Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 182

Thread: 'One Matter' - Empiricism & Alchemy - Discerning Truth from Deception

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    I got your point, JDP.
    Can you name one/some good sources/texts of chymists with which you can produce small quantities of transmutated silver or gold?
    The author of the rather mistitled "Alchymia Denudata" has written some plain truths, so has "Sincerus Renatus" in some of his books that deal with "particulars". Glauber, Becher and Kunckel also have written some truths rather plainly. Kellner sometimes points to processes that do give positive results (some of Kellner's works were published anonymously, but you can easily recognize his style once you get familiar with the works he openly published under his name.) But all of the older "chymists" have unfortunately also infested their works with lots of lies, empty boasts and false processes (just look at Becher's massive "Chymischer GlŁcks-Hafen", for example. Around 3/4, if not actually more, of this gigantic collection of "particulars" are false.) It's what makes investigating "chymistry" difficult because it forces the researcher to have to sift through tons of nonsense in order to stumble upon a comparative few worthy things. That takes time and money to do. But if you examine the works by some of the later "chymists", like Juncker, Creiling, Henckel, von Justi, Rouelle, etc., they help clear up some of the nonsense and false claims and more directly point to some of the worthy things to start investigating.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Can gay people have a thread about a gay issue in peace, without homophobic redneck KKK people butting in every five minutes to say homosexuality is EVIL?
    This is not a very good comparison, though. We are not talking about subjective things like "evil" vs "good", but about EMPIRICALLY probable vs improbable, as well as what exactly did this or that alchemist actually say or mean or imply regarding the subject.

    If someone wants to talk about "one matter only" then it is fine to raise the issue that this is wrong... but again, and again, and again, and again... well that is not the same thing. Such things call for a new thread... some people want to discuss "one matter only", because it is TRUTH for them. You are not the Truth Police.
    I would agree with this if this was going on in other threads, the ones that have hardly much to do with the subject, but what's wrong with the threads where this is in fact the subject being discussed, or appertains closely to it??? Also, "truth" is NOT subjective when we are dealing with EMPIRICAL FACTS. These are the same for all. That's why the comparison with "good" vs "evil" is not very good. That is more subjective.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,519
    Blog Entries
    2
    Empirical Facts and Alchemy is, to a scientist, a joke. Pseudo-science cannot be fact. You are interested in mumbo-jumbo according to 90 % of the Western World.

    However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn, has argued that these methods [meaning Empirical Evidence] are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently, it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data. - source
    There is really no such thing as Empirical Fact. There is such a thing as Empirical Evidence, and the reason the term "evidence" is important is because "evidence" can be thrown out of court when NEW evidence is brought forth.

    Case closed.


    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Empirical Facts and Alchemy is, to a scientist, a joke. Pseudo-science cannot be fact. You are interested in mumbo-jumbo according to 90 % of the Western World.



    There is really no such thing as Empirical Fact. There is such a thing as Empirical Evidence, and the reason the term "evidence" is important is because "evidence" can be thrown out of court when NEW evidence is brought forth.

    Case closed.

    Makes one wonder why did you bother to make an "Alchemy Forums" in the first place if you think it is all mumbo-jumbo and lies.

    The quotation about Khun is valid as far as it goes into the realm of mixing preconceived notions (i.e. theories) with the observable empirical facts. However, when truly considered by a truly independent observer that does not a priori subscribe to any theory, empirical facts stand by themselves. Does Khun really have any possible valid argument against the reality of gravity, for example? Nope, he doesn't. That gravity is very real and exists is INDEPENDENT of what one thinks is causing it.

    Yes, NEW EVIDENCE can do that TO THEORIES, but that does not invalidate the previously observed facts that those theories were built upon, though. Let me bring the "phlogiston" theory as an example: 18th century chemists were convinced of the reality of this "thing", and they tried to back it up by such OBSERVABLE phenomena as combustion and calcination. But then came Lavoisier armed with a whole set of NEW ACCUMULATED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE regarding the composition of the atmosphere and totally invalidated the THEORY of "phlogiston", but it DID NOT INVALIDATE the combustion and calcination that the "phlogistonists" were observing over and over again, he just gave these EMPIRICAL FACTS a more satisfactory explanation. The "phlogistonists" just MISINTERPRETED the same empirical evidence that Lavoisier himself used in his investigations, but Lavoisier also had the added advantage over his predecessors that he had EVEN MORE empirical evidence at his disposal to more correctly assess the issue and give it a more satisfactory explanation.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,519
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Makes one wonder why did you bother to make an "Alchemy Forums" in the first place if you think it is all mumbo-jumbo and lies.
    I was saying that the people who INVENTED the concept of Empirical Evidence, the rational scientific fact based community... those people think you are a crack pot.


    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    I was saying that the people who INVENTED the concept of Empirical Evidence, the rational scientific fact based community... those people think you are a crack pot.

    Who says they "invented" it? Observation of empirical facts goes back to prehistoric times, since man has been around. What may change is the way of interpreting them, but the facts remain the same.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,519
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Observation of empirical facts goes back to prehistoric times, since man has been around.
    No one can know for certain, but since it is my main field of study I would place a large bet on the "fact" that prehistoric times shared opinions closer to mine than yours... in the sense that they "believed" and "saw" a lot of paranormal things that cannot have any other empirical evidence than the experience of the subject itself. Science is good for making tooth paste... pretty much ends there IMO.


    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    No one can know for certain, but since it is my main field of study I would place a large bet on the "fact" that prehistoric times shared opinions closer to mine than yours... in the sense that they "believed" and "saw" a lot of paranormal things that cannot have any other empirical evidence than the experience of the subject itself. Science is good for making tooth paste... pretty much ends there IMO.

    Maybe in regards to "opinions", like when they probably thought that naturally occurring fire was some sort of "Divine Gift" (but eventually figured out that they could make it too, and there was no need for some "supernatural" cause in starting a fire; watch the 1981 film Quest for Fire for an entertaining take on this), but when it comes to just observing naked facts and not trying to meddle with the always uncertain issue of "interpreting" what is causing those facts (like when they learnt that falling down a cliff invariably means certain death, for example; no questions asked, they just accepted it as a fact corroborated by repeated experience) they were closer to my points of view than to yours.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,519
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    ...certain death...
    Certain? He he...


    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Certain? He he...

    Would you care to put it to the test? Find the nearest cliff and plunge in...

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts