This thread had been out of the Pit for hours before your post.
Do not hurl insults at other posters outside the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
I didn’t claim you edited it. I have respect enough for your integrity that I believe you are comfortable in your hostility. You have never shown me anything but hostility. If you reference me I am going to respond.
You asked me to take it to another thread. I did, you shouldn’t have talked about the issue if you didn’t want it discussed, or you should have come to my thread to make your point.
mswas, you have really ourtdone yourself this time.
The original post asked a couple of questions based on cryptic comments you have scattered around different threads without attacking you in any way.
Before your first post, one of the two questions was already withdrawn.
Your first post was more personally hostile than anything referring to you that preceded it. Yoiu then went on to post a lengthy screed with a hijack on the specific question that had already been withdrawn before you posted.
Now you are here whining about how other posters are so mean to you after you cluttered up this thread with petulant threadshitting.
With the exception of a single drive-by post, all the personal hjostility in this thread has originated from your keyboard. (This is a pretty frequent phenomenon, here. Today, alone, I have seen multiple threads where you were at the center of feuds that had little to do with the topics.) You need to get the chip off your shoulder, come down off your cross, and back off on the personal drama in every thread.
Specifically to this thread, THERE WILL BE NO MORE DISCUSSION OF QI. by you or anyone else.
Take the Qi back to its original thread–and do not cross-post multiple posts just to show how miffed you are that the discussion is not going the way you want it or misread it.
[ /Moderating ]
This, by the way, is an example of petulance.
Wow. I don’t want to hijack this thread any worse than it already has been, but when I coined the damn phrase “naive positivist scientism”, I meant something very different.
What did you mean?
Cite? The only threads I see with feuds are the ones that are specifically about me. The Muslim one where you knee-jerked there wasn’t even really any feud.
Don’t ask me to not discuss a topic and then bash me on the same topic.
I don’t see why this simple concept is so difficult for you to grasp. I didn’t hijack the thread, he did.
This one was not “about you” until you hijacked it. It was about ideas you had expressed that others felt were worthy of discussion.
You opinion of the “Muslim” thread demonstrates why your opinion on such topics is without value.
Now drop this hijack.
[ /Modding ]
Don’t piss on my head and tell me that it’s raining. If he didn’t want me to discuss it, he shouldn’t have commented on it.
My first mistake actually was leaving this thread to begin with. He called me out in the OP by name.
The contrary opinion is simply not correct and is indefensible.
That’s why I got private messages from other posters who were pissed off that you closed that thread for no apparent reason and why you were pitted for it huh?
I just want some intellectual honesty from you.
Is it civil to ask someone not to discuss an issue in a thread and then to discuss your views on it and expect you not to respond?
I will type this slowly so that you can follow.
You hijacked the thread with a long discussion of Qi.
You were asked to stop that and did, initially, take it to its own thread.
A poster asked a single question about a single aspect of an aligned topic to which Red Fury provided a polite, short, response rather than rudely telling that poster to go to the other thread.
You used that brief respoinse as an excuse to come back into this thread with claims of abuse, more off-topic screeds, and a declaration that you were going to bring all the off-topic stuff back to this thread and abandon the other thread.
Now you are continuing the hijack keeping the thread focused on you, personally.
Drop it or take some time off.
[ /Moderating ]
I would like to know, too, because it sounded like something different than the way it’s been defined in this thread.
And, also, 'cause it still sounds like fun!
Open a thread to discuss the various meaninings. I’d be curious to see yours.
I am not exactly sure what the debate would be. I was just trying to summarize I book I recently read. If anyone is interested, well, I am strangely flattered and would be happy to discuss it over email or PM.
I don’t know that there is a debate. I just find it interesting that the same phrase evokes totally different understandings in different people. (I don’t find it surprising, but it is interesting.)
I think most people are somewhat compartmentalized, they are capable of common sense and rationality in some areas and the opposite in others. It’s the rare person that manages to have a completely integrated and consistent set of viewpoints. And this is difficult to achieve completely even theoretically as we do not have perfect knowledge of nature yet. In any case there is no such thing as a delusional person. There are only delusional beliefs that are held, and it’s entirely possible for people to hold both delusional and non delusional beliefs.
I think it’s equally ‘delusional’ for a person to reject offhand any discipline or system that is popularly considered not within the ‘official’ nomenclature of science without actually examining the evidence first. I suspect most of these people have arrogance or even stylistic motivations. Even if it turns out that they happen to be correct, their motivations and methods are sorely lacking, and in fact, unscientific. Rather than outright reject an entire discipline, it is better to remap the terminology to it’s scientific equivalents. All models are provisional - better to update than dismiss.
This thread is FUBAR but you appear not to be the only one claiming this – that some people reject “disciplines” and/or “systems” because they are not currently in ‘scientific vogue.’ In light of the claim, perhaps you or some of the other posters that agree with it can either open a new thread, or if need be, use this one to provide examples of such disciplines. Specifically the ones you think are being dismissed without merit. And please define what those merits may be.
ETA: merits = evidence.
This is my view exactly. Remap things where you can.
I think a lot of people personalize the idea of Science. They are incapable of extracting themselves from science. I see that a lot. You are criticizing a particular person and they start defending science. Sometimes what’s being criticized is not critical thought itself, but an individual person’s ability to employ critical thought. This is where the accusations of cognitive bias comes in. When you accuse someone of treating science as a religion, you aren’t equating science to religion, you are equating their treatment of science with religious behavior.
I think one good example is Eastern medicine. It’s easy to confuse the fact that New Agers have a hardon for all things Eastern with the false notion that all Eastern Medicine is happy hippy fairy tales. For sure, being an ancient system, it’s collected some mythological debris along the way, but:
-
Seeing as it’s a results oriented discipline, it’s not as susceptible to being corrupted by myth as say religious historical accounts. While the explanations and mythology associated may seem like fantasy, the techniques and recipes themselves are often quite effective.
-
People confuse descriptive experience and mechanism. For example, the term ‘energy’ may cause certain folk to balk, but it’s obvious that there is a subjective experience of changes in vitality and sensation. Maybe it’s not some supernatural force, but it’s a real phenomenon. Just because they gave it some other name and have some mythological baggage attached doesn’t mean that the phenomenon itself is bunk.
You could say the same about almost any other subject. Even in the most debunked discipline there is either some kernel of truth, or underlying real phenomenon for which we give a different name, or accompanying tradition of observational effects.