Are you paying attention? The problem is on insulting others, not on who is losing or winning the debate. As I find cites and he/she ignores them (her last reply showed mswas did not bother to check the last cite I showed him/her) I know who is winning.
I did notice that mswas asked someone, like me, to tell you that you weren’t being a proper skeptic. Rather than say something there that might lead to flaming and further uselessness, I’ll just take the opportunity to say that, no offense ot either of you meant, I couldn’t be arsed to follow your back-and-forth :). I have no idea what issues y’all were arguing (although the few excerpts I noticed tended to make me think mswas has her specific facts wrong). So I can’t oblige mswas, nor can I say that I think your understanding of skepticism far surpasses hers, even though I saw more mistakes in her writing than in yours.
I’m sure y’all were waiting with bated breath for that highly important announcement!
No problem, as I said early to **mswas ** I was indeed running rough shot like Galileo over the mystic examples presented to figure our what exactly he/she was coming from, so far AFAICT mswas seems to agree that science is the best way to figure out things, but then he/she brings examples that did not follow (Newton’s alchemy was not useful for the development of chemistry) or examples that actually show mystics are NOT doing something with the science of today.
To me it is more important to base skepticism in up-to-date information.
It Is going to take longer than we thought.
But let us not forget that I am pitting **mswas ** for being insulting and not following what s/he preaches.
I thought i saw something in that thread in which mswas confirmed his/her femininity. My apologies if I misunderstood.
As for the issue of whether Newton’s alchemical studies helped advanced chemistry (if I even understand the issue), it seems to me that alchemy in general is properly seen as a precursor to modern chemistry, and that its practitioners discovered important principles, even if they didn’t always understand why.
This site suggests that most of the ancient Western and Asian civilizations practiced alchemy in some form. The creation of strong acetic acid, the discovery of quicksilver as an independent metal, the formulation of gunpowder and Greek fire–weren’t these all alchemical advances?
At the same time, that doesn’t mean that the alchemical understanding of the underlying mechanisms was valid. I can drive my car quite well, despite believing that its powered by a team of hardworking squirrels under the hood; I can’t prove the squirrels’ existence by barrelling down Main Street, nor can you point to my speedy car as evidence of rodentine engines.
Can you elaborate on what you see as the implications of this? His taking the second road doesn’t seem especially significant to me, but I’m guessing that you’re saying it’s part of a larger trend or something. (If you’ve already made this argument exhaustively in GD, I’ll certainly understand if you don’t want to repeat it, although a link to a post that lays the argument out would be cool).
Actually all I was asking for, was that you confirm or deny this statement:
It is anti-skeptical to dismiss something you know nothing about, by saying you don’t NEED to know anything about it.
I don’t care if you agree with me on anything else or not. It was Der Trihs who said he didn’t need to know anything about Babylonian cosmology in order to dismiss it. I am saying this is not a position a skeptic would take. That you must KNOW something about something in order to dismiss it.
As far as GIGObuster is concerned, the problem there is context. He kept flipping the context about. So I don’t care if you confirm or deny that because it was glaringly obvious.
GIGObuster Knowing that you went to school in El Salvador would explain the weird broken English that made certain pieces of your post slightly confusing. I thought you had some strange Spanish syntax in there in places, but wasn’t sure.
As for coming up with better examples for you. You didn’t disagree with me about alchemy or astrology so I consider the case closed. There is no reason to argue, you’ve agreed with me. What is considered “Science” is only a few centuries old. Prior to that knowledge was maintained largely by the religious authorities and cultish organizations dedicated to the maintenance of that knowledge. Of course dogma was passed down along with real knowledge, but that doesn’t mean real knowledge was absent. I don’t dispute progress, I just dispute your interpretation of the way progress occurred. We didn’t SUDDENLY invent true knowledge when Science came into maturity, we just found new and better ways to verify something’s practical applicability.
Mysticism as I have studied it is mostly about looking inward and questioning the assumptions that you hold dear. The thing is just because you question something doesn’t mean you won’t conclude that it is correct. I can question the basic underlying assumptions in my belief in science, and still conclude that science is true at the end of my questioning.
I think the best example of Mystics as progenitors of Science is Pythagoras and the Pythagorean Cult also known as the Mathematekoi. What I’ve been trying to explain, I admit, poorly, is that before the advent of what you call “Modern Science”, the pursuit of knowledge was propagated by organizations such as these, throughout history, and to a certain respect still is. The English Royal Society was an organization of this nature but they had the backing of what was about to become the government of the pre-eminent world empire, and so Natural Philosophy transformed into what we know of today as Science. Newton lived right on the cusp of this change, and I think there is a habit that isn’t entirely accurate to seperate Newton the scientist from Newton the Mystic, as they were both one and the same. Newton’s inspiration was of a very religious nature, and he helped define what you know of as Science. This is why I think Newton and Pythagoras are the best examples that I could possibly use. Newton was one man not two, he didn’t know everything, but he was still a genius. Modern scientists don’t know everything either and are more often wrong than right, it only seems like they are right more often because it’s when they are hitting close to the mark that their book is more likely to become a best seller.
Mysticism isn’t an ancient dead art, out of all the books I recommended before to falsify your hypothesis about Mysticism being opposed to Science, the only one I’d actually recommend because I think you’d like it is “Knowing How to Know” by Idries Shah. It like “Cosmic Trigger” is about the biases that hold us back from knowledge, but it is presented in a more straight forward fashion, unlike Cosmic Trigger which was written by one of the founders of “Discordianism”, a religion dedicated to Eris the Goddess of Confusion. In “Knowing How to Know”, Idries Shah is writing for a western audience and goes into the biases that hold western thinkers back. It’s a very interesting read, and you might get something out of it. It’s written in a very plain language. If you do pick it up, I’d be very interested to hear what you think of it.
Well it was context, (another word **mswas ** has trouble with) Newton’s alchemy was mentioned many times as proof that mysticism guided the evolution of alchemy to chemistry; it was really a very very bad example of it. Your examples by contrast are better; one can then discuss what mystic knowledge was used there or (what I think is more likely) how practical the ancients were.
Actually no. You are having trouble with context here. I did not say Newton’s alchemy led to modern chemistry. I said alchemy led to chemistry. I said that Newton was a mystic and led to many of the advances in modern science, such as physics and calculus. The two were used at seperate times in seperate contexts.
When I started really getting on you about context was when you used by example of three books that falsified a single hypothesis you made, and started applying them as a cite for a greater part of that argument than I was applying them to.
I will try very hard to communicate better, and I am sorry if I made statements that fused contexts and mislead you, but the way you are understanding the context here is not the way that I meant it.
Actually no. You are having trouble with context here. I did not say Newton’s alchemy led to modern chemistry. I said alchemy led to chemistry. I said that Newton was a mystic and led to many of the advances in modern science. These examples which I was not explicit about would be Calculus, Physics, and currency exchange. You are conflating two contexts. I did say that Newton was an alchemist, I didn’t say his advances were in chemistry.
When I started really getting on you about context was when you used my example of three books that falsified a single hypothesis you made, and started applying them as a cite for a greater part of that argument than I was applying them to.
I will try very hard to communicate better, and I am sorry if I made statements that fused contexts and mislead you, but the way you are understanding the context here is not the way that I meant it.
