These are all nice questions to think about, I agree, however they are neither source nor elaboration on your original statement. :P
I did elaborate, and I even made an analogy. And, fyi, those questions are not rhetorical. I was asking you.
To spell it out for you even more, if you believe in something(ex: homeopathy) that promises to cure cancer using something that has as familiar properties as water, then you aregullible. That's it. And if you disagree then there is no possible way to argue this further because it only comes down to definition of terms.
Fair enough. I think I misinterpreted the double equals sign. I thought what you were trying to say was "Magical thinking and gullibility are the same as pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism." not "How are magical thinking and gullibility different than pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism?".
In what way is something like homeopathy not like magical thinking?
I'm assuming here that you meant pseudoscience but wanted something a bit narrower for the sake of asking a question. Modern homeopathy is a pseudoscience that does indeed involve magical thinking, in the form of the Law of Similars, which could be considered a form of the magical Law of Similarity. It is important to note, however, that homeopathy was invented as a reaction to 18th century medicine, which was not much better, and that many of its platforms (that bloodletting and purging were not cure-alls, that drugs should not be taken in doses higher than necessary for the desired effect, that the use of painkillers without adequate long-term care is not responsible, etc.) were quite reasonable.
More importantly, though, not all magical thinking is pseudoscientific, and not all pseudoscience involves magical thinking. Believing that if you bring an umbrella with you on a cloudy day, it will rain is an example of magical thinking. It is not an example of pseudoscience.
In what way is believing in pseudoscience not gullibility?
Gullible means to be easily duped or cheated. However, many believers of pseudoscience are only fooled by pseudoscience, and not by other forms of confidence art. A person might not send money to the prince of Nigeria, but might believe something they read in the Scientific American to be true even if it turned out to be an April Fool's Day joke. This is due to a weakness for appeals to authority, not due to gullibility.
I heard in a History Channel show that some people came out admitting to making up Loch Ness. The famous video was shot with a bath toy and a fuzzy camera at the edge of the lake.
As for what I do believe in, I believe in palmistry. My mother happens to be an ex palmistry teacher. I also believe in ghosts, and many theories that go along with manipulating energy though disciplinary meditation and such.
Before someone makes the mistake, palmistry does not tell the future like taro cards, but tells more about the current body. Some doctors have worked with palmists to help diagnose patients. You can make predictions as to the future, but the hands change through time, so future predictions aren't done so much in palmistry as a whole. I'm not including any gypsies who make fake predictions off of your hand here, I'm only talking about people who actually study the hand.
As for what I do believe in, I believe in palmistry.
I hate to break it to you, but "palmistry" is complete, made-up rubbish with no backing whatsoever.
Before someone makes the mistake, palmistry does not tell the future like tarot cards, but tells more about the current body.
No, no it doesn't. Not at all. In the case of a handful of serious genetic disorders, there can be general dysmorphism in the hands and/or fingerprints, but these are obvious and not useful diagnostically.
My mother happens to be an ex palmistry teacher.
Was your mother a hand doctor? If not, I'm sorry to say this, but she was teaching made-up garbage. Besides, if you were talking about anatomical study, as opposed to garbage, why would you bring it up in a thread on the "supernatural?"
I believe that you can believe whatever you like. Just don't push it onto anyone, because that's just whack. If you let something with no corporeal, scientific basis rule your life, and obsess about it, then that's just sort of a waste of your life. Whatever.
I also concede that reality is unknown-able, that there is no truth, and that the grand narrative of scientific progress as the path to a Utopia as just that – a grand narrative contrived of various discourses, suspect, like all texts, to subjectivity.
So, I’m sort of conflicted. I would believe in the supernatural if it ever went in my face and screamed at me, but as it has yet to do so… Supernatural, I’m meaning here, as magic and things which are not ruled by science and logic. And if it does exist already, then it has yet to affect my life in any way, and I thus disregard its existence.
As for what I do believe in, I believe in palmistry. My mother happens to be an ex palmistry teacher. I also believe in ghosts, and many theories that go along with manipulating energy though disciplinary meditation and such.
Some doctors have worked with palmists to help diagnose patients. You can make predictions as to the future, but the hands change through time, so future predictions aren't done so much in palmistry as a whole. I'm not including any gypsies who make fake predictions off of your hand here, I'm only talking about people who actually study the hand.
You believe in palmistry? You believe in ghosts? You believe in "manipulating energy though disciplinary meditation and such"? Weren't you the kid who said he believed that public schools were originally designed to teach house slaves to read and cipher? I believe that you are an sad little drooling idiot.
Allow me to quote a quote in Prince of Nothing Book 3 page 392.
Faith, they say, is simply hope confused for knowledge. Why believe when hope alone is enough?
Personally, I hope there are ghosts. I hope there is magic. I hope there are zombies. I hope there are gods. I hope there are intelligent extraterrestrials visiting earth. I hope there are free energy machines. I hope there are psychic powers. I hope there is a chupacabra. I hope there are yetis. Yet, I know that none of these things are true. That is the way to be.
Personally, I hope there are ghosts. I hope there is magic. I hope there are zombies. I hope there are gods. I hope there are intelligent extraterrestrials visiting earth. I hope there are free energy machines. I hope there are psychic powers. I hope there is a chupacabra. I hope there are yetis. Yet, I know that none of these things are true. That is the way to be.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with that. There is similarly nothing wrong with finding entertainment from stories and games about such things. Believing that they actually exist in real life is the problem. It's hard to understand why there is such an interest in the possible existence of silly things when there are so many more interesting things that actually exist.
I don't want ghosts to exist. Stuck in some old building haunting people doesn't sound like a great way to spend the rest of eternity. Give me the fluffy clouds and harps, thanks.
Similarly, I don't want spirit mediums to be real, because I can picture myself in ghostly form behind John Edward yelling into his ear: "My name was PAUL. Got that? NO, NOT PETER, YOU IDIOT. No, I was NOT that guy's beloved dog. I didn't die from some unspecified "chest pain", I died peacefully at age 123. Are you listening, you douchebag? NO, MY NAME WAS NOT... screw it, I'll go try Sylvia."
If it was real, it would be natural, not supernatural. Anything that is supernatural is by definition, false.
Yeah, nothing that is supernatural exists. Some of the things that people consider to be supernatural may exist, but there is a scientific explanation for it. For example Bigfoot could be a gigantopithecus that is only functionally extinct. Or the chupacabra could be some sort of monkey with sharp teeth that eats goats.
As for what I do believe in, I believe in palmistry.
I hate to break it to you, but "palmistry" is complete, made-up rubbish with no backing whatsoever.
The only way palmistry could work is with some sort of placebo effect. If someone read someone else's palm and said that they would die in the next week, it could happen. But only if that person was stupid. They could worry that they were going to die some much that they had a heard attack. Palmistry can tell one thing about your future if you pay someone to read your palm again, that you are going to get scammed again.
Similarly, I don't want spirit mediums to be real, because I can picture myself in ghostly form behind John Edward yelling into his ear: "My name was PAUL. Got that? NO, NOT PETER, YOU IDIOT. No, I was NOT that guy's beloved dog. I didn't die from some unspecified "chest pain", I died peacefully at age 123. Are you listening, you douchebag? NO, MY NAME WAS NOT... screw it, I'll go try Sylvia."
*bows before Poorly* Thank you, I now have chest pains, due to laughing too hard.
I hate to break it to you, but "palmistry" is complete, made-up rubbish with no backing whatsoever
However it, like the tarot, is good for playing around with so you can hold cute boys' hands.
I hope there is a chupacabra
Nooo, the Chupacabra! Really good post Scott. I agree with you.
I like to think about all of these things, in the way I like to think about the far future or time travel or those sorts of thing. They are wonderful as concepts, but until something is proven, concrete, and real, why act like it can affect your life? Only believe in what you can observe, but dream about anything you choose.
As much as many of us, myself included, would like to believe in the supremacy of science in all matters there is the possibility that it could be wrong or unable to explain everything.
As much as many of us, myself included, would like to believe in the supremacy of science in all matters there is the possibility that it could be wrong or unable to explain everything.
No. No, there's not that possibility. What we call "science" is a way of summing up the rules that make our universe work. If something exists, no matter what it is, then it exists under the rules. If something exists that seems to break the rules, it means the rules weren't what we thought they were. Nothing is unexplainable, given enough research.
As much as many of us, myself included, would like to believe in the supremacy of science in all matters there is the possibility that it could be wrong or unable to explain everything.
Yes, there is always a possibility of everything. However, just because something is possible doesn't mean you should act as if it could have an effect on your life. Just worry about what is likely.
The problem with the supernatural is that there isn't anything to make it work. In order to have ghosts and that kind of thing you would need some kind of physical particle or wave which would eventually be picked up. Supernatural people always think macro but fall apart on the micro or nano scale. Even though it often amazes me, science works and every component fits with every other part and stranger still, this all fits in with maths. Supernatural, made up stuff: not so much.
As much as many of us, myself included, would like to believe in the supremacy of science in all matters there is the possibility that it could be wrong or unable to explain everything.
This is actually a wish/rationalization that magic might exist. It's very hard to understand how people can cling so desperately t thinking that went out of style in the middle ages when the alternative is so successful. Was magic thinking able to construct a computer? Was alchemy able to construct a memristor? Magic thinking failed all of its goals and aims spectacularly badly. Science, on the other hand, has given us some of the things that people of the middle ages would have considered magic - just look at us all communicating instantly with other people many miles away through what people of the middle ages would describe as magic mirrors. Why would anyone want a discipline that has been so successful to fail in any way?
Renaming it removes one source of conflict, namely that if a thing falls within the realm of understandability, it is natural, not supernatural.
You don't get it. It has nothing to do with understandability. There are plenty of natural things we do not understand.
For example, we don't understand gravity. However, gravity is natural, not supernatural. Why is this? It is because even though we don't fully understand gravitational forces, we can observe them, test them, etc. We can measure their effects.
Now that I think about it, your line of thinking is completely backwards. Supernatural things are not real things that we don't understand. They are the exact opposite. Supernatural things, are things which we understand completely, but are not real. We understand ghosts, extraterrestrials, bigfoots, psychics, etc. but none of them exist. They are just ideas that humans have, but otherwise do not exist in the universe.
If it was real, it would be natural, not supernatural. Anything that is supernatural is by definition, false.
When a person says they believe in Yeti, what they are really saying is that they believe that the folklore which describes Yeti is true, not that Yeti are supernatural. "Belief in the supernatural" is a poorly chosen phrase, so I suggested the alternative "belief in folklore". Someone claimed that there was no benefit to the change in name, so I attempted to elaborate. In the process a misunderstanding was created. I agree with you that a natural thing that is not understood is not supernatural. Hence the name change suggestion.
When a person says they believe in Yeti, what they are really saying is that they believe that the folklore which describes Yeti is true, not that Yeti are supernatural. "Belief in the supernatural" is a poorly chosen phrase, so I suggested the alternative "belief in folklore".
You are correct, there is a slight difference there. Someone who believes in magic psychic powers is believing in something with contradicts the laws of nature as we know it. Someone who believes in a yeti is believing something that does not go against the laws of the universe as we know them. However, both of these are still belief in things for which there is no evidence. So while there is a distinction to be made between both of these false beliefs, I have no problem just lumping them all together. What word you choose to use for that doesn't matter so much.
Comments
More importantly, though, not all magical thinking is pseudoscientific, and not all pseudoscience involves magical thinking. Believing that if you bring an umbrella with you on a cloudy day, it will rain is an example of magical thinking. It is not an example of pseudoscience. Gullible means to be easily duped or cheated. However, many believers of pseudoscience are only fooled by pseudoscience, and not by other forms of confidence art. A person might not send money to the prince of Nigeria, but might believe something they read in the Scientific American to be true even if it turned out to be an April Fool's Day joke. This is due to a weakness for appeals to authority, not due to gullibility.
As for what I do believe in, I believe in palmistry. My mother happens to be an ex palmistry teacher. I also believe in ghosts, and many theories that go along with manipulating energy though disciplinary meditation and such.
Before someone makes the mistake, palmistry does not tell the future like taro cards, but tells more about the current body. Some doctors have worked with palmists to help diagnose patients. You can make predictions as to the future, but the hands change through time, so future predictions aren't done so much in palmistry as a whole. I'm not including any gypsies who make fake predictions off of your hand here, I'm only talking about people who actually study the hand.
I also concede that reality is unknown-able, that there is no truth, and that the grand narrative of scientific progress as the path to a Utopia as just that – a grand narrative contrived of various discourses, suspect, like all texts, to subjectivity.
So, I’m sort of conflicted. I would believe in the supernatural if it ever went in my face and screamed at me, but as it has yet to do so… Supernatural, I’m meaning here, as magic and things which are not ruled by science and logic. And if it does exist already, then it has yet to affect my life in any way, and I thus disregard its existence.
This is what happens when kids are home schooled.
Often with more tact as well.
Faith, they say, is simply hope confused for knowledge. Why believe when hope alone is enough?
Personally, I hope there are ghosts. I hope there is magic. I hope there are zombies. I hope there are gods. I hope there are intelligent extraterrestrials visiting earth. I hope there are free energy machines. I hope there are psychic powers. I hope there is a chupacabra. I hope there are yetis. Yet, I know that none of these things are true. That is the way to be.
Similarly, I don't want spirit mediums to be real, because I can picture myself in ghostly form behind John Edward yelling into his ear: "My name was PAUL. Got that? NO, NOT PETER, YOU IDIOT. No, I was NOT that guy's beloved dog. I didn't die from some unspecified "chest pain", I died peacefully at age 123. Are you listening, you douchebag? NO, MY NAME WAS NOT... screw it, I'll go try Sylvia."
The only way palmistry could work is with some sort of placebo effect. If someone read someone else's palm and said that they would die in the next week, it could happen. But only if that person was stupid. They could worry that they were going to die some much that they had a heard attack. Palmistry can tell one thing about your future if you pay someone to read your palm again, that you are going to get scammed again.
I like to think about all of these things, in the way I like to think about the far future or time travel or those sorts of thing. They are wonderful as concepts, but until something is proven, concrete, and real, why act like it can affect your life? Only believe in what you can observe, but dream about anything you choose.
For example, we don't understand gravity. However, gravity is natural, not supernatural. Why is this? It is because even though we don't fully understand gravitational forces, we can observe them, test them, etc. We can measure their effects.
Now that I think about it, your line of thinking is completely backwards. Supernatural things are not real things that we don't understand. They are the exact opposite. Supernatural things, are things which we understand completely, but are not real. We understand ghosts, extraterrestrials, bigfoots, psychics, etc. but none of them exist. They are just ideas that humans have, but otherwise do not exist in the universe.