Chaos Magic

[dafydd]

And again, I disagree. There are affirmative claims describing how the world works. That's a theory, and it's reasonable to understand it better and to find ways to test it.

There is a theory that the world is turtles all the way down. Should that be tested too? Should every crazy idea about reality be tested?

 

[Nonpareil]

Paradigm-shifting just means choosing to look at something from a different perspective, using a different point of view and different assumptions.
I think a really great example of paradigm-shifting is Randi's treatment of the McDonnell Laboratory and other similar "psychic investigation" practices.
The established paradigm was cooperative clinical investigation of phenomena from a laboratory science paradigm. As Randi has repeatedly pointed out, Uri Geller and his ilk can really thrive under this sort of open, collaborative attitude.
Enter a magician's paradigm. A magician is expecting slight-of-hand and deception; they thrive on the acknowledgment that human perception can be fooled. Shift a Geller experiment into a magician's paradigm, where witnessed phenomena are suspect rather than the rock-solid basis of analysis, and where the "psychic" is generally viewed with skepticism rather than acceptance, and his abilities evaporate. The assumptions and point of view are different, so the conclusions are different as well.

I think AvalonXQ is getting attacked a little unfairly here. I don't think he's saying that he believes in this stuff, just that that's what people who do believe in it think.

And correct me if I'm wrong, Avalon.

The underlying perception of magickal practice, as I understand it, is that not just the facts we can determine from observation but the fundamental realities of the world are paradigm-based. Your perception of the world can have a direct impact on what occurs in the world, and by viewing reality in a fundamentally altered way you can alter reality itself.
This particular belief is exceptionally hard to properly test under controlled conditions, since the existence of a skeptical observer actually alters the conditions.

Yes. This is called the sheep-goat effect, whether or not you believe the magical explanation of it or not. For whatever reason, believers in psi tend to do better in psi experiments than non-believers.

Believers in psi (or chaos magic, or whatever the flavor-of-the-month term for it is) are quick to use this to explain why skeptics never get any confirmation of psi in their experiments, as well as why believers do get confirmation. They say that it's because their paradigm makes it work better for them.

Of course, a simpler solution is that they're simply suffering from confirmation bias, but of course they refuse to admit this. Most of their studies can be shown to have flaws, and the rest don't pass the replication test (though, of course, you get more cries of "goat effect" when this happens).

It actually should be possible to test for this, though. Just have a group of believers carry out an experiment framed by skeptics while video-taping and otherwise recording all the procedures. Then have it replicated to the point where we know that it works, presumably by more groups of believers.

The key point here is the recordings. That way, we can make sure that objectivity is maintained even while the sheep-goat effect is negated.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is a theory that the world is turtles all the way down. Should that be tested too? Should every crazy idea about reality be tested?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't see why not. Fortunately, most of them are trivially easy to test - and to disprove. Like the "turtles all the way down" one. We have sent people into space. No turtles.

 

[dafydd]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't see why not. Fortunately, most of them are trivially easy to test - and to disprove. Like the "turtles all the way down" one. We have sent people into space. No turtles.

We have also tested pyschics. No pyschics.

 

[Resume]

Of course, a simpler solution is that they're simply suffering from confirmation bias, but of course they refuse to admit this.

And applying the razor belonging to William of Ockham . . . we have our answer.

 

[Nonpareil]

We have also tested pyschics. No pyschics.

Agreed.

And applying the razor belonging to William of Ockham . . . we have our answer.

And agreed again.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course, the people who can recognise incontrovertible evidence when they're slapped in the face with it usually aren't the ones posing the crazy ideas in the first place.

Is there any such thing as chaos magic?

No. That's really stupid contrary to all scientific theory and all available evidence.

And yet, here's this thread.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Of course, the people who can recognise incontrovertible evidence when they're slapped in the face with it usually aren't the ones posing the crazy ideas in the first place.

True, but there are exceptions, Edzard Ernst for example. One of the problems with the Sheep/Goat idea is that it presumes that believers can't perform trials that stand up to examination.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't see why not. Fortunately, most of them are trivially easy to test - and to disprove. Like the "turtles all the way down" one. We have sent people into space. No turtles.

But there are an infinite number of these stories (let's not call them theories, because they aren't) and we cannot test them all. They, in this case the chaos magicians, first have to demonstrate that there are phenomena to explain.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course, the people who can recognise incontrovertible evidence when they're slapped in the face with it usually aren't the ones posing the crazy ideas in the first place.

True, but there are exceptions, Edzard Ernst for example.

Yes, very good counterexample. And Susan Blackmore too.

One of the problems with the Sheep/Goat idea is that it presumes that believers can't perform trials that stand up to examination.

Well, statistically...

 

[Nonpareil]

But there are an infinite number of these stories (let's not call them theories, because they aren't) and we cannot test them all.

Hence the burden of proof. If they cannot meet the burden of proof, it's essentially disproven. Until they present some evidence, that is.

They, in this case the chaos magicians, first have to demonstrate that there are phenomena to explain.

Exactly.

 

[Sledge]

Come on, Limbo. Come on, AkuManiMani. Let's get some demonstration going here. Read my mind. Tell us exactly what you can do and we'll demonstrate it to everyone. Can you tell what object I'm holding at a given moment? Can you read my mind to know why I still hate a teacher I had during my first year at primary school? Can you tell what clothes I'm wearing right now? Let's get some clear parameters on what you can do with chaos magic and show everyone that it works.

Unless of course it doesn't work. 'Cos then, obviously, you wouldn't want to do any such demonstration. But that can't be the case after all the word play you've indulged in, right?

 

[dlorde]

And applying the razor belonging to William of Ockham . . . we have our answer.

Shaved psychics?

 

[dafydd]

Come on, Limbo. Come on, AkuManiMani. Let's get some demonstration going here. Read my mind. Tell us exactly what you can do and we'll demonstrate it to everyone. Can you tell what object I'm holding at a given moment? Can you read my mind to know why I still hate a teacher I had during my first year at primary school? Can you tell what clothes I'm wearing right now? Let's get some clear parameters on what you can do with chaos magic and show everyone that it works.

Unless of course it doesn't work. 'Cos then, obviously, you wouldn't want to do any such demonstration. But that can't be the case after all the word play you've indulged in, right?

Yes,let's get back on topic,and ignore AkuManimani's sidetracks. Bring it on,let's see chaos magic in action.

 

[tsig]

Of course, the people who can recognise incontrovertible evidence when they're slapped in the face with it usually aren't the ones posing the crazy ideas in the first place.

True, but there are exceptions, Edzard Ernst for example. One of the problems with the Sheep/Goat idea is that it presumes that believers can't perform trials that stand up to examination.

Seems to me that it also presumes what it is supposed to explain. It presumes there are paranormal powers to explain why you can't test for paranormal powers.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Wow, you guys don't waste any time to jumping right back to your self-congratulatory circlej**k, do ya? What a joke

 

[PixyMisa]

I take it you're not going to be presenting any evidence then?

 

[Sledge]

Of course, I realise that AkuManiMani may not share Limbo's views on chaos magic. So, Aku, just tell us what chaos magic can do and we'll crack on with that demonstration. It'll certainly shut all those close-minded skeptics up when you show them what chaos magic can do.

 

[tsig]

Wow, you guys don't waste any time to jumping right back to your self-congratulatory circlej**k, do ya? What a joke

I don't see any argument there.

 

[tsig]

Of course, I realise that AkuManiMani may not share Limbo's views on chaos magic. So, Aku, just tell us what chaos magic can do and we'll crack on with that demonstration. It'll certainly shut all those close-minded skeptics up when you show them what chaos magic can do.

Seems it can make you hear voices in your head other than that I'm .