141–150 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity: if something isn't scientific, does that mean that it doesn't exist?
No. It just means that you shouldn't do things to make other people believe that it is scientific.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The identification of dinosaurs as dragons is a common theory but I believe the historical evidence for it is extremely sparse. Still, it is really strange to me that dinosaur bones were only officially discovered in 1841.
> Still, it is really strange to me that dinosaur bones were only officially discovered in 1841. Isn’t this a bit like how America was only officially “discovered” in 1492? To the general surprise of everyone already living there :) There are descriptions from the 4th century China which can be read to imply that they found dinosaur bones. The area indicated by these writings is known in the present to have such foss…
I know that magic is poo-pooed and all, but, have you considered that answer as well? Or perhaps they weren't hallucinations, and instead divinations. Calling what the Oracle of Delphi had "hallucinations" puts a bad spin on it from the onset. Or lets not get hung up with the word "magic". Lets call it a 5th type of energy. Mechanical detection don't work, but a number of humans can feel it. Hard to measure for sure.…
> makes verification hard/impossible In other words, unfalsifiable. That means it's unscientific too.
Medicine was VERY unscientific until recent days. Bacteriological theory was unscientific until it wasn't. Psychiatry was, and I'd argue, still unscientific. And machine learning is equal parts of magic and statistical math. Most practitioners in ML/AI area just tweak knobs and hope that some hyperparameter does infinitesimally better.
The key takeaway is that not even knowing the appropriate metrology to engage in makes this a very hard scientific endeavour. But that is the first problem to solve - how do you measure whatever that is. And once you can measure, then you can manipulate.
There's too many of these stories Ive heard from family, friends, myself, and others to think that this area is some sort of a delusion and fake. But what is its nature? Unsure. That's why I explore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, to most Europeans, the idea that you would need to estimate your social rank to properly address someone is utterly alien. German is well known for having different pronouns based on social rank and familiarity.
Two of them, just like in French or Spanish: a standard one and a polite form for people you don’t know. Social rank does not factor in this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> makes verification hard/impossible In other words, unfalsifiable. That means it's unscientific too.
There are whole classes of things that were "unscientific" before we advanced to the point where they were scientific. Medicine was VERY unscientific until recent days. Bacteriological theory was unscientific until it wasn't. Psychiatry was, and I'd argue, still unscientific. And machine learning is equal parts of magic and statistical math. Most practitioners in ML/AI area just tweak knobs and hope that some hyperpa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It just means that you shouldn't do things to make other people believe that it is scientific.
Psychology is generally considered a science of sorts is it not? And it is certainly non-deterministic, and thus can't be verified like the deterministic majority of scientific matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are whole classes of things that were "unscientific" before we advanced to the point where they were scientific. Medicine was VERY unscientific until recent days. Bacteriological theory was unscientific until it wasn't. Psychiatry was, and I'd argue, still unscientific. And machine learning is equal parts of magic and statistical math. Most practitioners in ML/AI area just tweak knobs and hope that some hyperpa…
Are you seriously saying that your idea that magic is a fifth force (which you called "energy") of physics is as scientific as modern medicine or machine learning?
Possibly, yes. And I'm not the one calling it "energy". That's the nomenclature of MANY occult groups. What that type of energy that is, I do not know.
Just like anything in the sphere of how our universe works, I think that there is enough interesting phenomenon to warrant further study.
> physics is as scientific as modern medicine or machine learning?
Why not? Those subjects were too "shrouded in mystery" until they weren't. And even without a rigorous scientific theory, we can still do experiments and attempt to discern this "energy" and come up with ways to accurately detect it. From detection, we can then start making accurate models to be able to manipulate. This is no different than other types of physics.
(As a note, the term "energy" is used by many occult groups. If anything, it appears to be a form of mental concentration. I've seen numerous cases where someone was envisioning a 3d shape, and I or others could see it. There are no good explanations to accurately describe this in existing science. And we know science is ever-growing, since what we know is incomplete.)
Our question is: Why did the Pythia go into a frenzy? The major theory you hear about this is that the Oracle was ingesting some kind of drug, possibly a psychedelic derived from rye fungi - but who can say with any certainty? Maybe it was just similar to the 'speaking in tounges' religious phenomenon, which has examples from all over the world: https://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/speaking-in-tongu...
Maybe it was just BS. Don't write off the simplest explanation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you seriously saying that your idea that magic is a fifth force (which you called "energy") of physics is as scientific as modern medicine or machine learning?
> Are you seriously saying that your idea that magic is a fifth force (which you called "energy") Possibly, yes. And I'm not the one calling it "energy". That's the nomenclature of MANY occult groups. What that type of energy that is, I do not know. Just like anything in the sphere of how our universe works, I think that there is enough interesting phenomenon to warrant further study. > physics is as scientific as mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Psychology is generally considered a science of sorts is it not? And it is certainly non-deterministic, and thus can't be verified like the deterministic majority of scientific matters.
Things don't need to be deterministic to be falsifiable.
Is all of psychology falsifiable?