Merkabah
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
Last edited:
I signed up the moment I saw it lol
Has a nice ring to it...thanks!!
lmao
Since Xmas is drawing near....
The Amanita only grow under coniferous trees...check in the morning for a gift!
It’s that time of year again!
People won’t stop banging on about the John Lewis Christmas advert, ‘late night shopping’ is doing your head in, and you’ve probably eaten your body weight in mince pies and chocolate selection boxes…
Whilst many of us celebrate this strange tradition, it turns out, it’s probably a little stranger than we thought…
Have you ever wondered why Father Christmas wears a red and white suit?
Why we wrap our presents in red and white wrapping paper, or why we hang red and white bauballs on our tree?
You get the gist, there’s a definite red & white colour scheme going on…
Yes, urban legend has it that Santa himself and his red and white outfit, was designed by Coca Cola in the late Victorian period as a massive ad campaign, and while this may be partially true, there is some evidence that points to the fact that the somewhat blurred origins of Mr. Claus may have emerged, pre-Coca Cola, from Siberian shamanism and the use of the Amanita Muscaria, a red and white spotty hallucinogenic mushroom, in their shamanic practices.
Amanita Muscaria
The image of Santa Claus, and our Christmas traditions have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, and can be traced right back to pre-Christian times, with its roots deep in Paganism, and Nordic mythology.
The period around the 25th December has always been one of celebration, a time, more often than not, that included large banquets, music, dancing, and in general – a coming together of sorts.
The lives of ancient people were controlled by seasons and the harvest cycle, winter was tough – it was dark, cold, and immensely difficult, many people died during the season.
So celebration was needed to keep spirits high and to stay positive during the grueling winter months.
The harvest would have been brought in during the autumn, the cattle would have been slaughtered so they wouldn’t have to be fed during the winter, and the majority of wine and beer made during the year would have finally fermented and been ready for drinking – this meant there was an abundance of food and drink, which may explain the frequent banqueting during the winter.
The Vikings had the ancient Midwinter festival, Yule, which occurred in Nordic countries between the Winter Solstice (21st December) and the Jólablót (Yule Sacrifice), which originally may have happened on the 12th of January.
This period was a time of feasting, banquets, games, drinking, song, and sacrifice to the gods.
The Romans had the festival of Saturnalia, an ancient festival in honour of the god Saturn, held on the 17th of December through to the 23rd if December.
The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Roman Temple of Saturn, then a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving and general Roman raucous.
Other celebrations occurred throughout Europe, with similar themes of banqueting/feasting, gift-giving, human sacrifice – all things that have carried on, and still occur today in the holiday season – well, apart from the sacrifice – hopefully.
Druid priestess with Golden Sickle and Mistletoe
The significance of mistletoe and holly around Christmas time, also goes back thousands of years; Peter Haining in his book, ‘Superstitions’, wrote, “The mistletoe, was revered by the ancient Greeks as sacred, yet superstition has it that the reason why it is so lucky to be kissed under it is that the plant once offended the old Gods, who thereafter condemned it to have to look on while pretty girls were being kissed.”
In many pre-Christian cultures, holly was associated with the god of winter, it was also the sacred plant of Saturn and was used at the Roman festival of Saturnalia to honor him.
Romans gave one another holly wreaths and carried them about, decorating them with images of Saturn.
The ancient druids used to wear sprigs of holly in their hair when they went into the forest to cut sprigs of mistletoe from the branches of oak trees, they’d do this with a golden sickle on the sixth night of the new moon after the winter solstice.
A cloth was held below the tree by other members of the order to catch the sprigs of mistletoe as they fell, as it was believed that it would have profaned the mistletoe to fall upon the ground.
The chief druid would then divide the branches into many sprigs and distribute them to the people, who hung them over doorways as protection against thunder, lightning and other evils.
They also believed it had strong sexual powers, and, boiled with the blood of a pair of sacrificial white bulls, it would make the best aphrodisiac. According to the Anglo-Saxons, kissing under the mistletoe was connected to the legend of Freya, the goddess of love and fertility.
Legend has it, a man had to kiss any young girl who, without realizing it, found herself accidentally under a sprig of mistletoe hanging from the ceiling.
Even the origins of Christmas caroling are hundreds of years old, stemming from the medieval tradition of wassailing (from the Anglo-Saxon Waes Hael), something that still happens in the crooks and crannies of the English and Scottish countryside today.
House-visiting wassailers (not to be confused with the orchard wassail) would go from door to door, singing and drinking to the health of their neighbors. The concept harks back to pre-Christian fertility rites where villagers traveled through fields and orchards in the middle of winter, singing and shouting to drive away any spirits that might effect the growth of future crops.
Saint Nicholas, depicted in the 13th century
Around the year 280AD, the figure of Saint Nicholas, a fourth-century Greek bishop and gift-giver of a Christian community in the ancient town of Myra, begins to emerge.
As the story goes, he was brought up in a wealthy family, lost both of his parents as a young man, and used his inheritance to help the poor and sick.
He famously is said to have helped the poor father of three marriageable daughters who could not afford their dowries.
To save them from a life of prostitution, which was a common fate for unmarried women in the third century, he dropped three sacks of gold down their father’s chimney late one night, making him the patron saint of prostitutes – probably don’t tell that one to your kids on Christmas Eve.
As for magic mushrooms?
Well they’ve been around for donkey’s years too, and have been used for spiritual and recreational purposes for thousands of years, with their use documented as far back as 9000 B.C. in North African indigenous cultures, based on representations in rock paintings.
An archaeological image found on a cave in Tassili, Algeria, dating back to 3500 B.C. details mushrooms with animated auras surrounding dancing shamans, and there is also a well-known depiction of mushrooms in a cave in Spain which dates back 6-8 thousand years, among other ancient depictions around Europe.
In fact, a recent molecular study proposed that the Amanita Muscaria had ancestral origins in the Siberian–Beringian region during the Tertiary period (65 million to 2.58 million years ago), before spreading out across Asia, Europe and North America.
Selva Pascuala caves in Spain, depiction of mushrooms in bottom right.
So how do mushrooms relate to Santa Claus?
Siberian shamans?
What’s this all about?
Well, Siberian shamans used to dress to resemble that of the Amanita Muscaria, and, according to some sources, female shamans originally wore red and white costumes trimmed with white fur, black boots, and felt red hats.
To this day, Siberian mushroom gatherers go out in a ceremonial red and white outfit to honour the colour of the mushrooms they pick.
Red hat, red suit trimmed with white fur, black boots…Remind you of anyone?
Siberian Shaman working with the Amanita Muscaria
Prof. John Rush, author of ‘Mushrooms in Christian Art‘, and professor of anthropology at Sierra College in Rocklin, California, has researched the subject heavily, “Santa is a modern counterpart of a shaman, who consumed mind-altering plants and fungi to commune with the spirit world”, he says, “as the story goes, up until a few hundred years ago these practicing shamans or priests connected to the older traditions would collect Amanita muscaria (the Holy Mushroom), dry them, and then give them as gifts on the winter solstice.”
The shaman would collect the mushrooms, which grow almost exclusively under pine trees, in a large sack, and would often use an opening in the roof to deliver his gifts, as the vast amount of snow would block the door.
During Siberian winters, the snow piles up past the doors of the villagers’ yurts, so the red and white clad shaman must climb down the chimney to deliver the presents in his sack. Once the shaman has done the rounds of delivering the Amanita Muscaria, the villagers string the mushrooms up or put them in bags hung in front of the fire to dry.
As well as this, when mushroom gatherers would go out and pick the mushrooms they would often place them on the leaves of the trees in the forest to dry them out in the sun.
We could easily draw comparisons from this to our modern day tradition of decorating the Christmas tree with shiny red and white ornaments, to hanging stockings full of gifts in front of the fire, and the imagery of Santa with his sack going down the chimney.
“So, why do people bring Pine trees into their houses at the Winter Solstice, placing brightly colored (Red and White) packages under their boughs, as gifts to show their love for each other and as representations of the love of God and the gift of his Sons life?
It is because, underneath the Pine bough is the exact location where one would find this ‘Most Sacred’ Substance, the Amanita muscaria, in the wild.” -James Arthur, “Mushrooms and Mankind” (8)
It’s a modern-day tradition in many parts of Northern Europe to decorate the Christmas tree with ornaments of mushrooms
According to Carl Ruck, a professor at Boston University, reindeer are the spirit animals of the shaman.
Many indigenous people of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and parts of Russia have a close relationship with the animal.
Most notably, the Sami, who inhabit Lapland – the northernmost region of Finland, often said to be the geographical location of Santa Claus and his elves.
Reindeer husbandry is an important aspect of Sami culture, in Norway and Sweden reindeer husbandry is legally protected as an exclusive Sami livelihood, and only people of Sami descent with reindeer herding family ancestry can own reindeer.
So why are the reindeer on our Christmas cards often shown flying?
Well, because Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Blitzen, and Rudolph are off their faces on magic mushrooms….obviously.
Research has shown that reindeer do in fact have a fondness for the Amanita Muscaria.
Deputy editor of the Pharmaceutical Journal, Andrew Haynes, wrote in 2010 that animals deliberately seek out the red and white spotted mushroom in their habitats, as they “have a desire to experience altered states of consciousness” Haynes also wrote, “for humans, a common side-effect of mushrooms is the feeling of flying, so it’s interesting the legend about Santa’s reindeer is they can fly.”
According to The Sun, Haynes even claimed that reindeer seek out the mushrooms to “escape the monotony of dreary long winters.”
Haynes also said that Shamans and herdsmen drink the reindeer urine to experience the high themselves, which is apparently where the term ‘to get pissed’ comes from.
After much debate about this, it turns out to be quite true.
According to an account by Andy Letcher, who spent some time living with the Sami, his hosts started feeding reindeer hallucinogenic mushrooms, which the deer consumed happily.
They then collected the urine, boiled it up in a pot, and shared it around.
Letcher said in an interview, “I don’t drink and I’ve never taken any drugs…But I took some when they passed it round. Well, you have to, don’t you? They expect it. Anyway, I was high as a kite…”
As well as this, Philip Johann von Strahlenberg, a Swedish prisoner of war in the early eighteenth century, reported seeing Koryak tribes-people waiting outside huts where ‘mushroom sessions’ were taking place, waiting for people to come out and urinate.
When they did, it was collected in wooden bowls and drunk..
The hallucinogenic effect of the Amanita Muscaria could apparently be recycled up to five times in this manner.
He published his account in 1730, in ‘An Historical and Geographical Description of the North and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia, Particularly of Russia, Siberia, and Tartary’
Reindeer, chimneys, pine trees, a sack full of gifts, presents under the tree, the red and white colour scheme, there are so many similarities one could make between our modern day Santa Claus, our Christmas traditions, and the ancient Siberian shamanistic mushroom rituals.
The origins of Christmas, and Santa Claus, branch off into different beliefs and areas – Siberian shamanism and the Amanita Muscaria being a branch on the Christmas tree, if you will, among different branches including the Christian St. Nicholas, Paganism, Nordic mythology, Anglo-Saxon tradition, Roman festivities, and so on and so forth, all these branches connect to the roots of Christmas, it’s very beginnings – which stem from pre-Christian beliefs and early Winter Solstice rituals and practices.
So, no, Santa Claus might not have literally been a magic mushroom, but you could argue the Amanita Muscaria had an influence on the creating of the character of Santa Claus, as well as some of our modern-day Christmas rituals.
Next time you put your red and white wrapped Christmas presents under your Christmas pine tree, hang the red and white stockings out in front of the fire, or find yourself singing “Rudolph The Red-Nose Reindeer”, try not to think of hallucinogenic reindeer wee.
Have yourself a very merry psychedelic Christmas.
References:
http://metro.co.uk/2010/12/22/reindeer-regularly-eat-magic-mushrooms-in-the-wild-616605/
http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.c...al-world-has-its-junkies-too/11052360.article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Is-Santa-flying-high-on-magic-mushrooms.html
http://freya.theladyofthelabyrinth.com/?page_id=397
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/saturnalia.html
Superstitions, Peter Haining, Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd, 1980
Mushrooms and Mankind: The Impact of Mushrooms on Human Consciousness and Religion, James Arthur, Book Tree, 2000
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity Within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East, John M. Allegro, Gnostic Media Research & Publishing, 2009
Mushrooms, Myth and Mithras: The Drug Cult That Civilized Europe, Carl Ruck, City Light Publishers, 2011
The Mushroom in Christian Art: The Identity of Jesus in the Development of Christianity, John. A. Rush, North Atlantic Books, 2011
A Dictionary of British Folk Customs, Christina Hole, Helicon Publishing Ltd, 1995
The Golden Bough, Sir James Frazer, Wordsworth Editions, 1993
The Amanita only grow under coniferous trees...check in the morning for a gift!
SANTA CLAUS THE MAGIC MUSHROOM
& THE PSYCHEDELIC ORIGINS OF CHRISTMAS
& THE PSYCHEDELIC ORIGINS OF CHRISTMAS
It’s that time of year again!
People won’t stop banging on about the John Lewis Christmas advert, ‘late night shopping’ is doing your head in, and you’ve probably eaten your body weight in mince pies and chocolate selection boxes…
Whilst many of us celebrate this strange tradition, it turns out, it’s probably a little stranger than we thought…
Have you ever wondered why Father Christmas wears a red and white suit?
Why we wrap our presents in red and white wrapping paper, or why we hang red and white bauballs on our tree?
You get the gist, there’s a definite red & white colour scheme going on…
Yes, urban legend has it that Santa himself and his red and white outfit, was designed by Coca Cola in the late Victorian period as a massive ad campaign, and while this may be partially true, there is some evidence that points to the fact that the somewhat blurred origins of Mr. Claus may have emerged, pre-Coca Cola, from Siberian shamanism and the use of the Amanita Muscaria, a red and white spotty hallucinogenic mushroom, in their shamanic practices.
Amanita Muscaria
The image of Santa Claus, and our Christmas traditions have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, and can be traced right back to pre-Christian times, with its roots deep in Paganism, and Nordic mythology.
The period around the 25th December has always been one of celebration, a time, more often than not, that included large banquets, music, dancing, and in general – a coming together of sorts.
The lives of ancient people were controlled by seasons and the harvest cycle, winter was tough – it was dark, cold, and immensely difficult, many people died during the season.
So celebration was needed to keep spirits high and to stay positive during the grueling winter months.
The harvest would have been brought in during the autumn, the cattle would have been slaughtered so they wouldn’t have to be fed during the winter, and the majority of wine and beer made during the year would have finally fermented and been ready for drinking – this meant there was an abundance of food and drink, which may explain the frequent banqueting during the winter.
The Vikings had the ancient Midwinter festival, Yule, which occurred in Nordic countries between the Winter Solstice (21st December) and the Jólablót (Yule Sacrifice), which originally may have happened on the 12th of January.
This period was a time of feasting, banquets, games, drinking, song, and sacrifice to the gods.
The Romans had the festival of Saturnalia, an ancient festival in honour of the god Saturn, held on the 17th of December through to the 23rd if December.
The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Roman Temple of Saturn, then a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving and general Roman raucous.
Other celebrations occurred throughout Europe, with similar themes of banqueting/feasting, gift-giving, human sacrifice – all things that have carried on, and still occur today in the holiday season – well, apart from the sacrifice – hopefully.
Druid priestess with Golden Sickle and Mistletoe
The significance of mistletoe and holly around Christmas time, also goes back thousands of years; Peter Haining in his book, ‘Superstitions’, wrote, “The mistletoe, was revered by the ancient Greeks as sacred, yet superstition has it that the reason why it is so lucky to be kissed under it is that the plant once offended the old Gods, who thereafter condemned it to have to look on while pretty girls were being kissed.”
In many pre-Christian cultures, holly was associated with the god of winter, it was also the sacred plant of Saturn and was used at the Roman festival of Saturnalia to honor him.
Romans gave one another holly wreaths and carried them about, decorating them with images of Saturn.
The ancient druids used to wear sprigs of holly in their hair when they went into the forest to cut sprigs of mistletoe from the branches of oak trees, they’d do this with a golden sickle on the sixth night of the new moon after the winter solstice.
A cloth was held below the tree by other members of the order to catch the sprigs of mistletoe as they fell, as it was believed that it would have profaned the mistletoe to fall upon the ground.
The chief druid would then divide the branches into many sprigs and distribute them to the people, who hung them over doorways as protection against thunder, lightning and other evils.
They also believed it had strong sexual powers, and, boiled with the blood of a pair of sacrificial white bulls, it would make the best aphrodisiac. According to the Anglo-Saxons, kissing under the mistletoe was connected to the legend of Freya, the goddess of love and fertility.
Legend has it, a man had to kiss any young girl who, without realizing it, found herself accidentally under a sprig of mistletoe hanging from the ceiling.
Even the origins of Christmas caroling are hundreds of years old, stemming from the medieval tradition of wassailing (from the Anglo-Saxon Waes Hael), something that still happens in the crooks and crannies of the English and Scottish countryside today.
House-visiting wassailers (not to be confused with the orchard wassail) would go from door to door, singing and drinking to the health of their neighbors. The concept harks back to pre-Christian fertility rites where villagers traveled through fields and orchards in the middle of winter, singing and shouting to drive away any spirits that might effect the growth of future crops.
Saint Nicholas, depicted in the 13th century
Around the year 280AD, the figure of Saint Nicholas, a fourth-century Greek bishop and gift-giver of a Christian community in the ancient town of Myra, begins to emerge.
As the story goes, he was brought up in a wealthy family, lost both of his parents as a young man, and used his inheritance to help the poor and sick.
He famously is said to have helped the poor father of three marriageable daughters who could not afford their dowries.
To save them from a life of prostitution, which was a common fate for unmarried women in the third century, he dropped three sacks of gold down their father’s chimney late one night, making him the patron saint of prostitutes – probably don’t tell that one to your kids on Christmas Eve.
As for magic mushrooms?
Well they’ve been around for donkey’s years too, and have been used for spiritual and recreational purposes for thousands of years, with their use documented as far back as 9000 B.C. in North African indigenous cultures, based on representations in rock paintings.
An archaeological image found on a cave in Tassili, Algeria, dating back to 3500 B.C. details mushrooms with animated auras surrounding dancing shamans, and there is also a well-known depiction of mushrooms in a cave in Spain which dates back 6-8 thousand years, among other ancient depictions around Europe.
In fact, a recent molecular study proposed that the Amanita Muscaria had ancestral origins in the Siberian–Beringian region during the Tertiary period (65 million to 2.58 million years ago), before spreading out across Asia, Europe and North America.
Selva Pascuala caves in Spain, depiction of mushrooms in bottom right.
So how do mushrooms relate to Santa Claus?
Siberian shamans?
What’s this all about?
Well, Siberian shamans used to dress to resemble that of the Amanita Muscaria, and, according to some sources, female shamans originally wore red and white costumes trimmed with white fur, black boots, and felt red hats.
To this day, Siberian mushroom gatherers go out in a ceremonial red and white outfit to honour the colour of the mushrooms they pick.
Red hat, red suit trimmed with white fur, black boots…Remind you of anyone?
Siberian Shaman working with the Amanita Muscaria
Prof. John Rush, author of ‘Mushrooms in Christian Art‘, and professor of anthropology at Sierra College in Rocklin, California, has researched the subject heavily, “Santa is a modern counterpart of a shaman, who consumed mind-altering plants and fungi to commune with the spirit world”, he says, “as the story goes, up until a few hundred years ago these practicing shamans or priests connected to the older traditions would collect Amanita muscaria (the Holy Mushroom), dry them, and then give them as gifts on the winter solstice.”
The shaman would collect the mushrooms, which grow almost exclusively under pine trees, in a large sack, and would often use an opening in the roof to deliver his gifts, as the vast amount of snow would block the door.
During Siberian winters, the snow piles up past the doors of the villagers’ yurts, so the red and white clad shaman must climb down the chimney to deliver the presents in his sack. Once the shaman has done the rounds of delivering the Amanita Muscaria, the villagers string the mushrooms up or put them in bags hung in front of the fire to dry.
As well as this, when mushroom gatherers would go out and pick the mushrooms they would often place them on the leaves of the trees in the forest to dry them out in the sun.
We could easily draw comparisons from this to our modern day tradition of decorating the Christmas tree with shiny red and white ornaments, to hanging stockings full of gifts in front of the fire, and the imagery of Santa with his sack going down the chimney.
“So, why do people bring Pine trees into their houses at the Winter Solstice, placing brightly colored (Red and White) packages under their boughs, as gifts to show their love for each other and as representations of the love of God and the gift of his Sons life?
It is because, underneath the Pine bough is the exact location where one would find this ‘Most Sacred’ Substance, the Amanita muscaria, in the wild.” -James Arthur, “Mushrooms and Mankind” (8)
It’s a modern-day tradition in many parts of Northern Europe to decorate the Christmas tree with ornaments of mushrooms
According to Carl Ruck, a professor at Boston University, reindeer are the spirit animals of the shaman.
Many indigenous people of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and parts of Russia have a close relationship with the animal.
Most notably, the Sami, who inhabit Lapland – the northernmost region of Finland, often said to be the geographical location of Santa Claus and his elves.
Reindeer husbandry is an important aspect of Sami culture, in Norway and Sweden reindeer husbandry is legally protected as an exclusive Sami livelihood, and only people of Sami descent with reindeer herding family ancestry can own reindeer.
So why are the reindeer on our Christmas cards often shown flying?
Well, because Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Blitzen, and Rudolph are off their faces on magic mushrooms….obviously.
Research has shown that reindeer do in fact have a fondness for the Amanita Muscaria.
Deputy editor of the Pharmaceutical Journal, Andrew Haynes, wrote in 2010 that animals deliberately seek out the red and white spotted mushroom in their habitats, as they “have a desire to experience altered states of consciousness” Haynes also wrote, “for humans, a common side-effect of mushrooms is the feeling of flying, so it’s interesting the legend about Santa’s reindeer is they can fly.”
According to The Sun, Haynes even claimed that reindeer seek out the mushrooms to “escape the monotony of dreary long winters.”
Haynes also said that Shamans and herdsmen drink the reindeer urine to experience the high themselves, which is apparently where the term ‘to get pissed’ comes from.
After much debate about this, it turns out to be quite true.
According to an account by Andy Letcher, who spent some time living with the Sami, his hosts started feeding reindeer hallucinogenic mushrooms, which the deer consumed happily.
They then collected the urine, boiled it up in a pot, and shared it around.
Letcher said in an interview, “I don’t drink and I’ve never taken any drugs…But I took some when they passed it round. Well, you have to, don’t you? They expect it. Anyway, I was high as a kite…”
As well as this, Philip Johann von Strahlenberg, a Swedish prisoner of war in the early eighteenth century, reported seeing Koryak tribes-people waiting outside huts where ‘mushroom sessions’ were taking place, waiting for people to come out and urinate.
When they did, it was collected in wooden bowls and drunk..
The hallucinogenic effect of the Amanita Muscaria could apparently be recycled up to five times in this manner.
He published his account in 1730, in ‘An Historical and Geographical Description of the North and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia, Particularly of Russia, Siberia, and Tartary’
According to some, including Jack Herer, hemp activist and author of ‘The Emperor Wears No Clothes‘, Santa Claus was a magic mushroom, an Amanita Muscaria, Fly Agaric, trippy toadstool, call it what you will – nothing more nothing less.
Maybe Herer was smoking too much hash when he came out with that one, but it might make some sense that the image of Santa is inspired by the red and white spotted fungi.
Believe it or not, Santa wasn’t the only mushroom; Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, and author of the infamous ‘The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross’, John Allegro, famously claimed Jesus was a mushroom, and that Christianity was the product of an ancient “sex-and-mushroom” cult, with the word “Christ” apparently being some sort of ancient Sumerian word that meant “A mushroom covered in God’s semen.”…but that’s an article for another day.
Maybe Herer was smoking too much hash when he came out with that one, but it might make some sense that the image of Santa is inspired by the red and white spotted fungi.
Believe it or not, Santa wasn’t the only mushroom; Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, and author of the infamous ‘The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross’, John Allegro, famously claimed Jesus was a mushroom, and that Christianity was the product of an ancient “sex-and-mushroom” cult, with the word “Christ” apparently being some sort of ancient Sumerian word that meant “A mushroom covered in God’s semen.”…but that’s an article for another day.
Reindeer, chimneys, pine trees, a sack full of gifts, presents under the tree, the red and white colour scheme, there are so many similarities one could make between our modern day Santa Claus, our Christmas traditions, and the ancient Siberian shamanistic mushroom rituals.
The origins of Christmas, and Santa Claus, branch off into different beliefs and areas – Siberian shamanism and the Amanita Muscaria being a branch on the Christmas tree, if you will, among different branches including the Christian St. Nicholas, Paganism, Nordic mythology, Anglo-Saxon tradition, Roman festivities, and so on and so forth, all these branches connect to the roots of Christmas, it’s very beginnings – which stem from pre-Christian beliefs and early Winter Solstice rituals and practices.
So, no, Santa Claus might not have literally been a magic mushroom, but you could argue the Amanita Muscaria had an influence on the creating of the character of Santa Claus, as well as some of our modern-day Christmas rituals.
Next time you put your red and white wrapped Christmas presents under your Christmas pine tree, hang the red and white stockings out in front of the fire, or find yourself singing “Rudolph The Red-Nose Reindeer”, try not to think of hallucinogenic reindeer wee.
Have yourself a very merry psychedelic Christmas.
References:
http://metro.co.uk/2010/12/22/reindeer-regularly-eat-magic-mushrooms-in-the-wild-616605/
http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.c...al-world-has-its-junkies-too/11052360.article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Is-Santa-flying-high-on-magic-mushrooms.html
http://freya.theladyofthelabyrinth.com/?page_id=397
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/saturnalia.html
Superstitions, Peter Haining, Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd, 1980
Mushrooms and Mankind: The Impact of Mushrooms on Human Consciousness and Religion, James Arthur, Book Tree, 2000
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity Within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East, John M. Allegro, Gnostic Media Research & Publishing, 2009
Mushrooms, Myth and Mithras: The Drug Cult That Civilized Europe, Carl Ruck, City Light Publishers, 2011
The Mushroom in Christian Art: The Identity of Jesus in the Development of Christianity, John. A. Rush, North Atlantic Books, 2011
A Dictionary of British Folk Customs, Christina Hole, Helicon Publishing Ltd, 1995
The Golden Bough, Sir James Frazer, Wordsworth Editions, 1993
Some silly, curious, and/or thought-provoking shit...
Sometimes...lol
If anyone else wants to be a Pope...here you go -
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Seem like a decent set of rules...
Any arguments otherwise or additional rules that would be helpful?
Recently, and from time to time we get people on the forum trying to ram their viewpoint down everyones’ throat while proclaiming they are the victims of unwarranted attacks.
(Of course it can be fun to tease, but I only ever call someone out if they are unreasonably arrogant and refusing to keep the open mind they ask others to retain for their subject matter).
They are of course not pathologically skeptical most of the time - it’s usually the opposite where they refuse to budge from said POV no matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how logical the argument.
There is keeping an open mind on a subject, and there is common sense...and people will always have more or less of one or both.
That is why I try to not present articles without some scientific groundwork there in some form.
And when I do, I try to plainly state as much.
I have to agree with the author, though I imagine that there are certain cliques of scientists who will shun folks for unfounded reasons or just because they personally dislike the subject matter instead of considering what is presented - which is what being a skeptic is about...anyone can question something until there is nothing left...the point isn’t to disassemble something...throwing away the bits you don’t understand as you go.
Nor do we get a very workable picture of things by smashing them to bits...a limitation of the LHC.
Enjoy!
Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented with certain claims.
This can be seen in their emotional responses to current controversies such as,
The scientists react not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics:
Therefore, I call their behavior “Pathological Skepticism,” a term I base upon skeptics’ assertion that various unacceptable ideas are “Pathological Science.”
Below is a list of the symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and examples of the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.
(Note: all the quotes are artificial examples)
1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
“The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff. We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave suspicions about the accuracy your report. There is no room for your results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist.
You are obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion. We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results would be a waste of time. Your requests for funding are misguided, and should be turned down.”
2. Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the requirements for acceptance. (A practice called “moving the goalposts.”)
“I’ll believe it when ‘X’ happens” (but when it does, this immediately is changed to: I’ll believe it when ‘Y’ happens.)
Example:
“I won’t believe it until major laboratories publish papers in this field. They have? That means nothing! Major labs have been wrong before.
I’ll believe it when stores sell products which use the effect. They do? That means nothing, after all, stores sell magic healing pendants and Ouija boards. I’ll believe it when a Nobel Prize winning researcher gets behind that work. One has? Well that means nothing!
That person is probably old and dotty like Dr. Pauling and his vitamin-C...” etc.
3. Belief that fundamental concepts in science rarely change, coupled with a “herd following” behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that any opinions had ever changed.
“The study of (space flight, endosymbiosis, drillcore bacteria, child abuse, cold fusion, etc.) has always been a legitimate pursuit.
If scientists ever ridiculed the reported evidence or tried to stop such research, it certainly was not a majority of scientists. It must have been just a few misguided souls, and must have happened in the distant past.”
4. Belief that science is guided by consensus beliefs and majority rule, rather than by evidence.
Indulging in behavior which reinforces the negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.
“I don’t care how good your evidence is, I won’t believe it until the majority of scientists also find it acceptable. Your evidence cannot be right, because it would mean that hundreds of textbooks and thousands of learned experts are wrong.
5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.
“Your ideas are obviously garbage. What, try to replicate your evidence? I wouldn’t soil my hands. And besides, it would be a terrible waste of time and money, since there’s no question about the outcome.”
6. Maintaining an unshakable stance of hostile, intolerant skepticism, and when anyone complains of this, accusing them of paranoid delusion.
Remaining blind to scientists’ widespread practice of intellectual suppression of unorthodox findings, and to the practice of “expulsion of heretics” through secret, back-room accusations of deviance or insanity.
“You say that no one will listen to your ideas, and now the funding for your other projects is cut off for no reason? And colleagues are secretly passing around a petition demanding that you be removed? If you’re thinking along THOSE lines, then you obviously are delusional and should be seeking professional help.”
7. Ignoring the lessons of history, and therefore opening the way for repeating them again and again.
“Scientists of old ridiculed the germ theory, airplanes, space flight, meteors, etc. They were certain that science of the time had everything figured out, and that major new discoveries were no longer possible. Isn’t it good that we researchers of today are much more wise, and such things can no longer happen!”
8. Denial of the lessons of history. An inability to admit that science has made serious mistakes in the past.
Maintaining a belief that good ideas and discoveries are never accidentally suppressed by closed-mindedness, then revising history to fit this belief.
“Throughout history, the majority of scientists never ridiculed flying machines, spacecraft, television, continental drift, reports of ball lightning, meteors, sonoluminescence, etc.
These discoveries are not examples of so-called ‘paradigm shifts’, they are obvious examples of the slow, steady, forward progress made by science!”
9. Using circular arguments to avoid accepting evidence which supports unusual discoveries, or to prevent publication of this evidence.
“I do not have to inspect the evidence because I know it’s wrong. I know it’s wrong because I’ve never seen any positive evidence.”
“We will not publish your paper, since these results have not been replicated by any other researchers. We will not publish your paper, since it is merely a replication of work which was done earlier, by other researchers.”
10. Accusing opponents of delusion, lying, or even financial fraud, where no evidence for fraud exists other than the supposed impossibility of evidence being presented.
“Don’t trust researchers who study parapsychology. They constantly cheat and lie in order to support their strange worldviews.
Very few of them have been caught at it, but it’s not necessary to do so, since any fool can see that the positive evidence for psi can only be created by people who are either disturbed or dishonest.
11. Unwarranted confidence that the unknown is in the far distance, not staring us in the face.
“Your evidence cannot be real because it’s not possible that thousands of researchers could have overlooked it for all these years. If your discovery was real, the scientists who work in that field would already know about it.”
12. Belief that certain fields of science are complete, that scientific revolutions never happen, and that any further progress must occur only in brushing up the details.
“Physics is a mature field. Future progress can only lie in increasing the energies of particle accelerators, and in refining the precision of well-known measurements. Your discovery cannot be true, since it would mean we’d have to throw out all our hard-won knowledge about physics.”
13. Excusing the ridicule, trivialization, and the scorn which is directed at ‘maverick’ ideas and at anomalous evidence. Insisting that sneering and derisive emotional attacks constitute a desirable and properly scientific natural selection force.
“It is right that new discoveries be made to overcome large barriers. That way only the good ideas will become accepted.
If some important discoveries are suppressed in this process, well, that’s just the price we have to pay to defend science against the fast-growing hoards of crackpots who threaten to destroy it.”
14. Justifying any refusal to inspect evidence by claiming a “slippery slope.”
Using the necessary judicious allocation of time and funding as a weapon to prevent investigation of unusual, novel, or threatening ideas.
“If we take your unlikely discovery seriously, all scientists everywhere will have to accept every other crackpot idea too, and then we’ll waste all of our time checking out crackpot claims.”
15. A blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system, coupled with a denial that beliefs affect perceptions.
“Thomas Kuhn’s ‘paradigm shifts’ and sociology’s ‘cognitive dissonance’ obviously do not apply to average, rational scientists. Scientists are objective, so they are not prone to the psychological failings which plague normal humans.
Scientists always welcome any data which indicates a need to revise their current knowledge.
Their “beliefs” don’t affect their perceptions, scientists don’t have “beliefs”, science is not a religion!
16. A belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps, that widely-accepted theories are never overturned, and that no new discoveries come from anomalies observed.
“All your observations are obviously mistakes.
They couldn’t possibly be real, because if they were real, it would mean that major parts of current science are wrong, and we would have to rewrite large portions of we know about physics.
This never occurs.
Science proceeds by building on earlier works, never by tearing them down. \
Therefore it is right that we reject evidence which contradicts contemporary theory, and recommend that funding of such research not be continued.”
17. Hiding any evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are later proved valid.
Profound narcissism; an extreme need to always be right, a fear of having personal errors revealed, and a habit of silently covering up past mistakes.
“ X is obviously ridiculous, and its supporters are crack-pots who are giving us a bad name and should be silenced.”
But if X is proved true, the assertion suddenly becomes: “Since ‘X’ is obviously true, it follows that...”
18. Belief in the lofty status of modern science but with consequent blindness to, and denial of, its faults.
A tendency to view shameful events in the history of modern science as being beneficial, and a lack of any desire to fix contemporary problems.
“It was right that Dr. Wegner’s career was wrecked; that he was treated as a crackpot, ridiculed, and died in shame. His evidence for continental drift convinced no one. And besides, he did not propose a mechanism to explain the phenomena.”
19. A belief that Business and the Press have no tendency towards close-mindedness and suppression of novelty, and that their actions are never guided by the publicly-expressed judgment of scientists.
“If the Wright Brothers’ claims were true, we would be reading about it in all the papers, and flying-machine companies would be springing up left and right. Neither of these is occurring, therefore the Wright’s claims are obviously a lie and a hoax.
20. Refusing to be swayed when other researchers find evidence supporting unconventional phenomena or theories.
If other reputable people change sides and accept the unorthodox view, this is seen as evidence of their gullibility or insanity, not as evidence that perhaps the unconventional view is correct.
“I’ll believe it when someone like Dr. P believes it.”
But when Dr. P changes sides, this becomes: “Dr. P did some great work in his early years, but then he destroyed his career by getting involved with that irrational crackpot stuff.”
21. Elevating skepticism to a lofty position, yet indulging in hypocrisy and opening the way to pathological thinking by refusing to ever cast a critical, SKEPTICAL eye upon the irrational behavior of scoffers.
“Criticizing skeptics is never beneficial. It even represents a danger to science. One should never criticize science, it just gives ammunition to the enemy; it aids the irrational, anti-science hoards who would destroy our fragile edifice.”
22. Belief that modern scientists as a group lack faults, and therefore clinging to any slim justifications in order to ignore the arguments of those who hope to eliminate the flaws in Science.
“I think we can safely ignore Thomas Kuhn’s STRUCTURES OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS. Despite his physics training we can see that Kuhn was an outsider to science; he obviously doesn’t have a good grasp on real science. Outsiders never can see things in the proper positive light, it takes a working scientist to see the real situation.
Also, he stressed his central themes way too much, so I think we can ignore him as simply being a sensationalist.
And besides, if he’s digging up dirt regarding science, then he must have a hidden agenda.
I bet we’ll find that he’s a Christian or something, probably a creationist.”
23. Blindness to the widespread existence of the above symptoms.
Belief that scientists are inherently objective, and rarely fall victim to these faults.
Excusing the frequent appearance of these symptoms as being isolated instances which do not comprise an accumulation of evidence for the common practice of Pathological Skepticism.
“This ‘Pathological Skepticism’ does not exist. Kooks and crackpots deserve the hostile mistreatment we give them, but anyone who does similar things to skeptics is terribly misguided.
Those who criticize skeptics are a danger to Science itself, and we must stop them."
Any arguments otherwise or additional rules that would be helpful?
Recently, and from time to time we get people on the forum trying to ram their viewpoint down everyones’ throat while proclaiming they are the victims of unwarranted attacks.
(Of course it can be fun to tease, but I only ever call someone out if they are unreasonably arrogant and refusing to keep the open mind they ask others to retain for their subject matter).
They are of course not pathologically skeptical most of the time - it’s usually the opposite where they refuse to budge from said POV no matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how logical the argument.
There is keeping an open mind on a subject, and there is common sense...and people will always have more or less of one or both.
That is why I try to not present articles without some scientific groundwork there in some form.
And when I do, I try to plainly state as much.
I have to agree with the author, though I imagine that there are certain cliques of scientists who will shun folks for unfounded reasons or just because they personally dislike the subject matter instead of considering what is presented - which is what being a skeptic is about...anyone can question something until there is nothing left...the point isn’t to disassemble something...throwing away the bits you don’t understand as you go.
Nor do we get a very workable picture of things by smashing them to bits...a limitation of the LHC.
Enjoy!
Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented with certain claims.
This can be seen in their emotional responses to current controversies such as,
- UFO abductions
- Cold Fusion
- cryptozoology
- psi,
The scientists react not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics:
- hostile emotional attacks
- circular reasoning
- dehumanizing of the ‘enemy’
- extreme closed-mindedness
- intellectually dishonest reasoning
- underhanded debating tactics
- negative gossip
- all manner of name-calling and character assassination
Therefore, I call their behavior “Pathological Skepticism,” a term I base upon skeptics’ assertion that various unacceptable ideas are “Pathological Science.”
Below is a list of the symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and examples of the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.
(Note: all the quotes are artificial examples)
1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
“The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff. We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave suspicions about the accuracy your report. There is no room for your results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist.
You are obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion. We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results would be a waste of time. Your requests for funding are misguided, and should be turned down.”
2. Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the requirements for acceptance. (A practice called “moving the goalposts.”)
“I’ll believe it when ‘X’ happens” (but when it does, this immediately is changed to: I’ll believe it when ‘Y’ happens.)
Example:
“I won’t believe it until major laboratories publish papers in this field. They have? That means nothing! Major labs have been wrong before.
I’ll believe it when stores sell products which use the effect. They do? That means nothing, after all, stores sell magic healing pendants and Ouija boards. I’ll believe it when a Nobel Prize winning researcher gets behind that work. One has? Well that means nothing!
That person is probably old and dotty like Dr. Pauling and his vitamin-C...” etc.
3. Belief that fundamental concepts in science rarely change, coupled with a “herd following” behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that any opinions had ever changed.
“The study of (space flight, endosymbiosis, drillcore bacteria, child abuse, cold fusion, etc.) has always been a legitimate pursuit.
If scientists ever ridiculed the reported evidence or tried to stop such research, it certainly was not a majority of scientists. It must have been just a few misguided souls, and must have happened in the distant past.”
4. Belief that science is guided by consensus beliefs and majority rule, rather than by evidence.
Indulging in behavior which reinforces the negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.
“I don’t care how good your evidence is, I won’t believe it until the majority of scientists also find it acceptable. Your evidence cannot be right, because it would mean that hundreds of textbooks and thousands of learned experts are wrong.
5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.
“Your ideas are obviously garbage. What, try to replicate your evidence? I wouldn’t soil my hands. And besides, it would be a terrible waste of time and money, since there’s no question about the outcome.”
6. Maintaining an unshakable stance of hostile, intolerant skepticism, and when anyone complains of this, accusing them of paranoid delusion.
Remaining blind to scientists’ widespread practice of intellectual suppression of unorthodox findings, and to the practice of “expulsion of heretics” through secret, back-room accusations of deviance or insanity.
“You say that no one will listen to your ideas, and now the funding for your other projects is cut off for no reason? And colleagues are secretly passing around a petition demanding that you be removed? If you’re thinking along THOSE lines, then you obviously are delusional and should be seeking professional help.”
7. Ignoring the lessons of history, and therefore opening the way for repeating them again and again.
“Scientists of old ridiculed the germ theory, airplanes, space flight, meteors, etc. They were certain that science of the time had everything figured out, and that major new discoveries were no longer possible. Isn’t it good that we researchers of today are much more wise, and such things can no longer happen!”
8. Denial of the lessons of history. An inability to admit that science has made serious mistakes in the past.
Maintaining a belief that good ideas and discoveries are never accidentally suppressed by closed-mindedness, then revising history to fit this belief.
“Throughout history, the majority of scientists never ridiculed flying machines, spacecraft, television, continental drift, reports of ball lightning, meteors, sonoluminescence, etc.
These discoveries are not examples of so-called ‘paradigm shifts’, they are obvious examples of the slow, steady, forward progress made by science!”
9. Using circular arguments to avoid accepting evidence which supports unusual discoveries, or to prevent publication of this evidence.
“I do not have to inspect the evidence because I know it’s wrong. I know it’s wrong because I’ve never seen any positive evidence.”
“We will not publish your paper, since these results have not been replicated by any other researchers. We will not publish your paper, since it is merely a replication of work which was done earlier, by other researchers.”
10. Accusing opponents of delusion, lying, or even financial fraud, where no evidence for fraud exists other than the supposed impossibility of evidence being presented.
“Don’t trust researchers who study parapsychology. They constantly cheat and lie in order to support their strange worldviews.
Very few of them have been caught at it, but it’s not necessary to do so, since any fool can see that the positive evidence for psi can only be created by people who are either disturbed or dishonest.
11. Unwarranted confidence that the unknown is in the far distance, not staring us in the face.
“Your evidence cannot be real because it’s not possible that thousands of researchers could have overlooked it for all these years. If your discovery was real, the scientists who work in that field would already know about it.”
12. Belief that certain fields of science are complete, that scientific revolutions never happen, and that any further progress must occur only in brushing up the details.
“Physics is a mature field. Future progress can only lie in increasing the energies of particle accelerators, and in refining the precision of well-known measurements. Your discovery cannot be true, since it would mean we’d have to throw out all our hard-won knowledge about physics.”
13. Excusing the ridicule, trivialization, and the scorn which is directed at ‘maverick’ ideas and at anomalous evidence. Insisting that sneering and derisive emotional attacks constitute a desirable and properly scientific natural selection force.
“It is right that new discoveries be made to overcome large barriers. That way only the good ideas will become accepted.
If some important discoveries are suppressed in this process, well, that’s just the price we have to pay to defend science against the fast-growing hoards of crackpots who threaten to destroy it.”
14. Justifying any refusal to inspect evidence by claiming a “slippery slope.”
Using the necessary judicious allocation of time and funding as a weapon to prevent investigation of unusual, novel, or threatening ideas.
“If we take your unlikely discovery seriously, all scientists everywhere will have to accept every other crackpot idea too, and then we’ll waste all of our time checking out crackpot claims.”
15. A blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system, coupled with a denial that beliefs affect perceptions.
“Thomas Kuhn’s ‘paradigm shifts’ and sociology’s ‘cognitive dissonance’ obviously do not apply to average, rational scientists. Scientists are objective, so they are not prone to the psychological failings which plague normal humans.
Scientists always welcome any data which indicates a need to revise their current knowledge.
Their “beliefs” don’t affect their perceptions, scientists don’t have “beliefs”, science is not a religion!
16. A belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps, that widely-accepted theories are never overturned, and that no new discoveries come from anomalies observed.
“All your observations are obviously mistakes.
They couldn’t possibly be real, because if they were real, it would mean that major parts of current science are wrong, and we would have to rewrite large portions of we know about physics.
This never occurs.
Science proceeds by building on earlier works, never by tearing them down. \
Therefore it is right that we reject evidence which contradicts contemporary theory, and recommend that funding of such research not be continued.”
17. Hiding any evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are later proved valid.
Profound narcissism; an extreme need to always be right, a fear of having personal errors revealed, and a habit of silently covering up past mistakes.
“ X is obviously ridiculous, and its supporters are crack-pots who are giving us a bad name and should be silenced.”
But if X is proved true, the assertion suddenly becomes: “Since ‘X’ is obviously true, it follows that...”
18. Belief in the lofty status of modern science but with consequent blindness to, and denial of, its faults.
A tendency to view shameful events in the history of modern science as being beneficial, and a lack of any desire to fix contemporary problems.
“It was right that Dr. Wegner’s career was wrecked; that he was treated as a crackpot, ridiculed, and died in shame. His evidence for continental drift convinced no one. And besides, he did not propose a mechanism to explain the phenomena.”
19. A belief that Business and the Press have no tendency towards close-mindedness and suppression of novelty, and that their actions are never guided by the publicly-expressed judgment of scientists.
“If the Wright Brothers’ claims were true, we would be reading about it in all the papers, and flying-machine companies would be springing up left and right. Neither of these is occurring, therefore the Wright’s claims are obviously a lie and a hoax.
20. Refusing to be swayed when other researchers find evidence supporting unconventional phenomena or theories.
If other reputable people change sides and accept the unorthodox view, this is seen as evidence of their gullibility or insanity, not as evidence that perhaps the unconventional view is correct.
“I’ll believe it when someone like Dr. P believes it.”
But when Dr. P changes sides, this becomes: “Dr. P did some great work in his early years, but then he destroyed his career by getting involved with that irrational crackpot stuff.”
21. Elevating skepticism to a lofty position, yet indulging in hypocrisy and opening the way to pathological thinking by refusing to ever cast a critical, SKEPTICAL eye upon the irrational behavior of scoffers.
“Criticizing skeptics is never beneficial. It even represents a danger to science. One should never criticize science, it just gives ammunition to the enemy; it aids the irrational, anti-science hoards who would destroy our fragile edifice.”
22. Belief that modern scientists as a group lack faults, and therefore clinging to any slim justifications in order to ignore the arguments of those who hope to eliminate the flaws in Science.
“I think we can safely ignore Thomas Kuhn’s STRUCTURES OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS. Despite his physics training we can see that Kuhn was an outsider to science; he obviously doesn’t have a good grasp on real science. Outsiders never can see things in the proper positive light, it takes a working scientist to see the real situation.
Also, he stressed his central themes way too much, so I think we can ignore him as simply being a sensationalist.
And besides, if he’s digging up dirt regarding science, then he must have a hidden agenda.
I bet we’ll find that he’s a Christian or something, probably a creationist.”
23. Blindness to the widespread existence of the above symptoms.
Belief that scientists are inherently objective, and rarely fall victim to these faults.
Excusing the frequent appearance of these symptoms as being isolated instances which do not comprise an accumulation of evidence for the common practice of Pathological Skepticism.
“This ‘Pathological Skepticism’ does not exist. Kooks and crackpots deserve the hostile mistreatment we give them, but anyone who does similar things to skeptics is terribly misguided.
Those who criticize skeptics are a danger to Science itself, and we must stop them."
Impact Character
folding paper cranes ⭐
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,250
- 246,749
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Yule - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule
Winter solstice - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice
Winter solstice - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice
