im studying psychology. we actually just finished the unit on astrology and pseudosciences (fake sciences).. even though everything about psychology and practical science points out the fact that all of it is fake, i cant help belive it - its in my blood to have faith in the supernatural.
i believe things that arent able to be proved right or wrong.. but how do i keep believing it when i also believe the theories in psychology... this is just a general conversation about astrology - i have no real questions because i dont need to know anything.
psychology vs faith
-
being-singular-plural
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:46 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Calgary, Canada
- Contact:
Hi Rae,
It sounds like there is a budding philosopher in you. These are great questions. The white-robed age of science needs to disavow what they term "psuedo-sciences" in order to maintain their dominant power in this age. All else that came before must be written off as "un-truth" so that the scientific community can stay central and keep generating funding. Lest we forget the inherent capitalism involved in science. For this reason it is suspect. A mystic who is bent on making money from her mystical skills is also suspect. Thus, the problem is not with this theory or that theory, but with the underlying impulse "to be right" over and above someone else. All is a lesson in the human ego. The scientific ego thinks it has power and certainty but as all paradigms shift, they will soon discover what Socrates always knew" "We Know NOTHING!!!"
Astrology today is, in fact, akin to psychology as it uses past theories to try to explain who you are. The approaches are much different though. I think that you are level-headed and correct to incorporate all of your knowledge together. Science has its place and its theories are always interesting. But, at bottom, when the scientist claims his theories reflect the world perfectly, he is merely asserting a FAITH in science (and reflection and that the world is actually there). Thus, science, a contemporary religion, is still faith--faith in mathematics (which can be questioned as there are some math theories that are not certain and symmetrical), faith in capitalism (need funding for research) and faith in Reason (The MAN who knows stuff). To live in this age is, in this sense, to be faithful--the question is, then: faithful to what??
Thanks for the post Rae,
bsp
It sounds like there is a budding philosopher in you. These are great questions. The white-robed age of science needs to disavow what they term "psuedo-sciences" in order to maintain their dominant power in this age. All else that came before must be written off as "un-truth" so that the scientific community can stay central and keep generating funding. Lest we forget the inherent capitalism involved in science. For this reason it is suspect. A mystic who is bent on making money from her mystical skills is also suspect. Thus, the problem is not with this theory or that theory, but with the underlying impulse "to be right" over and above someone else. All is a lesson in the human ego. The scientific ego thinks it has power and certainty but as all paradigms shift, they will soon discover what Socrates always knew" "We Know NOTHING!!!"
Astrology today is, in fact, akin to psychology as it uses past theories to try to explain who you are. The approaches are much different though. I think that you are level-headed and correct to incorporate all of your knowledge together. Science has its place and its theories are always interesting. But, at bottom, when the scientist claims his theories reflect the world perfectly, he is merely asserting a FAITH in science (and reflection and that the world is actually there). Thus, science, a contemporary religion, is still faith--faith in mathematics (which can be questioned as there are some math theories that are not certain and symmetrical), faith in capitalism (need funding for research) and faith in Reason (The MAN who knows stuff). To live in this age is, in this sense, to be faithful--the question is, then: faithful to what??
Thanks for the post Rae,
bsp
I've never seen anything happen in the world which denies the
predictions of the mathematical models of physics.
What this tells me is that should I ever need to predict an event within
the confines of what can be reasonably modeled by the science I know or
if I wish to seek the cause of an event within the same confines I'll
probably have a high chance of success using these models.
I expect my lights to turn on when I use the switch and if they don't I'm
confident I'll find the reason. If my computer doesn't work I'm confident
I'll find a problem either with the hardware or perhaps the software.
Now, I only took first year psych but I do remember a picture in my text.
It was a clever illustration of the brain wrapping in on itself.
The brain receives all information about the world through the senses.
The brain and senses themselves are also in the world. The brain
receives all information about the senses by the means which it receives
all information: through the senses.
You know everything about the world, which includes yourself, through
yourself.
So basically your awareness of:
all science, your psych classes, the words you speak and think in, my
post on this forum, your thoughts about my post on this forum, everyone
you know, and all the things you believe, your body, your memories,
your pain, and the knowledge that you exist
has all come to you through one place, and one place alone, through you.
Your entire life you've always been you, every moment of the day you're
you. When you go to bed you're you, when you wake up, you're you.
My words here, what you think are my thoughts are your thoughts,
they're not occurring in my mind right now, they're occurring in yours.
For all you know I don't exist. So, where's the world?
OK, that's what I wanted to say about this. It's just my opinion or point
of view. Ultimately we can't tell each other what to believe or how to
believe it.
BSP is right and so was Socrates, and so am I
.
predictions of the mathematical models of physics.
What this tells me is that should I ever need to predict an event within
the confines of what can be reasonably modeled by the science I know or
if I wish to seek the cause of an event within the same confines I'll
probably have a high chance of success using these models.
I expect my lights to turn on when I use the switch and if they don't I'm
confident I'll find the reason. If my computer doesn't work I'm confident
I'll find a problem either with the hardware or perhaps the software.
Now, I only took first year psych but I do remember a picture in my text.
It was a clever illustration of the brain wrapping in on itself.
The brain receives all information about the world through the senses.
The brain and senses themselves are also in the world. The brain
receives all information about the senses by the means which it receives
all information: through the senses.
You know everything about the world, which includes yourself, through
yourself.
So basically your awareness of:
all science, your psych classes, the words you speak and think in, my
post on this forum, your thoughts about my post on this forum, everyone
you know, and all the things you believe, your body, your memories,
your pain, and the knowledge that you exist
has all come to you through one place, and one place alone, through you.
Your entire life you've always been you, every moment of the day you're
you. When you go to bed you're you, when you wake up, you're you.
My words here, what you think are my thoughts are your thoughts,
they're not occurring in my mind right now, they're occurring in yours.
For all you know I don't exist. So, where's the world?
OK, that's what I wanted to say about this. It's just my opinion or point
of view. Ultimately we can't tell each other what to believe or how to
believe it.
BSP is right and so was Socrates, and so am I
.-
Bstnactrs
Hi Rae,
I was a psychology major in college myself and I can tell you that I never believed that one science over another was the "right" one. In fact, consider for the moment that pyschology itself, deals with something that is not at all tangible (the mind) and yet, psychologists & pyschiatrists all over claim to know this disorder or that one. So, in some aspects, pyschology is no different than anything else...
It is a matter of what YOU believe.
I think that just as certain things may add up in the scientific world, I have seen many things add up in the astrological (is that a word?) world & I do believe in many things that cannot be proven in any "scientific" or tangible way simply b/c I have experienced things that led me to believe in them.
Many of the sciences will discredit fields like astrology and paranormal studies and yet, people everywhere are working in these fields and having experiences & seeing results of effort...just b/c others do not give credit to them doesn't mean they are not valid in their own right.
Stasia
I was a psychology major in college myself and I can tell you that I never believed that one science over another was the "right" one. In fact, consider for the moment that pyschology itself, deals with something that is not at all tangible (the mind) and yet, psychologists & pyschiatrists all over claim to know this disorder or that one. So, in some aspects, pyschology is no different than anything else...
It is a matter of what YOU believe.
I think that just as certain things may add up in the scientific world, I have seen many things add up in the astrological (is that a word?) world & I do believe in many things that cannot be proven in any "scientific" or tangible way simply b/c I have experienced things that led me to believe in them.
Many of the sciences will discredit fields like astrology and paranormal studies and yet, people everywhere are working in these fields and having experiences & seeing results of effort...just b/c others do not give credit to them doesn't mean they are not valid in their own right.
Stasia
General attitude toward magick: if it doesn't work, don't use it.
Science is a description of what works on a regular basis and then a subsequent 'explanation' of why it works that makes relative sense. Magick is what works on a regular basis (or why the hell would anyone practise it other than to fill some twisted romantic notion in their heads) that has no concrete explanation of why it works that makes relative sense. Thus, magick isn't accepted as a science, though it works.
The same goes for astrology etc. It's not that it 'goes against science,' but rather that it has no concrete or logical explanation and thus is not included as a science.
Also, magick/astrology cannot be readily reproducable like experiments and thus demonstrations are flawed. For that reason they are also not included in the realm of science.
Magick is also readily ignorable. It's nearly impossible to pick any one instance of magick and say that it is because of magick because magick does not usually violate laws of nature or coincidence. Of course if you were to say, make a chart of how many times you cast magick and how many times you get what you want, it might show that the probability is abnormally high as opposed to wishing. However, this still doesn't prove that magick exists because maybe you're just a lucky person. Because you can't cast a spell and have it manifest in a laboratory environment it is not considered science.
Does this disprove magick? No. It's just that 'science' is very selective term given to a very select number of things. However, science doesn't explain and it doesn't put on airs to explain everything (ever been to a Big Bang debate by the leading physicists of our day? It ain't pretty). People expect science to explain everything because it has brought us things like 'Play-Doh' and electricity, but as far as science explaining everything, it doesn't even come close.
As Albert Eistein said, "The more I know, the more questions I have."
Science is a description of what works on a regular basis and then a subsequent 'explanation' of why it works that makes relative sense. Magick is what works on a regular basis (or why the hell would anyone practise it other than to fill some twisted romantic notion in their heads) that has no concrete explanation of why it works that makes relative sense. Thus, magick isn't accepted as a science, though it works.
The same goes for astrology etc. It's not that it 'goes against science,' but rather that it has no concrete or logical explanation and thus is not included as a science.
Also, magick/astrology cannot be readily reproducable like experiments and thus demonstrations are flawed. For that reason they are also not included in the realm of science.
Magick is also readily ignorable. It's nearly impossible to pick any one instance of magick and say that it is because of magick because magick does not usually violate laws of nature or coincidence. Of course if you were to say, make a chart of how many times you cast magick and how many times you get what you want, it might show that the probability is abnormally high as opposed to wishing. However, this still doesn't prove that magick exists because maybe you're just a lucky person. Because you can't cast a spell and have it manifest in a laboratory environment it is not considered science.
Does this disprove magick? No. It's just that 'science' is very selective term given to a very select number of things. However, science doesn't explain and it doesn't put on airs to explain everything (ever been to a Big Bang debate by the leading physicists of our day? It ain't pretty). People expect science to explain everything because it has brought us things like 'Play-Doh' and electricity, but as far as science explaining everything, it doesn't even come close.
As Albert Eistein said, "The more I know, the more questions I have."
"Nothing is True; Everything is Permitted"