151–160 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things don't need to be deterministic to be falsifiable.
If the behavior is not consistent, then what is it that you are falsifying? Is all of psychology falsifiable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alcohol consumption (and production) by monks and priests is well documented. Also they hotbox the whole church a few times a year, maybe the mix used to be more interesting, especially when you have a monastery with a good medicinal garden.
You're talking about Christian traditions, though. This is specifically about pre-Christian cults.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the behavior is not consistent, then what is it that you are falsifying? Is all of psychology falsifiable?
I said deterministic, not consistent. For example, exactly when an atom will undergo radioactive decay isn't deterministic, but if you observe enough of them, you can match your observations with your theory's probability distribution.
Just how many cultures had things that may be called deities talk to them? As far as I can tell, almost all Earth cultures have had that. We're talking about the Oracle of Delphi in here - and according to lore, was divinations (as in Divine messages). So, again, I ask - what's really going on? And this wasn't the only one.
And what's more curious and interesting is how durable groups that do occult stuff are. John Dee was Queen Elizabeth's court magister, and created the whole Enochian system in the 1570s. Of course, this can be glossed over due to them not really understanding science. But we have a magical heritage even way before Dee to now.
And infamous occultist, Aleister Crowley, even said that "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." Those are certainly things to inquire - can we see effects? How do they work? How do they not work? Can others sense them? How do we go about sensing it?
Long story short, I see that there's something there. And a whole lot of other people do as well. Enough anecdotes starts to equal a study. And what's the worst that will happen? That I fail? (And even if I fail, still provides more data that wasn't done before; hence a success.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The constant creation of new words for new things and concepts seems to limit that idea. Only dead languages are static, otherwise they can all adapt to new ideas as long as their sufficiently useful.
It is not incompatible, the time scales involved are different.
Sure some ideas might spread more easily as say an obvious and catchy campaign slogan, there is a maximum benefit to such advantages. “A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work” is longer say “No taxation without representation” but number of works doesn’t seem to be a major limitation here. People just encode such ideas into otherwise meaningless slogans like “Promises Kept.” Soon people don’t wonder what “The wage gap” or “Pro life” is referring to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said deterministic, not consistent. For example, exactly when an atom will undergo radioactive decay isn't deterministic, but if you observe enough of them, you can match your observations with your theory's probability distribution.
I just get the sneaky suspicion that you're letting your biases get in the way of scientific curiosity. Just how many cultures had things that may be called deities talk to them? As far as I can tell, almost all Earth cultures have had that. We're talking about the Oracle of Delphi in here - and according to lore, was divinations (as in Divine messages). So, again, I ask - what's really going on? And this wasn't the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an example of Positivism. I think the primary problem with positivism is the knowledge about the universe is never fully attained, so it feels more like a confused reasoning process. The assumption the scientific method will explain everything someday is irrational. When is that going to happen? With more work? What positivism really is, is a commitment to a bunch of work in the future to "prove" something is…
Mysticism is a not an "understanding of the world" but a way of framing our knowledge of the world and coping with the unknown and the unknowable. The realm of the unknown and the unknowable shrinks as our tools advance but there are very good reasons to think it will never disappear as there are both provably unknowable truths amd facts that are practicaly impossible to learn. > Faith takes over there, where just be…
> In no way, shape or form does the scientific method suggest this, let alone insist on it.
You are right about this. The scientific method doesn't insist things are disproved. It makes a practice of disproving things until there is faith that it isn't disprovable. It doesn't continue forever, but the practice of doing it with another thing continues after, doesn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an example of Positivism. I think the primary problem with positivism is the knowledge about the universe is never fully attained, so it feels more like a confused reasoning process. The assumption the scientific method will explain everything someday is irrational. When is that going to happen? With more work? What positivism really is, is a commitment to a bunch of work in the future to "prove" something is…
A critique of a strawman of empiricism, is not really a justification for an alternative truth system (mysticism.). Yes, there are things that are unknowable, even with the tools of empiricism. But pointing out this issue, in no way supports the idea of using a non-sense ideology in its place, or even ascribing any value to such a thing. > that holds that there is value in both kinds of knowledge No, there is no know…
That's over my pay grade, but yes, I understand what you are saying.
I think that "knowledge" in the case of mysticism is just "knowing" something to be true or not, but not having the rational understanding of it. Maybe that's still off, so thank you for helping define it better.
Regarding the last comment, I was saying that some believe that believing something to be true makes it true, but I'm not so sure about that for myself.
Seems like the author is neglecting the possibility of human intervention. The priests and priestesses may have found a way to collect ethylene gas from the stream and released it intentionally at the right time. A trade secret so to speak. Hidden secrets in religion are not uncommon.
> Hidden secrets in religion are not uncommon. // It's not clear what you mean here, could you give some examples?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism#Esotericis...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I was familiar with my teachers and they still got addressed as “sie” exactly because a teacher socially outranks a student.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an example of Positivism. I think the primary problem with positivism is the knowledge about the universe is never fully attained, so it feels more like a confused reasoning process. The assumption the scientific method will explain everything someday is irrational. When is that going to happen? With more work? What positivism really is, is a commitment to a bunch of work in the future to "prove" something is…
A critique of a strawman of empiricism, is not really a justification for an alternative truth system (mysticism.). Yes, there are things that are unknowable, even with the tools of empiricism. But pointing out this issue, in no way supports the idea of using a non-sense ideology in its place, or even ascribing any value to such a thing. > that holds that there is value in both kinds of knowledge No, there is no know…
This is where the term “leap of faith” was coined. That illustration shows that, at least where self-confidence is concerned, belief in one’s own capabilities can greatly influence the outcome. Do not read this as a rebuttal to your last point; it’s a nuance, and may be limited to one’s own self-conception.
That essay also discusses the circumstances where it makes sense to respect non-rational[1] beliefs:
> Genuine option – "we may call an option a genuine option when it is of the forced, living, and momentous kind"[0]
All of those terms are precisely defined in the essay, and the Wikipedia article has a decent lightning summary. The point is, when you are faced with coming up with a personal philosophy or set of guiding principles, you are forced to figure it out, and science is not (yet or possibly ever) capable of providing answers to those questions for most people.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe#Sections...
[1] I prefer the term “non-rational” here because “irrational” has connotations of “going against rational thought” whereas “non-rational” implies “areas which are not covered by rational thought.”