut off their migration route. Local Inuit say that this has happened before, in 1948. Local reporters are citing this as another example of AGW. So now we have a case where cold temperatures are being blamed on global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess this makes sense in somebody's pattern recognition software and computer models, just not mine.
Shermer never explained why people make incorrect observations or assumptions which he calls "patternicity". He does a nice job name dropping but it doesn't work for his argument. "We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns" is quote he uses from How We Believe. Well, science is about investigating and testing to find patterns. It seems Shermer is saying finding patterns is okay for acceptable subjects (science) but finding patterns in unacceptable subjects (superstition) is foolish. A double standard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe animal aspect of the Foster/Kokko study is completely irrelevant to human observation. Where's the connection between a wild animal's instinctual decision and human observation? Which ufologists see a face on Mars? Why does this article pretend that seeing an image on a building is the same as people investigating actions by governments? How are they similar? Please, answer those questions directly without stretching to cite papers on subjects irrelevant to the matter.
Shermer never explained why people make incorrect observations or assumptions which he calls "patternicity". He does a nice job name dropping but it doesn't work for his argument. "We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns" is quote he uses from How We Believe. Well, science is about investigating and testing to find patterns. It seems Shermer is saying finding patterns is okay for acceptable subjects (science) but finding patterns in unacceptable subjects (superstition) is foolish. A double standard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe animal aspect of the Foster/Kokko study is completely irrelevant to human observation. Where's the connection between a wild animal's instinctual decision and human observation? Which ufologists see a face on Mars? Why does this article pretend that seeing an image on a building is the same as people investigating actions by governments? How are they similar? Please, answer those questions directly without stretching to cite papers on subjects irrelevant to the matter.
re: Michael X: As you say this is a Science site, so why don't you make some comment on pattern recognition?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreets Eco-Steve,
I've already made 2 comments, 1 an observation and another my own theory and proffered a way to test it.
I was brief so I'll repeat them both 'ere with a bit more elaboration.
1. Our Survival Mechanism explains _part_ of our propensity towards pattern recognition, both correct pattern recognition and false positives.
If you're in the jungle surrounded by predators that are adept at camouflage , you need to develop a means of detecting them through indirect evidence/pattern recognition, otherwise you become prey, and you die.
So it's essential to survival that we learn what patterns accompany predators.
Changes in smell indicating changes in biochemistry, rustling, alternatively and probably more reliably "it's quiet, too quiet"; silence a sign that other organisms have detected a predator and they are subsequently abnormally quiet to avoid becoming prey themselves.
Which in turn gives us a pattern-cue to the predators presence, even if we haven't spotted them.
From there our Survival Mechanism also explains misfires. It is better to be paranoid and engage in hyper pattern-recognition misfires and be ALIVE
than to be conservative with our pattern recognition, and wind up DEAD.
TBH I'm unclear as to why there is any dispute here over the value/quality of our Baloney Detection System. The value in our Baloney Detection System being poor is precisely that it be poor so that NOT over-ride Survival imperatives. That IS it's value.
That pattern-recognition over-ride baloney-detection serves a _survival purpose_ and there is no better purpose than "survival" from a Darwinian/Evolutionary perspective. So what's the problem?
The second point was my own theory, that occurred while reading the article, and relates to pattern-misfires/incorrect pattern recognition/seeing things that aren't there.
I think that survival is -part- of the answer, but mixing and matching disparate items to form a "pattern" is _also_ part of how we form new ideas and make leaps in understanding.
I propose using brain imaging scans to cross-reference the parts of the brain that light up in the examples I provide. That's my suggestion.
Michael X.
That used to be considered a 'Talent' not a 'flaw'. Isn't that why we don't have really intelligent people anymore, because they are so few that can look at the big picture and discern a distinct pattern to whatever he needed it for? Keep an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, this totally makes sense. Its kind of like all those carbon nanotube-infused, flagelli- locomoting, human tissue integrating, radio frequency- emitting metallic implants that show up in peoples bodies after a weird dream and blood stains on the sheets. It looks like they were just little bubbles of swamp gas under the skin! Oh science, Is there anything you cant explain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, this totally makes sense. Its kind of like all those carbon nanotube-infused, flagelli- locomoting, human tissue integrating, radio frequency- emitting metallic implants that show up in peoples bodies after a weird dream and blood stains on the sheets. It looks like they were just little bubbles of swamp gas under the skin! Oh science, Is there anything you cant explain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some people who see silly patterns about 9/11
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMilitary:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/#About
Architects and Engineers:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Scientists:
http://www.physics911.net/
Your next article should be about the brains of people who accept the lies of the government and the media without question.
It has been said that stress may cause people to see patterns or conspiracies that are not there, and that this tendency is disadvantageous .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has occurred to me that this tendency toward conspiracy theories may actually be an evolutionary advantage, or at east not a disadvantage. However, the opposite, in which people do not see patterns that are in-fact there, is certainly a disadvantage. To falsely believe a pattern or conspiracy exists when one in-fact does not exist may be an inconvenience and a source of ridicule from the community. But to not see a pattern or conspiracy while one does in-fact does exist may mean death or incapacitation. Clearly, the evolutionary advantage goes to the paranoids.
An interesting article- one that strikes close to home but in an altogether different manner than desribed. Following an incident nearly a year past, concerning a drink spiked with a highly excessive amount of Lysergic acid, ive been seeing seemingly average objects dissolve in a fractalized manner into the most extreme and complex patterns. to elaborate on such patterns would require more than the written word, but it seems as though the brain has been rewired to create patterns - code it almost seems- out of the sensory imput I receive. i view this less as a hallucination than as a mass assessment of the entirety of the object in question for i remain not only "sober" during these moments but also as my family puts it -of "genious" intellect. as time passes these events are increasingly less frequent though, but one must wonder what the so called "street drugs" could do for the field of neuroscience and engineering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoh hullo, this isn't even science; this is what Harvard's producing? (albeit, integrity sugests one read the original prior to criticism; apologies.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistwo problems:
the first is trivial because natural selection has already been observed anyway, but i'm a math major: the reported math assumes the conclusion (doh)!
assuming the model even did determine whether paranoia is an evolutionary advantage, where's the part demonstrating that pattern recognition IS mere paranoia?
the consequent does not imply the antecedent; that paranoia aids survival does not mean survival entails paranoia!
that said, the part of the brain responsible for pattern expectation and completion shuts down during severe sleep deprivation, which i experienced for several months (at intervals of 200+ hours); said shutdown was demonstrable yet i constantly noticed the patterns in question.
every verifiable one turned out to be valid. professors almost dropped books in astonishment, friends stared - the universe IS patterned, but most of it's tuned out in the rush of life.
which we're inclined to notice, and whether "real", is determined by how well we've trained our patterning mechanisms and what we're emotionally attuned to (ex: soundly-sleeping mothers awakening only to their babies' cry).
the article does not address 'patternicity'. or did i miss something?
p.s. kudos Befell, but you might attempt greater coherence for the 'inept' masses. a Vonnegut character said "any scientist worth his salt can explain what he's doing to an eight-year-old." R.P. Feynman comes to mind.
-cheers, The Architect
"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of critiquing ones own writing to see if it makes sense, can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the writer used "supporting evidence that came from a book that they couldn't even prove who wrote or where it came from?"
Of course, you can't because there is no such evidence.
The recursive hypocrisy in your comments suggests that you suffer from the very same limitations in thinking that Michael discusses in his essay on "paternicity". I would argue that fear and anxiety tends to greatly increase our inclination toward finding false patterns and is in this case what is affecting yours.
I wonder at its source and suspect that it was the comment about personal responsibility. In my experience, much of our personal fear and anxiety results directly from our sense that we are unable to control and coordinate our thoughts and actions so that they are aligned with our sense of personal responsibility.
There are humanist, non-religious solutions to this dilemma, but coming to them requires first that you recognize there is a problem. God luck with that.
"Evolution Science Completely FAILS on explaining ultimate origins so how can it conflict with any religions explanation for Ultimate Origin? it's rhetorical, it can't because it doesn't conflict."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is mainly because evolution is about the progression from single cell organisms into complex life forms. So no, there is no conflict between evolution and genesis, because it is comparing apples to porches. The science of the origin of the universe is, like, theoretical particle/astro physics. (I think) Now if you are comparing the science of the "Ultimate Origin" and the religious theory of it, yes they do conflict.
Additionally, if you are to compare the _concepts_ of science and religion, you will find that are fundamentally incompatible.
Religion is a magic device for turning unanswerable questions into unquestionable answers." -Art Gecko
Why is my inclination to read a comment inversely proportional to the number of inverted commas appearing in it? Possibly because their "excessive" "use" leads me to suspect that the "writer" hasn't a "clue" what he is talking about. The same phenomenon also applies to CAPITALS and brackets (=parentheses).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaiming that Ufologists, religionists, paranormalists and conspiracy theorists believe in meaningless or weird things is the same as the writer believing in patternicity. What may be weird or meaningless to someone, can be normal or mean the world to someone else, so in reality it truly means nothing, it just is. It is not because of patternicity, but rather it is due to lack of evidence thereof. A lack of knowledge and understanding. If you could prove that there was no face on mars, or prove to the people that 9/11 was not an inside job, but you cannot, it is the reason why people believe in these things. The answers are not clear to them. We fear that which we do not understand thus we try to find explanations or invent new words that will ease our minds into believing what our current paradigm considers as being acceptable or true. When we know for fact that our current model of the universe holds very little of what we once considered as being acceptable truth. This article is as meaningless as everything it claims to explain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaiming that Ufologists, religionists, paranormalists and conspiracy theorists believe in meaningless or weird things is the same as the writer believing in patternicity. What may be weird or meaningless to someone, can be normal or mean the world to someone else, so in reality it truly means nothing, it just is. It is not because of patternicity, but rather it is due to lack of evidence thereof. A lack of knowledge and understanding. If you could prove that there was no face on mars, or prove to the people that 9/11 was not an inside job, but you cannot, it is the reason why people believe in these things. The answers are not clear to them. We fear that which we do not understand thus we try to find explanations or invent new words that will ease our minds into believing what our current paradigm considers as being acceptable or true. When we know for fact that our current model of the universe holds very little of what we once considered as being acceptable truth. This article is as meaningless as everything it claims to explain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently, Dr. Michael Shermer does not believe in finding patterns within noise. Since this is the fundamental basis and governing principle in SETI, he probably will not be successful and will be responsible for waisting many millions of dollars. He lacks the intelligence to be skeptically open-minded. Such stubborn bias should by the basis for having him removed from any operational judgment in the SETI program. If this is not done, then the Earth will always be flat. Why doesn't this pseudo scientist call for the release of all classified UFO files in US control? The British have shown more intelligence in this matter than the limited reasoning of Dr. Michael Shermer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are NOT after you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps we ARE creating reality as what we see....at least to a certain extent, meaning that as a whole society must agree to certain patterns to make it so. I.e. thoughts are things....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael X,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate to disagree with you, but religion and science are in direct conflict with each other. First of all, both science and religion have explanations for certain things, for example: origin of the universe, origin of the species, the cause and scale of the great flood, etc.
Now if two people have different explanations for the same occurrence, their explanations are in direct conflict.
Alternatively, you could be one of those religious people who don't believe in the bible, but believe in god. At that point religion is more of a philosophy than anything else. It is the philosophy of belief in something with no evidence or logical reasoning. Again, this is in direct conflict with the philosophy of science; which is ALL about empirical evidence, discovery, and logic.
They are in inherent competition.
I think that pattern recognition is probably one of the least developed - and most important - field in AI research. Our brains are pattern recognizing machines.
It's always been well known that perception corresponds with the general knowledge of the person(s) and believes of the times. People see what they are told about, heard about etc. When the see or hear something. Its all on a scale from 1-10 power of suggestion. Old time scientist try to link other ideas with their current ideas because they're similar in minor ways. Religious followers from the past could see shining UFOs and their mind processes it as an angel from the heavens because they've never heard of, seen, or physical participated in doing so. And because angels are the only shining objects that come from up above. Perception is important to reality. Without it what we see has random meanings or lost cause in its intent and may not be understood to its fullest. I have been told my attention to detail with my need to learn new things on a larger scale will end up killing me lol. I can't do religion because its hypocracy and "no real explaination just accept it and believe it anyway" corrupt mentality. I believe what makes sense and not what I'm told makes sense which are two completely different aspects of perception. Its kind of like a battle between information order and information chaos. One puts everything into place, and the other leaves information out so that mistakes are guranteed until they pile too high and creates chaos. Its better to have patternicity, otherwise we wouldn't question our surroundings as well as ourselves. And we need that advantage to emulate our future situations and prepare accordingly (like when people go camping or travel think they have all they need and 1/4 into the trip they realized they forget something important to their trip). The next trip they have, they'll be damn sure that they have everything to avoid a similarity with that past "false" perception of completely readiness and accept somethings missing. It probably doesn't make sense to some, but I can't change perception :) but there's my long two cents. First post so made it clear, I'm a long typer. Peace
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's always been well known that perception corresponds with the general knowledge of the person(s) and believes of the times. People see what they are told about, heard about etc. When the see or hear something. Its all on a scale from 1-10 power of suggestion. Old time scientist try to link other ideas with their current ideas because they're similar in minor ways. Religious followers from the past could see shining UFOs and their mind processes it as an angel from the heavens because they've never heard of, seen, or physical participated in doing so. And because angels are the only shining objects that come from up above. Perception is important to reality. Without it what we see has random meanings or lost cause in its intent and may not be understood to its fullest. I have been told my attention to detail with my need to learn new things on a larger scale will end up killing me lol. I can't do religion because its hypocracy and "no real explaination just accept it and believe it anyway" corrupt mentality. I believe what makes sense and not what I'm told makes sense which are two completely different aspects of perception. Its kind of like a battle between information order and information chaos. One puts everything into place, and the other leaves information out so that mistakes are guranteed until they pile too high and creates chaos. Its better to have patternicity, otherwise we wouldn't question our surroundings as well as ourselves. And we need that advantage to emulate our future situations and prepare accordingly (like when people go camping or travel think they have all they need and 1/4 into the trip they realized they forget something important to their trip). The next trip they have, they'll be damn sure that they have everything to avoid a similarity with that past "false" perception of completely readiness and accept somethings missing. It probably doesn't make sense to some, but I can't change perception :) but there's my long two cents. First post so made it clear, I'm a long typer. Peace
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisperception is based on what we believe is real and not, as well as what we're told is real or not. I myself can't do religion because of the lack of information with the "don't think just accept and don't question it" mentality Science and religion are on opposite polar ends. Science is learning and giving information and putting it in order, as opposed religion's lack of real information that leads to mistakes. A battle between order and chaos. Science proves to the best of its ability, where as religion proves with information or as it really is, lack thereof. Equal and opposite, but only one side tells from what they know and not what they are told to do. I'm not religion bashing, it's the perception that's important. The mind sees what it is used to seeing, heard, touched, etc. An UFO could be sen as an angel to the religious peoples way back when they only heard or read about angels, glowing in the sky floating down to the ground. Their beliefs made them see what they wanted to see. They Indians, seeing a large boat from Spain for the first time couldn't comprehend it mentally. So they saw waves above the ocean distorting the sky until their mind gave it shape size and believability. Everyday we go through this but never notice until it jumps out of our mental camouflage and into believable information. Skepticism is the language of the mind, finds the truths when things seem off balance and not level with our height of believability and reason. Most religions say to overlook good reason rather than find good reason because that would contradict their laws and regs of "do what you're told and don't think". Ok this is my first comment so typed long. Have a good day people. Peace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre: First of all, both science and religion have explanations for certain things, for example: origin of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand what you're trying to say and I mean no personal disrespect, as you seem a decent person, but this is talking at cross-purposes.
People that make the above statement are making 4 errors in logical fallacy.
1. They're confusing God with religion.
2. They're confusing religion with the book associated with that religion.
3. They're confusing a religious book with a science book.
3b. when it a life teaching aid and a philosophical book.
4. and most surprising of all, coming from those that wish to hone a scientific mind:
The assumption that science has -ever- explained origin, is astoundingly false.
Science has -never- explained ultimate origin.
*Some* vocal extremists, in this case evolutionists are the worst propagators of this confused logic set, they don't even see that evolution = change.
and that change does NOT explain ultimate origin, it explains everything that came -after- it.
Others proclaim that scientific theories with corroborative evidence that explain ultimate origin exist, but when you ask them to show you these wonderful theories, any one of them, they bugger off.
..every ..single ..time.
Do you know why? because Science has NEVER put forward a scientific theory for ultimate origin.
(anyone reading along, wanting to jump in, please see correct definition of "scientific theory" it is not the same as the common english language term "theory" or a proposed idea - science requires evidence to support a postulate/idea/theory or it is NOT a scientific theory)
It's becoming clear that there is a mind-block in place in some otherwise intelligent people, where there is a confusion or conflation between decreasing scale/size and nothingness.
The assumption being that the smaller you get in scale, the closer you get to explaining nothingness.
When scale is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how far back along evolution you go, or how small an originating particle is, there has been no scientific theory proffered for how something can simply appear out of nothing into nothing and create everything.
It's a human error, the assumption that size correlates to value.
More troublingly these extremists are incapable of tracing evolution backwards to the beginning, to see ultimate origin can never be explained by it, it is not even the purpose of evolution, but they are convinced it explains it.
Michael X.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S: I ran out of room, I prefer to be more thorough so there's no confusion as to what I mean. So let me clarify here that extremists in organized religion are also to blame for the mis-use of their respective philosophy books -when- they are wielded in place of science books.
It's still irrelevant however, or should be, the point is that the scientists who treat (in your example case) say the Bible as a science book to be challenged as such, are just as mistaken as the religious fundamentalists who treat is as a science book.
They're both making the same error, they're both extremists and they're both talking at cross-purposes with ulterior agenda.
I prefer that we dismiss both of those extremist groups as equally childish and discuss science.
Michael X.
I'm sorry but your hypothesis is not valid as you are not correctly identifying the groups as they are all different and have different doctrines or in other words interpret scriptures differently. All you've seen are the ones who would like to become dictators and are either false christians or backslidden christians. Real Christians who use the brain for the purpose GOD gave it to them for use it wisely and thoughfully and have no problem with science instead looking at it as a kind of handmaid to their religion or religious beliefs. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is all I'm saying. Most people that rag on religion have a fit when others generalize but I've noticed they don't have a problem with generalizing others themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the ultimate pattern ... take any perfectly good word like pattern and stick "icity" on the end, also works with "ality" for my all time favorite abomination "Musicality".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must say Michael X, I am intrigued. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on your first 2 points. Specifically, how they are logical fallacies. I agree with you that the bible is a life teaching aid and a philosophical book. It should be given no more weight than Aesop's Fables. Still though, I don't follow where you were going with the first 2 points. Without a holy book, there is no religion, without religion there is no god. Without god, there is no religion, and with out religion, the bible is not "holy." (The belief in god use 100% circular logic)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't mean to put words in your mouth, so if this isn't the point of view you are taking please correct me. You seem to have an agnostic world view. "There is a god, but he isn't the god described in a book." If that is the case I have to wonder if you have read the whole post that you responded to. I did demonstrate how even the "soft" god belief system is completely incompatible with the scientific method.
Also I would humbly ask you to STOP using straw men attacks in your posts. You continually mention evolution, then say how science has no ideas on the origin of matter. By doing this you are implying that evolution is science's explanation of the origin of matter. Again, that is not the purpose of evolution. Start reading up on theoretical particle/astro physics if you are looking for science's answers to the origin of the universe.
Specifically look up the multi-verse theories. While this is still fringe science, it does have some promising aspects.
Also, to be completely fair to everyone involved, we still don't have the requisite technology to really be answer the origin question. That does not mean that god did it. This is a "god of the gaps." I liken it to pre-newton astrophysics. Back then it was understood that the planets orbited because god was purposely spinning them in circles. Then we came up with better maths and models to say, "Oh god isn't spinning them, its just gravity." Don't worry, given enough advances in science, math, and computing, science will understand where matter came from, and it will be another power lost to god. it has happened every time god was the explanation for physical phenomenon, it will happen for this as well.
By Aether Wave Theory the patter recognition has a physical origin. Everything what we can see inside of particle gas are just a patterns: a density fluctuation. By AWT the Universe is completelly random and its appearance corresponds the appearance of density patterns inside of infinitelly dense Boltzmann gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh thee who have little faith.A human being will NEVER come up with the answer. Only a Spirit who Knows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisapat�ternicity : This is generally accepted under the monicker "denial". The need to create terms to describe well-known phenomena is what sets off Baloney Detection Networks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmendment to my proposed (testable) theory on the relationship between patternicity and creative thought (see earlier entry in this comments area for details on my proposed theory):
UPDATE: I was enjoying some Brain Games online today and up came a suggestion to "brainstorm", which I believe provides a means of testing my hypothesis.
To test if there is a correlation between patternicity and the creative process, I propose running a brain scan on subjects in 2 controlled experiment environments.
1. place them in an environment in which it is suggested that predators may be hiding and monitor their brain activity. Ask them to announce when they believe they have spotted a predator. Particularly making note of instances in which they proclaim that they see things that are not there.
2. have the same subjects engage in a brainstorming session in which they are encouraged to explore and develop new thoughts and ideas. and monitor brain activity. Making note of instances in which they announce that they just had a new thought/idea.
Compare the results to see if there is any commonality in the areas of the brain that light up in both conditions.
If I'm right that there's a connection between creative-thought and patternicity there should be evidence in the results.
---
Shane - Since you ultimately if begrudgingly acknowledge that no scientific theories exist to explain ultimate origin, we are in agreement on that point.
It isn't open to debate in any case, as you know. In science there is or there is not a scientific theory.
There is no "in my opinion the sky is purple or I think there is a scientific theory" that's why we love science, it doesn't care what anyone thinks, it's concerned with what can be proven. If we want endless unsubstantiated rhetoric based opining, we hit a political mb, not a science site.
Having acknowledged that there is no scientific theory for ultimate origin, when we examine that, we see why Science and God are NOT really in conflict.
Except by those extremists who wish to create a conflict, of course.
"I want to know God's thoughts" - Albert Einstein.
Michael X.
Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution can't "fail" at explaining the first cause because it has nothing to do with the first cause. You can't fail at something you aren't actually trying to do. I mean - I suppose I "fail" at brain surgery everyday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishaven't read through all the previous comments yet, but it bothered me to see conspiracy theories put in the same category as mistakes in interpreting visual or auditory stimuli. recognition isn't the same thing as thought and probably isn't working in the same parts of the brain. that's why anyone can see that the "face" on mars looks like a face but conspiracy theories actually have to explain themselves with logic. the news which many people accept as real has been meaningless noise the last few times I've turned on a tv (seriously... I saw a national news report about finding a drunk guy on google street view). can I go ahead and call believing cnn a type II error?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess what's bothering me is that noise is a sign of an incomplete theory. there are odd mental experiences people can access through drugs, rituals, meditation etc. neuroscience has not yet explained all of these - or even the basic question of consciousness - so people explain them with religion. but even though neuroscience is not complete yet, these experiences are still really happening. the news/conspiracy theory thing is even trickier than this because there is so much more happening in the world today than there is in a single confused brain. the problem is not just sorting through noise, but actually finding access to the noise to sort through. every news channel and youtube video put together do not include information which the government keeps classified. so the problem with lumping in conspiracy theorists is that they are trying to intellectually find patterns in information which they do not have complete access too. does it make any sense how the scale and setting of that kind of "patternicity" is totally different from making a mistake in a largely unconscious process of interpreting data from your own retina?
also... to reply to myself... the article does make a good point about the cost and benefit of pattern recognition... it, at the moment, neither more costly to believe the news or the alternate theories (are there actually "conventional theories"? or just interviews with suits? ok ok...) it also has no cost or benefit on your daily life, assuming no medical emergencies, if you do or don't believe in evolution, which explains a lot of the comments on here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfinally, to be fair to anyone who thinks I'm crazy, it's probably really hard for a small group of shady individuals to control the government/world events/etc - there are so many other individuals and factors involved. it's probably way easier for them to just buy the media!
RE: Wordplay or rhetoric!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought neither is at play here, and that Michael Shermer has used the right affix to describe a visual mental phenomenon: patternicity. [In fact, I've used that suffix -icity in my pop-science and philosophy writings also -- please see below -- whereas I'm also glad to see that Shermer has gradually diverged his pop-science writings from that of more pseudoscientific writings of Richard Dawkins' -- the one Oxford writer who is so famous for his neo-Darwinist reductionism of "selfish gene" and "hopping meme" rhetoric and wordplay, since the publication of his first controversial book "The Selfish Gene" in 1976!?]
However, patternicity could have had been more accurately and neuropsychologically defined as: the tendency [of our brain-mind interactions] to find meaningful patterns in [random] noise [or quantum dots in our visual cortex].
This is because the propensity of our brain-mind-memory to believe in "something" is purely subjective in nature and nurture within each of ourselves; and therefore anyone's belief in "something" (in religionism or atheism alike) cannot be deemed as that "something" to be more "meaningful" or "meaningless" than someone else's belief in another religionism or atheism or something else!
As such, both patternicity and "musicality" (or our ability to make and enjoy music) are only parts of an overall picture of the evermore intricate and dynamic brain-mind interactions within each of ourselves; and all these mental propensities require a new formulation of the Theory of Mind -- more scientifically and philosophically -- as one which has had incorporated all the more delicate mechanisms of our mood-thought-memory system in our brain; and one that has had been extensively and empirically characterized, localized, and defined as "memophorescenicity" or brain-mind panorama in my seminal book "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (linked below; please see Chapter 15: The Universal Theory of Mind, especially Chapter 15.4: Memory Modulation and Recall: A New Hypothesis of Psychic Imagery, Perceptivity, Creativity, and Reflectivity; and Chapter 15.5: Lights, Music, Marching Band, and A Spherical Cinema: An Analogy and A New Model of Mind/Gods as Perceived through Both the Scientific and Spiritual Prisms, Extrinsic and Intrinsic, respectively).
Best wishes, Mong 1/11/9usct1:59p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0595379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).
What difference is there between Shermer's "patternicity" and the idea of apophenia as defined by Klaus Conrad in 1958 and explored by many since then? See the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is the same concept, why make up new terminology and not reference previous? It sounds to me like you are trying to take credit for recognizing a phenomenon that's already well known.
Most readers (at least all that I queried) and the editors of Scientific American, committed an error of recognition in their comfortable understanding of Michael Shermer's essay entitled, "Patternicity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all well understood what he meant when he stated, "We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns," when, in truth he meant we are their descendants. Yet the statement was instantly and fluently comprehensible. How ironic to display such an error in an article exploring the evolution of our misperceptions... unless this was the author's intent!
Yale Shulman
Englewood, NJ
Most readers (at least all that I queried) and the editors of Scientific American, committed an error of recognition in their comfortable understanding of Michael Shermer's essay entitled, "Patternicity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all well understood what he meant when he stated, "We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns," when, in truth he meant we are their descendants. Yet the statement was instantly and fluently comprehensible. How ironic to display such an error in an article exploring the evolution of our misperceptions... unless this was the author's intent!
Yale Shulman
Englewood, NJ
Well-done summary of the argument. (note that the original, with specific reference to religion, is Guthrie's Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion, Oxford University Press).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConspiracy theories can develop for reasons beyond "patternicity," such as the recognition of discrepancies in say, a crime suspect's testimony or the government's official version of a story. When such discrepancies remain unresolved, people with proper scientific/analytical training know to examine the situation until they can resolve the discrepancies, whereas untrained "conspiracy theorists" simply go with their gut feelings that the discrepancies are somehow indicative of some sort of cover-up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an injustice to the former group to lump them together with the latter as a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists, when all they seek is to pursue an investigation until such discrepancies are more fully resolved. To brush off those who seek through further investigation to disprove the false positives they notice by portraying them as crackpot conspiracy theorists without giving them any opportunity to investigate further is to heighten suspicion--giving rise not only to more truly crackpot conspiracy theories, but also to increase the possibility that some of the positives may not be false positives, after all.
For instance, with respect to 9/11, the fact that the WTC site was cordoned off in the aftermath of the attacks as a crime scene, followed by revelations that the rubble was not preserved and that the steel was promptly sold off as recycled material raises red flags that need to be investigated. This is not to say that those responsible for the removal are guilty of any crimes, but the fact that the evidence (of arguably the greatest domestic attack on the US) was destroyed certainly merits investigation. To call those calling for an investigation "crackpots" without pursuing any kind of independent inquiry only heightens suspicions.
Moreover, the official explanation put forward by NIST is that Building 7 collapsed to the ground as a result of the weakening of steel due to the intensity of the fire. However, when buildings of similar size in Madrid and China burned for much longer and with far greater heat intensity yet did not collapse, the discrepancy needs to be noted and investigated. To say this is incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy is foolish, but to write off the discrepancy without any investigation and to portray those who clamor for a resolution of such a discrepancy as crackpots is not only foolish, but suspicious.
Conspiracy theories can develop for reasons beyond "patternicity," such as the recognition of discrepancies in say, a crime suspect's testimony or the government's official version of a story. When such discrepancies remain unresolved, people with proper scientific/analytical training know to examine the situation until they can resolve the discrepancies, whereas untrained "conspiracy theorists" simply go with their gut feelings that the discrepancies are somehow indicative of some sort of cover-up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an injustice to the former group to lump them together with the latter as a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists, when all they seek is to pursue an investigation until such discrepancies are more fully resolved. To brush off those who seek through further investigation to disprove the false positives they notice by portraying them as crackpot conspiracy theorists without giving them any opportunity to investigate further is to heighten suspicion--giving rise not only to more truly crackpot conspiracy theories, but also to increase the possibility that some of the positives may not be false positives, after all.
For instance, with respect to 9/11, the fact that the WTC site was cordoned off in the aftermath of the attacks as a crime scene, followed by revelations that the rubble was not preserved and that the steel was promptly sold off as recycled material raises red flags that need to be investigated. This is not to say that those responsible for the removal are guilty of any crimes, but the fact that the evidence (of arguably the greatest domestic attack on the US) was destroyed certainly merits investigation. To call those calling for an investigation "crackpots" without pursuing any kind of independent inquiry only heightens suspicions.
Moreover, the official explanation put forward by NIST is that Building 7 collapsed to the ground as a result of the weakening of structural steel from the intensity of the fire. However, when buildings of similar size in Madrid and China burned for much longer and with far greater heat intensity yet did not collapse, the discrepancy needs to be noted and investigated. To say this is incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy is foolish, but to write off the discrepancy without any investigation and to portray those who clamor for a resolution of such a discrepancy as crackpots is not only foolish, but suspicious.
Conspiracy theories do develop as a result of false positives arising from "patternicity," but it is the duty of scientists and other investigators to conduct detailed examinations with a mind to demonstrating that the "false" positives are indeed false positives rather than blithely to assume or to insist that they are false positives without having demonstrated them as such (and to simply write others off as crackpots). This is particularly true when what is at stake is not a grilled cheese sandwich, but rather a situation in which thousands of American lives were destroyed, followed by a war of choice that apparently had nothing to do with the attacks.
Bitch please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no "false patterns", that is just a failure of empathy with the pattern recognizer. A particular percieved pattern might be useless for some situation but it doesn't make it any less real. All the patterns you percieve are fundamentally percieved in meaningless noise until YOU apply meaning to it.
Give up your fundamentalist notions about reality before you hurt someone.
Bitch please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no "false patterns", that is just a failure of empathy with the pattern recognizer. A particular percieved pattern might be useless for some situation but it doesn't make it any less real. All the patterns you percieve are fundamentally percieved in meaningless noise until YOU apply meaning to it.
Give up your fundamentalist notions about reality before you hurt someone.
"Is there a deeper ultimate cause for why people believe such weird things? There is. I call it patternicity, or the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuh??? No no no no no no. You observed a pattern in the behavior of people, you described it, gave it a name and made it into a concept that we can now talk about. That is not the same as finding the "ultimate cause" of why people believe weird things. It has nothing to do with cause. It's saying the same thing twice. It's like saying "Why does a baby's mouth grab a nipple? Because of the sucking reflex." And think you explained something. There is no because. Ultimate causes, as well as intended purposes, are for religion.
Pareidolia as a subtype of Apophenia is the scientific term for the phenomena described in this article under the name Paternicity. Apart from a new name has the author very little new to offer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats just bumbledom.
Sorry, but there is most definitely a conflict between religion and Science. Religion teaches us the arrogance to be happy with not understanding the world; that it's ok to make up stories about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore the "big bang" in the bible are about 3 verses at the beginning of Genesis... right about "Let there be light" we have a universe, so your "separation" of science and religion is fiction.
Science shows that those who kill their kids tend not to contribute as much to the gene pool as those who don't. Thus, we see reasonable rules like "don't kill your kids" and stuff. Religion teaches us that we should stone our children to death if they misbehave.
I find the teaching that you should kill people for working on a Sunday repulsive and uncivilized. Yet that is exactly what the Bible teaches, among other things.
Seeing a conflict yet?
It simply explained from the point of view things or patterns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA psychology that treats the mind as an epiphenomenon would better call itself brain-psychology, and remain satisfied with the meager results that such a psycho-physiology can yield. The mind deserves to be taken as a phenomenon in its own right; there are no grounds at all for regarding it as a mere epiphenomenon, dependent though it may be on the functioning of the brain. One would be as little justified in regarding life as an epiphenomenon of the chemistry of carbon compounds. - "On Psychic Energy" (1928). In CW 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. pp.10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this