Timeline for Does law of attraction have psychological basis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:55 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 25, 2014 at 22:06 | comment | added | Greg McNulty | @nick-stauner: +1 fair enough | |
| Jan 24, 2014 at 3:36 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | I'm not sure you do! ;) Skepticism doesn't dictate ignoring experiences at all, certainly not when they defy a theory. Being skeptical means not saying "I know for sure" about any theory at least until some serious effort has been invested in trying and failing to prove the theory wrong. It means doubting scientific findings too, especially if counterevidence exists. Science certainly has more left to explore than it has so far, as does our collective awareness, but where this is especially true, one must remain especially skeptical of ideas that propose to fill those gaps prematurely! | |
| Jan 24, 2014 at 2:52 | comment | added | Greg McNulty | @nick-stauner: I completely get the skepticism...but it is hard to ignore certain life experiences that defy common scientific findings. I am not saying there is a formula for this either but rather elements that perhaps science has yet to explore or is outside of our awareness. Did you get a chance to watch the video? Re: "it means whatever vibrations we create are an infinitesimal fraction of overall activity. " yes, I do agree but also relative to the size of the world your awareness is part of. | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 23:14 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | ...So good luck to anyone trying to sort that signal out of the noise. I feel confident in betting you haven't done enough sorting (and wouldn't even be capable, nor would I) to be as sure as you are. Skepticism is paramount in resolving pseudoscientific claims like these. | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 23:12 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | Citation very much needed regarding scientific support for dualism. As with spirituality, religion does not unanimously support dualism. As for "vibrations," if you're referring to wave-particle duality, you may want to note the controversy about this that arises before the discussion even gets particularly metaphysical. Last, if true, it means whatever vibrations we create are an infinitesimal fraction of overall activity. | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 21:10 | comment | added | Greg McNulty | @nick-stauner: the idea is that everything in reality is energetic vibration, a thought a physical object an intent...the "vibrations" that we have free will in creating do effect what we experience to some degree, this I know for sure. | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 21:03 | comment | added | Greg McNulty | @ArtemKaznatcheev: Science and religion are both pointing towards the mind/spirit as separate from the brain/body. There are clearly gaps in science as well as religion - but it is not black and white or mutually exclusive. and many people have experienced these gaps. While I do not agree with the gimmic part of concept (i.e. make more money instantly by thinking about it) there is a fundamental truth to the root. I am very interested to have u watch, please, even if you say no to every part of it, open minded, (then tear it apart with science) - youtube.com/watch?v=ltGstp5GaFc | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 10:47 | history | edited | Nick Stauner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 110 characters in body
|
| Jan 23, 2014 at 10:11 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | @ArtemKaznatcheev: I followed up on your point about skeptics.SE and edited in some good info from a related (and more clearly psychological) question that's already been asked and answered over there! | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 10:09 | history | edited | Nick Stauner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
elaboration
|
| Jan 23, 2014 at 9:19 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | @GregMcNulty: I'm unclear on what you mean by "a correlation to quantum physics and our thoughts." As for "unexplainable experiences" of any kind, be careful not to discount theorists' abilities to explain anything at least as meaningfully as it can be defined! No one has a comprehensive grasp on what theorists have explained already, much less what might be explained in the future. Most truly inexplicable phenomena are only inexplicable because they are poorly defined (or so I'd argue on a mostly intuitive basis). | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 8:14 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | @NickStauner I am not opposed to your use of wikipedia in this answer! Especially with the bolding and expansion in the rest of the answer, it shows that you are taking time to provide a good answer. However, I would have voted to close this question as answerable by wikipedia and being better fit for skeptics than here. | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 8:13 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | @GregMcNulty it has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics, don't subscribe to such hokum. See the last two sections of my answer here since they apply to pretty much every use of the word quantum near anything to do with humans. | |
| Jan 23, 2014 at 3:00 | comment | added | Greg McNulty | @nick-stauner: I have had some unexplainable experiences with the Secret concept, so be careful to not count it out. There is definitely a correlation to quantum physics and our thoughts. | |
| Jan 22, 2014 at 23:01 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | If we could all agree that the "law of attraction" amounts to no more and no less than, "Keep your eye on the prize," or some such aphorism, I don't think The Secret would attract anywhere near as much attention as it does (critical and otherwise)...though it might deserve more! | |
| Jan 22, 2014 at 16:07 | comment | added | user4951 | While imagining cookies won't give you cookies, it may make you more aware when there are cookies around. Anything that may significantly affect the outcome will be more clearly seen rather than ignored. | |
| Jan 22, 2014 at 13:32 | history | edited | Nick Stauner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Linked Wikipedia pages on biases
|
| Jan 22, 2014 at 13:27 | history | answered | Nick Stauner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |