Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I would suggest the underlying principle is that mind and/or thought is a creative force. I find it to be an extremely valuable philosophical principle.
I would suggest the underlying principle is that mind and/or thought is a creative force. I find it to be an extremely valuable philosophical principle.
Taken with a vague, non-committal viewpoint you present “The Secret” as nothing more than support for positive thinking. However, it goes beyond that.
In short, it is New Age nonsense that proposes that, by thinking about something, the universe will alter itself to bring those desires to you, if you wish hard enough.
It proposes much more than “mind and/or thought is a creative force”.
If you want to support the notion that the “mind and/or thought is a creative force” without all that other baggage then you’re going to need to let go of “The Secret”.
Taken with a vague, non-committal viewpoint you present “The Secret” as nothing more than support for positive thinking. However, it goes beyond that.
To be clear, what I said was that I find the underlying principles to be valid and valuable.
Drafterman - 20 May 2009 10:12 AM
The underlying principle of “The Secret” is the “Law of Attraction”. Let’s examine what that is…It involves:
The universe “understanding” the desires of human beings.
Non-descript “energy fields”
Drafterman…are you suggesting that the Universe is something separate and distinct from human beings? Is mind and thought other than Universe?
I believe that the underlying principles in The Secret are valid and valuable.
If your goal is to get people to hand over gobs of money for a useless waste of trees, then yeah. They are valid and valuable.
Hypersapian…you seem to be introducing a Red Herring to the discussion.
Or, are you suggesting that any philosophical treatise that is offered for sale in paper format is necessarily only valuable insofar as it is a waste of money and natural resources?
I believe that the underlying principles in The Secret are valid and valuable.
If your goal is to get people to hand over gobs of money for a useless waste of trees, then yeah. They are valid and valuable.
Hypersapian…you seem to be introducing a Red Herring to the discussion.
Or, are you suggesting that any philosophical treatise that is offered for sale in paper format is necessarily only valuable insofar as it is a waste of money and natural resources?
No, I am saying that the trees are wasted the moment that the text of The Secret is printed on them.
And why are you bringing up the topic of philosophical treatises’? I thought we were talking about The Secret.
Seriously though, you can’t go a month in this country without some self-proclaimed guru spouting off some pseudo-philosophical, superstitious garbage, trying to make money off of a gullible public. Once in a while some random one will convince a member of the media (clear-thinking and resolute defenders of rationality that they are ), and will get propelled into fame. A lot of them recognize the fact that since no one really understands how quantum physics works (even, admittedly, the quantum physicists), all they have to do is wave the magic ‘quantum’ wand around and people will fall in line and believe whatever they say. A hundred years ago, they were doing the same thing with x-rays.
Taken with a vague, non-committal viewpoint you present “The Secret” as nothing more than support for positive thinking. However, it goes beyond that.
To be clear, what I said was that I find the underlying principles to be valid and valuable.
Drafterman - 20 May 2009 10:12 AM
The underlying principle of “The Secret” is the “Law of Attraction”. Let’s examine what that is…It involves:
The universe “understanding” the desires of human beings.
Non-descript “energy fields”
Drafterman…are you suggesting that the Universe is something separate and distinct from human beings? Is mind and thought other than Universe?
No, I’m saying that the universe is much more than human beings (including their minds and thoughts) and the uniform does not conform to the minds and thoughts of humans regardless of how positive those thoughts are or how strongly they are held.
It’s called wishful thinking and it is, by definition, not valid.
Taken with a vague, non-committal viewpoint you present “The Secret” as nothing more than support for positive thinking. However, it goes beyond that.
To be clear, what I said was that I find the underlying principles to be valid and valuable.
To say that “mind and/or thought is a creative force” is the underlying principle of “The Secret” is like saying the underlying principle of communism is “sharing”
That is, it is a gross understatement that fails to address key elements of the topic being discussed. The underlying principle of “The Secret” is NOT accurately described as “mind and/or thought is a creative force.”
So, which are you promoting:
“mind and/or thought is a creative force”
Or the underlying principle of “The Secret”?
Drafterman - 20 May 2009 10:12 AM
The underlying principle of “The Secret” is the “Law of Attraction”. Let’s examine what that is…It involves:
The universe “understanding” the desires of human beings.
Non-descript “energy fields”
Drafterman…are you suggesting that the Universe is something separate and distinct from human beings? Is mind and thought other than Universe?
Seriously though, you can’t go a month in this country without some self-proclaimed guru spouting off some pseudo-philosophical, superstitious garbage, trying to make money off of a gullible public.
What does “pseudo-philosophical” mean? I understand what pseudo-science means, but when we cross over into thinking that philosophy is something that is factually proven, then I think we’ve left the realm of reason and moved into irrationality.
Also, you seem to be stuck on the idea that money/fame equals “pseudo.” This is a logical fallacy.
Hypersapien - 20 May 2009 12:07 PM
A lot of them recognize the fact that since no one really understands how quantum physics works (even, admittedly, the quantum physicists), all they have to do is wave the magic ‘quantum’ wand around and people will fall in line and believe whatever they say. A hundred years ago, they were doing the same thing with x-rays.
To be fair, I think The Secret dances on this line of claiming that quantum physics explains some element of the assertion. For example, I think that “What The Bleep” is pseudo-science, because it crosses this line for me, and begins to make unsupportable scientific assertions. I think The Secret stops short of what you are suggesting, and if it crossed that line, I’d agree with you.
I’m saying that the universe is much more than human beings (including their minds and thoughts) and the uniform does not conform to the minds and thoughts of humans regardless of how positive those thoughts are or how strongly they are held.
From whose perspective?
I’d assert that the Universe does conform to my perception of it, and that I can never escape my perception of the Universe.
Drafterman - 20 May 2009 12:08 PM
It’s called wishful thinking and it is, by definition, not valid.
Wishful thinking is not valid, by definition? That makes no sense to me. Can you clarify?
Ginger thinks that the secret in “The train to Hogwarts leaves from Platform 9 3/4” is valid and more valuable. Further, it invalidates all the underlying principles in The Secret.
Now what? How are we going to settle this obvious impasse between you and Ginger?
How is this an obvious impasse? If one works for me, and the other works for Ginger, then what is the problem? Must Ginger and I agree as to the philosophical underpinnings of how we structure our life? Can you quote some scientific principle to suggest that this is so?
I’m saying that the universe is much more than human beings (including their minds and thoughts) and the uniform does not conform to the minds and thoughts of humans regardless of how positive those thoughts are or how strongly they are held.
From whose perspective?
No one’s. It’s an objective statement, not a subjective one.
I’d assert that the Universe does conform to my perception of it, and that I can never escape my perception of the Universe.
Yes. I know you’re asserting it. You’re wrong. You can’t, for example, will the moon away.
Drafterman - 20 May 2009 12:08 PM
It’s called wishful thinking and it is, by definition, not valid.
Wishful thinking is not valid, by definition? That makes no sense to me. Can you clarify?
Wishful thinking is a logical fallacy as well as a cognitive bias. The truth or falsehood of things is not dependent on whether or not you, or anyone, wishes it to be true or false.
I’m saying that the universe is much more than human beings (including their minds and thoughts) and the uniform does not conform to the minds and thoughts of humans regardless of how positive those thoughts are or how strongly they are held.
From whose perspective?
I’d assert that the Universe does conform to my perception of it, and that I can never escape my perception of the Universe.
The universe does not conform to your perception of it. Your perception is supposed to conform to the universe. At least it does if you are honest with yourself.
The universe and your perception of the universe are two different things. Ideally they should be as alike as possible, but they become more alike by your perception of the universe changing to more closely match the actual universe, not the other way around. Your perceptions are what give you information about the universe. It’s a one-way street.
Timothy_2066 - 21 May 2009 08:03 AM
Drafterman - 20 May 2009 12:08 PM
It’s called wishful thinking and it is, by definition, not valid.
Wishful thinking is not valid, by definition? That makes no sense to me. Can you clarify?
Wishful thinking does not directly effect the universe.
Also, It’s really sad that someone old enough to use the internet all by himself doesn’t understand these things.
No one’s. It’s an objective statement, not a subjective one.
Everything you think you know is subjective.
Drafterman - 21 May 2009 08:24 AM
You can’t, for example, will the moon away.
Ah, but I can. I can simply close my eyes.
Drafterman - 21 May 2009 08:24 AM
Wishful thinking is a logical fallacy as well as a cognitive bias. The truth or falsehood of things is not dependent on whether or not you, or anyone, wishes it to be true or false.
I’d assert that wishful thinking (not the terms I’d prefer to use, but we’ll go with it) is at the basis of nearly all of human progress. This has been so in the past, and will remain so for the entirety of subjective-being existence. It is even true that scientific progress is reliant upon the desires of those who do science.
Let me explain it this way. Suppose that we are wildly successful at figuring out the science that underlies the existence of all things (which, btw, would only be possible from a viewpoint that exists outside of the Universe, and is therefore impossible, by definition, but go with it…). Let’s assume that in discovering that science, we find out that the end of the Universe is pain and suffering and death. Will subjective beings capable of wishful thinking just accept that explanation of facts? Or, will we wish for a different outcome? And, upon wishing for a different outcome, what if we succeed at changing the outcome?
Ah, you’ll say, then we didn’t adquately understand the science, you might say. Precisely, I’d answer, and it was only through our “wishful thinking” that we were motivated to keep looking.
), and will get propelled into fame. A lot of them recognize the fact that since no one really understands how quantum physics works (even, admittedly, the quantum physicists), all they have to do is wave the magic ‘quantum’ wand around and people will fall in line and believe whatever they say. A hundred years ago, they were doing the same thing with x-rays.
RSS Feed