 |
 |
> > I do however feel rather alienated by the 'skeptic' movement, despite > admiring James Randi, as I find it is by definition an ideological > mindset rather than a truly scientific perspective. I thus find myself > in a quandary. Am I a believer or just someone into fanciful ideas? > This leads me onto another thought. If magic is 'real', can it be > proven? By that, I mean can magical events be quantified, can these > results be falsified and can such findings survive vigorous peer > review? > I have a lot of time for James Randi, Martin Gardiner et al - given the laughable claims made by Uri Geller and his ilk - and am a long time reader of The Skeptic. However, I find dogmatic "the world is scientific" claims equally laughable. It's worth a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems> . If "you" construct propositional logical assumptions to "prove" "ideas" then you must ask what a priori axiomatic assumptions you make about the conception of self and the nature of reality. Can assumptions be fully and consistently expressed and argued about in a meaningful and logical manner? Can conceptualisations ever represent a unlimited model of experience? If not and the model is limited, can it ever be treated as a universal theory or usefully applied in a partial way? Regards, Peter