Chaos Magic

[Resume]

Could I possibly have meant it to sound like that? What do you think?

Gee, don't know what to think other than condescending you are, superior, not hardly.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Gee, don't know what to think other than condescending you are, superior, not hardly.

If arrogant condescension is your beef then I think you should take the time to address the dozens of other posters here who've indulged in it, rather than focus on one individual. Or is it that you find it easier [and socially safer] to only single out participants with unpopular views?

 

[Nonpareil]

What do I mean by something fundamental? You’re a skeptic tsig, be skeptical…go and look at the evidence. It’s all there. All you’ve got to do is make the effort. Maybe if you didn’t waste so much time posting nonsense at JREF you might have some time to actually take stock of the world you live in and ask a few fundamental questions about who you are. Just a suggestion.

Or maybe you could make your own argument, as you're the one who keeps bringing it up, rather than asking others to do your work for you. It would certainly help your public image here.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Resume]

If arrogant condescension is your beef then I think you should take the time to address the dozens of other posters here who've indulged in it, rather than focus on one individual. Or is it that you find it easier [and socially safer] to only single out participants with unpopular views?

You mean incoherent.

Oh and the "others do it too" bit is a fallacy.

 

[PixyMisa]

If arrogant condescension is your beef then I think you should take the time to address the dozens of other posters here who've indulged in it, rather than focus on one individual. Or is it that you find it easier [and socially safer] to only single out participants with unpopular views?

Arrogant condescension is one thing; arrogant condescension when you are talking utter nonsense is quite another.

Oh, and the appeal to motive is still a logical fallacy.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If arrogant condescension is your beef then I think you should take the time to address the dozens of other posters here who've indulged in it, rather than focus on one individual. Or is it that you find it easier [and socially safer] to only single out participants with unpopular views?

You mean incoherent.

Oh and the "others do it too" bit is a fallacy.

Evasion and cowardice noted.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Arrogant condescension is one thing; arrogant condescension when you are talking utter nonsense is quite another.

Then I suggest you quit indulging in both.

Oh, and the appeal to motive is still a logical fallacy.

I thought we established that you have no motives. You've no feelings you're aware of, remember?

 

[Resume]

Evasion and cowardice noted.

Self examination is goot!

 

[PixyMisa]

Then I suggest you follow your own advice and quit indulging in both.

To quote one of the great thinkers of our day:

A statement of fact cannot be insolent.

AkuManiMani, it is your posts that are riddled with insults and fallacies, not mine. I suggest you address the boreal forest in your own eye before looking for specks of sawdust in others'.

I thought we established that you have no motives. You've no feelings you're aware of, remember?

The ad hominem is also still a logical fallacy.

There is, so far as I am aware, no quota of wrongness you are required to fill, so perhaps you could ease up a little? Then again, it's not like wrong is a finite resource.

 

[annnnoid]

Life is certainly much bigger than our understanding of it.

But that does not mean that we have to take seriously any claim that goes beyond our understanding of life.

Especially not in cases where there are things already in our understanding of life that would explain them.

What you decide to take seriously is entirely up to you. When an experience like this occurs the single relevant question becomes: who decides who’s crazy. It can be critical (for the individual dealing with the experience) to know that a) these events do occur and b) science does not know what is going on. Do I need to explain why? These two facts are incontrovertible (however much anyone here may believe otherwise).

Obviously the grey areas are huge and ever-changing. Many experiences have mundane explanations. Many experiences may well be utter B.S. But the facts remain, these things happen, there is a huge range of them, and science doesn’t have explanations for them. It is necessary to open up some very very big cans of worms to look for any kind of understanding. Science also does not have sufficiently comprehensive explanations for the universe we live in or the life we live to ever suggest that it has the capacity to reach definitive conclusions about anomalous psychological experiences such as Aku described. That is when it is critical to actually know that life is indeed far far bigger than our understanding of it….but not our ability to deal with it. Dealing with it is obviously a form of understanding, but not a rational one (in the conventional sense). As the old saying goes, the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of. Strange, perhaps, that universes occur in such ways, but it’s likely better not to argue.

But science has been - by far, by orders of magnitude - the most successful epistemology in human history.

That is not to shout hallelujahs and praise science - that is simply to state a plain an inescapable fact.

(And one with which I think you probably agree).

I wouldn't suggest 'science' is not a formidable accomplishment and a highly relevant system….but that does not mean that is necessarily the best. Ever heard the line "democracy is the worst system we have, except for all the others".

 

[Robin]

But science has been - by far, by orders of magnitude - the most successful epistemology in human history.

That is not to shout hallelujahs and praise science - that is simply to state a plain an inescapable fact.

(And one with which I think you probably agree).

Then you should be able to pick up on what it is I'm actually mocking.

I have, but I don't think that you have picked up on what I am criticising about your criticism.

If you agree with my statement then why do you sarcastically say "Hallelujah, praise science" when Pixy says the same thing?

 

[Resume]

I wouldn't suggest 'science' is not a formidable accomplishment and a highly relevant system….but that does not mean that is necessarily the best. Ever heard the line "democracy is the worst system we have, except for all the others".

Well, are you aware of a better model?

 

[AkuManiMani]

But science has been - by far, by orders of magnitude - the most successful epistemology in human history.

That is not to shout hallelujahs and praise science - that is simply to state a plain an inescapable fact.

(And one with which I think you probably agree).

Then you should be able to pick up on what it is I'm actually mocking.

I have, but I don't think that you have picked up on what I am criticising about your criticism.

If you agree with my statement then why do you sarcastically say "Hallelujah, praise science" when Pixy says the same thing?

Because individuals like PixyMisa have made a religion out of science. The most disturbing part is that he doesn't even realize it

 

[AkuManiMani]

Evasion and cowardice noted.

Self examination is goot!

Agreed. You should try it sometime.

 

[PixyMisa]

The irony of someone posting this on the internet sarcastically, and me reading it via WiFi, is pretty strong.

Indeed.

Guys, when you start communicating to us via spirit guides or whatever rather than a web forum, then perhaps you can talk about "scientism" without looking foolish. Until that day - which will, as we all know, never arrive - until that day, no.

 

[AkuManiMani]

To quote one of the great thinkers of our day:

You should try doing some great thinking of your own. Everything I see you post is a regurgitation of the ideas of others.

A statement of fact cannot be insolent.

...But equating one's bald assertions with fact is.

The ad hominem is also still a logical fallacy.

Still can't tell the difference between an ad hominem argument and someone verballing spiting you in the face, Pixy?

 

[Robin]

I wouldn't suggest 'science' is not a formidable accomplishment and a highly relevant system….but that does not mean that is necessarily the best. Ever heard the line "democracy is the worst system we have, except for all the others".

Indeed I have - here is a quote from over a year ago:

As I always say, science is the worst epistemic system, apart from all the others.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5281017#post5281017

 

[Robin]

I have, but I don't think that you have picked up on what I am criticising about your criticism.

If you agree with my statement then why do you sarcastically say "Hallelujah, praise science" when Pixy says the same thing?

Because individuals like PixyMisa have made a religion out of science. The most disturbing part is that he doesn't even realize it

Yes, I understood that by saying sarcastically "Hallelujah, praise science" that you were implying that Pixy was making a religion out of science - you weren't being that subtle.

So my question still remains - if you agree with the statement then why is it "making a religion of science" when Pixy says the same thing?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, I understood that by saying sarcastically "Hallelujah, praise science" that you were implying that Pixy was making a religion out of science - you weren't being that subtle.

So my question still remains - if you agree with the statement then why is it "making a religion of science" when Pixy says the same thing?

My sarcasm isn't merely in response to that one statement, but that statement within the context of his posting history up to this point. Pixy, like so many others before him, behaves as if the tentative understanding we have today is some kind of immutable holy writ and the absolute measure of reality; as if we've already got the complete picture and all thats left is to fill in a few minor details. While I agree with the statement that the scientific method is a powerful epistemic tool, the paltry knowledge humanity has so far attained with it hardly even touches the tip of the iceberg.

 

[carlitos]

LOL

This whole conversation is taking place on a science-developed medium - the internet