I practice Chaos Magick. Since beginning my practice, I’ve noticed that things usually go my way. Not always, but I get what I want so often- and in such unlikely circumstances- that it’s hard for me to just call it random chance.
The thing about it, though, is that there is no empirical evidence for it. Some people, like myself, have no problem accepting that we can’t explain everything with science and data and math. Other people like to call themselves superior because they only believe what they can see for themselves.
It’s arrogant to the point of hubris to think there’s nothing beyond our physical reality. And, frankly, when all reality really is is a bunch of randomly vibrating particles, I don’t think that inducing a change in conformity with one’s will is that far fetched.
Do you know about confirmation bias? That our brain is looking for positive example for something, and actively ignores the negative examples or gives them less weight?
What would interest me is, if there theoretically was absolute proof that there is no such thing as Chaos Magick, would you stop doing it? Or would you dismiss such proof?
I do know about confirmation bias. Maybe that’s what is going on, but from my own perspective I don’t think so. Course if it was I guess I’d still feel that way 🤔
If there was absolute proof that it was a waste of time I’d probably keep my decor because it’s all black pentagrams and shit and it’s metal as fuck, but Bizzle don’t dismiss evidence just because it disagrees with my worldview. I’m a weirdo, not a conservative 😂 Fortunately for my practice it’s pretty hard to prove that something doesn’t exist.
As a counterpoint, if there was absolute proof of things beyond our physical reality- whether it’s Chaos Magick or the Universal Consciousness/God or even something as mundane as higher spacial dimensions, would you accept it? Or would you keep your eyes closed to the truth? Honestly the more we find out about the fundamental nature of reality the more convinced I am of the supernatural.
Other people like to call themselves superior because they only believe what they can see for themselves.
Scientific method: They implied that science has rejected mystical phenomena altogether (and due to arrogance no less!) when in reality they’re tested fairly often. Experiments DON’T assert that “there’s nothing beyond our physical reality”; that’s a misunderstanding of what an experiment does. Experiments only confirm that if there is something beyond our physical reality, it has no statistically significant measurable effect on that physical reality, for whatever combination of mystical effect and physical effect were being tested.
I certainly can, that doesn’t make the extrapolation correct. It’s particularly ironic that you’ve chosen to infer these conclusions in a conversation about the rigor of empirical study.
At no point did they characterize either science or scientists, the latter they never even mention. Their only mention of science is:
Some people, like myself, have no problem accepting that we can’t explain everything with science and data and math.
Which not a characterization of the scientific method. The characterization is a non-empirical, unscientific inference based on your own assumptions.
I practice Chaos Magick. Since beginning my practice, I’ve noticed that things usually go my way. Not always, but I get what I want so often- and in such unlikely circumstances- that it’s hard for me to just call it random chance.
The thing about it, though, is that there is no empirical evidence for it. Some people, like myself, have no problem accepting that we can’t explain everything with science and data and math. Other people like to call themselves superior because they only believe what they can see for themselves.
It’s arrogant to the point of hubris to think there’s nothing beyond our physical reality. And, frankly, when all reality really is is a bunch of randomly vibrating particles, I don’t think that inducing a change in conformity with one’s will is that far fetched.
Do you know about confirmation bias? That our brain is looking for positive example for something, and actively ignores the negative examples or gives them less weight?
What would interest me is, if there theoretically was absolute proof that there is no such thing as Chaos Magick, would you stop doing it? Or would you dismiss such proof?
I do know about confirmation bias. Maybe that’s what is going on, but from my own perspective I don’t think so. Course if it was I guess I’d still feel that way 🤔
If there was absolute proof that it was a waste of time I’d probably keep my decor because it’s all black pentagrams and shit and it’s metal as fuck, but Bizzle don’t dismiss evidence just because it disagrees with my worldview. I’m a weirdo, not a conservative 😂 Fortunately for my practice it’s pretty hard to prove that something doesn’t exist.
As a counterpoint, if there was absolute proof of things beyond our physical reality- whether it’s Chaos Magick or the Universal Consciousness/God or even something as mundane as higher spacial dimensions, would you accept it? Or would you keep your eyes closed to the truth? Honestly the more we find out about the fundamental nature of reality the more convinced I am of the supernatural.
This is a mischaracterization of both the scientific method and of scientists.
When did they characterize either?
Scientists:
Scientific method: They implied that science has rejected mystical phenomena altogether (and due to arrogance no less!) when in reality they’re tested fairly often. Experiments DON’T assert that “there’s nothing beyond our physical reality”; that’s a misunderstanding of what an experiment does. Experiments only confirm that if there is something beyond our physical reality, it has no statistically significant measurable effect on that physical reality, for whatever combination of mystical effect and physical effect were being tested.
They only say “other people”. They never said “scientists”, that’s your own extrapolation.
Can you not extrapolate from what’s been explicitly typed? It’s a pretty common skill
I certainly can, that doesn’t make the extrapolation correct. It’s particularly ironic that you’ve chosen to infer these conclusions in a conversation about the rigor of empirical study.
At no point did they characterize either science or scientists, the latter they never even mention. Their only mention of science is:
Which not a characterization of the scientific method. The characterization is a non-empirical, unscientific inference based on your own assumptions.
Nuh uh
You’re a mischaracterization of the scientific method but I don’t go around saying it.
Ur mom
And yet people will ignore you just because it challenges their stagnant world view.
Just because a change can be made to your worldview, that doesn’t mean that it should be.