Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi?

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–167 of 167 posts

Re: What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi?

#161

Post by krisoft »

electroly wrote: post #142
krisoft wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm not sure it's really that similar; the word "officially" here is meaning something along the lines of "discovered, and correctly understood what they were ".

I see what you say. The thing I’m challenging is the notion that there is a binary “correct/not-correct” understanding. In my view it is more like a scale where the depth of things correctly understood grows.

The ancient chinese description clearly correctly understood that what they are seeing are the bones of some long ago lived creature with large bodies. The same text also made incorrect assumptions (for example that they died because they could not fly up to heaven).

But it is not like suddenly in whenever you says dinosaurs were discovered they understood everything about them correctly. Just to note a few earlier mistakes: the lack of feathers in depictions, and the famous nose horn of the Crystal Palace dinosaurs.

What might be confusing is that the word “dinosaur” is used in scientific literature while the world “dragon” is associated with fantasy and legends. But this is just a linguistic difference. The world dinosaur is a portmanteau from two greek words, coined by a western scientist. Obviously the ancient chinese sources could not have used it before that.

In short: Are we now more knowledgeable about these once lived animals than the scholars of the 4th century China? Massively, without a doubt. Is there some bright line where we can delineate “correctly understood” from not correctly understood? I would say no, discovery is more of an incremental process.

Re: What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi?

#162

Post by CobrastanJorji »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #137
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is no historical record of..." is an interesting assertion. On the one hand, it's easy to make and sort of requires no citation because there wouldn't be one. "There is no historical record of Caesar's fondness for juggling." But on the other hand, it's a dangerous claim because it's extremely falsifiable, like in your example. But I suppose it's easy to say "whoops, I read all of the historical records but fo…

“There is no historical record of the deliberate use of psilocybin mushrooms in Europe before 1957” I had to make this claim recently. There is also a shocking lack of evidence for the use of cannabis in the Greco-Roman period (apart from Herodotus discussing the Scythians—and a reference in Exodus).

I am curious. How does one investigate such a claim? I imagine general expertise in the subject is a big start, and perhaps some sort of electronic search for certain keywords in some sort of historical records database (I assume there are such things?), but beyond that, it seems challenging. And then how does one demonstrate that such a search was conducted?

Re: What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi?

#163

Post by mistermann »

josephcsible wrote: post #151
mistermann wrote: post #150

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.

> 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.

Can you pull of this same trick with humans, across all their behaviors?

Re: What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi?

#164

Post by mistermann »

josephcsible wrote: post #155
noasaservice wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd have nothing against a proper scientific experiment to see whether or not magic is real. But the scientific method absolutely requires falsifiability, so if you can't come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, then you're doing pseudoscience.

I notice you are using science and the scientific method interchangeably.

How can science study magic without knowing whether it is falsifiable first? Would that require them to do potentially unscientific/pseudoscientific things not becoming of a proper scientist? If we allowed that, next thing they'd be thinking without dogmatic constraints!

Re: What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi?

#165

Post by dr_dshiv »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #162
dr_dshiv wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“There is no historical record of the deliberate use of psilocybin mushrooms in Europe before 1957” I had to make this claim recently. There is also a shocking lack of evidence for the use of cannabis in the Greco-Roman period (apart from Herodotus discussing the Scythians—and a reference in Exodus).

I am curious. How does one investigate such a claim? I imagine general expertise in the subject is a big start, and perhaps some sort of electronic search for certain keywords in some sort of historical records database (I assume there are such things?), but beyond that, it seems challenging. And then how does one demonstrate that such a search was conducted?

Here’s an example wrt cannabis: https://saltonverde.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/17-Handbo...

Re: What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi?

#166

Post by josephcsible »

mistermann wrote: post #164
josephcsible wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have nothing against a proper scientific experiment to see whether or not magic is real. But the scientific method absolutely requires falsifiability, so if you can't come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, then you're doing pseudoscience.

I notice you are using science and the scientific method interchangeably. How can science study magic without knowing whether it is falsifiable first? Would that require them to do potentially unscientific/pseudoscientific things not becoming of a proper scientist? If we allowed that, next thing they'd be thinking without dogmatic constraints!

It's fine to do science without knowing up front whether something is falsifiable. One of the steps in the scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis. You can go up to that step even before you figure out whether you have something falsifiable; you just can't go past it until you do.

Re: What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi?

#167

Post by coeneedell »

justinmcp wrote: post #97
coeneedell wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well okay, but when the scientific method produces knowledge, the voracity of that knowledge can be checked by an observer. When a mystic convinces a large number of people that their opinions are in fact, truths, that is not a process that can be checked by an observer, and the “knowledge” produced has nothing tying itself back to reality.

The process cant, but the knowledge can be. You seem to be arguing against dogma, not a mythopeotic view. And fair call, religious power structures do a lot of harm.

The “large number of people” could be a full on religious dogma, but it could also be a smallish cult out in the hinterlands.
Post reply on HN