Phylum of Alexandria
-
Posts
1,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Phylum of Alexandria
-
-
2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:
Depends if they are 'supplementing' or replacing. Sure there are benefits from just being heard and cared for, but for a medical condition you need medical help.
Notice that I put "supplement" in italics in that comment. I agree, replacing proven treatments is where things get problematic.
But pro-evidence people should themselves think about pragmatism rather than a staunchly puritanical approach. I mean, the evidence from psychology suggests that in dyadic interactions, empathic approaches are far more effective in persuasion than talking at someone or mocking them.
5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:I think one of the reasons I have a quite poor opinion of some of these fringe beliefs is not because of the belief itself, but more because of the basic logical structure underpinning it. Often these beliefs all go hand in hand. So I will meet people who believe in crystals, but they will also believe in ghosts, in any number of tick boxy spiritual beliefs. Thats because their world view and emotional connection to that way of looking at the world is just at odds with what I'd say was reality, and it leads to their perception and decision making being wildly illogical (maybe not to them)
A big reason why there's a tick box of beliefs they tend to glom onto is because there's a network of people and businesses out there who have created their own makeshift countercultural community. Nothing wrong with the community, but there is risk of retreating away from mainstream society into some sectarian dream world. As I said before, the roots of this problem lie in distrust in institutions (and loneliness) more than it does spiritual or religious belief per se. But I also think that if doctors spent more time building up their patients' sense of innate dignity and humanity, you would do away with at least some of that distrust toward modern medicine.
-
9 hours ago, Rippounet said:
Point is, there's nothing wrong with trying "alternative stuff" as long as it's not actively harmful and doesn't contradict proven scientific theories.
Agreed. And even if it does contradict the evidence, there may be other benefits, as I previously mentioned to Conflicted Thought. Not just a placebo effect, but a real emotional benefit from someone acting compassionate, treating them with dignity, friendly touch, etc.
This might be something that people outside of the US don't appreciate, because (I'm guessing) no one rivals the extent to which family practitioners have been replaced by sleek "McMedicine" centers offering speedy but cold and impersonal service here.
A few years ago, I had a huge cyst in one of my armpits, and never have I felt more like a walking slab of meat than that experience, thanks to the medical staff I dealt with. No, it didn't make me seek out a Reiki healer or whatever. But if someone wants to supplement their "No Frills" medical care with something more humane and supportive, woo or not, they can go right ahead. They will probably benefit from it. Just not in the way that they think.
-
Amanda's got it right, as usual. Polls on Biden are harsh in part because a solid chunk of Democrats and independents haven't yet faced the reality of a Trump nomination. They are still in "referendum" mode and need to get the fuck into "choice" mode.
-
1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:
except...thats the problem or at leat a part of the problem, those kinds of beliefs breed other similar beliefs and you end up with people not trusting anything science related. i mean where does that little wierdenss stop, or when do they start to become problematic at a societal level, does belive in treating ilness with bach flowers and other homeopathic "remedies" count as a little weirdness?. i dont know, but i admit that beign a "man of little faith" this things scare me, cuz i see them become extremely popular and with them come a host of other belives and problems.
just recently a "healer" came to my country to perform mass healings to people with cancer, saying that cancer is produced by trauma and things like that, now cancer is a serious subject so maybe you think that this is outside of just a little weirdenss, but i see it as being a part of the same problem. many many people that belive in this "healer" person (and others "doctors" that heal you with energies that they send from their phones and that are thousands of kilometers away), also belive in things like astrology and the like.
I think the core problem for that stuff, and also for conspiracy theories, is a lack of trust in established institutions, including medicine and scientific knowledge. Atheists can go down weirdo rabbit holes too, if they feel detached from and distrustful of the experts telling them what's what.
In any event, what does one do about it? I'm all for improved education, or any effort to improve trust (including reforming the institutions and their communication arms). But badgering someone for their weird belief will probably just make them worse, more defiant, kvetching and licking their wounds among people who think like them.
-
15 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:
thats an illusion, right? it is good,
Don't ask me. It's not my wheelhouse.
As long as someone keeps their beliefs and practices to themselves, I have no qualms with a little weirdness.
-
18 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:
Yeah, listening to my friend talk about some of the Hermetic, Sumerian, and Mithraic myths and how they were incorporated into Hellenistic astrology was pretty cool.
I have an interest in esoteric traditions, so reading up on Hermeticism, Mithraism, and all of the syncretic variations out there is very interesting to me.
But admittedly it's pretty much just an amateur academic interest. I do read Tarot cards sometimes, but it's solely to stimulate thought and introspection.
I did quite enjoy Alan Moore's tour of magic in Promethea...
-
19 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:
A good friend of mine is really into classical astrology and while I was initially skeptical and pretty judgmental about this interest, I was very impressed to see what a good grasp of astronomy he has
Some interpretations sound cool to me. Like, when Mercury is in retrograde, using that time for rest and quiet contemplation. Doesn't have to be about fate or magical rites if you don't want it to be.
-
25 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:
Several points on Astrology:
- The modern newspaper variety has nothing to do with the way it was traditionally practiced.
- Astrology and Astronomy were considered the same thing for most of human history.
- Countless ancient writers, from Aristotle to Augustine, condemn astrologers. This notion of superstitious ancients versus sceptical moderns ignores that humans have been having this conversation for thousands of years.
Yes, true. Sometimes you gotta sacrifice detail for punchiness, though.
-
23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:
The important factor is not about WHY it didn't get better because it doesn't matter; the important part is that they voted for Biden on the promise that it would get better in those ways and it didn't turn out that way.
All true, but that's the rationale for a referendum vote. 2020 will be a choice election. A choice between (at worst) "not great" and "fucking insane and terrible."
That's the case that has to be made, at least. But I think that's a reasonable feat to achieve.
-
17 minutes ago, Zorral said:
Utterly misleading is to call this "starting pay." There is no step up raise built in. Flat fee. for the period of the course. Period. It is not a salary. It is not promotional track. It is work for hire. Most undergraduates' courses are taught by work-for-hire people. In case one is unaware -- these flat fee for hire are not living pay either.
It's good that faculty are finally starting to mobilize on this issue. Fuck the administration execs. Put them in their place.
On a related note, especially relevant for this thread, has anyone read Will Bunch's book After the Ivory Tower Falls? It's a recent history of how higher education has become one of the defining dimensions of our current culture war. Additionally, it goes into the manifold problems that universities face, particularly what privatization and neoliberal business models have done to them. Not a fun read, but very interesting.
-
I love this track from late 2020, from experimental black metal artist A Rose Dying in the Rain. Simply gorgeous.
Best at full volume:
-
11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:
I still wouldn't vote in favor of returning to superstition, but a bit of awe/humility could definitely help.
It's more about understanding where the superstitious belief or mistrustful stance might come from, in order to have any hope of properly addressing it. And yes, awe and humility.
-
11 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:
Clear your cookies. I've been getting the same message a lot lately here and in a number of other places.
Ah thanks!
-
2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:
This is how you make a cutting attack ad:
All I see is "431"
-
If anyone knows some "undecideds," or people thinking they might sit out, or maybe reluctant Trump voters, this might be a good report to share in order to clearly outline the stated and planned agenda for 2025:
-
wrong thread
-
I wrote this a while ago for a shared writer's blog. I often write about music and silly things, but I sometimes try to insert nerdier or more serious-minded stuff. It feels germane to this thread.
No Stars Upon Thars
Lately I’ve been thinking more about…astrology.
I’ll admit, there’s a silly kick I get from being a twin who happened to be born into the Gemini sign, but beyond that, I never understood the attraction to astrology.
As a kid I would read daily horoscopes in the newspaper, and they seemed pretty obviously phony to me even then. Like the fortunes in a fortune cookie: randomly distributed, and depending on gullible readers who’ll believe them no matter what happens to be written.
By the time my career path entered the realm of scientific research, superstitious practices like astrology were barely a thought to me.
…Yet now, it’s that “barely a thought” dismissal of something regarded as worthless that has recently been bugging me. It now seems so callous and smug. But also unwise. Maybe even dangerous in a way.
People who scoff at astrology don’t simply declare that it can’t accurately predict the future. We usually take it further, into a narrative about Human Progress:
“We’ve moved on from these primitive superstitions,” we scientists say, “let’s work to advance humanity rather than dwell on the ignorance of the past.” Basically, astrology is a relic of the Dark Ages, and we humans should put our focus on building upon the wealth of knowledge that we have cultivated since the Enlightenment.
It is undeniable that we humans have learned so much about how to explain, predict, and control the world around us. Advances in technology and medicine in recent centuries have immensely improved quality of life in so many ways. And all that is thanks to our constantly expanding body of knowledge, which is itself based on the careful testing of evidence.
That’s the “elevator chat” version of the Human Progress narrative that got me into science in the first place. It’s hard to argue with it, especially because the results of the progress are so easy to observe.
But, more and more, I think we are sometimes susceptible to being blinded by the light of human progress.
For most of my life, I’ve lived in a city. And when you live in or near a city, you rarely ever stop to notice the stars in the sky at night. You usually can only see a few at a time anyway, and they tend to be fairly dim.
But a few times in my life I have seen the night sky far away from the lights of modern civilization, as most humans throughout history probably would have seen it. And in those times the stars were absolutely majestic. Wondrous to behold. Literally awe inspiring. Almost magical.
And that impression was simply the result of being away from artificial lights for one night. The more comfort, security, stability, and certainty that you strip away from a person’s life…it’s easy to imagine how much more powerful and meaningful to a person’s life those wondrous stars would become. They are sources of light to cut through the darkness of night. They have regular movements and positions in the sky that lend a sense of certainty and reliability to what can be chaotic and dangerous surroundings.
In fact, astrology rituals may be one of the first systematic attempts by humans to explain and control the material world based on observable patterns. Certainly the first that accumulated and carried on across regions and cultures. Yes, it’s true, their assumptions about what the stars meant for human fates were inaccurate. But without those early efforts to systemize, understand, and control that which was mysterious, we probably wouldn’t have the system of knowledge and technology that we all currently benefit from. Astrology was in fact one the seeds of thought that eventually helped to give rise to science.
So yes, I do think our casual dismissal of such beliefs is definitely smug. Our self-satisfaction with humanity’s current state of knowledge is unearned. After all, how much did we personally contribute? It’s also ungrateful to the innovators of the past, those giants upon whose shoulders we now stand upon.
Take for instance, Sir Isaac Newton. Would most people today say that they are smarter or more important for human progress than Isaac Newton? Probably not. He is revered as one of the fathers of the Enlightenment, rightfully honored as a genius. Yet Newton himself spent much of his life thinking quite seriously about alchemy, about the elixir of life, and the philosopher’s stone.
Who are we to get judgmental, simply because he happened to be born in a different time and place than us? If I’d been born in Newton’s town and Newton’s time, it’s more likely that I would have cried “Witchcraft!” at his ideas than actually come up with my own. We've no right to judge, but that smugness comes so easily.
But again, I think there’s something here that’s worse than smugness, a more insidious danger. I think there is a failure of educated people to appreciate how the human mind operates, quite normally, in the absence of the knowledge and the comforts that many of us have enjoyed this past century. It’s as if the light of progress has dulled our perception about how humans typically think about, perceive, and gain knowledge about the world around us.
This blindness exists, to some extent, for anyone who benefits from advanced knowledge relative to some other place or era. So pretty much everyone today has a “dimmer view” of the stars in the sky than most people did in previous generations. But I think it’s especially true of people who are well educated, and probably most true of people trained to think scientifically. Of course, there’s so much to learn, and so many problems to solve, who even has time to think about these old superstitions and bogus beliefs?
Well…I would say that this is the perfect time to be thinking about such things. As I said before, we live in a time of continued advancement of knowledge and rapid technical innovation. And yet, more and more, our time feels like an age of information overload. Of misinformation. Of polarization and fragmentation, of relativism. Of conspiracy theories, and widespread distrust in the established institutions of knowledge.
In these times, it feels not just helpful, but necessary to think carefully about how one thinks and how one knows. How do we know what’s true these days? And if we think we know what’s true, what do we do about it? How do we work effectively to build a better world, where we can share and benefit from that knowledge?
I don’t have good answers to those questions, but I have a feeling that our being blinded by the light of progress can keep us from ever getting to real solutions. I think it’s very important to try to take different perspectives, and try to see things in a new light…if you will.
The stars may not control our fates, but how we see, what we notice, what we prioritize, and how we comprehend the world around us, these are all in fact shaped by some factors that are beyond our control, such as one’s time in history, or one’s early education opportunities.
From now on, the stars I see at night can at least remind me to focus on things that I may have been so casually looking down upon, or dismissing, or ignoring, or simply not seeing. Even if it’s not for me, it’s worth seeing in a new light.
- Rippounet and Tears of Lys
-
1
-
1
-
7 hours ago, Kalbear said:
Sure, but he was a real pissant who was very rarely stable
I Kant...get past the intro to Critique. It's so dry.
-
12 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:
I wonder about this all the time. Like, I get that there are people who can't stomach any Dem, so will vote GOP. But is there any principle they are actually voting for? I'm not talking about Trump people, but the "rank and file" GOP voter. Punitive abortion laws? Because beyond that I'm not really sure what conservative principles the current GOP even represents.
It's hard to answer given how distorted right wing media can be.
Still, as I've said before, the best propaganda usually has some nuggets of truth to them. I think it's worth it to look for and address real concerns that are embedded in the nonsense and the inflammatory rhetoric.
The border is a great example. I don't mean work with people who are literally trying to turn it into a war zone, and Republicans in Congress are currently showing that working with Dems on the issue would be against their own political interests. Still, there are good faith concerns about enforcing immigration, for instance the asylum system that's being abused beyond its original design.
I think there are sometimes root causes that, if addressed, can sap the power of GOP propaganda narratives. At least for people not completely in the cult. As for the latter group, their main principles at this point are party loyalty and fealty to the leader.
-
29 minutes ago, Rippounet said:
The intriguing idea here is that contrary to common belief, the human brain is absolutely not wired for the truth, because evolution selects for fitness rather than truth
It seems to sit well with William James' notion of Pragmatism, and James himself was trying to extend Darwin's general insights from biology to a science of the human mind. Thinking is for doing, and the truth value of any belief is secondary or tertiary to its value in shaping individual or collective actions.
Also, I really enjoyed Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. He's more into social psychology than religious studies, but his chapters concerning religion brought together different bodies of research for a useful summary and compelling argument. To his credit, Dawkins praised it as worth reading and thinking about, despite Haidt critiquing his ideas rather stridently.
-
10 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:
Look in the mirror. Was Scientology not clearly made up? Was Mormonism not clearly made up? Why are there several different versions of the Bible? We can play this game forever. Let's go back to ancient Egypt. Moses freed the slaves, except Ramesses II wasn't actually the Pharaoh at the time. Or how about the Greek oracles huffing gas? I can keep going if you want and that's before we address the rampant plagiarism. Funny how so many sun gods have overlapping traits.
My God My God, why have you forsaken me?
Okay, you're just jumping to a whole bunch of broad points. I'll try to address some of them.
But first, ask yourself, was the argument I have been making in this thread in any way relevant to the questions you're asking here? Answer: no.
Let me go back to an earlier comment you made, about controlling people. Is this always a bad thing? What are cultural norms, if not ways to control people? Don't we want to get anti-vaxxers to vaccinate?
Maybe you actually meant "coerce" people. But are religious communities necessarily coercive? Was Martin Luther King coercive, or persuasive? He certainly wasn't coercive within his church community. Given that atheistic societies can also be coercive, maybe the problem is more related to authoritarianism and related mindsets than it is related to religion...
Why are there several different versions of the Bible? Because the history and evolution of scripture across communities is complex and interesting. I'd be happy to recommend some books on the topic if you'd like to learn more.
On Moses and ancient Egypt: that's a fascinating topic within biblical scholarship. I think if you read Richard Eliot Friedman's book Exodus, you'd probably come away with much more respect toward ancient Judaism than you'd ever imagine. Yet Friedman's findings are only possible by his taking the Bible seriously as a cultural and historical artifact. That doesn't mean reading everything at face value, mind you. It means being informed, intelligent, and truly curious about understanding how the scriptures were written and what the real history behind them might be.
I mean, do you really think I care about these claims? You're basically listing off the simplest fundamentalist claims and then using that as damning evidence.
Even Richard Dawkins qualified his attack on religions in The God Delusion to acknowledge that there are more sophisticated interpretations of religious tradition out there--he acknowledges them, and then sets them aside for the rest of the book. I at least appreciate his qualification, but in all honesty, his focus of choice made for a rather uninteresting book, save for people freshly escaped from a fundamentalist community. Yeah, Moses didn't write the Torah. Congrats on finishing Atheism 101. There are a lot more interesting discussions to be had on religion when one wants to learn a little more than those basics...
- Darzin and Tears of Lys
-
2
-
1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:
The subject doesn't need any effort. Every religion is a creation of humans and then tends to be used to control humans. Full stop. This is why I said spirituality makes more sense.
Lol, you reinforce my point with every comment you make! Keep it up, and I'm gonna start my own sports "commentary" thread...
-
3 hours ago, Rippounet said:
Then we don't disagree. But then, from the start, there was little (if any) disagreement in the thread, just a knee-jerk reaction to religion being given a bad name.
To be clear, my comment wasn't written in response to anything you had posted. I don't have any real problems with anything you've written here. I either mostly agree, or can understand where you're coming from.
My comment was in response to various comments that I've seen peppered throughout the thread. If I had to quote one of the worst examples, it would be @Mr. Chatywin et al.'s comment that "religion is just folklore."
Sorry Ty. You're a smart guy, but you don't give this particular topic any real time or effort. I'm the same way with sports. Any pontification I might offer would really just reflect how little I respect it all, and would be similarly boneheaded.
@maarsen's comment "what major questions have any religion ever given a definitive answer to? Science has given too many to count" was another one. This is more reasonable than Ty's dismissal, but I wanted to make clear the obvious point that it takes a hell of a lot more than knowledge and technology to make a satisfying and meaningful life.
2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:Yeah i think all those problems are not from science but from capitalism.
Yes, that's true. My point is that science does nothing to circumvent those problems, and in fact typically goes hand in hand with them. And yet the problems do need to be dealt with.
That's why I said: "People need meaning and a sense of purpose, community, a connection with some sort of tradition. One doesn't need to delve into the supernatural for these things, but science sure as hell isn't going to provide them." And "at very least, we need some sort of humanistic philosophy, some governing moral narrative and supporting norms."
If communities don't try to work on those aspects of human life, well, then, people will simply turn to other options, including fundie churches providing feel-good narratives and easy answers.
2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:What do you mean by a more mystical mindset? Today its becoming very rare to see someone that has "mystic" mindset that is also not opposing acientific progress, many of them held some belive in some form of psudoscience, specially comon in these mystics is to be anti vaxx, anti "western" medicine (that i will admit has problems with the more human side of medicine). And in my mind most of this mystic kind of thoughts can be traced to a religeous kind of thought.
The problem (as i see it) with potential allies that are on the mystic spectrum belive thing that take them away from a materialistic analysis of the world and allot of times leads them to reactionary philosphies. Its very easy to fall down the alternative therapies and such rabbit hole, and that almost always ends up with the conspiracy mindset, to me the two are extremely interconected.
First, my use of mystical there wasn't technical. I simply used it to indicate some sort of spiritual or religious feeling. Second, my focus was explicitly on people who don't oppose scientific progress. Even if it is true that these folks tend to oppose science (and I don't think that's necessarily true), it's still important not to lump everyone in the same category. If someone is religious and is okay with scientific consensus and new developments, then we should respect them and treat them as allies. That was my main point.
Now, as for the new age spirituality types, sure, I can accept that they veer into weird pseudoscience. Some of it may actually beneficial, at least for social and emotional health. I certainly feel like medical care has gotten colder and more impersonal, and so if someone wants to supplement that with some woo treatment that gives them a sense of dignity and human connection, that's fine by me.
Anti-vax attitudes can certainly be a huge problem. But the core problem there isn't supernatural belief per se--it's a lack of trust in institutions. It's possible for atheists to veer into weird conspiracy theories too, not to mention outright cultish behavior, like the worst of the communist regimes. If we can find better ways to cultivate respect for knowledge, skepticism, and various cultural institutions, I think the spiritual or religious dimensions would not seem nearly as problematic. Authoritarianism and sectarian distrust are far more important problems in my opinion.
-
4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:
That part of @Phylum of Alexandria's post you quoted, I was thinking along the lines of navigation, colonization, industrialization, resource extraction, but I guess none of that started as "neoliberal", but the exploitation dynamic works just as well with the Age of Exploration as with the Petroleum Age and Better Living Through Chemistry, and the Age of Information.
Yes, I was going to say as much, but I decided to keep it simple. What started as discovery and colonial "enlightenment" is now in the neoliberal age.
US Politics: Primary Schoolin'
in General Chatter
Posted
I dunno, some voters can be motivated to engage in such a tactic, but plenty of people don't.
It's a win for Trump, but he himself seems unhappy with the result. He seems more threatened by Haley, and is therefore attacking her even more.