Skepticism 101 (Re: skeptics in magic land)
nagasiva
>>> ...Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real,
the skeptic wants to know more, and more carefully.
>>> if they did they would try by themselves. Instead they sit
>>> on ther butts and shout at everyone who believes in magic
>>> to come and prove it to them.
what I'd call a cynic or Troll.
>>> Initiation doesnt work that >>> way, sorry.
>> How does initiation work?
>> Is initiation the only thing that can be accomplished by magick?
no, but it becomes an obsession because something is beginning.
humans seem to have a fetish for procreationism. what is
accomplished by magick is change in conformity with will.
>> Are all claims other than the attainment of "initiation",
>> such as magick to attract love, to make rain, to win the
>> lottery, false?
no, on account that each of these levels may prove fruitful.
why forbid what cannot be shown an absolute loss?
>>> the key word of the aspirant is "Try!" skeptics dont try.
>>
>> Skeptics test.
skeptics look.
>> A person who believes in paranormal phenomena would be in
>> exactly the same boat, then. By believing in paranormal
>> powers before looking for them, the believer is not a
>> "white page", as you put it, and therefore is not qualified
>> to research the subject.
quite right.
>> How then does one rid oneself of any belief, either pro or con?
stop lending it credence, opposing it, banishing its affirmation.
> It is possible to be an occultist and find claims of paranormal
> powers just... boring.
likely, and off-topic.
nagasiva
Bruce Burhans
"nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:LaFJ8.5831$3w2....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> 50020530 VI
>
> >>> ...Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real,
>
> the skeptic wants to know more, and more carefully.
>
Some do. Many are simply intent upon discrediting whatever ideas
threaten those of their sponsoring audience, while *pretending* to be
seekers
of knowledge.
This was Quintal's original point, and nothing
has been said on this thread to disprove it.
All we have heard is "that isn't true."
Well it is. And simply saying it isn't changes nothing.
[snip]
Bruce<+>
Isma'il abd al-Haqq
has aided in my development as a magician. How? Well, it adds a
balance factor to my workings and initiatic development. Gullibility
tends towards corruption of the senses, dogmatism or obsession.
Scepticism is a worthy weapon to fight against these 'demons'. If you
swallow everything whole, you get indigestion. Scepticism is like
eating selectively and chewing your food completely, it makes for a
healthy diet and promotes better digestion.
On Fri, 31 May 2002 06:58:51 GMT, nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom>
wrote:
Paul Hume
> humans seem to have a fetish for procreationism.
This may be why all projects progress swiftly until 90% complete. They
then remain 90% complete forever.
Marcus S. Turner
"Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QEQJ8.652$%A....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Then...
Simply saying "Well it is." changes nothing.
Did I get that right?
Bruce Burhans
"Isma'il abd al-Haqq" <babal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cf884d6...@news.earthlink.net...
> I am magician, I am also a sceptic. I have found that my scepticism
> has aided in my development as a magician. How? Well, it adds a
> balance factor to my workings and initiatic development. Gullibility
> tends towards corruption of the senses, dogmatism or obsession.
> Scepticism is a worthy weapon to fight against these 'demons'. If you
> swallow everything whole, you get indigestion. Scepticism is like
> eating selectively and chewing your food completely, it makes for a
> healthy diet and promotes better digestion.
>
>
[snip]
Why is it that people keep trying to convince
us that "skepic" is the only word in the English language
that has only one definition?
Are they stupid, or do they think that we are?
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
"Marcus S. Turner" <msha...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ja6K8.76665$Bo3.6...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Absolutely. Like "duh."
Bruce<+>
>
>
Tom
>
> Are they stupid, or do they think that we are?
I dunno about anybody else, but I think you're stupid.
Joseph Count de Money
"We do not call electrical resistance or economic laws, unreal, on the
ground that they are not directly perceived by the sences. Our magical
doctrine is universally accepted by sceptics---only they wish to make
Magick itself an exception!"
Aliester Crowley Liber ABA page 242 cf. 1994 Wiser edition.
--
Joseph Count de Money.
Bruce Burhans
"Joseph Count de Money" <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3CF9A627...@pacbell.net...
Excellent ! Biting logic from a Master....
Bruce<+>
>
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
I think he's stupid too. Seems he's proven it time and again.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Lorrill Buyens
cannibals on Sun, 02 Jun 2002 04:53:39 GMT, they issued this poignant
cry for help:
>Marcus S. Turner wrote:
>
>> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:QEQJ8.652$%A....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> > All we have heard is "that isn't true."
>> > Well it is. And simply saying it isn't changes nothing.
>>
>> Then...
>>
>> Simply saying "Well it is." changes nothing.
>>
>> Did I get that right?
>
>"We do not call electrical resistance or economic laws, unreal, on the
>ground that they are not directly perceived by the sences. Our magical
>doctrine is universally accepted by sceptics---only they wish to make
>Magick itself an exception!"
>
>Aliester Crowley Liber ABA page 242 cf. 1994 Wiser edition.
Electrical resistance can be detected an' measured by instruments. As
far as I'm aware, magick can't.
--
"An unnatural sex act is one you haven't the courage or
imagination to perform."
- Patrick Ireland
Bruce Burhans
"Lorrill Buyens" <buy...@interlacken.com> wrote in message
news:3cfb6494....@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Right before Joseph Count de Money <jos...@pacbell.net> was eaten by
> cannibals on Sun, 02 Jun 2002 04:53:39 GMT, they issued this poignant
> cry for help:
>
> >Marcus S. Turner wrote:
> >
> >> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:QEQJ8.652$%A....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> >> > All we have heard is "that isn't true."
> >> > Well it is. And simply saying it isn't changes nothing.
> >>
> >> Then...
> >>
> >> Simply saying "Well it is." changes nothing.
> >>
> >> Did I get that right?
> >
> >"We do not call electrical resistance or economic laws, unreal, on the
> >ground that they are not directly perceived by the sences. Our magical
> >doctrine is universally accepted by sceptics---only they wish to make
> >Magick itself an exception!"
> >
> >Aliester Crowley Liber ABA page 242 cf. 1994 Wiser edition.
>
> Electrical resistance can be detected an' measured by instruments. As
> far as I'm aware, magick can't.
>
Which is rather the whole point. In-other-words,
physical science is out of its depth here, and should just
go away and deal with the limited portion of reality that
it is capable of perceiving.
Bruce<+>
Marcus S. Turner
I'm just sorry you missed the irony of your argument...
Bruce Burhans
And I'm sorry that you assume I did, in the absence
of any evidence to back it up.
Had you bothered to read the next posting of mine
in the series, you would see that your assumption was
wrong.
You must be a physical scientist. They're always
running off half-cocked, announcing their latest imaginings
and wishful thinking as truth....
Bruce<+>
Marcus S. Turner
Worse - A Statistics Developer w/ a Masters in Economics.
Joseph Count de Money
> Right before Joseph Count de Money <jos...@pacbell.net> was eaten by
> cannibals on Sun, 02 Jun 2002 04:53:39 GMT, they issued this poignant
> cry for help:
if only the above were less "True"
>
>
> >"We do not call electrical resistance or economic laws, unreal, on
> the
> >ground that they are not directly perceived by the sences. Our
> magical
> >doctrine is universally accepted by sceptics---only they wish to make
>
> >Magick itself an exception!"
> >
> >Aliester Crowley Liber ABA page 242 cf. 1994 Wiser edition.
>
> Electrical resistance can be detected an' measured by instruments. As
>
> far as I'm aware, magick can't.
"We" can also make spread sheets and graph economic trends but when was
the last time "You" felt an economic trend? has the latest american
recession affected you? have you "felt" its effects? for practiclae
"scientific" discussion we would say no.
so when the first expermintersz with electricity were mucking around
with glass balls and magnites and copper wire they did not have to
instruments to detect electrical resistance though they invented them as
time went on. which im sure will happen to magick as its not the con
game a lot of self proclaimed magicians farily well demonstrate it to be
but this is just an intuition on my part. much like franklen or mesmer
and their intuition about their ability to collect and controll if not
produce electricity.
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
all
computers."
Joseph Count de Money
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >> news:QEQJ8.652$%A....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > >
> > You must be a physical scientist. They're always
> > running off half-cocked, announcing their latest imaginings
> > and wishful thinking as truth....
>
> Worse - A Statistics Developer w/ a Masters in Economics.
and why are you that? did you choosse that path as a reasonable path to
economic security or did you "like" the subject ? was there an intuitive
draw to mathmatics? an irrational, unconscious pull that would shape
any conscious choice you made for you education but which modern science
could not detect with any instrument at its disposal?
--
Psyche
You're a fucking moron, Bruce.
--Psyche
X MCH S* W++(--) N+++ PDI/PPA/PEC D* X
X The most violent element in society X
X is ignorance. X
X http://www.spiralnature.com X
X Dd Dr+ A a+ C+++(42) G+ Q 666- Y+ Z X
Psyche
Bruce, you fucking moron, you prove yourself so once again.
Emmit Svenson
> If you
> swallow everything whole, you get indigestion. Scepticism is like
> eating selectively and chewing your food completely, it makes for a
> healthy diet and promotes better digestion.
An excellent analogy. Mind if I use it?
Earth Wolf
You're a fucking moron, Bruce.
A real skeptic wouldn't counter an illogical argument with an even more illogical one.
-- Earth Wolf "Old statisticians never die; they just get broken down by age and sex."
Earth Wolf
"Joseph Count de Money" <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3CF9A627...@pacbell.net...
"We do not call electrical resistance or economic laws, unreal, on the
ground that they are not directly perceived by the sences. Our magical
doctrine is universally accepted by sceptics---only they wish to make
Magick itself an exception!"
Aliester Crowley Liber ABA page 242 cf. 1994 Wiser edition.
--
Excellent ! Biting logic from a Master....
Your notion of what constitutes logic bites.
It's Crowley and his followers who wish to make Magick an exception. Electrical resistance can be scientifically demonstrated, computed, worked with. Economic laws are a bit more problematical; not everyone considers economics a science, as it has (or had) a reputation for relying on unproven assumptions; but over time, evidence can be amassed that, for example, communism was an economic failure (probably because its underlying assumptions were wrong).
Magick (in the "woo woo" paranormal sense, as opposed to the artistic/poetic sense) has never been demonstrated, let alone measured or quantified. Crowley seems to be arguing that, by treating it exactly the same as mathematics or physics, we are somehow making an exception; and that, to avoid making an exception, we should treat it differently.
This is not any kind of logic, Bruce.
Joseph Count de Money
Bruce Burhans wrote:
"Joseph Count de Money" <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:3CF9A627...@pacbell.net
... Aliester Crowley Liber ABA page 242 cf. 1994 Wiser edition. -- Excellent ! Biting logic from a Master....
Your notion of what constitutes logic bites.
an innacurate metaphor, logic, not having teeth can not bite, it can be innacurate but it rarely masticates.
It's Crowley and his followers who wish to make Magick an exception. Electrical resistance can be scientifically demonstrated,
"also called OHMIC resistance, a property of a conductor by virtue of which the passage of current is opposed, causing electric energy to be transformed into heat; equal to the voltage across the conductor divided by the current flowing in the conductor; usualy measured in ohms"
which the last time i checked took a particular piece of machinery to measure. and was not directly percieveable by the sences. except as was pointed out as heat, however if your going to measure this resistance with precision your going to need a differant intrument than your sence of touch
of course electricity be it lightening or static produced by a ballon rubbed across the head can be directly percieved by the sences and thus started the understanding we have of it to day how ever the more esoteric aspect of "electrical resistance" or even electricity per se have their mysteries that science accepts as readally as a magician.
"A great many people think that they are extemely intellegant when in fact they have only made some occasional shrewd guesses (which they naturaly remember ) in the course of hundreds of forgotten failures."
computed, worked with. Economic laws are a bit more problematical; not everyone considers economics a science, as it has (or had) a reputation for relying on unproven assumptions; but over time, evidence can be amassed that, for example, communism was an economic failure (probably because its underlying assumptions were wrong).
which is the type of "opinion" one has become used to in use net.
Magick (in the "woo woo" paranormal sense, as opposed to the artistic/poetic sense) has never been demonstrated, let alone measured or quantified. Crowley seems to be arguing that, by treating it exactly the same as mathematics or physics, we are somehow making an exception; and that, to avoid making an exception, we should treat it differently.
no, he is suggesting we apply the same standards to it as we do "electricity" but not to dismiss it as mere superstitious nonsence. though i think spinoza would agree with you. a belief in the miraculious to him being nothng more than a demonstration of ognorance.
"it is not so long since the methods of modern science were scoffed at by the whole cultured world....There is hardly a scientific discovery in history which was not decried as quackery by the very men whose own achievements were scarce yet recognized by the world at large.... The method of [Magick], the ratio of it, is as obscure today as was that of spectrum analysis 100 years ago.
We can not say why [magick] is valid. we can not trace the process
by which it performs its marvels. But the same objections apply equally
well to the telephone. No man knows what eclectricity is (or the electro
magnetic spectrum) or the nature of the forces which determine its action.
we know only that by doing certain things we get certain results, and that
the least error on our part will bring our work to naught. the same is
exactly true of [magick]. the differance between the two sciences
is no more than this; that more minds haveing been at work on the
former, we have learnt to master its tricks with greater success than in
the case of the lattter."
This is not any kind of logic, Bruce.
if your willing to put aside your transcendental spiritual pride for a moment you might realize no body really knows anything.
"there is no such thing as truth in the perceptible universe; every idea when analyzed is found to contain a contasdiction. it is quite useless ( except as a temprorary expedient) to set up one class of ideas against another as being "more real." The advance of man towards god is not necessarily an advance towards truth. all philosophical systems have crumbled. but each class of ideas possess true relations within itself.
The laws of nature are incomprably more subtle than even science suspects.
the phenomena of every plane are intemately interwoven. the arguments
of aristotle were dependent on the atmospheric pressure which prevented
his blood from boiling away, there is nothing in the universe which does
not influence every other thing in one way or another."
--
Joseph ( The probability for an event which can happen in two indistinguishable
ways is the sum of the probability for each way considered separately)
Count de Money.
Richard Bell
Earth Wolf <aard...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
>It's Crowley and his followers who wish to make Magick an exception.
>Electrical resistance can be scientifically demonstrated, computed,
>worked with. Economic laws are a bit more problematical; not everyone
>considers economics a science, as it has (or had) a reputation for
>relying on unproven assumptions; but over time, evidence can be amassed
>that, for example, communism was an economic failure (probably because
>its underlying assumptions were wrong).
>
assumptions, but by the inability to face the truth. Industry was
given unrealistic production targets, and they attempted to save face
by lying. The higher ups did not want to lose face by admitting that
their targets were impossible, so they accepted the lies as the truth.
Lie built on lie, until it collapsed. This is not to say that a
communist economy is a model of efficiency, merely that no one has
honestly tried to run one.
Inability to face the truth is not exclusive to communist societies, as
witnessed by the attempts of the US government to stay on the gold standard,
while prosecuting the conflict in Viet Nam.
Earth Wolf
Joseph Count de Money wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's Crowley and his followers who wish to make Magick an exception.
>> Electrical resistance can be scientifically demonstrated,
>>
> and directly percieved by the sences?
If you think that scientific research is restricted only to what can be
directly perceived by the senses, you have a bizarre and inaccurate
understanding of what science is.
Why should the inability to see an atom mean that it can't be
scientifically studied?
> unless i am under a mis apprehension as to what "electrical resistance is"
You appear to be under a misapprehension of what "science" is.
> "also called OHMIC resistance, a property of a conductor by virtue of
> which the passage of current is opposed, causing electric energy to be
> transformed into heat; equal to the voltage across the conductor
> divided by the current flowing in the conductor; usualy measured in
> ohms"
>
> which the last time i checked took a particular piece of machinery to
> measure.
>
Yeah. So what?
> "it is not so long since the methods of modern science were scoffed at
> by the whole cultured world....There is hardly a scientific discovery
> in history which was not decried as quackery by the very men whose own
> achievements were scarce yet recognized by the world at large.... The
> method of [Magick], the ratio of it, is as obscure today as was that
> of spectrum analysis 100 years ago.
>
Interesting, then, that Magic has been around for millennia, while
spectrum analysis has only been around for a few hundred years at most.
When do you expect "magickal research" to produce some scientifically
measurable results?
> We can not say why [magick] is valid.
>
Correction; you cannot say *if* magick is valid. We can say that Ohm's
law is valid.
> we can not trace the process by which it performs its marvels. But
> the same objections apply equally well to the telephone.
>
No, they don't.
> No man knows what eclectricity is
>
We have a much better idea of what it is than we have of what "magick" is.
> (or the electro magnetic spectrum) or the nature of the forces which
> determine its action. we know only that by doing certain things we get
> certain results,
>
Fair enough. Can you say the same about magick? i.e. can you perform a
demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
repeatable? (If it's scientifically explainable, then wouldn't it cease
to be magic? As the laws of chemistry cease to be part of alchemy?)
> and that the least error on our part will bring our work to naught.
> the same is exactly true of [magick]. the differance between the two
> sciences is no more than this; that more minds haveing been at work
> on the former, we have learnt to master its tricks with greater
> success than in the case of the lattter."
>
More minds having been at work on electricity than magic? Magic, or the
belief in it, has been around for thousands of years; people who were
reputed to have magical powers could expect to be richly rewarded. Why
then did they produce absolutely no results that have not turned out to
be based on the modern laws of chemistry or physics?
> if your willing to put aside your transcendental spiritual pride for a
> moment you might realize no body really knows anything.
This always seems to be the final argument of those who are outgunned by
reality.
Joseph Count de Money
> Joseph Count de Money wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's Crowley and his followers who wish to make Magick an
> exception.
> >> Electrical resistance can be scientifically demonstrated,
> >>
> > and directly percieved by the sences?
>
> If you think that scientific research is restricted only to what can
> be
> directly perceived by the senses, you have a bizarre and inaccurate
> understanding of what science is.
its becoming apparent you have a similar understanding of magick plus i
did not write that which you attribute to me, both science and magick
are concerened with that which cant not be directly percieved bny the
sences.
>
>
> Why should the inability to see an atom mean that it can't be
> scientifically studied?
i have at least seen pictures of atoms or their resonance shell have you
ever seen a picture of a mage or opened a book aobut magick?
>
>
> > unless i am under a mis apprehension as to what "electrical
> resistance is"
>
> You appear to be under a misapprehension of what "science" is.
au contraire mon frere, the mast head legend of crowelys equinox is "the
methode of science the aim of religion"
>
>
> > "also called OHMIC resistance, a property of a conductor by virtue
> of
> > which the passage of current is opposed, causing electric energy to
> be
> > transformed into heat; equal to the voltage across the conductor
> > divided by the current flowing in the conductor; usualy measured in
>
> > ohms"
> >
> > which the last time i checked took a particular piece of machinery
> to
> > measure.
> >
> Yeah. So what?
its not pervievable by the sence alone
>
>
> > "it is not so long since the methods of modern science were scoffed
> at
> > by the whole cultured world....There is hardly a scientific
> discovery
> > in history which was not decried as quackery by the very men whose
> own
> > achievements were scarce yet recognized by the world at large....
> The
> > method of [Magick], the ratio of it, is as obscure today as was that
>
> > of spectrum analysis 100 years ago.
> >
> Interesting, then, that Magic has been around for millennia, while
> spectrum analysis has only been around for a few hundred years at
> most.
> When do you expect "magickal research" to produce some scientifically
> measurable results?
hard to say, your thesis is not with out merit in so far as there are
probly more con games played in the name of magick than science though
you will admit science has its own version of wuacks and con men.
>
>
> > We can not say why [magick] is valid.
> >
> Correction; you cannot say *if* magick is valid. We can say that Ohm's
>
> law is valid.
yes i can, read my lips, we articulate the words "magick is valid" and
write it down for you to see.
>
>
> > we can not trace the process by which it performs its marvels. But
>
> > the same objections apply equally well to the telephone.
> >
> No, they don't.
>
> > No man knows what eclectricity is
> >
> We have a much better idea of what it is than we have of what "magick"
> is.
perhaps at this time more people can agree on the basic research thats
been done with electricity but that alone does not invalidate the
millenia of expermientation with magick
>
>
> > (or the electro magnetic spectrum) or the nature of the forces which
>
> > determine its action. we know only that by doing certain things we
> get
> > certain results,
> >
> Fair enough. Can you say the same about magick?
yes
> i.e. can you perform a
> demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
> repeatable?
yes
> (If it's scientifically explainable, then wouldn't it cease
> to be magic? As the laws of chemistry cease to be part of alchemy?)
yes, but above you state "scientifically inexplicable"
>
>
> > and that the least error on our part will bring our work to naught.
> > the same is exactly true of [magick]. the differance between the
> two
> > sciences is no more than this; that more minds haveing been at work
>
> > on the former, we have learnt to master its tricks with greater
> > success than in the case of the lattter."
> >
> More minds having been at work on electricity than magic? Magic, or
> the
> belief in it, has been around for thousands of years; people who were
> reputed to have magical powers could expect to be richly rewarded.
the labratory of magick is the mind and ones advances in magick tend to
alter ones consciousness for good or ill.
> Why
> then did they produce absolutely no results that have not turned out
> to
> be based on the modern laws of chemistry or physics?
why do you assume magick must some how break the laws of physics why can
not the underlying foundations of mans ability to do magick not be
sucsptable to the same laws that govern the rest of the universe?
>
>
> > if your willing to put aside your transcendental spiritual pride for
> a
> > moment you might realize no body really knows anything.
>
> This always seems to be the final argument of those who are outgunned
> by
> reality.
>
every statement contains its own contradiction, why is it so important
for you to argue that what are essentialy philosophical ideas must
conform to your standard of measurable reality.?
> --
> Earth Wolf
>
> "Old statisticians never die; they just get broken down by age and
> sex."
Alan Kellogg
Xcott Craver
>
>>> It's Crowley and his followers who wish to make Magick an
>>> exception. Electrical resistance can be scientifically
>>> demonstrated,
>>
>> and directly percieved by the sences?
Resistance can be quantitatively and objectively measured.
Anyone who analogizes "magic" to electrical resistance probably
doesn't intend to extend the analogy to the "objectively
measurable" aspect.
>> which the last time i checked took a particular piece of machinery
>> to measure.
Well, no, no one *particular* piece of machinery.
It's really not much harder to measure than mass.
-X
Bruce Burhans
"Earth Wolf" <aard...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3D097CF7...@telusplanet.net...
that's just fine by me, cause I think you are a sheep that
lets others interpret reality for you.
Your fleece is worth more than your parroted words, and you don't
even *have* a fleece.
How many times have we heard this same rap?
It's always- "If you don't swallow everything the priests
of physical science say, then you are mentally defective."
Or: "If you question physical science, then you just don't
understand it."
What a bunch of hot air......
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
"Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
news:PM0003A35...@giantH.bellatlantic.net...
Who cares? This is a *magick* group. We leave
that stuff to the morons who think it's important.
Bruce<+>
> -X
>
Jack Dominey
<jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Earth Wolf wrote:
<snip>
>> i.e. can you perform a
>> demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
>> repeatable?
>yes
Would you mind telling us what this demonstration might be?
I vow before all newsgroups in the header that I will make no derisive
comments about it.
-
Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
jack_dominey(at)email(dot)com
Happy to be labeled a "spinic" by Edmond Wollman.
Tom
>
> Who cares? This is a *magick* group. We leave
> that stuff to the morons who think it's important.
Your message appears in four distinct newsgroups, Bruce, not just the one
in which you read it. Sci.skeptic is not a group in the *magick*
hierarchy, yet your message appears there, too.
I think you're so used to believing that your own experience supercedes
that of everyone else that you forget that your perspective isn't the only
one that exists.
Bruce Burhans
"Jack Dominey" <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
news:dhsjgu8qfr4jka6mk...@4ax.com...
> In sci.skeptic, <3D0986CD...@pacbell.net>, Joseph Count de Money
> <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Earth Wolf wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> i.e. can you perform a
> >> demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
> >> repeatable?
>
> >yes
>
> Would you mind telling us what this demonstration might be?
>
> I vow before all newsgroups in the header that I will make no derisive
> comments about it.
>
>
And who would care if you did? This is a magick NG, we do not answer
to, or care about, the standards of the anti-magick religion called physical
science.
One of the very basic things that you physical scientists can't
seem to understand, even though your *own* psychological researchers have
thoroughly documented it, is the power that belief has to control per-
ception.
As long as you believe that magickal things cannot
happen, then you simply will not see them, or you will
rationalize them away as sophisticated tricks.
Physical science is *anything* but the open-minded
search for truth that it claims to be.
Bruce<+>
Earth Wolf
its becoming apparent you have a similar understanding of magick plus i
did not write that which you attribute to me, both science and magick
are concerened with that which cant not be directly percieved bny the
sences.
i have at least seen pictures of atoms or their resonance shell have you
ever seen a picture of a mage or opened a book aobut magick?
au contraire mon frere, the mast head legend of crowelys equinox is "the
methode of science the aim of religion"
which the last time i checked took a particular piece of machinerytomeasure.Yeah. So what?
its not pervievable by the sence alone
"it is not so long since the methods of modern science were scoffedatby the whole cultured world....
hard to say, your thesis is not with out merit in so far as there are
probly more con games played in the name of magick than science though
you will admit science has its own version of wuacks and con men.
Correction; you cannot say *if* magick is valid. We can say that Ohm's
law is valid.
yes i can, read my lips, we articulate the words "magick is valid" and
write it down for you to see.
perhaps at this time more people can agree on the basic research thats
been done with electricity but that alone does not invalidate the
millenia of expermientation with magick
i.e. can you perform a
demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
repeatable?yes
the labratory of magick is the mind and ones advances in magick tend to
alter ones consciousness for good or ill.
why do you assume magick must some how break the laws of physics
why can
not the underlying foundations of mans ability to do magick not be
sucsptable to the same laws that govern the rest of the universe?
every statement contains its own contradiction,
why is it so important
for you to argue that what are essentialy philosophical ideas must
conform to your standard of measurable reality.?
Wally Anglesea™
<snigger>
Quantum tunnelling effects, slit scan experiments. Yep, science
explains away the unexplainable magick as sophisticated tricks.
Joseph Count de Money
> In sci.skeptic, <3D0986CD...@pacbell.net>, Joseph Count de Money
>
> <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Earth Wolf wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> i.e. can you perform a
> >> demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
>
> >> repeatable?
>
> >yes
>
> Would you mind telling us what this demonstration might be?
theres a semantical error here cause a "spell" or rituale is easily
demonstrated or created, to a believer the results or lack of them will
be acceptable as either proof of the spells effectivness or the need to
try again till one gets it right, the failure of the spell to work for
the skeptic will be proof of the gereral ineffectiveness of "magick".
a typical money spell would involve a small denomination bill, annointed
with cinnamon and enclosed in glass, with appropriate invocations to
solar dieties and the construction of a pantacle based on the number 6.
> I vow before all newsgroups in the header that I will make no derisive
>
> comments about it.
>
thats nice, i have come tobelieve a bit of respect for anothers opinions
can often be a better place to start to achieve understanding than a
strict adherance to demonstrable "fact".
Alan Kellogg
Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> No. Outgunned by what *you* say reality is. And
> that's just fine by me, cause I think you are a sheep that
> lets others interpret reality for you.
> Your fleece is worth more than your parroted words, and you don't
> even *have* a fleece.
>
> How many times have we heard this same rap?
> It's always- "If you don't swallow everything the priests
> of physical science say, then you are mentally defective."
> Or: "If you question physical science, then you just don't
> understand it."
> What a bunch of hot air......
>
> Bruce<+>
Spinach!
Alan Kellogg
> Who cares? This is a *magick* group. We leave
> that stuff to the morons who think it's important.
Spinach!
Alan Kellogg
"Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And who would care if you did? This is a magick NG, we do not
> answer
> to, or care about, the standards of the anti-magick religion called
> physical
> science.
> One of the very basic things that you physical scientists can't
> seem to understand, even though your *own* psychological researchers
> have
> thoroughly documented it, is the power that belief has to control per-
> ception.
> As long as you believe that magickal things cannot
> happen, then you simply will not see them, or you will
> rationalize them away as sophisticated tricks.
> Physical science is *anything* but the open-minded
> search for truth that it claims to be.
Spinach!
Dr H
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Bruce Burhans wrote:
}
}"Jack Dominey" <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
}news:dhsjgu8qfr4jka6mk...@4ax.com...
}> In sci.skeptic, <3D0986CD...@pacbell.net>, Joseph Count de Money
}> <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
}>
}> >Earth Wolf wrote:
}> <snip>
}>
}> >> i.e. can you perform a
}> >> demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
}> >> repeatable?
}>
}> >yes
}>
}> Would you mind telling us what this demonstration might be?
}>
}> I vow before all newsgroups in the header that I will make no derisive
}> comments about it.
}>
} And who would care if you did?
So you have no idea as to what such a demonstration would be either, eh?
}This is a magick NG,
Actually, this is sci.skeptic; you might want to check your headers
again.
}we do not answer to, or care about, the standards of the anti-magick
}religion called physical science.
Well that's fair; most people in sci.skeptic don't seem to care much
about the fantasies of the anti-science religion called magic, whether
it's spelled creatively or not.
} One of the very basic things that you physical scientists can't
}seem to understand, even though your *own* psychological researchers have
}thoroughly documented it, is the power that belief has to control per-
}ception.
So? Of course belief can affect perceptual interpretation. That's
why the scientific method doesn't rely on individual perception and
anecdote, but calls for physical evidence, replication, and peer
review of findings.
} As long as you believe that magickal things cannot
}happen, then you simply will not see them, or you will
}rationalize them away as sophisticated tricks.
As long as you believe that magical things can happen, you will
probably be able to delude yourself into seeing them. Belief warps
perception, you said it yourself.
} Physical science is *anything* but the open-minded
}search for truth that it claims to be.
It is exactly that, for people who aren't too lazy to take the
time to understand how it works. But it takes far less effort
to fantasize and indulge in follies a deux with other people who
are also too lazy to bother to learn about the wonder of how
the world really works.
Carry on.
Dr H
Xcott Craver
>
> And who would care if you did? This is a magick NG, we do not
> answer to, or care about, the standards of the anti-magick religion
> called physical science.
We? Do you have a tapeworm?
I'd wager most other people in alt.magick accept that science
actually works rather than being merely a belief. After all,
if it didn't work then you wouldn't have a computer to read
alt.magick.
-X
Bruce Burhans
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
news:empkgugog88g5qcul...@4ax.com...
And just because you say it, it's so?
My, my, wherever did you get that huge ego that has
crowded out your ability to reason?
Bruce<+>
Wally Anglesea™
<bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> > Physical science is *anything* but the open-minded
>> >search for truth that it claims to be.
>>
>>
>> <snigger>
>>
>> Quantum tunnelling effects, slit scan experiments. Yep, science
>> explains away the unexplainable magick as sophisticated tricks.
>>
>>
>
> And just because you say it, it's so?
Read what y9ou said, then read what I said.
>
>My, my, wherever did you get that huge ego that has
>crowded out your ability to reason?
Nope. Evidently the fumes you are inhaling has removed your ability to
think straight though.
Tell me, did you start out as a beleiver in Magick, then learn to
disbelieve evolution, or did you disbelieve evolution first, then
start up on magick. (not going to use this as a point against you, I'm
just interested in which came first).
Earth Wolf
>a typical money spell would involve a small denomination bill, annointed
>with cinnamon and enclosed in glass, with appropriate invocations to
>solar dieties and the construction of a pantacle based on the number 6.
>
Good. Now tell us, what would it *do*?
(btw: wouldn't a pentacle be based on the number 5? Wouldn't a diagram
based on the number 6 be a hexacle?)
>thats nice, i have come tobelieve a bit of respect for anothers opinions
>can often be a better place to start to achieve understanding than a
>strict adherance to demonstrable "fact".
>
Yeah, those nasty demonstrable facts do tend to get in the way of fuzzy
thinking, don't they? :-)
Earth Wolf
And who would care if you did? This is a magick NG,
we do not answer
to, or care about, the standards of the anti-magick religion called physical
science.
One of the very basic things that you physical scientists can't
seem to understand, even though your *own* psychological researchers have
thoroughly documented it, is the power that belief has to control per-
ception.
As long as you believe that magickal things cannot
happen, then you simply will not see them,
or you will
rationalize them away as sophisticated tricks.
What exactly does "rationalize" mean to you, anyway?
From the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
Rationalism: n. Practice of explaining the supernatural in religion in a way [consistent] with reason.
Rationalise: Explain (away) by rationalism; bring into conformance with reason....
(http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=rationalize&method=exact)
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Rationalize \Ra"tion*al*ize\, v. i. To use, and rely on, reason in forming a theory, belief, etc., especially in matters of religion: to accord with the principles of rationalism.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Rationalize \Ra"tion*al*ize\, v. t. 1. To make rational; also, to convert to rationalism.
2. To interpret in the manner of a rationalist.
3. To form a rational conception of.
4. (Alg.) To render rational; to free from radical signs or quantities.
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
rationalize v 1: defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning; "rationalize the child's seemingly crazy behavior"; "he rationalized his lack of success" [syn: {apologize}, {apologise}, {excuse}, {justify}, {rationalise}] .....
-----------------------------------
You appear to be using it in the last sense above. But scientists don't do that; it's the people who tried, and failed, to provide a convincing demonstration that need to resort to making excuses.
Physical science is *anything* but the open-minded
search for truth that it claims to be.
Joseph Count de Money
> Joseph Count de Money wrote:
>
> >a typical money spell would involve a small denomination bill,
> annointed
> >with cinnamon and enclosed in glass, with appropriate invocations to
> >solar dieties and the construction of a pantacle based on the number
> 6.
> >
> Good. Now tell us, what would it *do*?
bring money to the person doing the spell? what do you think a money
spell should do?
>
>
> (btw: wouldn't a pentacle be based on the number 5? Wouldn't a diagram
>
> based on the number 6 be a hexacle?)
>
yes i should have written pantacle
> >thats nice, i have come tobelieve a bit of respect for anothers
> opinions
> >can often be a better place to start to achieve understanding than a
> >strict adherance to demonstrable "fact".
> >
> Yeah, those nasty demonstrable facts do tend to get in the way of
> fuzzy
> thinking, don't they? :-)
they can get in the way of thinking per se.
espically when those in or possessing power insist on a conformity to
the "fact" of thier having or being in power.
fortunatly we live in a place if not a time where the freedom of speech
and thought are respected conventions if not absloute facts.
Joseph Count de Money
> Earth Wolf wrote:
>
> > Joseph Count de Money wrote:
> >
> > >a typical money spell would involve.....
> ....the construction of a pantacle based on the number
> > 6.
> >
> > (btw: wouldn't a pentacle be based on the number 5? Wouldn't a
> diagram
> >
> > based on the number 6 be a hexacle?)
> >
>
> yes i should have written pantacle
so much for both of our reading skill as i did write pantacle originaly,
and if you dont know the differance between a pantacle and a pentacle
thats ok cause im not particularly well versed in the vocabulary of
science.
T+A={R}=O+T
though i like the study of symbolic logic purly as a hobbyist and for my
own amusement.
Happy Dog
> > I vow before all newsgroups in the header that I will make no derisive
> > comments about it.
>
> And who would care if you did? This is a magick NG, we do not
answer
> to, or care about, the standards of the anti-magick religion called
physical
> science.
"We"? I'm betting that you're an embarrassment.
erf
Bruce MaCafferty
information they provided in their application made public?
"Happy Dog" <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:RUDO8.7911$Vr2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Patti Ryon
Okay folks,
Here goes. I will dig up some of my old reports that have the
references in them if you wish. Aspects of what is considered magick, such
as auras and energy based healing have been scientifically demonstrated
through study, both statistical survey and through use of electro-magnetic
moniters. Physical science is not the enemy. I have a sciences background.
This does NOT exclude someone from understanding and/or participating in
magickal or psionic events. Post if you want some of my list of sources.
I'll pull it up.
You want repeatable demonstrations with documented data? It's been
done.
Just for the record, the role of the apothecary (and modern scientist) grew
from the role of the priests and magi in fighting illness, at least in Egypt
and Babylon. So, quit thinking like the two are enemies. More like
quarrelsome brothers. They'll see each others' value as everyone grows up.
"Energy moves. Life adapts. This we call Power. And that was the first
mistake...."
-Patti
Rex Sikes
Actually it is quite open to it. But by adhering to it's own rule structure
has not found evidence for things magickal or paranormal. It is open to it
but since everything has to be subjected to it's own criteria - it is not
likely to be successful. It is not opposed but it does appear to be opposed
and it's adherents appear to be opposed (and some are).
In the same way that things magickal and adherents of magick adhere to
magickal rules.
It is merely a matter of practice and adopted philosophy. Unfortunately
there are zealous "skeptics" who misunderstand the application and meaning
of science and its quest. To be able to scientifically validate that which
it studies.
Interestingly it has placed scientific method on a pedestal (because it
works much of the time for certain things - but can't and won't for all
things) and hence their "open world view" is blocked by the pedestal itself.
Most are well meaning even if annoying by their claims and insistence that
their way is the only right way - but then they view all opposed to their
thinking as doing the same thing back to them.
I say don't waste a magickal moment fighting a never ending battle of trying
to convince another person of one's position. Enjoy instead your position,
be open, sharing and accepting of others even while disagreeing with them.
Be respectful, rise above the pettiness of being right, or of having to be
right in one's beliefs and instead live magickally ever moment.
Let the skeptics have their way - and instead live a magickal life
unfettered by nuisance. Like mosquitoes they will always be around - instead
of swatting them - transform oneself and move to a higher ground.
Enjoy!
Rex
Happy Dog
> How many applicants for the challenge have refused to have the
> information they provided in their application made public?
Why don't you write the JREF and ask? I doubt you will, though.
erf
Happy Dog
> Here goes. I will dig up some of my old reports that have the
> references in them if you wish. Aspects of what is considered magick,
such
> as auras and energy based healing have been scientifically demonstrated
> through study, both statistical survey and through use of electro-magnetic
> moniters.
Not with any consistency. The evidence just isn't very good. And there's
not much in the way of theory that predicts that it would be.
erf
Xcott Craver
>
> "Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Quantum tunnelling effects, slit scan experiments. Yep, science
>> explains away the unexplainable magick as sophisticated tricks.
>>
>
> And just because you say it, it's so?
I'm glad you asked.
In fact, anyone with a pair of razor blades and a good
light source can perform the double-slit experiment for
themselves, and observe the exact same result.
It's not something a bunch of scientists just say is true,
requiring you to take their word for it.
-X
Tom
"Patti Ryon" <patt...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5XJO8.68666$Am4.17...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
>
>
> Okay folks,
> Here goes. I will dig up some of my old reports that have the
> references in them if you wish. Aspects of what is considered magick,
such
> as auras and energy based healing have been scientifically demonstrated
> through study, both statistical survey and through use of
electro-magnetic
> moniters.
You mentioned this before and I asked you for some specifics. You didn't
reply. Apparently, you didn't see my questions. I do indeed want you to
dig up your references.
What studies have demonstrated a human aura? What studies have
demonstrated "energy-based healing"?
Xcott Craver
>
> "Patti Ryon" <patt...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here goes. I will dig up some of my old reports that have
>> the references in them if you wish. Aspects of what is considered
>> magick, such as auras and energy based healing have been
>> scientifically demonstrated through study, both statistical survey
>> and through use of electro-magnetic moniters.
> You mentioned this before and I asked you for some specifics. You
> didn't reply. Apparently, you didn't see my questions. I do indeed
> want you to dig up your references.
I'd also be very interested in reading references for this.
Thanks in advance!
-X
Wally Anglesea™
<happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Bruce MaCafferty" <bru...@onlinepartners.com>
>
>> How many applicants for the challenge have refused to have the
>> information they provided in their application made public?
>
>Why don't you write the JREF and ask? I doubt you will, though.
If Bruci is so upset with the details of the Randi Challenge, then why
doesn't he pick another one of the many challenges available?
Here's 2 to get you started Bruci:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/chalenge.htm
http://www.aske.org.uk/challenge/
IIRC, there is one also in NY, as well as several others. All of
these are independent.
>
>erf
>>
>>
>> "Happy Dog" <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:RUDO8.7911$Vr2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> > "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> > > > I vow before all newsgroups in the header that I will make no
>derisive
>> > > > comments about it.
>> > >
>> > > And who would care if you did? This is a magick NG, we do not
>> > answer
>> > > to, or care about, the standards of the anti-magick religion called
>> > physical
>> > > science.
>> >
>> > "We"? I'm betting that you're an embarrassment.
>> > erf
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
How to Cook an Alien:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
Patti Ryon
Sorry that I haven't gotten to you sooner. See you Monday with the list.
-Patti
Alan Kellogg
> Jack Dominey wrote:
>
> > In sci.skeptic, <3D0986CD...@pacbell.net>, Joseph Count de Money
> >
> > <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Earth Wolf wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> i.e. can you perform a
> > >> demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
> >
> > >> repeatable?
> >
> > >yes
> >
> > Would you mind telling us what this demonstration might be?
>
> theres a semantical error here cause a "spell" or rituale is easily
> demonstrated or created, to a believer the results or lack of them will
> be acceptable as either proof of the spells effectivness or the need to
> try again till one gets it right, the failure of the spell to work for
> the skeptic will be proof of the gereral ineffectiveness of "magick".
You haven't the fucken foggiest, do you? You couldn't come up with a
repeatable, working demonstration if you were about to lose your
testicles via your adenoids.
You know it doesn't work. Not in reality. You just don't have the guts
to fess up to magick's bogosity.
The worst thing about you is not that you're a fraud, it's that you're a
coward.
Alan Kellogg
<aard...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Physical science is not a religion. Religion is based on faith; science
> is based on fact.
No, science is based on doubt. People saying of a claim, "Oh really?"
People asking for evidence, proof that a claim has any validity. It's
the questioning, the testing that makes it science. Any body of
knowledge that cannot, will not be tested is not science.
Alan Kellogg
<r...@amazingrex.com> wrote:
> Some one posted that physical science is anything but open to...
(snip)
Rex, when there's no there there you can't get reservations for the
midnight show.
Doctor Pinch
practising occultists don't recognise, and express outrage when they refuse
to play along with your definition? I think that says more about you than it
does about the magickians.
Dr Pinch.
"Alan Kellogg" <mythu...@cts.com> wrote in message
news:mythusmage-E209D...@nntp.cts.com...
Tom
> In article <3D0AC26D...@telusplanet.net>, Earth Wolf
> <aard...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> > Physical science is not a religion. Religion is based on faith; science
> > is based on fact.
>
> No, science is based on doubt.
Does careful observation of what actually happens play any part at all in
the basis of science, do you think? Or is it just doubt alone?
So, if you assert that science is based on doubt but not on fact, are you
equating science with classical skepticism?
Earth Wolf
Good. Now tell us, what would [a money spell] *do*?
bring money to the person doing the spell? what do you think a money
spell should do?
In the past, when skeptics have made assumptions about what magic is or is not reputedly able to do, you, or others in alt.magick, have slammed us for making such assumptions, no matter how "obvious" they appeared to us. Now, when I try to avoid making assumptions, you ridicule me for it. Make up your mind.
Now, why don't you provide a demonstration that this "money spell" actually works?
(btw: wouldn't a pentacle be based on the number 5? Wouldn't a diagram
based on the number 6 be a hexacle?)
yes i should have written pantacle
1. you commonly misspell other words; and
2. "pantacle" is not a word in my dictionary. (Actually, it is in the 2-volume Concise Oxford Dictionary, as an obsolete variant spelling of "pantofle", which is an item of footwear; a type of slipper. This did not seem appropriate in the context of your post.)
See what comes of making "obvious" assumptions?
What, then, is a pantacle?
Yeah, those nasty demonstrable facts do tend to get in the way of
fuzzy thinking, don't they? :-)they can get in the way of thinking per se.
Do you mean "especially"? (I would assume it was a spelling error, but see "pantacle" above.)espically
when those in or possessing power insist on a conformity to
the "fact" of thier having or being in power.
fortunatly we live in a place if not a time where the freedom of speech
and thought are respected conventions if not absloute facts.
Well, if you believe that you can make camels fly, you are perfectly free to believe that. If you start launching them off a cliff with a catapult, I imagine the SPCA would take a dim view of your claim that you were expressing your freedom of thought.
So, if I understand you correctly (and I'll admit, I don't think I do), you *know* you have this power, and the fact that you can't actually demonstrate it or do anything useful (or even detectable) with it doesn't change the "fact" that you have it.
It's a little like me claiming to be a millionaire. The fact that all my money is in invisible banknotes that I can't see, hear, feel, smell, touch, spend, or show to anyone doesn't change the "fact" that I'm a multimillionaire (heck, make that a billionaire - a trillionaire, even). I'm a thousand times richer than Bill Gates, and the fact that I can't see or spend any of my invisible millions doesn't detract from the "fact".
But from a practical standpoint, I don't see how having a billion invisible dollar bills (or magic powers that I can't use or even demonstrate) differs from having no invisible dollar bills (or no magic powers).
Earth Wolf
>You have arbitrarily adopted your own definition of "magick" which
>practising occultists don't recognise, and express outrage when they refuse
>to play along with your definition?
>
No, I think if you read the thread, you will see that Alan and I are addressing
the definition (inasmuch as vague rambling statements can be called a "definition")
adopted by JC de M, to whom Alan was replying.
Tom
"Earth Wolf" <aard...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3D0CC588...@telusplanet.net...
> Joseph Count de Money wrote:
> >
> > yes i should have written pantacle
>
> You did write pantacle. I just assumed it was a misspelling,
> given that:
>
> 1. you commonly misspell other words; and
> 2. "pantacle" is not a word in my dictionary. (Actually, it is in the
> 2-volume Concise Oxford Dictionary, as an obsolete variant
> spelling of "pantofle", which is an item of footwear; a type of slipper.
> This did not seem appropriate in the context of your post.)
>
> See what comes of making "obvious" assumptions?
>
> What, then, is a pantacle?
I'm not confident that Joseph can explain this with sufficient precision,
so I'll jump in.
A "pantacle" is a pretty obscure word outside of occultism, which is why
you usually won't find it outside of unabridged dictionaries. It's derived
from the Greek "pan-" meaning "all" , or "universal", rather than "pent-"
meaning "five". Therefore, a pantacle is a symbol for all of something,
such as the universe, or the whole being of the magician, or a whole set of
a particular religion's dogmas and beliefs. A pantacle is also the term
for a disk-like symbol of earth, as one of the four classical elements.
"Every fact, and even every falsehood, must enter into the Pantacle; it is
the great storehouse from which the magician draws." -- A. Crowley
Joseph Count de Money
>
>
> Now, why don't you provide a demonstration that this "money spell"
> actually works?
i am confidant of its effectiveness, i don't see how i could demonstrate
it to you unless you were in the same room. i could give you the formula
i use but that's not what your asking for, your asking for a
demonstration and its been my experience that while i can work up
sufficient energy to improve my own finances (using spells or resumes) i
just cant get to excited about your desire for a demonstration.
>
>
>> > (btw: wouldn't a pentacle be based on the number 5? Wouldn't a
>> > diagram
>> >
>> > based on the number 6 be a hexacle?)
>> >
>> yes i should have written pantacle
>>
> You did write pantacle. I just assumed it was a misspelling, given
> that:
i was assuming i misspelled pantacle but as i pointed out in a previous
answer to that statement .......
>
>
> 1. you commonly misspell other words; and
> 2. "pantacle" is not a word in my dictionary. (Actually, it is in the
> 2-volume Concise Oxford Dictionary, as an obsolete variant spelling of
> "pantofle", which is an item of footwear; a type of slipper. This did
> not seem appropriate in the context of your post.)
>
> See what comes of making "obvious" assumptions?
>
> What, then, is a pantacle?
a representation of the magicians will, in a graphic form, usually
circular and often containing various lineal figures and god names with
appropriate colours added, a kind of mnemonic that both focuses the
attention and reminds the magicians of his goal, not unlike the
traditional hindu mandala. a pantacle may contain a pentacle but a
pentacle is not a pantacle.
a classic example is the sigillum dei aemeth by dr. john dee. a search
of the net using googels image data base will probly get you a picture
of this interesting piece of occult esoterica that resides in the
british museum.
there is a very special use of the pantacle favored by the roman church
put there it is called the paten.
if you wish a more detailed explination see crowleys magick in theroy
and practice chapter 9 "the pantacle."
Earth Wolf
>Here goes. I will dig up some of my old reports that have the
>references in them if you wish. Aspects of what is considered magick, such
>as auras and energy based healing have been scientifically demonstrated
>through study, both statistical survey and through use of electro-magnetic
>moniters.
>
With all due respect, Patti - no they haven't. At least, not to my
knowledge. I too would like to see these alleged references. I'll check
back tomorrow.
>Physical science is not the enemy. I have a sciences background.
>
Lots of woolly thinkers have a sciences background. Some critical
thinkers have none.
>You want repeatable demonstrations with documented data? It's been
>done.
>
I'm prepared to go on record with a prediction. Either you can't find
any such studies, or the studies you post will turn out to have been
flawed, or the results of the studies will show something other than
what you are claiming they will show.
Alan Kellogg
Pinch" <pin...@antipholus.com> wrote:
> You have arbitrarily adopted your own definition of "magick" which
> practising occultists don't recognise, and express outrage when they
> refuse
> to play along with your definition? I think that says more about you than
> it
> does about the magickians.
The fact the "magickians" have adopted a definition that gives them
excuses for when their spells fail says a lot about them.
Bub, if magick were as reliable as you seem to think, it would have an
effect on the world. It would be used by many segments of society. Magic
would be used to quell riots, find small children, send mail, rescue
folks trapped inside burning buildings, entertain people. Television
would consist of a miniature stage upon which 3d images appear, and
virtual reality _would_ be virtually indistinguisable from reality.
To put it in simpler terms, if magick were as reliable and ubiquitous as
some thing, it would-be-used.
Where is it being used, and can you verify the claim?
Joseph Count de Money
as ubiquitous as some "thing" is by one popular deffiniton "scientists"
are the best mages around to dayone merely has to get beyond the idea
that magick and science are mutually exclusive. or not, as much as this
particular debate may mirror a larger problem with in human nature the
debate itself is productive of littel more than a moments amusing
distraction from the more pressing needs of the individuals engaged in
it.
should any individual reassess their position vis a vis science & magick
than the reassessment itself is probly more important than the subject
of it.
nagasiva
Joseph Count de Money:
>> ...both science and magick are concerened with that which cant
>> ...be directly percieved bny the sences.
and they are also concerned with those things that *can* be so
perceived.
>> the labratory of magick is the mind and ones advances in magick
>> tend to alter ones consciousness for good or ill.
the mind is more like one of the beakers or an important type of
observation and data-futzing device (a lens for seeing and making
sense out of data).
Earth Wolf <aard...@telusplanet.net>:
> Well, once again, I ask: "What is magic?"
symbolic activity intended to produce real change.
>> why do you assume magick must some how break the laws of physics
>
> Because if it didn't, it wouldn't be magic, as I understand it.
unless it operates along principles too subtle to now perceive,
within the constraints apparently afforded us by physical Laws.
> Until you come up with a rigorous definition of magic, I have
> to go with the definitions that I'm aware of; and the definitions
> that I'm aware of either use magic as a metaphor for beauty and
> wonder,
of insufficient depth to consider long.
> or they say that magic is a supernatural ability, i.e. outside
> or beyond the laws of nature.
'supernatural' is dependent upon its definition for reference to
what is 'natural'. some suggest that what is natural occurs as a
result of the ordinary course of events but without the hand of
human intervention (humans are 'supernatural'). others more
convincingly suggest that supernatural things include spirits,
gods, ghosts, occult or psychic powers, superheroic abilities, etc.
such abilities would seem to be rather quickly discussed also.
they either exist, and may be catalogued, or they do not, and
the whole thing can be classed with phlogiston.
>> why can
>> not the underlying foundations of mans ability to do magick not be
>> sucsptable to the same laws that govern the rest of the universe?
>
> Because then it would be science. If it's science, then stop whining
> when we demand scientific evidence of its existence.
anything that is susceptable to the same laws that govern the rest
of the universe is science? sounds a bit exaggerated. there *are*
other things besides magic and science, right?
> ...is magic philosophy, or science?
philosophy of the soul, science of spirituality, subtle engineering.
nagasiva
Patti Ryon
For Earth Wolf, you are wrong in one prediction. Here I am with the list.
As for the prediction that the experiments are flawed, read the designs
yourself. Most of them are double-blinded. Also, these are all articles
from peer-reviewed journals. (For those of you how are not familiar with
the peer-review process, it goes like this. A research team writes up an
experiment. By some miracle, luck or throught the good offices of their
university, they actually get the funding. Experiment is performed. Data
is collected. Finally, the research team writes up a paper, complete with
experimental design and results. They finally send this to a journal. A
panel of people with their doctorates in the field of the journal then read
the article to see if it conforms to proper form, reasonability of
conclusions based on data, etc. The article can be rejected on any grounds
that the panel sees fit. Rejections can be anything from "This will NEVER
be published." to "Nice idea. Go do it again and re-write and we may
consider publishing it." It is a harsh process.) As for them not proving
what I think they prove, I think that these are studies reflecting the human
ability to use energy to produce a measurable effect, specifically healing.
Read and see if you disagree.
Wirth DP, Cram JR, Chang RJ
Multisite electromyographic analysis of therapeutic touch and qigong
therapy.
J Altern Complement Med. 1997 Summer;3(2):109-18.
Li M, Chen K, Mo Z.
Use of qigong therapy in the detoxification of heroin addicts.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2002 Jan-Feb;8(1):50-4, 56-9.
Omura Y, Losco BM, Omura AK, Takeshige C, Hisamitsu T, Shimotsuura Y,
Yamamoto S, Ishikawa H, Muteki T, Nakajima H, et al.
Common factors contributing to intractable pain and medical problems with
insufficient drug uptake in areas to be treated, and their pathogenesis and
treatment: Part I. Combined use of medication with acupuncture, (+) Qi gong
energy-stored material, soft laser or electrical stimulation.
Acupunct Electrother Res. 1992;17(2):107-48.
Wardell DW, Engebretson J.
Biological correlates of Reiki Touch(sm) healing.
J Adv Nurs. 2001 Feb;33(4):439-45.
Wirth DP, Cram JR.
Multi-site electromyographic analysis of non-contact therapeutic touch.
Int J Psychosom. 1993;40(1-4):47-55.
Trieschmann, R.
Energy Medicine for Long Term Disability
Disabiility and Rehabilitation. 1999; (21): 269-276
Olson K, Hanson J.
Using Reiki to Manage Pain: A Preliminary Report
Cancer Prev Control. 1997; 1(2):108-113
All my data on auras is involved with Kirlian(sp) photography.
Hope this helps. Enjoy your reading.
-Patti
Tom
>
> All my data on auras is involved with Kirlian(sp) photography.
OK, It was the aura stuff that interested me, not the various claims for
healing by laying on of hands.
Kirlian photography as a device to see a mysterious bio-energetic human
aura has been pretty well abandoned by this point by any serious
researchers because its effects have been adequately explained by forces
which we already know quite a bit about. The aura is caused by a coronal
discharge in the air surrounding an electrified body. It has nothing to do
with any sort of special field associated only with living bodies. A penny
or a paper clip will produce the same kind of aura.
The famous "phantom leaf" effect is due to having the leaf pressed firmly
down to photographic plate and then removed. The juices in the leaf are
squeezed out by the pressing and form a leafy version of a fingerprint. If
you tear the leaf in two and then return one portion it to the same spot on
the photographic plate for another shot, you'll also get the coronal
discharge from the juicy residue, which will somewhat resemble the pattern
of the original leaf part that is now missing.
I found a few folks on the web still making claims for Kirlian photography,
but they're way out on the fringe. One guy claims Kirlian photography
induces telepathy, and proves life after death. He also says that global
warming is going to cause the Earth to explode and that the invention of
the wheel was "a great step backwards for humanity".
His empiricism is open to question.
Jack Dominey
<jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Jack Dominey wrote:
>
>> In sci.skeptic, <3D0986CD...@pacbell.net>, Joseph Count de Money
>>
>> <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Earth Wolf wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> i.e. can you perform a
>> >> demonstration that is scientifically inexplicable, yet consistently
>> >> repeatable?
>>
>> >yes
>>
>> Would you mind telling us what this demonstration might be?
>
>theres a semantical error here cause a "spell" or rituale is easily
>demonstrated or created, to a believer the results or lack of them will
>be acceptable as either proof of the spells effectivness or the need to
>try again till one gets it right, the failure of the spell to work for
>the skeptic will be proof of the gereral ineffectiveness of "magick".
>
>a typical money spell would involve a small denomination bill, annointed
>with cinnamon and enclosed in glass, with appropriate invocations to
>solar dieties and the construction of a pantacle based on the number 6.
I think you are offering the 'spell casting' or enactment of the
"rituale" as the repeatable performance. Am I correct?
What's the scientifically inexplicable part?
By the way, my assumption is that 'scientifically inexplicable'
implies that the phenomenon in question is counter to current
scientific understanding. Perhaps you are thinking of something else.
nagasiva
I wrote about 'supernatural abilities':
> such abilities would seem to be rather quickly discussed also.
> they either exist, and may be catalogued, or they do not, and
> the whole thing can be classed with phlogiston.
for my part, I have never seen what I'd consider reliable evidence
that psychic powers like telekinesis or even telepathy are possible
as they are often featured in sci-fi/fantasy fictions. mysticism and
luck-driving mechanisms are the only rational holdout for magic,
outside shamanistic and artistic trajectories (not usually supported
by rigorous scientific analyses -- watch for transpersonal psycholo-
gists in support of this as well as other spiritual mechanisms). the
poles of mysticism and luck-driving (fortune-making, rather than
fortune-telling) are those which often sport the strongest opinions
and rational arguments in their defense within public forums, in my
experience. other experiential reflections on this topic welcomed.
blessed beast!
nagasiva
Earth Wolf
These are your ideas of "peer-reviewed scientific journals"?
Journal of Alternative Complementary Medicine?
Alternative Therapeutic Health Medicine?
Acupuncture Electrotherapy Research?
J Adv Nurs. = Journal of ??? Nursing?
Disability and Rehabilitation? (I'm assuming the double i in Disabiility
is a typo?)
Cancer Prevention Control?
I've never heard of them. (Now, before you say anything, that may not
mean anything. I'm sure there are lots of very reputable peer-reviewed
journals out there that I've never heard of. But somehow, the fact that
these magazines all seem to be dedicated to stuff that has not been
recognized as "science" doesn't fill me with confidence. I would think,
in the normal course of events, *first* you establish that you have some
scientific basis for your work, *then*, when enough people have produced
enough research to make it worthwhile, you get to establish scientific
journals dedicated to that discipline. Anyone can go out and start
publishing a magazine and give it an impressive title.)
Now I'm gonna have to figure out what your abbreviations mean, go to the
university library, see if I can order them through interlibrary loan,
and then sit down and spend a couple of hours slogging through barely
comprehensible mumbo-jumbo to find the first fatal mistake in their
methodology. Unless someone wants to save me the trouble?
Patti Ryon wrote:
>Well,
>For Earth Wolf, you are wrong in one prediction. Here I am with the list.
>As for the prediction that the experiments are flawed, read the designs
>yourself.
>
I guess I pretty much have to now, don't I?
>Most of them are double-blinded.
>
Good start.
>Also, these are all articles
>from peer-reviewed journals.
>
Who does the peer reviewing, and what are their qualifications?
>(For those of you how are not familiar with
>the peer-review process, it goes like this. A research team writes up an
>experiment. By some miracle, luck or throught the good offices of their
>university, they actually get the funding.
>
Occasionally, I've heard it's because they write up a decent proposal
that convinces the funders that the idea is worth pursuing. Maybe not in
alternative medicine, but in other branches of science, I'm sure that
plays a role.
>Experiment is performed. Data
>is collected. Finally, the research team writes up a paper, complete with
>experimental design and results. They finally send this to a journal. A
>panel of people with their doctorates in the field of the journal then read
>the article to see if it conforms to proper form, reasonability of
>conclusions based on data, etc. The article can be rejected on any grounds
>that the panel sees fit. Rejections can be anything from "This will NEVER
>be published." to "Nice idea. Go do it again and re-write and we may
>consider publishing it." It is a harsh process.) As for them not proving
>what I think they prove, I think that these are studies reflecting the human
>ability to use energy to produce a measurable effect, specifically healing.
>Read and see if you disagree.
>
It's not whether I agree or disagree, it's whether there's a flaw in
their methodology or not. (btw - and I'm not trying to make excuses here
- I'm a mathematician by training, not a doctor. Even Carl Sagan was
impressed by Velikovsky's knowledge of archaeology - until he spoke to
an archaeologist. So I'm probably not the best person to be reviewing
these results. On the other hand, if 12-year old Emily Rosa could find
the fallacies in "therapeutic touch", I guess I better hang my head in
shame if I can't do equally well.)
We'll see, if I can track down copies of the papers in question.
Joseph Count de Money
Yes
>
>
> What's the scientifically inexplicable part?
The result of the action. The "spell" or ritual, having an effect.
>
>
> By the way, my assumption is that 'scientifically inexplicable'
> implies that the phenomenon in question is counter to current
> scientific understanding. Perhaps you are thinking of something else.
no i don't think so, i can know how to create an effect even if i don't
know precisely how that effect came about.
a crude example would be a painter who cant make his own paints or a
musician who cant make his own instrument.
they must use something they don't understand, chemistry, or cabinet
making, to perform their art.
how many people that drive a car could make one from scratch.
magick is the same way, we have demonstrated to ourself as have many
others that by doing certain things in certain ways certain certain
other things will happen.
this does not mean that every action is successful or that it does not
take practice and discernment to be effective with that which we are
sure enough of to claim as an art.
Asiya
news:GVqP8.52$x23....@news.uswest.net...
>
> Kirlian photography as a device to see a mysterious bio-energetic
human
> aura has been pretty well abandoned by this point by any serious
> researchers because its effects have been adequately explained by
forces
> which we already know quite a bit about. The aura is caused by a
coronal
> discharge in the air surrounding an electrified body. It has
nothing to do
> with any sort of special field associated only with living bodies.
A penny
> or a paper clip will produce the same kind of aura.
What theories are there on why only some people "see" them, and then
only around humans?
Asiya
Tom
"Asiya" <asiya_...@SATNAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:mCDP8.42615$LC3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Theories abound. Hard evidence is lacking. There is no hard evidence that
anyone can see a special sort of aura around human beings that has any sort
of physical existence.
If someone could see such an aura, there is a pretty simple way to test it.
All you have to do is place the claimant in a chair facing a doorway into
another room with sufficient room on at least one side of the doorway so
that a person could walk up very close to the doorway from the side without
being detectable to the person in the chair. If the person can see auras,
they should be able to see the aura without having to see the person,
because the aura would extend outward from the person into the doorway and
thus be visible to the person in the chair.
This would make an outstandingly good JREF Challenge, if any viewers of
aura wished to make their point in a very public and very profitable way.
There is a theory about why that hasn't happened. I think it's the same
theory that James Randi ascribes to. It hasn't happened because people
can't really see any such aura.
And if that is true, what *are* the people who claim to see auras really
seeing? There are theories about that which don't involve any paranormal
powers, too.
In some cases, it may be entirely imaginary. As you know, part of many
training programs for people who want to practice magick or develop psychic
powers is the ability to visualize, to imagine something so vividly that it
seems to appear to one's sight. What a person who sees "auras" may be
seeing is a visual representation in their imaginations of the subtle
social and physical cues they are being given by the subject. They get a
"feeling" about someone, much as we all do when receiving non-verbal cues,
and translate it as a visual impression of an "aura".
Another possibility is a particular form of optical illusion in which an
object appearing against a lighter background tends to "bleed" a bit of its
complementary color beyond the outline of the object, appearing to us as a
hazy "aura". The way to induce this illusion is to focus a bit beyond the
object.
I'm not saying that these explanations satisfactorily explain every single
report. No single explanation could do that. Each claim has to be
evaluated on its own merits. Such explanations do cover the kinds of
reports I commonly see, though.
David Cantu
I do it by relaxing the eyes and shifting attention to the peripheral vision
while still technically looking forward. I don't see colors, and it can be
so strong against a white wall as to be distracting without even trying to
do it, so it may be optical, but probably not imaginary. There is an after
image effect that follows motion, as if it trails after a person when they
move. Though it could be an optical illusion, inorganic objects against
the same white wall don't have the effect; however the effect, if optical,
may be similar to using "flashing colors". I've never found it particularly
useful, and have never tried to develop it to seek uses.
Dr. Dickie
> <Snip>
The fact is this type of experiment was done. Isn't this exactly the
experiment that the 12 year old girl did for a science fair some years back and
created a national laugh at people who claimed to see auras. Though as I
remember it, the media made out like scientists were fools for not thinking of
this type of test before the little girl. Which, of course, is absurd. The
test itself is simple and elegant, and I thought well known at the time. The
little girl does get the credit for getting the frauds to take the
test--something that scientists and debunkers have trouble getting the psychics
to do.
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
------------------------------------------------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
A. Einstein
Tom
"Dr. Dickie" <dr_d...@chembench.com> wrote in message
news:3D106075...@chembench.com...
Not exactly. Emily Rosa was nine years old at the time and she was testing
whether therapeutic touch practitioners could sense an aura in a
more-or-less tactile way.
It is somewhat similar to the experiment I proposed.
Psyche
>
> Psyche wrote:
>
> > You're a fucking moron, Bruce.
> >
> That may well be true. But I fail to see how indulging in ad hominem
> arguments validates our position.
>
> A real skeptic wouldn't counter an illogical argument with an even
> more illogical one.
It's been done to death, he never counters with anything
relevant or useful. You're wasting your time.
--Psyche
X MCH S* W++(--) N+++ PDI/PPA/PEC D* X
X The most violent element in society X
X is ignorance. X
X http://www.spiralnature.com X
X Dd Dr+ A a+ C+++(42) G+ Q 666- Y+ Z X
Jack Dominey
In sci.skeptic, <3D0EFF23...@pacbell.net>, Joseph Count de Money
<jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Well, the 'doing certain things in certain ways' part is your business
to define. I'm more curious about the 'certain other things will
happen' part. I agree that it doesn't matter if the practitioner
understands why the result comes about - one doesn't have to be a
chemist to be an adequate cook, after all.
But if you are claiming to do something "scientifically inexplicable",
then you're pretty much asserting that nobody in the scientific realm
understands why or how the result comes out. It would be as though
you could change the boiling point of pure water at standard temp. and
pressure via a ritual.
>this does not mean that every action is successful or that it does not
>take practice and discernment to be effective with that which we are
>sure enough of to claim as an art.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can perform
certain rituals, and these rituals often produce the desired result.
Further, that modern science offers no explanation of why this should
occur. For example, you perform your money spell, and this produces
more money for you. Am I right so far?
I must admit that I am a bit concerned about your final paragraph, as
it seems to waffle on the "consistently repeatable" component of
Earth Wolf's inital question.
William Tucker
Wm
"David Cantu" <dc...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gdSP8.30181$9b.35...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Joseph Count de Money
In sci.skeptic, <3D0EFF23...@pacbell.net>, Joseph Count de Money
> <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Jack Dominey wrote:
> >>
> >> What's the scientifically inexplicable part?
> >
> >The result of the action. The "spell" or ritual, having an effect.
> >
> >> By the way, my assumption is that 'scientifically inexplicable'
> >> implies that the phenomenon in question is counter to current
> >> scientific understanding. Perhaps you are thinking of something
> else.
> >
> >no i don't think so, i can know how to create an effect even if i
> don't
> >know precisely how that effect came about.
> >
> >a crude example would be a painter who cant make his own paints or a
> >musician who cant make his own instrument.
> Well, the 'doing certain things in certain ways' part is your business
>
> to define. I'm more curious about the 'certain other things will
> happen' part. I agree that it doesn't matter if the practitioner
> understands why the result comes about - one doesn't have to be a
> chemist to be an adequate cook, after all.
>
> But if you are claiming to do something "scientifically inexplicable",
>
> then you're pretty much asserting that nobody in the scientific realm
> understands why or how the result comes out.
primarily because their unwilling to look, or try to understand. it
seems very unlikely that a chair will be endowed to study "magick"
anytime soon, right after Isaac Bonowitz got his bachelors degree in
"magick" from the university of california at berkeley they changed the
rules so a person could no longer decide what kind of degree they
wanted. but its an interesting document if only for ronald reagans
signature on Bonowitz' degree in magick. there's a picture of it in his
book "real magick" which if your not familiar with it you might find it
interesting along with another book called "mind magick 101" by
oroborous institute. both books take a "scientific" approach to "magick"
as does crowley in his magick in theory and practice which he considered
to be a refinement of Eliaphas Levi's book of the same title in french
(dogma et le haute rituale) commonly called transcendental magick but
where the abbe constant (levi) relies on faith and belief in "God"
crowley uses logic and reason to augment his basic premise, that nature
is more subtle than even science comprehends at this time.
> It would be as though
> you could change the boiling point of pure water at standard temp. and
>
> pressure via a ritual.
if that "ritual" were taking the water to the top of mount Everest than
the boiling point would be changed.
but that's not what i meant, one does not use magick to boil water when
a flame will do it so much more efficiently.
>
>
> >this does not mean that every action is successful or that it does
> not
> >take practice and discernment to be effective with that which we are
> >sure enough of to claim as an art.
>
> So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can perform
> certain rituals, and these rituals often produce the desired result.
> Further, that modern science offers no explanation of why this should
> occur. For example, you perform your money spell, and this produces
> more money for you. Am I right so far?
yes, though there are some "scientists" who have at least looked at the
idea and suggested various explanations even if they have not followed
up on them with any rigorous study.
>
>
> I must admit that I am a bit concerned about your final paragraph, as
> it seems to waffle on the "consistently repeatable" component of
> Earth Wolf's inital question.
im trying to think of a specific example of "scientific experiments"
that have not worked every time they were performed and am at a loss
except for the more obvious and outré "cold fusion" stuff and there was
some stuff recently about aluminium causing Alzheimer's and it turned
out the test were contaminated by the apparatus used in them. but though
i cant recall examples of the specific experiments that failed in
replication or whose repeatability was spotty at best im am fairly
certain this is an aspect of lab work as much as it is of magick, one
major difference though is intention, in the lore of magic ones
intention or the degree of enthusiasm one brings to ones magical work
can have a pronounced affect on the success or lack of it of said work,
this does not seem to apply to "science" hydrogen and oxygen will
combine to form water whether we want it to or not.
Patti Ryon
Tom,
Wondered if you might then be interested distance healing then.
A Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Distant Healing in a
Population With Advanced AIDS--Report of a Small Scale Study.
FRED SICHER, ELISABETH TARG, DAN MOORE II, HELENE S. SMITH. The Western
Journal of Medicine. Dec 1998 v169 i6 p356(1).
Also, found this historical review on psychic energy.
Hans Berger: from psychic energy to the EEG.
David Millett. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Autumn 2001 v44 i4
p522(21).
I hope you find these more to your interest than laying on hands.
-Patti
Sentient
A title means nothing in itself, other than willingness to
investigate. If you look more closely at the results you'll see there
was no significant difference in CD4+ count, the sample size was tiny,
and the study carried out over just 10 weeks, which is not long enough
to be sure of anything. Not a great trial.
Still, quite interesting to see research being carried out in this
area and published in a journal under the auspices of the British
Medical Association. Be aware also, though, that the editor of the
BMJ, the British Medical Journal, where more mainstream papers are
published, notoriously said in public: "95% of what we publish is
rubbish". There is a similar view on the staff of other medical
journals, referring to research that skeptics would doubtless regard
as bone fide, knowing no better. It's the 5% that makes it worthwhile.
One paper in 20 in other words. I'd like to see one on the role of
voodoo in illness. Of course, you may be aware that for a few years
some practitioners were convinced that AIDS actually derives from the
partial necrosis of flesh that occurs during the zombification
process, a theory I believe that came about because of the popular
notion in the early days that AIDS, before it had acquired this name,
spread out of Haiti to San Francisco.
Here's the abstract:
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
A randomized double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a
population with advanced AIDS. Report of a small scale study
F Sicher, E Targ, D Moore 2nd and HS Smith
Geraldine Brush Cancer Research Institute, California Pacific Medical
Center, San Francisco, USA.
Various forms of distant healing (DH), including prayer and "psychic
healing," are widely practiced, but insufficient formal research has
been done to indicate whether such efforts actually affect health. We
report on a double-blind randomized trial of DH in 40 patients with
advanced AIDS. Subjects were pair-matched for age, CD4+ count, and
number of AIDS-defining illnesses and randomly selected to either 10
weeks of DH treatment or a control group. DH treatment was performed
by self-identified healers representing many different healing and
spiritual traditions. Healers were located throughout the United
States during the study, and subjects and healers never met. Subjects
were assessed by psychometric testing and blood draw at enrollment and
followed for 6 months. At 6 months, a blind medical chart review found
that treatment subjects acquired significantly fewer new AIDS-defining
illnesses (0.1 versus 0.6 per patient, P = 0.04), had lower illness
severity (severity score 0.8 versus 2.65, P = 0.03), and required
significantly fewer doctor visits (9.2 versus 13.0, P = 0.01), fewer
hospitalizations (0.15 versus 0.6, P = 0.04), and fewer days of
hospitalization (0.5 versus 3.4, P = 0.04). Treated subjects also
showed significantly improved mood compared with controls (Profile of
Mood States score -26 versus 14, P = 0.02). There were no significant
differences in CD4+ counts. These data support the possibility of a DH
effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research.
This article has been cited by other articles:
(1999). Distant Healing -- a Useful Tool?. Journal Watch General
Medicine 1999: 6-6
[Full Text]
Halperin, E. C.
(2001). Should Academic Medical Centers Conduct
Clinical Trials of the Efficacy of Intercessory Prayer?. Acad Med
76: 791-797
[Abstract] [Full Text]
Tom
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nk5Q8.5643$Fv1.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> what about Kilner filters....
Actually, I've never seen any Kilner filters in use.
From the descriptions I've read and what little I know about Dr. Kilner
himself, it seems unlikely that he was actually seeing anything like a
human aura.
Kilner himself was a believer in psychic phenomena and may have fooled
himself into thinking he saw auras, even though others using the same
screens saw nothing. The British Medical Journal didn't find his book "The
Human Atmosphere", published in 1911, at all believable because the claims
he made in it weren't replicable.
This is not all that different from the case of Dr. Blondlot and his
mysterious N-rays. Dr. Blondlot was so eager to discover a new form of
radiation (He was very jealous of Dr. Roentgen, a German, for discovering
X-rays and wanted very badly for France to be seen as having equal
scientific stature.) that he persuaded himself that he had actually done so
by simply seeing what wasn't there. Not surprisingly, Dr. Kilner was a
vocal supporter of Dr. Blondlot.
I haven't seen any studies in which a photograph of an aura using Kilner
filters was displayed. From what I gather, Dr. Kilner was simply looking
through his filter, not taking pictures. Have you got any different
information that could be verified?
Jack Dominey
<jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Well ok, but you do mean that current scientific understanding offers
no means by which your ritual could produce the result, right?
<snip>
I'll keep in mind the Crowley and Bonowitz (I thought it was spelled
Bonewits or something like that) references.
>> It would be as though
>> you could change the boiling point of pure water at standard temp. and
>> pressure via a ritual.
>if that "ritual" were taking the water to the top of mount Everest than
>the boiling point would be changed.
First of all, I referred to standard pressure, so that wouldn't count.
(I also referred to standard temperature, which was stupid of me.)
Second, you have wandered off from the "scientifically inexplicable"
criterion again. A "ritual" of taking your water to higher altitude
in order to change the boiling point is about as explicable as you
could get.
>but that's not what i meant, one does not use magick to boil water when
>a flame will do it so much more efficiently.
That's not what I was talking about - although it begs the question as
to *why* a flame should be more efficient than magick (or conversely,
why magick is so much less efficient than mundane forces at producing
mundane results.)
>> >this does not mean that every action is successful or that it does
>> not
>> >take practice and discernment to be effective with that which we are
>> >sure enough of to claim as an art.
>>
>> So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can perform
>> certain rituals, and these rituals often produce the desired result.
>> Further, that modern science offers no explanation of why this should
>> occur. For example, you perform your money spell, and this produces
>> more money for you. Am I right so far?
>
>yes, though there are some "scientists" who have at least looked at the
>idea and suggested various explanations even if they have not followed
>up on them with any rigorous study.
I would expect both offered explanations and rigorous study if a
repeatable effect were offered.
>> I must admit that I am a bit concerned about your final paragraph, as
>> it seems to waffle on the "consistently repeatable" component of
>> Earth Wolf's inital question.
>im trying to think of a specific example of "scientific experiments"
>that have not worked every time they were performed and am at a loss
<snip>
I'll not fault you for failure of memory here. I've heard vague
references to lab results that could almost never be duplicated until
one of the original researchers came to the location. Subsequently
(and most importantly, after the original researcher left), things
went fine. The references seemed to be more in the context of lab
procedures rather than really new discoveries, though.
>one
>major difference though is intention, in the lore of magic ones
>intention or the degree of enthusiasm one brings to ones magical work
>can have a pronounced affect on the success or lack of it of said work,
>this does not seem to apply to "science" hydrogen and oxygen will
>combine to form water whether we want it to or not.
Well, yeah, the physical world does seem to operate that way.
Getting back to the original question: What's the consistently
repeatable and scientifically inexplicable thing you can do?
William Tucker
>
> "William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nk5Q8.5643$Fv1.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > what about Kilner filters....
>
> Actually, I've never seen any Kilner filters in use.
>
> From the descriptions I've read and what little I know about Dr. Kilner
> himself, it seems unlikely that he was actually seeing anything like a
> human aura.
>
> Kilner himself was a believer in psychic phenomena and may have fooled
> himself into thinking he saw auras, even though others using the same
> screens saw nothing. The British Medical Journal didn't find his book
"The
> Human Atmosphere", published in 1911, at all believable because the claims
> he made in it weren't replicable.
>
> This is not all that different from the case of Dr. Blondlot and his
> mysterious N-rays. Dr. Blondlot was so eager to discover a new form of
> radiation (He was very jealous of Dr. Roentgen, a German, for discovering
> X-rays and wanted very badly for France to be seen as having equal
> scientific stature.) that he persuaded himself that he had actually done
so
> by simply seeing what wasn't there. Not surprisingly, Dr. Kilner was a
> vocal supporter of Dr. Blondlot.
Wouldn't know.
> I haven't seen any studies in which a photograph of an aura using Kilner
> filters was displayed. From what I gather, Dr. Kilner was simply looking
> through his filter, not taking pictures. Have you got any different
> information that could be verified?
I've got his book, and I believe that I've seen pictures in it...but I could
be mistaken, it came up once on this group about ten years ago and I
checked it out and bought the books...but since I already understood
what auras were I didn't bother to go much further since I was learning
to see them....from the perspective that they are low light phenomena...
as detailed by Motoyama...and Valerie Hunt a scientist at a university
in California a number of years ago...could be simple a disturbance of
reflected light...I don't know...I do know that when I was practicing I was
seeing something...I can still get it back if I work at it...it was just an
aside...carry on!
Wm
Joe Cosby
thunder crashed, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig> laughed madly, then wrote:
>I'll keep in mind the Crowley and Bonowitz (I thought it was spelled
>Bonewits or something like that) references.
>
Bonewits, actually. (I just pulled the book off the shelf)
I think Bonowitz was the one who married Cher.
>
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by
incompetence.
- Napoleon
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
Joseph Count de Money
> In sci.skeptic, <3D10E9ED...@pacbell.net>, Joseph Count de Money
>
> <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Jack Dominey wrote:
> >> then you're pretty much asserting that nobody in the scientific
> realm
> >> understands why or how the result comes out.
>
> >primarily because their unwilling to look, or try to understand.
>
> Well ok, but you do mean that current scientific understanding offers
> no means by which your ritual could produce the result, right?
no, every thing from statistical analysis to e.e.g. could probly play a
part if the scientific community were willing to expend their resources
on it. however i can't really blame them. the magical community is
marginalized by their own most fervent supporters.
many people claim many things with out ever having done anything more
than have a feeling about the correctness or rightness of something and
when challenged have nothing to back up their claims with. this whole
argument has been made about the levitating yogis and saddhus who
developed magical powers but the very nature of the religious aspect
seems to make the scientific community wary of becoming involved with
these supposed miracles. i assume most scientists would rather not get
involved in what they see as philosophical disputes as the few times
they have turned their instruments on this subject they tend to disprove
the claims made and incur the wrath of the faithful believers to whom
facts and knowledge are unwelcome.
> Getting back to the original question: What's the consistently
> repeatable and scientifically inexplicable thing you can do?
just one thing? i don't want to get into listing various objectives i
have used ritual for, this could serve to cloud the issue even more than
its obscurity warrants, but suffice it to say i have found that when all
else fails, and i am properly enthusiastic about a subject i am abel to
influence the subject or object through ritual, this could be nothing
more than telepathy, or telekinesis, or any other name you care to give
what is in my case is an invocation of theurgic or higher powers. and if
it is inexplicable at this time both to me and you i argue that it is
only so cause the proper resources have not been brought to bear on the
subject to make it explainable. Crowley gave the illustration of the
lever and fulcrum, given one big enough one could move the world, and in
Crowley's allusion the will is the lever and IIRC the mind is the
fulcrum of the will. technically it does not have to be theurgic but for
thisignorant, superstitious, primate it just works better that way.
--
Joseph ( climbing back up the tree with his keyboard and modem) Count de
Money.
Patti Ryon
"Sentient" <sent...@nolifeanywhere.com> wrote in message
news:qu34hugc8sjetnkum...@4ax.com...
What the trial indicated (other factors DID show signifigance) was that
there was something that was not easily expainable by chance. Also, the
area merited further study. That is all that is claimed. Studies start
this way. Its how it proves it is worth further funding.
I will not post full articles. I will not waste my time. If someone has
the interest, they can put forth the effort.
If you want scientific data, you've got to start somewhere, usually with
small, short studies. Ten weeks isn't bad for a starter study, especially
considering the rates of human blood and tissue renewal, which was likely
taken into account.
-Patti
Sentient
<patt...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> >
>> > A Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Distant Healing in a
>> >Population With Advanced AIDS--Report of a Small Scale Study.
>> >FRED SICHER, ELISABETH TARG, DAN MOORE II, HELENE S. SMITH. The Western
>> >Journal of Medicine. Dec 1998 v169 i6 p356(1).
>>
>> A title means nothing in itself, other than willingness to
>> investigate. If you look more closely at the results you'll see there
>> was no significant difference in CD4+ count, the sample size was tiny,
>> and the study carried out over just 10 weeks, which is not long enough
>> to be sure of anything. Not a great trial.
>
>What the trial indicated (other factors DID show signifigance) was that
>there was something that was not easily expainable by chance.
Yes, using the conventional idea of "significance" in stats. But you
have to beware of the buzz-word "significant", it has become a god in
medicine raised far above its station. For instance, I don't know
personally how reliable their data is, not having seen the full paper.
And even with the full paper, I am fairly cynical of medical
statistics, having seen some atrocious massaging of data get into
print *post* statistician's peer review. Also, not all journals
peer-review the actual statistics. On the distant healing paper, those
p-values for instance aren't great, many good journals won't even
consider a paper unless p < 0.01 (although you could argue that this
prevents *clinically* [as opposed to statistically] significant data
from reaching publication). Also, what about other more nebulous
factors, such as whether the distant healer "is any good"? Do we
accept that all distant healers have a certain level of ability? It
gets rather ridiculous trying to test such a thing, and what is the
point anyway? Those who want to give it a try are free to try it, it's
not as if there are side-effects apart from leaving off allopathic
medicine that will either kill you or heal you (how many AIDS patients
have been killed off by their medicine, after all).
Alan Kellogg
wrote:
> Getting back to the original question: What's the consistently
> repeatable and scientifically inexplicable thing you can do?
Obfuscate. But that's more because psycohology is insufficiently
developed than any innate inexplicableness.
Alan
--
http://www.mythusmage.com
Writing Practice at: http://www.gamingoutpost.com
William Tucker
pretty much proved the point of that the subject doesn't need to be aware
that they are being prayed for to be affected...that was ten years ago, Bill
Moyer specials, lots of stuff out there...I'm surprised to hear that there's
still some flat worlders out there......
Wm
William Tucker
showed that subjects were able to "beyond the point of randomeness"
positively affect the rolling of a ball through a maze...the success rate
wasn't huge but enough to prove that something was conclusively
happening...it was on television...this is old stuff...MIT even put out
a book on how to learn to do this stuff about 10-12 years ago...seeing
auras, astral projection, etc.
Wm
"Joseph Count de Money" <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3D12A5D2...@pacbell.net...
z.z.
William Tucker wrote:
>
> I thought that there had already been research done in NC that
> showed that subjects were able to "beyond the point of randomeness"
> positively affect the rolling of a ball through a maze...the success rate
> wasn't huge but enough to prove that something was conclusively
> happening...it was on television...this is old stuff...
Hi William:
Perhaps you're thinking about Dr. Jahn's work at the PEAR lab, Princeton
Univ?
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
The most substantial portion of the PEAR program examines anomalies
arising in
human/machine interactions. In these experiments human operators
attempt to influence
the behavior of a variety of mechanical, electronic,
optical, acoustical, and fluid devices to conform to
pre-stated intentions, without recourse to any known
physical processes. In unattended calibrations these
sophisticated machines all produce strictly random
outputs, yet the experimental results display
increases in information content that can only be
attributed to the influence of the consciousness of
the human operator. Over the laboratory's 20-year
history, thousands of such experiments,
involving many millions of trials, have been performed
by several hundred operators. The observed effects
are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in
ten thousand on average, but they are statistically
repeatable and compound to highly significant
deviations from chance expectations. These results are
summarized in "Correlations of Random Binary
Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A
Review of a 12-Year Program." (view PDF)
z.z.