|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What is "magical thinking"?
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
A damn fine reply, TA.
10/10 for style, although (regrettably) 0/10 for content. Ever considered a career as a popular chanteur?
Presumably axioms are chiselled in tablets of stone by the FSM?
[ 22. May 2009, 21:28: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 3624 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I too love the use of the term "faith" when it comes to scientific findings. It's like using the word "slippery" while trying to describe what sex feels like. Absurd.
Science is BOTH facts and theory. The religious love to point out that theory has an element of "faith" to it that changes and twists in the wind like religious dogma, except for one little flaw in their "reasoning". There are actual FACTS underlying the science and they know it! It's a bloody misdirection of the situation if not a lie. Science will modify itself over time not because some arbitrary and capricious god told it to, but because of peer review and actual observable findings. That is NOT the same thing as faith. Blessed are those that have NOT seen (aka not verified) and YET believe. Scientists want PROOF and VERIFICATION, not "unseen".
Philosophers can mentally masturbate on whether a rock exists, but any sixth grader or tribes person can throw one at you and you will not doubt its factual "real-ness". Philosophical mutterings belie the bump on religious people's heads.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11713 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I too love the use of the term "faith" when it comes to scientific findings. It's like using the word "slippery" while trying to describe what sex feels like. Absurd.
Science is BOTH facts and theory. The religious love to point out that theory has an element of "faith" to it that changes and twists in the wind like religious dogma, except for one little flaw in their "reasoning". There are actual FACTS underlying the science and they know it! It's a bloody misdirection of the situation if not a lie. Science will modify itself over time not because some arbitrary and capricious god told it to, but because of peer review and actual observable findings. That is NOT the same thing as faith. Blessed are those that have NOT seen (aka not verified) and YET believe. Scientists want PROOF and VERIFICATION, not "unseen".
Philosophers can mentally masturbate on whether a rock exists, but any sixth grader or tribes person can throw one at you and you will not doubt its factual "real-ness". Philosophical mutterings belie the bump on religious people's heads.
May I assume that you will agree that Astrophysics is a respectable science and not a branch of religion?
I ask because unlike the sciences of chemistry and physics, where you can repeat an experiment and so test your hypotheses indefinitely, Astrophysics is forced to construct its hypotheses on what it can observe. It sees things and interprets these in accordance with certain theories to make sense of what they are seeing.
This is an exact parallel with the process that the evidence led Christian follows (at least IMHO) about our faith. We use the observations that we make about the difference that we see in the lives of others to come to the conclusion that there is something out there that we call God. As we continue to live our lives, our understanding will deepen as we collect further evidence that we interpret as signs of God at work in the world.
The argument that astronomical observations in astrophysics are more reliable than the evidence of Christians cannot really be sustained; some of the strongest evidence for the Christian faith lies in the vast changes that can be seen in lives of some converts, whilst organisations such commission at Lourdes tries to establish truth of medical miracles - a project which the my Pente brethren could learn from. IMHO these are as valid evidence for Christianity as the observational evidence of astronomy is for astrophysics...
One of the most fundamental rules of science is that it only ever possible to disprove a theory; it is never possible to 'prove' one. In that sense ALL science is provisional; the same is true of the development of our personal theologies - at least until we die ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Until then we must live according to our best understanding of the world, making our choices on a combination of what we have directly observed to be significant with what others have told us, in the spiritual, emotional and physical realm. Thus why do parents want to protect their children from child molesters? For I hope the overwhelming majority because of what others have told them, not because of their own direct experience...
Surely the same principles actually underlie our approach to both spiritual and 'non-spiritual' issues...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Science is BOTH facts and theory. The religious love to point out that theory has an element of "faith" to it that changes and twists in the wind like religious dogma, except for one little flaw in their "reasoning". There are actual FACTS underlying the science and they know it!
Science is a process. Facts and theories are results.
Except the fundamental axiom of (current) science is that reality is consistent (water doesn't just turn into gold) and our explorations of it are externally valid (that we can generate facts). Except even some scientists argue that there is evidence that fundamental laws of physics may only be locally consistent or have varied in the past. A real scientist considers these things, a pseudo-scientist just believes the axioms must be true and rules out any explanation that doesn't fit within them.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
...The argument that astronomical observations in astrophysics are more reliable than the evidence of Christians cannot really be sustained; some of the strongest evidence for the Christian faith lies in the vast changes that can be seen in lives of some converts, whilst organisations such commission at Lourdes tries to establish truth of medical miracles - a project which the my Pente brethren could learn from. IMHO these are as valid evidence for Christianity as the observational evidence of astronomy is for astrophysics...
I am not an astrophysicist but like Geologists they do make hypotheses and then PREDICT what will happen if they are correct, or even incorrect and then make observations to validate or invalidate the theory. I am sure an astrophysicist could make a list of things where numerous theories have been validated (another word for "proven") based on predictions. I know the Theory of Relativity has been validated by astronomical observations.
Now lets take your prediction. That converting to Christinaity changes people. Okay. What about when it doesn't? I can name lists of examples where that isn't true. Facts. I can also point out that people converting to other religions from Christianity have resulted in BETTER outcomes. I am one such example. You'll have to take my word for it. As such, it is entirely dubious evidence at best.
Your predictions and results are not valid in all or even most cases, but only the cases that you would cherry pick, most likely. It is not, in fact, evidence at all. It is merely an assertion. I could make the same assertion for hinduism or buddhism and call it evidence and be just as wrong.
Either a rock is a rock and we can test that by knocking you on the head (to use my previous metaphor) and present it as actual evidence, or everything is true and your Christianity is no better than the next gods or the next cults.
Christians need to stay out of the science business IMO. They are not in the business of factuality, they are in the business of faith and you really should stick to it. We don't discredit you if you tell us your faith is your faith, scientists can't really speak to that. What we can do, is point out that magical thinking, faith, and such matters is not fact in the same sense as the natural facts that science investigates. It's mythology.
Your miracles are not any more verifiable or "true" as a Hindus or a Buddhists. You have no way of proving it. Would you say that their religion is equal to yours? Is Christianity just another flavor of "truth". Or is it really better because you simply desire it to be so? Perhaps using some strange algorithm we determine that Hinduism is more "true", would you switch? I mean there might be factual evidence there. I suspect not. I suspect you don't believe in Christianity because it is quantitatively better, it isn't. You believe it because you have faith that it is. Not facts.
Anyway, that is my opinion.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11713 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
The words 'magical thinking' seem to have morphed in their meaning over the last 20 yrs. Previously they had (ime and usage) a close connection to psychological concepts - faulty, flawed or delusional thinking. Eg. A friend who would not sign/write a will fearing that the act of doing this would invite or hasten death.
Now it seems a catch-all phrase for derision, a bit like 'liberal' as used by conservatives. All that needs be said is 'S/He is a liberal' (snort hoot) and that replaces a volume of words, without regard for the gross injustices being done to the true definition of 'liberal'.
The phrase also suffers from containing the word 'magic' and I notice the Skeptics have syncretically attributed new age concepts to the notion of 'magical thinking' in their definition. That is a novel/new development, imo.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
