> Peter Charlot wrote:
> >
> >> Where is the empirical proof that criticial thinking works any better than
> >> any other method of thinking? There isn't any. There is no way of testing
> >> such a claim. Nobody could ever come up with a control group.
>
> Kenneth Boyd wrote:
> >
> >There are *more* effective methods of proof than empirical.
> >
> >Even if a scientific test collapses on its face [I think I could
> >construct one that stands; *any* is very broad....], mathematical methods
> >may succeed where science fails. [Game theory!]
> >
> Sure, I hope there is some way of analyzing such concepts as critical thinking.
>
> But I can't figure where you are on the overall point of
> whether astrology and mysticism are "evil" memes or whether there is any
> possible validity. Also, whether they may have
> served some positive service to human progress.
These are intrinsically difficult questions to fully understand the
domain of. My current working positions are:
1) "Mysticism" needs refinement before answering. Most definitions seem
to be 100% wrong. I would view any attempted "mysticism" that directly
disrupts one's work to be an "evil" memetic complex. On the other hand,
I have [at least!] a severe psychological dependency on such a complex in
order to create any mathematics that rates above F. It is possible that
this is an objective dependency rather than a psychological dependency.
2) Any proper analysis of astrology must first address whatever the
Spiritual Disinformation Agency is, and figure out how to negate its
effects. Judging from the multiplicity of religions, even an atheist or
agnostic might perceive its plausibility.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////