Re:META: Psuedo Science
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:14:35 -0400 (EDT)

>Simplistically (remember this word) it seems that you suspect a causal link

> from spirituality to creativity.

It is not simplistic at all, merely eloquent. Thanks.
It was not a causal link I was suggesting. And you have a *very* good point.
If one agrees there is a link of any sort, it is not a causal factor: it is
a tool at best - and a very primitive one!
Obviously, it is not *necessary* that one have spirituality to have
creativity ( if so I should have a barren studio) I still note that in those
who practice, there is a "brain set" which so -called spirituality and
pseudo-science (by demanding that one actually believe a lot of make-believe,
and then even go so far as to _act_on it) encourages. It makes one more
gullible, naive, as well as more likely to indulge in fantasy. It encourages
flights of fancy. It "sets the stage" for a wider range of topics and
scenarios on which to build imagined scenes...

>My suspicion is that creativity without criticism leads to spirituality, and
what we can try to inspire critical thinking without depressing creativity at
the same time.

However, it is not the tool "criticism" that is lacking, more the DESIRE
for utilizing it.
As I asserted, if one tool works people will not readily give it up unless we
show them how to use the new one to achieve their aim.
Critical thought is not an appropriate response to make- believe. If we KNOW
it's make believe, that is. What Sagan talks about in Demon Haunted World
when he asks: "Mommy, how do I know the difference between what I imagine in
my head and what is real?"

I think you are correct: Pseudo science is a substitute for real, solid
science, and works for people because it is "creativity" without any "facts".
But it is interesting, catches the imagination.

There is also a huge tradition in storytelling to make things *more
interesting* by elaborating the truth.