The occult background of worldly knowledge

[Sarkus]

the fact that it cannot be done indicates the fact that it cannot be done

Strawman fallacy.
I said, quite clearly, "the fact that it can nod be done YET" (important word empahsised by me because you obviously missed it).
Or are you saying that current inability to do something means that it cannot be done?

but without a control group, such social positing cannot deliver anything but relative information

And why is relative information irrelevant?
Further - please indicate where it is possible to get a "control group" - i.e. untouched by culture of any sort (and I don't mean the Americans ).
It is for this reason I suggest you look at system engineering, the changing of multiple variables and how mere "relative information" can be used to pinpoint key drivers, linked effects and far more.

all through the agency of empirical analysis of matter and not culture

Please indicate a "cultural observation" that is NOT an observation of matter. Maybe we can then progress.

lol - which is where the whole thing becomes more messy than a football stadium full of people firing off their own personal fire crackers

Messy for who? For you, obviously, as you clearly fail to understand science. But to who else? To those doing the studies?

And why is a football stadium (as described) "messy"?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the fact that it cannot be done indicates the fact that it cannot be done
”
Strawman fallacy.
I said, quite clearly, "the fact that it can nod be done YET" (important word empahsised by me because you obviously missed it).
Or are you saying that current inability to do something means that it cannot be done?

I am saying that positing post dated checks is not an ethical practice of either commerce or intelligent discussion (outside of discussions of fiction)

“
but without a control group, such social positing cannot deliver anything but relative information
”
And why is relative information irrelevant?

because dying involves issues outside of such irrelevancy

Further - please indicate where it is possible to get a "control group" - i.e. untouched by culture of any sort (and I don't mean the Americans ).

that is precisely the problem for persons such as yourself who want to advocate

3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.

It is for this reason I suggest you look at system engineering, the changing of multiple variables and how mere "relative information" can be used to pinpoint key drivers, linked effects and far more.

taking something relative to a region that is slightly less relative still makes it relative I am afraid

“
all through the agency of empirical analysis of matter and not culture
”

Please indicate a "cultural observation" that is NOT an observation of matter. Maybe we can then progress.

decisions on social policy rarely involve discussions of atoms and protons

“
lol - which is where the whole thing becomes more messy than a football stadium full of people firing off their own personal fire crackers
”
Messy for who?

anyone watching, and provided the persons involved are not completely enthralled by their activities, also the participants

For you, obviously, as you clearly fail to understand science. But to who else? To those doing the studies?

there are many examples
For instance try resolving whether the big bang theory should be reworked or axed in favour of something else in the association of astronomers ....

And why is a football stadium (as described) "messy"?

its not so much the stadium but the people in in "letting rip" with their "explosive devices"

 

[Sarkus]

I am saying that positing post dated checks is not an ethical practice of either commerce or intelligent discussion (outside of discussions of fiction)

Eh? You have something to learn of rationality.
Repeat after me...
"If something is not possible YET, it does not mean that it is absolutely not possible."
Until you learn this you will seemingly get tangled in irrationalities.

because dying involves issues outside of such irrelevancy
...
that is precisely the problem for persons such as yourself who want to advocate.
...
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.[/I]
...
taking something relative to a region that is slightly less relative still makes it relative I am afraid

And I again suggest you go and study up on engineering process analysis.
Until you can adequately demonstrate that you have done there is little point in you discussing such things, as you are clearly unwilling to accept even the possibility that you are wrong.

decisions on social policy rarely involve discussions of atoms and protons

Strawman fallacy.
To make observations of the material one rarely needs to discuss atoms and protons. You know this. You are thus being deliberately pathetic.
Or do you discuss molecules, atoms, protons etc every time you open your eyes?

Decisions on social policy are ALL about the material. Please feel free to try to come up with a social policy that is not.

anyone watching, and provided the persons involved are not completely enthralled by their activities, also the participants

Really? You asked them all? Wow.

there are many examples
For instance try resolving whether the big bang theory should be reworked or axed in favour of something else in the association of astronomers ....

How is that messy?
It is merely two (or more) branches looking at the same observations and trying to come up with reasonable hypotheses.
There is no "mess" at all.

All you seem to be doing is projecting your own preconceptions and interpretations onto subjects you really don't have a clue about.

its not so much the stadium but the people in in "letting rip" with their "explosive devices"

Again... why "messy"? You have not yet explained WHY it is messy - only clarified what you think is messy.

 

[kmguru]

Looks like we are talking about Psychology and clinical Psychology. So why is this in Pseudoscience?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension.

They "pop" out of our own minds/brains. If we weren't thinking about something then nothing would "pop".

 

[lightgigantic]

sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I am saying that positing post dated checks is not an ethical practice of either commerce or intelligent discussion (outside of discussions of fiction)
”
Eh? You have something to learn of rationality.
Repeat after me...
"If something is not possible YET, it does not mean that it is absolutely not possible."
Until you learn this you will seemingly get tangled in irrationalities.

so I guess it must also be equally tenable that you may possibly come to the understanding in the future that it is not possible
(or is it only you who has the authority to dish out post dated checks to your whim?)

“
because dying involves issues outside of such irrelevancy
...
that is precisely the problem for persons such as yourself who want to advocate.
...
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.[/i]
...
taking something relative to a region that is slightly less relative still makes it relative I am afraid
”
And I again suggest you go and study up on engineering process analysis.
Until you can adequately demonstrate that you have done there is little point in you discussing such things, as you are clearly unwilling to accept even the possibility that you are wrong.

and until you can explain why psychological investigations of culture still remain a soft science, even in the light of engineering, it appears you are just throwing in red herrings

“
decisions on social policy rarely involve discussions of atoms and protons
”
Strawman fallacy.
To make observations of the material one rarely needs to discuss atoms and protons. You know this. You are thus being deliberately pathetic.
Or do you discuss molecules, atoms, protons etc every time you open your eyes?

Decisions on social policy are ALL about the material. Please feel free to try to come up with a social policy that is not.

I can show you a rubber ball
I can also show you a tea spoon
Can you show me a justice?

“
anyone watching, and provided the persons involved are not completely enthralled by their activities, also the participants
”
Really? You asked them all? Wow.

I guess I just interpreted the lack of consensus

“
there are many examples
For instance try resolving whether the big bang theory should be reworked or axed in favour of something else in the association of astronomers ....
”
How is that messy?
It is merely two (or more) branches looking at the same observations and trying to come up with reasonable hypotheses.
There is no "mess" at all.

I guess it depends whether you hold contradiction within two or more hypothesis's as an obstacle in the pursuit of the reasonable ...

All you seem to be doing is projecting your own preconceptions and interpretations onto subjects you really don't have a clue about.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm

or even more closer to home

:shrug:

“
its not so much the stadium but the people in in "letting rip" with their "explosive devices"
”
Again... why "messy"? You have not yet explained WHY it is messy - only clarified what you think is messy.

if ten different people have ten different opinions and change their minds on ten different occasions each, we have a mess

 

[lightgigantic]

Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension.

They "pop" out of our own minds/brains. If we weren't thinking about something then nothing would "pop".

I guess the occult mystery is arrived at when trying to bridge the "before" and "after" of such states

Looks like we are talking about Psychology and clinical Psychology. So why is this in Pseudoscience?

Originally it was posted in one of the other forums but some mod who shall remain anonymous decided that the use of the word occult is an instant indication where such a thread should be directed

 

[Sarkus]

so I guess it must also be equally tenable that you may possibly come to the understanding in the future that it is not possible
(or is it only you who has the authority to dish out post dated checks to your whim?)

Absolutely - but until it is known FOR CERTAIN that it is not possible, it remains a possibility.
You appear to take current inability as absolute inability - a logical fallacy that I will continue to point out to you for as long as I spot you doing it.

and until you can explain why psychological investigations of culture still remain a soft science, even in the light of engineering, it appears you are just throwing in red herrings

Who said anything about psychological investigations. I'm talking about observations of societies. One can delve into the psychological whys and wherefores to one's heart's content - but the observations are STILL evidence of the material and can subject to the same scientific method.

I can show you a rubber ball
I can also show you a tea spoon
Can you show me a justice?

If you first define it - and to do so would require material.

I guess it depends whether you hold contradiction within two or more hypothesis's as an obstacle in the pursuit of the reasonable ...

Where's the contradiction of which you speak?
There may well be a contradiction in interpretation - that further study will help remove, but not in the underlying facts, observations and evidence.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htmAgain, you happily confuse scientists with the scientific method.
Scientists have their own agenda (e.g. funding sources, egos etc) that often inhibit the scientific method from being used correctly.

So, there is competing theories... so what?
None of it disputes the known evidence - only questions the earlier moments than we can trace back to.
I'm sorry, LG, but your examples just do not support your arguments.

:shrug:

if ten different people have ten different opinions and change their minds on ten different occasions each, we have a mess

Please don't change the analogy, or further clarify what you mean by "messy". You mentioned the football stadium with firecrackers - now please explain why you think this is "messy"?

Or is this just another "throw in a seemingly-clever analogy and hope noone questions it and realises it's actually pretty rubbish" attempt by you?
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so I guess it must also be equally tenable that you may possibly come to the understanding in the future that it is not possible
(or is it only you who has the authority to dish out post dated checks to your whim?)
”
Absolutely - but until it is known FOR CERTAIN that it is not possible, it remains a possibility.

the problem is that your favoured method of knowledge (empiricism and rationalism) has no scope for certain knowledge - thus if you want to open the game to post dated checks we can say anything - eg - in the future we may come to know that the moon is actually made of cheese

You appear to take current inability as absolute inability - a logical fallacy that I will continue to point out to you for as long as I spot you doing it.

and your fallacy is you assume
- empiricism/rationalism is a medium that can approach absolute knowledge
- there is no methodology to ascertaining theistic claims

“
and until you can explain why psychological investigations of culture still remain a soft science, even in the light of engineering, it appears you are just throwing in red herrings
”
Who said anything about psychological investigations.

if not psychology what else?
geology?

I'm talking about observations of societies.

and more specifically, the cultural norms or values that under ride their function

One can delve into the psychological whys and wherefores to one's heart's content - but the observations are STILL evidence of the material and can subject to the same scientific method.

its not clear what observations you are talking about to determine the extent of cultural influences on near death experiences

“
I can show you a rubber ball
I can also show you a tea spoon
Can you show me a justice?
”
If you first define it - and to do so would require material.

The administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments

good luck in showing what it is through arrangements of dull matter

“
I guess it depends whether you hold contradiction within two or more hypothesis's as an obstacle in the pursuit of the reasonable ...
”
Where's the contradiction of which you speak?

the big bang theory and plasma cosmology are two different theories on the origins of the universe

There may well be a contradiction in interpretation - that further study will help remove, but not in the underlying facts, observations and evidence.

and in the meantime, we have contention - namely should the big bang theory be reworked or should it be scrapped in favour of an alternative suggestion

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...es/bigbang.htmAgain, you happily confuse scientists with the scientific method.
Scientists have their own agenda (e.g. funding sources, egos etc) that often inhibit the scientific method from being used correctly.

So, there is competing theories... so what?

so what?
so if I tell you that I was born in ireland and later tell you I was born in japan and some time later tell you I was born in Nepal, it doesn't raise issues about what the hell I am talking about?
You wouldn't begin to think that i was talking nonsense or had no real clear idea where I was born?

None of it disputes the known evidence - only questions the earlier moments than we can trace back to.
I'm sorry, LG, but your examples just do not support your arguments.

the whole issue about speculative theories of science is that they are not actual observations of evidence but rather interpretations of evidence
This only becomes messy when persons such as yourself artificially give such speculations the status of empirical facts

“
if ten different people have ten different opinions and change their minds on ten different occasions each, we have a mess
”
Please don't change the analogy, or further clarify what you mean by "messy". You mentioned the football stadium with firecrackers - now please explain why you think this is "messy"?

Or is this just another "throw in a seemingly-clever analogy and hope noone questions it and realises it's actually pretty rubbish" attempt by you?

I guess it requires a bit of imagination
I can't say that I have seen a football stadium full of people firing off their own personal fire crackers
probably due to the extremely cacophonous nature of such an event .....