| From: | abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [OT] Mysticism [Was: Re: On Cybereyes] |
| Date: | Mon, 13 Sep 1999 20:16:43 -0400 |
>
> You can choose to not believe things, "science" does it all the time.
> Pray tell, is everyone who experinces a "laying on of hands" part of the
> con? Or how about reiki, or the kundalani experinces that some have
> experinced?
Yes, science, the study of facts, of reality, an ever-changing,
self-correcting set of observable or "provable" data, does, all the time,
choose not to believe things. Generally, the things it chooses not to
believe are not real.
Yes, I'm aware of science's somewhat fuzzy track record in the past. I can
also tell you that nearly all of science's incorrect assumptions were, a)
corrected not by religion or superstition, but by science itself, or b) in
fact, held back by religion or superstition. [Okay, those two terms are
getting irritating. From here on out, let's call it mysticism.] I've spent a
fair amount of time studying science, in the general and specific terms. You
might say it, like so many other things, has been my job. [Part of getting
old and getting bored quickly, I'm told by those who know.]
> Chiropactory and acupunture were thought of as "self delusion" until just
> a decade ago. Same as herbal medicine, even though the drug companies
> conviently leave out the fact that until the mid-seventies, everything
they
> did was based off of plants and natural mutationsof pre-existing microbes.
> Or how about "theraputic touch" (part reiki and part shiatsu), which has
> been part of the training for many Canadian nurses for over a decade, and
> the hospitals that require this training have seen a 15% cut in secondary
> and postop infections, along with similiar reductions in healing time for
> patients who are cared for by these men and women? These rates are too
> high tobe psychosomatic
First, no rates are ever to high to not be psychosomatic. The human mind
tricks itself all the time. 15% is certainly by no means too much to be
regarded as such.
Second, it has been proven time and time again, that caring and physical
contact are beneficial to human healing and development. This requires no
mysticism to explain. Humans require touch, just like the animals they are
decended from.
Third, herbal medicine is based, not on mysticism [as much as Americans
would liek to believe "all natural" is better] but on thousands of years of
rigorous experimentation. The peoples who have been using these herbal
medicines have built on the millennia of experience their ancestors have had
in using the same herbs. And, you'll note, the people who use modern medical
techniques, as opposed to herbal medicine practiced by native healers, live
more than twice as long as their "all natural" counterparts in the
less-developed sections of the world. [Just goes to show what science can
do, given time and free rein.]
All of the examples you give can be most easily explained with the first two
observed phenomena, with the exception of acupuncture, which has a firm
scientific--not mystical--explanation.
One thing to remember, said a long time ago, by Occam [Ockham, for the Brits
in the crowd]: Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity. In other
words, there is no reason to assign a complicated explanation to that which
may be explained with a simpler justification. When something can be
explained through observable processes, through science, through elimination
of falsity, there is no need to ascribe metaphysical justifications to it,
which add an additional level of complexity through their somehow
unexplainable nature.
Why, in ten thousand years, has science not found an explanation for the
aura? Well, it could be that the aura is undetectable by physical means,
through scientific means, and only through spiritual ones. Or, it could be
that such a thing does not exist.
I bet the latter. Simpler is not always more correct, but, all other things
being equal, it tends to be.
> Tell me, have you ever tasted a photon? Experinced the time-space
> dialtaion of supralight travel? Witnessed the Big Bang?
No. And neither have you. But I've seen an atom, watched a mole of deuterium
smear across the target wall of the CERN accelerator. I've seen the
equations that describe relativity, and although I am no Hawking, or
Einstein, to understand them so well, I've experienced it in a diminished
fashion. And the Big Bang? Well, let's just say the equations get a little
muddier there. But no less real. And I've experienced them no less than
anyone but the minds who developed the original proofs in the first place.
You should read that book, by that wheelchair guy, as Homer Simpson says. Or
maybe get a degree in quantum maths. Either way, you'll most likely end up
with a greater respect for the reality of science, and a lesser respect for
the intentional blindness of mysticism.
> Boy, trust me, this stuff is real. Just becuase you are part of the
> population that can't experince it due to a defective processor isn't my
> problem.
I don't think anyone's ever called me stupid. But I think that's about as
close as anyone's come. My "processor" as you put it, is, in no way [at
least relating to the subject at hand] "defective." It's simply that I no
longer have time in my life for drugs or self-delusion.
