you are always so reactively dismissive of anything you don't approve of.
why would that be, do you think?
it smacks of a kind of absolutism, in its way, doesn't it?
hope that's not too tiresomely sanctimonious....lol!
if you are going to be ET's james randi, it's nice to have emil back for balance, n'est ce pas?
what made you so allergic to anything 'mystical'?
enquiring minds... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
We're not saying that we understand everything, but that if you have claims about the world, it should be possible to make these claims in ways that can be proven or disproven. Just responding "you don't get it" when we ask this takes us nowhere.
If you are saying anything beyond "we don't know everything yet", than say what !! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
If one wants to take the proof from that domain to one lower (the intellectual), this is not possible. Same applies when going from the intellectual to the physical.
Re 'what': perhaps comparing people from the headlines nowadays with people from http://web.hec.ca/leadergraphies/ and http://www.big-picture.tv/ can give you a taste.
All psychological models I know of indicate a growth pattern. Names differ, trend is always similar. See http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/inpsyc_preface.cfm/
'Growth' is from Pol Pot cs to Albert Schweizer cs.
Personal note: I am rather taken aback by the sharp tone, a lack of curiosity and the über like status of 'science'.
Is there something inherently good and/or defenseless being discredited and/or hurt?
Emil
How come I have to repeat myself so often?
How often should I do this in order to make a point? Or am I being gullible / naive and am I being tossed around by the real science guys or thereabouts?
Step by step:
Cheers,
More to the point - why should I be doing anything? You're the one trying to convince me of something. At least show me something to tempt me, insterad of just telling me how narrow-minded and boneheaded and stupid I am. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Stating on the outset that you've failed means you don't want to enter the trajectory proposed.
That's ok, but that does not mean that you can't; it's not your inability in the sense of insufficient qualities.
Stating that one can't while one doesn't want is what Sartre calls bad faith.
I'm not calling you the names indicated or any other. I try to make a case without any penalizing labels, since that is neither my style nor productive.
You as Jerome don't have to do anything. You as an intellectual have a moral obligation to use your qualities to relief suffering on this planet.
When confronted with fundamental issues as I tried to raise here, an intellectual should be curious in the sense of inquiring within and go out on a limb to get to the root of the matter.
Are you not tempted by the perspecetive to develop your Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, Albert Schweizer cs qualities?
1) determine if you appreciate the human qualities in http://web.hec.ca/leadergraphies/ and http://www.big-picture.tv/. When in doubt: use as reference current headlines, Cheney, Guantanomo Bay, Josef Stalin, Hyjacking Catastrophe, The Corporation, Who killed the electric car, Edgar Hoover, Mao see what the people whose qualities you appreciate have in common / what distinguishes them from the reference group explore methods and tools having the potential to bring forth those qualities in yourself Blog your findings
Argumentum ad handwavium, in other words... Can we cut back on the logical fallacies, please? They're getting tiresome.
Horses [Sceptics] can be led to the water [kool-aid], but can't be made to drink.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
First show that the domain that your "tools" work in even has any meaning.
I am very suspicious of appeals to higher domains that are by definition not subject to appeals to evidence as representing running away from the messiness and imperfections of immanent reality to a transcendent "higher reality" that is neither messy nor imperfect. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Maybe you can give me such links and then I can tell you why the mentions of QM are a load of humanure.
All too often in connection with these topics QM is mentioned by the likes of Chopra to confuse, not to enlighten, since the audience doesn't know much about QM in the first place and so they have to go by things like "it sounds scientific" and "it sounds reasonable" or, worse, "it is intriguing" or "why not?". We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
b) Why is it, when the the people that do understand what QM is about point out that various mystics are in the habit of citing QM - or relativity, or whatever - to give their beliefs a spurious flavour of science that everyone starts calling us meanies? If their beliefs are so wonderful why do they need the patina of science?
