I don't believe in skeptics

reply to post by BlueMule


Beautiful post. And I can only assume you decided to write it after some "pseudoskepticism" was being spewed in the 21 days in the wilderness post.

This needed to be posted!

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by onequestion

 

Being willing to take a look at something and then refuting it is one thing but openly refuting things without a second look, or thought is close minded. Not changing your position or discouraging creative thought is close minded.

Would you ever change your mind and accept, say, that spirituality, theology, metaphysics, and mysticism were all bunk if someone presented you with scientific material which "proved" that such things were not real?

Sure, I would. But science can't do that. The scope of science is too limited. The moment it tries to "prove" that such things are not real, it becomes religion. It practically is a religion. Scientism. Many people who call themselves skeptics are practicing the religion of scientism.

Oh, it's a dysfunctional religion to be sure. So much so it's barely recognizable. Especially from the inside.

The dictionary is wrong – science can be a religion too

Skepticism works both ways. You can be as skeptical of science as you can of the metaphysical. I wouldn't be so quick to point to the skeptics as the ones unwilling to change their minds when presented with alternatives. The believers are often just as unwilling to relinquish closely-held beliefs as the skeptics.

~ Wandering Scribe

Science can't prove there are no white crows. But only one white crow will prove that not all crows are black. So I would be skeptical of a scientist who claims to prove there are no white crows. Especially when I've seen them for myself.

In principle, can you have an experience that convinces you all crows are black? I mean, can you ever really be sure you've seen them all?

In principle, can you have an experience that convinces you *not* all crows are black?

Many people know that psychic ability is real because they've experienced it as I have. They've seen a white crow, so to speak. If someone tried to tell me that science says there is no such thing as psychic ability then I would laugh in thier face.

On the other hand, if someone tried to tell me that science says there IS such a thing as psychic ability, I would not laugh. Because there actually is evidence. It's just not invited to the party.

www.youtube.com...

Psychic ability is a fact. It's otherwise known as the Jungian archetype of mana. Archetypes such as that are found in world religion and myth, so religion and myth isn't entirely bunk. There is a baby in that bathwater. Skeptics are blind to it and are at risk of tossing it out.

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

magical/shamanic/spiritual knowledge is not cumulative. and having somebody show/spoon-feed you the answers at the end of the book gains you less than nothing. at least in the case of academic/school subjects you pass the test

I understand what cumulative means but can you explain it in the context your using it for me please? Just for fun...

He's saying that the esoteric/spiritual knowledge isn't about reading a bunch of text, books, etc spoon fed through the mouth and going, okay it's bunk! It's not something that you can just 'accumulate' knowledge about and decided on that knowledge alone.

It takes proper experimentation, and putting the knowledge into proper action. Most will just read something and decide for themselves whether it's true on that alone, and not through personal experience.

Hoped that cleared things up!

reply to post by BlueMule


"Science" is a generalization. It means absolutely nothing in the context you're using.

Is phylogeny a religion? What supernatural authority does it venerate? What rituals, ceremonies, or rites do adherents to Phylogenity undertake? What miracles do Phylogenists prescribe to as having occurred?

How about chemistry, what God do chemists prescribe to; what rites and ceremonies do they undertake to venerate the deity of chemistry? Where are the tax-exempt statuses for the Churches of Chemistry?

Here's a hint for you: science is not a religion, because science is a broad, generalization. Individual branches of physical, chemical, and social sciences are what you really should be using as examples. And none of them are religious in any way, shape, or form.

Scientists reach their conclusions by using the Scientific Method; religions reach their conclusions by thinking # in their hearts, and ignoring anything which says the opposite. You have no case., because you're not properly identifying the variables.

As for psychic ability; sure. You've had an experience. So have I. I've had many. But can it be reproduced at will, in a controlled environment, by anyone who wishes to try? No?

So you can only do it, in your own house, when you're fully in control, and no one can critique anything about it? Then it's not scientific at all. It's a belief.

Demonstrate psychic ability in a controlled environment, at anyone's beck and call, through the steps of the scientific methods, and psychic ability will be heralded as legitimate science.

As I've said before: if science is a religion, then stop believing in it and make your computer work without any of the technology inside of it. Make your car work without an engine. Make your cellphone work without towers or batteries. Develop Penicillin without microorganisms or germ theory.

If science is a religion, and it goes against your beliefs: stop using it.

See how long you last.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Yeah thats pretty much what was i thinking but i wanted to read it articulate out like you put it. Thanks.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by BlueMule

 

"Science" is a generalization. It means absolutely nothing in the context you're using.

I used it in the same way and same context you did.

Here's a hint for you: science is not a religion, because science is a broad, generalization.

Science and religion are many things. Among other things they are controlling narratives.

Narrative theory says that "all meaningful communication is a form of storytelling or giving a report of events (see narrative) and so human beings experience and comprehend life as a series of ongoing narratives, each with their own conflicts, characters, beginnings, middles, and ends."

Science and religion are competing to be 'controlling narratives' of society. Which will fit the other into its story? Who controls the overarching story of life, the universe, and everything?

I believe that 'all the world is a stage', so to speak, and various narratives try to control our lives. I believe we all have a 'personal mythology', even if we don't call it such, and that religion and science are factors that influence it... and can take control of it. When science takes control of a skeptic/materialist/atheist/naturalist personal mythology, that person becomes caught in a kind of trap.

“[...You] can’t think yourself out of the story you are caught in with the rules and elements of the very story in which you are caught. You can’t free yourself with the tools that the master provides you. You need a new story and new cognitive tools” -Jeffrey Kripal

What are the tools that religion provides us and that science provides us to free ourselves from 'controlling narratives' and to take control of our own 'personal mythology'?

As for psychic ability; sure. You've had an experience. So have I. I've had many. But can it be reproduced at will, in a controlled environment, by anyone who wishes to try? No?

So you can only do it, in your own house, when you're fully in control, and no one can critique anything about it? Then it's not scientific at all. It's a belief.

The presentiment line of experimentation looks very promising. It's been replicated many many times in many controlled environments. This line of experimentation might not be subject to decline effects because it measures a psychic response in the nervous system. The conscious mind of the subjects is hardly involved. But you won't catch many pseudo-skeptics knowing of such things.



That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The evidence for parapsychological effects is overwhelming. The problem is not a lack of evidence. The problem is much more complex than that. Part of the problem has to do with taboo, social structure, anti-structure. That's where pseudo-skeptic activism comes in.

Another part of the problem is that psi phenomena are 'ideoplastic'. They respond to, and are shaped by, the ideas, beliefs, and anxieties of the observers. That can complicate things in an unfortunate and inconvenient way when the issue polarizes people.

THE CAPRICIOUS, ACTIVELY EVASIVE, UNSUSTAINABLE NATURE OF PSI: A SUMMARY AND HYPOTHESES

Abstract

Many parapsychological writers have suggested that psi may be capricious or actively evasive. The evidence for this includes the unpredictable, significant reversal of direction for psi effects, the loss of intended psi effects while unintended secondary or internal effects occur, and the pervasive declines in effect for participants, experimenters, and lines of research. Also, attempts to apply psi typically result in a few very impressive cases among a much larger number of unsuccessful results. The term unsustainable is applicable because psi is sometimes impressive and reliable, but then becomes actively evasive.

One of the most testable models for this property is that psi effects occur against a background of supporting and opposing motivation and psi influence due to the extreme polarization of attitudes toward psi in the population. These attitudes may have genetic and gender associated components. Another possible explanation is that the primary function of psi is to induce a sense of mystery and wonder. Other possible functions of psi also need to be investigated. For example, psi could contribute to evolution by briefly influencing random processes to enhance diversity, without specifically guiding evolution or having sustained effects. Some type of higher consciousness may influence or control psi effects.

But, you won't catch many pseudo-skeptics thinking such things through.

reply to post by BlueMule


You have a belief in controlling narrative, in personal mythologies. Do you have evidence that they exist?

A chemist works with what he can see, touch, hear, taste, and smell. His controlling narrative, if he had one, would not be based on beliefs or personal mythologies, but on tangible reality. The same for a physicist, they also work with empirical evidence. As do biologists, archaeologists, astrophysicists, geneticists, and all other manner of scientifically minded individuals.

None of them put any stock in an invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent force which cannot be measured, seen, or experienced under a controlled situation. The ones who have a controlling narrative, or a personal mythology are certainly the religious and theistic minded; not the scientific minded.

A spiritualist believes in Spirit, an invisible connective force which operates sometimes as fluid, sometimes as light, sometimes as knowledge, sometimes as emotions, but never as anything which can be measured empirically.

A mystic believes in higher realms of existence, where body, mind, spirit, and soul become disentangled and released from the bindings of reality. Unfortunately, all attempts by science to document these experiences (through out-of-body experience, astral projection, and near-death experience) have only ever proven that it occurs entirely within the mind: as a type of dream or mental-hallucination.

Even the idea of consciousness being separate from the mind and body has been thoroughly debunked by science. This is why anesthesiology works. Being anesthetized is not "falling asleep," because then surgery would just wake you up. When we sleep, and dream, our bodies are responding to physical stimulii. To be anesthetized is to, temporarily, un-become. Consciousness is blotted out and you, as an identifiable entity, cease to be until the anesthesia wears off.

The conflict between the scientific rational and the spiritual comes from the side of the believer, not the researcher. It is the believer who wants science to support their beliefs, as opposed to their beliefs evolving in relation to the discoveries of science. Not that science has discredited everything though. Meditation, Yoga, ceremonial ritual, and a lot of other things still have very real, measurable effects on the human mind, the human health, and human advancement. So go and adopt those practices.

But don't try to say science is a religion, which is attempting to destroy the believer's foundation. If you want your beliefs to go unchallenged forever, so you can always have faith in them: then keep them personal, and never ask them to be heralded as scientific facts.

~ Wandering Scribe

"I don't believe in skeptics"? What do you mean? Skeptics exist, this site has lots of them.

reply to post by BlueMule

You should make an effort to prove your case instead of decrying those who don't believe you. But that's the problem isn't it, you're unable to prove anything, and unwilling to put in a little effort.

Yes; proving that you have 'psi' abilities involves getting off the couch. There used to be a time when people could sell their snake oil by talking a good story or seducing the credulous with words, but people got sick of being deceived by charlatans.

If you worry so much about no one believing you, then make the bloody effort. Prove yourself; it's that easy.

Originally posted by rickymouse
"I don't believe in skeptics"? What do you mean? Skeptics exist, this site has lots of them.

I thought I did explain what I mean in my OP... did you read it?

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


You've pretty well brushed-off everything I've given you to consider, and even while maintaining your own 'personal mythology' involving visions of Goddesses and psychic experiences, you demand that I prove that people have 'personal mythologies', even if they don't call it such!? That takes a lot of nerve. They are like opinions... everyone has one.

I'm very disappointed in you WS. With all due respect I think I'll be moving on to talk to other people now. There is no getting through to you.

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by rickymouse
"I don't believe in skeptics"? What do you mean? Skeptics exist, this site has lots of them.

I thought I did explain what I mean in my OP... did you read it?

I was just trying to act like a skeptic. Had to ignore almost everything in the OP to do that. That is what skeptics do, they use evidence that is incomplete or misapplied evidence all the time.

Originally posted by rickymouse

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by rickymouse
"I don't believe in skeptics"? What do you mean? Skeptics exist, this site has lots of them.

I thought I did explain what I mean in my OP... did you read it?

I was just trying to act like a skeptic.

Had to ignore almost everything in the OP to do that. That is what skeptics do, they use evidence that is incomplete or misapplied evidence all the time.

Bravo!

reply to post by BlueMule


What you describe as a skeptic in the OP is not what I think of as a skeptic. Most skeptics do not have an open mind. I have an open mind and look towards new possibilities not yet discovered to explain things. I usually find a realistic explanation instead of finding something new though.

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

 

You've pretty well brushed-off everything I've given you to consider, and while maintaining your own 'personal mythology' involving visions of Goddesses and psychic experiences, you demand that I prove that people have 'personal mythologies', even if they don't call it such!? That takes a lot of nerve. They are like opinions... everyone has one.

I'm very disappointed in you WS. With all due respect I think I'll be moving on to talk to other people now. There is no getting through to you.

edit on 1-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

indeed, apparently the sacrifices performed by some scientists i referenced did not even register within his cortex

he's also making a lot of fuss regarding the meaning of the word science when it's obvious we're discussing science as [social] institution with it's own attendant priesthoods, orthodoxies, and of course heretics

haven't read aion will look it up
currently reading The Black Ship, the Book of Lies [Metzger], and next mantak chia's series; i'll either read aion before chia or after depending on how quick i can obtain a copy.

reply to post by BlueMule


All I saw here was a lot of dodging, and not very clever dodging either. So, I take it you cannot demonstrate psychic ability, or personal mythologies. OK, no problem. Was it really so hard to say so?

I also have never asked you to believe in psychic phenomenon or goddesses. I do not impose my spiritual beliefs on anybody else. I'm not like you, I don't play the victim card when my arguments have run out.

I also have no underlying desire to make my personal religious and spiritual beliefs supersede science and individual free choice. That's something you want, something you've been (poorly) attempting to do with this whole thread. But you can't do it, because your beliefs are built on unsound foundations.

You confuse pseudo-skepticism for doubt. Just as you confused your own desire for spiritual proselytization with my beliefs. But I don't proselytize. I'll never ask you to believe in my spiritual reality, because it is mine, and not yours.

Go be the victim somewhere else now. I'm just as board with your familiar charade, as you are unable to continue our debate.


reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


As for you...

indeed, apparently the sacrifices performed by some scientists i referenced did not even register within his cortex

In 315 C.E. when Christianity became the legal state-religion of Rome, Christians began slaughtering pagans and non-Christians within the empire en masse. For the next 300 years thousands of pagans were slaughtered within Rome in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This mindless slaughter gave rise to mobs which tore pagans and philosophers apart, as well as "Temple Destroyers" who's sole purpose was to raze pagan sites of worship, and kill the acolytes.

In 782 C.E. Charlemagne had 4500 Anglo-Saxons who refused to convert murdered. In Germany between 5,000 and 11,000 pagan men, women, and children were slaughtered for refusing to pay Church taxes.

Between 1600 A.D. and 1700 A.D. tens of thousands of Irish pagans were slaughtered by Christian missionaries because they were believed to be uncivilized. The heads of the men were then put on pikes which lined the roads of all of Ireland, This was done as a scare-tactic, and psychological torment, for the women who were raped, and the children who were then forcibly converted. All of this done by missionaries in the name of God.

I haven't even gotten to the Crusades, or the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the murder of Gnostic sects, the beatings of African-Americans or homosexuals, or any of the other wonderful wars waged in the name of God.

Science does lead to deaths, certainly. But there is no comparison between those killed for religious or spiritual ideals, and those who die in the pursuit of scientific advancement. No comparison.

As for the definition of "science," well, it seems clear that if someone wishes to cast doubt upon something, they need to know first what they're casting doubt upon. "Science" is a broad generalization. When you attack "science" you attack all of the advancements it has made in biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, anthropology, and all its other myriad fields.

So, are you casting doubt on "science" or are you trying to cast doubt on a specific branch of science? The answer makes a big difference. Not that it mattered to you before reading this though, as the idea that there was a difference had never even crossed your mind.

Have fun using a computer without science.

~ Wandering Scribe

Skeptics live in their own bubble. They've sold themselves so they could get a spot in 'life', and will deny anything spiritual or beyond our physicality, almost as if they fear they'd explode or something. Hard to explain really.

Skeptics live a sad, wasteful life really.

Spot on David, and welcome to the forum!

Materialism as failed horribly in relation to Psychiatry and in regards to defining consciousness .Today there is no such thing as a psychiatric facility that applies behaviorism or related models, public or private in the United States.(This altogether is applicable to the rest of the world).

In principle there should be no difference between training a dog to retraining a psychotic individual, based on what we today know about Biology. And in the 40's, 50's and 60's that was the mainstream opinion.

What went wrong is that humans are not that predictable and respond in completely unexpected ways in relation to this model. What went wrong is that staff began blaming the patient of the model for why it did not work.

This resulted in event like giving people electroshock 10 times a week in order to deal with there symptoms,
with no real change in the patient.


Today, in psychiatric circles the idea of applying materialists models to such treatment is considered an absurdity.

To be blunt Materialism has serious troubles addressing a valid definition for consciousness. This despite the fact they insist consciousness is solely based upon, the state of the art, with respect to Biology.

In relation to the matter of proving psi ability scientifically? It is important to remember that a scientific proof, its basis? Is the result of a test of an entire population. So therefore to prove psi ability is true? Every scientist on the planet would need to start testing every human on the planet, so that it would take less time to complete the testing.

This standard, speaking realistically applies to what is wrong with Materialism.



Any thoughts?

Originally posted by BlueMule
Spot on David, and welcome to the forum!

edit on 1-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

Thank you. And as our dreams our not limited by science, laws, or other limitations, we can do anything like God would.

Certainly, if we could undo all our limitations imposed on us from birth, then even in this world/existence, we can do things considered "impossible" at our current level.

Forget about skeptics, let them skepticize as much as they want. They are puny and insignificant to me. Let them live in their spot they've sold themselves to get, and just forget about them.