For PixyMista – The Problem With Metaphysics

[PDoug]

That's not a proof.

Of course it is. Show me how my proof is deficient. Merely saying that my proof is deficient, does not make it so.

Shifting the burden of proof.

I offered proof of my claim. For you to say that my proof has no merit, you have to demonstrate that that is the case. Also the Burden of Proof fallacy is clearly anti-religious, since it skews the burden of proof to the person making religious claims. It was almost certainly created by anti-religious folks. Any reasonable person can see that is enough to say that if you are making a claim for or against religious matters, you must provide sufficient proof for your case.

No.

Why do you say that something that is obviously true, is false?

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course it is. Show me how my proof is deficient. Merely saying that my proof is deficient, does not make it so.

All you have done is give some examples that agree with your argument. That's not a proof. It doesn't even resemble a proof.

I offered proof of my claim.

No you didn't. You offered a bunch of waffle with "pruf" scribbled at the top in crayon.

Also the Burden of Proof fallacy is clearly anti-religious, since it skews the burden of proof to the person making religious claims.

It's not a fallacy, and it's not anti-religious, except in the broader sense that the burden of proof is always troublesome for those making claims contrary to reality.

Why do you say that something that is obviously true, is false?

Because it's not true. The Bible is not a credible document and is not considered so in court.

 

[!Kaggen]

Of course it is. Show me how my proof is deficient. Merely saying that my proof is deficient, does not make it so.




I offered proof of my claim. For you to say that my proof has no merit, you have to demonstrate that that is the case. Also the Burden of Proof fallacy is clearly anti-religious, since it skews the burden of proof to the person making religious claims. It was almost certainly created by anti-religious folks. Any reasonable person can see that is enough to say that if you are making a claim for or against religious matters, you must provide sufficient proof for your case.





Why do you say that something that is obviously true, is false?

When you say hallucinations are caused by intelligences(I assume you might also say supernatural beings) you are saying experiences in the natural world are caused by the supernatural. This is a claim about happenings in the natural world for which we know the scientific method has had overwhelming success. We have yet to find a better method for understanding the natural world. The scientific method requires those making a claim about happenings in the natural world to provide evidence for such a claim.

So unless you come up with another method for coming up with explanations of how things work in the natural world I suggest you refrain from making claims without evidence.

 

[!Kaggen]

Keep in mind however, Goethe provided 432 pages (at least in this edition: http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Colours-Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe/dp/0262570211) of physically repeatable evidence for his Theory of Colour but we do not regard his theory as correct.

 

[Robin]

Of course it is. Show me how my proof is deficient. Merely saying that my proof is deficient, does not make it so.

Merely calling soemthing a proof does not make it so.

 

[Limbo]

Perhaps I have not explained the point I am making clearly enough.

Whether the stated goal of these exercises is divination or mysticism, both are sterile exercises in seeing patterns where none exist. Attempting to see patterns in hallucinations is as pointless as attempting to see patterns in tea leaves.

Well, if YOU were to attempt divination, I'm sure it would be pointless.

Heck, I doubt you could even produce the ideomotor effect on a simple pendulum, let alone know what to do with it.

But of course you are ready to assert that, regardless of who does what, its all 100% pointless. Ah, please directly assert that now. I love it when clueless outsider-looking-in skeptics make grand sweeping claims about things that they have no personal experience with. It amuses me to no end when ignorant know-it-alls are wrong. It gives me a warm feeling of hope for humanity. So please, keep saying how things are Kevin.

 

[sadhatter]

Well, if YOU were to attempt divination, I'm sure it would be pointless.

Heck, I doubt you could even produce the ideomotor effect on a simple pendulum, let alone know what to do with it.

But of course you are ready to assert that, regardless of who does what, its all 100% pointless. Ah, please directly assert that now. I love it when clueless outsider-looking-in skeptics make grand sweeping claims about things that they have no personal experience with. It amuses me to no end when ignorant know-it-alls are wrong. It gives me a warm feeling of hope for humanity. So please, keep saying how things are Kevin.

Yarg, this really bugs me.

People ingest substances that are known to mess with your brain. ( nothing against this per sae.) And then act all wierded out when it, gasp, messes with your brain.

The reason you think that your seeing something important when you do acid, or peyote, or hell pot, is that your brain is messed up. You have imbided a substance that effects your descision making process, and then act amazed when you find the meaning of life in a stale Mini-wheat left under the couch.

The mini wheat is the same when you sober up as it was when you were high. The only thing different is your brain, and the chemistry within it. Sometimes you have to step outside yourself and realize that putting thc, or lsd, or any other chemical into your body, isn't changing the world. It is simply changing the way your thinking, and this is no more helpful, or amazing than throwing a gallon of superglue into a car engine and then being amazed that the engine can now produce flames and black smoke at will.

 

[PixyMisa]

But of course you are ready to assert that, regardless of who does what, its all 100% pointless. Ah, please directly assert that now. I love it when clueless outsider-looking-in skeptics make grand sweeping claims about things that they have no personal experience with. It amuses me to no end when ignorant know-it-alls are wrong. It gives me a warm feeling of hope for humanity. So please, keep saying how things are Kevin.

Let's see. We've been trying the mysticism approach for 5000 years now. Longer than that, really, but we've been documenting it for 5000 years.

Net benefit of 5000 years of mysticism: Less than zero.

Case dismissed. Claimant to pay costs.

 

[Nonpareil]

Fine, let's go with the (standard) burden of proof lying with the person making the affirmative claim.

Yes, let's.

...I'm waiting.

In my blog post, I cited examples of situations where intelligence was required for things to be established. That was my proof.

If you think that's a proof, then you have a lot to learn.

That isn't a proof. It doesn't even remotely resemble a proof. It's an inductive argument at best, and a simple non sequitur at worst. You say that intelligence is required for anything. Great. Present your proof. Saying "Well, these things require intelligence" is fine - they very well might - but it doesn't help you to establish that everything requires a driving intelligence. Gravity and chemical reactions, for example, don't appear to.

Can you cite me examples (or provide some other evidence) where you can definitively say that intelligence is not required for things to be established?

Burden of proof fallacy. Again.

The Bible is regarded in many cultures (including in the U.S. and Europe) as a credible text

Sorry, no.

to the point where people swear to it in courts of law.

One, you are not required to swear on the Bible in a court of law. You are allowed to, not required. Two, even if this were true, it wouldn't mean that the Bible were accepted as a credible text, only that people were swearing on their religious faith that they would not lie.

Yes they do.

Nope.

Of course it is. Show me how my proof is deficient. Merely saying that my proof is deficient, does not make it so.

Merely saying that it is a proof doesn't make it so, either. Yours isn't.

I offered proof of my claim.

No you didn't. You offered an inductive argument (again, at best). That's not a proof.

Also the Burden of Proof fallacy is clearly anti-religious, since it skews the burden of proof to the person making religious claims. It was almost certainly created by anti-religious folks.

It wasn't. The burden of proof isn't anti-anything. It's simply the principle that, if you want to make a claim, you need to be able to back it up. It just so happens that, in the case of religion, they are unable to meet said burden.

By your logic, we can say that the burden of proof is anti-any claim, since it requires that person to back it up. It's anti-"cancer exists". It's anti-"humans need to breathe to live". Whatever. The only reason you think that it is anti-religion (anti-"God exists") is because you are unable to meet the burden, and so your claim is rejected. In the same way, you are against the burden of proof because it is anti-"intelligences drive everything", and you are unable to meet it in that case either.

Any reasonable person can see that is enough to say that if you are making a claim for or against religious matters, you must provide sufficient proof for your case.

That's exactly what the burden of proof says. What's your issue with it, again?

Why do you say that something that is obviously true, is false?

Because it ain't obviously true, and it is false.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, if YOU were to attempt divination, I'm sure it would be pointless.

Heck, I doubt you could even produce the ideomotor effect on a simple pendulum, let alone know what to do with it.

But of course you are ready to assert that, regardless of who does what, its all 100% pointless. Ah, please directly assert that now. I love it when clueless outsider-looking-in skeptics make grand sweeping claims about things that they have no personal experience with. It amuses me to no end when ignorant know-it-alls are wrong. It gives me a warm feeling of hope for humanity. So please, keep saying how things are Kevin.

As PixyMisa very cogently pointed out, the sum total of useful knowledge or insight generated by the combined mystical adventures of your beloved, bold psychonauts is zero.

Believers in psychic powers like to say "Well, can you be absolutely sure that nobody has psychic powers? What if it's just one guy on a mountain in Tibet, but he's the real thing?". Of course we don't know absolutely for sure that there isn't some guy like that. That Tibetan guy could walk into the JREF offices tomorrow and levitate for all we know.

However leprechauns could also fly out of my nose. I don't know absolutely for sure that won't happen, either.

So while I'm theoretically open to the possibility that you'll down a hit of peyote tomorrow and discover something that's actually useful which you could not have known by any non-supernatural means, I'm pretty damned sure it's not going to happen because self-proclaimed mystics have been getting off their tits for millennia and we've got nothing to show for it. It's about as likely as the leprechauns.

And no, I haven't spent years searching the gardens of Ireland for leprechauns. I feel I'm entitled to mock belief in leprechauns anyway, and if someone had spent years looking for leprechauns and wanted me to believe they found them then they better have some evidence other than their say-so.

Yup, I remember. Oh, poor Kevin! I have cut him to the quick! Here in the stronghold of scientism he has to bear the pin-prick of a lone woo! Oh, if only he were surrounded by pseudo-skeptic cheerleaders and enforcers of groupthink who could defend him from my unprovoked attacks and mend his broken heart with uplifting words of conformity and dogma, alas! I will throw a few yarrow stalks for him, in memory of his innocence.

It's cool, woo-woos get butthurt all the time around here.

 

[!Kaggen]

Let's see. We've been trying the mysticism approach for 5000 years now. Longer than that, really, but we've been documenting it for 5000 years.

Net benefit of 5000 years of mysticism: Less than zero.

Case dismissed. Claimant to pay costs.

I don't agree, the same imagination that hypothesizes dreams, hallucinations, tea leaves as being the result of invisible beings also allows us to come up with scientific hypothesis. It is the the clinging to the falsified hypothesis which has delivered no benefit. Religion and politics have a lot in common.

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't agree, the same imagination that hypothesizes dreams, hallucinations, tea leaves as being the result of invisible beings also allows us to come up with scientific hypothesis.

What hypothesis would that be?

It is the the clinging to the falsified hypothesis which has delivered no benefit.

What falsified hypothesis are you talking about?

 

[!Kaggen]

As PixyMisa very cogently pointed out, the sum total of useful knowledge or insight generated by the combined mystical adventures of your beloved, bold psychonauts is zero.

Believers in psychic powers like to say "Well, can you be absolutely sure that nobody has psychic powers? What if it's just one guy on a mountain in Tibet, but he's the real thing?". Of course we don't know absolutely for sure that there isn't some guy like that. That Tibetan guy could walk into the JREF offices tomorrow and levitate for all we know.

However leprechauns could also fly out of my nose. I don't know absolutely for sure that won't happen, either.

So while I'm theoretically open to the possibility that you'll down a hit of peyote tomorrow and discover something that's actually useful which you could not have known by any non-supernatural means, I'm pretty damned sure it's not going to happen because self-proclaimed mystics have been getting off their tits for millennia and we've got nothing to show for it. It's about as likely as the leprechauns.

And no, I haven't spent years searching the gardens of Ireland for leprechauns. I feel I'm entitled to mock belief in leprechauns anyway, and if someone had spent years looking for leprechauns and wanted me to believe they found them then they better have some evidence other than their say-so.



It's cool, woo-woos get butthurt all the time around here.

Whilst I agree with you in broad terms I think one should not discount the role of counter-factuals in our imaginative life. This is especially important in childhood development when children are developing an understanding of causality. We need to imagine more than one possible outcome so that we learn how to predict the world around us and of course all outcomes cannot be equally correct. Arguing against religion/mysticism etc in hindsight is counterproductive and does not make for a strong case in my opinion. Its better to say that the mystical hypothesis no longer has any validity since we have other hypotheses that make better predictions, but of course you are welcome to imagine an even better one.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't agree, the same imagination that hypothesizes dreams, hallucinations, tea leaves as being the result of invisible beings also allows us to come up with scientific hypothesis.

Imagination is valuable, sure. Mysticism, not so much.

Limbo is claiming that mysticism itself is valuable; we're pointing out that this is poppycock.

It is the the clinging to the falsified hypothesis which has delivered no benefit.

And you seem to agree.

 

[PixyMisa]

Whilst I agree with you in broad terms I think one should not discount the role of counter-factuals in our imaginative life. This is especially important in childhood development when children are developing an understanding of causality. We need to imagine more than one possible outcome so that we learn how to predict the world around us and of course all outcomes cannot be equally correct. Arguing against religion/mysticism etc in hindsight is counterproductive and does not make for a strong case in my opinion.

If mysticism were merely a historical artefact, quaint and forgotten, then this would be true. But it is still active today. It's still wrong, but it's still active.

Its better to say that the mystical hypothesis no longer has any validity since we have other hypotheses that make better predictions, but of course you are welcome to imagine an even better one.

The mystical hypothesis never had any validity. It doesn't even make sense. You drink beer, you get drunk, you fall over. Try it again, same thing happens. Must be demons!

Wait, what?

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't agree, the same imagination that hypothesizes dreams, hallucinations, tea leaves as being the result of invisible beings also allows us to come up with scientific hypothesis.

What hypothesis would that be?

You need to be a bit clearer as I used the word hypothesis twice above.

It is the the clinging to the falsified hypothesis which has delivered no benefit.

What falsified hypothesis are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

All the ones that have been shown to be false.

 

[!Kaggen]

If mysticism were merely a historical artefact, quaint and forgotten, then this would be true. But it is still active today. It's still wrong, but it's still active.

Yes and like all superstition we need to exclude it. However I do not think we understand completely were it comes from and that is why we cannot eliminate it completely yet. In fact I do not think we can eliminate it only control it.

The mystical hypothesis never had any validity. It doesn't even make sense. You drink beer, you get drunk, you fall over. Try it again, same thing happens. Must be demons!

Wait, what?

Hindsight again. I do not see the usefulness in predicting the past. Its the future we need to shape.

 

[!Kaggen]

Imagination is valuable, sure. Mysticism, not so much.

Limbo is claiming that mysticism itself is valuable; we're pointing out that this is poppycock.


And you seem to agree.

The point I am making is that without imagination there would be no mysticism. There would also be no science.

Studying the idea of mysticism, even though the idea has been discredited, helps us understand parts of the imagination were it arose in the first place
Think of it as studying history without an opinion of what happened. You tend to see more through clear spectacles.

 

[PixyMisa]

The point I am making is that without imagination there would be no mysticism. There would also be no science.

Studying the idea of mysticism, even though the idea has been discredited, helps us understand parts of the imagination were it arose in the first place
Think of it as studying history without an opinion of what happened. You tend to see more through clear spectacles.

Mysticism is an interesting field of study for anthopology or psychology, yes, I agree there. But it is of no value in itself.

 

[Nonpareil]

You already answered my questions in your responses to Pixy (we think very much alike, even though Pixy's much better at expressing herself than I), but in response to this:

You need to be a bit clearer as I used the word hypothesis twice above.

I was asking about the latter use of "hypothesis".

Again, no need to respond now, since you've already answered my question. Just making sure you knew that I didn't need an answer any more.