Read on Twitter
I'm noticing a dynamic around physics/causality-compatibility-or-not-with-woo that strikes me as a sort of "emergent motte & bailey"
and I'm not really sure how to approach productively
(curious for any thoughts/advice about what helps here!)
and I'm not really sure how to approach productively
(curious for any thoughts/advice about what helps here!)
one group is saying "why are you bringing physics and causality into it?"
"MOST supernatural explanations DON'T actually violate any physics, and barely intersect with the material world, if at all"
(qi, chakras, meditation experiences, ghosts)
"MOST supernatural explanations DON'T actually violate any physics, and barely intersect with the material world, if at all"
(qi, chakras, meditation experiences, ghosts)
another is saying
these methods "claim to produce outcomes that appear impossible when viewed through the commonly-understood chains of cause and effect."
and "canât be adequately explained by our existing knowledge of physics"
https://twitter.com/liminal_warmth/status/1338243147302797312 https://twitter.com/liminal_warmth/status/1338243280253816832
these methods "claim to produce outcomes that appear impossible when viewed through the commonly-understood chains of cause and effect."
and "canât be adequately explained by our existing knowledge of physics"
https://twitter.com/liminal_warmth/status/1338243147302797312 https://twitter.com/liminal_warmth/status/1338243280253816832
I call this an "emergent motte and bailey", because one group is saying "Motte, and in fact people seldom ever really mean Bailey"
(so why are we even bringing Bailey into it? that's a distraction, etc.)
and another group is saying "no, actually Bailey"
(so why are we even bringing Bailey into it? that's a distraction, etc.)
and another group is saying "no, actually Bailey"
I find it deeply unnerving that when some folks assert "methodological inapplicability of physics" to woo phenomena,
they mean it in exactly the same sense that e.g. "personal space" is not well-analyzed by physics
which is uncontroversial (Motte)
they mean it in exactly the same sense that e.g. "personal space" is not well-analyzed by physics
which is uncontroversial (Motte)
whereas another group might say/mean â or hear/understand â that same statement as a claim that these phenomena indeed contradict physics, are impossible if causality/thermodynamics/etc. were universal.
which is very controversial! (Bailey)
which is very controversial! (Bailey)
in summary, "canât be adequately explained by" is so so ambiguous 
and I'm feeling frustrated, and despairing of making spaces to discuss meditation, interpersonal effects, etc. where we establish common knowledge that we are NOT agnostic about physics/causality in this space
and I'm feeling frustrated, and despairing of making spaces to discuss meditation, interpersonal effects, etc. where we establish common knowledge that we are NOT agnostic about physics/causality in this space
I want to express gratitude to @liminal_warmth for saying what she means so clearly and unambiguously in the threads linked above!
