Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

Meleagar wrote

Quote:(Reflected-light)
How is it we all 'dream' the same dream? Communal dreaming?

I didn't say "we" were all dreaming the same dream. You think god is only capable of one dream at a time? Or limited to manifesting one (or one lucid) entity per dream?

The point is not that as a matter of fact there is a multitude of dreams. The point is that if mind is primal how is it that separate minds make mutual sense to the extent that people, both free will and automata, share the same social reality ?* George Berkeley invented the idea of God's pre-established harmony to answer this question. What, Meleagar, is your solution to the question?

I'll spell it out, for the sake of blocking some tangent.
For instance if you were in an aircraft and both pilots died, would you rather it were emergency piloted by a free will person who was not a pilot, or by an automaton who was a pilot?
For instance, if you wanted to irrigate an arid field would you be advised by an informed automaton or by an uninformed free willer?
For instance, if your closest friend had cancer would you cure it yourself, or would you ask for help from skilled and informed automata?
****************

Meleagar explained that by 'deliberate' he meant 'intentional'. I myself would concede that in many contexts 'deliberate' can be swapped for 'intentional' without altering the meaning too much.

I ask again, if Meleagar sees a person apparently acting from intention or deliberation how can he tell whether or not this person is a free willer or an automaton?

[Meleagar]

The point is not that as a matter of fact there is a multitude of dreams. The point is that if mind is primal how is it that separate minds make mutual sense to the extent that people, both free will and automata, share the same social reality ?*

IMO, they share the same social reality only inasmuch as it doesn't conflict with the individual experiential requirements. There is virtually infinite potential even in any socially-shared situation to have widely diverse experiences - which is fundamentally evidenced by the fact that any group of people will walk away from a shared event with not only entirely different impressions, but with different memories. They can even disagree on physical descriptions of the event.

For instance if you were in an aircraft and both pilots died, would you rather it were emergency piloted by a free will person who was not a pilot, or by an automaton who was a pilot?

I'd personally rather it be an automaton who was a pilot. I'm not really sure what this line of questioning is supposed to reveal. I never said it was bad or non-useful for an entity to be an automaton, nor did I say I would rather have those with free will in my existence. I find many automatons to be most delightful and very handy. They are still aspects of God, even though really all they are doing is serving a function and not really creating anything. Generally, most of the automatons in my experience provide excellent support for my experience - such as, they fix my car, do the verious other jobs at work that give my job valuable context and support, fill up the grocery bins at the market with food, come out and exterminate pests or perform other functions on my house.

However, the few times I've run into those who apparently have free will, I will say that they have always been exceptional at their job.

Meleagar explained that by 'deliberate' he meant 'intentional'. I myself would concede that in many contexts 'deliberate' can be swapped for 'intentional' without altering the meaning too much.

So would I, seeing as I just said that by "deliberate" I mean "intentional.".

I ask again, if Meleagar sees a person apparently acting from intention or deliberation how can he tell whether or not this person is a free willer or an automaton?

Since you are apparently immune to the lengthy and mulitiple explanations I've already offered, including my turing-style question and the differences I've already illustrated between uncaused creative deliberacy/intention and the caused computer factoring or the "deliberations" of automatons, I don't really think that going over it again is going to help you find the distinction I mean between a deliberating automaton and a deliberate, uncaused, free-will intention.

Also, I've never said I could tell (know) whether a person has free will or not; I can infer and ask a question and come to a reasonable conclusion and then decide what provisional opinion to hold, but of course there's no way for me to know.

[reflected_light]

I would like to second Belinda's last question.

What is the difference between an automaton and a free willer?
Do both abide by the same set of laws, like those of physics?
Or does awareness of one's dream state enable them to perform 'superhuman' feats comparable to those when lucidly dreaming(flying for example)?

As far as ancient beliefs are concerned, logic has dispersed most of them and in many cases 'ancient beliefs' were closely tied to the hallucinagenic effects of their local flora and fauna.

"Drugs Found in Hair of Ancient Andean MummiesCharles Q. Choi
for National Geographic News

October 22, 2008
The first hard evidence of psychoactive drug use in the ancient Andes has been discovered in mummies' hair, a new study says.

The finding confirms that predecessors of the Inca known as the Tiwanaku used mind-altering substances..."
"Harmine can help humans absorb hallucinogens and may be a powerful antidepressant.

"These individuals probably ingested harmine in therapeutic or medicinal practices, some maybe related to pregnancy and childbirth," said study co-author Juan Pablo Ogalde, a chemical archaeologist at the University of Tarapacá in Arica, Chile.

"However, it is possible also that consumption of harmine was involved in religious rituals, said Ogalde, whose research appeared online October 14 in the Journal of Archaeological Science."
From the national geography news website.

Another example:

The numerous examples of 'drug' use in prehistory suggests that they may have played an important role in our imaginative development.

The question is not whether drugs were used in prehistory, but rather - to what extent. Prehistoric rock-art and shamanic imagery suggest that humans have been using mind altering substances for thousands of years. It is even suggested that they may have played an evolutionary role in our mental development

Also:
It is well known fact that psychotropic drugs induce altered states of consciousness. It was argued by Terrence McKenna that they were a leading stimulant in the evolution of the human brain, and the origin of language and religion. This theory did not originate with Mckenna. In 1986, shortly before his passing, Gordon Wasson put forth his own theory on the origin of religion from hallucinogenic mushrooms, specifically Amanita muscaria, with examples from several cultures that he had previously described, in details. In addition, Wasson also believed that Soma was responsible for:

"A prodigious expansion in Man's memory must have been the gift that differentiated mankind from his predecessors, and I surmise that this expansion in memory led to a simultaneous growth in the gift of language, these two powers generating in man that self-consciousness which is the third of the triune traits that alone make man unique. Those three gifts - memory, language and self-consciousness - so interlock that they seem inseparable, the aspects of a quality that permitted us to achieve all the wonders we now know."
Thanks to Terrence Mckenna for that one.


pjkeeley wrote:
For those who have never heard of anything like what Meleagar believes, it is actually a very ancient concept common to the mysticism of nearly every religion.

What is actually common to 'mystisism' may in fact prove to be the use of psychotropic and hallucinagenic drugs during 'religious' rituals.

[Meleagar]

What is the difference between an automaton and a free willer?

Those with free will have the capacity for acausal intention to deliberatly generate creative thought, action and events; that intention is not governed by prior causal sequence. Automatons are biological machines that process input (cause) into output (effect) and are entirely governed by prior sequence. Or, they are just generated as filler by an intentional agent.

Do both abide by the same set of laws, like those of physics?

The so called "laws of physics" are not constraints upon the behavior of matter in one's experience; they are descriptions of behavior. Nobody "abides" by any "physical laws"; our experiences, for the most part, can be mutually described by those models. However, there have always been so-called anomalous events that seem to defy those descriptive models, and science has been a long progress of finding things that apparently defy our models then making new models that incorporate the new, verified phenomena. Mainstram scientists have always been in the habit of simply denying anything which falls sufficiently outside of its agreed-upon models.

A person with free will might be able to manifest an event that defies description by certain models, but in the light of quantum theory that would be a tall order to accomplish, since under quantum theory it's entirely possible for collective fluctuations of quantum events to do virtually anything at any time, like transform a human into a rabbit or make the statue of liberty disappear.

If the observation of a mind is what collapses the virtually infinite potential of quanta into macro "experiences", as several prominent physicists such as John Wheeler suggest, then even if a free-willer can fly unaided, that wouldn't be a violation of any "physical law" known to exist, it would just be a very out-of-the-ordinary and significant collective quantum manifestation.

This goes to the heart of the free-will vs automata distinction; an automaton is generally programmed to believe in certain limiting rules of experience - such as, entropy, gravity, time-linear cause-and-effect, etc. They expect those rules to be consistent and ironclad; their observational expectation is that their experience will continue as a function of those guiding "laws". If John Wheelers view of the quantum collapse effect is true, then that is all those automatons can experience, because that is their ironclad observational expectation.

Or does awareness of one's dream state enable them to perform 'superhuman' feats comparable to those when lucidly dreaming(flying for example)?

IMO, one cannot manifest events that contradict their nature, or violates the "plausible deniability" necessary to maintain existence as a distinct, individual entity. More often than not, in my experience, what free-willers can generate are what others would call fantastic and unbelievable sequences of events, or coincidences, that bring to the free will entity what they have intended.

I've personally apparently manifested items out of thin air and apparently cured very serious medical conditions with my intention, and I've seen others do it as well. I (and my wife) can tell endless stories of remarkable, unbelievable coincidence. I expect that with a sufficently correlational identity, one could fly or shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. There are many stories about such entities.

As far as ancient beliefs are concerned, logic has dispersed most of them and in many cases 'ancient beliefs' were closely tied to the hallucinagenic effects of their local flora and fauna.

Well, if you say so.

The problem is: if I am right, then of course if you have the observational expectation to experience ordinary sequences and to find ordinary explanations for everything everyone claims to experience, you will. Obviously, some people cannot live an experience where people can manifest physical objects out of thin air by intention, so they do not; I, however, can and do.

[Neri]

It is a mistake to conflate realism with materialism.

If the “real” is defined as that which exists, a thing could be said to be real only if it is one thing and not another—that is, if it has a so-called durable essence. This would seem to prevent one thing from becoming another, for it ignores the reality of time. Yet, if one admits that change is real, one must admit that a real thing has only a temporal essence. That is, it exists as what it is for some temporal period. Clearly, if a thing exists for no time at all, it does not exist and cannot be real.

But what is a temporal period? It is said to be determined by two instants called the “beginning” and “the end.” [It is interesting to note that one instant cannot be substituted for the other, owing to the irreversibility of temporal progression.] Now, for these instants themselves to exist, they must exist for some period. Yet, how can such instant periods be determined except by other instants and those in turn by others, and so forth ad infinitum. To have determinative power, the instant must exist for no time at all. Thus, to have determinative power, the instant must necessarily be unreal; and to be real, the instant must necessarily have no determinative power.

The above analysis inevitably leads to the conclusion that no thing exists as anything in particular for any definite period. This must mean that all things are inextricably intertwined and are really the one thing we call the world.

What then is reality if there are no separately existing things? It is happening itself. “Happening” is not “becoming” or “change,” for the latter two expressions include the notion of separate things going in and out of existence. Happening admits of no separate events or things. The world is ontologically continuous and indivisible. What our mental focus takes as an individual event or thing really depends, in one way or another, on everything else that happens in the world.

However, none of this means that our experience of the world is purely subjective. Our mental impressions are only analogues of the world insofar as they divide the world into parts. We experience reality itself to the extent that we are sensitive to happening.

Consciousness is our window to the world, because consciousness is memory. It is true that consciousness must have content—that is, to be aware, we must be aware of separate things. But consciousness, like everything that is real, has temporal duration. Memory gives it this and makes it real. Memory includes the primal intuition of duration itself. This is the sense of happening—the experience of the world as it really is.

[Felix]

reflected light said: "As far as ancient beliefs are concerned, logic has dispersed most of them and in many cases 'ancient beliefs' were closely tied to the hallucinagenic effects of their local flora and fauna."

Well, if you're going to quote McKenna, one should note that, for good reason, he entitled one of his books "True Hallucinations." That is to say, nonordinary realities can be no less real than our ordinary 3-D consensual reality. As Dr. Stanislav Grof (eminent LSD researcher) demonstrates clearly in his books, information/knowledge can be obtained in nonordinary states of consciousness that cannot be obtained through material analysis, e.g., a person who medical science declared was clinically brain dead recovering and telling doctors precisely what occurred in another room of the hospital at the time he was unconscious. Try as they may, scientists have been unable to discredit such experiences. Of course, this is a far cry from claiming one can materialize objects at will.

[Keith Russell]

If the “real” is defined as that which exists, a thing could be said to be real only if it is one thing and not another—that is, if it has a so-called durable essence.

It could also be said that a thing is real only if the thing is--if it exists as a "thing"; i0f it has identity.

This would seem to prevent one thing from becoming another, for it ignores the reality of time.

Not at all, since the word is refers to existing in the present tense...

[Neri]

Mr. Russell,

You ignore the obvious. The present itself is an instant. That is, its duration is naught. Thus, if a thing exists only “in the present,” it exists for no time at all. Therefore, it does not exist.

[Felix]

So then, Meleager, what determines if someone has free will or not? Do they have some say in the matter, or is it simply a matter of fate?

[Belinda]

I've personally apparently manifested items out of thin air and apparently cured very serious medical conditions with my intention, and I've seen others do it as well. I (and my wife) can tell endless stories of remarkable, unbelievable coincidence. I expect that with a sufficently correlational identity, one could fly or shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. There are many stories about such entities.

I believe you, Meleagar but not enough to base my future beliefs upon. What makes you think that the most likely explanation of anomalies is that you can intervene in causal circumstances that bind so called automata? I cannot imagine any test of your ability, for you personally or for other observers, except one that involves inductive logic. Since your claim is extraordinary the positive correlations of try and success would have to be high. Your anecdotes are interesting but insufficient to persuade me of your truth.

[The Belief Doctor]

Since your claim is extraordinary the positive correlations of try and success would have to be high

I note this is a common expectation of many (usually voiced by skeptics). However, in times past, the extraordinary belief that the Earth was round, when compared with the then perception of it being flat, did not require extraordinary evidence. Only the relatively trivial observation that the mast of a ship was observed first as it came over the horizon.

Similarly, the PEAR results (Princeton's Engineering Anomalous Research laboratory) did not find 'extraordinary' or high correlations of mind influencing matter. The effect is quite small (like the curvature of the Earth), but the implications are extrardinary.

(from Princeton's PEAR website):

The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model.

But my purpose here is not to argue these points in detail.

Instead I'm here to highlight the work we're doing at the Institute, which in part involves ongoing research.

As part of that research, I'd enjoy receiving answers to this question: what stops people believing in the validity of psychic abilities?

Why are skeptics so disparaging of such claims?

After all, if a child makes ridiculous claims (e.g. a 2 year old saying they'll ride a 1000cc motorbike the next day), we might console the child gently by urging them to practice on toy ones, with training wheels, until they're sufficiently capable. No big deal.

Same for psychic abilities. Those who need training wheels, no big deal. Start small, move one bit in say 100,000 (for PEAR they found most can do 1 in 10,000).

But this is not the path of skeptics ... of seeking to improve on the 1/10,000 effectiveness.

What does one gain by pushing against the evidence? Why have many lost the wonderful art of curiosity and inquisitiveness?

And why have so many lost the art of being good scientists ... of impartially observing the evidence, and then seeking to construct a congruent theory to fit the observations?

What really is the issue here?

Is it simply that we have no strong role-models in society who question, and lead in such a manner?

I'm genuinely interested in learning the (deeper) cause for skeptics' denial of such abilities. And for those who might wish to respond with "there is no evidence for psychic abilities", what evidence do you have that there is no evidence?

How would believing in, and learning to build our psychic abilities (even if small in effect, or frequency) be a negative, or a detrimental development?

Are all these sorts of debates simply confirming that many are in phase one or two of Schopenhauer's 3-step process of accepting profound new world-views? (viz, 1. ignore, than 2. oppose, then 3. accept as self-evident)?

But that still doesn't answer why people get stuck in stages one and two, of ignoring or denying the evidence.

Is it perhaps a function of our immaturity as a race, similar to what might have been the sorts of discussions amongst intelligent folk, in the era when the ancient Hebrews and Egyptians believed the world was an oyster?

If the race were likened to that of the development of a child, what phase of development would we (as a collective) most closely resemble? Infant, child, adolescent, early or full adulthood?

Finally, why do you assign said stage of development to the race (collectively speaking -- imagine you're an alient watching from space with huge green eyes ... what would you conclude about us as a global colony, from our behaviour towards one another, towards animals and the environment?)

Looking forward to your replies,
Steve

[Meleagar]

I believe you, Meleagar but not enough to base my future beliefs upon.

Nobody is asking you to.

What makes you think that the most likely explanation of anomalies is that you can intervene in causal circumstances that bind so called automata?

I didn't say that I thought it's the most likely explanation. It's the explanation I prefer to hold as my provisional opinion.

I cannot imagine any test of your ability, for you personally or for other observers, except one that involves inductive logic.

There's a fairly easy way to "test" one's ability (from that person's perspective only) to intentionalize their experience. As I've said several times, unless a provisional opinion of mine is practical, I have no use for it.

Since your claim is extraordinary the positive correlations of try and success would have to be high.

I don't know enough about how the universe works to know if the claim is extraordinary or not. My claims are apparently not extraordinary to millions of people who claim to have similar success.

Your anecdotes are interesting but insufficient to persuade me of your truth.

It's not my intent to persuade you of anything.

The Belief Doctor,

I'm of the opinion that the world, environment, political structure, and people in it are perfect as-is. IMO, people deny evidences of all sorts for the same reason they accept other evidences and believe whatever they do politically, spiritually, socially, inter-personally ... and that is to have a certain kind of experience.

In order to help, we must believe that others need our help; in order to teach, we must believe that the ignorant exist; in order to better something, we must believe it is imperfect or in need of repair or that it is not as good as it could be. In order to save the environment, we must believe the environment needs saving.

One also must believe that such goals are significant and worthy in order to extract very powerful, "value-added", intense experiences. It's hard to feel "moral outrage" or a sense of injustice unless one is invested in certain views as truths.

If one believes in a pleasant afterlife that everyone goes to, or believes that they create their experience in this realm, it removes extreme experiences like despair, hate, outrage, and the overwhleming relief and joy of certain situations.

So, I don't so much see "humanity" as immature as I see many people involved in a certain kind of experience, which isn't any more immature per se than any other kind of experience an entity might wish to embark on. I don't see my position as more mature or intrinsically better than the position of anyone else, any more than I would say apple pie is intrinsically better or "more mature" than cherry pie.

Being a "victim" is just as interesting a role as being a creator. Being a slave of some truth is, for many, a means of experiencing a sort of nobility, especially if one believes they are sacrificing something for their truth - if they are believing in that truth even if it means discomfort or pain.

If people wish to try the apple pie they are free to do so; if they wish to condemn apple pie as stupid and ridiculous, they are free to do that as well, without penalty. What other entities choose to experience, or happen to experience, is their right, and IMO is the fundamental, perfect right of all conscious entities.

Who would I be to label their position as "immature"? All that does in my experience is set myself up as "more mature" and creates a gap between me and them. I don't wish to see myself as better or more mature or more spiritual or more intelligent than anyone else, because I don't enjoy seeing other people as "less" than me, nor do I enjoy seeing them as "wrong" (and thus in need of my correction) or "ignorant" (and thus in need of my wisdom), etc. That generates personal interactions I don't find to be enjoyable.

I appreciate the provocation of thought. Your site is really a very enjoyable read with a great wealth of resources. Thanks for directing me there.

[Belinda]

Meleagar wrote

I cannot imagine any test of your ability, for you personally or for other observers, except one that involves inductive logic.

I believe you, Meleagar but not enough to base my future beliefs upon.

Nobody is asking you to.[/quote]

Inappropriately personal reply, Meleagar. Your claims are insufficiently backed by either evidence or reason.

I didn't say that I thought it's the most likely explanation. It's the explanation I prefer to hold as my provisional opinion.

Both Athena and I have asked you why you come to this forum when you believe what you want to believe and not what reasoning (which is what we do here, what we are here for) indicates to be true.

There's a fairly easy way to "test" one's ability (from that person's perspective only) to intentionalize their experience. As I've said several times, unless a provisional opinion of mine is practical, I have no use for it.]

Even if only testing for your own truth, and even if you know dozens of otherwise normal people who claim to be able to bend the laws of causation, you negotiate the hazards of mortality at least partly by means of inductive reasoning just like every other creature that is capable of learning from experience.
Your 'test' is faulty because it's not scientific. Scientific tests are scientific by virtue of being falsifiable. Your 'test' ('intentionalize their experience')is not falsifiable because you could claim with regard to negative results that you were not intending adequately, or that your 'intention' had been insufficiently strong. Your system for personal free will control of events is unscientific because it is unquantifuable and unfalsifiable.
*********************************

I don't see my position as more mature or intrinsically better than the position of anyone else, any more than I would say apple pie is intrinsically better or "more mature" than cherry pie.

Circumstances might dictate that if cherry pies lead to people swallowing stones and choking then apple pies are better.There is no such thing as an intrinsically good pie of any sort just as there is no such thing as a natural human right.

How can you get through life without moral and epistemological criteria?(Comparative ethics, choosing one's ethics to live by) Hypothetical question! You cannot,unless you are particularly successful at being a hermit. But no! You have a wife you say.

[Meleagar]

Inappropriately personal reply, Meleagar. Your claims are insufficiently backed by either evidence or reason.

I haven't made any claims, other than that I've reported on my experiences. I don't claim that your experience will be, or even can be, the same. I don't claim that anyone else in the world will or does experience the same - only that many claim to, and so apparently do.

Both Athena and I have asked you why you come to this forum when you believe what you want to believe and not what reasoning (which is what we do here, what we are here for) indicates to be true.

I've answered you. That you appear to not be retaining my answer (or accepting it) is not my problem.

What I believe and my motivation here is irrelevant to the quality of the debate. When you ask me about my personal views and experiences, I tell you to the best of my ability. My personal views and experiences are not up for debate because I don't hold them in a manner where debate is relevant; I hold them only as provisional opinions because they seem to promote the kind of experience I enjoy, and I find them enjoyable in and of themselves to hold.

That doesn't disallow me from debating, say, whether or not morality must be objective and transcendent to be logically meaningful or significant. I don't have to believe in any morality whatsoever to logically debate such things. Neither do I have to believe in any particular god to debate whether or not such a belief is logically superior to atheism or panentheism. I can debate all sorts of things that I have no personal investment in one way or another.

I don't debate my personal views because there is no need to - I only hold them for enjoyment purposes, not because I can argue they are "more likely". I don't care if they are true or not, so why should I debate them? I'm happy to explain them, but there's no point in debating the opinions one holds for no reason other than that he enjoys having them.

Even if only testing for your own truth, and even if you know dozens of otherwise normal people who claim to be able to bend the laws of causation, you negotiate the hazards of mortality at least partly by means of inductive reasoning just like every other creature that is capable of learning from experience.

If you say so.

Your 'test' is faulty because it's not scientific.

You're certainly under no obligation to attempt the test or even consider it valid.

Scientific tests are scientific by virtue of being falsifiable. Your 'test' ('intentionalize their experience')is not falsifiable because you could claim with regard to negative results that you were not intending adequately, or that your 'intention' had been insufficiently strong.

I could, but I wouldn't. Personally, if the net result of my intentions doesn't seem to be manifesting what I intend (in the symbolic sense) then I'd give it up. If someone else tried the test and failed, then I'd leave it up to them to decide why - if they believed that it was because nobody can actually intentionalize their experience, that's fine with me. Why should I care what they believe?

I never claimed intentionalization works for anyone - including myself. I've only claimed that it appears to work for me and many others, and that it is enjoyable for me to hold the provisional opinion that it does.

Everything that happens to me could be entirely coincidental, confirmation bias, or a delusion. I don't know and I don't care, what matters to me is enjoyment of experience. I can enjoy a dream or a delusion just as much as I can enjoy "real life". I thoroughly enjoy my experience now; I was thoroughly miserable before. Even if it is entirely coincidental that I started doing this just before my life started getting better, who cares? Nobody is asking you to buy a book or send money.

Your system for personal free will control of events is unscientific because it is unquantifuable and unfalsifiable.

That doesn't make it untrue. However, it does raise a very pertinent point: it seems you wish to have this free will ability proven to you. What you don't understand is that one cannot have free will proven to them. If I could cause you to have free will by proving it to you, it wouldn't be free will, because it would have been caused.

You can't be forced by proof to accept your free will; it can only be seized by unevidenced faith (IMO). The machine of logic cannot reach the output "I have free will"; that's a logical contradiction. One's free will cannot be coerced by a computation of scientific evidence and logic; that would violate its own premise. You ask for the logically absurd to occur when you ask for proof of product of free will, or proof of free will.

There is no such thing as an intrinsically good pie of any sort just as there is no such thing as a natural human right.

If you say so.

How can you get through life without moral and epistemological criteria?(Comparative ethics, choosing one's ethics to live by) Hypothetical question! You cannot,unless you are particularly successful at being a hermit. But no! You have a wife you say.

I have a wife, six children, 10 grandchildren, several friends, extended family & business relationships. I and my wife also take care of my elderly mother who lives in an efficiency apartment I had built on to the back of my house.

I didn't say I lived without moral and epistemological critera; such critera as I use are not comparative.

[Belinda]

I note this is a common expectation of many (usually voiced by skeptics). However, in times past, the extraordinary belief that the Earth was round, when compared with the then perception of it being flat, did not require extraordinary evidence. Only the relatively trivial observation that the mast of a ship was observed first as it came over the horizon.

That medieval people believed that the Earth was flat is not true. The notion arises because of a fanciful story about Christopher Columbus by Washington Irving.However, it's true that it would take more extraordinary evidence to convince sceptics of an extraordinary claim than it would take for gullible and impressionable people to believe the same claim.