# Scoffing at the knowledge of the past **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 17, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540 "2005-11-17T20:21:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/41 "2005-11-30T18:39:29Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Alchemy was not an advancement so much as a distraction. An inquiry that headed off in the wrong direction and proceeded from an unsound and frequently unquestioned foundation. In other words, a colossal waste of time. > > Alchemy plays a fascinating role in the history of ideas, but it makes fun of _scientists_ to unquestioningly consider these things achievements. They are detours and accidental fragmentations. It is very interesting to look at alchemy’s role in the establishment of modern science, but it would be a mistake to take its findings too seriously unless they somehow unmistakably forshadow the findings of chemistry. Alchemists may not have succeeded in changing iron into gold or in creating the Philosopher’s Stone, but they did create the basic framework out of which laboratory chemistry developed, including basic procedures such as distillation and sublimation. They also gradually took over the the task of compounding drugs, which previously had been mostly produced by physicians themselves, and thus began the doctor-pharmacist relationship. In addition, they were the first to isolate a number of chemical elements, though of course they didn’t grasp the idea of an element. > [@](#): > > Of course science could exist without astrology and alchemy. I’m not even sure this is 100% true; I believe that astrology and alchemy were important evolutionary steps that led to the beginning of the natural sciences, but agree that the present day persuit of alchemy and astrology are a worthless aberration. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/42 "2005-11-30T18:43:31Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > Alchemists may not have succeeded in changing iron into gold or in creating the Philosopher’s Stone, but they did create the basic framework out of which laboratory chemistry developed, including basic procedures such as distillation and sublimation. . Forgot to add: In their futile quest for gold, the alchemists had to find ways of testing metals and other materials, which turned out to have practical applications in a variety of situations. Alchemy probably went on as long as it did because for all the futility of transmutation and the Philosopher’s Stone, its practitioners were able to provide a number of useful services. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/43 "2005-11-30T19:17:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > There are continuous claims that belief in God is irrational. Belief in God is irrational only if it is incorrect. If one has had a direct experience of God then it is perfectly rational to believe in God, in fact it would be irrational not to. The false assumption that rationality and the belief in God are pinned to one another is the delusion I seek to unseat. Given that there is no evidence for God, belief in him is irrational, even if it’s true. Also, “direct experience of God” is indistinguishable from a hallucination or delusion; believing in that is irrational as well. Finally, rationality is “pinned to” everything. > [@mswas](#): > > All of you have a lineage of thought and bias that you prescribe to, and what I am trying to point out is that mystics and theologians as well as scientists throughout history have helped form them. Mainly by demonstrating how _not_ to do things, often with lots of dead bodies involved. > [@mswas](#): > > What I am arguing is not that these mystics had the answer to everything, quite simply that you cannot eliminate the value of the mystical pursuit from the value of the knowledge that you possess today. Of course I can; it has no value. > [@mswas](#): > > I am not saying it in some big lofty way, I am saying you are hard headed and refuse to accept simple concepts. This sentence contradicts itself. > [@mswas](#): > > Newton was an Alchemist, and that cannot be seperated from who he was, if he developed ANYTHING useful then his alchemical pursuits were part of that. No, he didn’t apply alchemy to everything, or he’d just be an obscure alchemist and someone else would have made his real discoveries. > [@mswas](#): > > There are plenty of scientists who hae been incorrect or who’s theories needed a little tweaking, and you don’t have any problem with that, but with mystics you retain a rigid lowest common denominator mindset and throw out all the geniuses with the idiots. A genius mystic will either apply his genius outside of mysticism ( like Newton ), or remain wholly mystical and accomplish nothing. He may be a genius, but he’s still a fool. > [@mswas](#): > > I am quite simply tired of the attitude where people judge all mystics by the standards of crystal gazing hippies. The only difference is which bit of nonsense you believe; it’s still all nonsense. > [@mswas](#): > > There have been MANY MANY people who have attempted scientific experiments in an attempt to prove these things. And they failed. > [@mswas](#): > > You all are the ones proposing that mysticism and science are in conflict, so the burden of proof is on you. OK. Science is based on facts and falsifiability; mysticism on faith, lies, delusions, and unverifiable statements. Done; that was easy. > [@mswas](#): > > All I need to do is poke holes in that logic. You’ve failed so far. > [@mswas](#): > > I don’t care if you suddenly believe in God, I am simply tired of the superior idea that belief in God is irrational. Too bad, it is. > [@mswas](#): > > The fact of the matter is the God question isn’t settled, and I’m going to continue to go after the evangelical atheists who like to think that it is. Of course it’s settled; there is not and never was any evidence for gods of any kind, and religion has always been based on faith and ignorance. The theists can believe what they want and say what they want, but without evidence it’s empty babbling. The issue will be “unsettled” if and win they come up with evidence that what they believe is true. > [@mswas](#): > > You all simply haven’t been introduced to any of the advances in mystical thought. There are none. Without objective standards, how is the term “advance” even meaningful ? > [@mswas](#): > > Basically this board is about fighting ignorance, and the false-dichotomy where mysticism and science are in conflict is a particular piece of ignorance that I would like to get rid of. Except, it happens to be true. > [@mswas](#): > > The main difference I have found between my belief system and that of non-evangelical atheists is that I see a conscious creative force as deterministic for every aspect of the universe, and atheists do not, and that is a very big distinction, but they are still reflecting mirror views. I believe that new things are created and then discovered by others. That’s the essence of Magick, The Magi go to the edge of the void and they create new structures, but that does not mean they are not locked into the rules that govern the entire universe. The thing I am trying to relate is that at different levels of consciousness you see the rules a little bit differently, there are some basic ones that are fundamental and do not change, but others that are mutable, the old Laws of God, Laws of Nature, Laws of Man axiom. Nonsensical. > [@mswas](#): > > So when I get into this argument all I see is people trying to convince me of a particular subjective interpretation, and I am saying “No I will not accept that.”, and we fight a power struggle as we determine what is true. I don’t think the truth existed before the argument, the argument decides what is true, at any given moment there are infinite possibilities, and we decide which of those possibilities comes true. > > So in short, I think what you believe to be objective is a lot more subjective than you think, and that reality is decided by consensus based upon certain fundamental underlying principles, that it is not static but fluid and mutable. Reality is what it is; it is not determined by belief or argument. If it was, lunatics could do the impossible, and fanatics could make what they believe real. Besides, if you really believe this, why do you claim I’m wrong, if my opinion defines reality ? When you get down to it, if I’m right I’m right, and if you’re right I’m _still_ right. Frankly, your beliefs don’t make any sense. > [@mswas](#): > > The mystic is talking about the experience of being burned by the flame. Except that nobody else can see the flame, so why believe him ? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/44 "2005-11-30T19:26:30Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Do you have a link? Which thread, exactly? Considering Tesla’s contributions, I can’t believe anyone would seriously look on him as a “modern day shaman”. Think about what a shaman does. A lot of times when he’s performing his “magic” he’s putting on a big show. From what I can recall of Tesla he put on elaborate shows to push for his particular brand of electricity. Alternating current, right? I don’t see referring to him as a “shaman of the modern” era to be degrading or altogether inaccurate. As for why the achievements of past thinkers aren’t respected by many I suspect it has a lot to do with ingorance. Until a few years ago I didn’t think alchemist did anything but try to turn lead into gold because their other works were rarely mentioned in any history class I ever took. Though when I think about some of the Greeks and Egyptian engineers I realize that ancient people had a far better grasp of mathematics then I do. Marc ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/45 "2005-11-30T20:04:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > We dismiss claims of psychic abilities, at the same time as science shows more and more that our nervous system emits electromagnetic radiation. So does the south end of a north-bound firefly. I think our civilization will survive their attempts to control our minds. > [@](#): > > I don’t necessarily know how all of this stuff works, and therefore it is magical. Come on, just because you don’t know how something works it’s ‘magical’? Dude, I can tell you all about a cyclotron or a gamma spectrometer and magic doesn’t have anything to do with it. Magic and ignorance aren’t meant to be synonyms. Hey, if you want to believe that John Edwards can talk to the dead, fine. Just don’t expect that most people will find you credible. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/46 "2005-11-30T20:37:44Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > Come on, just because you don’t know how something works it’s ‘magical’? Dude, I can tell you all about a cyclotron or a gamma spectrometer and magic doesn’t have anything to do with it. Magic and ignorance aren’t meant to be synonyms. Hey, if you want to believe that John Edwards can talk to the dead, fine. Just don’t expect that most people will find you credible. You are missing the point entirely. You are defining a term to suit your argument. People use magic to describe that which fills thme with awe and wonder, and dismissing that is just being ignorant and rude, it doesn’t put you at some level of objective superiority. You just look like an idiot. If a child experiences something and attributes it to faeries then faeries describe the thing she experienced, it’s part of her subjective experience, it’s not Incorrect, it’s simply imprecise. You’re the one clinging to the false dichotomy that there is some conflict between magic and science. Science is intellectual magic is emotional. Science is a pursuit into how something works. Seeing magic is to sit there with a little bit of awe and reverence for a moment. There’s no harm in that. It’s not the source of ignorance, it doesn’t perpetuate ignorance. Now ignorance perpetuates the belief that magic is the one and only explanation, but you’re putting the cart before the horse. When I look up at the night sky and think about all those stars affecting my existence in some mysterious way, that’s magical. It doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientific explanation for it, however, there is always more to know about any given subject, it’s all infinite, that’s magical. If you think you know the answer to any question completely and totally you are merely deluding yourself, there is always more to know, and you can’t simply close the book on the mystery. That’s the essence of magic. That’s why schools of magic are referred to as “Mystery Schools”. That’s why the study of magic is referred to as the study of the ‘occult’ which basically means ‘hidden’. Magickal practitioners refer to their art as the “Occult Sciences”. Now you can scoff all you want, but the one doing the scoffing is the one that is actually ignorant. There are a lot of practitioners of Magick out there that would blow your knowledge of the sciences away with a whisper. Go read about Aleister Crowley, look beyond some superficial debunking you read by one of his detractors. I am not saying believe a word he says, but the math involved in his work is quite deep. I seriously doubt any of the atheists here in this thread could find the flaws in Crowley’s work, because they’d have to understand mathematics at a much higher level. What I am wondering is how much of your ‘rational’ thought you came to on your own, and how much of it was bestowed by some article or book you read that supported your bias. Oftentimes when people are calling others idiots for being incorrect, they don’t realize that these guys are failing at a whole other level. You can scoff at Newton’s Alchemical pursuits, but his knowledge of math was far beyond mine is even today, and I seriously doubt that there are many people on this board who’s skills in math can compare to the level at which he was being tripped up. That’s the kind of reverence for the ‘giants’ who’s shoulders you are standing upon that I think is lacking on this board, and a change I think this board could use in it’s culture if it truly wishes to fight ignorance. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/47 "2005-11-30T20:51:16Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If a child experiences something and attributes it to faeries then faeries describe the thing she experienced, it’s part of her subjective experience, it’s not Incorrect, it’s simply imprecise. No, she’s just wrong. Children often are, you know. > [@mswas](#): > > You’re the one clinging to the false dichotomy that there is some conflict between magic and science. Of course they are; they are opposites. > [@mswas](#): > > That’s why schools of magic are referred to as “Mystery Schools”. That’s why the study of magic is referred to as the study of the ‘occult’ which basically means ‘hidden’. Because they can’t handle the investigations of skeptics; like most cons, they rely on gullibility. > [@mswas](#): > > Magickal practitioners refer to their art as the “Occult Sciences”. Now you can scoff all you want, but the one doing the scoffing is the one that is actually ignorant. There are a lot of practitioners of Magick out there that would blow your knowledge of the sciences away with a whisper. Suuuure there are. :rolleyes: > [@mswas](#): > > Oftentimes when people are calling others idiots for being incorrect, they don’t realize that these guys are failing at a whole other level. You can scoff at Newton’s Alchemical pursuits, but his knowledge of math was far beyond mine is even today, and I seriously doubt that there are many people on this board who’s skills in math can compare to the level at which he was being tripped up. So ? People can be geniuses in one area, and utter failures in another. > [@mswas](#): > > That’s the kind of reverence for the ‘giants’ who’s shoulders you are standing upon that I think is lacking on this board, and a change I think this board could use in it’s culture if it truly wishes to fight ignorance. I don’t believe it’s a good idea to feel reverence for anything or anybody, and it’s certainly not how you fight ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/48 "2005-11-30T21:27:23Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Given that there is no evidence for God, belief in him is irrational, even if it’s true. Also, “direct experience of God” is indistinguishable from a hallucination or delusion; believing in that is irrational as well. Finally, rationality is “pinned to” everything. Unless one has directly experienced God, in which case it is entirely rational. You are assuming that just because you don’t know something, that nobody does. Your existance is a hallucination by the same logic. > [@](#): > > Mainly by demonstrating how _not_ to do things, often with lots of dead bodies involved. Induction, lack of basis to back up. Need cite, doubtful that one is coming. > [@](#): > > Of course I can; it has no value. Induction see above. Value denotes quantification, leaves out any room for qualification. > [@](#): > > This sentence contradicts itself. If one is coming from the basic induction that mysticism a priori incorrect. This statement induces that mysticism and science are in conflict, the basic question which is up for dispute. It is up to you to prove that mysticism and science are in conflict, I do not believe that they are. Now that you’ve induced it deduce it for the rest of the class so we can find out whether or not it’s true. > [@](#): > > No, he didn’t apply alchemy to everything, or he’d just be an obscure alchemist and someone else would have made his real discoveries. You are applying a modern context to a past event, which is irrational. Newton must be studied in the context within which he lived, where Natural Philosophy, was the genesis for modern science from Astro Logos to Astro Nomy, and Alchemy to Chemistry. Newton was instrumental in this transmutation of human thought patterns, thus he achieved his alchemical aims, as transmutation is the objective of alchemy, modern science benefitted greatly. > [@](#): > > A genius mystic will either apply his genius outside of mysticism ( like Newton ), or remain wholly mystical and accomplish nothing. He may be a genius, but he’s still a fool. Induction, you are making an assumption that practical application is not a part of the mystical process, this is false. Application is an integral part of the mystical pursuit. You are busy trying to divide things that are indivisible based on a misunderstanding of basic terms. Moving on. > [@](#): > > The only difference is which bit of nonsense you believe; it’s still all nonsense. Incorrect, the object may be sensed. Induction is false. Subject continues to believe that its own limited ability to sense applies to others, will not accept input to the contrary, probably due to subjects inability to sense. Moving on. > [@](#): > > And they failed. Induction once again incorrect. Pythagoras, Newton and Einstein examples of falsifiers to this claim. Science only requires on falsifier, I have provided the subject with three. Prognosis: Subject will most likely continue to misunderstand as these same examples have been provided to him numerous times, yet subject clings to illogic. > [@](#): > > OK. Science is based on facts and falsifiability; mysticism on faith, lies, delusions, and unverifiable statements. Done; that was easy. Induction false, mysticism does not require lies and delusions. The mystical pursuit is dedicated to uncovering lies and delusions. Faith is not synonymous with lies and delusions. Science is based on facts and falsifiability, subject still clings to vain belief that mysticism and science are in conflict, has not attempted to prove this assertion, continues to expect one to simply accept this assertion though claims are baseless. Subject again fails his attempt to understand science. Subject will know attempts have succeeded when subject realizes that mysticism and science are complementary not conflicting. Assertion: It is possible to directly experience knowledge. Assertion: It is not possible for science to prove this, as one cannot be forced to experience knowledge. > [@](#): > > You’ve failed so far. Succeeded time and again. Continued stupidity on subjects part is not fault of my logic, is fault of subjects logic. > [@](#): > > Too bad, it is. Subject still unclear on definition of ‘rational’, still believes direct experience to be invalid source of knowledge. Subject still labors under the solipsistic delusion that subjects experience is only possible experience. Subject fails to grasp the irony of arguing about the non-existance of God. If God does not exist, why would we even conceive of it, let alone argue about it? > [@](#): > > Of course it’s settled; there is not and never was any evidence for gods of any kind, and religion has always been based on faith and ignorance. The theists can believe what they want and say what they want, but without evidence it’s empty babbling. The issue will be “unsettled” if and win they come up with evidence that what they believe is true. Subject still fights for subjective beilef over the subjective belief of another, does not understand the difference between own subjective interpretation and ‘objective’. > [@](#): > > There are none. Without objective standards, how is the term “advance” even meaningful ? I have seen you argue more about objective standards than I have seen you apply them. When you start backing up ANY of your claims, which you never do, then I’ll take your cry for objective standards more seriously. Practice what you preach. Simple as that. > [@](#): > > Except, it happens to be true. Baseless assertion, not that I expect you to back up your baseless assertion, I have yet to see you do it. Surprise me, and back it up. > [@](#): > > Nonsensical. Ok, I have a question for you. Is all reality predetermined and we only discover it? Do we have the power to create new structures, or is it just matter colliding? If so, are we just predetermined to argue this as a matter of course? If we are predetermined to argue this, why? Is learning possible, or is learning simply growing like a root system that finds the cracks in the soil beneath it? If it is all predetermined, is there such a thing as knowledge or are we simply matter playing out one possibility among many? > [@](#): > > Reality is what it is; it is not determined by belief or argument. If it was, lunatics could do the impossible, and fanatics could make what they believe real. Besides, if you really believe this, why do you claim I’m wrong, if my opinion defines reality ? When you get down to it, if I’m right I’m right, and if you’re right I’m _still_ right. Frankly, your beliefs don’t make any sense. Remember the one thing we agree on? That memes rule our consciousness? I believe that you have yet to come to the point of accepting your subjective point of view, and that only upon accepting one’s inherent subjectivity is one able to possible grasp and inkling of that which is truely objective. This is the essence of the mystical pursuit. You are simply making an assertion based upon your experience, which in and of itself is not annoying, but in doing so, you are also claiming that other people’s experience is invalid, simply because you have not experienced it. I do not believe that you have much objectivity, based upon arguments and your consistant lack of support for what you say. You do not live up the standards you expect others to abide by. You simply want them to accept what you believe, without even trying to understand their beliefs. You cannot expect me to try and understand you if you are not attempting to understand me, as we must come to an inter-subjective middle point in order for us to even begin to discuss the objective. You are arguing that God does not exist, and I am arguing that your semantics out of touch with those you are arguing with, and that there is less disagreement than you might realize. You assume that because all of your atheist buddies share a similar definition of things to yours that you know the CORRECT meaning for words. I am arguing that there are a lot of people, the majority in fact, who’s definition of these words do not match yours. > [@](#): > > Except that nobody else can see the flame, so why believe him ? I maintain that you and Miller and Voyager et. al. do not constitute “everybody”. The majority of people on the planet at the very least profess a belief in God, and while many of those are mechanically repeating rote knowledge, there are a lot of people who actually can see the flame. I am one of them, and I have met others who also can, in greater numbers than those who cannot in fact, so if I were to go by a belief system that followed what other people think and defined my beliefs as such, I would still believe in a God because the vast majority I have met in my life do in fact believe in God. Let go, accept that your belief is completely subjective, you’ll come much closer to objectivity when you do. Stop trying to debunk people’s belief in God, and try to understand what they mean when they say they believe in God, because you don’t know. It is not reasonable at all to debunk something you don’t understand. It’s like I am telling you I experienced Respainspurtay, and you are saying Respainspurtay doesn’t exist. How do you know Respainspurtay doesn’t exist, you don’t even know what it means? Respainspurtay is an experience I’ve had, it’s a word that came into my head that describes a particular experience that I’ve had off and on throughout my life. You don’t know what it means, it’s a nonsense word to you, as is God, however, the difference being that Respainspurtay doesn’t have a lot of trash dogma attributed to it for you, whereas the word God does. You are locked into the dogma of God that was fed to you over the years, and you won’t just admit that and let go of it. God clearly exists simply because it is an attempt by people to understand SOMETHING. What that SOMETHING is, is a big debate for a lot of people, but it doesn’t make people idiots for debating it. I do not believe in a bearded man in the sky, but I do, because that bearded man in the sky is a visual metaphor for some part of my masculine consciousness, and archetype, but what I have learned in my mystical pursuit is that despite the face I have placed upon God, it is still not a whole an accurate picture of what God is, but I do know that it’s describing something real, something I have genuinely experienced, something that others have genuinely experienced. Quite frankly you are projecting all sorts of dogma on me that I don’t even believe in, but apparently you take quite seriously somewhere in your subconscious. So while I continue to attempt to relate to other beings in the universe using the vocabulary that I have acquired during my life, you continue to tell me that it doesn’t exist, when i know that most certainly it does, and that you don’t even know what I am talking about, and are making no attempt to understand it, only expecting that somehow you can make some declaration that what I have experienced is irrational, and if you repeat it enough times maybe somehow I’ll come over to your way of thinking. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/49 "2005-11-30T21:29:00Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I don’t believe it’s a good idea to feel reverence for anything or anybody, and it’s certainly not how you fight ignorance. So that’s the essence of it, you’re just a prick with no respect. Duly noted. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/50 "2005-11-30T22:07:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You are missing the point entirely. You are defining a term to suit your argument. People use magic to describe that which fills thme with awe and wonder, and dismissing that is just being ignorant and rude, it doesn’t put you at some level of objective superiority. You just look like an idiot. If a child experiences something and attributes it to faeries then faeries describe the thing she experienced, it’s part of her subjective experience, it’s not Incorrect, it’s simply imprecise. If a child _sees_ faeries, then faeries are indeed part of the child’s subjective experience. If a child sees a rainbow and _infers_ the activity of faeries, that’s a different matter. > [@mswas](#): > > You’re the one clinging to the false dichotomy that there is some conflict between magic and science. Science is intellectual magic is emotional. Science is a pursuit into how something works. Seeing magic is to sit there with a little bit of awe and reverence for a moment. There’s no harm in that. It’s not the source of ignorance, it doesn’t perpetuate ignorance. Now ignorance perpetuates the belief that magic is the one and only explanation, but you’re putting the cart before the horse. Personally, I pretty much agree with all of that. But if you’re going to use the word “magic” to mean “reverence and awe”, I suggest you put that definition in brackets after each use. > [@mswas](#): > > When I look up at the night sky and think about all those stars affecting my existence in some mysterious way, that’s magical. It doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientific explanation for it, however, there is always more to know about any given subject, it’s all infinite, that’s magical. If you think you know the answer to any question completely and totally you are merely deluding yourself, there is always more to know, and you can’t simply close the book on the mystery. That’s the essence of magic. That’s why schools of magic are referred to as “Mystery Schools”. That’s why the study of magic is referred to as the study of the ‘occult’ which basically means ‘hidden’. With you so far… > [@mswas](#): > > Magickal practitioners refer to their art as the “Occult Sciences”. Now you can scoff all you want, but the one doing the scoffing is the one that is actually ignorant. There are a lot of practitioners of Magick out there that would blow your knowledge of the sciences away with a whisper. Well, if you’re going to make statements like that, there are a lot of practitioners of science out there who would blow your knowledge of magick away with a whisper, so there! I can safely say that, because the statement makes no concrete claims but at the same time reflects the very sort of arrogance you are pitting. “We know so much more than you, you ignorant fools…” > [@mswas](#): > > Go read about Aleister Crowley, look beyond some superficial debunking you read by one of his detractors. I am not saying believe a word he says, but the math involved in his work is quite deep. I seriously doubt any of the atheists here in this thread could find the flaws in Crowley’s work, because they’d have to understand mathematics at a much higher level. What I am wondering is how much of your ‘rational’ thought you came to on your own, and how much of it was bestowed by some article or book you read that supported your bias. I’ve read nothing by Crowley, so can’t comment. I’ve read a lot of RA Wilson. I don’t think he’s a crackpot, although he does cherry-pick his sources. His efforts to break down his personal barriers and preconceptions certainly have merit. > [@mswas](#): > > Oftentimes when people are calling others idiots for being incorrect, they don’t realize that these guys are failing at a whole other level. You can scoff at Newton’s Alchemical pursuits, but his knowledge of math was far beyond mine is even today, and I seriously doubt that there are many people on this board who’s skills in math can compare to the level at which he was being tripped up. > > That’s the kind of reverence for the ‘giants’ who’s shoulders you are standing upon that I think is lacking on this board, and a change I think this board could use in it’s culture if it truly wishes to fight ignorance. > > Erek Are you claiming there are people on the board who despise Newton? Look, there’s plenty of approaches for exploring our universe, including science, philosophy, art, meditation, introspection, you name it. And the methods overlap - philosophy runs into logic and maths which runs into science. Art runs into representation, symbolism and communication, which links to maths and science. Meditation and introspection involve explorations of the self and way we relate to our external universe, which links into art and philosophy. It’s all good. BUT we must have some way of evaluating data, concepts and theories, whether they be aesthetic, utilitarian, ethical, or something else. If we can’t distinguish between useful and useless techniques, or ugly and beautiful techniques, then what use are our techniques for exploring the Universe? Let me go back to our intrepid early humans, developing their fire technologies. The fire scientist thinks it will be useful to find out how fire affects things, so he’s sticking things in fire and cataloguing the results. He’s learnt that dry wood burns better than wet wood, and which woods smoke more than others, and that some wood can be hardened by fire, and that some dried muds can be turned to stone by fire. If he keeps at it, he may discover copper and tin ores. That is basic research, and isn’t a bad approach as far as raw data goes. But there’s also the other half of the coin. The realisation that the fired clay can be used to make pots. The realisation that fire can be used to hollow out logs for canoes. The ideas and the lightning bolts of inspiration, the mental combinations of things that have never been put together before. If you want to call that mysticism, or shamanism, or the occult, feel free - it’s certainly a mysterious process. But it’s not in opposition to science, it’s part of science! And re-reading your post, I think we agree with each other there. And then there’s the third half of the coin. (Yes, I know. Run with it, would you?) The false trails. The dead ends and non-existent patterns, the systematic mistakes and perceptual filters and adoption of dogma. To properly explore the universe you have to be able to recognise these things. And it’s equally important to be able to recognise that rainbows do not imply the activity of faeries, as it is to be able to let the rainbow lift your soul. And this is where we appear to differ, because you don’t seem to allow the labelling of false trails for what they are. You seem to demand that all trails be regarded of equal merit, even if some lead you into the bog. I have had mystical experiences, and I think everyone has, of some kind. Sunsets and sleeping under an open sky do it for me. So does snowboarding at the absolute limit of my paltry skills, knowing that I’m on the edge of disaster and if I fumble it’s going to hurt or worse, but also knowing that I won’t fumble because I’m in some zone where everything works and the board itself knows what to do and I’m just along for the ride. And yes, it’s mysterious, and yes, I believe there’s a scientific explanation (like **SentientMeat** , I’m a physicalist) and yes, there may well be modern mystics who know more about getting into that magic zone than anyone else. But they’re going to impede themselves if they won’t discriminate between what works and what doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/51 "2005-11-30T22:20:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Unless one has directly experienced God, in which case it is entirely rational. You are assuming that just because you don’t know something, that nobody does. Your existance is a hallucination by the same logic. Hardly. “I think, therefore I am”. I know I exist, otherwise there would be nobody here to worry about it. I can’t say the same about God, and I see no reason to believe anyone claims “directly experience of God” is anything other than deluded or a liar. > [@mswas](#): > > Induction, lack of basis to back up. Need cite, doubtful that one is coming. A cite for what, the bloodshed caused by religion ? Turn on the news. [QUOTE=mswas] Induction see above. Value denotes quantification, leaves out any room for qualification [QUOTE=mswas] Stop talking like a bad sci-fi robot; I can’t understand what you are saying. > [@mswas](#): > > If one is coming from the basic induction that mysticism a priori incorrect. This statement induces that mysticism and science are in conflict, the basic question which is up for dispute. It is up to you to prove that mysticism and science are in conflict, I do not believe that they are. Now that you’ve induced it deduce it for the rest of the class so we can find out whether or not it’s true :rolleyes: I wasn’t _talking_ about mysticism, I was saying that “I am not saying it in some big lofty way” and “you are hard headed and refuse to accept simple concepts” don’t belong in the same sentence. > [@mswas](#): > > You are applying a modern context to a past event, which is irrational. Newton must be studied in the context within which he lived, where Natural Philosophy, was the genesis for modern science from Astro Logos to Astro Nomy, and Alchemy to Chemistry. No, I am applying a _factual_ context. > [@mswas](#): > > Newton was instrumental in this transmutation of human thought patterns, thus he achieved his alchemical aims, as transmutation is the objective of alchemy, modern science benefitted greatly. Transmuting _elements_. > [@mswas](#): > > Induction, you are making an assumption that practical application is not a part of the mystical process, this is false. Application is an integral part of the mystical pursuit. You are busy trying to divide things that are indivisible based on a misunderstanding of basic terms. Moving on. Nonsense. Mysticism fails whenever it is actually tries; application is _not_ “an integral part of the mystical pursuit”. Failure is. > [@mswas](#): > > Incorrect, the object may be sensed. Induction is false. Subject continues to believe that its own limited ability to sense applies to others, will not accept input to the contrary, probably due to subjects inability to sense. Moving on. Robot talk again. Try to talk like a person, so I can respond. > [@mswas](#): > > Induction once again incorrect. Pythagoras, Newton and Einstein examples of falsifiers to this claim. Science only requires on falsifier, I have provided the subject with three. Prognosis: Subject will most likely continue to misunderstand as these same examples have been provided to him numerous times, yet subject clings to illogic. I think I can understand the babble this time, but it’s still robot talk. They succeeded at science, failed at mysticism. If it succeeds, it’s fact/science because it is then verifiable; something cannot be mystic unless it fails. > [@mswas](#): > > Induction false, mysticism does not require lies and delusions. The mystical pursuit is dedicated to uncovering lies and delusions. Faith is not synonymous with lies and delusions. Science is based on facts and falsifiability, subject still clings to vain belief that mysticism and science are in conflict, has not attempted to prove this assertion, continues to expect one to simply accept this assertion though claims are baseless. Subject again fails his attempt to understand science. Subject will know attempts have succeeded when subject realizes that mysticism and science are complementary not conflicting. Assertion: It is possible to directly experience knowledge. Assertion: It is not possible for science to prove this, as one cannot be forced to experience knowledge. More incoherant robot talk. However, since you appear to be comparing science and mysticism, I’ll say it again : Once something has proof, it’s not mystic; therefore, if something is factual it is not mystical. Science is about discovering facts, therefore it is the opposite of mysticism. > [@mswas](#): > > Succeeded time and again. Continued stupidity on subjects part is not fault of my logic, is fault of subjects logic. You’ve succeeded in making no sense, that’s all. I’m skipping the rest of the robot talk; it’s incoherant and irritating. > [@mswas](#): > > Ok, I have a question for you. Is all reality predetermined and we only discover it? Of course. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/52 "2005-11-30T22:24:10Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Voyager** I don’t really care if you all think I’m an idiot or not. I am not trying to convince you of anything only trying to get you to understand that your thinking is a lot more rigid and tunnel vision than you would like to think. You are using a microscope when you need a wide-angled lens. I never said you’re an idiot. You’re just tone deaf to science (and I’m actually tone deaf, so I know what it feels like.) The continual claim that I have tunnel vision is getting tiresome, but is amusing. I am as overpaid as much as I am because I am a generalist, knowing a little bit about a lot of things. I do have some standards though, which is why I’ve asked you again and again for something from mystical texts that has proven out. All I’ve gotten so far is evidence that someone doesn’t understand much about computers or DNA. You said, I forget what, yin/yang? is analogous to binary in computers. I explained why it wasn’t. No response. You said the triplets in the I Ching in some sense inspired the discovery of DNA. I said Watson didn’t seem to think so. No response, except to call me narrow minded. If refuting bs claims is being narrow minded, I plead guilty. The crackpot writing to the famous scientist who has carefully explained why perpetual motion machines are impossible often calls the scientist rigid with tunnel vision. I’ll take that insult from the likes of you as a compliment. I’m happy to follow evidence wherever it leads, but you don’t have any, just appeals to authority. Even pitiful authorities like Leary and Wilson. > [@](#): > > **Miller** Lots of people do actually take me seriously. This board is biased toward one particular direction, and thus I post here regarding that particular position. Doesn’t surprise me a bit. Those are the people who keep the crystal shops open, and believe in medical quackery. Not many people on the SDMB seem to, though. > [@](#): > > I am quite simply tired of the attitude where people judge all mystics by the standards of crystal gazing hippies. I don’t judge all scientists by voyager or Der Trihs, who I see as the equivalent of Crystal Gazing Hippies from your side. If you’ll all note, I take Sentient Meat’s arguments quite seriously, and he often presents me with hard arguments that I need to go and study before I come back and say anything. I am sorry Voyager, but you rarely have an argument that really makes me think in the way that he does, and that’s why I don’t take most of your “Prove it” shit seriously. It simply ain’t that important to me to prove something to someone on an internet message board. There have been MANY MANY people who have attempted scientific experiments in an attempt to prove these things. That’s not my path, I am not a scientist, and never claimed to be. However, this is far from not understanding the scientific method. I know I’ve never said prove it. I’ve just asked for evidence. Doesn’t it strike you as telling that all the people who have done scientific experiments about this have had them fail. (I’ve read books by Rhine, for example.) This stuff would be really cool if it was true, but all the evidence is that it isn’t. There is not a thing wrong with hippies, but for the most part they never advanced our understanding much. I’m curious about this: if you believe that something is true, why don’t you want to confirm or deny it? Are you afraid that your dearly held beliefs won’t pan out? Do you somehow think the confirmation process is not valid for your beliefs? A lot of people seem to think that if something can’t be measured on a meter, science is not interested, but there are a lot of more subtle ways than that of confirming or denying something. If whatever you believe in has some measurable impact, then we can check it. If it is indistinguisable from chance and coincidence even in principle, then we can’t. A case in point are those theists who say that prayer works, and that god is looking out for us, but explain all bad events as part of god’s mysterious plan. Surely you, who do not believe this, can see the difficulty with this position. > [@](#): > > You all are the ones proposing that mysticism and science are in conflict, so the burden of proof is on you. All I need to do is poke holes in that logic. You love to make fun of me, and you all completely ignore when I point out which logic is inductive. The irony is that atheists have a more strict definition of God than I do, or any mystic I’ve read or met does. You come up with this strawman God, debunk him and then act like you’ve got it all figured out. Actually I don’t think mysticism and science are in conflict. If mysticism makes claims about the world, the scientific method can be used to confirm or refute them. Refuting something is different from being in conflict with it. It is you who either deny or are not interested in applying science to mystical claims. If they pan out science would have to change, and that would be very exciting. I’ve never tried to define god, by the way. That is the theist’s job, but they have so many definitions it does get confusing. > [@](#): > > People on this board have convinced themselves of some standard of rationality that doesn’t apply to others. I think that something this board as a whole needs to learn is that the level of rationality and intelligence on it is not near the top of society, it’s about the mean average. > Erek The average IQ of the American public is around 100. Nuff said. I think those on this board, of any stripe, are above average. On preview, I find it hard to believe that you consider “mystery” a good thing. If two people were trying to sell you something, and one showed you the specs, let you take it home to try, and gave you the names of references, while the other only let you see the product in a darkened room and said that it was so great that it had to be hidden, who would you believe? Science is like the first guy, and your magic is like the second. Chances are the second guy is a con man. If magic is so great, open it up, let us all look. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/53 "2005-11-30T22:31:33Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > And I do believe that Tesla’s work was the basis for the 1920’s Style Death Ray. > Mu-hahahahahahahahahaha ::: unobtrusively motions Fast Eddie to take care of **kidchameleon** ::: 😉 All together, now, repeat after me: “Any sufficiently advanced technology…” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/54 "2005-11-30T22:32:10Z")
By the way, **mswas** , bringing up Newton is further evidence that you don’t understand how science works. Scientific advances are not good or bad depending on the person who made them. That Newton spent time on alchemy doesn’t make Principia any less important, and the importance of Principia doesn’t make the unverified and even refuted alchemy experiments any more correct. Tesla was a raving loony some times, but AC still works. Another example of this is the Lady Hope myth; the contention that Darwin converted to Christianity and renounced evolution on his death bed. Besides being wrong, it is irrelevant. Even if he had, evolution still happens and he was still right. Memorizing f=ma is not the same thing as understanding science. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/55 "2005-11-30T22:34:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You are missing the point entirely. You are defining a term to suit your argument. I’m sticking with the definition of magic as a discription of the supernatural. > [@](#): > > People use magic to describe that which fills thme with awe and wonder, and dismissing that is just being ignorant and rude, it doesn’t put you at some level of objective superiority. When people use that term, they aren’t attributing the ‘magical’ occurance to the supernatural or unexplained. I can surely call the nothern lights magical yet understand why they occur. You’re flip-flopping between the two definitions. > [@](#): > > You just look like an idiot. If a child experiences something and attributes it to faeries then faeries describe the thing she experienced, it’s part of her subjective experience, it’s not Incorrect, it’s simply imprecise. It’s incorrect _and_ imprecise. The reality is that Mom or Dad take their tooth at night, no matter what the child attributes it to. This isn’t some Schrodinger equation. > [@](#): > > You’re the one clinging to the false dichotomy that there is some conflict between magic and science. Science is intellectual magic is emotional. Then don’t attribute how the world functions to magic. The world works according to the rules and laws of science, not emotion. > [@](#): > > Science is a pursuit into how something works. Seeing magic is to sit there with a little bit of awe and reverence for a moment. There’s no harm in that. It’s not the source of ignorance, it doesn’t perpetuate ignorance. Now ignorance perpetuates the belief that magic is the one and only explanation, but you’re putting the cart before the horse. Attributing things to magic **is** ignorance. Mental illness was attributed to magic for a long period of time. That retarded efforts into solving the many problems that cause it. > [@](#): > > Now you can scoff all you want, but the one doing the scoffing is the one that is actually ignorant. There are a lot of practitioners of Magick out there that would blow your knowledge of the sciences away with a whisper. You sure as hell don’t. And until you can produce one, which I highly doubt, it is just another unfounded allegation. > [@](#): > > Oftentimes when people are calling others idiots for being incorrect, they don’t realize that these guys are failing at a whole other level. You can scoff at Newton’s Alchemical pursuits, but his knowledge of math was far beyond mine is even today, and I seriously doubt that there are many people on this board who’s skills in math can compare to the level at which he was being tripped up. I can understand Newtonian equations just fine and I’ve survived advanced physical equations, including those pesky wave functions of quantum chemistry. My math skills exceed Newton’s. Your constant confusing of the definitions of magic makes it tough to understand what you are talking about. If everything that you don’t understand is so truly awe-inspiring to you, you should use another term when describing your ignorance rather than just attributing it to ‘magic’ which connotates the mystical and supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/56 "2005-11-30T22:37:09Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > All together, now, repeat after me: > > “Any sufficiently advanced technology…” is indistinguishable from special effects … ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/57 "2005-11-30T22:42:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Scientific advances are not good or bad depending on the person who made them. You make this argument and don’t toss Josef Mengele in there? Godwin is going to be so disappointed in you… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/58 "2005-11-30T22:43:24Z")
**mswas** , could you give us examples of magickers who know lots about science? Do they have advanced degrees, have they done lab work, have they published? Or are they people who’ve read a book about quantum physics and say ooo - EPR, spooky action at a distance, tunneling, that means telepathy is true! Real scientists hate people like that. Your attempt to validate the I Ching through DNA is an example of this, and far from the worst. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/59 "2005-11-30T22:45:20Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > You make this argument and don’t toss Josef Mengele in there? Godwin is going to be so disappointed in you… 😉 I’m an amoral scientist ( 😉 ) so I meant useful or not useful. I’ve been reviewing far too many papers recently. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540/60 "2005-12-01T00:06:53Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > All together, now, repeat after me: > > “Any sufficiently advanced technology…” Since magic doesn’t work, this does not bode well for a sufficiently advanced technological society. Interestingly, my attempts to coordinate my cable box and DVD player generally succeed no more often than would be expected by pure chance, so maybe we’re already there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scoffing-at-the-knowledge-of-the-past/331540.md?page=4)