SPLIT: Magidgique Discussion from Intro Thread

[Phox]

Chaos magick is stupid.

Empiricism is stupid.

Everyone ITT is stupid.

Even me? 

[Cramulus]

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!

[Cain]

Chaos magick is stupid.

Empiricism is stupid.

Everyone ITT is stupid.

Even me? 

Especially you.

[LMNO]

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.

[Phox]

Chaos magick is stupid.

Empiricism is stupid.

Everyone ITT is stupid.

Even me? 

Especially you.

[Faust]

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"

[Triple Zero]

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.

[LMNO]

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.

[Cramulus]

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.

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

Aristotle'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 

[Cramulus]

[Thread split from Intro thread.]

[LMNO]

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. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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? 

[Cramulus]

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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.