Thread: James Randi Is a Moron
4/30/2009 2:54pm, #141
Well, according to Da Pope none of those people have T3H R3@l Occultism. Only him and his fringe groups are T3h R3@L. And they only use the parts that are actually scientifically based in jungian archetypes and.... whatever the **** he thinks tarot cards are based on that does anything useful.
He's just willfully stupid. Tarot is PRIMARILY used as fortune telling, Astrology is PRIMARILY used as fortune telling, both are PRIMARILY total bullshit.
The mere existence of someone who uses either of those for a purpose other than the PRIMARY INTENDED PURPOSE doesn't make either any more valid.
4/30/2009 4:17pm, #142
4/30/2009 4:24pm, #143
I hate to step in and intervene in this mildly amusing charade, but seriously, if you are calling the golden dawn and the OTO "fringe" when you are discussing the tarot you need to STFU and not speak on this topic again.
WK, you came close. But it's more often about separating them from their panties.
4/30/2009 5:35pm, #144
that in and of itself is not ment to be an insult. i veiw kabbalists (which i am one of), as fringe as well. also, i would not protest the assertion that i am an occultist as i am a kabbalist. i wouldn't agree with it, but you could say it without much arguement from me.
so yeah, i'm trying very very hard to leave individual groups out.
EDIT: please explain what you mean by "separate them from their panties"
4/30/2009 5:44pm, #145
As for the other. You said separate them from their allowance.
4/30/2009 6:04pm, #146
HappyOldGuy: But they aren't the primary users of the Tarot. Not by a massive long shot. Nor were they the first users of the Tarot for reasons other than playing bridge. So they are still latecomers to the whole shindig who co-opted an existing "occult" tool to lend weight to their spinoff mesonic order. So yes, when it comes to using Tarot IN GENERAL they are a fringe group. The do not constitute the majority of Tarot users.
4/30/2009 6:25pm, #147
4/30/2009 7:27pm, #148
What is instead happening is thus:
- Your argument is bullshit.
- You keep repeating, and expanding upon, your argument.
- Therefore, you are an idiot.
That isn't an ad hominem fallacy; that's inductive reasoning.
4/30/2009 7:46pm, #149
4/30/2009 8:57pm, #150
So I've been reading a collection of Richard P. Feynman's short works called The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out. Highly recommended. From that book:
And now finally, as I'd like to show Galileo our world, I must show him something with a great deal of shame. If we look away from the science and look at the world around us, we find out something rather pitiful: that the environment that we live in is so actively, intensely unscientific. Galileo could say: "I noticed that Jupiter was a ball with moons and not a god in the sky. Tell me, what happened to the astrologers?" Well, they print their results in the newspapers, in the United States at least, in every daily paper every day. Why do we still have astrologers? Why can someone write a book like Worlds In Collision by somebody with a name beginning with a "V," it's a Russian name? Huh? Vininkowski? (actually Immanuel Veikovsky) And how did it become popular? What is all this nonsense about Mary Brody, or something? I don't know, that was crazy stuff. There is an infinite amount of crazy stuff, which, put another way, is that the environment is still actively, intensely unscientific. There is talk about telepathy still, although it's dying out. There is faith-healing galore, all over. There is a whole religion of faith-healing. There's a miracle at Lourdes where healing goes on.
Now, it might be true that astrology is right. It might be true that if you go to the dentist on the day that Mars is at right angles to Venus, that it is better than if you go on a different day. It might be true that you can be cured by the miracle of Lourdes. But if it is true it ought to be investigated. Why? To improve it. If it is true then maybe we can find out if the stars do influence life; that we could make the system more powerful by investigating statistically, scientifically judging the evidence objectively, more carefully. If the healing process works at Lourdes, the question is how far from the site of the miracle can the person, who is ill, stand? Have they in fact made a mistake and the back row is really not working? Or is it working so well that there is plenty of room for more people to be arranged near the place of the miracle? Or is it possible, as it is with the saints which have recently been created in the United States - there is a saint who cured leukemia apparently indirectly - that ribbons that are touched to the sheet of the sick person (the ribbon having previously touched some relic of the saint) increase the cure of leukemia - the question is, is it gradually being diluted? You may laugh, but if you believe in the truth of the healing, then you are responsible to investigate it, to improve its efficiency and to make it satisfactory instead of cheating. For example, it may turn out that after a hundred touches it doesn't work anymore. Now it's also possible that the results of this investigation have other consequences, namely, that nothing is there.
And to preempt the automatic response...
Because of the success of science, there is, I think, a kind of pseudoscience. Social science is an example of a science which is not a science; they don't do [things] scientifically, they follow the forms - or you gather data, you do so-and-so and so forth but they don't get any laws, they haven't found out anything. They haven't got anywhere yet - maybe someday they will, but it's not very well developed, but what happens is on an even more mundane level. We get experts on everything that sound like they're sort of scientific experts. They're not scientific, they sit at a typewriter and they make up something like, oh, food grown with, er, fertilizer that's organic is better for you than food grown with fertilizer that's inorganic - may be true, may not be true, but it hasn't been demonstrated one way or the other. But they'll sit there on the typewriter and make up all this stuff as if it's science and then become an expert on foods, organic foods and so on. There's all kinds of myths and pseudoscience all over the place.
I may be quite wrong, maybe they do know all these things, but I don't think I'm wrong. You see, I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something, and therefore I see how they get their information and I can't believe that they know it, they haven't done the work necessary, haven't done the checks necessary, haven't done the care necessary. I have a great suspicion that they don't know, that this stuff is [wrong] and they're intimidating people. I think so. I don't know the world very well but that's what I think.