UNLIMITED holist appreciation thread

[Pæs]

I find myself failing to appreciate holist. Am I still allowed in this thread?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The Wicca Forum? No, I don't think so. Why do you think so?

They also believe in shit that isn't real.

But not the shit that isn't real that I believe in, sadly.

I fail to see a functional difference.

[Dildo Argentino]

I find myself failing to appreciate holist. Am I still allowed in this thread?

I think so, yes, you are.

[Pergamos]

The Wicca Forum? No, I don't think so. Why do you think so?

They also believe in shit that isn't real.

But not the shit that isn't real that I believe in, sadly.

I fail to see a functional difference.

It depends on how your beliefs cause you to act.

[Dildo Argentino]

The Wicca Forum? No, I don't think so. Why do you think so?

They also believe in shit that isn't real.

But not the shit that isn't real that I believe in, sadly.

I fail to see a functional difference.

I am not surprised. But if someone were to tell you that some of the shit you believe in isn't real and hence you'd really enjoy converting to say the Latter Day Saints, you would.

[Dildo Argentino]

The Wicca Forum? No, I don't think so. Why do you think so?

They also believe in shit that isn't real.

But not the shit that isn't real that I believe in, sadly.

I fail to see a functional difference.

It depends on how your beliefs cause you to act.

That's true.

[Pergamos]

Also, they're all pretentious douche bags and often pedantic.

Don't forget passive aggressive.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The Wicca Forum? No, I don't think so. Why do you think so?

They also believe in shit that isn't real.

But not the shit that isn't real that I believe in, sadly.

I fail to see a functional difference.

I am not surprised. But if someone were to tell you that some of the shit you believe in isn't real and hence you'd really enjoy converting to say the Latter Day Saints, you would.

If I saw evidence that the Latter Day Saints were the geniune article, I'd be inclined to believe it.  I would not, however, convert, as I find them to be odious.

On the other hand, believing in something that is contrary to how the universe really operates is just damned silly.

[Dildo Argentino]

The Wicca Forum? No, I don't think so. Why do you think so?

They also believe in shit that isn't real.

But not the shit that isn't real that I believe in, sadly.

I fail to see a functional difference.

I am not surprised. But if someone were to tell you that some of the shit you believe in isn't real and hence you'd really enjoy converting to say the Latter Day Saints, you would.

If I saw evidence that the Latter Day Saints were the geniune article, I'd be inclined to believe it.  I would not, however, convert, as I find them to be odious.

On the other hand, believing in something that is contrary to how the universe really operates is just damned silly.

The false assumption behind that being that you know how the universe really operates. Also, the concept of "evidence" is somewhat problematic. Structure of Scientific Revolutions bla-bla-bla. It's okay to feel that straightforward naive scientistic materialism is just common sense, but it's good bear in mind that people around the world have felt the same way about an astonishin variety of world-views. It is also good to bear in mind that people who seemed to share the world-view of naive scientistic materialism have disagreed wildly about how the universe works (in fact, there are competing scientific theories about that right now) and also about what constitutes evidence.

And thinking that the naive normative notions of how science should operate actually describe (by and large, with a few deviations, of course!) the way that science as a social phenomenon works, or that other considerations (economic ones, ideological ones) can be disregarded is also a bit silly.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The false assumption behind that being that you know how the universe really operates. Also, the concept of "evidence" is somewhat problematic. Structure of Scientific Revolutions bla-bla-bla. It's okay to feel that straightforward naive scientistic materialism is just common sense, but it's good bear in mind that people around the world have felt the same way about an astonishin variety of world-views. It is also good to bear in mind that people who seemed to share the world-view of naive scientistic materialism have disagreed wildly about how the universe works (in fact, there are competing scientific theories about that right now) and also about what constitutes evidence.

And thinking that the naive normative notions of how science should operate actually describe (by and large, with a few deviations, of course!) the way that science as a social phenomenon works, or that other considerations (economic ones, ideological ones) can be disregarded is also a bit silly.

Babble all you like.  Water molecules don't have memory.

[Pergamos]

The false assumption behind that being that you know how the universe really operates. Also, the concept of "evidence" is somewhat problematic. Structure of Scientific Revolutions bla-bla-bla. It's okay to feel that straightforward naive scientistic materialism is just common sense, but it's good bear in mind that people around the world have felt the same way about an astonishin variety of world-views. It is also good to bear in mind that people who seemed to share the world-view of naive scientistic materialism have disagreed wildly about how the universe works (in fact, there are competing scientific theories about that right now) and also about what constitutes evidence.

And thinking that the naive normative notions of how science should operate actually describe (by and large, with a few deviations, of course!) the way that science as a social phenomenon works, or that other considerations (economic ones, ideological ones) can be disregarded is also a bit silly.

Babble all you like.  Water molecules don't have memory.

Here's a study that suggests that they do...

http://www.apothekerkammer.at/Internet/OEAK/NewsPresse_1_0_0a.nsf/79a88168b63a62f1c125697d004f0ee0/4e34a515fe5ad12fc1256df3002dae1c/$FILE/Hom%C3%B6opathie%20Thermoluminescence%20Rey%20Physica.pdf

For those that feel the article looks like gobbledegook basically the experimenter dissolved florescent salts in water, below the level where there should have been any florescense, and there still was.  Doesn't address the homeopathic claim that tiny amounts of something do the opposite of large amounts, but it does suggest that water has memory.

For those prone to dismissing the article, it was published in Physica A, which is a respected, peer reviewed scientific journal.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Unfortunately, I do not understand German.

[Pergamos]

That's weird,  That link goes somewhere else now than it did when I first went there.  Let me see if I can fix that.

[Pergamos]

ok, fixed it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Okay, what this is telling me is that lithium chloride and sodium chloride can be detected in water despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number.

This implies that for some reason, those two chemicals are now part of the actual water, which means that you're not looking at proper H₂O anymore, since any detectability below the Avogadro constant means that the original chemical in question simply isn't there (or rather, that the number of atoms in a mol are too low to be measured).

(LMNO, am I getting this right?  It's been a long time.)

It's interesting, but as you say, it doesn't support homeopathy in the slightest.