|
Being "psychic" (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Silky Johnson |
| You're wrong! |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| here's your chance! Try it NOW! |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Following scientific method of investigation and reasoning is actually a pretty good way of changing irrational beliefs due to lack of evidence. |
i think any earnest person will constantly change beliefs throughout life. it's a form of growth, whether you call this earnestness 'scientific method' or 'commitment to truth' or whatever |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
i think any earnest person will constantly change beliefs throughout life. it's a form of growth, whether you call this earnestness 'scientific method' or 'commitment to truth' or whatever |
Well, it depends on how and why they change their beliefs. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well, it depends on how and why they change their beliefs. |
of course |
|
|
| WittyHandle |
Skipped to the end of the thread, but my 2 cents on this is that most people are unaware of how powerful their subconscious perceptive abilities are. This isn't "psychic", but a part of our brain that works without us being aware of it. A great book on this (a great book in general, one of my favs) is Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink". Amazing insights into how we form impressions of things before it even enters our conscious mind, no matter how open minded we think we are. Plus, it's just written so damn well.
Of course, I'm not claiming that this explains away psychic incidents altogether. Just in the couple posts I read before posting, it doesn't apply.
P.S. If you read "Blink" and like it, his other two books "The Tipping Point" and "Outliers" are both amazing too, as are many of his columns in The New Yorker. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
i think any earnest person will constantly change beliefs throughout life. it's a form of growth, whether you call this earnestness 'scientific method' or 'commitment to truth' or whatever |
well, a person can change his beliefs throughout his life, in all earnestness to a commitment to truth. But where is the check that his reasons for changing the beliefs are truly rational ? It's the scientific methods that serve as a check. I may change my belief in psychic energy to a belief in aural energy. But what difference does it make ? They are both irrational from a scientific perspective. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
well, a person can change his beliefs throughout his life, in all earnestness to a commitment to truth. But where is the check that his reasons for changing the beliefs are truly rational ? It's the scientific methods that serve as a check. I may change my belief in psychic energy to a belief in aural energy. But what difference does it make ? They are both irrational from a scientific perspective. |
there is no better check other than to know that you don't know anything, or better put, be aware that you are not anything you think you are.
'scientific method' has a rather murky foundation, or rather no foundation at all - it disintegrates at its source.
what i am talking about goes beyond this scientific method, it means to regard any 'fact' as a mere temporary understanding, a theory. this is what i am calling 'earnestness'.
rationality and perspective are both only theories (complex and internally consistent as they may be) but they are only limiting cases of reality. scientific discovery should only make this more obvious to you. where does it end?
it's like a crowd of people looking at a cloud and trying to decide what shape it is as it changes continually.
earnest people, whether they are artists, scientists, spiritualists, lawyers, doctors, etc don't get caught up in one illusion, they understand that truth is by its very nature not what you think it to be at a given time.
As I said, scientific discovery only reinforces what I am saying. 500 years ago people believed the earth was flat, that it was the center of the solar system, etc. Even now after years of newtonian determinism in physics, contemporary physicists understand determinism and newtonian mechanics to be a limited, macro-scale field within quantum mechanics... |
|
|
| Slylee |
so how do scientists explain intuition???
i mean maybe it has to do with human pheromones or something? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
I like this bit from Paul Graham:
"If a physicist met a colleague from 100 years ago, he could teach him some new things [about his field]; if a psychologist met a colleague from 100 years ago, they'd just get into an ideological argument."
nefardec, have you been reading Thomas Kuhn or something? |
|
|
|
|
