I think he might also be saying that scientific dogmas become scientism. As I understnd it science is supposed to be dogma free. The results it gives and even the method itself are seen as best bets, for now. It is accepted that the result and even the method can change, based upon thinking and tangible evidence. Experiments in quantum mechanics produce evidence that requires revision in the epistemolgy of science. No one has yet been able to come up with a solid generally accepted answer in this area, but old rigid notions have been impeached by the evidence.
On Sep 16, 5:38 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that Price is just warning against scientism, that is, that > science is the be all and end all of everything. We've been down this > road before. When you get into how a machine or organism perceives > the world from the inside, science has issues. Science can only > explain how it (machine or organism or other another part of nature) > works and how it perceives the surroundings--and can't deal with the > personal experiences of being a log, tree, another organism with a > very different biological structure...only predict and possibly > control those things within physical limits. > > On Sep 16, 2:56 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:19 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote > > > > That reference on p. 28 is calling out the pseudo-science in New Age > > > religions. > > > I agree that it is common for proponnents of New Age ideas, practices, > > religions and so forth to use gaps in scientific understanding as > > "proof" of their opinions. In this they resemble many other > > dogmatists. However the second part of that statment does not negate > > the first half, which reads, "These conundrums, which ought indeed to > > make us reexamine any scientific dogmas we may embrace.” Jason, do you > > suppose that Price is saying science has dogmas or do you think that I > > have interpreted correctly by saying that he really means scientistic > > dogmas? > > > On Sep 16, 12:19 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > Most of the books that I read are science and philosophy--only a few > > > are mostly skeptical. > > > > Price is more in line with the way I look at these alternative > > > religions. > > > > That reference on p. 28 is calling out the pseudo-science in New Age > > > religions. > > > > I wasn't calling you out either but I did remember our debates about > > > Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, CSICOPs and so forth and thought that > > > Price might be in that category. > > > > Jason > > > > On Sep 16, 11:07 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:27 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >I thought that Michael would be turned > > > > > off by book because it goes after "New Thought" and "New Age" > > > > > religions. > > > > > Jason, > > > > > I thought that you might not like the book because it is more > > > > philosophically oriented, rather than just being skeptical. In > > > > addition to just challenging idealistic monistic metaphysics, new age > > > > interpretations of quantum mechanics and other physics, new age > > > > extrapolations from quantum mechanics and other poor examples of > > > > reasoning by new age/new thought adherents, the author also challenges > > > > scientistic dogmas (he calls them scientific dogmas). He says, in the > > > > middle of the first paragraph of on page twenty eight, in reference to > > > > the mysteries of quantum mechanics,” These conundrums, which ought > > > > indeed to make us reexamine any scientific dogmas we may embrace.” > > > > > On the other hand, I have noticed that as I have become more realistic > > > > about new age nonsense, you also have seemed to recognize the limits > > > > of scientism and pseudo skepticism. For that reason you may like a > > > > book that rightly points out there is often some good in new age > > > > religions. The author even likes the Bible, though he is an atheist. I > > > > can understand his feeling since I like the Bible and don’t believe in > > > > its crazy bully of a god either. Actually I do believe that I AM > > > > exists, but I AM is not God, a god, a goddess an angel or anything > > > > else like that. What I Am is, in my opinion, is so obvious that we > > > > most people miss it. The secret is hidden in plain sight, where no one > > > > dares to look > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:27 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > the book that we are reading for book club (Top Secret by Robert > > > > > Price) > > > > > > The first chapter was good. I thought that Michael would be turned > > > > > off by book because it goes after "New Thought" and "New Age" > > > > > religions. In some of these alternative religions, your mental powers > > > > > or mind influences the environment around you by vibrating your > > > > > surrounding with sort mind beam that helps you control your > > > > > surrounding (or some other mind control of your surroundings). Most > > > > > people would just think that positive thinking and persistance helps > > > > > you "do" or "say" the right things to get what you want--not project > > > > > some sort of mystical mental energy on your surroundings to control > > > > > it. > > > > > > Regardless, the book "The Secret" (not Top Secret) and New Thought/New > > > > > Age religions are very popular in some circles and parts of the > > > > > country. > > > > > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
