tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3127351402958544033.post6433047068140158092..comments2023-07-27T07:11:13.931-07:00Comments on Philosophy On Purpose: Thinking about Thinking-Michael Lockridgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06748256055779697021noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3127351402958544033.post-77384814405850336042009-04-27T01:33:00.000-07:002009-04-27T01:33:00.000-07:00Thanks, Jared, for the thoughtful response. Thank ...Thanks, Jared, for the thoughtful response. Thank you, also, for the book references. I put them on my wish list.Michael Lockridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748256055779697021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3127351402958544033.post-33482839128241144062009-04-27T00:03:00.000-07:002009-04-27T00:03:00.000-07:00If you are interested in my thoughts on the mystic...If you are interested in my thoughts on the mystic and magical, I may be able to provide a little insight which comes from my scientific perspective.<br /><br />From what I have gathered in my relatively short tenure upon this planet is as follows: <br />What we perceive as "magic" or "unexplainable" is only so because we do not have sufficient evidence or understanding of other phenomena to postulate any other alternatives. (For this reason, people hate going to Vegas-style magic shows with me) We do so because we are conditioned, from a very young age, to accept some things which just seem too complicated to have physical explanations. (e.g. a 3 year old wondering why people don't fall out of roller coasters when inverted and concluding roller coasters are magical--don't laugh) <br /><br />Quite contrary to your postulation that magic and mysticism do not fit into scientific models, I find they fit far more nicely, but very differently, from what someone such as yourself seems to be looking for. We find magic or mysticism within the world when we stop looking closer. The closer we have looked at anything magical (so far) which has been investigated is an explanation which fits into our understanding of the world with at least some tangible evidence of it.<br /><br />On the other hand, magic and mysticism do teach us many things. The first which comes to my mind is how easy our senses are to deceive. This is why we must have a process of verification and confirmation by others built into any system of "knowing."<br /><br />Steven Pinker has a good book on thoughts entitled "The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature" and David Linden has one entitled "The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God." Both are pretty good reads and available on Amazon for something like $35 for both. Pinker is a psychologist; Linden is a neurobiologist. <br /><br />I cannot stress enough that what we have learned of reality through science is a pretty fair approximation to reality whereas what we have learned through mysticism and magical means of thought are alternatives which are not reality.<br /><br />If one chooses to embrace mysticism or magical thoughs, allow them to be as follows: "science can tell us reality, mysticism tries to tell us how we should feel about it"<br /><br />How, exactly, one can rationalize metaphysical, unverifiable arguments above physical, verified measurements escapes my complete understanding. I understand the allure, but do not understand its addictive nature.Jaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04837530362277701547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3127351402958544033.post-63727028138211983152009-04-26T23:13:00.000-07:002009-04-26T23:13:00.000-07:00The implication of your response is that a scienti...The implication of your response is that a scientific view of reality is the only valid view. As presented I must assume that such is your position. <br /><br />My own experience with the scientific view is that which I learned through general education, and that some time ago. Obviously I have much to learn just to understand this view of reality.<br /><br />My knowledge of a mystical view is largely that of experiences I gained while cobbling together various readings and trying to create a mystics lifestyle. It was interesting but not particularly informative.<br /><br />What I learned of creationism came as a consequence of my conversion to Christianity, and exposure to the controversy. Again, a bit of reading and some thinking. <br /><br />I am disappointed by the lack of real scholarship in creationism. You are correct in observing that creationists largely attempt to impeach the testimony of evolution rather than examine the evidence from a creationist perspective.<br /><br />My point in this particular blog entry was to state that I am making a new beginning. I am thinking about thinking, and wanting to get a better grasp on what knowledge is, how thinking works, and to examine ways of thinking.<br /><br />I want to understand the mystical and magical, not just remove them. Mysticism and magic have long been part of the human experience. I am not convinced that they have no merit just because they don't easily fit within or submit to another way of thinking.<br /><br />Neither do I wish to exclude the scientific way of thinking. That, too, is a part of the contemporary human experience. I want to understand how it all fits together.<br /><br />Thanks for reading, and thank you for your comment. You gave me things to think about. That, of course, is the point of all of this.Michael Lockridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748256055779697021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3127351402958544033.post-23423953158425301142009-04-24T09:58:00.000-07:002009-04-24T09:58:00.000-07:00Why, exactly, do you consider science ill fitted f...Why, exactly, do you consider science ill fitted for investigation of the mystical? Frequently, things happen which cannot be explained with current scientific knowledge. The process of science is to remove the unexplainable (mystical, magical) phenomena by means of investigation and inquiry. The very nature of the unexplained is what draws scientists towards it.<br /><br />The reason the "creationist model[s]" are not valid stems from having absolutely no substantiated evidence. It is picking and choosing bits of evidence, taking them out of context, reworking them into something which can be used to support the argument, and ignoring the rest of each piece.<br /><br />Example: K-Ar dating was used to determine a recent volcanic eruption (1950s I think) was 300,000 years old. They use this to attempt to discredit K-Ar dating. What they ignore is that the method is only useful for dating igneous formations greater than 2,000,000 years old; additionally residual Argon can skew results of young samples strongly towards the 2,000,000 year range especially in the spectrometer which was being used for this experiment.<br /><br />The issue you will run into frequently with scientists is that of "belief." If you ask me, as a biologist, if I "believe" all vertebrates are related, I would respond "no." This is, in light of evidence, my present conclusion is that all vertebrates are related, but this is subject to change in light of any new (contrary) evidence. <br /><br />Many common words are used to express this sentiment, such as "believe" and "opinion," but a scientist must be open to new evidence to draw accurate conclusions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com