A collation on the scientific method

[Sencha]

Not quite sure what the point of all that was...

[Alastor]

There was a point, two infact, responding to previous posts but I was a bit drunk and went off on one - apologies.

First point --- a reflection on myself; I am egotistical, especially I want to be thought of as clever, I noticed I often posted in such a vein. That set me thinking about science, and especially about the language of science, and the language and points made in postings. My conclusion was that I was not alone, people like to seem clever, so they use language no one can understand, I cited "recursive system", language is for communication, but Science does not communicate well, it uses specialist terms. Scientists use them to sound good, cleverer - I know I do, I felt I was an arse for doing so, unfortunately it dawned on me after a few pints and I expressed it poorly and in a rather nasty way --- apologies if you read it.

The second point was about Aliester Crowley as a scientist, basically it just doesn't hold up. I have read a lot of Crowley, and about his life. I feel quite stronly that he is a charlatan. I tried to explain in rambling way how his system of magick can be seen as a result of psychological pressures. I cited his early years when he was raised cruely by fundamentalist Christian Brethren - it was his mother who callled him the Beast 666 for instance. I cited his sexuality. I suggested his Magick was the result of an intelligent mind to fuse his religious upbringing with his sexual and psychological needs. The outcome of his system preserved the fundamental ideas of God (see below) having a purpose for us, of love thy neighbour, and following one true path. His Magick was the outcome of experiences he where he dabbled in drugs, engaged in sexual practices, and sought mystical knowledge. The fusing of these, his reformulation of religion, I suggest is due to his nature. I also pointed out that his followers had a pretty bad time, suicide, drug addiction, broken marriages, nervous breakdowns and abandonded children. His attraction remains strong, so I think it is valid to comment (But not in the way I did). I think it is valid to suggest that modern day followers see in him a path, an idol, and a system. But that system is flawed, and certainly not based on science. I think Crowley himself viewed his followers with some disdain, he at least found his own path, he suggested others do too. He certainly held the OTO in some degree of contempt. He argued in court with Mcgreggor Mathers and others of the Golden Dawn, Leah Hirsig denounced him, Norman Mudd committted suicide, Victor Neuberg had a nervous breakdown and Crowley himself died a drug addict. Not the great messiah. I also pointed out Crowleys tendency to self agrandise, he was a great wordsmith, knowledgeable and charismatic. But in the end he didn't really leave anything new. His Tarot Deck is beautiful, but he didn't invent Tarot. His poetry was OK, but rarely reached the heights. If you actually read the book of the Law, it's frankly awful. The power of Crowley is in his iconic status.

So as far as science is concerned I don't see Crowley figures much. He knew about it - he knew the maths of his time, but his use is as an analogy, he does not deduce anything. He wrote a fair piece on ontology, about zero divided by zero - again essentially analogy - relating it to a creation myth. Crowley borrows the authority of science to promote himself and his ideas, he is not scientific.

Well that puts it in a much more sober light, again apologies if you read the rant.

(Explanatory note on Crowley's God) --- Crowley suggested that the path is to attain what he called conversation with one's Holy Guardian Angel. He had his with an entity he called Aiwass in Egypt, when he had the book of the Law dictated to him. He used two phrases to encaputlate this law.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "Love is the law, love under will"
But he does not mean do what you like, he means follow the directions given to you by your holy guardian angel, and your first step is to attain such conversation by magickal practice. The will -- or Thelma -- is I suggest not different to following the word of God, reached not through prayer, but by magick. The wording of his commadments can then be understood as essentially "Do God's will with love" --- Hardly the Great Beast. The other quote he often used was "Every man and Every woman is a star." This he explained meant that if a man or woman followed their true will, then like a star in the heavens it's path predermined will be followed and to do otherwise is wrong, and that we should respect that in others. I think in effect it boils down to love thy neighbour as thyself. The language he uses in his statements is King James Bible language. So I suggest Crowley's Will, and law is not that far from the bible's God and Jesus's Law. OK it's a simplification, there is a sexual permissiveness, but again I suggest the source for this is Crowley's psychological make up, not devine knowledge.

[FoxPhantom]

I am sorry if I am being a little skeptic about how scientific methods work on the spiritual side of life.

Wouldn't science work with psychical facts, instead of spiritual?

[DJ Droood]

I am sorry if I am being a little skeptic about how scientific methods work on the spiritual side of life.

Wouldn't science work with psychical facts, instead of spiritual?

How would you define and identify a spiritual "fact"? For instance, for many people, "God" is a spiritual fact, but unicorns and santa clause and other religion's gods are imaginary. What tools are used in the spiritual realm to test spiritual facts?

Is it entirely a matter of personal, subjective experience, and if that is the case, why won't my employer give me Jabba the Hutt's birthday off as a paid holiday?

[FoxPhantom]

I am sorry if I am being a little skeptic about how scientific methods work on the spiritual side of life.

Wouldn't science work with psychical facts, instead of spiritual?

How would you define and identify a spiritual "fact"? For instance, for many people, "God" is a spiritual fact, but unicorns and santa clause and other religion's gods are imaginary. What tools are used in the spiritual realm to test spiritual facts?

Is it entirely a matter of personal, subjective experience, and if that is the case, why won't my employer give me Jabba the Hutt's birthday off as a paid holiday?

From what I remember, Jabba the hutt isn't real because it came from Star wars) Jesus birthday on the other hand is celebrated because of how the christian savior was born, and I also remember Halloween was celebrated for some other religion, which became a wide known popular day. ( Samhain anyone?)

So wouldn't science have to have physical prove, instead?

[DJ Droood]

So wouldn't science have to have physical prove, instead?

yes, I would think science could be used to prove the existence of Jabba or Jesus, and so far they are running neck and neck.

[FoxPhantom]

So wouldn't science have to have physical prove, instead?

yes, I would think science could be used to prove the existence of Jabba or Jesus, and so far they are running neck and neck.

I am getting nowhere like this am I?

[DJ Droood]

I am getting nowhere like this am I?

That sounds like a existential spiritual question...I have no answer for you.

[FoxPhantom]

Hmm, Ok. So I think I now have the idea about the answer.

You compared Jabba the Hutt and Jesus Christ neck to neck. And by looking for there birthdays that it's just a date of birth, no real details on how they did on what in there lives, no physical prove. So correct me if I am wrong please, but what I think I know isn't what I know, it's rather what has been written by other people who were there. and that the person who has been there would be either dead, alive but keeping it to himself because it's a apart of his belief or knowing that it's not real. So in either way that Science can't prove it with out physical evidence, and that looking for it with no clue is like looking for where Waldo is.

[DJ Droood]

Hmm, Ok. So I think I now have the idea about the answer..

Very good then. If you are satisfied, we shall "keep on truckin'", as they said in the 70's.

[wolf560]

Jesus Christ... looking for... birthdays... Science can't prove it with out physical evidence..s.

I realize I am jumping in and that it is merely on the "date of birth" part.

December 25th is not his Birthday, it is actually in March or April and in the year 8-4 B.C.E.
We know this because of when Joseph and Mary were traveling, because of the census (and resulting tax collection) of that year. That census happened in the reign of Caesar Augustus and was was ordered in 8 B.C.E. So we have a range of about two years after that to in order to accomplish the task. I further believe (no proof for now) that the census itself was to be done after the first harvest so that people could pay the inherent taxes that were due at the same time. I can go on with dates of the Bible (as an example) that can be tied to other documents to thus show real dates in history. http://www.ichthus.info/Luke/intro.html

Should we expose all of our thoughts and readings to this scrutiny?
Only if we are prepared for the answers that may unfold afterwards

[DJ Droood]

December 25th is not his Birthday, it is actually in March or April and in the year 8-4 B.C.E.

Which I think illustrates how JC was a tacked on afterthought to the real "reason for the season", the solstice.

[Oneonine]

Science proves probabilities without hard physical facts, not certainties. That's why they are called theories...

[wolf560]

Science proves probabilities without hard physical facts, not certainties. That's why they are called theories...

Science proves things with mathetics, what it cannot prove it then proposes with a theory. Those theories are backed up by existing Mathematics or other solutions that have already been proven to work.

The Greek philosopher Pythagoras changed the word 'Theory' to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge.

In simpler words, a theory is not something that is just made up for kicks and giggles.

Gravity creates a force that causes things to fall at 9.81 meters per second squared at sea level. Thus you can propose a theory that anything when not held aloft will fall at a similar speed and velocity. Since airflow constants and many other variables are not in this particular equation this remains a theory until the other constants can be rectified.

If you fly too close to the Sun the theory is that you will be pulled into it and burned to a crisp... that although being a theory is also a certainty.

If we simply "believe" without trying to at least make sure the book we are reading is real or not then we slip from knowledge into Faith. This remains the hottest topic and I do not want to cause an argument over it.

When Faith comes in, sometimes Proof leaves by the same sound of a door opening and closing. My Faith and Belief are also reinforced by my Knowledge and Science. I reduce what I believe in my checking things against what is known and can be proved. I 'know' for instance that the Druids did not build Stonehenge.... my 'Faith' does not rely upon that misconception that has existed for centuries.

[Huathe]

All,

I have really enjoyed this topic on the forum, though I have not yet read all of it. Science and its method(s) is a common topic on the ENTS BBS in which I am also a member.

James

[wolf560]

.. the ENTS BBS in which I am also a member.

ENTS ..??

I have seen this term a few times now, can I ask what it is?

[Oneonine]

Perhaps I should have said science provides us with probabilities when there is an absence of cold hard facts (i.e maths, measurements ect). It doesn't matter how certain you are that the sun will drag you in, it remains a probability. A VERY high one, vanishingly small probability of anything else happening... still... this is what I meant by probabilities.

The one time in a million that the probable outcome doesn't occur is the one that might advance our knowledge of the Universe in leaps and bounds.

[Huathe]

Mark,

ENTS is an acronym for the Eastern Native Tree Society. While primarily centered in the Eastern United States, ENTS has a few members in more distant places, like Malaysia and Europe. And, yes the name was influenced by J.R.R. Tolkien's Tree Shepherds.

The ENTS mission statement says it better than I could ever explain it.

" The Eastern Native Tree Society (ENTS) is a cyberspace interest group devoted to the documentation and celebration of trees and forests of the eastern North America and around the world, through art, poetry, music, mythology, science, medicine, wood crafts, and collecting research data for a variety of purposes. ENTS is the premiere tree measuring group of the eastern forest. ENTS is a discussion forum for people who view trees and forests not just as a crop to be harvested, but also as something of value in their own right. Membership is open to anyone with an interest in trees living anywhere in the world. "

http://www.nativetreesociety.org/

I have been a member of ENTS for just over three years and have found the organization very rewarding and have met some very nice and intelligent people there. I have also been involved in ENTS projects and several meetings of the group. ENTS is at the forefront of forest documentation and tree measuring in the United States, along with it's companion in the west. WNTS. ENTS membership is currently around 200. Much smaller than OBOD. But in ENTS case, dynamite indeed comes in small packages.

ENTS was founded in 1996.

James

[wolf560]

Thanks James..!!!

I just left NC and am living in AZ now....
...a very laudable calling and group I must say

[Huathe]

Mark,

What part of NC did you live? I live in Arden, near Asheville, in the Western North Carolina Mountains.

James