Um, no. That was in my philosophy course. And that was long ago and I have forgotten much of it. Offhand I don’t know of any branch of epistemology that accepts “personal experience” alone as a method of distimguishing between real and false knowledge. And the beauty of a lake would be more of a question covered by aesthetics, wouldn’t it?
No, because epistemology is a branch of philosophy, a wholly separate discipline. Science comprises chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, and mathematics.
The statement, “The lake is beautiful,” is not subject to the scientific method. it’s an aesthetic statement based on your personal, subjective judgement. It has no objective truth. Another person who subscribes to another aesthetic standard could say the lake is hideous and be just as correct. For him, the lake is hideous, a value judgement that cannot be objectively true or false.
You can say that the lake was made by God’s intervention, and science could not contradict you. However, if you said the lake was five years old, that could be true or not true through checking the geology of the lake, the age of the logs buried under the muck at the bottom, and so.
Sorry to interrupt, but I just got back online and I had to reply to this:
Aww, thanks, kid. You’re makin’ me blush 
You’re the first person to recognize the reference: “Kamandi - Last Boy on Earth”! I was a comic maniac when I was a kid. Kirby was a god (not that I think he had supernatural powers other than his artistic talent).
By the way, I find it fascinating that this thread has evolved from magic-bashing to science-bashing.
As a good scientist, you will be willing either to show where I disparaged science rather than ignorance born of arrogance which is what I in fact disparaged, or else to admit your error.
Do you truly miss the irony that it is by epistemology that you are even able to enumerate what comprises science, and to draw your arbitrary dichotomy between it and other disciplines? Do you truly believe that your little world is so isolated that chemistry doesn’t overlap with cooking, that biology doesn’t overlap with psychology, that astronomy doesn’t overlap with (egads!) astrology, and that mathematics does not overlap with logic? Will it surprise you to learn that science is infested with politics, or do you naively believe that politics is a discipline divorced from science?
Fabulous. Simply fabulous. 
I’m afraid the scientists are bashing their army of strawmen. I bashed ignorance and arrogance. The irony is delightful.
Luckily, I do know that there are scientists on these boards with more than a fifth grade level of reading comprehension, and that these do not represent them.
Lib - although I often find myself disagreeing with you, for a variety of reasons, your input into this thread has prompted me to make the following statement:
I love you.
Ya know Lib, I was trying to be nice. Earlier you seemed to feel that presuming you know everything was a sign of arrogance. So I started my post by stating that I don’t know everything.
Then it seems like you took that part of my post, used it to mock me, and ignored the rest of it. My question remains:
What branch of epistimology considers “personal experience” alone to be adequate grounds for verifying truth?
Here you go.
[/quote]
What sort of ignorant bastard doesn’t know that a factoid is a worthless piece of information, contextually naked, and could potentially be his own perdition? What sort of moron cannot comprehend that his puny knowledge is of a local environment at a local time in a universe that is nearly boundless? What sort of imbecile is so ignorant of human relations that he cannot get along with his neighbor who doesn’t think the damn atoms are all that important?
The arrogant — and ignorant — scientist. That’s who.
[/quote]
You didn’t qualify this by saying “some scientists are arogant” or even attacking scientism, the irrational belief that science can solve every problem. We would have been in agreement. Some questions are outside of scientific analysis. But you disparaged science as a whole and then lied about it.
Since you confused epistemology with aesthetics in your previous post, I’m not going to argue the point.
Uh, hello? Cooking is a branch of chemistry.
The interdependence of brain and mind has been amply demonstrated. Total agreement.
Astronomy arose from astrology, but they diverged onto different branches long ago. Astrology is an intellectually bankrupt concept.
Again, nobody disagrees with that. What was that you were saying about strawmen?
Any working scientist (not me, I’m a layman)is way ahead of you on internal politics. That’s not news.
Libertarian, I have no idea why you want to fight with me. I said that science and religion should not conflict because they don’t try to answer the same questions. You seem to want to go on an anti-science jihad. When someone wants to argue, but uses ad hominem attacks in place of argument, refuses to stand by statements made earlier and says, “That’s what I said, but this what I meant,” there is only one thing to say:
You win. I’ll just shuffle along and tilt at strawmen with my fifth-grade education.
(Great Kdapt’s yellow pizze, this is certainly a tempest in a teapot.)
Look, this is very simple.
Jab’s knocking on people who belive in magic.
Magic has a precise definition in standard English. It either means stage magic or use of the supernatural.
Jab is suggesting that people who believe in supernatural magic are idiots.
Jab is suggesting that people who believe that they (or others) can levitate, cast fireballs, place efficacious curses, or cast love charms, to name but a few, are idiots.
Wicca has appropriated the term, redefined it, and renamed it to magick. It is part and parcel of the Wiccan religion, and the vast majority of witches do not purport to be able to perform any of the above “magic.” This is why they do not call what they do “magic.” They call it “magick.”
If Jab had intened to bash on Wiccan “magick,” he would have specified.
As it stands, while he may feel that religion is stupid, he is in this thread busting on those who believe in magical invisibility, shapeshifting, or aeronautical broomsticks.
Now, Jab may well have a misunderstanding of Wicca. Call me goofy, but regardless of his apparent anger and rude words, this should have been used as an opportunity to explain the Wiccan beliefs and how they do NOT purport to utilize “magic.”
:shrug:
All too often, it’s as difficult to say “blessed be” as it is to turn the other cheek.
Sorry, I lost a line. The following:
Shoudl have been followed by “It is obvious that he thinks that Wiccans believe in ‘magic.’”
That makes you may sister, dogsbody. God go with you always.
Goboy, read your quote snippet again, please. It spoke specifically of “arrogant — and ignorant — scientists” who are bigots by the definition I gave. Do you hold that no scientists are arrogant bigots? If not, will you stand with me in rebuking them? I did not spare any discipline from my attack on ignorance.
Here’s another part you didn’t quote:
The theme of the post was not science, but bigotry, and was pointing out that scientists can be just as bigoted, ignorant, and naive as anyone else. They are not a special class of people who are morally perfect. Neither is their discipline any more special than any other.
JAB has been so hostile to Christianity in the past that I hate to agree with him, but . . . I kind of agree with him. He specifically said he was talking about
I think it is reasonable to say that two (possible) realms or categories exist, the natural (and rational) and the supernatural (and not-rational --I say “not-rational” because “irrational” sounds pejorative). Now, we may disagree on whether the latter realm exists at all, but surely we are all in agreement that the former realm does.
The natural realm obeys the laws of nature and science. It is ordered and, so far as we know, will consistently act in specific ways, which usually in turn have rational explanations. It does not rain frogs. The sun does not stand still. People do not sicken and die from the milk of a brindle cow born on a full moon (assuming the cow is not of the mad variety). Therefore, if you assert that you can do something inside the natural/rational realm that is clearly inconsistent with how we know that realm works, then it is up to you to prove it and, if you cannot, I may well conclude you are full of shit. If you claim you can levitate – an observable, provable phenomenon – then I want to see you levitate. Same with turning lead into gold. Same with laying on the hands to heal people, same with literally turing water into wine, for that matter.
To a person who says “I can throw fireballs out of the air, but I choose not to” I say: Baloney. To the accusation that this in turn attacks or disrespects that person’s belief system, I say again: Baloney. If you are talking about what you believe, I will respect it – or at least refrain from overtly disrespecting it. But if you are talking about what you can do, or cause to be done, then I say: Prove it. And if you can’t prove it, then you have no right to be either surprised or offended that many people will conclude that you are a fruitcake of the tin-foil-hat-wearing variety.
I believe that most of the people on here would be willing to attack bad science, such as the special healing power of magnets, or the ‘flat earth,’ or creationism. (Ironically, the only instances of “bad science” that came off the top of my head often had religious connections.)
But science itself is a procedure, meant to determine what is true, and also disprove what is not true, by study. Do all scientists follow this procedure correctly? No, and I propose the title “scientist” be taken away from them, and replaced with “magician.”
Therefore, science only should challenge religion and magic when they make claims which are possible to disprove, rather than “the lake is beautiful” relative claims. It is not science’s job to take the place of philosophy.
For instance…
“Praying makes my spirit feel at rest.” - Probably not science’s realm
“Praying cured my cancer.” - Easy to prove or disprove, and definitely in the realm of science.
“Doing a magickal ritual makes me feel at peace and helps my karma, too!” - Can’t prove or disprove it.
“Doing a magickal ritual helped me attack my noisy neighbors with balls of flame!” - Uh, science’s realm again.
Science does not hold the only title for “truthfinder,” necessarily. But it certainly holds the championship belt for “empirically proven truth finder.” If a user of magic claims they can change the ‘real world’ in a measurable way, it’s up to science to see if they can.
I knew I shouldn’t have taken so much time previewing. waves at Jodi who said it better
I’m sorry, I don’t have time to review the thread, but have any of us practicing pagans (we practicing pagans?) actually claimed to be able to “throw fireballs around,” for example?
I don’t - nor would I claim to do so. If I wanted to do that I’d wait until this weekend, when I’m playing a mage in D&D and have the opportunity to imagine doing so. Not try to do it in reality, thanks.
Similarly, someone has accused Wiccans/Pagans of being like “faith healers.” It seems to me that in Freyr’s thread that started this whole thing, he made a toss-off comment about giving the ill person medicine and casting a spell to help heal them. Not the same as saying, “Oh, you have cancer, here, let me cure that for you.” Similarly, I have several health problems that I don’t care to go into here, but I don’t rely on magic (with or without a ‘k’) to treat them - where I can take care of them with homeopathic remedies I do so, but if it’s more serious then I do go see a doctor. Same as Freyr’s example.
I had something else to say, but have forgotten it and have run on long enough since I’m at work, anyway.
Lib - TYVM.
Uh, yes. That was sort of JAB’s point – or at least so I assumed. I mean, I assume the thinking leading to the OP went something like this: “I believe in the supernatural!” Oooohkay “I believe that the supernatural can impact the natural world!” Uhhh, ooookay “I believe I, personally, can utilize the supernatural to impact the natural world!” Nnnnnnh, mmmmmokay . . … “I believe I can throw fireballs and move stuff around with my mind!” Now wait a flippin’ minute here! :: Off to the Pit to post the OP ::
At least that would have been my graduated reaction, and I’m not even an atheist.
It’s been continued over in the GD thread, in case anybody is interested. I found this thread too late to contribute anything to last night’s apparent post-a-minute battle royale, but couldn’t resist commenting on Hastur’s wussy retraction of the invitation to demonstrate some real live magick.
Hastur, it seems ridiculous to me to back out of a clear, explicit offer to personally demonstrate magick to Czarcasm merely because she giggled at your funny spelling. “Magick” may be in the OED, but it ain’t in Webster’s Collegiate or my WordPerfect spell checker, so save your self-righteous outrage.
Czarcasm’s posts prior to your invitation demonstrated an obvious skepticism about the existence of magic and a willingness to make fun of your apparent belief that magic can be verifiably demonstrated. Yet you extended an invitation to her anyway. She called your bluff (I have no doubt that’s what it was) by accepting, at which point you rescinded the invitation because she made fun of your spelling.
That, IMHO, is 100% bullshit. “Magick” may not be in my dictionary or spell checker, but “rationalization” and “disingenuous” certainly are.
Yeah, I’ve been trying to say what Andros did all thread. Unfortunately, I am an inarticulate fuck.
I’m sorry if anything I said encouraged the infighting in this thread, and I hope that people are starting to understand each other better.
–John
Hey, I don’t know about you, Czarcasm, but saying, “…Wiccans and pagans …and other morons. What the FUCK is wrong with you fucking idiots?”
That sounds like an attack on religion to me, just as if he had substitued “Wiccans and pagans” for “Christians and Jews.” But I guess from the direction this thread has gone since last night, this is all a moot point and best left dropped, as things have since been cleared up on this matter.
However much as I may have disagreed with the OP, I do agree that the burden of proof is on those making the claim, not those disputing the claim. And I have already asked once in this thread for a definition of “magick” (and as you’ve listed already, we have several definitions and known of them match) so I know just what the hell is being discussed here.
And you want to see magic, Czarcasm? Come down to St Louis. I’m on vacation from May 4-14. I’ll show you card tricks that’ll knock your socks off, man. If you’re real nice, I’ll show you how to do that “hat-pin through the arm” bit, complete with blood and everything.