The Star of Azazel - Azazelin Tähti

Wyrmfang wrote: EDIT: A further question to think for everyone. Think how many quality books of philosophy of science you have read and how many books on esotericism you have read. Or how much esoteric and scientific studies you have followed or conducted. If the science/philosophy side is close to "none" you are in no better position to judge questions related to it than a scientific minded person who debunks esotericism from all possible viewpoints without ever studying it. That one has formal knowledge tells of course yet nothing (we have professors of physics who are creationists...) but it´s a necessary condition.

Whoa! Wyrmfang! That was quite an attack. So are you saying people shouldn't post on these kinds of threads without having read quality books of philosophy of science, and followed or conducted studies in science/philosophy? That only people with formal knowledge can talk about their views on some subjects?

If so, then please tell me what the specific forbidden subjects are because I really don't care for participating in discussions where I will get attacked for lacking an academic degree in the field.

Besides, I'm quite sure you read me wrong (perhaps because I don't philosospeak?) You seem to think I diss science, which I don't. I genuinely and truly believe in it and its methods. I didn't even say that scientific method is too crude to study things in general. Of course it isn't. It's one way for us to learn about how the world works. (And by plant's subtle effects I meant the ones that are emotional/spiritual and in a way, possibly healing.) But seeing fields like neuroscience evolve does gives one a notion that science might be a bit crude as judged from the point of view of tomorrow's standards. Means of measurement simply get better and better, theories more refined.

What I meant in my post was simply that there are advances ahead like there has been this far and just because some form of healing/substance hasn't yet been studied doesn't mean that it isn't effective or that it shouldn't be used.


(As a side note to this whole conversation: Just recently the woman who dubbed herself “Wellness Warrior” and tried to cure her cancer with diet died – presumably of her cancer. The worst thing is that she was famous and had talking engagements all of the time. I hope against hope that nobody else confided their cancer treatment to green smoothies and coffee enemas, but she had a huge following... In cases like this, it's easy to see the danger in blind fate to alternative approaches.)

Nokkonen wrote: Whoa! Wyrmfang! That was quite an attack. So are you saying people shouldn't post on these kinds of threads without having read quality books of philosophy of science, and followed or conducted studies in science/philosophy? That only people with formal knowledge can talk about their views on some subjects?

No, basically I´m saying people shouldn´t make claims about science in general without understanding what it is. Mentioning books was to invoke rethinking in anyone who thinks he/she understands science/philosophy enough to judge it by comparing it how many people in scientific circles think they understand esotericism enough to judge it mambo jambo as a whole without ever studying it. And of course I´m no authority to deny anyone writing anything What I´m hoping is that people would post this kind of topics their experiences as experiences and possibly theories of non-epistemic hermeneutic nature thereby not making it rival with science.

It it always entirely legitimate for anyone anywhere to describe his/her experiences as experiences. This sounds evident, but as we know, in many cases it isn´t. It is also possible to say what something factually seems to be the case from one´s subjective viewpoint, but I don´t usually really see any point in this, because only a scientific community (this is important: not a qualified scientist) as a whole is able to produce factual empirical knowledge.

Nokkonen wrote: Besides, I'm quite sure you read me wrong (perhaps because I don't philosospeak?) You seem to think I diss science, which I don't. I genuinely and truly believe in it and its methods. I didn't even say that scientific method is too crude to study things. Of course it isn't.

But that´s what you say here, and in the second quote even in a rhetorical way which I as a scientist find disapproving (it indicates that scientists are not doing neutral study but deciding things foreward, and even based on everyday impressions):

Nokkonen wrote:Western medicine, and science in general, is a relatively new thing and the philosophy and methodology behind it is quite crude.

Nokkonen wrote: Now, acupuncture is based theory of meridians which has no scientific basis, but for some reason lots of people have found help from acupuncture and it shouldn't be discredited just because sticking needles into someone's back to alleviate pain doesn't seem to make sense.

Nokkonen wrote: And then there are subtle effects in plants that couldn't (yet?) be studied with crude scientific methods but that doesn't, in my opinion, mean that they don't exist.

I fully understand that people may found insulting if I say "very likely the effects you talk about are based simply on placebo", but I remind, that at least as I see it, this is precisely because we live in a culture that evaluates facts too high. That something is "only placebo" tells nothing about the quality of subjective experience and its meaning to the subject.

Nokkonen wrote: What I meant in my post was simply that there are advances ahead like there has been this far and just because some form of healing/substance hasn't yet been studied doesn't mean that it isn't effective or that it shouldn't be used.

But in many cases (such as homeopathy) it has been conlusively studied, and the result is negative. It is just the case that the people in the field are not open to question the factual truth they think they had found, and to rely simply on the subjective experience, which from the scientic perspective is based on the placebo effect. This is the point where something possibly fully legitimate as hermeneutic esotericism becomes pseudoscience.

The main question therefore is: if one has practiced years something that works for him, and eventually it becomes studied scientifically with negative result, does he still keep claiming that the effect is real and science is "too crude" to acknowledge it? Namely, scientific study does not first make any evaluation of why something has an effect (although there are of course speculations), it becomes the question after it has been shown that there is a real effect besides the placebo at all.

I´m the last person to claim that the natural scientific perspective is the only legitimate perspective to the world, but these other perspectives cannot do what science does: establish "brute facts". There truly is an unhealthy "culture of facts", but the way to overcome it is not to assess rival "facts".

Wyrmfang wrote:

Nokkonen wrote: Whoa! Wyrmfang! That was quite an attack. So are you saying people shouldn't post on these kinds of threads without having read quality books of philosophy of science, and followed or conducted studies in science/philosophy? That only people with formal knowledge can talk about their views on some subjects?

No, basically I´m saying people shouldn´t make claims about science in general without understanding what it is. Mentioning books was to invoke rethinking in anyone who thinks he/she understands science/philosophy enough to judge it by comparing it how many people in scientific circles think they understand esotericism enough to judge it mambo jambo as a whole without ever studying it. And of course I´m no authority to deny anyone writing anything What I´m hoping is that people would post this kind of topics their experiences as experiences and possibly theories of non-epistemic hermeneutic nature thereby not making it rival with science.

Seems like you are, indeed, saying that without scientific or philosophy background, talking about science or philosophy is futile and it shouldn't be done by people who don't understand what they are talking about. But don't you agree that all forum discussions come with an unwritten disclaimer that they are opinions of usually uneducated individuals and should not be taken as something that has a claim to any kinds of truths. Also, I'm not rivaling science. If you think so, you have misread me again.

Moreover, I wasn't taking you for an authority on who gets to write and what, but I was really hoping that we could just discuss ideas and exchange opinions without getting anybody's head bit off.

Wyrmfang wrote:

Nokkonen wrote: Besides, I'm quite sure you read me wrong (perhaps because I don't philosospeak?) You seem to think I diss science, which I don't. I genuinely and truly believe in it and its methods. I didn't even say that scientific method is too crude to study things. Of course it isn't.

Nokkonen wrote:Western medicine, and science in general, is a relatively new thing and the philosophy and methodology behind it is quite crude.

But that´s what you say here, and in the second quote even in a rhetorical way which I as a scientist find disapproving (it indicates that scientists are not doing neutral study but deciding things foreward, and even based on everyday impressions):

No. I think you are reading more into my text than is actually there, and getting stuck in the words, failing to see the meaning. Maybe I wasn't writing with enough clarity, but you have to forgive me for my lack of correct terminology. I was speaking from the perspective of future and, like I already said, I think that there are great advances to be made in matters of health research. Of course that's not all in the future either. I am thrilled with reading about research like the one where they studied gum disease's link to heart disease. The results aren't conclusive, but I believe that overtime we are able to piece together the puzzle on how a body works.

I don't believe I even implied that scientists aren't doing neutral study. You are putting me into a rhetorical box in which I don't belong to.

Now, I don't know what you include in your understanding of alternative health, but for me it involves things like understanding nutrition, bacteria, nervous system and holistic view on sickness and health. Yes, that's an umbrella term that involves also things like reiki, flower remedies and the like, but in my view those are in a different category because they don't -- at least to my knowledge -- claim to work on anywhere else but on the "subtle field."

This goes much of topic, but I thought this was worth mentioning, since we are drifting to dangerous waters in this conversation..

I think reciprocal respect is the answer here, if it's just understood in its right context by both parties. I'd hope that there would be shown a genuine commitment to the respect of the other AS A PERSON, not as an esoterist, a scientist, a scholar, a shaman, a philosophe ect.

What I know of the participants, I recognize the fiery temper that has been 'hurt' here, but I recognize also the analytic stance presented. Neither is wrong, but I do believe a handshake is required.

RaktaZoci wrote:This goes much of topic, but I thought this was worth mentioning, since we are drifting to dangerous waters in this conversation..

I think reciprocal respect is the answer here, if it's just understood in its right context by both parties. I'd hope that there would be shown a genuine commitment to the respect of the other AS A PERSON, not as an esoterist, a scientist, a scholar, a shaman, a philosophe ect.

What I know of the participants, I recognize the fiery temper that has been 'hurt' here, but I recognize also the analytic stance presented. Neither is wrong, but I do believe a handshake is required.

Discussion is always something I would encourage, even when it takes us to fields that we know little of, or care greatly for and therefore may have strong opinions of. I have to say that as I do believe both participants are intelligent enough to choose words in a way that are polite enough to respect the other participant's opinion, there really is no reason to adopt aggressive tones. If something is not understood, it can be asked in a mild way. This would be much more fruitful and encouraging for the conversation and atmosphere at large.

This is our forum where everyone is free to discuss whatever is on their mind, not a place where we've to point out who has the right opinion and who does not. We can't push our ideas on other people either, regardless of how right we would be. And sometimes it seems like this happens a little, even if I am sure it's not the purpose.

Nokkonen wrote:
No. I think you are reading more into my text than is actually there, and getting stuck in the words, failing to see the meaning. Maybe I wasn't writing with enough clarity, but you have to forgive me for my lack of correct terminology. I was speaking from the perspective of future and, like I already said, I think that there are great advances to be made in matters of health research. Of course that's not all in the future either. I am thrilled with reading about research like the one where they studied gum disease's link to heart disease. The results aren't conclusive, but I believe that overtime we are able to piece together the puzzle on how a body works.

I think I've understood what you mean with your comments, and largely agree. There certainly are things which can not be measured or understood yet. Completely off topic- my personal field of interest being how animals understand and perceive things- and lately there's been quite a lot of discussion that animals also have emotions very similar to ours. For someone who has had pets or otherwise worked with animals this comes as no surprise, but I am so glad there's material to back this up, as perhaps slowly this could begin to alter the appalling ways that we treat animals, particularly in the food industry.

Nokkonen wrote: No. I think you are reading more into my text than is actually there, and getting stuck in the words, failing to see the meaning.

We just had a similar conversation on the Finnish forum... Nefastos´ metaphor of seeing and hearing in Fosforos helped me a lot to understand what is going on now, but again of course only from my perspective . Basically, I´m quite certain I see what you mean, but obviously I was too aggressive to maintain that it should be put in a different way (which equals metaphorically that I lack in hearing). We are talking completely past each other. I´m interested (in this conversation) on theretical epistemic claims and you are interested in the first person practical point of view.

Nokkonen wrote: You are putting me into a rhetorical box in which I don't belong to.

I wouldn´t say rhetorical (believe me, I hate at least as much as you rhetorical attacks where the issue itself is put aside from the beginning) but I have been forcing you to discuss from a point of view that isn´t natural for you.

I try to be more sensitive, but in general I´m highly certain there is a general detrimental misunderstanding about the nature of science (to which I can identify with since I once shared that view) among dedicated esotericists, including SoA. If I always let that pass without a discordant note from my part, I could as well just be silent. Sometimes it has been even quite aggressively suggested that it should be kept in the "philosophy" section. However, I don´t stick into that, because there it remains isolated and can be simply passed. It´s then my constant challenge in life in general to put things in a way that it is constructive in the required context.

Heith wrote:

Nokkonen wrote: I was speaking from the perspective of future and, like I already said, I think that there are great advances to be made in matters of health research. Of course that's not all in the future either. I am thrilled with reading about research like the one where they studied gum disease's link to heart disease. The results aren't conclusive, but I believe that overtime we are able to piece together the puzzle on how a body works.

I think I've understood what you mean with your comments, and largely agree. There certainly are things which can not be measured or understood yet. Completely off topic- my personal field of interest being how animals understand and perceive things- and lately there's been quite a lot of discussion that animals also have emotions very similar to ours. For someone who has had pets or otherwise worked with animals this comes as no surprise, but I am so glad there's material to back this up, as perhaps slowly this could begin to alter the appalling ways that we treat animals, particularly in the food industry.

Still to elaborate my point: I was talking about "alternative medicine" which, due to my knowledge, is defined as medicine having some real effect (not via the placebo effect) not so far recognized by science of doing so. Have we been talking with different definitions? If something proves to have a real effect, it is of course at this point unknown how it has that effect. However, where I must entirely rest my case is, that it can always be fully studied by science whether something has an effect besides the placebo in the first place. It´s plain statistical analysis, which often goes strongly against every day intuition. If that´s crude, what other method can there be to solve whether something has a real effect than taking two groups (one placebo, one real treatment) and to see whether there is difference between the groups? No doubt there are some methods in alternative medicine which will become a part of science in future (acupuncture may be such, also it´s yet controversial at this point). However, the majority of methods have been extensively studied, and the results often don´t affect how the practicers view the matter (for example homeopathy is a classical example of this).

For example animal research is a completely another matter; we lack the direct insight to animal´s consciousness, so it has to be studied indirectly, which is challenging and produces limited knowledge. However, I must say one should still be extremely cautious when making knowledge claims beyond what has been established. Personal experience and its significance is a another thing.

Wyrmfang wrote: For example animal research is a completely another matter; we lack the direct insight to animal´s consciousness, so it has to be studied indirectly, which is challenging and produces limited knowledge. However, I must say one should still be extremely cautious when making knowledge claims beyond what has been established. Personal experience and its significance is a another thing.

The entire time on this thread, I have discussed from a personal experience point of view. I am not a doctor, so I can't claim to understand the workings of the human body very well. With that said I do think there are plenty of doctors who don't seem to have a clue either. I certainly have met a few.

I have noticed that it's often when people get into, let's say, "new age" stuff at first there's some kind of sense in their pursuit, and many people who are drawn into for example alternative medication or healing are individuals who have been disappointed with western medicine. That is fine. Everyone has the right to experiment with their own body. I have also noticed that the alternative can take over in absurd ways, and then everything is angel balls, energetic healing and vibrations, and these are considered the absolute truth. Sadly, I have seen what can happen when modern medicine is completely rejected; I know a little kid who is now deaf because his parents refused to take him to the doctor when he had an ear infection. But the same can work on the field of science as well, if one is always extremely sceptical everything and refuses the possibility to test something new- and yes I understand that this is not the scientific approach, but the approach of some individuals with a academic mind setting. But again, everyone does what they want with their own body- and I hope, only their own.

There are things that can not be overlooked in the "scientific medication" (I'm sure there's a better term for this but can't think of one) such as blood test results, which provide information in a very solid and reliable way.

Sidetracking to animals again, you are absolutely correct. It is very difficult to try and understand an animal and I confess I am at loss many times when trying to interpret is something wrong with my pet. This is why I just try to write down what I see, without making assumptions as to why it happens. I write down the date and time, and what happens. I rely on the scientific method in helping her (aka medicine & the vet), because I know the research behind it is more solid. A woman I know suggested that the pain medication my pet needs to eat, as well as the slow progress we make in physiotherapy is rubbish and that I should instead "heal with my energy" and progressed to do this on my pet without my permission. She also told me which homeopathic plant would cure my dog immediately. I confess it made me so angry because it was so arrogant and ignorant that I was still fuming hours afterwards.

For me, the only thing I can be somewhat certain of is how things work for myself. I cannot make this assumption of anyone else. For example, I get health problems really fast if I eat sugar, but the next person isn't affected at all. This is a stupid example but I think such things were intensified during my time in the esoteric circle, so I started to observe them more.

Heith wrote:But again, everyone does what they want with their own body- and I hope, only their own.

Most people share this liberal conviction, but where the real question rises are the bodies of others (children, disabled, animals etc.) who are not able to decide for theirselves. In that case I think it´s best to rely on something objective (i.e. science) rather than first person viewpoint.

In our current political situation (at least in Finland) it is unfortunately the case that in practice a doctor may sometimes only get things worse as they are overemployed and don´t have the time/energy to dedicate themselves to patients in an appropriate way. Instead, positive attitude and strong faith can often do much, of which the placebo effect is one variation.

Wyrmfang wrote:

Heith wrote:But again, everyone does what they want with their own body- and I hope, only their own.

Most people share this liberal conviction, but where the real question rises are the bodies of others (children, disabled, animals etc.) who are not able to decide for theirselves. In that case I think it´s best to rely on something objective (i.e. science) rather than first person viewpoint.

Agreed. I don't have children, so my dog is the closest to that, and I would never try an alternative method first if a scientific one was available. Then of course it's also a question of the person who prescribes or recommends these things, as many doctors are "sponsored" by certain med companies.