h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A coincidence is when two things happen at the same time without causality. By definition then, if there is no causality, there is nothing but an interesting juxtaposition of events and nothing more should be read into it.
EOS.

(It should be noted that I am a cynic)

Belief in syncronicity derives from a misunderstanding of the application of statistics. If a particular event is determined to have a 0.003% chance of happening, believers will see this as proof that it is virtually impossible that the event would happen by chance. However, since statistical calculations are based on a large population, the reality is that we would EXPECT one occurrance of the event for every 1000 members of the population. In Canada alone, a population of about 30 million assures that 90000 people can be expected to experience the event, and there's nothing magical going on.

Additionally, people have a natural tendency to remember the "hits" and ignore the "misses." Thus, can you count the number of times you thought of a word WITHOUT reading it right after, how many times you picked up the phone and the person you were going to call WASN'T already on the line?

Oops, it was supposed to be THREE occurences for every 1000 members of the population.

Ignoring the misses is precisely how the whole palm reading type stuff "works"...if you were to see the palm readers spiel written down it soon becomes evident that most of it is totally irrelevant to the person being "read".

And the stuff that IS relevant is usually so general that it would apply to anyone, or is open to interpretation.

In the words of a wise old friend of mine -
"Synchronisity's all very well, but how does it help us win the lottery?"

Surely the trick is to engineer coincidence (of the numbers you thought of against those drawn, for instance) - which is what I would define as Synchromancy. Just "reading the tealeaves" isn't much help is it?

What you're referring to is 'the fallacy of positive instances', the tendency to make more out of the positive things and to ignore the negative ones.
Also, what is being referred to when it comes to palm reading and the like, is the concept of 'cold reading', a stage trick which any two-bit "psychic" (and I use the term loosely) with half a brain can pick up and use to fool the gullible. The most amazing thing of all (to me at least) is the human tendency to explain events by the most supernatural of ways.
It's almost as if we're hard-wired to see the mystical explanation to everything--it's the rational side that seems to elude us.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the cynics on this one.

The other disturbing tendency I've noted lately is the bad habit that pseudoscientific types have of trying to bring terms from quantum physics into conversations, in an attempt to justify some pretty "far-out" concepts. Yes, I freely admit that there is a lot we don't know yet, and yes, I admit that there is a distinct possibility that some of these far-out hypotheses might not turn out to be that far off. But let's focus on observing and testing phenomena, not supernaturally explaining random events.

--Just a skeptic who delights in driving his friends mad.
--Aimless Wanderer

You've hit upon what sets the skeptic apart from the believer: the skeptic acknowledges that there are things in the world/universe that we don't understand, but based on past experience says that there is no reason to believe that we won't understand them eventually. The believer says that there are things in the world/universe that we don't understand, and this provides proof that the universe is a mystical place with incredible workings forever beyond human understanding. Where's the fun/challenge in that?

I must agree. It may be a minority opinion, but I don't think that there is anything out there that we can't or shouldn't try to understand, comprehend, and explain. I'm not a member the "there are things that humanity was not meant to know" school of thought.
Just because there are things out there that seem to be mystical, and seem to defy description, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it. Personally, I find more joy in trying to comprehend the workings of the universe in this fashion that from leaving it up to mystic explanations.
Nice to know that there are a few like-minded types out there.

Then again, I also think that it takes all types to make a world--it keeps life interesting.

My feelings about synchronicity... well, it's an interesting topic. I've been getting the most bizarre syncs in the last few years. It all seemed to take off in about mid-1997. Since then, the entire world seems to have gone completely mental around me, and really wacky coincidences keep on happening; and I'm not the only one to notice this!

I think that sometimes there is a cause that is very subtle resulting in what appears to be a bizarre coincidence.

For example, I remember once reaching for the phone to call a friend I hadn't spoken to for a long time. The phone rang, and it was my friend calling me (pretty standard coincidence tale!). During the conversation, it emerged that we'd both been listening to the same radio station, and had both heard a song that was popular at the time when we were hanging around a lot together. From this, we guessed that the song had triggered both of us to think of each other.

In this case, the common cause was reasonably clear. However, there must be many cases where it's *not* obvious what the common cause is.

I also think that two people who spend a lot of time together probably start to develop similar ways of thinking. I mean, if you hang around with someone for long enough, you start to be able to anticipate how they'll react in different situations. In effect, you have a reaonably accurate 'copy' of your friend inside your head. So it's not too surprising if some external cause (a news item, say) causes each of you to think the same way.

So I think there may be something in synchronicity; that's not to say that it has a mystical means of transmission, or that it's actually of any use to anyone. (Of course, if there is a 'cause' then it's not synchronicity in the Jungian sense of an 'acausal connecting principle'.)

And I have a copy of the I-Ching that I consult sometimes when I have a decision to make. Not because I think that some guiding force controls the coins, but because I like to have some random input that forces me to think outside the normal track (a bit like deBono's 'random word' idea).

Wow .. a lot of good points were raised here -- where should I start. Well Jung aside (though I admit I may be miss-quoting his "acausal" nature a bit) I may try to explain myself.

Funny that you mentioned Eduard DeBono Jim, since what this really is is a form of Blue-Hatting (for those who don't know this refers to the process of thinking about "thinking". When we explore the many coincidences of our lives for insight what we can AT THE VERY LEAST be said to be doing is something akin to looking at an ink-blot and devining how we are feeling. Its very introspective. For example .. if you are having a bad day -- you tend to notice every bad thing that happens -- but if you are elated -- you notice every smile. And you can work backwards from there -- if you notice you are noticing many bad coincidences in your life -- maybe you are not happy.

Looking deeper I will address the issue of cold reading. Well, technically it would be warm reading as it implies additional information about the person, but Im spitting hairs.

On an even deeper level .. We ARE all connected. We do live in a closed system that energy cannot very easily escape. For example -- if you do a push up -- you move away from the earth, but the earth also moves away from you. The change is infinitessimal due to the relative masses -- BUT THE EARTH MOVES. Now you may think Im spewing pseudo-science here (and don't get me wrong - I am, all science is unless you have travelled the entire universe to check it) but all I know is that magic is everywhere -- if you are smart enough to look for it.

~Beeblefish

Oh boy.

The only item you raised that I will address here is your claim that all science is pseudo-science, unless you can travel the entire universe. Not so!

Science is not a thing, it is a process. This process consists of examining the evidence provided by nature and postulating a theory to explain it. A theory is then always falsifiable, upon presentation of just one repeatable example of a situation that doesn't fit the theory. A theory becomes more valid with every event it is able to accurately predict or explain. Of course, there's always the possibility that somewhere in the universe is something waiting to invalidate the current theory; if (or when) it's found, scientists update (or replace) the theory to accommodate the new data. Thus, science is a steady climb uphill towards the most accurate theory. Only when a theory can accurately explain all situations does it become a law.

Pseudo-science, on the other hand, is the application of the trappings of science language to inherently unscientific things. The recent proliferation of magnetic insoles is a great example. Lots of quotes from doctors, big words, graphs, etc. but absolutely no effect that can be clearly and unequivocally demonstrated under proper scientific (double blind) testing conditions. Any attempt to apply proper testing standards results in failure, but unlike a scientist, the pseudo-scientist ignores or rationalizes away the negative data, still asserting the truth in his claim.

Thus, science, by definition, is the exact opposite of pseudo-science. Equating the two trivializes centuries of discoveries which have almost doubled the average human life expectancy in the last century and put several men on the moon, not to mention given you the computer you are using right now.

For a thorough and scientific debunking of syncronicity as a force in the universe, see 'Celestine Profits: A Critical Analysis of James Redfield and The Celestine Prophecy' by Phil Mole, in Skeptic Magazine vol. 7 number 3 (available from [Broken link removed by Moderator])

We will eventually understand everything? I don't even understand my computer!

I'm a generic skeptic too - but lets not get ahead of ourselves here. A belief that science will explain everything (or could solve everything) is just as irrational as a belief that there are some things that science can never explain. Probably more so - the evidence points to some really quite simple things proving extraordinarily difficult for science to explain.

The skeptic is the last at the table when the roulette wheel malfunctions and scores ten zeros in a row.

Lucinda - wondering what history books you have to read to believe that Science is a "steady" climb.

why are we hardwired to accept supernatural explanations? My guess is that it's natures way of stopping us from wondering abouut things that are irrelevant to our daily life.

MyRedDice - "How did this program know I was wanted to do that?" - "Magic."

The nice thing about being human is that we (apparently) have some control over our instincts, and can override some of them (we may not often choose to, and I think that there are definitely deep inbuilt psychological mechanisms that operate outside the realm of what we consider to be consciousness)...anyway, we CAN choose to wonder about those things that are irrelevant to daily functioning. We HAVE advanced at least far enough that we can stop worrying about finding food for the tribe for five minutes, and consider the fundemental origin and nature of things. Maybe, just maybe, that drive to comprehend those 'irrelevant' things will prove to be our salvation, if I may use the term.
Then again, maybe it'll be the straw that broke the camel's back.

(And then again, there may not be any choices...but I hope not...)

All I know is that if there is to be any hope of continuing the good run that our species has been on (and, I know, it hasn't all been good, but we're still here and advancing, right--maybe even learning from our mistakes once in a great while) we darn well better start finding answers to those questions.

And, yes, I do think that there are answers to the big questions. I accept that I may be wrong, but I plan on seeking proof anyway.

Then again, I may be dreaming the impossible dream...

Please! Don't lecture me on Scientific method, I am a scientist too damnit. But please do address the other issues I have raised instead of the ever-so-popular its-wrong-nya! approach so many neophobes and skeptics seem to take.


May I remind you that you bandy about words like "progress" and "double-blind" but you forget that before you can set up an experiment you need a hypothesis, and before you can have a hypothesis you have to look at the data and derive a theoretical model. Many look at the random patterns in the universe and every now and again pick out one to study scientifically. You can't skip the dreaming step -- it is the heart and soul of science.

You forget that it was once "scientifically proven" that the Earth was flat -- how is this possible -- we just didn't look at a wide enough range of variables.

I would gladly try a pair of magnetic insoles to see if they did me any good. To automatically believe one set of scientists who say they are are bunk is just as stupid as automatically believing another set who says they are the thing!

My god man! You hide behind science like other's hide behind religion! Open your eyes and look at the world why don't you!


SO I refuse to recant my statement that all science is Pseudo, Im not knocking the process -- but I am knocking the belief that many have that you can prove a Null Hypothesis -- that is a fallacy pure and simple.


~Beeblefish

OK, then...

What hypothesis do you propose regarding Synchronomancy? That bad coincidences signify that you're having a bad day, or that good coincidences signify that you're having a good day? This is hardly anything special; and how do you test it? What is the difference between your method of "divination" and plain, old-fashioned introspection? Analyzing the events in your life can certainly be enlightening, but this is hardly divination. It's more likely to produce results than I Ching or reading tea leaves, though...

That the earth was flat was never scientifically proven, as far as I know; however, it was certainly a general assumption--and an understandable one, based on the evidence of the individual's senses. As time passed, however, it was probably difficult to ignore the fact that as you travelled farther away from them, the mountains of your homeland began to drop below the horizon. Thus, the mounting evidence forced people to change their belief into knowledge. Of course, there are still those who believe that the world is flat, and that the moon landings were faked...

I myself would never automatically believe anyone, including scientists. Instead, when astonishing claims are made I look to the evidence presented by both sides to form my opinion. When the majority of independent and valid studies support a claim, then I will gladly accept it. If, on the other hand, the vast majority of studies contradict the claim, it is fairly safe to say that the claim has come under suspicion, and I will treat the claim as unsubstantiated.

Science is not a religion, and I do not view it as such (although there are those who do.) However, it is the most effective way we have of making sense of the world (and universe) around us, and until a demonstrably better way comes along critical thinkers will stick with science.

Who here has said anything about proving a null hypothesis? "The null hypothesis is often the reverse of what the experimenter actually believes; it is put forward to allow the data to contradict it" (HyperStat Online.) It is not necessarily the desired result, but it is a starting block. Only a pseudo-scientist would set out to prove a null hypothesis, and not accept contradictory results. A scientist must accept the possibility that the results might go either way.

In closing, as you say, dreaming is obviously one of the most important (if not THE most important) phases of the discovery process. But, everyone (including every scientist) must then wake up and concentrate on making their dreams a reality by rational means.

So, if you can turn Syncronomancy into a provably accurate method of divination (i.e. foretelling the future,) $1,000,000 is yours for the taking at http://www.randi.org.

Who said anything about trying to explain or solve "everything?" I very much doubt that we will ever know everything there is to know about the universe we live in. But that's no reason to fall back on superstition.

Just because something that seems simple at first glance turns out to be incredibly complicated to understand does not show that attempting to understand it is irrational. It would be far worse to give up and accept just any theory that someone proposes. Hence the idea that since currently accepted laws of nature break down as you approach the big bang, there must be a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe. B does not follow from A. Since humans are not infallible, it's far more likely that there's more to the laws of nature than is currently known. Since the laws we now know can readily (if not simply) describe the vast majority of what we see in the universe, it is difficult to believe that the final fraction of a percent will require a supernatural explanation.

As for the roulette table analogy, I would hardly consider skeptics to be the gambling type!

Science is a steady climb in the same sense that Mount Everest is--on the way, you'll have to pass through dips and valleys, and may even get stuck in nasty weather for a while, but the general direction is up. And who's Lucinda?

Don't mean to butt in on your heated conversation but I would like to add a few thoughts...

One interesting thing about Syncronicity as a science/psuedoscience (as the case may be) is that during the process of examining and explaining coincidences the actual observations get mixed up and effect the outcome of the data. Example: One day you are thinking of someone and all of a sudden they call you. Well, once this happens and you give meaning to the coincidence, you may start to look for similar coincidences more often. As a result you may start to notice coincidences more often simply because you are actively seeking them.

To get back to your your recent converstation: I am a firm believer that science has its limits. This doesn't mean that I think we should all just give up trying to understand our environment, but I think that science as we know it needs an overhaul and we need to take a cue from other cultures as to how to widen the scope of our scientific methods. This is why: The same problem that we come up with in syncronicity comes up again in one of the most puzzling problems of modern science, namely, in quantum physics. In quantum physics we find (as in synchronicity) that the simple act of observation affects the outcome of the experiment. This suggests to me that there is something wrong with the idea that we can be purely objective in our observations.

P.S. Has anybody read Fijof Capra or Robert Anton Wilson?