Don't say it! (you'll kill one)

[Velensk]

But in the end, I suppose, it just comes down to whether you want to live in a world with magic or not.

This bit bothered me far more than anything else you've said. I don't have any problem with you believing in faeries (though I kind of agree with Mica that that dosn't matter) but it bothers me when people belive that their prefrence affects the state of the world.

[Mountain_King]

But in the end, I suppose, it just comes down to whether you want to live in a world with magic or not.

This bit bothered me far more than anything else you've said. I don't have any problem with you believing in faeries (though I kind of agree with Mica that that dosn't matter) but it bothers me when people belive that their prefrence affects the state of the world.

Indeed. I can believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't change the fact it's made of gray rock. Likewise, You can believe in fairies all you want, but that won't change anything if they don't truly exist. Perhaps I believe you are not really sitting on a chair or whatever in front of your computer, but are really sitting on a watermelon. Does that alter reality so you are really sitting on a watermelon? NO! Also, the theme I have seen running through this thread is the idea that we can't really trust our own senses when it comes to these kinds of things. That presents a massive philosophical difficulty, known as the preconditions of intelligibility.
On a side note, the Celtic notion behind the faerie race is that they are the descendants of the magical people known as the Tuatha De Dannan (later deified by the Irish people), who were banished to live underground by the poet Amerghin, one of the sons of Milidh.

[bazzz]

May i suggest you read a little more irony in my remark, obviously there is good content on tv.

I was commenting on the argument of bigfoot on tv being proof. In my opinion any information should be scrutinized more than that before it is accepted as true.

[ElvenKing]

But in the end, I suppose, it just comes down to whether you want to live in a world with magic or not.

This bit bothered me far more than anything else you've said. I don't have any problem with you believing in faeries (though I kind of agree with Mica that that dosn't matter) but it bothers me when people belive that their prefrence affects the state of the world.

I would argue that it often does, at least with reference to cases where people know how to use logic correctly. In the case of an aspect of existence that is proposed to be currently beyond human perception, using logic to analyse the truth value of the proposition gives no answer, as there being no evidence for it gives no indication, even a probabilistic one, that the proposed aspect does not exists(nor can there be anything to suggest that proposed aspect does exist). Thus, the source of a belief has to be found elsewhere. While it wouldn't have to be a case of believing what you prefer, you may be able to pick one arbitrarily or at random without any reference to the state of existence that you prefer, it would rather be rather silly to ignore the possibility I think.

Things get rather tricky, and this is rather where MC's statement might be a bit misleading, in cases where people have an incorrect impression about what logic says with reference to the situation. A person, on either side of the question, may well actually believe that existence or non-existence has shown to be proven or is more likely to be the case. Thus, what MC said cannot really be applied to them in terms of why they believe.

However, I think the line of reasoning that MC put forward, that people will shape what they think reality is as what they want it to be, is very much relevant when a person like I mention in the second paragraph is challenged by someone who picks up their error in reasoning and corrects it. I'm not so sure that it is so much the case that people believe that their preference affects the state of the world(although, I'm pretty certain mine does). It is more a case of: what people prefer does affect the reality they think exists. They are often quite blissfully unaware of it.

This bit bothered me far more than anything else you've said. I don't have any problem with you believing in faeries (though I kind of agree with Mica that that dosn't matter) but it bothers me when people belive that their prefrence affects the state of the world.

Indeed. I can believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't change the fact it's made of gray rock. Likewise, You can believe in fairies all you want, but that won't change anything if they don't truly exist. Perhaps I believe you are not really sitting on a chair or whatever in front of your computer, but are really sitting on a watermelon. Does that alter reality so you are really sitting on a watermelon? NO! Also, the theme I have seen running through this thread is the idea that we can't really trust our own senses when it comes to these kinds of things. That presents a massive philosophical difficulty, known as the preconditions of intelligibility.
On a side note, the Celtic notion behind the faerie race is that they are the descendants of the magical people known as the Tuatha De Dannan (later deified by the Irish people), who were banished to live underground by the poet Amerghin, one of the sons of Milidh.

No, it doesn't. Assuming that the senses are not accurate does not equal assuming that logic and reasoning do not exist. There would be a problem if a person was trying to show for sure that something simply must be the case; however, that is simply not true in this situation. In this case a person is accepting an axiom that logic and reasoning exist and using it to challenge whether we actually not that the senses are accurate. There is no more of a problem there in this the case than there is in any other philosophical position that uses logic and reasoning.

[Midnight_Carnival]

Aaah! nice and philosophical, just the thing I needed for my kidney-infection induced fever.

I would most certaily argue that our beliefs affect `the real world', that is because I disturst the notion of objective reality, however you may care to note that I am not doing so here.
I am not discussing what is, I am discussing our approach to things we don't understand. If you accept that we all share a single objective reality, totally unaffected by our moods, sanity or our own little preferences (and I am taking it that most of you do) then well and good, but as pointed out earlier, this does not mean that we have any reliable understanding of `the real world' we live in. No scientist worth his qualifications (or her qualifications) would dare state that humanity is possesed of absolute knowledge or understands everything perfectly. Do our beliefs affect what we do not understand? Well, I'd say the jury is out on that one, but for the sake of the argument I'd go with no. Do our beliefs affect our apporach to things we don't understand, and thus affect our chances of understanding them better? Well, if you believe that mathematics is inherantly evil and totally unreliable, you may have some difficulties understanding say quantum physics.

In my posts I have defined "magic" rahter broadly as forces which may have the power to affect us, which we do not understand. You are more than welcome to argue that we totally and perfectly understand all the forces which may have influence over our lives, but I would call that arogance or just plain stupidity.

We can approach these forces with the attitude of "well we know for certain that it can't be this that or the other", or we can approach them as would a child crawling through a hole in a wall and discovering an abandoned house he didn't know existed before. Like saying "I don't believe in fairies" is supposed to kill one, I would argue that killing potentials in our approach to the world around us makes the world a less special place and makes the things we don't understand more and more perplexing until we just simply can't face them and run from them or try to destroy them. I most certainly have an objection to such apporaches, and I would not call them benificial or even scientific.

Appart from that, I am fully aware that lack of conclusive proof does not constitute disproof, and lack of reliable evidence does not constitute evidence to the contrary, just as lack of conclusive disproof most certainly does not constitute any kind of proof, and lack of any contradictory evidence can not, and should not be taken as supporting evidence; as a sutdent of ancient cultures, I would be unable to formulate any kind of coherent argument if I suffered from these misconceptions! I do not claim to have a perfect grasp of logic, in fact I find such though patterns most confining, prefering "Alice in Wonderland Logic" (something like 'if this is a dream, I might as well enjoy myself and try to learn as much as I can, and if this is not a dream, I can do no better than to enjoy myself and try to learn as much as I can'), so if my reasoning is flawed, please do not hesitate to point this out to me, a logical falacy remains one whatever I may think of it.

Also, thanks greatly for sharing your Faerie lore with me, I know I was too busy battling tyo show any kind of apreciation for it, but I am very greatful

PS: "it's a particle, it's a wave, it's a particle, it's a wave! Hey, are you trying to tell me that the outcome of the experiment is affected by wheter there is an observer or not?" and "Midnight_Carnival (not real name), I think that if enough people took the trouble to listen to the <censored> you talk, and try to understand it, there would be a real danger that the laws of physics coudl break down."