5 ms·
1.)Quantum entanglement, to instill a sense of appreciation for the unknown. 2.)Astrology, to grant an understanding of the language of archetypes.
by artificialLimbs 5y ago
1.)Quantum entanglement, to instill a sense of appreciation for the unknown. 2.)Astrology, to grant an understanding of the language of archetypes.
- epgui 5y agoAstrology is not a science, and while quantum entanglement is a fascinating and important concept, it's not clear what it has to do with "the unknown". Was that humour?
- artificialLimbs 5y agoAstrology was a science long before the western Enlightenment, which is irrelevant to its unique contributions to human knowledge - as a language of archetypes. Have the workings of entanglement been explained?
- epgui 5y agoThe only thing scientific about astrology, even generously speaking in historical context, is the observations and measurements of what would now fall under astronomy. Astrology in the context of personality traits or "archetypes", as you put it, has never been a science and has always been a pseudoscience. Smarter minds than me understand the workings of quantum entanglement about as well as they understand the workings of gravity. There are plenty of things we don't know.
- artificialLimbs 5y agoWhat do you know about the scientific research of astrology? It sounds like nothing, to me. So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin? >> .. as well as they understand the workings of gravity... So pretty much not at all then. This was my original point.
- ben_w 5y ago> So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin? That’s called “psychology”. The real science even has that nice little observation that which side of the school admission year you’re born on is basically the only thing about when you’re born that makes any significant difference.
- artificialLimbs 5y agoThis doesn't answer my questions at all.
- ben_w 5y agoSure it does, it’s a “no” to the quoted question.
- artificialLimbs 5y agoThen it appears we've reached the end of the productivity of this conversation. Good day.
- jl2718 5y agoUnless you are actually trying to build an apparatus to measure entanglement, and then you get a much better sense of appreciation for the nature of your belief in something that is nearly impossible to conclusively demonstrate above the noise floor, and feels a lot more like prestidigitation and luck than it should.