Is there any such thing as accidents?

[Robert_Sock]

I was first introduced to the notion that there are no such thing as an accident in an undergraduate personality course I was taking. Its adherents, which included Freud, is that all accidents are caused by unconscious factors, such as an underlying wish to commit harm, including the wish to harm oneself. At first thought, I was totally at odds with with such a view, but through careful introspection over the years, I have come to believe that, indeed, there are no such thing as accidents. I now believe that all accidents are ultimately caused by God or Satan, via the cognitive unconscious.

I’m not sure if this will catch the fancy of philosophers on this forum, but I would like to put the question out there for possible discussion. I hope that this does not insult, but leads to deeper reflection.

 

[SMHW]

I would have to have a qualified definition of “accident” to answer your question.

 

[CrispSnowflake]

My dad says there are no such things as accidents, but I beg to differ.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I would have to have a qualified definition of “accident” to answer your question.

I hope that a common dictionary definition will suffice: An unfortunate mishap; especially one causing damage or injury. But I think this can extend to the ‘scientific’ world where we are indoctrinated into believing in ‘chance’ occurrences.

 

[Robert_Sock]

My dad says there are no such things as accidents, but I beg to differ.

Tell your dad that you met someone on the CAF that thinks he is a wise man!

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I hope that a common dictionary definition will suffice: An unfortunate mishap; especially one causing damage or injury.

I don’t think the kid who hit my husband’s car did it intentionally. He is a new driver and he wasn’t paying attention. He was responsible enough to come get us (he hit the car while it was parked in our apartment parking lot) He apologized several times. I do believe that it was an accident.

Have I done things and said that I didn’t mean to? Well, yes. That doesn’t mean that accidents don’t happen, that just means that I lied.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I don’t think the kid who hit my husband’s car did it intentionally. He is a new driver and he wasn’t paying attention. He was responsible enough to come get us (he hit the car while it was parked in our apartment parking lot) He apologized several times. I do believe that it was an accident.

Have I done things and said that I didn’t mean to? Well, yes. That doesn’t mean that accidents don’t happen, that just means that I lied.

Why was he not paying attention. This type of accident does not happen to all new drivers.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Why was he not paying attention. This type of accident does not happen to all new drivers.

Yes, car accidents do happen to most young drivers. That is why insurance is higher for younger drivers.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, car accidents do happen to most young drivers. That is why insurance is higher for younger drivers.

But why is this so? Again, it does not happen to all young drivers. Could be that older drivers have successfully dealt with their unconscious conflicts to a deeper degree than young drivers. You could say that successful young drivers are simply lucky, but my response would be to ask what is luck? And how do we determine if it’s simply the absence of certain unconscious conflicts.

 

[Allegra]

I don’t think many car accidents are caused by unconcious desires to do harm. More likely they are caused by an assumption that nothing bad will happen, or inexperienced split-second decision making, or in the worst case, indifference and a desire to go as fast as one wants.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I was first introduced to the notion that there are no such thing as an accident in an undergraduate personality course I was taking. Its adherents, which included Freud, is that all accidents are caused by unconscious factors, such as an underlying wish to commit harm, including the wish to harm oneself.

I hope that a common dictionary definition will suffice: An unfortunate mishap; especially one causing damage or injury.

Yes, accidents can occur. Our understand of the world is incomplete, our abilities to act out our own intentions are imperfect. Our course through life is not only influenced by our own volition but by those around us. As these and other factors are taken into consideration you’ll find that it’s quite possible for some one to miss their target, loose control, or find them selves in a place they were not trying to be. That is accidents do happen.

But I think this can extend to the ‘scientific’ world where we are indoctrinated into believing in ‘chance’ occurrences.

I think the use of “accidents” in this context is more representational of one’s perspective of a system but not necessarily descriptive of the system itself.

Discussions on chance usually involve something that is perceivable chaotic or random. But that’s a description of one’s perception. Chaotic systems are systems that are sensitive to an initial set of conditions but still may operate perfunctorily. To an observer that is unaware of the initial set of conditions or is not able to understand or follow the transitions within the system it will appear to be random.

There are also complex systems such as weather in which we don’t know or can’t track all of the causal factors. While we may be able to predict or explain to some degree events within these systems predictive abilities will be far less than perfect. When there is an event that could not be predicted by a current model one may label it as “random.” But I think that apparently “random” event is a consequence of the gap between the model and reality.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, accidents can occur. Our understand of the world is incomplete, our abilities to act out our own intentions are imperfect. Our course through life is not only influenced by our own volition but by those around us. As these and other factors are taken into consideration you’ll find that it’s quite possible for some one to miss their target, loose control, or find them selves in a place they were not trying to be. That is accidents do happen.

Yes, accidents do happen according to my definition of the term, but why? What you’re saying appears to simply be personal opinion, and not backed up with any evidence. Again, many old-time psychoanalysts, and perhaps philosophers and theologians, would take issue with your opinionated response. As for me, I admit that I have no proof one way or the other, other than my own introspective research techniques.

I think the use of “accidents” in this context is more representational of one’s perspective of a system but not necessarily descriptive of the system itself.

Discussions on chance usually involve something that is perceivable chaotic or random. But that’s a description of one’s perception. Chaotic systems are systems that are sensitive to an initial set of conditions but still may operate perfunctorily. To an observer that is unaware of the initial set of conditions or is not able to understand or follow the transitions within the system it will appear to be random.

There are also complex systems such as weather in which we don’t know or can’t track all of the causal factors. While we may be able to predict or explain to some degree events within these systems predictive abilities will be far less than perfect. When there is an event that could not be predicted by a current model one may label it as “random.” But I think that apparently “random” event is a consequence of the gap between the model and reality.

Sounds like we’re in agreement here in that we both seem to agree that we don’t know all the causal factors that could have arisen in a event that at first appeared ‘random.’ Am I missing something?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Did God leave anything to chance when He created the physical and spiritual worlds? Why do so many people, including atheists, say “thank God” when they are able to escape from an otherwise bad accident?

 

[Fairwinds]

I hope that a common dictionary definition will suffice: An unfortunate mishap; especially one causing damage or injury. But I think this can extend to the ‘scientific’ world where we are indoctrinated into believing in ‘chance’ occurrences.

(emphasis added)

do you actually dispute quantum mechanics?

your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[Robert_Sock]

(emphasis added)

do you actually dispute quantum mechanics?

your claim, your burden of proof.

Do you dispute that God did not leave anything to chance in the physical and spiritual world’s? Again, I believe that God created EVERYTHING, and that He left nothing to chance. So, yes, I would object to some of the common assumptions made in quantum mechanics.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes, accidents do happen according to my definition of the term, but why? What you’re saying appears to simply be personal opinion, and not backed up with any evidence.

The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration has been collecting data on car accidents for about the past 14 years or so.If you would like I could share some of the summaries of the factors that increase rates of accidents and how they relate to what I said earlier. I can’t do this immediately as I am about to go into a meeting and then engage in what I hope to be an accident free drive home.

Again, many old-time psychoanalysts, and perhaps philosophers and theologians, would take issue with your opinionated response.

If it challenges their own conclusions I would expect some number to take issue with views and information that may contradict their own views.

Sounds like we’re in agreement here in that we both seem to agree that we don’t know all the causal factors that could have arisen in a event that at first appeared ‘random.’ Am I missing something?

We are in agreement. At best for systems like this one can either treat them statistically (which may provide some information on the distribution/frequency of an event type). On occasions there may be high fidelity information for a specific occurrence of such an event which will allow for analysis for that event instance (ex: flight data recorders in planes and dashboard cameras in cars can contribute to the collection of such data).

 

[Robert_Sock]

The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration has been collecting data on car accidents for about the past 14 years or so.If you would like I could share some of the summaries of the factors that increase rates of accidents and how they relate to what I said earlier. I can’t do this immediately as I am about to go into a meeting and then engage in what I hope to be an accident free drive home.

No, I don’t need any statistics at this time unless they have somehow ruled out unconscious factors.

It is said that God has the number of hairs numbered on everyone’s head, take heed and know that He would not leave anything to chance, except perhaps that chance occurring due to free will. To believe otherwise is to deny that He is Omnipotent.

Have a safe trip home!

If it challenges their own conclusions I would expect some number to take issue with views and information that may contradict their own views.

Yes, but how do we determine things one way or the other, other than by way of introspection? Introspection is a supposedly outdated research tool used in psychology to get at these sorts of issues. It takes plenty of practice, and nothing else would allow these types of conclusions.

The other technique is simply getting in touch with one’s inner voices, and knowing when to listen to which voice. I drive my therapist nuts talking about all my conversations with my inner voices, and she therefore diagnosed me as being schizoaffective… but I take it as a complement.

We are in agreement. At best for systems like this one can either treat them statistically (which may provide some information on the distribution/frequency of an event type). On occasions there may be high fidelity information for a specific occurrence of such an event which will allow for analysis for that event instance (ex: flight data recorders in planes and dashboard cameras in cars can contribute to the collection of such data).

I’m genuinely glad to hear that.

 

[tonyrey]

red on everyone’s head, take heed and know that He would not leave anything to chance, except perhaps that chance occurring due to free will. To believe otherwise is to deny that He is Omnipotent.

The inevitability of dysteleleological coincidences in an immensely complex universe does not impugn divine omniscience or omnipotence. Nor is chance related to free will.

In simple English only God is perfect in every respect!

 

[Robert_Sock]

The inevitability of dysteleleological coincidences in an immensely complex universe does not impugn divine omniscience or omnipotence. Nor is chance related to free will.

In simple English only God is perfect in every respect!

I lost all my faith in ‘science’ long ago. Time and time again, we have science correcting itself. To believe in coincidences is to undermine the profound fact that God created it all, and left nothing to chance. All will be truly known only when we die and go to Heaven. Patients!

 

[Robert_Sock]

The inevitability of dysteleleological coincidences in an immensely complex universe does not impugn divine omniscience or omnipotence. Nor is chance related to free will.

In simple English only God is perfect in every respect!

Are you inferring that some events have no cause whatsoever? Does such a view undermine the story of Creation and give credence to people like Richard Dawkins?