Elaborate Pareidolia and other Mysteries

Quad 4. Soup de la Face. (Affrontare la Minestra){Face Soup}



Again from HiRISE TRA_000869_1605.

rd

Here's a telling example of the methodology of the "science of pareidolia," which I think relevant to this ongoing (seemingly never-ending) discussion.

This is the famous real pareidolic image of the "Clearwater Virgin" seen by millions. A trick of light causes the window reflections and refractions to resemble St. Mary. But only the mind (or faith) causes us to fill in the elaborate details.

Image 1, real pareidolia

Here's another version of the Virgin. The eyes, nose and other secondary features are now visible in this elaborate pareidolia (which is not pareidolia at all but an unacknowledged artistic enhancement, typical of this "science.")

Image 2, elaborate "pareidolia"


Here is how the subject is typically treated in the media--citing "scientists."
“Many were intrigued to watch news accounts or read of a financial building in Clearwater, Florida, that seemed to reflect an image of the Blessed Mother.
While some have tried to explain it away as the effect of corroding metallic elements in the glass's coating, George Pecoraro, a scientist with a glass company, told a newspaper that "we're not able to explain how the shape appeared or why it appeared. It could be an accident or maybe it's Divine intervention." The main image of the Virgin can even be seen at night. More than 1.5 million have visited here, and the original owner, Mike Krizmanich, allowed them to install what has become a permanent shrine, believing the image is "a gift from God to be protected and shared." A hush falls over crowds as they view it, and even police managing the throngs showed reverence. It has been reported that vandals threw an unknown liquid at it, but the image healed itself, showing no lasting effects.” [Internet]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />While some have tried to explain it away as the effect of corroding metallic elements in the glass's coating, George Pecoraro, a scientist with a glass company, told a newspaper that "we're not able to explain how the shape appeared or why it appeared. It could be an accident or maybe it's Divine intervention."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Leaving aside the flim-flammed second image, and just sticking with the low-grade pareidolic image of Mary, we can ask this question. Which is harder to believe: that this came about by divine intervention, or that the Martian Pareidolia came about by Martians trotting all over the surface of Mars etching images of Bill Clinton and the Flintstones? We've merely exhanged one deity for another.

And they both have approximately the same level of detail, when measured on the Ressler Scale.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />We've merely exhanged one deity for another.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I stated quite some months ago that the reasoning of the artificiality proponents is essentially the same as that employed in Intelligent Design:

Life/artifacts appear(s) to have been designed.
God/Martians may exist.
If God/Martians exist(s), then He/they would design life/artifacts.
Therefore, God/Martians exist(s) and designed life/artifacts.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />the reasoning of the artificiality proponents is essentially the same as that employed in Intelligent Design<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I guess it's time again for my periodic reminder. Appearances cannot be used to argue for or against primary artificiality. Valid arguments for primary artificiality include <i>a priori</i> predictions, context, and relationships.

The key to primary artificiality is to find a procedure with total objectivity, so that the biases of the experimenters/viewers cannot influence the outcome. Most people readily see the biases of the other side, but do not recognize their own. Biases will predetermine opinions regardless of facts or merits if they are allowed to do so.

Once primary artificiality is established, then secondary artificiality is raised to equal footing with pareidolia for interpreting any subsequent images. This discussion has failed to develop any criteria for reliably distinguishing the two, with the possible exception of detail in the absence of noise or randomness. But that criterion has yet to be quantified.

Few if any artificiality proponents have used this to argue for "Martians", and suggesting that seems like highly inappropriate ridicule. The consequences of artifacts existing on Mars are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they exist. And if they do exist, most scenarios explain them without indigenous Martians, past or present. Some even explain them without ETs. But we should not be required to develop theories to explain trustworthy data before we have enough context to do so intelligently. It suffices that it cannot be validly argued that visitation of Mars by intelligent beings is improbable. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Few if any artificiality proponents have used this to argue for "Martians", and suggesting that seems like highly inappropriate ridicule. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, I don't follow your whole argument, but I just want to comment on this one thing for now, if you don't mind.

I think there's a fine line between "ridicule" and "talking". One of the criticisms I've heard of President Bush (I think it came out of Europe) has been that some folks don't like his "swagger". His answer to that was, "in Texas we call it walking."

Just saying "Martians would have had to have done it", isn't necessarily a ridicule as much as it is highlighting the main point in the discussion. It could be "some ancient civilization either living on Mars, or who visited Mars in the past...." It's just easier to say "Martians". Seems valid to me.

rd