WTTV-Christine Breese's Univ Of Metaphysical Sciences Pt3of5

[RSFO]

About Pyrrhonism:

The dogmatist asserts that something is true. He makes judgments he is willing to stand by. The skeptic suspends her judgment; she waits until she is sure, which may be never. *Suspension of judgment* (in Greek, epoche), not doubt and not denial, is the skeptic's characteristic activity.

Google: "classical skepticism"

[RSFO]

If you want to further discuss this, I invite you to Technocracy (dot) ca. We subject the dogmas like "TINA" and The Price System. :-)

[RSFO]

@Docteur4u You have already resorted to dogmatism by saying "spiritual bs", it seems to me. Spiritual "bullshit" can be one fictionalist way to explain things. It is not truely bullshit unless it denies being subject to skeptical scrutiny. And in this regard I mean true skepticism, Pyrrhonian skepticism, the ancient Greek "third" epistemology. I assert that everything can be subjected by fallibilism in any fashion. If it survives, then it is not bullshit. If not, then bullshit walks the plank.

[RSFO]

Well I think that her approach is more in the nonduality rack. The term "New Age" is unprecice if you ask me, and nondualism is an age old approach which subjects dogmas quite like ancient Greek skepticism. I defend fictionalism (look it up) and I agree with her, that consciousness __is__ this quantum entanglement of matter. It is memory. But this "belief" I leave open to skeptical scrutiny. No belief is bullsh*t, unless it denies this, because then it has resorted to dogmatism.

[RSFO]

@Docteur4u Now you misrepresent what I've stated. Look up fallibilism, not subjectivism.

"I don't know if I'm right about things but I personally believe I get closer to reality and truth the more I learn about the world."

That much we can agree about, so then I suggest the fallibilist approach.

"[...]metaphysical supernatural things[...]"

Calling my views metaphysical supernatural things does not make them so. I do not believe in duality, so I do not believe anything is supernatural.

[RSFO]

@Docteur4u Excuse me, but I did not mean to dismiss mainstream science altogether and out of hand, and I said *much* mainstream science use erroneous epistemology, which I stand by. I suggest relentless search for the best fallibilist epistemology for scientific methods. Actually I think our scientific understanding just needs tweaking. And please carefully examine what I wrote again. I do not think any belief is wrong, unless it denies being subject to critical inquiry. Fallibilism, look it up!

[RSFO]

@Docteur4u

The problem is that much mainstream science use erroneous epistemology. Only through a sane critical epistemology as basis for scientific method(s) we truly learn reality. Pyrrhonian skepticism is a healthy way to this. And about evidence for spirit, try to look up quantum consciousness, DMT, ayahuasca, Roger Penrose, Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin... I think there are plenty of evidence for spiritual non-mechanical side of reality.