s3raphita wrote: > Re "I will prefer a non-woo explanation over a woo explanation because it is > more logically connected to well-established physics . . . ":
> I prefer a non-woo theory also. And Occam's razor suggests we should always > go for the simplest explanation. But there's a lot of woo in physics: > quantum theory, dark matter, fine tuning, wormholes, . . . Quantum mechanics, the standard model is basically the result of attempting to explain certain observations. The theory is adjusted by plugging in real world measurements. The latest addition is the Higgs boson. This does not mean the theory is actually true, only that it conforms to observation. A lot of physics is speculative. String theory is the most woo, as so far no one seems to have been able to formulate a version that can be tested. > Re "Woo depends a lot on personal, internal, messy, incoherent world views": Maybe; maybe not. The thing about these psychological put-downs is that they're double-edged. Couldn't you claim that non-woo types are rigid/frigid/emotionally uptight people who are afraid to admit "there are more things in Heaven and Earth . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy". Also, non-woo types can be playing the role of tough guy - the "no one makes a monkey out of me" kind of act. They think they're just being reasonable; maybe they're just being defensive. We all have messy internal incoherent world views. What I meant to convey (which means I failed to convey) is some world views are less coherent than others, and the mental model has more logical, experiential, and experimental gaps. Science seems to be a procedure to try to close those gaps or make them less glaring. Woo seems to rejoice in them, and it often seems as if something as mundane as evidence is not necessary to determine truth. There are certainly situations where evidence really cannot penetrate. Enlightenment is one example of this. One really has to take it on faith that it is a possible experience. You cannot really show it to anyone. You can hint at it, maybe convince some that it exists. The whole spiritual game revolves around that which is undefined, hidden, invisible. We, here, have all partaken in that to a greater or lesser extent. As we investigate this, we may have experiences that convince us it could be a valid, i.e., real experience, and so are led on. If that does not happen, we drop away. Non woo types certainly can be defensive; sometimes, even in the top science journals you can detect a certain emotional smoldering lying behind what scientists write criticising others in their field. Scientist get attached to their ideas as much as anyone, but they know they are stuck in a game where their idea can go down the tube at any time. With woo, it often does not seem to matter because no matter how outrageous, since evidence is not the major criterion, you can continue to promote it, even in the face of substantial dis-confirming experience. > And don't underestimate the fun side of woo theories. As an example, it's > certainly *possible* that the human race was seeded by aliens millennia ago. > Speculating along those lines can be creepily entertaining. Woo certainly can be fun. I just do not think it is real. The reason I think enlightenment is real is it is the realisation that there is nothing more to life than what one has already experienced all one's life. The search for something beyond does not discover something beyond (though at times it seems as if there is), it rather exhausts all the ideas one has that there is something beyond, and then one is left with what has always been. Nothing new under the Sun. So as M said, 'nothing ever happened'. So in the end, you achieved nothing, got nothing. There is a certain peace of mind in having gotten rid of a lot of speculation you thought was real because you are no longer seeking something more. Like waking up from a dream, you have not accomplished anything because an hallucination naturally stopped. If something seems really strange and mysterious and incomprehensible, is it always necessary to formulate an explanation or an hypothesis or theory about it? Being in a place where you just do not know is not a bad place. I like to speculate, but nothing I say is really true, it's a picture, an incomplete snapshot of a mental model in my mind. It may or may not have utility, for me or for anyone else. To argue endlessly about what cannot be seen, heard, touched, felt, and smelt is a fool's errand. "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said I don't know." -- Mark Twain
