The Mandela Effect Can No Longer Be Denied: Berenstein Was The Tip of The Iceberg

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And? All you did was prove where you misconception originated.

originally posted by: jacygirl

originally posted by: tigertatzen
This is quite possibly part of it. In a way, that would almost comfort me. At least it would be an evil I'm familiar with, albeit far removed from what I have always considered my reality.

Please watch this when you can, it's only 2.09 minutes.

He shows evidence of the Berenstein Bears name.
I had posted links in this thread, linking to some of what he shows in the video.

Very weird theory that I found on the Internet
jacy

This one appears to have some compelling cases. What do all of the detractors say about these examples? I would like an answer from skeptics. Are all of the examples in the video "typos, photoshopped, or fakes?"

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You don't understand Occam's razor then as it is absolutely leaned on heavily in science.

The example you quoted was also stupid and a case study in failed logic.

The simplest answer is the pen fell because you dropped it.

If you are asking why is fell downwards after dropping it the answer is gravity.

If you're asking about gravity then you have more explanations. The answer to why the pen dropped is not the same answer as what causes gravity.

Some people just fail at the scientific method and don't understand what Occam's razor means.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You don't understand Occam's razor then as it is absolutely leaned on heavily in science.

The example you quoted was also stupid and a case study in failed logic.

The simplest answer is the pen fell because you dropped it.

If you are asking why is fell downwards after dropping it the answer is gravity.

If you're asking about gravity then you have more explanations. The answer to why the pen dropped is not the same answer as what causes gravity.

Some people just fail at the scientific method and don't understand what Occam's razor means.

I would be cautious to attribute ignorance to me. Not only was I a researcher in a social science lab, conducting about 5 full scale studies, I also was a science teacher who taught the scientific method to others... I also am a data manager now, which is related.

The point many of us are making is that Occam's Razor is a philosophic construct, and not some scientific theory. It often is used as if it is though in conversations. I can assure you that no-where in serious scientific research does a researcher use that construct as a proof of anything, although they might use it in a casual conversation. Absolutely NOWHERE in all of my scientific, research methodology, or statistical training (which is across one bachelors and two masters) were we instructed in applying Occam's Razor to our work. ONLY in philosophy settings did I encounter it.

In fact, that you seem to think it is used as such shows you may not be as familiar with said community as you think.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You say one thing but your actions say another. I'm a scientist holding multiple masters degrees. I held research positions as well. To say you were never reminded of Occam's razor tells me you may be overstating your scientific experience...

Edit: Or you were 100% a research assistant and never authored a paper.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And? All you did was prove where you misconception originated.

Possible. But you also are projecting and dismissing. I didn't say this *proved* anything.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Stating it means you are attempting to use It as evidence to bolster your view. It's
Confirmation bias.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You say one thing but your actions say another. I'm a scientist holding multiple masters degrees. I held research positions as well. To say you were never reminded of Occam's razor tells me you may be overstating your scientific experience...

No, I've taken countless courses in research methodology, statistics, etc, at undergrad and grad levels. Occam's Razor is a philosophic/logical exercise, but not scientific as we consider science today. I guarantee that if we posted this point in a legitimate scientific forum, it would be agreed. Obviously, however, logic is important to the scientific process.

Once again, please tell me the scientific methodology course where Occam's Razor was used as any kind of scientific proof or application for anything? Please tell me a scientist that used it.

You also are performing a logical fallacy of believing that I'm not trained, because I'm willing to be open minded about this topic having never heard of it before Friday.

The height of philosophy and *real* science is not dismissing something prior to investigation. Maybe you already have. But i'm not there yet.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You are inserting an argument where none is being made. I've never made the claim Occam's Razor is a theory. I said it's leaned on heavily as a working principal and we were reminded of it often when problem solving.

The only logical fallacy here is you attempting to insert false arguments to bolster your view.

Edit: in response to your edit, you're new to this theory. Catch up. I already thoroughly investigated it over the last few years. I even engaged in ad hoc blind studies and documented them in previous threads on this subject.

I gave it serious thought and came to the reasonable conclusion that misconceptions and preconceived notions cause confabulation.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Stating it means you are attempting to use It as evidence to bolster your view. It's
Confirmation bias.

No, you mistake the nature of this conversation. If I was trying to have a serious, scientific, even philosophic discussion, where no statements nor assertions were possible without logical or scientific support, then I wouldn't be entering such a statement about my mother.

You see, I just entered this darn thread late Friday night. I've barely been able to even read through 40 or 50 of the thread pages. I'm still engaged in the discussion part, and casually I am noting that many people including my own family remember the Bears a certain way.

Possibly, you are treating each statement on this thread in the wrong manner. Instead of a conversation, which allows for tangential and random statements, you are seeing it as a context to micro-assess every statement.

Having read now many of the early conversations in this thread, I can see how people like you, Gryphon, and Phage, as well as Jacy et. al, are adversarial. This may be partly the other group's fault, having called ya'll shills, trolls, etc, for just having a counter-point.

But please don't put me in that group. I just got here.

I am addressing the problematic way in which Occam's Razor is often used as some kind of trump card, generally. But i'm also addressing that you implied that my push back on it is a result of a lack of scientific or logical ability. This is why I began addressing that issue, and the argument that you are saying you didn't make. But by claiming that which you did about my ability, you by proxy are claiming that it is a scientific construct, which I rebutted. Once again, however, formal logic and reason obviously have a place in the scientific process. But they, like Occam's Razor, in no way win an argument nor do they prove anything really. We developed the scientific method in part precisely because reason and logic had failed often due to human bias.

As to these ME phenomena if you will, I respect if you have investigated it thoroughly, which I have not. But allow newcomers to sort through the various ideas, claims, feelings, and so on. The smart ones, and the ones with scientific training, will probably come to the same probabilistic viewpoint that you, Gryphon, and Phage appear to have, which is what I assume you are referring to with regards to Occam's Razor. The vastly more likely answer is not multi-verses, or conspiracy, or timeshifts, but memory issues, socio-cultural phenomena, or some kind of interesting psychological autocorrect in people's minds. Here I can project that I will likely come to the same view, and already really already am.

But allow me my open-mindedness.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Waking up with a different spouse of a different gender would be attributable to a serious memory lapse (ed. or brain trauma).

Stroke, perhaps? Did I hit my head or something while I was asleep?

Nope, you have no head trauma. CAT scan shows no anomalies. You also are cleared of any mental health issues. You're completely sane.

You go back home to Colin.
Are you thinking:
"Something's not right here"

Or are you thinking:
"Wow memory sure is a funny old thing isn't it"

Straight answer.
This is important

You are begging the question to get the answer you want.

And no I didn't want a specific answer.
I just knew the answer you didn't want to give...

Yes, quite plainly, you were trying to limit your questions to provoke an answer.

Did you get it? Good. What does it have to do with "The Mandela Effect"?

From the data gathered from the experiment we now rationally know at what point "faulty memory" can not explain a Mandela Effect.
The subject's (your) reaction to the hypothetical scenario he was placed in shows logical evidence that at some point the "faulty memory" hypothesis falls apart.

Thank you for participating Gryph

No, actually it shows nothing of the sort as the two scenarios are not even similar.

The "Mandela Effect" is a real-world cultural phenomenon with massive attribution. It exists.

Your "example" was contrived and has no basis whatever in any reality. It was imaginary.

My answers say nothing about "faulty memories" because there were none involved.

But by YOUR reasoning ALL Mandela Effects are imaginary.

Nope. Not imaginary at all. I have stated, repeatedly, that the "Mandela Effect" is a real cultural phenomenon that should be carefully studied by sociologists, and I would add, psychologists involved in cognition, memory, etc. Probably also anthropologists. It's fascinating!

Every example or point-of-evidence of "the Effect" that I have seen thus far can be explained in a reasonable, non-fantastic way as the effect of a combination of common mistakes, faulty memories, flawed perceptions, increased communicative options via the internet, and general hubris.

Not imaginary at all.

With respect, sociologists do little in realm of scientifically valid research. The better choice would be social psychologists, in cooperation with more cognitive and bio-psychologists (brain and nervous system). All of these conduct peer-reviewed studies using the scientific method in the classic sense.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jacygirl

originally posted by: tigertatzen
This is quite possibly part of it. In a way, that would almost comfort me. At least it would be an evil I'm familiar with, albeit far removed from what I have always considered my reality.

Please watch this when you can, it's only 2.09 minutes.

He shows evidence of the Berenstein Bears name.
I had posted links in this thread, linking to some of what he shows in the video.

Very weird theory that I found on the Internet
jacy

This one appears to have some compelling cases. What do all of the detractors say about these examples? I would like an answer from skeptics. Are all of the examples in the video "typos, photoshopped, or fakes?"

I think this is WHY some are confused about BerenSTAIN. Berenstein is a relatively common name, and so people's minds saw that, not the real name. And the examples in that video are because of that, not because the name changed.

I always thought the chicken fast food chain was Chick A Fil for some reason (it's not common in my area) I mentioned it to a friend when one was opening up in the area, who was baffled by the way I said it and corrected me. I was sure I was right. Eventually went there, saw the sign and realized I had read it wrong the whole time

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ruiner1978

My waking up next to "Colin" is more likely than you've realized.

Now let's talk about you. Quid pro quo. Is New Zealand (or Sri Lanka) in a different place for you? Has it moved?

If so, how do you think that happened?

One thing, I don't believe the geographic claims for a moment. The most likely explanation is that often maps are distorted, even today. For example, the size of Africa is under-stated in most maps.

The other easy explanation is that a large percentage of the population, especially American, is almost geographically illiterate. They've done studies where many Americans have trouble finding Europe on a map. Perhaps some of these people who think the map changed were geographically illiterate at an earlier stage of life. I mean, all people were at some point in their lives.

originally posted by: vlawde

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jacygirl

originally posted by: tigertatzen
This is quite possibly part of it. In a way, that would almost comfort me. At least it would be an evil I'm familiar with, albeit far removed from what I have always considered my reality.

Please watch this when you can, it's only 2.09 minutes.

He shows evidence of the Berenstein Bears name.
I had posted links in this thread, linking to some of what he shows in the video.

Very weird theory that I found on the Internet
jacy

This one appears to have some compelling cases. What do all of the detractors say about these examples? I would like an answer from skeptics. Are all of the examples in the video "typos, photoshopped, or fakes?"

I think this is WHY some are confused about BerenSTAIN. Berenstein is a relatively common name, and so people's minds saw that, not the real name. And the examples in that video are because of that, not because the name changed.

I always thought the chicken fast food chain was Chick A Fil for some reason (it's not common in my area) I mentioned it to a friend when one was opening up in the area, who was baffled by the way I said it and corrected me. I was sure I was right. Eventually went there, saw the sign and realized I had read it wrong the whole time

Yes, but in the video it shows examples of the word Berenstein written out in tickets, formal documents, etc. To use your hypothesis, there would have had to been a mass misspelling of the Bears' name even in the media, ticketmaster, court documents, and so on. So then the only thing one could say is that it was a mass typo or misspelling on the part of these organizations or individuals back in the day?

Or are they fakes?

Misspellings are likely (IMO) on many. And there is plenty of hoaxed/faked stuff on the internet created by people either trying to prove their point, or just to mess with people

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So then the only thing one could say is that it was a mass typo or misspelling on the part of these organizations or individuals back in the day?

Interesting that examples of "mass" correct spellings seem to be avoided. Confirmation bias?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I apologize. Was a bit antagonistic after re-reading my posts. You were simply explaining a view and I was pre disposed to "oh, here we go again from the beginning. A new Mandela person re-hashing tons of debunked material".

To be clear I agree with you on Occam's Razor, but in atmospheric physics we were brow beat with "most simple of two (or 3 or 4)" which is the principal of Occam's Razor.

One cannot dismiss the simple answer unless they prove it wrong. You must investigate the most simple solution First. In this case memory issues are the most simple answer and when you try to disprove it as an option you can't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So then the only thing one could say is that it was a mass typo or misspelling on the part of these organizations or individuals back in the day?

Interesting that examples of "mass" correct spellings seem to be avoided. Confirmation bias?

No, not avoided, at all. However, it's important to look at these examples Phage. If there are a reasonable number of "misspellings" occurring across multiple domains, it isn't so easy just to say they are all typos or faked. Perhaps, yes.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I apologize. Was a bit antagonistic after re-reading my posts. You were simply explaining a view and I was pre disposed to "oh, here we go again from the beginning. A new Mandela person re-hashing tons of debunked material".

To be clear I agree with you on Occam's Razor, but in atmospheric physics we were brow beat with "most simple of two (or 3 or 4)" which is the principal of Occam's Razor.

One cannot dismiss the simple answer unless they prove it wrong. You must investigate the most simple solution First. In this case memory issues are the most simple answer and when you try to disprove it as an option you can't.

Fair enough. Although I find the idea of some kind of socio-cultural phenomenon happening more interesting, beyond simple memory issues. This is especially true considering so many people seem to be responding to this idea of "ME."