# What can we say about the Supernatural **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103 "2006-01-02T18:57:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/261 "2006-01-14T04:28:16Z")
It seems to me that trying to credit Newton’s alchemy dabbling with the development of his theory is like crediting Einstein’s violin playing with responsibility for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Or rediting Niels Bohr’s habit of charging around on his motorcycle with his leadership in the development of Quantum Mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/262 "2006-01-14T05:15:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > How do you know that Newton’s Alchemical pursuits were fruitless? Thing is, Newton failed; only the creator of Harry Potter showed us later how to turn a leaded book into gold. (I keed, I keed) In an Alchemical process called “vegetation of metals” inert metals seem to grow like plants, it fascinated Newton. Today we know it was a chemical reaction of mercury and silver with nitric acid. Newton thought “active principles” were working in nature and this growth was the key to create the Philosopher’s stone, as it happens with many mystical solutions, one can do neat stuff but the result is misleading for an alchemist. > [@mswas](#): > > Or should I consult “The Modern World.”? Why yes, I learned about what Newton was up to from the modern world, thank you very much (tip of the hat to J.K.Rowling): NOVA on PBS took a recent look at Newton’s alchemy: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/alch-newman.html](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/alch-newman.html) > [@](#): > > NOVA: You’ve said that Newton’s alchemy is still a great unsolved mystery. Why? > > NEWMAN: In part because his experimental notebooks are so cryptic. These experimental notebooks pick up in 1678, and there is a story that there was a fire in Newton’s laboratory immediately before that. So it’s likely that we would have more materials if they hadn’t been destroyed in this conflagration. Also, Newton doesn’t bother to explain his terminology; being Newton, he expects to know his terminology. > > And the terminology is very perplexing. He uses standard alchemical decknamen—cover-names like the Green Lion and the Babylonian Dragon, and so forth—but he seems to be using them in ways that don’t correspond to how his immediate sources used them. So we have to carry out a huge combined effort, both in our laboratory and in studying the texts, to determine what these substances were. > > Beyond that, Newton doesn’t tell us why he’s doing the experiments. He just says, “I did this and that, and I produced a volatile substance here,” and so forth. He doesn’t say the purpose of the experiment! So all of this has to be inferred and put together. It’s really a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, and we’re only at the beginning of having solved it. > > NOVA: Wow. Do you enjoy actually getting into the lab and trying to reproduce what he might have been doing with his crucible? > > NEWMAN: Oh, absolutely. And in many cases, you can reproduce the products very clearly. It’s satisfying, but it’s a heck of a lot of work. [laughter] > > NOVA: As you continue studying the manuscripts and replicating his experiments, what do you hope to find? > > NEWMAN: Well, there are a number of different things. One thing I’m trying to do is determine the chronology of the different manuscripts, so that we can say exactly how his ideas developed over time. Like I said, it’s a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. I would just like to be able to put all the pieces together and see what he was really trying to do, what his goals were, and how this fit with his natural philosophy. > > NOVA: And if you succeed in making the philosophers’ stone, you’ll let us know? > > NEWMAN: [laughter] If I succeed, I’ll disappear. I have the educated guess that he will not disappear, the research so far is interesting, but in a historical setting. As the research continues, it is painfully clear that Newton was indeed chasing a dead end with Alchemy. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2006, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/263 "2006-01-14T07:24:19Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Humans are the only species with a syntactic language. As near as we know, it’s fair to say, “No animal in the universe has a syntactic language. Unless you’re talking about humans.” That doesn’t make humans supernatural. That’s biology, not physics. Show me the immutable natural laws of biology (not biochemistry.) You’re not even close to being relevant with this one. > [@](#): > > And if you didn’t, then you wouldn’t have shown that anything is supernatural. Concluding otherwise is known as the God of the Gaps. I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference between a hypothesis and showing something. And the God of the Gaps exists to explain what is not yet known, not what contradicts physical laws. I’ve already said that just not understanding why something is happening which does not seem to contradict any known laws is no reason to call in a supernatural hypothesis. A God who started repeatedly doing supernatural stuff is not a god of the gaps. > [@](#): > > At what point do you judge it a failure? Scientists don’t ever judge it a failure: they keep looking. But they also keep looking for alternate explanations. After the Michelson-Morley experiment some scientists kept looking for an explanation of the apparent lack of the ether. It turned out the right thing to do was to consider the ether hypothesis a failure and go with relativity. This is not to say that those who kept looking were wrong, but Einstein certainly wasn’t, either. > [@](#): > > I have. It might help if you explained your understanding of it and how it applies here; I suspect you may not fully understand the difference between experimental error and scientific fraud. If you get outliers from your instruments they’re committing fraud? You of course rerun to see if the outliers are real. Sometimes they come from things outside the bounds of the experiment, and, if understood, can be explained. But not by trying to come up with a new theory to include them in the main body of data. Which all is getting pretty far from the analogy. > [@](#): > > It’s better to throw out the basic principles, because clearly they’re not as basic as we thought they were. Better yet, though, is how science actually works: the basic principles are modified. If you throw out this principle, you don’t have science any more, since anything can happen at any time. I’d prefer to consider something supernatural than to say the laws of the universe vary with time and position. YMMV. > [@](#): > > We might say, “Light has no mass.” But then someone discovers math demonstrating that certain stars, upon their collapse, become so dense that their gravity sucks in light. Now, as you and I both know, **nothing** sucks in light. Do we: > a) Throw out our theories about light? > b) Declare black holes to be supernatural? > c) Modify our understanding of light to account for this new information about a unique set of conditions? > > The scientific community chooses “c” every time. But what if light were clearly shown to have no mass anywhere else? So, except for around black holes, our current understanding works just fine. We know that we cannot see within a black hole, so we might think that the black hole has some sort of effect. In the real case, light still has no mass and we change our understanding of space. But in some other case if that was not causing the problem, we could try to measure the impact of the black hole on the universe, without ever being able to look inside the black hole to find the cause. I’d probably not call that supernatural either, but it has the same characteristics - the impact of an unobservable entity on the natural world. If stuff started impossibly shooting out of a black hole, you can measure the stuff, but you might not ever be able to find out why it was doing this. Was it the impact of some law of physics that is different within the black hole? Some natural law we don’t understand. Or some incredibly advanced alien playing a trick? > [@](#): > > No. One reason we reject the inclusion of God in theories is that there’s no evidence that God exists. Nor is there evidence that God goes about throwing in fudge factors. If at some point we gain strong evidence that there’s an entity that’s going around and altering subatomic properties, then our theories must begin to account for that. At that point, we’ll get a new branch of science dedicated to studying the patterns by which this entity enacts the fudge factor, and studying possible mechanisms by which this alteration occurs. Haven’t you ever heard a theist claim that the universe is evidence? These people also claim that the reason everything works out so neatly is that god loves neatness. They’re claiming that god explains the observed results, not predicting different results with fudge factors that god must explain. Perhaps I should have added that we also reject F=ma because of a godly fudge factor. Given that natural laws are the same everywhere, and that we can explain all without resorting to god (the god of the non-gap here) there is good reason to reject this as evidence of god. But if you start throwing away the notion of consistency, then you got problems. > [@](#): > > The scientific creationists fuck stuff up by assuming a fudge factor without evidence. WHat you’re suggesting–that upon “failing” to discover a mechanism for a bizarre event, we “isolate” it by calling it supernatural–is exactly what the Creationists do. > > Daniel No, that is what the non-scientific creationists do. Surely you’ve read the scientific creationists explanations of where the water came from and other nonsense. They came up with this to try to get their garbage taught in schools as science - since even they had figured out teaching Genesis was not going to work. Their claim was that there did not have to be a supernatural explanation for Genesis to be accurate. They wrote reams and reams of bullshit to avoid saying “goddidit.” The Biblical believers were just wrong, the scientific creationists were both wrong and dishonest. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2006, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/264 "2006-01-14T07:55:56Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > It seems to me that trying to credit Newton’s alchemy dabbling with the development of his theory is like crediting Einstein’s violin playing with responsibility for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Or rediting Niels Bohr’s habit of charging around on his motorcycle with his leadership in the development of Quantum Mechanics. That’s an excellent comparison! ---
**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:** [January 14, 2006, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/265 "2006-01-14T07:59:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > However, being a skeptic I do remain open to mystery, as I mentioned before, I can indeed believe god broke some rules and some witnesses came forward. But, looking at the evidence, they obviously got the information wrong. **Even if we believe they experienced something supernatural, we cannot rely on their say so.** > > -Ed. Right. And without confirmed evidence of the so called supernatural events, alternate explanations (such as fraud, wishful thinking, hallucination) are far more likely. We need a very high standard of evidence for the supernatural, which hasn’t yet been met. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/266 "2006-01-14T16:19:19Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > As I said, my cite is the modern world. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Oh please, not this “existence proves God” garbage again. Perhaps a new term in logic fallacies is needed. We can use the term “Red Shirt Argument” to signify a premise that holds when I use it, but not when you do — as when I say that the existence of A proves my point, but that the existence of B proving your point is garbage. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/267 "2006-01-14T16:20:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We need a very high standard of evidence for the supernatural, which hasn’t yet been met. A scientific standard of evidence for the supernatural cannot be conceived, let alone met — high, low, or merely waist level. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/268 "2006-01-14T17:54:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference between a hypothesis and showing something. :rolleyes: There doesn’t seem to be a point in continuing this. You ignore the semantic roots of what I’m saying and continue, based on the presumption that I’m using the words the way you’re using them, to attribute a lack of comprehension to me. This is not productive or interesting. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/269 "2006-01-15T02:09:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Right. And without confirmed evidence of the so called supernatural events, alternate explanations (such as fraud, wishful thinking, hallucination) are far more likely. We need a very high standard of evidence for the supernatural, which hasn’t yet been met. But being that fraud, wishful thinking, or hallucination are not necessarily verified either, these answers which seem more plausible to you are not necessarily correct. Though, I still think the word supernatural is stupid. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/270 "2006-01-15T02:33:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Why are you not questioning him? You are assuming that I do not. I have never proposed any work as though it is the gospel of the lord. All words are the word of God. Seperating out which are useful to you personally is something that only you can do. I am simply disputing a jingoistic claim that you and Der Trihs are putting forth. > [@](#): > > Nope, it is BS because he was wrong. If one cannot see how wrong he was on what I mentioned before, or on the Mothman Prophesies or the Lady of Guadalupe, then your level of questioning is really in question. I am still not convinced you comprehended what you were reading. You would have to further convince me that you actually understood the material before we could even have a discussion on this matter. Basically, I don’t agree with your premise that you can dismiss all of the mystical tradition based upon what seems to me from what you have said, was a cursory and superficial study of a particular subject matter. I believe that most of the case as has been presented by you and others depends upon semantically denigrating your adversary, by defining words such as supernatural in a very limiting way in order to create an arbitrary seperation that propagates a false dichotomy. I do not agree with the definition of mysticism that you are using, to put it quite simply. The definition that people like you and Der Trihs seems to have the word bullshit in it. I don’t think either of you have delved into the subject matter at all. For instance, how can Der Trihs possibly know that he can dismiss Babylonian cosmology when he has fully admitted he knows nothing about it. If you are aligned with Der Trihs as you ahve said, then you are proposing ignorance as a virtue, something that I cannot abide. Ignorance is a willful lack of knowledge. It is not the same thing as naivete or simply not knowing. It is choosing not to know something, and resisting that knowledge whenever it is presented for you. You cannot know if something is worthy of dismissal if you do not know anything about it. You can say “I’m not interested in that, I don’t know about that.” but to dismiss it is an ignorant position, as you are dismissing knowledge that you have no knowledge of, no way to VERIFY whether or not it is worthless. To me the height of ignorant arrogance is to think that people were only capable of knowing the truth since the advent of modern science. I don’t understand how someone can look at the pyramids in Egypt and the Mayan Calendar and still adhere to such a pigheaded and ignorant position. Your position quite frankly is anti-intellectual, though you are trying to spin it as intellectual. People get on my case for saying that they don’t understand. But it’s true, they don’t, they don’t know jack shit about mysticism half the time when they are arguing against it. And the fact of the matter is, I DO know more about it than either of you do, having studied multiple traditions, rather than giving Catholicism a cursory trial and then dropping it because it didn’t work out. I maintain that Science is a mystical pursuit. You are still locked into a thesis anti-thesis relationship of a false dichotomy, I have gotten past that dichotomy because it never made sense to me anyway, so where I am at is a synthesis position, where both sides are equally valid. As Voyager pointed out the Dalai Lama is working on some studies, and has said that if Science doesn’t jive with Buddhism, Buddhism will have to be re-evaluated. That’s great, that’s a wonderful position, it doesn’t mean that Buddhism is crap. It doesn’t mean that people didn’t figure things you. You are treating science as your golden calf, as though scientists have some sort of handle on the truth that others don’t, it’s simply not the case. Scientists are wrong about lots of things. There are probably many people on these boards who can school me in Genomics. However, I bet I know how to throw a better party, and pick up a chick in a bar better than some of them do. Both are knowledge of “The Truth”, there actually are methods to throwing a better party and some of them are fairly universal, and one can take it to a very deep art form if they want to. Genomics and the Art of throwing a party are not at odds, they are both disciplines that one can study, neither is of greater value than the other, because measuring them against one another is stupid. This is the same for science and mysticism. Mysticism is about achieving knowledge, it is about an experience of God. The word God is describing Existance, but it’s using a different lingual format than you are. You are like a fortran program trying to tell the C++ program that it’s full of shit. It’s not about one being right and the other being wrong, it’s about different code sets. Science is a form of mysticism as it is seeking greater knowledge. Greater knowledge of “the Divine” is basically just saying you are seeking greater knowledge of the universe. When you can understand why I view people like the two of you as rednecks making fun of someone for speaking French but who is bilingual, then possibly you’ll understand the point I am trying to make, and the point that Robert Anton Wilson was trying to make in “Cosmic Trigger”, but until then you’ll probably continue to point and laugh and think that you are superior. You could really benefit from learning the difference between facts and knowledge. You can collect all the facts in the world, but if you don’t understand their interrelationships, then they are completely useless to you. I don’t always get my facts straight, as was evidenced by what I said about Newton and Gravity, but that didn’t diminish my point in even the slightest bit, it only made it easier for you to not think about my point terribly deeply, because I showed that I didn’t know all the facts. Trust me, I am trying to learn those facts but until then you might want to give some thought as to why I don’t think you can seperate Newton’s mystical pursuits from his scientific achievements, or that it’s even desirable or necessary to do so. You are expecting a superhuman level of knowledge from Mystics that you don’t expect from scientists, and are more ready to dismiss a Mystic’s achievements if they are shown to be wrong at all ever, than you are with a scientist. It’s ludicrous, and it’s anti-intellectual. So my advice to you is learn a little bit more about what you are talking about before you go spouting some bullshit. I might be wrong a lot of the time, but at least I am TRYING to correct my ignorance. You seem to think it’s unecessary. Erek ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/271 "2006-01-15T03:46:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > To me the height of ignorant arrogance is to think that people were only capable of knowing the truth since the advent of modern science. I don’t understand how someone can look at the pyramids in Egypt and the Mayan Calendar and still adhere to such a pigheaded and ignorant position. Your position quite frankly is anti-intellectual, though you are trying to spin it as intellectual. And you do show your ignorance constantly, looking at the pyramids the Egyptians succeeded only after several disasters, and the great pyramids were loathed by many Egyptians then as a waste of resources, The Mayan calendar is impressive but it showed where the misleading priorities of the failed empire did go. > [@mswas](#): > > People get on my case for saying that they don’t understand. But it’s true, they don’t, they don’t know jack shit about mysticism half the time when they are arguing against it. And the fact of the matter is, I DO know more about it than either of you do, having studied multiple traditions, rather than giving Catholicism a cursory trial and then dropping it because it didn’t work out. Your ignorance that Newton’s alchemy was being investigated shows volumes. > [@mswas](#): > > I maintain that Science is a mystical pursuit. You are still locked into a thesis anti-thesis relationship of a false dichotomy, I am beyond that, and you are only doing your best effort to ignore what I’m saying: even mysticism is present, their solutions are inefficient or misleading. > [@mswas](#): > > You are like a fortran program trying to tell the C++ program that it’s full of shit. It’s not about one being right and the other being wrong, it’s about different code sets. Science is a form of mysticism as it is seeking greater knowledge. Greater knowledge of “the Divine” is basically just saying you are seeking greater knowledge of the universe. Wrong, to me is about who has the most efficient answer and the best interface to reality… Newton got a socket error in his alchemist network. > [@mswas](#): > > When you can understand why I view people like the two of you as rednecks making fun of someone for speaking French but who is bilingual, then possibly you’ll understand the point I am trying to make, and the point that Robert Anton Wilson was trying to make in “Cosmic Trigger”, but until then you’ll probably continue to point and laugh and think that you are superior. I only feel I know more because when one has failed in their predictions and analysis then yes, one has to consider Wilson an inferior. > [@mswas](#): > > You are expecting a superhuman level of knowledge from Mystics that you don’t expect from scientists, and are more ready to dismiss a Mystic’s achievements if they are shown to be wrong at all ever, than you are with a scientist. No, the history is full of scientists that were wrong, the right solutions are found by other scientists, but not my mystics now. > [@mswas](#): > > It’s ludicrous, and it’s anti-intellectual. Ignoring that that clearly Wilson and Newton missed the mark on their mystic pursuits shows that the anti-intellectual is really someone else. > [@mswas](#): > > So my advice to you is learn a little bit more about what you are talking about before you go spouting some bullshit. If you could stop insulting the intelligence of many you may attract more attention. As the Newton example showed you are lying here. > [@mswas](#): > > I might be wrong a lot of the time, but at least I am TRYING to correct my ignorance. You seem to think it’s unecessary. If I thought it was unnecessary I would ignore you, as I promised myself many years ago when joining this board I was not going to ignore anyone. I can review the changes or progress mysticism has performed after I read so much of it in my youth, so far I remember seeing science shooting down several researchers that were wrong or misleading; I have, even in this thread, seen mystics be deadly wrong and no mystic is willing to shoot them down or even drop them from their trusted sources. Who can sincerely say is the pigheaded and anti-intellectual now? -Ed ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/272 "2006-01-15T06:32:11Z")
**mswas** (following bolding mine): > [@](#): > > I don’t understand how someone can look at the pyramids in Egypt and the Mayan Calendar and still adhere to such a **pigheaded** and ignorant position. Your position quite frankly is anti-intellectual, though you are trying to spin it as intellectual. > [@](#): > > When you can understand why I view people like the two of you as **rednecks** making fun of someone for speaking French but who is bilingual, then possibly you’ll understand the point I am trying to make, and the point that Robert Anton Wilson was trying to make in “Cosmic Trigger”, but until then you’ll probably continue to point and laugh and think that you are superior. > [@](#): > > So my advice to you is learn a little bit more about what you are talking about before you go **spouting some bullshit**. For someone who has earned multiple warnings regarding the verbal abuse of other posters, you certainly seem to enjoy being intemperate in your language. If you cannot discuss these issues without resorting to name calling (even when carefully couched in third party descriptions and conditional syntax), you will not be allowed to continue posting. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/273 "2006-01-15T06:51:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And you do show your ignorance constantly, looking at the pyramids the Egyptians succeeded only after several disasters, and the great pyramids were loathed by many Egyptians then as a waste of resources, The Mayan calendar is impressive but it showed where the misleading priorities of the failed empire did go. While I am not persuaded by most of the stuff **mswas** is posting, these appear to be a non sequiter followed by an unsupported assertion, followed by a second unsupported assertion. You are aware, I hope, that there have been failures in modern building construction, even with better math, a better understanding of physics, more hard evidence concerning structural loading, and significant advances in machinery for constructiojn and optics for surveying? That the pyramids were not glorious achievements on the first try says nothing to disparage the ones that were successful or the intelligence invested in them. (It would seem to have been a more fruitful reply to note that they were the product of engineering, not mysticism.) It would be interesting to see actual evidence that the contemporaneous Egyptians actually believed that they were “a waste of resources.” Your declaration regarding the Mayan Calendar seems like little more than cultural bigotry. The Mayans flourished for hundreds of years, during which time they worked out the principles of an exceptionally accurate calendar. What do you think thay “should” have been doing instead? (And how do you know how much of their time or energy was invested in it? They might have counted off a single pair of watchers for a hundred years, or so, to gather data and then had one or two people work out the calculations to organize the calendar. It is not as though we have records of 22% of their GDP being invested in calendar computation for 400 years.) ---
**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:** [January 15, 2006, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/274 "2006-01-15T10:18:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > For instance, how can Der Trihs possibly know that he can dismiss Babylonian cosmology when he has fully admitted he knows nothing about it. Because it’s thousands of years obsolete ? Because the people who thought it up were utterly ignorant of real cosmology ( and physics, and so on ). Really, I only picked that as as example of something it’s ridiculous to believe. I didn’t think you’d actually _defend_ it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/275 "2006-01-15T20:31:25Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > While I am not persuaded by most of the stuff **mswas** is posting, these appear to be a non sequiter followed by an unsupported assertion, followed by a second unsupported assertion. > > You are aware, I hope, that there have been failures in modern building construction, even with better math, a better understanding of physics, more hard evidence concerning structural loading, and significant advances in machinery for constructiojn and optics for surveying? That the pyramids were not glorious achievements on the first try says nothing to disparage the ones that were successful or the intelligence invested in them. > (It would seem to have been a more fruitful reply to note that they were the product of engineering, not mysticism.) Well, you are right, the mistake there was not to mention the support for my assertions. > [@tomndebb](#): > > It would be interesting to see actual evidence that the contemporaneous Egyptians actually believed that they were “a waste of resources.” I’m coming more from the angle that many opposed the megalomania of the Pharaohs but since their religion was set to obey the god king, well, they could only complain mostly in secret; it is clear that some mystics of the day were opposed to the big pyramids too, Khufu, for example put the priests to work, possible because of that opposition, the priests in turn spread the rumor that the Pharaoh set his own daughter for prostitution to help finance the project. IMHO even if that was a rumor, it showed that resources were being foolishly wasted and while we admire the results, the people then were not amused: [http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/eml/eml13.htm](http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/eml/eml13.htm) > [@](#): > > The priests informed Herodotus that Khafra’s conduct was similar to that of Khufu. “The Egyptians had to endure every species of oppression and calamity, and so greatly do they hate the memories of the two monarchs that they are unwilling to mention their names. Instead they called their pyramids by the name of the shepherd Philitis, who grazed his cattle near them.” > [@tomndebb](#): > > Your declaration regarding the Mayan Calendar seems like little more than cultural bigotry. The Mayans flourished for hundreds of years, during which time they worked out the principles of an exceptionally accurate calendar. What do you think thay “should” have been doing instead? Learning to progress and survive, but do not think I’m ignoring that then Spanish barbarians (I’m an equal cultural offender 🙂 ) destroyed what was left, it is important to remember that the Maya civilization was a shadow of their former self when the Spaniards came. And my shot to the Calendar was more in tune with the coming nonsense of 2012 when the Maya world was supposed to end (The calendar really missed the mark). Mark my words: lots of mystic nonsense will be spouted when we get closer to that date. > [@tomndebb](#): > > (And how do you know how much of their time or energy was invested in it? They might have counted off a single pair of watchers for a hundred years, or so, to gather data and then had one or two people work out the calculations to organize the calendar. It is not as though we have records of 22% of their GDP being invested in calendar computation for 400 years.) The thing is, the calendar days and months represented the gods and it affected the lives of everyone: [http://www.civilization.ca/civil/maya/mmc06eng.html](http://www.civilization.ca/civil/maya/mmc06eng.html) > [@](#): > > One of the most important roles of the calendar was not to fix dates accurately in time, however, but to correlate the actions of Maya rulers to historic and mythological events. The acts of gods performed in the days of myth were reenacted by Maya rulers, often on the anniversary of the original event - a date which was carefully calculated by Maya priests. > > … > > Many scholars have wondered why the Maya calendar was so complex. In part, it was because Maya priests made all decisions about dates for sacred events and the agricultural cycle. There was thus no need for the average person to understand the calendar, and it could be as elaborate as the priests wanted. Droughts have been mentioned as one reason for their demise, Warfare took care of the rest, and since warfare and what to do during famine times was guided by the calendar, I have to conclude it was not a very good guide. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/276 "2006-01-16T20:41:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > While I am not persuaded by most of the stuff **mswas** is posting, these appear to be a non sequiter followed by an unsupported assertion, followed by a second unsupported assertion. Thank you for posting this. And I will curb my fingers a little better as far as the personal attacks go. > [@](#): > > You are aware, I hope, that there have been failures in modern building construction, even with better math, a better understanding of physics, more hard evidence concerning structural loading, and significant advances in machinery for constructiojn and optics for surveying? That the pyramids were not glorious achievements on the first try says nothing to disparage the ones that were successful or the intelligence invested in them. > (It would seem to have been a more fruitful reply to note that they were the product of engineering, not mysticism.) Again you are making an arbitrary seperation. Engineering built the pyramids, but Mysticism had everything to do with the why of them being constructed in the first place. I was using them as an example of why the idea that “We only know the truth now because of modern science” is flawed. Modern Science is a set of critical thinking skills developed over thousands of years by well MYSTICS. This is why I am fond of pointing out Pythagoras and Newton. There was no such thing as a “Scientist” until modern science came around. What I have been proposing this whole time is that the idea of seperating the mystical pursuit from another type of pursuit of knowledge is a relatively new one. Certainly there were certain schools that had varying methods, and a certain amount of cultural conflict arose from that, but what I am trying to get at is that the seperation of scientist and mystic that is being put forth is a modern construction, and to truly understand the history of where the modern pursuit of knowledge comes from one has to go back and look into the ancient mystics. The whole concept of Freemasonry is that it is a mystery school that draws from the metaphor of Craft Masonry, and all of the allegories of Masonry come from the Hiramic legend of Grand Master Hiram Abiff who was a Master MASON. In otherwords he was the lead engineer of King Solomon’s Temple. Ancient Egyptian cosmology draws HEAVILY from the relationship between Engineering and Mysticism known as Masonry. This is why you will see things that talk about how the history of Freemasonry comes down from ancient Egyptian Masonry. In otherwords, the ancient Egyptians didn’t make the same seperation between Engineering and Mysticism that you do with your modern American conception of the two terms. When I hear Der Trihs say that Mystics never did anything useful, I can’t help but think of the irony that he is WRITING this. Mystics invented writing. Mysticism has been a very integral part of all cultures throughout history and is even a major part of culture in modern society. I personally find it unfortunate that mysticism has been propagated in secret mystery schools due to a fear of bigotry in the general populace, or out of the belief that the average populace simply won’t understand. I would like to see a newer society where people can accept the mystical pursuits even if they don’t understand them. The thing to realize is that I haven’t been proposing pretty much ANYTHING except that modern science owes it’s existance to the trial and error of those mystics. I have been saying that there is an arbitrary standard being held to mystics that isn’t being held to scientists. Scientists figure things out by trial and error too. Also there is an idea that is prevalent on these boards that mysticism hasn’t updated with the times. The only people that I find who think that science and mysticism are at odds, are proponents of science. Most mystics I know think that Quantum Mechanics is pretty damn interesting. They are just as likely to read Hawking or Planck as they are Wilson or Crowley. Crowley himself was a major proponent of science. He believed that to practice magick, one should be able to perform experiments accurately in at least two sciences. > [@](#): > > It would be interesting to see actual evidence that the contemporaneous Egyptians actually believed that they were “a waste of resources.” It would. > [@](#): > > Your declaration regarding the Mayan Calendar seems like little more than cultural bigotry. The Mayans flourished for hundreds of years, during which time they worked out the principles of an exceptionally accurate calendar. What do you think thay “should” have been doing instead? (And how do you know how much of their time or energy was invested in it? They might have counted off a single pair of watchers for a hundred years, or so, to gather data and then had one or two people work out the calculations to organize the calendar. It is not as though we have records of 22% of their GDP being invested in calendar computation for 400 years.) Again thank you. I’d also like to point out that civilizations rise and fall, it is the natural cycle of things. People don’t talk smack about the achievements of the Romans because the Roman empire fell and evolved into Christendom. The Aztec calendar draws heavily from the Mayan calendar, just as the Byzantine Empire has a historical lineage coming out from the Roman empire. The Mayans and Aztecs both draw heavily from Toltec and Olmec traditions as well. There are also still mayans around to this day, they live largely in Guatemala. Many of the traditions have been kept alive. I would say that the single argument I have been making this entire time is exactly what you said to GIGObuster about cultural bigotry. I think that the hate on people have toward mysticism here on these boards and is prevalent in the larger western world is nothing more than cultural bigotry. As Der Trihs said, he doesn’t have to know anything about Babylonian Cosmology in order to dismiss it. He is only basing his willingness to dismiss it on the fact that others have also dismissed it, though Babylonian Cosmology figures pretty heavily into our history and culture, from The Code of Laws of Hammurabi, and before that the Sumerians, and after that the Zoroastrians and the Mithraic cults that lead to what we know of as modern Christianity. People like Der Trihs love to bash Christianity, without being aware that a lot of the American ideals are based strongly off of Christ’s message, and that a very significant factor in the reason that we have a global system now at all is Christian missionaries. All I have been arguing this entire time is that these traditions are not seperate from the opinions that Der Trihs and GIGObuster have formulated, and that to simply dismiss them as irrelevant is ignorant. It is not skeptical, and I wish I’d see more posts like this one where people get called on bullshit skepticism, because I think it’s one of the most profound and entrenched forms of ignorance in modern western society. It isn’t skepticism I have a problem with, it’s people who can’t get it right, and make fun of others for not being skeptics that I have a problem with, and more over the people I REALLY have the problem with are the skeptics who understand skepticism and will let this sort of anti-skeptical attitude remain so pervasive on a board that professes to be fighting ignorance. While I appreciate the love of ‘facts’ on these boards, I think a few more lessons in critical thinking skills for those that profess an adoration for critical thinking skills would go a lot farther in the fight against ignorance than merely correcting people on their facts. We live in a country that has outright failed to properly teach critical thinking skills, and has inundated us with facts, and I think people like Der Trihs and GIGObuster could use a bit of schooling on the subject from people who understand these notions better than I do, and who they will identify more with than me, because they won’t have the problem of thinking that those people are on opposite sides from them. I am simply tired of this idea that Mystics and Scientists are “teams” in some ludicrous sport. I am not anti-scientist, I am anti-hypocrite. (Yes I am well aware that I can be a hypocrite too) So if one of you skeptics would be so kind as to tell Der Trihs that it is NOT reasonable to dismiss Babylonian Cosmology without knowledge of it and remain a skeptic, I would again, be eternally grateful. Please just confirm this one for me, and I promise I will calm down a lot. Erek ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/277 "2006-01-16T22:17:16Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > critical thinking skills developed over thousands of years by well MYSTICS. This is why I am fond of pointing out Pythagoras and Newton. There was no such thing as a “Scientist” until modern science came around. What I have been proposing this whole time is that the idea of seperating the mystical pursuit from another type of pursuit of knowledge is a relatively new one. Certainly there were certain schools that had varying methods, and a certain amount of cultural conflict arose from that, but what I am trying to get at is that the seperation of scientist and mystic that is being put forth is a modern construction, and to truly understand the history of where the modern pursuit of knowledge comes from one has to go back and look into the ancient mystics. I can see that you are ignoring what I said about Newton. > [@mswas](#): > > The whole concept of Freemasonry is that it is a mystery school that draws from the metaphor of Craft Masonry, and all of the allegories of Masonry come from the Hiramic legend of Grand Master Hiram Abiff who was a Master MASON. In otherwords he was the lead engineer of King Solomon’s Temple. Ancient Egyptian cosmology draws HEAVILY from the relationship between Engineering and Mysticism known as Masonry. This is why you will see things that talk about how the history of Freemasonry comes down from ancient Egyptian Masonry. In otherwords, the ancient Egyptians didn’t make the same seperation between Engineering and Mysticism that you do with your modern American conception of the two terms. Cite? Relying on Masonic **legends** does not show that one is an **skeptic**. > [@mswas](#): > > When I hear Der Trihs say that Mystics never did anything useful, I can’t help but think of the irony that he is WRITING this. Mystics invented writing. Mysticism has been a very integral part of all cultures throughout history and is even a major part of culture in modern society. I personally find it unfortunate that mysticism has been propagated in secret mystery schools due to a fear of bigotry in the general populace, or out of the belief that the average populace simply won’t understand. I would like to see a newer society where people can accept the mystical pursuits even if they don’t understand them. :rolleyes: Cite that writing was invented by Mystics. > [@mswas](#): > > The thing to realize is that I haven’t been proposing pretty much ANYTHING except that modern science owes it’s existance to the trial and error of those mystics. I have been saying that there is an arbitrary standard being held to mystics that isn’t being held to scientists. Not true as I already ponted out. > [@mswas](#): > > Scientists figure things out by trial and error too. Also there is an idea that is prevalent on these boards that mysticism hasn’t updated with the times. Well then, show me the mystics that were accepted as good before that are not today. > [@mswas](#): > > The only people that I find who think that science and mysticism are at odds, are proponents of science. Once again: mystic solutions may be good, but are not effective or reliable as new non-mystic research is showing today. > [@mswas](#): > > Most mystics I know think that Quantum Mechanics is pretty damn interesting. They are just as likely to read Hawking or Planck as they are Wilson or Crowley. Crowley himself was a major proponent of science. He believed that to practice magick, one should be able to perform experiments accurately in at least two sciences. I’m waiting. > [@mswas](#): > > Again thank you. I’d also like to point out that civilizations rise and fall, it is the natural cycle of things. People don’t talk smack about the achievements of the Romans because the Roman empire fell and evolved into Christendom. Uh, we do, A recent show about their technology demonstrated that they came close to industrialization; there is a reason why their rediscovery was called the renaissance. > [@mswas](#): > > I would say that the single argument I have been making this entire time is exactly what you said to GIGObuster about cultural bigotry. I already mentioned that on the whole the Spanish conquerors were more barbaric, so once again, ignoring posts and lying about what I posted is getting silly. > [@mswas](#): > > All I have been arguing this entire time is that these traditions are not seperate from the opinions that Der Trihs and GIGObuster have formulated, and that to simply dismiss them as irrelevant is ignorant. It is not skeptical, and I wish I’d see more posts like this one where people get called on **bullshit skepticism** , because I think it’s one of the most profound and entrenched forms of ignorance in modern western society. I have taken a look at your sources, I have shown with examples how wrong they are, you don’t show anything but willful ignorance on what I posted before. > [@mswas](#): > > It isn’t skepticism I have a problem with, it’s people who can’t get it right, and make fun of others for not being skeptics that I have a problem with, and more over the people I REALLY have the problem with are the skeptics who understand skepticism and will let this sort of anti-skeptical attitude remain so pervasive on a board that professes to be fighting ignorance. Just on your last post you have two pronunciations without any evidence to support them. > [@mswas](#): > > While I appreciate the love of ‘facts’ on these boards, I think a few more lessons in critical thinking skills for those that profess an adoration for critical thinking skills would go a lot farther in the fight against ignorance than merely correcting people on their facts. :rolleyes: I showed that several of your examples were wrong. it is only your misguided opinion what’s left if you continue putting bad examples forward. > [@mswas](#): > > We live in a country that has outright failed to properly teach critical thinking skills, and has inundated us with facts, and I think people like Der Trihs and GIGObuster could use a bit of schooling on the subject from people who understand these notions better than I do, and who they will identify more with than me, because they won’t have the problem of thinking that those people are on opposite sides from them. :rolleyes: So much for to **tomndebb** ’s warning on name calling even when carefully couched in third party descriptions and conditional syntax. > [@mswas](#): > > I am simply tired of this idea that Mystics and Scientists are “teams” in some ludicrous sport. I am not anti-scientist, I am anti-hypocrite. (Yes I am well aware that I can be a hypocrite too) You are also purposely avoiding the fact that the evidence for your say so’s is demonstrated to be missing in action. > [@mswas](#): > > So if one of you skeptics would be so kind as to tell Der Trihs that it is NOT reasonable to dismiss Babylonian Cosmology without knowledge of it and remain a skeptic, I would again, be eternally grateful. Please just confirm this one for me, and I promise I will calm down a lot. I don’t think Der Trihs was talking about their records and their ability to predict eclipses and planetary motion, it is just that like Newton running into a dead end like Alchemy the Babylonians never developed a cosmological model in which to interpret their observations, And so it is modern mysticism, it arrives to misleading conclusions before the research is done. And as I say before: you get to do neat stuff, but what to do with the results is were mysticism misses the bus and drops the ball. The Bus dropping the ball and still the Steelers winning the game was a mystic experience, I grant you that. 🙂 - Ed. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/278 "2006-01-16T23:25:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I can see that you are ignoring what I said about Newton. I started to ignore you when you started talking about Harry Potter. Maybe you said something worthwhile but I missed it. > [@](#): > > Cite? Relying on Masonic **legends** does not show that one is an **skeptic**. Man you are really missing the damn point. I am not trying to prove I am a skeptic. You guys are the ones so enamored of skepticism. Though I would say I am more of a skeptic than either of you, because I don’t decide either way on an issue without proof. The point on masonry is that the ancients didn’t draw the cultural distinction that you are drawing, and that mysticism was an integral part of their lives. I am sorry you are incapable of understanding this small little point. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: > Cite that writing was invented by Mystics. In early societies the Temple priests were the keepers of knowledge and generally they were the ones that held the keys to literacy. Religion held a much different function then, than it does now, as much of the function of the social structure was maintained by the priests. They were the keepers of knowledge, and therefore had a need for writing beyond what the average populace had a need for. > **[Writing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing#Writing_in_Historical_Cultures)** > > Writing is a medium of human communication that involves the representation of a language with written symbols. Writing systems are not themselves human languages (with the debatable exception of computer languages); they are means of rendering a language into a form that can be reconstructed by other humans separated by time and/or space. While not all languages use a writing system, those with systems of inscriptions can complement and extend capacities of spoken language by enabling the As... So the original mesopotamians used writing to keep track of commerce. So I guess saying that it was “invented” by mystics is a bit much, but again, the simple point I am making, which is the ONLY point that I am making, is that mysticism wasn’t seperated from the rest of day to day life until recently. The Priest or Shaman was a position of respect, and was one of the most learned men in the society. Your position that Mystics have been wrong is not compelling, because EVERY type of person has been wrong about something or other. > [@](#): > > Not true as I already ponted out. Statement of opinion is not a statement of fact. You have not presented any compelling evidence. You point to Newton’s failures as examples of how his ‘unscientific’ pursuits all met with failure. What I am arguing with is the point that he had ANY pursuits that were not mystical in nature. You are trying to create a duality, that I think is false. You have yet to point out anything. > [@](#): > > Well then, show me the mystics that were accepted as good before that are not today. This is just a road to irrelevancy. My point is that mysticism didn’t take on the perjorative connotation that you apply to it until modern secularism. Your conceit is largely western. Mysticism is viewed quite differently in non-western cultures. Again, I don’t think you know the first thing about mysticism. You have yet to show me any evidence of understanding what you are talking about at all. You can’t seem to grasp that Alchemy was the precursor to chemistry, or that Astrology was the precursor to Astronomy. What I have true trouble comprehending is the level of denial and arrogance it requires to deny this, and still claim intellectual superiority. > [@](#): > > Once again: mystic solutions may be good, but are not effective or reliable as new non-mystic research is showing today. What the hell is a mystic solution anyway? > [@](#): > > Uh, we do, A recent show about their technology demonstrated that they came close to industrialization; there is a reason why their rediscovery was called the renaissance. What does this piece of trivia have to do with what we are talking about? I was simply dismissing your cultural bigotry that implied that one culture being replaced by another had anything to do with what we are talking about. Kind of like how this statement has little to do with what we are talking about. > [@](#): > > I already mentioned that on the whole the Spanish conquerors were more barbaric, so once again, ignoring posts and lying about what I posted is getting silly. One, barbarism is a matter of opinion. Calling ANYONE barbaric is cultural bigotry. Barbarism is a vague perjorative term that doesn’t tell us anything about the people we are talking about except that YOU think they weren’t nice enough. Comparative barbarism is silly, the Aztecs enslaved people and cut their hearts out in ritual human sacrifice, sometimes killing scores at a time. The Spanish came in and enslaved people so they could mine silver and dominate the European economy. The word barbarism tells us very little about anything, because it uses your current civilization as yoru standard by which to judge other civilizations. > [@](#): > > I have taken a look at your sources, I have shown with examples how wrong they are, you don’t show anything but willful ignorance on what I posted before. You have done no such thing. You made some comment about Mystics being anti-science. I pointed out three works where it is explicitly stated that they are pro-science. It only takes one example to falsify a hypothesis, I came up with three. Context is your friend. > [@](#): > > Just on your last post you have two pronunciations without any evidence to support them. You have done nothing except demonstrate that you know how to make a :rolleyes: smiley. You consistently take things out of context, so your facts are pretty much meaningless. > [@](#): > > I showed that several of your examples were wrong. it is only your misguided opinion what’s left if you continue putting bad examples forward. umm, no you think you presented several examples, but your inability to work with context has made them pretty much irrelevant. > [@](#): > > So much for to **tomndebb** ’s warning on name calling even when carefully couched in third party descriptions and conditional syntax. Saying you are failing at being a skeptic is not the same as calling you a redneck or an idiot. I merely asked someone else who you will believe is on the skeptic side of the coin, like **Tomndebb, Left Hand of Dorkness, or Citizen Bob** , because when I say it you keep looking at me like I am on the other team or whatever. So I am hoping that they will disabuse you of some of your anti-skeptical behavior. Doing so would alleviate your ignorance in a much more significant way than correcting you on a factual basis ever could. > [@](#): > > You are also purposely avoiding the fact that the evidence for your say so’s is demonstrated to be missing in action. It’s impossible for me to give you any cites, because the people who are likely to be interested in the Mystic/Mason connection in Ancient Egypt would all be people who have an interest in Masonry. So how could I possibly provide you a cite because all mystics are lying charlatans. Though you’ll accept [Herodotus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus) > [@](#): > > Herodotus’ invention earned him the title “The Father of History” and the word he used for his achievement, historie, which previously had meant simply “inquiry”, passed into Latin and took on its modern connotation of “history” or “story”. His nickname was given to him by Cicero. > > Conversely, however, many historians and philosophers who take a more sceptical view of Herodotus’ accounts and narratives have a different name for him, dubbing him “The Father of Lies” or “the deceiver”. In many cases, Herodotus, unsure of the exact history, would give the most prominent competing historical accounts of a particular event or region, and then express his opinion as to which he believed was accurate, with an explanation of why. > [@](#): > > I don’t think Der Trihs was talking about their records and their ability to predict eclipses and planetary motion, it is just that like Newton running into a dead end like Alchemy the Babylonians never developed a cosmological model in which to interpret their observations, And so it is modern mysticism, it arrives to misleading conclusions before the research is done. And as I say before: you get to do neat stuff, but what to do with the results is were mysticism misses the bus and drops the ball. But how does Der Trihs, or you for that matter know this about the Babylonians, when he has said clearly, he doesn’t need to know in order to dismiss it. However, you are flat out wrong. They did develop a cosmological model by which to interpret their observations. You just find the modern one more useful, as do I. The difference between you and I, is that I don’t need to feel like the ancients were stupid in order to feel intelligent. > [@](#): > > The Bus dropping the ball and still the Steelers winning the game was a mystic experience, I grant you that. 🙂 I think you are confusing religious ecstacy with the mystical experience. They are not the same thing. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/279 "2006-01-16T23:31:44Z")
> [@](#): > > You have done nothing except demonstrate that you know how to make a smiley. You consistently take things out of context, so your facts are pretty much meaningless. The above was supposed to precede the quote that it came after. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/280 "2006-01-17T00:20:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > In early societies the Temple priests were the keepers of knowledge and generally they were the ones that held the keys to literacy. Religion held a much different function then, than it does now, as much of the function of the social structure was maintained by the priests. They were the keepers of knowledge, and therefore had a need for writing beyond what the average populace had a need for. > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing#Writing\_in\_Historical\_Cultures](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing#Writing_in_Historical_Cultures) > > So the original mesopotamians used writing to keep track of commerce. So I guess saying that it was “invented” by mystics is a bit much, but again, the simple point I am making, which is the ONLY point that I am making, is that mysticism wasn’t seperated from the rest of day to day life until recently. The Priest or Shaman was a position of respect, and was one of the most learned men in the society. Your position that Mystics have been wrong is not compelling, because EVERY type of person has been wrong about something or other. You found by yourself that you where indeed wrong regarding writing good. But the rest of your comments only amount to whistling passing the graveyard. > [@mswas](#): > > Statement of opinion is not a statement of fact. You have not presented any compelling evidence. You point to Newton’s failures as examples of how his ‘unscientific’ pursuits all met with failure. What I am arguing with is the point that he had ANY pursuits that were not mystical in nature. You are trying to create a duality, that I think is false. You have yet to point out anything. I will leave anyone else to judge: My point was **that his clearly mystic pursuits are not important even for chemistry.** I never said he never got any mystical pursuits. > [@mswas](#): > > This is just a road to irrelevancy. My point is that mysticism didn’t take on the perjorative connotation that you apply to it until modern secularism. Your conceit is largely western. Mysticism is viewed quite differently in non-western cultures. Again, I don’t think you know the first thing about mysticism. You have yet to show me any evidence of understanding what you are talking about at all. You can’t seem to grasp that Alchemy was the precursor to chemistry, or that Astrology was the precursor to Astronomy. What I have true trouble comprehending is the level of denial and arrogance it requires to deny this, and still claim intellectual superiority. You are putting words in my mouth, care to show were I said that Alchemy or Astrology were not precursors? I am concentrating more now on what works better for humanity. > [@mswas](#): > > What the hell is a mystic solution anyway? So are you saying there are no answers or good things to come from mysticism? > [@mswas](#): > > One, barbarism is a matter of opinion. Calling ANYONE barbaric is cultural bigotry. > > Barbarism is a vague perjorative term that doesn’t tell us anything about the people we are talking about except that YOU think they weren’t nice enough. Comparative barbarism is silly, the Aztecs enslaved people and cut their hearts out in ritual human sacrifice, sometimes killing scores at a time. The Spanish came in and enslaved people so they could mine silver and dominate the European economy. The word barbarism tells us very little about anything, because it uses your current civilization as yoru standard by which to judge other civilizations. Nah, on one mystic book there was a tale I remember that showed socialism was not new and many aspects of it existed with the Incas: The tale described how the Spaniards were amazed to see a house of an important Inca that had valuable possessions protected only by the doorway with only by a symbolic stick of wood that meant that the owner was absent and no one was supposed to enter. When the Spanish began to settle and added locks and chains to their doors the Inca then knew that thieves had conquered them. Did that mystic book committed cultural bigotry? I warn you here to think before you answer. > [@mswas](#): > > Saying you are failing at being a skeptic is not the same as calling you a redneck or an idiot. Saying we had no schooling after all that was said and posted is. > [@mswas](#): > > It’s impossible for me to give you any cites, because the people who are likely to be interested in the Mystic/Mason connection in Ancient Egypt would all be people who have an interest in Masonry. So how could I possibly provide you a cite because all mystics are lying charlatans. Check around and you will see that the historical evidence is missing. why is that you can not see you accepted the Mystic/Mason connection with no evidence whatsoever? > [@mswas](#): > > But how does Der Trihs, or you for that matter know this about the Babylonians, when he has said clearly, he doesn’t need to know in order to dismiss it. However, you are flat out wrong. They did develop a cosmological model by which to interpret their observations. You just find the modern one more useful, as do I. The difference between you and I, is that I don’t need to feel like the ancients were stupid in order to feel intelligent. I see that you never get tired to keep digging yourself into a hole: [http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec01.html](http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec01.html) > [@](#): > > Babylonian astronomy is noted for their detailed, and continuous, records of astronomical phenomenon such as eclipses, positions of the planets and rise and setting of the Moon. These records date back to 800 B.C. and are the oldest scientific documents in existence. The purpose of this activity was clearly astrological with the aim of forecasting the fortunes of the country as well as of the king. In addition to records, Babylonian astronomers also developed several arithmetic tools to aid in the prediction of eclipses and planetary motion. \*\*However, while their record keeping was a novel technology for the time, and their system of stellar names and measurement system was passed onto later civilizations, the Babylonians never developed a cosmological model in which to interpret their observations. \*\* Greek astronomers will achieve this goal using the Babylonian data. The big point left is that it is you who is the one that does not know what is talking about; conclusions reached with faulty or incomplete data are the ones that cannot be trusted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103.md?page=15)