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

"Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net> · Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:48:23 -0000

Besides the fact that people have asked us to discontinue this discussion, I
have only one final thing to say... 

You're *still* missing the entire point... You're still taking things out of
context, and your entire argument always seems to range into non-sequitor.
I *never* said that you had any reason to accept anything on relativist
evidence, in fact I specifically said that I did *not* expect you to accept
anything on relativist evidence. I have no interest in trying to "prove"
anything to you or to convince anyone of my reality. I thought I made that
clear, even with your attempts to obfuscate. 

Finally, there's a difference between my saying that we each have a right to
our own POV, and making the giant leap that it's therefore ok to try to
*legislate* our POV.  I believe firmly in the First Amendment, and I don't
believe in legislating *any* philosophical POV or religious belief.  And
*belief* in the "Law of Attraction" is most definitely a "belief". But I do
believe that everyone has a right to their belief,

And I *do* also expect any honest and reasonably intelligent person to
recognize that an epistemological POV *is* a POV... a *belief*, and that
having a group with a specific epistemological POV, *any* epistemological
POV *watch-dogging* Wikipedia articles to ensure that those articles are
slanted towards *their* epistemological POV *violates* Wikipedia's Neutral
POV policy. 

-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org] On Behalf Of Desmond
Ravenstone
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 3:08 PM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Back to the Law :) (was RE: Rational
skepticism(was:"law" of attraction))

--- 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

_______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l