Chaos Magic

[AkuManiMani]

LOL

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

Really?

</looks around in shock>

OMG -- you're RIGHT! How could I have been so blind!?!?!

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

No.

And, as I've said, when you start communicating with us via spirit guide rather than web forum, then perhaps you can start lecturing us on the limitations of science.

 

[Robin]

LOL

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

OK, let us get this plainly stated.

Akumanimani is not criticising science.

PixyMisa is not making a religion of science.

 

[PixyMisa]

There are three kinds of questions science can address.

The profound:

What is the mass of the Higgs Boson?
We don't know; we don't know if it even exists, though the theory is elegant.

The detailed:

What constitutes Dark Matter?
We don't know yet, though we know that something is going on, since galaxies have stronger gravity than we can account for from observable matter - stars, dust clouds, and so on.

And the stupid:

Do ghosts exist?
Go away kid, I'm busy.

The old saw that there are no stupid questions, only stupid people was never really true even before the second clause was added.

 

[PixyMisa]

OK, let us get this plainly stated.

Akumanimani is not criticising science.

Eh. He is, but his primary concern appears to be committing logical fallacies.

PixyMisa is not making a religion of science.

I do have the hat though, if anyone wants to start one.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

Are you hurt that I'm poking fun at your faith? Oh wait -- PixyMisa has no feelings or motivations. Silly me

Until that day - which will, as we all know, never arrive - until that day, no.

Maybe when you can answer a question as rudimentary as "what are you feeling right now?" or "what were the contents of your hallucinations?" I'll actually start taking you seriously.

 

[AkuManiMani]

And, as I've said, when you start communicating with us via spirit guide rather than web forum, then perhaps you can start lecturing us on the limitations of science.

What were the contents of your own hallucinations, Pixy? Are your memories of them too confabulated to recall? Maybe you can share with us what you're feeling right now? Oh right, your capacity for introspection is so shoddy that you can't even manage that, can you?

OK, let us get this plainly stated.

Akumanimani is not criticising science.

Eh. He is, but his primary concern appears to be committing logical fallacies.

Yes, PixyMisa. You've uncovered my evil plan to spread logical fallacies all over the intrawebs and there is nothing you can do to stop me! MWUAHAHAHAHA!

 

[AkuManiMani]

PixyMisa is not making a religion of science.

He's sure enough fooled me.

 

[Robin]

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.

I would say that they are acting as though our tentative understanding at the moment is an incomplete and mutable measure of reality but that any further details that we get will come through science.

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.

Sure, but it does not therefore follow that every strange thing that happens emanates from the underwater iceberg.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

I would say that they are acting as though our tentative understanding at the moment is an incomplete and mutable measure of reality but that any further details that we get will come through science.

Perhaps that is your outlook, but don't assume that others here [who, on the surface, share your views] have the same attitude in that regard.

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.

Sure, but it does not therefore follow that every strange thing that happens emanates from the underwater iceberg.

Ofcourse not. However, many here are of the impression that the little town map humanity has drawn up is an exacting model of reality-and-all-that-encompasses-it. When its pointed out to them that there is much much more to survey and explore they indignantly beat their chests and tout the sufficiency of the map we have. Seriously, if some of these people where born in an earlier era they would probably cling to the dominant views of the day with the same dogmatic tenacity.

Breach of rule 12 removed. Do not insult other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[PixyMisa]

Ofcourse not. However, many here are of the impression that the little town map humanity has drawn up is an exacting model of reality-and-all-that-encompasses-it.

False analogy.

When its pointed out to them that there is much much more to survey and explore they indignantly beat their chests and tout the sufficiency of the map we have.

False analogy, ad hominem.

Seriously, if some of these people where born in an earlier era they would probably cling to the dominant views of the day with the same dogmatic tenacity.

Ad hominem.

Edited quote of moderated content.

Posted By: Cuddles

When you feel like saying something that isn't a logical fallacy, you know where to find me.

 

[tsig]

“Define what you mean by love…”…yeah, I think that’s about as far as I need to go with that one. Perhaps you ought to go and read that entire talk by Mr. Attran.

You suggest I misunderstand your points, on the contrary, I understand them very well. The issue is that you don’t understand your own points. To illustrate I will ask one very simple question:

What explains human ignorance?

.....and guess what, I’m not actually talking about people not knowing the capitals of every state in the union, or all the elements of the periodic table etc.etc. I’m talking about human identity. Socrates went there with that quote I posted. Everybody (you included) inhabits this condition. It is indisputable evidence of something. What?

I nice simple science question. In one corner we have evidence (you need look no farther than you for the evidence [can you see it] or if it is not apparent there, it’s everywhere else and has been ever since people have been here). There’s lots and lots and lots and lots of direct and indirect arguments (evidence) that directly and indirectly implicate this very clear and indisputable fact. The condition of the life of every single person individually, and the current state of the world and it's entire history collectively is a result of this single condition. So there's lots of evidence.

…and in the other corner, we have the uber skeptic scientist types at JREF. The evidence is overwhelming and has been in for a long time. Human beings…me, you…everyone, are singularly defined by one word: ignorance (or was Socrates and idiot?). Why?....what are we ignorant of, and why are we ignorant of it? You may think it’s irrelevant to all these discussions but it’s not. It’s fundamentally relevant.

And the answer is.....

 

[PixyMisa]

We don't know what he means by "love" because he wrote 7 paragraphs of blather instead of one short definition.

What do I win?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Breach of rule 12 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[tsig]

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.

If you don't know what you mean by 'something fundamental' I'm hardly in a position to help you with that.

I can't see how looking at any evidence will tell me what you meant by that phrase.

 

[tsig]

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.



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".

So you whole argument is:

Things happen, we don't know why therefore psi.

 

[tsig]

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.

How do you know this? Do you have access to knowledge that is hidden from the rest of humanity?

 

[PixyMisa]

So you whole argument is:

Things happen, we don't know why therefore psi.

More precisely: Things happen, I don't accept the scientific explanation, therefore psi.

 

[tsig]

More precisely: Things happen, I don't accept the scientific explanation, therefore psi.

Yes, but mine rhymes.

 

[HatRack]

However, many here are of the impression that the little town map humanity has drawn up is an exacting model of reality-and-all-that-encompasses-it. When its pointed out to them that there is much much more to survey and explore they indignantly beat their chests and tout the sufficiency of the map we have.

That is one of the truest statements I've ever come across. All too often do I run across folks who believe that our model of reality is reality. On the contrary, our model of reality is merely that which our minds are capable of comprehending. Who's to say that we're even capable of sensing all that there is to be sensed (directly or indirectly), let alone being capable of understanding all there is to be understood.

Of course, one should always be skeptical of others' claims, to avoid many of the negatives associated with organized religions and such. However, this cuts both ways. One should always be skeptical of one's own claims as well. More often than not, if you believe you have something figured out; in reality, you truly don't.

Science is our attempt, our tool, to try and figure out what reality really is. Perhaps reality can be comprehended entirely by logical, mathematical laws; perhaps not. Science, logic, and mathematics seem to be quite good tools nevertheless. They seem to encompass that which can be described in an objective sense. However, I've yet to see a convincing explanation of quite a few things; namely, subjective experience, the elementary properties of nature (what are electrons and why do they behave as they do for instance), and existence itself, in terms of science and mathematics.

It is my personal belief that, no matter how much empirical evidence we gather, we will never be able to describe such things in an objective sense. Much like how in mathematics there must always be some undefined terms, I believe there will always be undefined terms in physicality.

The only evidence I have to support such a belief is the evidence brought about by physicality itself. If indeed we are solely a product of evolution, then I believe that our brains (minds) have evolved to a point where we can comprehend only the information obtained from our sensory organs. After all, why would we evolve a trait in our minds to comprehend all of reality, when we do not necessarily need such a trait to survive. I believe that our model of reality (anything describable within the context of mathematical language) is simply a result of our evolution. Reality is much deeper and more complicated than a simple human could ever understand.

AkuManiMani, I am quite skeptical of your "supernatural" story. I do believe that it is possible that you experienced a seizure or that you are currently experiencing false memories. Nevertheless, I have a much deeper respect for you than I do those who cling on to prevailing scientific opinion as their interpretation of all that which they experience. As much as I believe it is possible that your experience falls within the framework of an "objective explanation", I also believe it is possible that your experience falls outside such an explanation as well.

Either way, I shall not fall prey to the delusion that my interpretation of the sum total of all my experiences is the correct and complete interpretation of that which is "reality". In my mind, scientific fanatics are just as bad as religious fanatics.

Irrational, illogical belief plays just as much a part in the entire scheme of humanity as rational, logical belief plays. Indeed, there are a great many sound, rational theories that we now have at our disposal which would have not come about had their pioneers not been subject to "belief" at some level. Calculus, for example, was not set on firm foundations until the late 19th century. Nevertheless, its pioneers discovered a great many true facts about it much earlier.

Well, I have no idea if the lengthy post I have just written will make a lick of sense to anyone. I expect it will draw quite a great deal of criticism from those who firmly believe in the infallibility of scientific theory. I guess there can be no communication between me and such people. But, if I have communicated anything at all, all I wish to say is that I respect your philosophy AkuManiMani. People like you and me could very well end up being dead wrong in the end. However, it is not the "rightness" or "wrongness" of one's stance which stimulates me; it is the manner and depth in which they argue it. For your subtle assertion that you do not believe you know "all there is to know", I give you praise.