Principia Discordia

Do you have something to say about the whole chaos magic deal?

Nope.  But I'm sure you do.

Not particularly.

Fair enough.  Where'd you come across the BIP?

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:04:09 PM
Do you have something to say about the whole chaos magic deal?

Yes.

But you won't like it.

TGRR,
Always willing to give fair warning to the mahdjgickqual spags that regged on the same day as the last  poptard incarnation.

I was reading about fringe religions, came across discordianism, and so checked it out on Wikipedia. I saw that Principia Discordia was a focus point, so I google'd it, hoping for a free pdf or the like, and found the book here. I skimmed through that, then checked out BIP. And I then I read through that. Very well written.

As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 05:06:54 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:04:09 PM
Do you have something to say about the whole chaos magic deal?

Yes.

But you won't like it.

TGRR,
Always willing to give fair warning to the mahdjgickqual spags that regged on the same day as the last  poptard incarnation.

Ah.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

There is no such thing.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

I think not, my friend.  :lulz:

But welcome to PD. Pool's on the roof.

Quote from: Hoopla on January 31, 2011, 05:14:29 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 05:06:54 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:04:09 PM
Do you have something to say about the whole chaos magic deal?

Yes.

But you won't like it.

TGRR,
Always willing to give fair warning to the mahdjgickqual spags that regged on the same day as the last  poptard incarnation.

Ah.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

There is no such thing.

Just saying it doesn't exist isn't very productive.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:21:16 PM

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

There is no such thing.

Just saying it doesn't exist isn't very productive.

Zap me with some Skippy.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:21:16 PM

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

There is no such thing.

Just saying it doesn't exist isn't very productive.

Sure it is. I produced a thought and then a sentence.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:21:16 PM

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

There is no such thing.

Just saying it doesn't exist isn't very productive.

No, not countering with a counter argument isn't very productive.  

@Suu: Nice.

@Charley Brown: Zap you with some chaos magic?

@Rev: Fair enough.

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:23:08 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:21:16 PM

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

There is no such thing.

Just saying it doesn't exist isn't very productive.

Sure it is. I produced a thought and then a sentence.

But it didn't produce any verifiable madgickal change in the universe, Suu! I should know, I'm a 'ccultist.

Phox,
Is an occultist. For realz, yo.

Listen. I write horoscopes for a living. Fuck you all, there is no such thing as magic.

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:26:31 PM
Listen. I write horoscopes for a living. Fuck you all, there is no such thing as magic.

Yes there is. A kiss, a sunset, a beautiful perfect morning. All magic.

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:26:31 PM
Listen. I write horoscopes for a living. Fuck you all, there is no such thing as magic.

:aww:

B-b-b-but.... my tarot....  :cry:

Quote from: Charley Brown on January 31, 2011, 05:28:32 PM

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:26:31 PM
Listen. I write horoscopes for a living. Fuck you all, there is no such thing as magic.

Yes there is. A kiss, a sunset, a beautiful perfect morning. All magic.

:)

Quote from: Charley Brown on January 31, 2011, 05:28:32 PM

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:26:31 PM
Listen. I write horoscopes for a living. Fuck you all, there is no such thing as magic.

Yes there is. A kiss, a sunset, a beautiful perfect morning. All magic.

Okay, yes. Magic. But not MAGJDICK.

Cue Ratatosk the White Knight of Magick in 5... 4... 3...

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:21:16 PM

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
As for chaos magic, if you have anything to say about it, you should say it. You might even help me grow by doing so.

There is no such thing.

Just saying it doesn't exist isn't very productive.

The tooth fairy also doesn't exist.  Pretending that magic exists isn't productive.  Learning to deal with the world as it really is, is productive.

Quote from: Suu on January 31, 2011, 05:26:31 PM
Listen. I write horoscopes for a living. Fuck you all, there is no such thing as magic.

This.

The human brain is weird enough.  The world itself is weird enough, if you know where to look.

There's no NEED for rubbing one out on your "sigil" to make things happen.  If you spend time learning to see The World As It Is, rather than The World As You Want To See It, there's no end of strange shit going on.

Magic(k) is just another way of propping up a weak worldview.

Never been awake
Never seen a day break
Leaning on my pillow in the morning
Lazy day in bed
Music in my head
Crazy music playing in the morning light

Ho, ho, ho
It's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so

Incidentally, "I use the word 'magick' to describe the practices of self-hypnosis and NLP" doesn't count, because we already have words for self-hypnosis and NLP.

I think some are under a misconception that I have some sort of higher being which gives me power and/or excuses on why bad and/or good stuff happens. I do not. I am firmly agnostic.

And, saying that I'm using magic as a means of propping up a weak worldview is a touch arrogant, don't you think? It's possible that we all can be wrong, correct?

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:41:55 PM
I think some are under a misconception that I have some sort of higher being which gives me power and/or excuses on why bad and/or good stuff happens. I do not. I am firmly agnostic.

And, saying that I'm using magic as a means of propping up a weak worldview is a touch arrogant, don't you think? It's possible that we all can be wrong, correct?

:lulz: :lulz:

As soon as you can give me a reasonable explanation as to how conciousness can violate known physical laws, I'll conceed your point.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:41:55 PM
I think some are under a misconception that I have some sort of higher being which gives me power and/or excuses on why bad and/or good stuff happens. I do not. I am firmly agnostic.

And, saying that I'm using magic as a means of propping up a weak worldview is a touch arrogant, don't you think? It's possible that we all can be wrong, correct?

Depends on how you define "arrogant".  I'm an agnostic as well, and I have a pretty strong disdain for cultish thinking like Scientology, the Reverend Moon, and Calvinism, among other weird beliefs.  I extend that disdain to people who believe in cargo cult thinking, supply-side economics, Ayn Rand, and magic(k).

ETA:  There's a possibility my worldview is inaccurate...In fact, it's a certainty that my worldview is to some degree inaccurate, as I am not omniscient (As a Holy Man™, I AM, however, omnifallible).  However, this does not imply that consciousness can - in and of itself - alter objective reality.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 05:45:33 PM
As soon as you can give me a reasonable explanation as to how conciousness can violate known physical laws, I'll conceed your point.

You seem to be putting much faith into science. As for "known" physical laws, we used to "know" that our planet was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Oh lord.

Rev, how do you even know there is an objective reality? Isn't concensus reality equally possible?

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:50:56 PM
You seem to be putting much faith into science. As for "known" physical laws, we used to "know" that our planet was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.

1.  You need to work on your definition of "science".  It's not an article of faith.

2.  Even the ancient Greeks knew the world was spherical.  It's only when people step away from math that they generate weird ideas about the shape of the Earth.  That was a regression, not an application of science.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:52:47 PM
Rev, how do you even know there is an objective reality? Isn't concensus reality equally possible?

No.  Reality existed before consciousness.  This isn't the Matrix.  You can all agree that fire isn't hot.  Then stick your hand in it, and you'll see which reality applies.

Who said you had to have consciousness to have consensus reality?

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:55:47 PM
Who said you had to have consciousness to have consensus reality?

Without consciousness, where's the consensus?

Animalistic perception which we view to be devoid of conciousness, could have potentially held together such a construct.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:58:26 PM
Animalistic perception which we view to be devoid of conciousness, could have potentially held together such a construct.

And before there were animals?

Ok, let's say that consensus reality exists, and furthermore that it's not even contingent on consciousness.

Which means that in all reliable verifiable observations made for at least the last hundred years, if not the last thousand, the universe behaves as if there are known physical laws.


And even after all that, you still haven't explained how your Chaos Magick affects them.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 05:50:56 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 05:45:33 PM
As soon as you can give me a reasonable explanation as to how conciousness can violate known physical laws, I'll conceed your point.

You seem to be putting much faith into science. As for "known" physical laws, we used to "know" that our planet was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.

There's a significant difference I've seen between those who promote science and those who promote "magick."

Those who put their faith in science are always looking for new explanations.  Yep, we used to "know" that our planet is flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.  Now, we know otherwise, because of science.

Those who put their faith in magick, of whatever flavor (and I include many religions, here), tend to believe either whatever crap their particular holy book tells them is true, or whatever the heck they want to believe, because it's easier than actually exploring the reality they happen to exist in.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 06:03:53 PM
Ok, let's say that consensus reality exists, and furthermore that it's not even contingent on consciousness.

Which means that in all reliable verifiable observations made for at least the last hundred years, if not the last thousand, the universe behaves as if there are known physical laws.


And even after all that, you still haven't explained how your Chaos Magick affects them.

Or, hell, let's get down to brass tacks.  Can Chaos Magick produce measurable, repeatable results?

Because from everything I've heard and seen, it's just a big, drippy sack of confirmation bias.

Quote from: Luna on January 31, 2011, 06:04:54 PM
Those who put their faith in science are always looking for new explanations.  Yep, we used to "know" that our planet is flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.  Now, we know otherwise, because of science.

Those who put their faith in magick, of whatever flavor (and I include many religions, here), tend to believe either whatever crap their particular holy book tells them is true, or whatever the heck they want to believe, because it's easier than actually exploring the reality they happen to exist in.

This.  One hallmark of pseudoscience is that it doesn't progress.

Can somebody bump or link us to one of the existing MADGIDUQE threads? I know we all love arguing the same points over and over again, but maybe if we read through the old threads somebody can bring something new to the discussion?

QuoteAbsence of progressFailure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.[45] Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.[46] (see also: Scientific progress)

Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[47] By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.

Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows that the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

The section on confirmation vs refutation is pretty good as well.

In essence, the pros and cons of both approaches are:

Chaos Magick:

Pros - You don't have to use math.  You can use it to get laid with fat, smelly trustafarian college girls (The ECH Principle).

Cons - It doesn't work.

Science :

Cons - You have to learn math.  You have to prove your idea.  It has to survive peer review. 

Pros - It works.  Will not get you laid with fat, smelly trustafarian college girls.

Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2011, 06:08:41 PM
Can somebody bump or link us to one of the existing MADGIDUQE threads? I know we all love arguing the same points over and over again, but maybe if we read through the old threads somebody can bring something new to the discussion?

I'm having fun.  Someone else can do it.  If they do, I'll split this thread and graft it on to the mahdjgickque thread.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:06:02 PM
Or, hell, let's get down to brass tacks.  Can Chaos Magick produce measurable, repeatable results?

Because from everything I've heard and seen, it's just a big, drippy sack of confirmation bias.

Well, I already took the pseudo-definitions* of NLP and self-hypnosis off the table, which leaves measurable results that contradict the way we expect the universe to be have under non-magick circumstances.  So we need an explanation of how that works; and then we can design an experiment to test it.











*Because you know Rat will bring them up.

Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2011, 06:08:41 PM
Can somebody bump or link us to one of the existing MADGIDUQE threads? I know we all love arguing the same points over and over again, but maybe if we read through the old threads somebody can bring something new to the discussion?

Well, I'v been trying a new angle -- even if the universe is subjective rather than objective, it behaves as if it is objective, and still doesn't explain chaos magick.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 06:16:17 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:06:02 PM
Or, hell, let's get down to brass tacks.  Can Chaos Magick produce measurable, repeatable results?

Because from everything I've heard and seen, it's just a big, drippy sack of confirmation bias.

Well, I already took the pseudo-definitions* of NLP and self-hypnosis off the table, which leaves measurable results that contradict the way we expect the universe to be have under non-magick circumstances.  So we need an explanation of how that works; and then we can design an experiment to test it.











*Because you know Rat will bring them up.

NLP and self-hypnosis go in the same boat as "visualizing" and "affirmations" with me.  New agey shit that does what you should already be doing...ie, getting off your spotty arse and getting things done.

And hence, should not be defined as "magick".

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 06:17:24 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2011, 06:08:41 PM
Can somebody bump or link us to one of the existing MADGIDUQE threads? I know we all love arguing the same points over and over again, but maybe if we read through the old threads somebody can bring something new to the discussion?

Well, I'v been trying a new angle -- even if the universe is subjective rather than objective, it behaves as if it is objective, and still doesn't explain chaos magick.

And that's been interesting and infuriating at the same time...Because the very idea of a subjective universe makes me shit my pance in frothing rage.

The universe is what it is, and it doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks.  No matter how many "sigils" you "charge" or "servitors" you "make", gravity is still going to do it's thing, as are all the other measurable forces and phenomena in the universe.

I don't hate people who believe in this magick shit (well, any more than I hate all the other monkeys infesting my planet), but it's kind of enraging, watching presumably intelligent people believe in fairy tales.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:22:00 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 06:17:24 PM
Well, I've been trying a new angle -- even if the universe is subjective rather than objective, it behaves as if it is objective, and still doesn't explain chaos magick.

And that's been interesting and infuriating at the same time...Because the very idea of a subjective universe makes me shit my pance in frothing rage.

The point being, of course, that trying to redesign the universe to suit your whims still doesn't solve the problem.


And there's something to be said about pance-shitting froth rage.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:22:00 PM

And that's been interesting and infuriating at the same time...Because the very idea of a subjective universe makes me shit my pance in frothing rage.

The universe is what it is, and it doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks.  No matter how many "sigils" you "charge" or "servitors" you "make", gravity is still going to do it's thing, as are all the other measurable forces and phenomena in the universe.

I don't hate people who believe in this magick shit (well, any more than I hate all the other monkeys infesting my planet), but it's kind of enraging, watching presumably intelligent people believe in fairy tales.

Nah, I've got no issues with people believing in fairy tales, if it keeps them entertained and reasonably quiet.  It's the ones who feel compelled to make you believe in their fairy tales that give me hives.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 06:24:46 PM
The point being, of course, that trying to redesign the universe to suit your whims still doesn't solve the problem.

Precisely.  Ignoring the World As It Really Is always has consequences, to one degree or another.  Usually, these consequences are restricted to wasting your brief, irreplaceable time, but can be far more serious depending on the situation.  In an extreme enough situation, you could wind up under a bridge, or dead, or even banging a fat, smelly trustafarian college girl.  The mind recoils in horror.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 06:24:46 PM
And there's something to be said about pance-shitting froth rage.

Yes, it gets me through the workday, for one.

Quote from: Luna on January 31, 2011, 06:25:29 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:22:00 PM

And that's been interesting and infuriating at the same time...Because the very idea of a subjective universe makes me shit my pance in frothing rage.

The universe is what it is, and it doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks.  No matter how many "sigils" you "charge" or "servitors" you "make", gravity is still going to do it's thing, as are all the other measurable forces and phenomena in the universe.

I don't hate people who believe in this magick shit (well, any more than I hate all the other monkeys infesting my planet), but it's kind of enraging, watching presumably intelligent people believe in fairy tales.

Nah, I've got no issues with people believing in fairy tales, if it keeps them entertained and reasonably quiet.  It's the ones who feel compelled to make you believe in their fairy tales that give me hives.

I already mentioned Calvinists.   :lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:06:02 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 06:03:53 PM
Ok, let's say that consensus reality exists, and furthermore that it's not even contingent on consciousness.

Which means that in all reliable verifiable observations made for at least the last hundred years, if not the last thousand, the universe behaves as if there are known physical laws.


And even after all that, you still haven't explained how your Chaos Magick affects them.

Or, hell, let's get down to brass tacks.  Can Chaos Magick produce measurable, repeatable results?

Because from everything I've heard and seen, it's just a big, drippy sack of confirmation bias.

Yes and no. Chaos magic bends the odds, not breaks them. I can't really make a bowl of pudding appear out of thin air (though I'd love to) because even if I were to bend said odds, it's still horrendously unlikely for said action to happen. Now, if I wanted something easier to happen, say, I want a localized power outage. I'm playing with better odds. It's much more likely (even though it may still be unlikely on average comparison) and that can be made to happen, though it may be not the way you wanted it to happen.

As for the confirmation bias, that's the kicker. If I did the whole ritual deal to get something to happen, say a rainstorm. How can I prove that it was me somehow pulling the strings, and not just what was already going to happen? I can't. At the end of the day, it comes down to subjective belief.

The same crutch used by your common church I will admit.

But, two things make chaos magic different.

One, whatever "power" I have isn't some ethereal nonsense that god gives me. If I want a hamburger, sitting on my ass talking about this is not going to increase the odds of me getting a hamburger. Going to fucking McDonalds will increase my odds. So, I'm not going to sit and sigil night and day for money, because that doesn't help you get money. Getting a job does. Chaos magic is about altering odds to gain or discourage what you want. Which, turns out, includes mundane tasks as well.

Two, the main, 100% goal of chaos magic is to induce evolution of the self. I.E. dropping restrictions that you place on self "I can't be an artist. I suck" and to create a more objective worldview, because getting all wrapped up in modern belief systems leads us to create disgusting internal blocks on what we really want. Essentially, chaos magic seeks to do somewhat what your BIP does.

Recap, I don't use chaos magic to ask the ether to solve my problems, you have to go out and get shit done. And, even if you don't believe in the hokey bit of it, chaos magic seeks to free people from their internal and external boundries, and let them be who they really want to be.

And, though I may seem an argumentative asshat, it is nice to meet you all.

Hold on a second.  You're claiming to affect causality?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 07:25:35 PM
Hold on a second.  You're claiming to affect causality?

:lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 07:25:35 PM
Hold on a second.  You're claiming to affect causality?

he think's Marvel Comic's The Scarlett Witch is an autobiography.

Yeah. We affect causality on a daily basis. I don't see what is so strange about that.

 :drama1:

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:17:48 PM
Yes and no. Chaos magic bends the odds, not breaks them.

Please explain the mechanism behind this.  Causalty is a well-understood principle, and forms the underpinnings of the entire universe as we know it.  If you've found a way to alter that using Chaos Magick, I'd be interested in hearing the mechanics.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:37:30 PM
Yeah. We affect causality on a daily basis. I don't see what is so strange about that.

Our present acts affect the future, yes.  You're talking about acting in the present and changing the past to suit your needs.


You haven't really thought this one all the way through, have you?

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:37:30 PM
Yeah. We affect causality on a daily basis. I don't see what is so strange about that.

No, we take actions that change the environment that causalty occurs in.  We don't change the way the universe drops the barstool.

Let me give you an example:  The lottery machines used for most state lotteries...There is an almost truly random process driving any given ball out of the machine.  If you can affect causalty, rather than just your environment, you should be able to significantly alter the odds of winning the lottery.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:17:48 PM
Yes and no. Chaos magic bends the odds, not breaks them. I can't really make a bowl of pudding appear out of thin air (though I'd love to) because even if I were to bend said odds, it's still horrendously unlikely for said action to happen. Now, if I wanted something easier to happen, say, I want a localized power outage. I'm playing with better odds. It's much more likely (even though it may still be unlikely on average comparison) and that can be made to happen, though it may be not the way you wanted it to happen.

Well sure, that is, if you are considering chaos magic to be a brick of C4 detonated at your local sub-station.  

QuoteAs for the confirmation bias, that's the kicker. If I did the whole ritual deal to get something to happen, say a rainstorm. How can I prove that it was me somehow pulling the strings, and not just what was already going to happen? I can't. At the end of the day, it comes down to subjective belief.

Uh, no, you can objectively observe weather patterns to determine that the rainstorm would've happened whether or not you were mumbling incoherent nonsense in your head.  

QuoteOne, whatever "power" I have isn't some ethereal nonsense that god gives me. If I want a hamburger, sitting on my ass talking about this is not going to increase the odds of me getting a hamburger. Going to fucking McDonalds will increase my odds. So, I'm not going to sit and sigil night and day for money, because that doesn't help you get money. Getting a job does. Chaos magic is about altering odds to gain or discourage what you want. Which, turns out, includes mundane tasks as well.

Uh, no.  Having motivation and getting your ass off the couch is what helps you get mundane tasks done.  Not "chaos magic".  

QuoteTwo, the main, 100% goal of chaos magic is to induce evolution of the self. I.E. dropping restrictions that you place on self "I can't be an artist. I suck" and to create a more objective worldview, because getting all wrapped up in modern belief systems leads us to create disgusting internal blocks on what we really want. Essentially, chaos magic seeks to do somewhat what your BIP does.

Again, not chaos magic.  That is what we call self-discipline and motivation.  Two things which really don't take any kind of magic.  It does take, however, not being a lazy bum.  

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:37:30 PM
Yeah. We affect causality on a daily basis. I don't see what is so strange about that.

How.  You keep making declarative statements about this but you aren't explaining the "how". 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2011, 07:42:05 PM
Again, not chaos magic.  That is what we call self-discipline and motivation.  Two things which really don't take any kind of magic.  It does take, however, not being a lazy bum.  

:motorcycle:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 07:41:00 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:37:30 PM
Yeah. We affect causality on a daily basis. I don't see what is so strange about that.

Our present acts affect the future, yes.  You're talking about acting in the present and changing the past to suit your needs.


You haven't really thought this one all the way through, have you?

I have actually thought this through, however insane I may be.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:38:52 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:17:48 PM
Yes and no. Chaos magic bends the odds, not breaks them.

Please explain the mechanism behind this.  Causalty is a well-understood principle, and forms the underpinnings of the entire universe as we know it.  If you've found a way to alter that using Chaos Magick, I'd be interested in hearing the mechanics.

Chaos magic believes that will, though intangible, can alter odds indirectly. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't hokey by any means, but it's possible.

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:17:48 PM
Now, if I wanted something easier to happen, say, I want a localized power outage. I'm playing with better odds.

No, you aren't.  Equipment failure is not a random event.  It's predictable, and is a function of the age and quality of the equipment, the run time of the equipment, and the maintenance time spent on the equipment.  This is what I do for a living (maintenance manager at a refinery).  There are almost no "odds" of equipment failure.

Again, this is confirmation bias, at best.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

Okay. Tell me one event that will never happen.

In order to change causality to affect you in the present, you have to be able to go back in time and change the trillions of things that happened and change them in a way that personally benefits you.  And that's just one second ago, which won't help much.  

You still haven't explained this time travel yet; and even if you manage to do that (which I doubt you will), you then have the problem of changing a vast number of past events-- so vast, you may as well call them infinite.  

You also run into the paradox of the deterministic universe, which you also need to explain.

Again, you really haven't thought this one through, have you?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

And it's irrelevant anyway, since no one and nothi8ng anywhere has forever.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:48:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

Okay. Tell me one event that will never happen.

The Sun NOT dying. 

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:48:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

Okay. Tell me one event that will never happen.

WE WILL NEVER STOP ARGUING ABOUT CHAOS MAGICK ON THIS FUCKING FORUM.

There.

Quote from: Hoopla on January 31, 2011, 07:50:57 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:48:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

Okay. Tell me one event that will never happen.

WE WILL NEVER STOP ARGUING ABOUT CHAOS MAGICK ON THIS FUCKING FORUM.

There.

:lulz:

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:38:52 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:17:48 PM
Yes and no. Chaos magic bends the odds, not breaks them.

Please explain the mechanism behind this.  Causalty is a well-understood principle, and forms the underpinnings of the entire universe as we know it.  If you've found a way to alter that using Chaos Magick, I'd be interested in hearing the mechanics.

Chaos magic believes that will, though intangible, can alter odds indirectly. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't hokey by any means, but it's possible.

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Your problem however, is the idea of confounding variables.  So you "will" a substation to fail.  Eventually it does, 3 years later, you are not taking into account all of the variables that caused this event to happen, completely independent of your "magic".  Weather, perhaps an earthquake, damage from animals, etc., etc,.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:48:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

Okay. Tell me one event that will never happen.

Our sun will never collapse into a black hole.  It hasn't got the mass, nor can it gain sufficient mass to do so.

You seem also to have the mathematical idea of infinity in mind, which is different from the physics concept.  Physical concepts of infinity deal with any asymtotic event, and have real values...IE, the speed of light is an infinite value (186,000 or so MPS), absolute zero (0 Kelvin, when hydrogen freezes), and any other event that reduces entropy to zero.  In the case of time, you have approximately 14 trillion years at most.  By that time, our sun won't exist, and it will never have turned into a black hole.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2011, 07:50:02 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:48:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

Okay. Tell me one event that will never happen.

The Sun NOT dying.  

Possible. Of course, the current laws of physics don't allow it. But, the previous laws of physics didn't allow a lot of things that are commonplace now.

We place too much faith in science. Every time we create a theory that fixes the one problem the last one had, we think it's complete, and hail it as "truth"

On a side note, I'm not trying to convert anyone or anything of the sort, so if me trying to defend this is bothering you, tell me, and I will gladly shut up.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:54:43 PM

Possible. Of course, the current laws of physics don't allow it. But, the previous laws of physics didn't allow a lot of things that are commonplace now.

There are no previous laws of physics.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:56:09 PM
On a side note, I'm not trying to convert anyone or anything of the sort, so if me trying to defend this is bothering you, tell me, and I will gladly shut up.

I wouldn't worry about it, this topic of conversation is as close as I will ever get to proof of reincarnation.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:54:43 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2011, 07:50:02 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:48:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:47:48 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:46:19 PM

Over an infinite timeline, all things will come to pass.

Not true.  I can name any number of things that will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is given to the situation.

Okay. Tell me one event that will never happen.

The Sun NOT dying.  

Possible. Of course, the current laws of physics don't allow it. But, the previous laws of physics didn't allow a lot of things that are commonplace now.

We place too much faith in science. Every time we create a theory that fixes the one problem the last one had, we think it's complete, and hail it as "truth"

You know it's easy to believe in "chaos magic" when you are wielding the mighty weapons of generality and cop outs.  

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:56:09 PM
On a side note, I'm not trying to convert anyone or anything of the sort, so if me trying to defend this is bothering you, tell me, and I will gladly shut up.

Convert us with what?  More utterances of banal generalities? 

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:11:35 PM
Science :
Pros - It works.  Will not get you laid with fat, smelly trustafarian college girls.

:spittake:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Well, chaos magic is based on incompleteness of knowledge. So, when you say, physics says that the sun will die, it's just a matter of time, I'll agree with you from a realistic standpoint. But, from a "possible" standpoint, we don't truly understand what is possible because we don't truly understand the universe. So, by that token, anything is possible.

Quote from: Canis latrans eques on January 31, 2011, 08:04:00 PM

OMG IMMA CHARGING MAH SIJILZ :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap:

It never ends....

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:54:43 PM
Possible. Of course, the current laws of physics don't allow it. But, the previous laws of physics didn't allow a lot of things that are commonplace now.

I'm quite sure you're mistaken.  The physical laws explain and predict the observed behavior of the universe.  The universe didn't change when we discovered new laws.  

QuoteWe place too much faith in science. Every time we create a theory that fixes the one problem the last one had, we think it's complete, and hail it as "truth"

No, "we" don't.   Complete idiots do, however.  Also,

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:56:43 PM
There are no previous laws of physics.

Good point.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:02:23 PM
Well, chaos magic is based on incompleteness of knowledge. So, when you say, physics says that the sun will die, it's just a matter of time, I'll agree with you from a realistic standpoint. But, from a "possible" standpoint, we don't truly understand what is possible because we don't truly understand the universe. So, by that token, anything is possible.

"Semantic Wankery" does not explain what is needed to affect prior causality.  Please try again.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 08:06:13 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 07:54:43 PM
Possible. Of course, the current laws of physics don't allow it. But, the previous laws of physics didn't allow a lot of things that are commonplace now.

I'm quite sure you're mistaken.  The physical laws explain and predict the observed behavior of the universe.  The universe didn't change when we discovered new laws. 

QuoteWe place too much faith in science. Every time we create a theory that fixes the one problem the last one had, we think it's complete, and hail it as "truth"

No, "we" don't.   Complete idiots do, however.  Also,

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 07:56:43 PM
There are no previous laws of physics.

Good point.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:02:23 PM
Well, chaos magic is based on incompleteness of knowledge. So, when you say, physics says that the sun will die, it's just a matter of time, I'll agree with you from a realistic standpoint. But, from a "possible" standpoint, we don't truly understand what is possible because we don't truly understand the universe. So, by that token, anything is possible.

"Semantic Wankery" does not explain what is needed to affect prior causality.  Please try again.

Prior causality can be subtly altered by will.

I'll save you the trouble, it sounds like bullshit.

Examples, please.

Here's a law for you. Idiots will always find more excuses explaining why they can magically effect the universe using their mind as scientists can find explanations for natural phenomena and psychiatrists and statisticians can find common ground on reasons people regress into logical fallacy.

Your mental software is a property of the material arrangement that is your brain. If you believe anything contra fucking materialism you're as dumb as somebody turning their laptop upside down and trying to shake the letters out. Just sayin.

Quote from: Slyph on January 31, 2011, 08:14:36 PM

you're as dumb as somebody turning their laptop upside down and trying to shake the letters out. Just sayin.

But that is how I make alphabet soup.

b-b-but how can you really know anything man.

My magick is different because I knocked the K off the end and rationalised it with a load of words I cribbed from quantum theory.

see: http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/the-amazing-qlink-science-pedant/ (http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/the-amazing-qlink-science-pedant/)

Oh yeah I hate those idiots who believe they can shoot fireballs out of their hands. I can only subtly defy the laws of physics in a way that is fucking invisible and only I know about. Do you think I'm some sort of idiot?

Quote from: Slyph on January 31, 2011, 08:22:43 PM
My magick is different because I knocked the K off the end and rationalised it with a load of words I cribbed from quantum theory.

see: http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/the-amazing-qlink-science-pedant/ (http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/the-amazing-qlink-science-pedant/)

Oh yeah I hate those idiots who believe they can shoot fireballs out of their hands. I can only subtly defy the laws of physics in a way that is fucking invisible and only I know about. Do you think I'm some sort of idiot?

Hey man, I can like cut guns in half with my mind and I have a pet dragon.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:02:23 PM
Well, chaos magic is based on incompleteness of knowledge.

So is Southern Baptism.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:10:20 PM
Prior causality can be subtly altered by will.

Incidentally, this sounds like a complete misunderstanding of Schrodinger.  Cat in a box, quantum event either kills it or doesn't, you don't know.  The equations are true for both outcomes.

But this doesn't change what actually happened.  That cat either is dead, or isn't.  It's just that you can't tell without looking.  You can't simply say that because the equations don't tell you what happened, that the cat's mortality can be in a nebulous state.  And is sure as fuck doesn't mean that through a some sort of interaction with your consciousness (which you still haven't explained), you can go back in time and affect the outcome.

You're going to need a lot of very specific language here.  I suggest you start using it.

Quote from: Slyph on January 31, 2011, 08:22:43 PM
My magick is different because I knocked the K off the end and rationalised it with a load of words I cribbed from quantum theory.

see: http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/the-amazing-qlink-science-pedant/ (http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/the-amazing-qlink-science-pedant/)

Oh yeah I hate those idiots who believe they can shoot fireballs out of their hands. I can only subtly defy the laws of physics in a way that is fucking invisible and only I know about. Do you think I'm some sort of idiot?

Ya know Slyph, I really didn't have much of an opinion on you until I read this post. Now Imma make sweet, sweet love to you until you're all sticky with gunk.  :fap:

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:10:20 PM
Prior causality can be subtly altered by will.

How?  What physical mechanism does this?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 08:25:33 PM
But this doesn't change what actually happened.  That cat either is dead, or isn't.  It's just that you can't tell without looking.  

You don't know my cat.

In one set of probabilities, the cat lives.

In the other set, the cat is getting high as fuck on cyanide, and will come out of that box looking for a little something-something...And you better not be the first thing it sees.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:02:23 PM
Well, chaos magic is based on incompleteness of knowledge. So, when you say, physics says that the sun will die, it's just a matter of time, I'll agree with you from a realistic standpoint. But, from a "possible" standpoint, we don't truly understand what is possible because we don't truly understand the universe. So, by that token, anything is possible.

Actually, we do understand enough of the universe, and the sun, to understand that it isn't running on an infinite fuel source.  We know that eventually it will begin to run out of that fuel source and die.  And this isn't just from observations of this yet-to-go-red-giant sun.  It's from the observations of the suns, that ALREADY HAVE DIED.  

So, yeah, we kinda do understand the universe enough to know that suns eventually go kerplooey!

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:27:28 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:10:20 PM
Prior causality can be subtly altered by will.

How?  What physical mechanism does this?

Asynchronous non-linear acausal disturbance of distribution fields prior to decoherence.




As if you didn't know...

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2011, 08:31:08 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:02:23 PM
Well, chaos magic is based on incompleteness of knowledge. So, when you say, physics says that the sun will die, it's just a matter of time, I'll agree with you from a realistic standpoint. But, from a "possible" standpoint, we don't truly understand what is possible because we don't truly understand the universe. So, by that token, anything is possible.

Actually, we do understand enough of the universe, and the sun, to understand that it isn't running on an infinite fuel source.  We know that eventually it will begin to run out of that fuel source and die.  And this isn't just from observations of this yet-to-go-red-giant sun.  It's from the observations of the suns, that ALREADY HAVE DIED.  

So, yeah, we kinda do understand the universe enough to know that suns eventually go kerplooey!

Maybe all the Chaos Magickians have their servitors poop fresh hydrogen into the sun when we're not looking.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 08:31:43 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:27:28 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:10:20 PM
Prior causality can be subtly altered by will.

How?  What physical mechanism does this?

Asynchronous non-linear acausal disturbance of distribution fields prior to decoherence.




As if you didn't know...

I hate yuo.  :tgrr:

 :magick:

Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 31, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
Ya know Slyph, I really didn't have much of an opinion on you until I read this post. Now Imma make sweet, sweet love to you until you're all sticky with gunk.  :fap:

ehhh. Don't make rationality a criteria for choosing a sexual partner. Your dick never feels as good as when you put it in a lunatic. That's how the gene survives I guess?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:32:07 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2011, 08:31:08 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:02:23 PM
Well, chaos magic is based on incompleteness of knowledge. So, when you say, physics says that the sun will die, it's just a matter of time, I'll agree with you from a realistic standpoint. But, from a "possible" standpoint, we don't truly understand what is possible because we don't truly understand the universe. So, by that token, anything is possible.

Actually, we do understand enough of the universe, and the sun, to understand that it isn't running on an infinite fuel source.  We know that eventually it will begin to run out of that fuel source and die.  And this isn't just from observations of this yet-to-go-red-giant sun.  It's from the observations of the suns, that ALREADY HAVE DIED.  

So, yeah, we kinda do understand the universe enough to know that suns eventually go kerplooey!

Maybe all the Chaos Magickians have their servitors poop fresh hydrogen into the sun when we're not looking.

Hey man, we know it probably won't happen, but it might.  And then we'll know it was us and our magicks!

Quote from: Slyph on January 31, 2011, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 31, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
Ya know Slyph, I really didn't have much of an opinion on you until I read this post. Now Imma make sweet, sweet love to you until you're all sticky with gunk.  :fap:

ehhh. Don't make rationality a criteria for choosing a sexual partner. Your dick never feels as good as when you put it in a lunatic. That's how the gene survives I guess?

Her dick is armor plated.

Okay. I'm wrong.

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:38:11 PM
Okay. I'm wrong.

Alright... next topic!  Anarchy!

Man, I've been staring at my hot chocolate for 10 minutes nearly bursting an artery trying to get it to turn into an Irish Coffee.

Screw you Chaos Magick!

C'mon Icey, show me the way!

Quote from: Slyph on January 31, 2011, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 31, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
Ya know Slyph, I really didn't have much of an opinion on you until I read this post. Now Imma make sweet, sweet love to you until you're all sticky with gunk.  :fap:

ehhh. Don't make rationality a criteria for choosing a sexual partner. Your dick never feels as good as when you put it in a lunatic. That's how the gene survives I guess?

Rationality? Fuck no. Acerbic abusiveness. And also alliteration  :lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:36:01 PM

Quote from: Slyph on January 31, 2011, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 31, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
Ya know Slyph, I really didn't have much of an opinion on you until I read this post. Now Imma make sweet, sweet love to you until you're all sticky with gunk.  :fap:

ehhh. Don't make rationality a criteria for choosing a sexual partner. Your dick never feels as good as when you put it in a lunatic. That's how the gene survives I guess?

Her dick is armor plated.

It's true.

Quote from: Hoopla on January 31, 2011, 08:39:08 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:38:11 PM
Okay. I'm wrong.

Alright... next topic!  Anarchy!

Legalizing drugs!

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:38:11 PM
Okay. I'm wrong.

Wow.  This one might actually be a biped.   :lulz:

TGRR,
Knows the phrase "I'm wrong" is the least-used sequence of words in any language.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 08:39:51 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on January 31, 2011, 08:39:08 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:38:11 PM
Okay. I'm wrong.

Alright... next topic!  Anarchy!

Legalizing drugs!

e-Democracy!

Quote from: Hoopla on January 31, 2011, 08:39:08 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:38:11 PM
Okay. I'm wrong.

Alright... next topic!  Anarchy!

Nope.  Next is free-market libertariantardism, then drugs, then e-democracy, THEN anarchy.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:40:59 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on January 31, 2011, 08:39:08 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:38:11 PM
Okay. I'm wrong.

Alright... next topic!  Anarchy!

Nope.  Next is free-market libertariantardism, then drugs, then e-democracy, THEN anarchy.

Then Zappa.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 08:41:27 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:40:59 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on January 31, 2011, 08:39:08 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:38:11 PM
Okay. I'm wrong.

Alright... next topic!  Anarchy!

Nope.  Next is free-market libertariantardism, then drugs, then e-democracy, THEN anarchy.

Then Zappa.

No.  The first rule about Zappa is that you don't talk about Zappa.

I don't know, everyone.  This guy has me believing.

If it's chaos magick that brought him here, it seems to me that there is a great melevolent will behind the whole process that seeks to see its practitioners ridiculed and abased.

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 31, 2011, 08:42:47 PM
I don't know, everyone.  This guy has me believing.

If it's chaos magick that brought him here, it seems to me that there is a great melevolent will behind the whole process that seeks to see its practitioners ridiculed and abased.

There was, but then I took a big dookie, and it's all better now.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 31, 2011, 08:42:47 PM
I don't know, everyone.  This guy has me believing.

If it's chaos magick that brought him here, it seems to me that there is a great melevolent will behind the whole process that seeks to see its practitioners ridiculed and abased.

There was, but then I took a big dookie, and it's all better now.

Hate-Space is curved in relation to TGRR's dookie.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 08:48:34 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 31, 2011, 08:42:47 PM
I don't know, everyone.  This guy has me believing.

If it's chaos magick that brought him here, it seems to me that there is a great melevolent will behind the whole process that seeks to see its practitioners ridiculed and abased.

There was, but then I took a big dookie, and it's all better now.

Hate-Space is curved in relation to TGRR's dookie.

My shit tells space how to bend, and space tells my shit how to move.

:hammer:

TGRR,
Dancing on Einstein's grave.

I think I've found a way to express what I've been trying to say.

If you want to know how the universe works, ask a physicist, not a priest.

If you want to know how the economy works, ask a crack dealer, not an economist.

If you want to know how people work, ask the guy who takes care of the monkeys at the zoo, not a psychologist.

That's a useful framework...To expand on that --  a physicist is best for learning how the material universe works. Mythological narratives do have their uses.. mainly in that they help us understand what the fuck people are up to. To illustrate, here's a snippet from Chaos Marxism:

http://chaosmarxism.blogspot.com/2010/08/narrative.html

QuoteA childish mind believes that the world acts like a story.

An adult mind knows better, and believes that stories are "just stories".

An enlightened mind knows that stories, narratives and myths don't describe how the world works, but precisely and accurately describe psychological processes - and therefore explain how people work.

The commies out there will have noted that this is a pretty neat Hegelian dialectic, with the last step being the negation of the negation (also in the sense that an enlightened being will have to have both adult and child minds operating in complementary fashion). The story world is a refraction of the Real World of Horrible Jobs. The menu is not just words on paper, even though you can't eat it; if you can use it properly, you can gain delicious things to eat.

Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2011, 09:43:36 PM
That's a useful framework...To expand on that --  a physicist is best for learning how the material universe works. Mythological narratives do have their uses.. mainly in that they help us understand what the fuck people are up to. To illustrate, here's a snippet from Chaos Marxism:

http://chaosmarxism.blogspot.com/2010/08/narrative.html

QuoteA childish mind believes that the world acts like a story.

An adult mind knows better, and believes that stories are "just stories".

An enlightened mind knows that stories, narratives and myths don't describe how the world works, but precisely and accurately describe psychological processes - and therefore explain how people work.

The commies out there will have noted that this is a pretty neat Hegelian dialectic, with the last step being the negation of the negation (also in the sense that an enlightened being will have to have both adult and child minds operating in complementary fashion). The story world is a refraction of the Real World of Horrible Jobs. The menu is not just words on paper, even though you can't eat it; if you can use it properly, you can gain delicious things to eat.

1.  Yes, that's why I separated people out in the third line.

2.  I still think any given monkeyhouse gives a better description of how groups of people behave.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 08:31:43 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:27:28 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:10:20 PM
Prior causality can be subtly altered by will.

How?  What physical mechanism does this?

Asynchronous non-linear acausal disturbance of distribution fields prior to decoherence.




As if you didn't know...

I know this is wrong of me......but all I saw was I am Maxwell Smart.

Quote from: Charley Brown on January 31, 2011, 10:29:35 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 31, 2011, 08:31:43 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:27:28 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:10:20 PM
Prior causality can be subtly altered by will.

How?  What physical mechanism does this?

Asynchronous non-linear acausal disturbance of distribution fields prior to decoherence.




As if you didn't know...

I know this is wrong of me......but all I saw was I am Maxwell Smart.

I like LMNO, I really do. It's bad enough that I already read his posts in the voice of Paul Lynd. Now Don Adams? I swear to fucking Christ, if it's GeorgeTakei next, I will fly to Boston and kill EVERYONE. Seriously.


(Do not test me, LMNO. I will do it.)

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 08:24:52 PM

Quote from: Icey on January 31, 2011, 08:02:23 PM
Well, chaos magic is based on incompleteness of knowledge.

So is Southern Baptism.

So too, in a rather different way, is science.


So we have:

• Mahdjique
• Southern Baptism
• Science

One of these things is not like the other.

Crowley would say that "one of these things is not like the other" is no excuse to not have a ménage à trois.


Southern Baptism is going to come out with a whole new gleam in her eye, tho.

Look if you're going to practise magick at least have the balls to do it big stanky caldrouns of eye of newt and shit.

Also, is anyone else reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes?

Quote from: Slyph on February 01, 2011, 07:40:44 AM
Also, is anyone else reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes?

I don't know that story, is it anything like The Generalissimo's New Thong?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:11:35 PM
Science :

Cons - You have to learn math.  You have to prove your idea.  It has to survive peer review.

Pros - It works.  Will not get you laid with fat, smelly trustafarian college girls.

Um, the two bolded bits are contradictory, as has been repeatedly shown. Current hypothesis is "monkey business".

Seriously. There's one thing I would like people to stop conveniently forgetting all the fucking time and that is that science is, for a large part, a steaming pile of politics. Sure, there is some hypothetical theoretical enlightened science "the way it's supposed to work", but the same thing goes for democracy, and neither has ever actually been reliably observed in reality. Which makes "science the way it's supposed to work, works really well" more like a theory than anything else.

Don't get me wrong, just like democracy, science is probably "the best we've come up with so far that sort of kind of works", but also keep in mind where democracy got us.

The whole peer review business is crooked, if the theories are inconvenient or unpopular enough. Even if they're backed by an endless stream of cold hard facts, the committees deciding what is a peer review, what gets peer reviewed and what get published as peer reviewed can and have been rejected for whatever reasons on many occasions across different fields of science.

In astronomy, there was this guy who made measurements that didn't match the ideas of red/blue shift, his alternate theory would have pretty much made all distance measurements of far away stars invalid--very inconvenient. The guy was doing proper science, and he felt like he stumbled upon something really big. But instead of proving the guy wrong, the community ridiculed him and banned him worldwide from astronomical observatories. Dunno how it ended, I think they figured it out by now, what or how to explain the guy's measurements without having to ditch the whole really really useful red-blue shift analysis of star distance measuring. But only two or three decades later after ruining the guy's scientific career.

In the Ki thread, Telarus posted this article about a neuropsychologist observing his wife doing "energy work", from which he derived some acu-pressure methods which get very real not-quite-entirely-understood but fully repeatable (by anyone after 15 minutes of instruction, regardless of whether they are "in tune with the cosmos" or not) results on subjects suffering from PTSD, with much less chance of relapse than traditional methods. This method was already known and practised in alternative medicine in the 80s, which gave it a bad name because the people doing it had huge egos and were suing their students for using their Methods etc, and by the time these psychologists had some proper scientific results they wanted to put up for peer review, the committee refused it because it was "dubious subject matter", even though the data and experiments were scientifically sound and repeatable.

Chaos magick is stupid.

Empiricism is stupid.

Everyone ITT is stupid.

Quote from: Cain on February 01, 2011, 03:04:40 PM
Chaos magick is stupid.

Empiricism is stupid.

Everyone ITT is stupid.

Even me?  :aww:

lol I thought of what I wanted to say

so I used the search function

because it turns out we were having this exact discussion 1 year ago: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23541.msg808103#msg808103

January 2010. 56 pages!

Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 01, 2011, 03:07:11 PM

Quote from: Cain on February 01, 2011, 03:04:40 PM
Chaos magick is stupid.

Empiricism is stupid.

Everyone ITT is stupid.

Even me?  :aww:

Especially you.

000, I see where you're going, but I think your timeline is too small.

The history of science is one of forward progress.  But it takes an extremely long time for science to advance.

In your above example (which I'm taking exactly as you wrote it-- I don't know the story, myself), someone had a new idea, and did the math.  He subjected it to peer review.

Now, you have to expand the timeline.  While initially ridiculed, the idea was eventually incorporated into current understanding.  That is to say, "peer review" isn't just the initial reactions to a paper.  Once an idea is introduced, it is continually reviewed, especially if it relates to something confusing.

What you seem to be getting at is that the individual scientist may not always be rewarded for his effort.  But the thing is, Science doesn't care about individuals.  If it cares at all, it cares that the ideas are right.  And eventually, the truth will become a little bit clearer.

Quote from: Cain on February 01, 2011, 03:08:31 PM

Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 01, 2011, 03:07:11 PM

Quote from: Cain on February 01, 2011, 03:04:40 PM
Chaos magick is stupid.

Empiricism is stupid.

Everyone ITT is stupid.

Even me?  :aww:

Especially you.

:aaa: :aww: :cry:






:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 03:08:09 PM
lol I thought of what I wanted to say

so I used the search function

because it turns out we were having this exact discussion 1 year ago: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23541.msg808103#msg808103

January 2010. 56 pages!

Yep, and we made another one the year before that, if I recall correctly.

Edit: we should have a mega thread "chaos magic argument, bump annually"

Quote from: Cainad on January 31, 2011, 11:58:48 PM
So we have:

• Mahdjique
• Southern Baptism
• Science

One of these things is not like the other.

One of these things can also be spelled exactly as either of the others.

Quote from: Faust on February 01, 2011, 03:11:27 PM
Edit: we should have a mega thread "chaos magic argument, bump annually"

It would also be really amusing to simply quote ourselves while arguing against the latest Magick n00b who thinks they have a new angle.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 01, 2011, 03:09:41 PMWhat you seem to be getting at is that the individual scientist may not always be rewarded for his effort.  But the thing is, Science doesn't care about individuals.  If it cares at all, it cares that the ideas are right.  And eventually, the truth will become a little bit clearer.

despite the risk of the hives I'll get by posting.....

Telarus' cap to the free will / determinism discussion is still fresh in my mind since he reposted it at TCC last night
He provides a great example about how one man's credibility anchored us to a geocentric model of the universe for 2000 years.

hxxp://wicca.com/forums/index.php?topic=4496.msg134569#msg134569

QuoteAristotle's heavy scientific words contrasted with light and eloquent phrases from Plato, and they tipped the balance in the favor of geocentrism. It would take nearly 2000 years before main-stream thought returned to heliocentric ideas.

I don't want to get us started on a free / will determinism rehash, so if you want to discuss that, do it at TCC. Their board could always use some more gnashing and fail  :p

[Thread split from Intro thread.]

But Cram, eventually, Science won that argument.

Also 000, I was able to dig up what that Redshift controversy was about.  in 1971 Halton Arp noticed that certain objects were superimposed in the galaxy in a way that didn't seem to line up, if redshift was indeed related to distance.  He proposed that redshit had nothing to do with distance, while the majority of astronomers decided that the superimposition was by chance.

Since 1971, our telescopes have gotten better, and the observable evidence in support of Arp has waned.  More importantly, the implications of Arp being correct would completely invalidate the Big Bang theory, and runs counter to the massive supporting evidence for it. 

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 01, 2011, 03:32:47 PM
But Cram, eventually, Science won that argument.

Science always eventually wins against the regular tides of stupidity and empty-headed rubbish that the vast majority of monkeys resort to in their continual efforts to avoid taking math classes.

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 01, 2011, 02:57:56 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2011, 06:11:35 PM
Science :

Cons - You have to learn math.  You have to prove your idea.  It has to survive peer review.

Pros - It works.  Will not get you laid with fat, smelly trustafarian college girls.

Um, the two bolded bits are contradictory, as has been repeatedly shown. Current hypothesis is "monkey business".

Seriously. There's one thing I would like people to stop conveniently forgetting all the fucking time and that is that science is, for a large part, a steaming pile of politics. Sure, there is some hypothetical theoretical enlightened science "the way it's supposed to work", but the same thing goes for democracy, and neither has ever actually been reliably observed in reality. Which makes "science the way it's supposed to work, works really well" more like a theory than anything else.

So, wait.  The scientific method doesn't work, or peer review doesn't work? 

I think what trip and I are both saying is not a problem with the scientific method, but the scientific process.

Let's not pretend that Peer Review always produces Truth. The creation of facts is also a social process, and is, as such, muddied by monkeys.

Like democracy -- it's the best thing we've come up with, but it's not perfect.


please do not interpret this as HURR SCIENCE IS BAD

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 03:42:46 PM
I think what trip and I are both saying is not a problem with the scientific method, but the scientific process.

Let's not pretend that Peer Review always produces Truth. The creation of facts is also a social process, and is, as such, muddied by monkeys.

Like democracy -- it's the best thing we've come up with, but it's not perfect.


please do not interpret this as HURR SCIENCE IS BAD

Peer review eventually weeds out the garbage, though it may take time (Andrew Wakefield, for example).

Religions and Mahdjgickque have no mechanism to do that at all.

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 01, 2011, 03:23:51 PM
And there's one thing, how can we know for sure that all these things that were shoved under the rug by bad politics will eventually surface to advance scientific progress?

Because as we progress, we need to find answers to things that confuse us.  Science is like an archipelago -- many tiny islands in a sea of ignorance.  We know A, and we know B, and then we try to figure out how the two can possibly be related.  Because we're trying to figure out how the universe actually works, then if we don't get it right, the universe will show us by fucking up our predictions.  Eventually, we'll figure it out, and correct ideas that were previously ignored will be brought to light because, and this is the important part, it's the right way to describe the universe.  Later, someone will be translating an old book about non-linear optic from Russian to English, and discover that someone had already come up with an idea people are just now getting around to.

QuoteCan it be that some alternative scientific theories got ignored, and then lost in time forever?

Only if no one will ever explore that aspect of the universe ever again.  Which I doubt.  But that's not really an accurate answer.  Yes, some "alternative theories" will be ignored and lost, because those theories might be wrong in some way.  The theory that survives is the correct theory.  If there is an "alternate" theory that resolves more confusion that previous theories, then that becomes THE THEORY, and the others become "alternate".

QuoteCause there's really quite a lot of alternative scientific theories and pseudoscientific theories that have a sort of kernel of "might be on to something" in them, but because of politics and/or their inventors being crackpots, nobody is researching them.

If there is a kernel of truth there, then current fields of study will eventually reveal them.  It might not be the direct route, but I can't think of an "alternative" theory that can't be covered by one branch of science or another, or a combination of them.

QuoteAnd additionally, are there already wonderful scientific ideas that have been forgotten, that their inventors took with them to the grave? Didn't Nicola Tesla do a bunch of those? Maybe it's all pseudo scientific hogwash, correct me if I'm wrong. No really, please do, I'd like to be comforted on that topic :)

Maybe.  But the beauty of science is, they won't stay hidden forever.

You know, TGRR put "it has to survive peer review" as a con, which could be read as saying he agrees with Trip's position that peer review is not always a positive process.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2011, 03:45:45 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 03:42:46 PM
I think what trip and I are both saying is not a problem with the scientific method, but the scientific process.

Let's not pretend that Peer Review always produces Truth. The creation of facts is also a social process, and is, as such, muddied by monkeys.

Like democracy -- it's the best thing we've come up with, but it's not perfect.


please do not interpret this as HURR SCIENCE IS BAD

Peer review eventually weeds out the garbage, though it may take time (Andrew Wakefield, for example).

Religions and Mahdjgickque have no mechanism to do that at all.

Immediate peer review may not be as efficient as one would like.  But because of the way science behaves, it will eventually do it's job.

Peer review isn't just a board of Elites judging a new idea.  The whole concept of Peer Review is "think for yourself".  The scientist says, "hey, i have this new idea! Here's how I did it, and here's how you can do it yourself!"

And as time passes, more and more people will try the idea out, and see if it works.  If it doesn't work, they won't use it.  If it does, they'll try to link it up to established theories in order to resolve confusion.  If that works, then the idea is justified, regardless of what a panel of "experts" said 20 years ago.

Quote from: Cain on February 01, 2011, 03:49:41 PM
You know, TGRR put "it has to survive peer review" as a con, which could be read as saying he agrees with Trip's position that peer review is not always a positive process.

Peer review is a human process.  It can be corrupted, but the thing is, someone out to make a name for themselves will always eventually poke a hole in any bullshit that leaks through.

It is different from politics, religion, magick, and economics, in that poor performance is always eventually cleared away.  

That's why I made the three comparisons I made earlier.  Economists, for example, have no penalty for failure, even insofar as reputation goes (Laffer is STILL endlessly quoted by RWNs).  Crack dealers have an immediate and rather final penalty for failing to understand and predict basic economics.

The same goes for magictards like Crowley, etc.  There's no penalty for bullshit...In fact, it's rewarded.  Conversely, ask Andrew Wakefield how his career as a scientist is coming along (Short answer, it isn't.  He's 169% witchdoctor now, playing to the conspiracy theorist set).

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 01, 2011, 03:53:29 PM

Immediate peer review may not be as efficient as one would like.  But because of the way science behaves, it will eventually do it's job.

This.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2011, 03:56:38 PM

The same goes for magictards like Crowley, etc.  There's no penalty for bullshit...In fact, it's rewarded.  Conversely, ask Andrew Wakefield how his career as a scientist is coming along (Short answer, it isn't.  He's 169% witchdoctor now, playing to the conspiracy theorist set).

Hey, there's no shame in that and the pay is good. I intend to retire as a quack like wakefield or Dawkins playing the popular note for mass appeal.

The thing with peer review is that peer review never ends with an exclamation point, nor does it end in a period.  Hell, it doesn't end in a question mark.

It ends in question marks.

In some ways, it can be as infuriating as a season of Lost.  You get a little nugget of an answer to your scientific investigation, but they you get all of these other questions along with it.  And if that science was good, it will inspire 5 different teams of science spags to take up the 5 questions you just dug up. 

This will include questions derived from research that seems suspect or research that seems to be an outlier compared to the progress made thus far.  Between that and replication, science will eventually sniff out the "cold fusions" in the field and expose them.  And let's not forget that "cold fusion" itself was exposed and dealt with fairily quickly.  Humans certainly can corrupt individual studies, but it is much harder for them to turn and nefariously corrupt the body of understanding in any particular area without buying off and brainwashing tons of scientists. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2011, 05:42:42 PM
The thing with peer review is that peer review never ends with an exclamation point, nor does it end in a period.  Hell, it doesn't end in a question mark.

It ends in question marks.

In some ways, it can be as infuriating as a season of Lost.  You get a little nugget of an answer to your scientific investigation, but they you get all of these other questions along with it.  And if that science was good, it will inspire 5 different teams of science spags to take up the 5 questions you just dug up. 

This will include questions derived from research that seems suspect or research that seems to be an outlier compared to the progress made thus far.  Between that and replication, science will eventually sniff out the "cold fusions" in the field and expose them.  And let's not forget that "cold fusion" itself was exposed and dealt with fairily quickly.  Humans certainly can corrupt individual studies, but it is much harder for them to turn and nefariously corrupt the body of understanding in any particular area without buying off and brainwashing tons of scientists. 

The system grinds slowly, but it grinds fine.  That's the beauty of it.

It isn't for the impatient, though.

I know this is sort of like demanding proof of a negative, but I want to come up with examples of horrendously wrong scientific beliefs (based on actual scientific method) where turned out that an unsupported belief was correct.

I'm not talking about scientific beliefs that stemmed from improper thinking, or religious dogma.

I'm not even sure Newtonian Mechanics qualifies, because after decoherence, it really does work for sufficiently large objects.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 01, 2011, 05:56:50 PM
I know this is sort of like demanding proof of a negative, but I want to come up with examples of horrendously wrong scientific beliefs (based on actual scientific method) where turned out that an unsupported belief was correct.

I'm not talking about scientific beliefs that stemmed from improper thinking, or religious dogma.

I'm not even sure Newtonian Mechanics qualifies, because after decoherence, it really does work for sufficiently large objects.

Newtonian mechanics is a prime example of the system working.

It was a partial answer, with a few bugs...and those bugs were worked out by later work.

would you count Telarus' notes about the heliocentricity/geocentricity argument? Geocentricity was strongly supported by the contemporary scientific framework and still prevailed for 2000 years after heliocentricity was suggested.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 05:58:56 PM
would you count Telarus' notes about the heliocentricity/geocentricity argument? Geocentricity was strongly supported by the contemporary scientific framework and still prevailed for 2000 years after heliocentricity was suggested.

Geocentricity preceded the implementation of what we now call the scientific method.

Also, wasn't the main argument agaist heliocentricty a religious one? 

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 01, 2011, 06:01:58 PM
Also, wasn't the main argument agaist heliocentricty a religious one? 

Yep.  Had to do with an old testament passage about the sun standing still in the sky for a while.

So the Catholic church supported Aristotle, until some wiseass named Galileo came along and spagged everything up.

In my understanding of the argument, which is based on reading Telarus' posts, geocentricity was based on the current understanding of physical laws.

When you go back that far though, the line between scientific and religious statements are blurry. But they were still using empiricism. This doesn't make that thought unscientific, it just starts its line of reasoning from a different set of assumptions. Telarus could answer better.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:07:13 PM
In my understanding of the argument, which is based on reading Telarus' posts, geocentricity was based on the current understanding of physical laws.

Not unless Aristotle was born in the 1600s.

Another example would be in the book Laboratory Life, by Woolgar and Latour. They are sociologists who positioned themselves in a hormone research lab in the 1970s and tried to observe the sociological processes in place during the creation of facts. Really fascinating book.

There's a few chapters on this hormone called TRF.

In the beginning, whether TRF was real or not was anybody's call. They spent a few years collecting data and making arguments one way or the other.

Eventually some scientists with enough credibility convinced everybody that TRF was real.

Then there were YEARS of research devoted to synthesizing it. Thousands of goats were sacrificed for their glands. There were still scientists who didn't believe it existed, but after the consensus shifted, nobody took them seriously.

Later, they would discover that TRF never did exist. It took a while to get to the truth, but the unsupported belief ended up being the correct one.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2011, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:07:13 PM
In my understanding of the argument, which is based on reading Telarus' posts, geocentricity was based on the current understanding of physical laws.

Not unless Aristotle was born in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Aristotelian_science_and_empiricism

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:12:20 PM
Another example would be in the book Laboratory Life, by Woolgar and Latour. They are sociologists who positioned themselves in a hormone research lab in the 1970s and tried to observe the sociological processes in place during the creation of facts. Really fascinating book.

There's a few chapters on this hormone called TRF.

In the beginning, whether TRF was real or not was anybody's call. They spent a few years collecting data and making arguments one way or the other.

Eventually some scientists with enough credibility convinced everybody that TRF was real.

Then there were YEARS of research devoted to synthesizing it. Thousands of goats were sacrificed for their glands. There were still scientists who didn't believe it existed, but after the consensus shifted, nobody took them seriously.

Later, they would discover that TRF never did exist. It took a while to get to the truth, but the unsupported belief ended up being the correct one.

I think that's a good example.  It's also a proper model of the scientific method & peer review triumphing over dumbfucks.

Also, I would dispute that sociology is a science...Though it sounds like most of the work was done by neurologists.

Lastly, fuck goats. Science NEEDS piles of dead animals to move forward, and goats are evil little shits who turf up the damn lawn and get into your compost heap.  They should be wiped out.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2011, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:07:13 PM
In my understanding of the argument, which is based on reading Telarus' posts, geocentricity was based on the current understanding of physical laws.

Not unless Aristotle was born in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Aristotelian_science_and_empiricism

Yes, I see nothing there that disputes my claim.  The scientific method uses empiracism, but it is possible to use empiracism without using the scientific method.

one of their main critiques of the scientific process was that uncertainty gets erased once something achieves fact-hood.

For example, in the beginning, people were still really uncertain about whether or not TRF existed... there were arguments about data collection methods, whether or not the scientist presenting data was credible, all sorts of things.

Eventually, when TRF was discovered to be real, all that uncertainty went out the window. Nobody references those arguments after TRF is a proven fact.

But it turns out it WASN'T a fact all along. All that uncertainty that had been swept under the rug was being obscured by scientist's credibility.


In Laboratory Life posits that if we look at the creation of facts through a social lends, we can see that there is a game being played with credibility. Scientists accumulate it, hoard it, spend it, and share it just like a form of currency. If they invest their credibility in something that doesn't pan out, they can lose it. If they invest it in something that turns out to be great, they get more of it.

The creation of facts is moderated by the expenditure of credibility. And this serves an important function! But it is a source of much confusion too.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2011, 06:17:26 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2011, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:07:13 PM
In my understanding of the argument, which is based on reading Telarus' posts, geocentricity was based on the current understanding of physical laws.

Not unless Aristotle was born in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Aristotelian_science_and_empiricism

Yes, I see nothing there that disputes my claim.  The scientific method uses empiracism, but it is possible to use empiracism without using the scientific method.

Aristotle used a scientific method. He wasn't just making up myths about things, he's using empiricism. People tested this stuff. Our contemporary scientific method is different, but I think this still fulfills LMNO's request for horrendously wrong scientific beliefs which are based on actual scientific methods.

anyway, I don't have much more to say about that, it was Telarus' argument anyway  :p

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:28:40 PM
one of their main critiques of the scientific process was that uncertainty gets erased once something achieves fact-hood.

For me, uncertainty is erased once something is accurately expressed in math.  Then it's law.  Until then, it's theory, which implies a high degree of confidence, but not certainty.

An example of law would be the law of gravitation, which measures the acceleration of two masses toward each other.

An example of theory would be evolution, which enjoys a perponderance of evidence.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 06:28:40 PM

Aristotle used a scientific method.

Sorry.  I thought we were talking about the scientific method.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 01, 2011, 03:42:46 PM
I think what trip and I are both saying is not a problem with the scientific method, but the scientific process.

Let's not pretend that Peer Review always produces Truth. The creation of facts is also a social process, and is, as such, muddied by monkeys.

Like democracy -- it's the best thing we've come up with, but it's not perfect.


please do not interpret this as HURR SCIENCE IS BAD

It is more of a social process than most people imagine—there's less neat and tidy calculations on lab equipment and more groups of scientists all sitting around going "WTF is this shit?!"

At least according to Kevin Dunbar who has been researching how the scientific method actually works, in contrast to how it's portrayed in textbooks:

Quote
While the scientific process is typically seen as a lonely pursuit — researchers solve problems by themselves — Dunbar found that most new scientific ideas emerged from lab meetings, those weekly sessions in which people publicly present their data. Interestingly, the most important element of the lab meeting wasn't the presentation — it was the debate that followed. Dunbar observed that the skeptical (and sometimes heated) questions asked during a group session frequently triggered breakthroughs, as the scientists were forced to reconsider data they'd previously ignored.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/all/1

I highly recommend people read the entire article, it's chock full of lines that easily could have come from the BIP.

Good post. Full of stuff for me to look at once my kids are all in bed.

Did someone say goats?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we9_CdNPuJg
Work safe, I'm just retarded and can't figure out how to get the vid up. -.-

Ah, the Aristotle reference was to show that humanity (or a group of them) had got some things pretty damn right (knowing the earth was roughly spherical, calculating the rough diameter by measuring how shadows had different lengths at different Latitudes... that's some sharp thinking). They just got something wrong, and it stuck in our culture and actually shaped arguments FOR god's existence for hundreds of years.

Same thing with the loss of the Cure for Scurvy. At one point it was known that lemon juice totally prevented scurvy (post 1747, see article linked later). It wasn't known why (that scurvy is a severe lack of vitamin C). By the 1900's tho, when British Navy scientists started looking at the "supposed" curative properties of lemon juice, they had actually switched to cheaper Indian limes (due to the advancements in steam powered travel and the connections with the East India Co, this became cheeper than opting for Sicilian lemons), and all prep on-board ship was done in copper cauldrons.... which happens to totally neutralize most of the C in the lime juice. At the same time, scurvy was attacking upper class infants (because they upper class just had to feed their infants the fancy preserved baby foods which were all the rage, and didn't start them on fresh fruit early as it was more expensive and harder to acquire).

Thus, it was "scientifically determined" (through tests using copper equipment) that lemon juice had nothing to do with Scurvy, and it was basically abandoned.

MORE: http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm

I agree with Roger, Science! seems like the best error-correction system we've come across. But I don't pretend it, or the scientists whose work I'm interested in, are infallible. But I don't jump on the "EVERYTHING is possible, no even that" crystal-waiving nonsense bandwagon either.

I don't see (my personal use of the models of) Mysticism/Magick as competing with science or religion to offer an explaination of reality (unless you're on the wrong motorcycle with the fat trustafarian college chick, then it's probably the definition you're going to use).

I think that techniques from those models are valid brain-change systems, and that you can get repeatable results, but pretty much only in the NLP/psychology/memetics/martial-arts/marketing sense. (FUCK am I agreeing with Ben Mack?!?!?.... nah, he was just agreeing with RAW.) But I don't think I can throw invisible fireballs out of my bellybutton.

I agree with Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This goes doubly for anyone caught in the mainstream American reality-tunnel. THEY can't tell the FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Shit, we've genetically altered goats to produce spider silk enzymes in their milk so that we can make BODY ARMOR out of it.

How many CCs of mouseblood and black candles are we going to need for that again?

Some scientist spag in Florida genetically engineered a breed of oranges to naturally produce THC, because his son got his college money taken away over a possession bust involving a single joint. He managed to mail out about 150 sample envelopes of the seeds before the FBI showed up and politely asked him to knock it off. Sounds like a wicked hex to me.

Using the telepathic skills I developed during a rigorous period of occult training in my parent's basement, I'll go ahead and answer the question you're thinking about:

There is no term that doesn't sound terminally spaggy that describes making significant changes to one's goals and behavior:

"I'm working on some life changes." :asshat:

"I'm restructuring the business model of my brain."  :asshat:

"I'm doing a spiritual inventory." :asshat:

"I'm exploring a new reality tunnel." :asshat:

"I'm breaking out of my BIP." :asshat:

"I'm using bullshit myths to facilitate personal growth." :asshat:

"I'm doing some self-hypnosis to overcome my crippling anxiety." :asshat:

"I'm doing butt magick with a long candle and Cthulu." :asshat:

See?

Any sort of long term introspective endeavor that has an objective of significantly changing how you relate to yourself and other people is impossible to talk about without resorting to words that make you sound like an asshat.

I know a large chunk of occultists are riddled with superstition, but not all of them. When people really take this model-agnostic strain of occultism to heart, science becomes just another useful set of assumptions for accomplishing some things. I think adopting a worldview that allows for the possibility of the supernatural can be a highly entertaining and worthwhile experience as well, and not just for trolling.

You can use sound logic and sound science but still utterly fail to complete your objectives. On the flip side, you can use faulty logic and pseudoscience but still reach your goal. Considering how steeped in bullshit people are, utilizing bullshit is probably the better bet.

Look at it this way, most discordians and subgenii merely regurgitate what other members of discordia have already done without really evolving the ideas or adding new twists. But we're not going to forfeit the term to morons—why should I allow the preponderance of idiots to own the term, "magick"?

great post, Net   :lulz:

Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on February 02, 2011, 01:07:57 PM
Look at it this way, most discordians and subgenii merely regurgitate what other members of discordia have already done without really evolving the ideas or adding new twists. But we're not going to forfeit the term to morons—why should I allow the preponderance of idiots to own the term, "magick"?

Because it gives me a chance to blow bile and bits of organs I probably need all over the place?

TGRR,
Truth in advertising.

And I didn't even have to show up with armor and a horse...

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

I am going to suck this thread up with my chaos madghiqal penis and when it gets full I am going to spew forth the most horrible poison never imagined all over the lot of you.

Quote from: Charley Brown on February 02, 2011, 03:48:32 PM
I am going to suck this thread up with my chaos madghiqal penis and when it gets full I am going to spew forth the most horrible poison never imagined all over the lot of you.

:x:1fap:

Quote from: Charley Brown on February 02, 2011, 03:48:32 PM
I am going to suck this thread up with my chaos madghiqal penis and when it gets full I am going to spew forth the most horrible poison never imagined all over the lot of you.

:aaaah:

Quote from: *GrumpButt* on February 02, 2011, 12:07:54 AM
Good post. Full of stuff for me to look at once my kids are all in bed.

Did someone say goats?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we9_CdNPuJg
Work safe, I'm just retarded and can't figure out how to get the vid up. -.-

Can't post videos directly on PD.

Embedded videos make me more likely to kill noobs.

Quote from: Cain on February 02, 2011, 04:20:43 PM
Embedded videos make me more likely to kill a bitch.

What about motherfuckers?

Amended, for more general threatening.

Well that explains it. Thanks!

Of course I spent a good 5 mins trying....


Cain...  Probably shouldn't have, but I lol'd.

Quote from: Cain on February 02, 2011, 04:22:50 PM
Amended, for more general threatening.

:lol:

*toot* *toot* I'm a bitch!  :lulz:

This thread should be turned into a step by step template then, whenever it's going to happen again all you have to do is post the template with an arrow pointing to "<< we are currently here"  :lulz:

 :lulz: