Discussions

Ideological Principles-No Wrong or Rights

Posted July 22, 2014 by Silverghost in Open

commented on July 23, 2014
by Silverghost

Quote

10

This is going to be quite a heavy read for anyone just into thoughtlessness. I view my life like this, if I was supposed to be completely thoughtless, why did I choose an existence that incorporated a mind? I would have been better existing as a rock not a being with a mind. Yes I believe we should learn thoughtlessness but not over and above the mind but to use thoughtlessness to help us use the mind more wisely.

I actually wrote the following for an IONS site but once again I’m going to share this around.

I have just thought of an interesting analogy of contrasts; if a person came up to a scientist and said I saw a flying pink elephant ,the scientist would 0% believe them. If the same person came up to a psychotherapist, as opposed to a psychoanalyst, the psychotherapist would 50%-100% believe them, the difference is amazing. The psychotherapist has to believe that this person saw a flying pink elephant even if it was just a delusion.

The psychotherapist doesn’t actually believe themselves a flying pink elephant exists but they do believe that the said person does believe they saw a flying pink elephant. The logics and reasoning processes used between these two sciences are quite obvious. The psychotherapist doesn’t need actual physical proof of such an animal to exist to formulate a deduction but an actual scientist would. I suppose that is why psychotherapy has it’s own sphere/concepts of reasoning and logics as neuroscience is to physics to one extent or another. These are not specialised fields for no reason.

This brings me to spirituality; spirituality’s, similar to the sciences, has a huge array of varied ideological principles using different forms of reasoning and logics. Now if a person came up to a spiritually aware person and said I saw a flying pink elephant, what would be the answer? The answer would be between 0%-100% depending on what kind of spirituality/religion they were into.

Logically, how could anyone put all spirituality into one basket (together) especially a logical science minded person? Logically you can’t, just like you can’t place all sciences in one basket but it happens quite frequently. Why do supposed logically minded people do this when it’s so illogical to do so? Dogmatism, to show that every other ideological principle, other than their own, is flawed.

So every other ideological principle is flawed but didn’t this take flawed illogical logics to make such deductions in the first place? Of course such deductions from such flawed logics can’t be taken seriously.

During the religious Dark Ages, the churches in Europe would not accept any other evidence in contrary to their own ideological principles, any evidence supplied had to be within certain doctrines otherwise it wasn’t accepted as evidence.

Modern day science; this ideological principle uses the same process today, if any said evidence doesn’t conform to their ideological principles of science logics, it’s not evidence. I get this Dark Age mentality quite a lot on science orientated sites, if any said evidence doesn’t conform to certain science principles; it’s not accepted as evidence just like the churches did back in the Dark Ages of religion.

It is so easy to judge one ideological principle is wrong or right over the other, this would mean psychotherapy is wrong to physics or neuroscience. I have even had a number of science minded people tell me psychotherapy isn’t a science especially when I used psychotherapy to prove a point. This kind of Dark Age mentality of judgement only clouds our logics, it certainly doesn’t enhance it!!

  • 10 Comments  
  • Silverghost Jul 23, 2014

    I'm not going to think for you, try thinking for yourself you might be surprised.

    The power playing on this discussion board is ridiculous, anyone who is an extremist within their ideologies is only happy when they are in total control, this discussion board has that problem.

    It is absolutely pointless to discuss anything with extremists because all they won't to hear is their own controlling voice, they will not take in anyone else's views if they aren't of there own extremist view. The only evidence that is evidence to an extremist is what has been deducted through their own ideological principles, all other evidence from other ideological principals is ignored. What is evidence to one ideological principle isn't necessarily evidence to another and visa-versa. This is because each ideological principle uses a different logics and reasoning process to deduce a finding.

    Yes I know, the only evidence that is excepted is an extremists evidence, every other evidence that is formulated through different logics and reasoning processes is deemed as not being evidence. This same exact mentality was used in the Dark Ages, what a shock.

  • NoetPoet Jul 23, 2014

    You've listed several types of logic without any explanation of them or how they relate to one and other. That's not good enough, all it does is show that you can cut and paste text. Tell us what these forms of logic are and how they interrelate in your OWN words.

  • Silverghost Jul 23, 2014

    Thinking for oneself obviously does take more intelligence which is very much lacking here.

    Does anyone other than Ros and myself think for themselves in these discussions?

    So modern day scientists aren't supposed to be thinking for themselves constructing totally new ideas!! I did say we need to use (less) outside info and think more for ourselves, some people just don't know how to read but you do need a certain amount of intelligence for that I suppose.

    People who primarily use outside info themselves, to seem slightly intelligent, would think scientists aren't supposed to think for themselves with very little outside info to formulate theories.

  • NoetPoet Jul 22, 2014

    "I think it's a good idea if others started thinking for themselves and working this out for themselves, I've supplied the different forms of logic, all what anyone has to do is go down the list and find out for themselves what they mean, I think it's obvious. I'm not anyone's mother you know!!"

    You've listed several types of logic without any explanation of them or how they relate to one and other. That's not good enough, all it does is show that you can cut and paste text. Tell us what these forms of logic are and how they interrelate in your OWN words.

    "I think we need to use less outside info and start thinking for ourselves, this is the way scientists are supposed to be doing this or so I thought or do they just abscond other people's ideas!! Going by what's going on in these discussions, I think it's the latter by the looks of it "

    No it's not the way scientists are supposed to work at all. Science is all about collecting and utilising "outside info" (aka data and theoretical constructs) to form theories about how things work. No wonder you bash science, you don't have the faintest idea about what it is!

    "Yes I’m going to be a coward and let other people actually think for themselves for once, want that be a shock!!"

    Yes I thought you'd be a coward, just as I thought you'd come up with a stupid excuse for being a coward.

    .

  • Silverghost Jul 22, 2014

    I think it's a good idea if others started thinking for themselves and working this out for themselves, I've supplied the different forms of logic, all what anyone has to do is go down the list and find out for themselves what they mean, I think it's obvious. I'm not anyone's mother you know!!

    I think we need to use less outside info and start thinking for ourselves, this is the way scientists are supposed to be doing this or so I thought or do they just abscond other people's ideas!! Going by what's going on in these discussions, I think it's the latter by the looks of it

    Yes I’m going to be a coward and let other people actually think for themselves for once, want that be a shock!!

  • NoetPoet Jul 22, 2014

    "You will find general science will use different logics to psychology/philosophy, numerous science minded people will not relate themselves to philosophical logics as it’s not an exact science."

    How do they differ? You keep cutting and pasting that list of different types of logic but you don't provide an explanation of them.

  • Silverghost Jul 22, 2014

    It's am amazing how dogmatism causes flawed logics or causes some people to only use one type of logics to evaluate by, there are different forms of logics which are used by different sciences but certain people can't see this, interesting!!

    Types of logic
    3.1 Syllogistic logic
    3.2 Propositional logic (sentential logic)
    3.3 Predicate logic
    3.4 Modal logic
    3.5 Informal reasoning
    3.6 Mathematical logic
    3.7 Philosophical logic
    3.8 Computational logic

    You will find general science will use different logics to psychology/philosophy, numerous science minded people will not relate themselves to philosophical logics as it’s not an exact science. This has been quite well illustrated on this discussion board many times over. Psychology, which derived from philosophy, uses the same logics as philosophy not general science.


  • NoetPoet Jul 22, 2014

    Tell me what "proof" you want me to give and I will happily oblige.

    Also, how is that extract relevant to what you're trying to say? All it says is that logic is the study of the ordering of things, whereas psychology AND OTHER SCIENCES all require an established logical order of things. It does NOT say that psychology does, or has licence to use it's own unique version of logic.

    Again, there is nothing inconsistent between the psychologist's and the "scientist's" view of the pink elephant: BOTH treat it as an hallucination in a person's mind, the only difference is that the "scientist's" field of study doesn't require study of hallucinations anymore than the psychologist's field of study requires knowledge of how quarks and leptons interact.

  • Silverghost Jul 22, 2014

    I do find it funny when everyone else has to give proof of their statements but certain other science minded people don’t……..hmmm typical I’m afraid; this kind of action is obviously brought about by dogmatism.

    https://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/logic-04.htm

    Extract: 4. Difference between Psychology and Logic. -- Many different sciences may be concerned with one and the same subject, if they study different properties in it, and, consequently, consider it from different points of view. They are then said to have a common (that is, undetermined) object, but each has its own formal (or determined) object. Psychology, too, has in part for its (material) object the act of human reason, but it does not study them under the same aspect (formal object) as logic does. Psychology sees in them vital acts, of which it seeks the nature and origin. Logic considers them in so far as they are cognitions of objects, objective representations, abstract and universal, furnishing the matter of the relations which reason formulates in judgments and reasoning’s, and arranges in a scientific system.
    In psychology, as in all the sciences of the real, order is the necessary condition of science; but logic has this order for its object. Its proper object is the form itself of this scientific construction.

    Anyone with the slightest intellect will quite plainly see there is a difference between psychology and the average logics that other sciences use. I’m quite sure I explained this quite clearly myself within this thread.

  • NoetPoet Jul 22, 2014

    Both the psychotherapists and the "scientists" view of the pink elephant are completely consistent with each other. Try again.

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS