4 ms·

I think first it would need to be established that she did in fact see the future.

tshaddox 4y ago
Yes. The explanation “it was all made up by one or more writers” sufficiently covers not just the precognition, but also the hallucinations and even the existence of the oracle.
- mcphage 4y ago
  I think enough prediction requests have been found that the existence of the Oracle is non-controversial.
kordlessagain 4y ago
This is an example of Positivism. I think the primary problem with positivism is the knowledge about the universe is never fully attained, so it feels more like a confused reasoning process. The assumption the scientific method will explain everything someday is irrational. When is that going to happen? With more work? What positivism really is, is a commitment to a bunch of work in the future to "prove" something is this and not that. The future never arrives. Mysticism is the flipside of that. A mystical approach builds a metaphor to exist that "makes sense" but can't really be tested or analyzed by scientific methods. Faith takes over there, where just believing something irrational to be true, makes it true. Maybe that includes visualizing something over and over again? Between these two extremes sits a philosophy that holds that there is value in both kinds of knowledge, and that both can be used to improve our understanding of the world. This philosophy emphasizes the need for both scientific and spiritual knowledge in order to create a complete picture of reality. Unfortunately, the scientific method is a bit annoying sometimes, given it's absolute insistence all things may be disproved. It's a little like a virus in that regard, growing without bounds or purpose, other than to try to avoid the mystical outlooks at all costs.
- coeneedell 4y ago
  Well okay, but when the scientific method produces knowledge, the voracity of that knowledge can be checked by an observer. When a mystic convinces a large number of people that their opinions are in fact, truths, that is not a process that can be checked by an observer, and the “knowledge” produced has nothing tying itself back to reality.
  - quinnjh 4y ago
    How do corporations forecast the future?
    - lmm 4y ago
      Poorly, on the whole.
  - justinmcp 4y ago
    The process cant, but the knowledge can be. You seem to be arguing against dogma, not a mythopeotic view. And fair call, religious power structures do a lot of harm.
    - coeneedell 4y ago
      The “large number of people” could be a full on religious dogma, but it could also be a smallish cult out in the hinterlands.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Mysticism is a not an "understanding of the world" but a way of framing our knowledge of the world and coping with the unknown and the unknowable. The realm of the unknown and the unknowable shrinks as our tools advance but there are very good reasons to think it will never disappear as there are both provably unknowable truths amd facts that are practicaly impossible to learn. > Faith takes over there, where just believing something irrational to be true, makes it true. This only applies to a limited set of things (the unknowable), getting enough people to believe the world is flat won't make that a true belief, no matter how many people have how much faith. The types of things that faith can make true are subjective, sociocultural or related to our inner lives. > Unfortunately, the scientific method is a bit annoying sometimes, given it's absolute insistence all things may be disproved. In no way, shape or form does the scientific method suggest this, let alone insist on it. There is a long history of faith pairing quite productively with the scientific method. The network of scientific knowledge is primarily drive by one thing: curiosity, not any sort of animus against the mystical.
mise_en_place 4y ago
The predictive power that most people have (at least with normally functioning brains, for some neutral definition of normal being the baseline) is surprisingly good. Executive function requires making many such predictions and forecasts every minute. If I had to give a rough estimate, I’d say slightly greater than a coin flip for future event outcomes.

Yes. The explanation “it was all made up by one or more writers” sufficiently covers not just the precognition, but also the hallucinations and even the existence of the oracle.

mcphage 4y ago
I think enough prediction requests have been found that the existence of the Oracle is non-controversial.

kordlessagain 4y ago

This is an example of Positivism. I think the primary problem with positivism is the knowledge about the universe is never fully attained, so it feels more like a confused reasoning process. The assumption the scientific method will explain everything someday is irrational. When is that going to happen? With more work? What positivism really is, is a commitment to a bunch of work in the future to "prove" something is this and not that. The future never arrives. Mysticism is the flipside of that. A mystical approach builds a metaphor to exist that "makes sense" but can't really be tested or analyzed by scientific methods. Faith takes over there, where just believing something irrational to be true, makes it true. Maybe that includes visualizing something over and over again? Between these two extremes sits a philosophy that holds that there is value in both kinds of knowledge, and that both can be used to improve our understanding of the world. This philosophy emphasizes the need for both scientific and spiritual knowledge in order to create a complete picture of reality. Unfortunately, the scientific method is a bit annoying sometimes, given it's absolute insistence all things may be disproved. It's a little like a virus in that regard, growing without bounds or purpose, other than to try to avoid the mystical outlooks at all costs.

coeneedell 4y ago
Well okay, but when the scientific method produces knowledge, the voracity of that knowledge can be checked by an observer. When a mystic convinces a large number of people that their opinions are in fact, truths, that is not a process that can be checked by an observer, and the “knowledge” produced has nothing tying itself back to reality.
- quinnjh 4y ago
  How do corporations forecast the future?
  - lmm 4y ago
    Poorly, on the whole.
- justinmcp 4y ago
  The process cant, but the knowledge can be. You seem to be arguing against dogma, not a mythopeotic view. And fair call, religious power structures do a lot of harm.
  - coeneedell 4y ago
    The “large number of people” could be a full on religious dogma, but it could also be a smallish cult out in the hinterlands.
shkkmo 4y ago
Mysticism is a not an "understanding of the world" but a way of framing our knowledge of the world and coping with the unknown and the unknowable. The realm of the unknown and the unknowable shrinks as our tools advance but there are very good reasons to think it will never disappear as there are both provably unknowable truths amd facts that are practicaly impossible to learn. > Faith takes over there, where just believing something irrational to be true, makes it true. This only applies to a limited set of things (the unknowable), getting enough people to believe the world is flat won't make that a true belief, no matter how many people have how much faith. The types of things that faith can make true are subjective, sociocultural or related to our inner lives. > Unfortunately, the scientific method is a bit annoying sometimes, given it's absolute insistence all things may be disproved. In no way, shape or form does the scientific method suggest this, let alone insist on it. There is a long history of faith pairing quite productively with the scientific method. The network of scientific knowledge is primarily drive by one thing: curiosity, not any sort of animus against the mystical.

mise_en_place 4y ago

The predictive power that most people have (at least with normally functioning brains, for some neutral definition of normal being the baseline) is surprisingly good. Executive function requires making many such predictions and forecasts every minute. If I had to give a rough estimate, I’d say slightly greater than a coin flip for future event outcomes.