Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Bookstore Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home         wholesale store         used books         policies         features         contact

Is it possible for a person to take intellectual responsibility
and root out their own personal superstitions?

Superstition and Myth versus
Intellectual Responsibility

A starting point is to note that Western science can be seen as a religious attempt to eliminate unproductive and debilitating superstition, or at least move away from it. Although it has fostered its own special type of myth, it is a noble attempt because at its heart the scientific method is to do the necessary reality checks to determine the truth..

First of all, definitions:

Superstition

Oxford - Superstition: a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief:

"she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she had had since childhood"

Wikipedia - Superstition: Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and certain aspects linked to religion, like omens, witchcraft, and prophecies, that contradict natural science. The word superstition is generally used to refer to the religion not practiced by the majority of a given society.

The Free Dictionary: 1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

2a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

2b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

1. an irrational belief in or notion of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, etc.

2. a system or collection of such beliefs.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Merriam-Webster: 1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causationb : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Myth

Oxford: 1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

2. a widely held but false belief or idea.

Merriam-Webster:

a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
b: parable, allegory

a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
b : an unfounded or false notion

Suggested methodology to challenge personal belief positions

Structured questions around:

FOISTER

1. Facts and Falsifiability: Are there any facts that support this position, and if so, what are they? Is this position falsifiable? IOW, is there or can there be any set of facts or any developments in the real world that can show this position to be false.
2. Opposition: Are there any facts that undermine or negate this position, and if so, what are they?
3. Insinuations: What is it about this surviving information that suggests this conclusion?
4. Selection bias: Have the facts and information been selected without bias?
5. Totality: Has the totality of the relevant facts and information been assayed and considered?
6. Evaluation: Are there other or better ways to interpret and evaluate the information?
7. Ramifications: What are the ramifications or effects on or concerning the other aspects of my belief system?

PIFFLE

Philosophy: Does the belief violate any Metaphysical or Epistemological principles? If so, it should be discarded.
I
mplications:
F
acts: Do the totality of the facts and opposing facts justify holding to this position?
F
alsifiable: Is there any set of facts or any developments in the real world that can show this position to be false.
L
ife Benefit: What is the benefit to lif and for the human race in believing this way?:
Extraneous: Is this position or belief relevant or germane to me personally?

ICILY

1. Implications: What are the implications for further understanding the truth?
2. Compatibility: Is this position compatible with my paradigm and all the other aspects of it?
3. Impact: Is this position even relevant or very germane, and if so, what is the impact on my worldview?
4. Life Benefit: What is the benefit to humanity and human life in believing this way? Is this view inspirational or depressing, edifying or demoralizing, empowering or disempowering?
5. Yardstick: Does this position violate ANY worthy yardstick for being rational, logical,  reasonable or intellectually responsible?

The above acronym is designed to foster a hands-on-mind approach for personal responsibility to have our belief system to be intellectually defensible.

Real Example:

"I think that the planets are not alive in the sense that they are not "human," but from a more indigenous view, I would consider them to be alive,  I think everything is alive and has consciousness. But anthropomorphizing and making them be what we think and want is not what they are. But I do believe they are beings with their own consciousness, not to be interpreted and defined by us."

So, how does the above position--little different from that of the ancient mythmakers except for anthropomorpihsizing--hold up under our list of questions?

P. FOA, this position violates the epistemological principle that for anything to have meaningful identity it must have some distinction, some contrast with everything else. In this case life and consciousness must--and do--have opposites. Dead or death and unconsciousness. If everything is alive and has consciousness, then life and consciousness lose their meaning, along with their counterparts.

I. Not many if any general implications except that they would be truly and fully alien to us.

F. Supporting facts: The planets move and change, they appear and disappear. Evidently most of the ancient people believed that they were alive and that they had godlike powers to influence and control people on earth. They clearly rained down rocks, fire and brimstone upon the earth and its inhabitants, and this was interpreted as a reaction of anger towards people on earth.

F. Opposing facts: The planets don't show some of the major aspects that go into being alive and conscious. They have no discernible needs and desires to sustain and enhance their "lives" and consciousness. They don't communicate, and show no sign of freedom of movement.. They don't have an organic structure that can be damaged to the point of dying. Etc.

How could this view be falsified?

L. Without any idea of their intentions, and no communication, the impact on human life would seem to be only negative because we have not idea of what we can count on from them on an ongoing basis.

E. No further relevance to me personally, and I can only relate to them as material or physical fixtures.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

 home              wholesale store              policies              features             contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665