Re: [UUPoly-L] Back to the Law :) (was RE: Rational skepticism (was:"law" of attraction))

[Desmond Ravenstone <desmondravenstone@yahoo.com>]

--- On Sun, 9/28/08, Catherine Deville <catdeville@cox.net> wrote:

>> And you certainly have your right to that position.  It is absolutely valid for you to be a rationalist who wants empirical evidence. 
>> It's also absolutely valid for me to be a "magickal thinker" who accepts that not everything in reality produces empirical evidence which can be scientifically tested and "proven". 

Here's the problem: If every such position is "valid" then what reason do we have to oppose those who assert, based on belief in the Bible and traditional views of sex and gender, that homosexuality is an abomination, and that it's moral to deny homosexuals a job, a home, equal protection from violence, etc.?

Whenever you take such a relativist position, you're not just opening the door for *your* perspective to be accepted, but for *every* perspective -- including those which can be used to harm large numbers of people.

>> But the problem with giving you "proof" is that the evidence which we ("magickal thinkers") use to determine that the Law of Attraction is indeed a real phenomenon does not rise to the level of "empirical evidence".  ...  I can't empirically prove to you that the body has a "subtle energy" field. I can show you why I believe so, and there are rational reasons to conclude so ... It's also not helpful for me to try to explain to you how I know this stuff works because I can "feel" or "sense" it, if you can't... as my experiential evidence also does not rise to the level of being "empirical" in nature and is not reproducible.

First: I wasn't necessarily asking you about a "subtle energy field"; I was asking to be shown that LOA actually works.  This comes to the second part: If your only appeal is that you "sense" or "feel" that it's happening, then how do you distinguish a "law" from a particular belief?  If one person sincerely "feels" that homosexuality is disgusting and wrong, and another sincerely "feels" that her loving another woman is beautiful and natural, then how do you determine which "feeling" is in fact a "law"?

>> But I ask you to question how much you think you know and whether you use equal standards for everything?  Do you look for measurable, scientific confirmation of everything in your life?  I know I don't.  I understand that some things simply aren't subject to scientific quantification.  And while I don't necessarily accept the validity of just
everything (I tend to favor my own experiential evidence over someone else's, while trying to remain open minded.  So, for example, I don't "believe" in fairies or unicorns, although I refuse to dispute their existence either, since I know people who have 'seen' fairies, so why shouldn't unicorns be 'real' as well?  Simply because I don't have experience of it doesn't mean it's not real.) 

Well, I think the question is how you can distinguish one's beliefs, feelings and hunches, and other people's claims, from actually demonstrable fact.

A belief is simply a given proposition held to be true by a given person, for whatever reason.  One can believe something because they "feel" it's true, or based on a hunch or guess, or based on fact.  If I hear a piece of music and feel that it's beautiful, I recognize that belief as a personal perception and opinion, but not a fact (even if everyone else who hears the same piece agrees with me).  I'm averse to raw onions, but find cooked onions palatable; I can guess that this is the result of a chemical in the onions which breaks down in cooking, but I don't have enough evidence to prove that guess to be a demonstrable fact.  If two people in my church make conflicting claims about the church's budget, we can evaluate the claims by going to the treasurer.

Whatever you believe about LOA, if you can't demonstrate that it works consistently, then what reason do I have to share your belief?  No more than you do about my hunch about raw and cooked onions -- until someone can provide evidence to prove one way or the other.  Until someone can show that, yes, there is a chemical in onions which can cause this taste reaction in certain people and break down in cooking, I have no epistemic right to call my "hunch" a "fact".

So, going back to LOA ... You and others claim it to be true.  You base this claim primarily on personal experience, and even admit that you can't demonstrate it to me or others who doubt its veracity.  Question Number One: What reason do I have to accept it, especially when evidence shows me more practical solutions and explanations?  Question Number Two: Since when is non-acceptance of a claim the same as outright rejection?

Desmond Ravenstone

********************

http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone