If other comments appear on Kraig's blog that merit a response, I will continue to post there -- assuming that Kraig allows my comments to be published. Otherwise, I can continue the discussion here with any interested parties.
Full commentary on the discussion will likely be posted up sometime next weekend, so keep checking this space.
My rejected post appears below:
DMK writes: “My friend, do you not see
that this critique is splitting you open: why do spells when they’re only
pretend? How can you both believe and not believe in magic? Why are you wasting
your time doing only “pretend” things.”
You revealed earlier that you have
trouble distinguishing between the concepts of actions done in private and
claims made in public. Now you reveal that you have difficulty distinguishing
between the act of performing rituals for a purely psychological effect and the
act of performing rituals with the intention of causing supposed external
“changes” in reality. Your confusion is consistent with someone who cannot
explain how to distinguish between rituals that cause effects and rituals that
just seem to cause effects.
Hopefully, I won’t have to explain the
infamous ass/elbow distinction to you next.
DMK writes: “you haven’t done the work
[…] Los, where are you? Crowley has beginning exercises that were filled with
developing self-knowledge. Have you been through them?”
As ever, when occultists can’t address
my arguments, they try to turn the conversation to distractionary speculation
about me. If you’re really curious about my experience with Thelema and magick,
you can ask me on my blog. If you’re not curious enough to ask me there, then
I’ll assume you don’t really want an answer. Either way, stick to the topic
here: your ability – or lack thereof – to demonstrate that your claims are
true.
Vinncent writes: “And, as to the
majority of LOS’s points, you imply that there have not been any positive
experiments under laboratory conditions exploring the interaction of
consciousness remotely interacting with reality. Most of it is still considered
“fringe science”, despite sound scientific methods and results being published
in respected peer-reviewed journals.”
Well, my focus on this thread has been
entirely on claims made by Donald. The research you bring up, even if its
claims are all true – which, I’m sure you would agree, is at the very least
debatable – doesn’t enable us to evaluate the specific claims we’re talking
about here.
Donald’s been claiming that people can
do a ritual that will make it more likely that they will come up with a certain
amount of money in a certain time frame. That’s a testable claim, one that
makes predictions about reality that can be measured and verified. A specific
claim like that can’t be confirmed by general research into the possibility of
consciousness remotely interacting with reality.
Hi Los, I don't believe he hit you with the old "you haven't done the work" jive! *Cringe* or what! Been busy lately with my new job, but will have a read through the thread on Kraig's blog soon. Best regards.
ReplyDeleteBrad writes: "I don't believe he hit you with the old "you haven't done the work" jive! *Cringe* or what!"
ReplyDeleteTell me about it. What I find really interesting, though, is his suggestion that I "both believe and don't believe in magick" simply because I alluded to people "pretending to cast spells."
His comment implicitly assumes that everyone who practices magick *must* believe that one can do "spells" that affect the world in the manner he's talking about and that if one practices magick but does *not* believe that "spells" can have such an effect, one is acting in "contradiction" with oneself and "both believ[ing] and not believ[ing] in magick" at once."
It's as if Kraig is not aware that one is perfectly capable of performing magical rituals for purely psychological effects while also thinking that the whole "spells" for "results" business is rubbish.
More to come in a few days.
Brad writes: "Been busy lately with my new job"
Glad to hear it -- best of luck!
Regards,
Los
I was following your debate with interest. Couple of short points, after a brief browse of your blog.
ReplyDeleteOne, confirmatory bias works both ways. That is, science can't prove what it has already decided does not exist. Healthy skepticism is one thing, closing one's mind to evidence - pro OR con - another. If there were even half as much money poured into funding magical research as there is, oh, I don't know, stem cells or Disneyland, we'd have a lot more evidence either way.
Two: if magic works, and if the mind of the magician is one of the operating components, then the operator CAN'T be truly skeptic and have it work. That's like pushing the button on the microwave when the power's out. Doesn't disprove science or microwaves, but it's still not going to work.
Three: I have never seen Paris. All I have is admittedly massive amounts of anecdotal evidence that it exists. You could, I am sure, tell me how to get there, and if I followed your directions, and they were correct, and nothing unforeseen interfered, I could go to that location myself. However, if I had decided beforehand that it did not exist, I might not see it then, even if it were there.
I can see how to design studies that would actually answer these questions. But there'd have to be at least the suspension of disbelief on the part of the researchers for the results to be valid.
Respectfully, (and enjoying the rest of your blog so far)
Cat who can't figure out how to sign in properly with Google:)
Part 1 of 2:
ReplyDelete“One, confirmatory bias works both ways. That is, science can't prove what it has already decided does not exist. Healthy skepticism is one thing, closing one's mind to evidence - pro OR con - another."
I’m not “closing [my] mind to evidence,” as you imply here. I’m observing its lack. I didn’t go into my study of this subject desperately desiring the supernatural to be a bunch of hooey. In fact, for a while, as a teenager at least, I believed in some of this supernatural stuff and “experiential proof” and all that.
It was only after I really started studying critical thinking – standards of evidence, the questions practitioners should be asking themselves – that I saw how virtually no evidence was available for these claims (not even the woefully insufficient “evidence” that I had mistakenly allowed to convince myself).
“Two: if magic works, and if the mind of the magician is one of the operating components, then the operator CAN'T be truly skeptic and have it work. That's like pushing the button on the microwave when the power's out. Doesn't disprove science or microwaves, but it's still not going to work.”
First, the successful practice of magick – and by “successful” here I mean achieving the psychological effects that magick is designed to have – does require temporary suspension of disbelief and “enflam[ing] thyself with prayer,” etc. During the operation, all of this “thinking” stuff has to go out the window, but before and after the operation, critical thinking is necessary.
[I treat this point more thoroughly in the fifth reply to this post: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2012/07/gems-from-forums-iv-crystal-clear.html (“Part 2” of my reply to Cygnus)]
If you go through Crowley’s books, you’re not going to find this wacky New Age idea that “belief is necessary to make magick work!” In fact, Crowley consistently advocates exactly the opposite: to be ruthlessly skeptical.
[You can read my explication of Crowley’s consistent emphasis on skepticism here: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2012/03/thats-what-he-said-crowley-on.html]
Second, if your premises are true (i.e. that supernatural magic only “works” if the operator is not a “true skeptic”), that doesn’t preclude other people from testing the operator’s magick, nor does it preclude the operator consenting to allow such tests.
And if you want to argue that your premises render magick untestable, then you are admitting that these claims are unfalsifiable and that no one can therefore gather any evidence in favor of these claims and that therefore no one has any good reason to think that these claims are true (not even “to them”).
“Three: I have never seen Paris. All I have is admittedly massive amounts of anecdotal evidence that it exists. You could, I am sure, tell me how to get there, and if I followed your directions, and they were correct, and nothing unforeseen interfered, I could go to that location myself. However, if I had decided beforehand that it did not exist, I might not see it then, even if it were there.”
ReplyDeleteThis one’s just silly. First, you’re trying to equate two claims that don’t even belong in the same league: “There exists a city somewhere on earth that people call Paris” is nowhere near the level of ridiculousness of “Prancing around in a circle and yelling funny-sounding Hebrew words can make me find my car keys.”
That is to say, one of those claims is relatively mundane and the other flies in the face of everything we've discovered about the universe. Care to guess which one's which?
Second, your belief is irrelevant. Paris is right there, and there’s literally a ton of evidence – like, for example, every map that’s ever been made of France, or the fact that you can go to google earth right now and look at it through a satellite.
That’s not something you can just dismiss as “anecdotal evidence”: that’s a really strong mountain of evidence for a pretty mundane claim, and that’s why you accept that Paris exists and that there’s not some sort of massive conspiracy theory to pretend that there’s a place called Paris.
The so-called “evidence” for the infinitely-more-ridiculous magical claims is nowhere near as good: a bunch of people subjectively interpreting coincidences (which we know do exist, based on probability) as meaningful, with no way to judge that their subjective interpretations are correct.
It’s the difference between the kinds of claim and the amount of evidence.
“Cat who can't figure out how to sign in properly with Google:)”
Yeah, I don’t know what’s up with that: others have contacted me and complained that they haven’t been able to add comments, but I really haven’t been motivated enough to figure it out. Your comment came through just fine, google account or no.
Glad you’re enjoying the blog.