I may have my terms a little confused. It may be there is a better name already to describe what I mentioned. I am very familiar with Kuhn (long story), but I am very unfamiliar with the term "confirmation bias."
I have a much better handle on the other terms I used.
Thanks, and you have a Merry Christmas.
And the New Year can mean some new modes of communication.
To get you started....
Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologistPeter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.[2]Confirmation bias is an example of acognitive bias.
Some psychologists restrict the term "confirmation bias" to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[6]
Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9]Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills.
Those questions move off into a new topic; one I'd prefer to discuss later.
The "no consciousness after death" notion was offered as an example of academic prohibitions on arriving at an end truth.
HOW I arrived at that truth matters not, in my proving the point that academia frowns on the idea that anyone can know anything important for sure, in principle.
We can discuss how I arrived at that some other time.
Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologistPeter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.[2]Confirmation bias is an example of acognitive bias.
Some psychologists restrict the term "confirmation bias" to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[6]
Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9]Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills.
This posting flurry has overwhelmed me, in the sense that as I am slowly composing a text to catch up on responses, 3 more posts go up that I don't see. Some of these get lost in the "scroll up" and it all gets too confusing.
I still have a few posts from much earlier to catch up on.
Those questions move off into a new topic; one I'd prefer to discuss later.
The "no consciousness after death" notion was offered as an example of academic prohibitions on arriving at an end truth.
HOW I arrived at that truth matters not, in my proving the point that academia frowns on the idea that anyone can know anything important for sure, in principle.
We can discuss how I arrived at that some other time.
Really? Are we not talking about heuristics and epistemology? How (H-O-W) we know or don’t know?
My question is right on topic.
I’ve seen this deflective tactic before. I’m not disappointed, because I don’t expect more from you.
Really? Are we not talking about heuristics and epistemology? How (H-O-W) we know or don’t know?
My question is right on topic.
I’ve seen this deflective tactic before. I’m not disappointed, because I don’t expect more from you.
What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.
The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it. They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs.
That, results in a prohibition of me building on that truth with them.
Ok. I'm done demonstrating why I believe academia forbids seekers from being finders.
NOW, we can move on to the other discusion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death. I mean hours after last breath.
What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.
The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it. They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs.
That, results in a prohibition of me building on that truth with them.
Ok. I'm done demonstrating why I believe academia forbids seekers from being finders.
NOW, we can move on to the other discusion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death. I mean hours after last breath.
As in Luke 23:43? The criminal would be unconscious in paradise with the master?
What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.
The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it. They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs.
I thought you said you were trained as a critical science thinker?
Then as a critical science thinker you should know that over the course of centuries science had acquired tried and true methods of arriving at was true and what was false. It's not a matter of them demanding to prove something the way they accept and understand; it's a matter of probing it according to the methods that have proved time and time again that they arrive at the truth.
What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.
The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it. They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs.
That, results in a prohibition of me building on that truth with them.
Ok. I'm done demonstrating why I believe academia forbids seekers from being finders.
NOW, we can move on to the other discusion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death. I mean hours after last breath.
First off, you're using forbidden wrong. They have their way of probing things and you have yours. Courts only accept evidence and testimony under certain condition, that doesn't mean it's forbidden for people to heresay. You can witness heresay on the streets all the time and even in court under certain circumstances.
Second, you run down academia, the people that developed the very methods Saint Vic used to prove his points in PLAF.
I have never seen an advocate of critical thinking skills have a plan for what to do when something PASSES THE TESTS, and the critical testing phase of it is over.What is there to criticize when something passes all the critical thinking tests?
Hi, my name is Oldskool and you now know someone who is an advocate of critical thinking skills and I know just what to do when the test is passed...It results in faith when applied to scripture. It never means its above question -- faith and inquiry are not mutually exclusive. Truth is truth...it should stand to questions at any point without folding, getting defensive, or whatever. Problem is when you apply critical thinking to wierwille and compare it with scripture (not wierwilles' version of scripture) wierwille usually doesnt stand as true. Sure, he has some truth...but a little leaven leaveneth the entire lump...not my words...but I have no problem repeating them in this context.
where "it" refers to "zero consciousness after rigor mortise"
Not to be picky either, but theres a couple hours between a person's last breath and rigor mortise...I do not think there is conscioness during that time.
I have arrived at knowing that there is no consciousness after death as an absolute truth.
Im not so sure I would call it an absolute truth. There is so much I don't understand on the topic that I refuse to close my mind off to other possibilities...for me it's a faith issue based on my limited understanding of scripture. There's God saying that man will die once he sins. Why would there be a need for resurections and all that stuff if everyone is alive already. I have faith in God's Word that dead=lack of consciousness or existance. Does that mean I understand everything on the subject or what actually happens when a person dies? No. So with that said, there's much to be understood that I simply don't know.
I can have a civil conversation. It is just that there seems to be boundaries you put around it.
Anything negative about VP you refute then later try to claim you don’t idolize him.
You have some kind of weird vision about yourself that you are the reincarnation of Luke the physician sent to give an “accurate and loving “ account of TWI history.
The current written history of TWI consists of two channels: sanctioned and unsanctioned.
Sanctioned - Mrs VPW book which only covers before 1980s. I was around when this was being written and my feedback is it was highly coerced.
The Way Living In Love - the ONLY literary record of VPs KoolAid snowstorm story which was fact checked to be false by multiple sources. It was removed from sale in the bookstore at some point and can’t be bought there anymore.
Unsanctioned - 3 published books
Look in T bones footnotes for publishing links
All 3 unsanctioned books detail personal stories of negative overall impact in life of TWI.
Then there’s you - the only thing you have contributed with your false self vision is a running critical commentary as you are inching your way through one of those books that you previously self censored for years and are now challenged by us to actually read it.
I can have a civil conversation. It is just that there seems to be boundaries you put around it. I try to minimize my boundaries; everyone’s got some. -
Anything negative about VP you refute then later try to claim you don’t idolize him. -Not anything; but yes, some few things.
I walk away from anything refuting the written collaterals, especially if the methods used to probe the collaterals differ extremely from my chosen methods.
But pretty much all else I can discuss, assuming I have some solid knowledge. There are topics where I don’t feel qualified to discuss much.
I take note of my ignorance the best I can, because I am a total expert on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, having read a couple articles on it.
You have some kind of weird vision about yourself that you are the reincarnation of Luke the physician sent to give an “accurate and loving “ account of TWI history. -No, I am only trying to imitate him and what he did.
I am NOT trying to write anything God-breathed; just accurate and balanced, and thorough enough.
It looks like an unvarnished history of the Church’s history was a good thing in Luke’s time. I think the same thing is important to do for TWI, especially now that the primary witnesses are dying off fast.
I do not want to do this alone. I want others to jump in and help me with this. I don’t want to be the chairman of that committee, because that is an area I have no solid knowledge.
The current written history of TWI consists of two channels: sanctioned and unsanctioned. Right.GreaseSpot is the major shareholder in the unsanctioned text at this time, IMO.
An unsanctioned history, if well written enough, could get recognized by TWI-7 a few decades from now.It could also get recognized by thousands of proPFAL grads right now, as well as those grads not proPFAL.
Sanctioned - Mrs VPW book which only covers before 1980s. I was around when this was being written and my feedback is it was highly coerced. -Her history is useful, and part of the mix, but it has nothing to say of POP or the Schoenheit Paper or RnR
The Way Living In Love - the ONLY literary record of VPs KoolAid snowstorm story which was fact checked to be false by multiple sources.
-I would insist it be kept in the mix, even though I don’t buy the fact checking, and debated it several times here.
HOWEVER, the 1942 snowstorm is NOT in the collaterals, and therefore not critical that I maintain belief in it.
It wouldn’t be crossing my boundaries to think VPW made mistakes in his recounting the stories. I sometimes merge memories and get facts of my past incorrect
.
It [The Way Living In Love] was removed from sale in the bookstore at some point and can’t be bought there anymore.
-I would suspect the REASON it was removed has nothing to do with the snowstorm(s) being fact-checked here.
Far more probably is the USUAL POLICY of removing anything in TWI history that “are no longer standing with the ministry.”When I worked in Tape Duplicating there would be a memo a couple times per year to “pull” the old SNT teaching tapes of an new ex-Way minister. We sold by mail and at large events many popular “back issues” of the SNT tapes.
Another probable reason for its removal is Elena Whiteside “no longer standing with the ministry.”
Another probable reason is Elena objected to it being sold.
Unsanctioned - 3 published books -Reading one; not in a rush for the others.
Look in T bones footnotes for publishing links -I save some of his links. Who knows when I get the time for them. …when I think I need them for something.
All 3 unsanctioned books detail personal stories of negative overall impact in life of TWI. -Familiar with them, and a few others. I had some of the impact on my twig in 1980 that I have reported here several times.I personally have seen problems here and I pitched in to help, as I am doing now.
Then there’s you - the only thing you have contributed with your false self vision is a running critical commentary as you are inching your way through one of those books that you previously self censored for years and are now challenged by us to actually read it. -There are several inaccuracies in your several assertions there. Let’s leave it at I have done things and had experiences you know not of… yet.I’ll keep trying to bridge the gaps and fill you in on where my head is at.
I walk away from anything refuting the written collaterals, especially if the methods used to probe the collaterals differ extremely from my chosen methods.
May I ask why you are here? We discuss the collaterals often enough but the list of error is long.
I walk away from anything refuting the written collaterals, especially if the methods used to probe the collaterals differ extremely from my chosen methods
May I ask why you are here? We discuss the collaterals often enough but the list of error is long.
I disagree on the number of genuine errors detected, because I disagree with the methods and attitudes with which that detection process was conducted.
GreaseSpot is the only large, free speech networking hub for grads of PFAL.
It's a little like Twitter's monopoly on politics, and how Facebook has the the monopoly on finding old friends from many decades ago.
There were previously, when I first started posting, many more active proPFAL posters here, and every now and then they check in. Many of them now may be Read-Only Audience or ROA.
Also in the ROA audience may be many more proPFAL people who never or rarely posted. I get PMs from a small number of them, and I suspect there are many more.
For many years GreaseSpot was the only place to get grad news, and it still functions as that kind of service, even though Facebook recently took small a chunk recently.
GreaseSpot champion's Free Speech and the previously silenced "Other Side" to TWI's official news and notices. I think that GSC's motto to this effect is still posted somewhere. When I started posting my icon motto was "offering the OTHER other side."
I view GSC as where a large body of PFAL grads, networking in many ways. I think many of the gripes and grievances expressed here are valid. I also think this kind of blowing the whistle has gone way too far and it promotes fictions that are harmful to my grad brothers and sisters. I think we still have something to offer people in PFAL, and once again challenge the devil's grip on the kingdoms of this world. I don't see much of that challenging these days, and I think I know why and the solution.
Pretty much the same methods we were taught to work the ancient Scriptures (often tattered remnants), where it is assumed that the originals were perfect revelation. I admit that is an unusual method, but that is where my search led me and said "this is the end of the rainbow."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
155
52
146
54
Popular Days
Dec 23
92
Dec 26
75
Dec 24
70
Jan 30
68
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 155 posts
chockfull 52 posts
OldSkool 146 posts
Nathan_Jr 54 posts
Popular Days
Dec 23 2022
92 posts
Dec 26 2022
75 posts
Dec 24 2022
70 posts
Jan 30 2023
68 posts
Popular Posts
outandabout
I copied the emotion graph and wanted to comment on how it made me aware of the wide range of emotions we as humans are capable of. A little off topic but looking at it reminds me that we were taught
WordWolf
It's also interesting to see what happened and what did NOT happen. We all know that vpw never went to his congregation and confessed his sins against them. That would have been required after havi
chockfull
I think when VPW taught that sincerity is no guarantee for the truth that is what they call a “Freudian slip”.
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
How do you know? Have you experienced death?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
To get you started....
Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.[2] Confirmation bias is an example of a cognitive bias.
Some psychologists restrict the term "confirmation bias" to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[6]
Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9] Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Definition_and_context
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Those questions move off into a new topic; one I'd prefer to discuss later.
The "no consciousness after death" notion was offered as an example of academic prohibitions on arriving at an end truth.
HOW I arrived at that truth matters not, in my proving the point that academia frowns on the idea that anyone can know anything important for sure, in principle.
We can discuss how I arrived at that some other time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Can I upvote this twice?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You can upvote it seven times, if you can beleeeve big enough.
Got oil?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
They're only off topic if you're planning to build a strawman.
That's absurd. You haven't proven anything even remotely close to that and can't because it's not a provable point, it's a personal opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This posting flurry has overwhelmed me, in the sense that as I am slowly composing a text to catch up on responses, 3 more posts go up that I don't see. Some of these get lost in the "scroll up" and it all gets too confusing.
Edited by MikeI still have a few posts from much earlier to catch up on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Really? Are we not talking about heuristics and epistemology? How (H-O-W) we know or don’t know?
My question is right on topic.
I’ve seen this deflective tactic before. I’m not disappointed, because I don’t expect more from you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.
The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it. They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs.
That, results in a prohibition of me building on that truth with them.
Ok. I'm done demonstrating why I believe academia forbids seekers from being finders.
NOW, we can move on to the other discusion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death. I mean hours after last breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
As in Luke 23:43? The criminal would be unconscious in paradise with the master?
Edited by Nathan_JrGot. To. Make. It. Fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I thought you said you were trained as a critical science thinker?
Then as a critical science thinker you should know that over the course of centuries science had acquired tried and true methods of arriving at was true and what was false. It's not a matter of them demanding to prove something the way they accept and understand; it's a matter of probing it according to the methods that have proved time and time again that they arrive at the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
First off, you're using forbidden wrong. They have their way of probing things and you have yours. Courts only accept evidence and testimony under certain condition, that doesn't mean it's forbidden for people to heresay. You can witness heresay on the streets all the time and even in court under certain circumstances.
Second, you run down academia, the people that developed the very methods Saint Vic used to prove his points in PLAF.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Hi, my name is Oldskool and you now know someone who is an advocate of critical thinking skills and I know just what to do when the test is passed...It results in faith when applied to scripture. It never means its above question -- faith and inquiry are not mutually exclusive. Truth is truth...it should stand to questions at any point without folding, getting defensive, or whatever. Problem is when you apply critical thinking to wierwille and compare it with scripture (not wierwilles' version of scripture) wierwille usually doesnt stand as true. Sure, he has some truth...but a little leaven leaveneth the entire lump...not my words...but I have no problem repeating them in this context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im inclined to agree with you on this one..but I would rather save it for later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Do you mean:
Inclined to believe "it" is a good example of a doctrine forbidden academic surety?
Or do you mean:
Inclined to believe "it" is a doctrine that has surety that is good enough for you?
( where "it" refers to "zero consciousness after rigor mortise" )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
None of the above...simply what I quoted. That death is a state of unconsciousness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not to be picky either, but theres a couple hours between a person's last breath and rigor mortise...I do not think there is conscioness during that time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im not so sure I would call it an absolute truth. There is so much I don't understand on the topic that I refuse to close my mind off to other possibilities...for me it's a faith issue based on my limited understanding of scripture. There's God saying that man will die once he sins. Why would there be a need for resurections and all that stuff if everyone is alive already. I have faith in God's Word that dead=lack of consciousness or existance. Does that mean I understand everything on the subject or what actually happens when a person dies? No. So with that said, there's much to be understood that I simply don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can have a civil conversation. It is just that there seems to be boundaries you put around it.
I try to minimize my boundaries; everyone’s got some. -
Anything negative about VP you refute then later try to claim you don’t idolize him.
-Not anything; but yes, some few things.
I walk away from anything refuting the written collaterals, especially if the methods used to probe the collaterals differ extremely from my chosen methods.
But pretty much all else I can discuss, assuming I have some solid knowledge. There are topics where I don’t feel qualified to discuss much.
I take note of my ignorance the best I can, because I am a total expert on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, having read a couple articles on it.
You have some kind of weird vision about yourself that you are the reincarnation of Luke the physician sent to give an “accurate and loving “ account of TWI history.
-No, I am only trying to imitate him and what he did.
I am NOT trying to write anything God-breathed; just accurate and balanced, and thorough enough.
It looks like an unvarnished history of the Church’s history was a good thing in Luke’s time. I think the same thing is important to do for TWI, especially now that the primary witnesses are dying off fast.
I do not want to do this alone. I want others to jump in and help me with this. I don’t want to be the chairman of that committee, because that is an area I have no solid knowledge.
The current written history of TWI consists of two channels: sanctioned and unsanctioned.
Right. GreaseSpot is the major shareholder in the unsanctioned text at this time, IMO.
An unsanctioned history, if well written enough, could get recognized by TWI-7 a few decades from now. It could also get recognized by thousands of proPFAL grads right now, as well as those grads not proPFAL.
Sanctioned - Mrs VPW book which only covers before 1980s. I was around when this was being written and my feedback is it was highly coerced.
-Her history is useful, and part of the mix, but it has nothing to say of POP or the Schoenheit Paper or RnR
The Way Living In Love - the ONLY literary record of VPs KoolAid snowstorm story which was fact checked to be false by multiple sources.
-I would insist it be kept in the mix, even though I don’t buy the fact checking, and debated it several times here.
HOWEVER, the 1942 snowstorm is NOT in the collaterals, and therefore not critical that I maintain belief in it.
It wouldn’t be crossing my boundaries to think VPW made mistakes in his recounting the stories. I sometimes merge memories and get facts of my past incorrect
.
It [The Way Living In Love] was removed from sale in the bookstore at some point and can’t be bought there anymore.
-I would suspect the REASON it was removed has nothing to do with the snowstorm(s) being fact-checked here.
Far more probably is the USUAL POLICY of removing anything in TWI history that “are no longer standing with the ministry.” When I worked in Tape Duplicating there would be a memo a couple times per year to “pull” the old SNT teaching tapes of an new ex-Way minister. We sold by mail and at large events many popular “back issues” of the SNT tapes.
Another probable reason for its removal is Elena Whiteside “no longer standing with the ministry.”
Another probable reason is Elena objected to it being sold.
Unsanctioned - 3 published books
-Reading one; not in a rush for the others.
Look in T bones footnotes for publishing links
-I save some of his links. Who knows when I get the time for them. …when I think I need them for something.
All 3 unsanctioned books detail personal stories of negative overall impact in life of TWI.
-Familiar with them, and a few others. I had some of the impact on my twig in 1980 that I have reported here several times. I personally have seen problems here and I pitched in to help, as I am doing now.
Then there’s you - the only thing you have contributed with your false self vision is a running critical commentary as you are inching your way through one of those books that you previously self censored for years and are now challenged by us to actually read it.
-There are several inaccuracies in your several assertions there. Let’s leave it at I have done things and had experiences you know not of… yet. I’ll keep trying to bridge the gaps and fill you in on where my head is at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Does no one see a distinction between what is known and what is believed? Between certainty and probability?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
May I ask why you are here? We discuss the collaterals often enough but the list of error is long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What methods of probing are acceptable to you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I disagree on the number of genuine errors detected, because I disagree with the methods and attitudes with which that detection process was conducted.
GreaseSpot is the only large, free speech networking hub for grads of PFAL.
It's a little like Twitter's monopoly on politics, and how Facebook has the the monopoly on finding old friends from many decades ago.
There were previously, when I first started posting, many more active proPFAL posters here, and every now and then they check in. Many of them now may be Read-Only Audience or ROA.
Also in the ROA audience may be many more proPFAL people who never or rarely posted. I get PMs from a small number of them, and I suspect there are many more.
For many years GreaseSpot was the only place to get grad news, and it still functions as that kind of service, even though Facebook recently took small a chunk recently.
GreaseSpot champion's Free Speech and the previously silenced "Other Side" to TWI's official news and notices. I think that GSC's motto to this effect is still posted somewhere. When I started posting my icon motto was "offering the OTHER other side."
I view GSC as where a large body of PFAL grads, networking in many ways. I think many of the gripes and grievances expressed here are valid. I also think this kind of blowing the whistle has gone way too far and it promotes fictions that are harmful to my grad brothers and sisters. I think we still have something to offer people in PFAL, and once again challenge the devil's grip on the kingdoms of this world. I don't see much of that challenging these days, and I think I know why and the solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Pretty much the same methods we were taught to work the ancient Scriptures (often tattered remnants), where it is assumed that the originals were perfect revelation. I admit that is an unusual method, but that is where my search led me and said "this is the end of the rainbow."
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.