3 ms·

The problem is you're using "supernatural" as a semantic stop sign (http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns

by robertk 11y ago

The problem is you're using "supernatural" as a semantic stop sign (http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/). Would it help if I rephrased it as: given this natural phenomenon reported by thousands of people in a wide array of circumstances, what is a possible scientific explanation?

dasil003 11y ago
Excellently put. "Supernatural" around here is just shorthand for "bullshit", something is only "supernatural" until it is explained, and then it just "natural" and no one has a problem with it. But where I think this is harmful is for rationalists who don't want to acknowledge that some things may be true but ultimately unprovable or unexplainable because of the limited human perspective. That's what I think is interesting about philosophy and metaphysics—the ability to play around and ask what-if about things which probably are unknowable. This opens you up to a much wider world of ideas than that which is reasonably tractable by today's science.
- smtddr 11y ago
  You have no idea how much I agree with you. http://qz.com/476722/be-careful-your-love-of-science-looks-a-lot-like-religion/ http://qz.com/476722/be-careful-your-love-of-science-looks-a... I submitted that article awhile back, never made it anywhere. The incredibly unyielding trust in scientific measurements on HN is amazing to me. I agree that science has proven itself an amazing tool of mankind, but I also believe the true nature of the universe, spacetime and the human mind is beyond the reach of human science... or rather, when that truth presents itself to us we'll have to throw out so many things we thought were constants that the result will have us giving up on science all together. In the same way modern scientists look at history's voodoo & whichcraft... some future scholars will laugh at the concept of science.
- fsloth 11y ago
  While I appreciate that mind should be given room to flow I find searches for provable and explainable things far more fruitful than pure metaphysical constructs. Mainly because we are so good at fooling ourselves and our thought processes are so full of errors that I'm highly skeptical of the "truth" value of any thought process that does not perform stringent reality checks from experimental data or mathematics. Then again, to find new interesting points of view mind should be given the capability to flow freely - but to actually utilize those fantasies in finding new truths requires also hard labor.
- Retra 11y ago
  A rationalist who cannot find value in marginalizing errors in decision-making by some process has no grounds to accept that process as meaningful or valid. And dreaming up ideas about things you believe to be unknowable is exactly that. That this opens you up to a much wider world of ideas is not surprising. As soon as you abandon the constraints of fact, you are free to think about any number of fictions. However, these fictions don't provide you any real advantage, which is why they are called fictions to begin with.

by robertk 11y ago

dasil003 11y ago

Excellently put. "Supernatural" around here is just shorthand for "bullshit", something is only "supernatural" until it is explained, and then it just "natural" and no one has a problem with it. But where I think this is harmful is for rationalists who don't want to acknowledge that some things may be true but ultimately unprovable or unexplainable because of the limited human perspective. That's what I think is interesting about philosophy and metaphysics—the ability to play around and ask what-if about things which probably are unknowable. This opens you up to a much wider world of ideas than that which is reasonably tractable by today's science.

smtddr 11y ago
You have no idea how much I agree with you. http://qz.com/476722/be-careful-your-love-of-science-looks-a-lot-like-religion/ http://qz.com/476722/be-careful-your-love-of-science-looks-a... I submitted that article awhile back, never made it anywhere. The incredibly unyielding trust in scientific measurements on HN is amazing to me. I agree that science has proven itself an amazing tool of mankind, but I also believe the true nature of the universe, spacetime and the human mind is beyond the reach of human science... or rather, when that truth presents itself to us we'll have to throw out so many things we thought were constants that the result will have us giving up on science all together. In the same way modern scientists look at history's voodoo & whichcraft... some future scholars will laugh at the concept of science.
fsloth 11y ago
While I appreciate that mind should be given room to flow I find searches for provable and explainable things far more fruitful than pure metaphysical constructs. Mainly because we are so good at fooling ourselves and our thought processes are so full of errors that I'm highly skeptical of the "truth" value of any thought process that does not perform stringent reality checks from experimental data or mathematics. Then again, to find new interesting points of view mind should be given the capability to flow freely - but to actually utilize those fantasies in finding new truths requires also hard labor.
Retra 11y ago
A rationalist who cannot find value in marginalizing errors in decision-making by some process has no grounds to accept that process as meaningful or valid. And dreaming up ideas about things you believe to be unknowable is exactly that. That this opens you up to a much wider world of ideas is not surprising. As soon as you abandon the constraints of fact, you are free to think about any number of fictions. However, these fictions don't provide you any real advantage, which is why they are called fictions to begin with.