I would love for someone to prove the existence of the supernatural world, I really really would. I find it fascinating, but I'm a natural cynic.
I'm not even sure if I believe hypnosis works, because I've never been hypnotised.
Astrology Page 9
Quote: deckard @ February 9 2011, 4:51 PM GMTThat is absolutely not the point I was making (not to mention what you call philosophical pap, philosophers would call Aristotle).
Merely trying to shed some light on why certain conceptions get irrational acceptance while others get irrationally rejected.
Yes, there are a lot of words, and perhaps this wasn't the forum for it, but the limen between the supernatural world and the physical world is something I have thought a lot about (actually have about 40,000 words written on the subject).
I believe that it is possible to prove the existence of the supernatural world, but that proof would take quite a few more words. So it might not be find a receptive audience here.
You start to remind of every fundamentalist of every faith I've ever met (and they're far too many)
start with an irrational point, then obscure it. Then bury it under reams of words, books and bullshit no one else will ever read.
Then declare you don't understand me you haven't read what I've read.
Bet Russell Grant's made a few bob out of this astrology lark.
Quote: sootyj @ February 9 2011, 5:39 PM GMTYou start to remind of every fundamentalist of every faith I've ever met (and they're far too many)
start with an irrational point, then obscure it. Then bury it under reams of words, books and bullshit no one else will ever read.
Then declare you don't understand me you haven't read what I've read.
I admire the way you fling ad hominem without even a hint of how juicy the irony. Fundamentalists of every faith, huh? 
I am a fundamentalist, if by that you mean that I believe in the fundamentals of philosophy and well-thought-out rhetoric.
You project an 'irrational starting point' on my argument because of a few buzz words that you think define it, all the while failing to even trying to grasp the actual starting point.
I apologize for obscuring my irrationality with multi-syllabic words, not to mention books and bullshit (not sure if my professors at the University of Chicago would agree that Einstein and Aristotle are quite so worthy of being ignored as you. Nice alliteration, though).
I do hope it will be noted that the I am not the one getting worked up, amused maybe, but not worked up.
I don't mind if you want to purposely misinterpret what I have to say, but I don't think that you can sit there stewing in your frustration and continue to hold the air of reason when you refuse to even engage my argument.
tl;dnr
Quote: deckard @ February 9 2011, 4:35 PM GMTI have a couple of bones to pick with this.
First, I don't believe that the world is flat, nor do I believe in burning witches and to insert those examples into the conversation verges on a straw man.
Second, the scientific method can neither prove or disprove anything. It is a form of inductive reasoning which is no more logical than believing in a flat earth.
Any 'proof' that comes from the scientific method tells one only what would happen in a certain place in a certain time. The scientific method is a very useful tool in understanding how the natural world works, but it cannot establish anything like a Natural Law.
For example, the 'law' of gravitation. If I were to go up on my balcony and drop a football off the ledge 100 times and the football falls to the ground 100 times the law of gravitation says that the football will fall in the same manner on the 101 time. However, even if I were to drop it 1000 times or 1,000,000 times, there is no logical argument for the ball falling on the next attempt. Logically, we have just shown that on the last 1,000,000 times the ball fell.
The Materialists would defer to the law of gravitation, but there is no such thing and Einstein admits as much in his General Theory of Relativity.
He, like all materialists, approach the phenomena with the presupposition that there are no supernatural phenomena and therefore there must be a natural explanation for gravity, which he equates to the electromagnetic phenomenon: "...we have come to regard action at a distance as a process impossible without the intervention of some intermediary medium." (Chapter 19: The Gravitational Field)
Einstein admits that the Materialist (the scientist) is constrained to "imagine...that the magnet always calls into being something physically real in the space around it" that thing being the magnetic field. So Einstein says that because we are not allowed to believe in faeries that magically make objects fall to the ground, we must invent a natural process by which this happens and he declines to discuss the justification for this "incidental conception, which is indeed a somewhat arbitrary one."
The Materialist will tell you that gravitation is immutable, a law. Einstein admits that it is an arbitrary, incidental conception.
Now getting back to "proof" that Materialists use as their trump card. Since the scientific method can only inductively tell me what happened in a certain place at a certain time, it takes a certain amount of faith to imagine that this pattern creates a Natural Law.
Sure, it is relatively easy to respect gravity, and I don't deny it. But there is a logical suspension of reality that ones has to erect to place such blind faith in the apparatus of the scientific method. Chesterton argues, much more charmingly than myself, in chapter 4 of Orthodoxy, "The Ethics of Elfland" how similar it is to those who irrationally believe in magic and faeries.
I can already hear the retort "I would much rather put my faith in the arbitrary, incidental conception that is gravity than in the irrational, superstitious belief in the supernatural." I too would wager much more on the possibility that there is some physical explanation for the phenomenon of gravity than there is for astrology, but that is because I have thought a lot more about gravity than I have astrology. If I were to spend some time thinking about astrology, perhaps I would reject it as hocus pocus.
My problem is that most Materialists who put their faith in such incidental conceptions that spring from inductive reasoning neither think about why they believe in gravitation or disbelieve in astrology, and yet they reject astrology without another thought, because that is what they are told, while accepting gravitation without another thought, also because that is what they are told.
I am not claiming that any knowledge that comes from the scientific method must be rejected because it requires a logical leap of faith. To do so would result in hyper-skepticism in which nothing could be believed.
This is why I consider myself a 'credulous skeptic'. I am actually quite skeptical about fantastic claims, but I realize that I cannot reject them outright without placing my faith in something.
I have had numerous discussions with students of the hard sciences about why they believe in a certain conception for the birth of the universe or the descent of man. Regardless of their ability answer logically, they will usually claim that very smart men with advanced degrees have submitted their work to peer-reviewed journals not to mention that they base their results on falsifiable claims. When I ask if they have looked at the test results themselves or seen the experiments performed, they usually admit that they have not. When asked how they can put their faith in a process in which they have no first-hand experience they fall back on the falsifiability of the experiments. If I tell them that their scientific method is based on a logical leap of faith, they can do nothing but admit that their proof has no more grounding in reason than the astrologers.
So it all comes down to how much faith you put in inductive reasoning as well as your beliefs on the fullness of the corpus of scientific knowledge. I am willing to put a lot of faith in the conception of gravity as well as many other conceptions arrived at through the scientific method, but those are generally conceptions that are more 'near' to us than conceptions about the universe in its entirety. The more removed the conception is from our tiny place in the universe (or is it a multi-verse?) the more skeptical I am. What is scary is the amount of faith the materialist is willing to put into it does not waver and when someone like myself questions them and their logic they result to even more irrational ad hominem attacks on my "irrational superstitions".
This is what I believe and I believe that I am right. If I am not, prove it. I am more than willing to listen with an open mind!
Quote: Griff @ February 9 2011, 6:14 PM GMTThey have universities in America now?
they tend to be used more as shooting rangs
Quote: deckard @ February 9 2011, 4:35 PM GMTWhen asked how they can put their faith in a process in which they have no first-hand experience they fall back on the falsifiability of the experiments. If I tell them that their scientific method is based on a logical leap of faith, they can do nothing but admit that their proof has no more grounding in reason than the astrologers.
I've had first-hand experience in astrology and gravity. The horoscopes that I've written were mostly nonsense, apart from those tailored to certain individuals (op. cit. The Great Zaganza), so I've just consulted three online horoscopes for today to see if they are real. One says: "You are apt to be rather attractive and appealing, particularly at the work place." I'm taking today off work to go to a garage for repairs to my car, so how am I going to be attractive in the work place? Are the mechanics going to fancy me? Then there's: "Family cooperation is poor" - which is bollocks, as my sister is lending me her car while mine's out of action.
My experience with gravity occurred several years ago when I was doing renovations to the penthouse level of an apartment building and knocked a hammer off a ledge. It came perilously close to landing on a girl walking underneath. I'm not believing it because someone told me to, I've seen it in action. No leaping of faith there.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 9 2011, 9:15 PM GMTI could cite several more well documented cases of astrology correctly predicting momentous events,
Can you show us the predictions for forthcoming events, so that we can wait to see how many of them come true?
Quote: Nogget @ February 10 2011, 6:55 AM GMTCan you show us the predictions for forthcoming events, so that we can wait to see how many of them come true?
I'm still hoping the Mayans are right about the world ending next year. Like in the film. But less boringly.
I predict that responses to this post will serve to disprove my prediction.
Quote: chipolata @ February 10 2011, 8:08 AM GMTI'm still hoping the Mayans are right about the world ending next year. Like in the film. But less boringly.
Isn't it just a case that their calander only goes up to 2012, rather than them actually predicting the end of the world?
Quote: Nat Wicks @ February 10 2011, 10:47 AM GMTIsn't it just a case that their calander only goes up to 2012, rather than them actually predicting the end of the world?
I believe it's something like that.
Nice talk about things like astrology
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 9 2011, 9:15 PM GMTIt seems to be cool to take such closed minded approach to a 'science' or practice that's been well established for at least 3 thousand years.
Oh yeah, it's super cool to do that . . . 
Quote: Nat Wicks @ February 10 2011, 10:47 AM GMTIsn't it just a case that their calander only goes up to 2012, rather than them actually predicting the end of the world?
You even suck the fun out of armegeddon, Wicks!
Quote: chipolata @ February 10 2011, 11:01 AM GMTYou even suck the fun out of armegeddon, Wicks!
You could always have your own little armageddon, with a little careful stockpiling. Go on, I'd love to see you on the news, having gone mental.