Jump to content

Talk:Mysticism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pseudo-science

[edit]

This edit changed

The perennial position is now "largely dismissed by scholars",[1] most scholars using a contextual approach, which takes the cultural and historical context into consideration.

into

The perennial position is now "largely dismissed by scholars",[1] most scholars using a contextual approach, which takes the cultural and historical context into consideration. It is widely considered, as pseudoscience.[2][3][4][5]


References

  1. ^ a b McMahan 2008, p. 269, note 9.
  2. ^ Ben-Shakhar, Gershon; Bar, Marianna (2018-06-08). The Lying Machine: Mysticism and Pseudo-Science in Personality Assessment and Prediction. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781138301030.
  3. ^ Shermer, Michael; Linse, Pat (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781576076538.
  4. ^ Smith, Jonathan C. (2011-09-26). Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444358940.
  5. ^ Eburne, Jonathan (2018-09-18). Outsider Theory: Intellectual Histories of Questionable Ideas. U of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9781452958255.

Apart from put at the wrong place (is Perennialism pseudo-science?), it also doesn't summarise the article, but adds a new statement, without providing any context, and ignoring any and all explanations in the Wiki-article. The statement seems to target another topic, namely the paranormal. NB: Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal doesn't even mention the term "mysticism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No no no it's not like that.. lemme ping some skeptics and scholars who knew that mysticism is a pseudoscience ie not dependent upon scientific methods or research that really satisfies it as a "science". @JzG: @Guy Macon: @MjolnirPants: @PaleoNeonate:
Where in the article is there any statement that mysticism is a science?!? I think you're referring to this:

In the contemporary usage "mysticism" has become an umbrella term for all sorts of non-rational world views.[1] William Harmless even states that mysticism has become "a catch-all for religious weirdness".[2] Within the academic study of religion the apparent "unambiguous commonality" has become "opaque and controversial".[3] The term "mysticism" is being used in different ways in different traditions.[3] Some call to attention the conflation of mysticism and linked terms, such as spirituality and esotericism, and point at the differences between various traditions.[4]


References

  1. ^ Parsons 2011, p. 3-5.
  2. ^ Harmless 2007, p. 3.
  3. ^ a b Parsons 2011, p. 3.
  4. ^ Parsons 2011, pp. 3–4.


So, at best you could change

In the contemporary usage "mysticism" has become an umbrella term for all sorts of non-rational world views.[1]

into

In the contemporary usage "mysticism" has become an umbrella term for all sorts of non-rational world views,[1] parapsychology, and pseudoscience.[2][3][4][5]


References

  1. ^ a b Parsons 2011, p. 3-5.
  2. ^ Ben-Shakhar, Gershon; Bar, Marianna (2018-06-08). The Lying Machine: Mysticism and Pseudo-Science in Personality Assessment and Prediction. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781138301030.
  3. ^ Shermer, Michael; Linse, Pat (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781576076538.
  4. ^ Smith, Jonathan C. (2011-09-26). Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444358940.
  5. ^ Eburne, Jonathan (2018-09-18). Outsider Theory: Intellectual Histories of Questionable Ideas. U of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9781452958255.
And them I'm still not sure that your references support this in an unambiguous way. But here are some of the sources that I found: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of pseudoscience is “statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual” and “something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively.” Mysticism has never claimed to be science or scientific. So by definition, mysticism in not pseudoscience. There have been fake mystics, but they have never presented their claims as science. - Epinoia (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough for this.. per talk I can change it to the given modified statement given there, seems neutral and consistent to WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI 182.58.254.0 (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll check and copy-edit your sources another time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perennialism

[edit]

Constructionism versus Perennialism is a well-known debate; see the piblications of Katz and Forman. Regarding the references:

  • McMahan gives an expose of Perennialism on p.71, and then applies this specifically to Buddhism; it is not limited to Buddhism.
  • Horne p.9: The discussion centres on the question of whether mysticism is a human experience that is the same in all times and all places but explained in many ways, or a family of similar experiences that includes many different kinds, as represented by the many kinds of religious and secular mystical reports. - that's about Perennialism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Horne does not mention perennialism or constructionism - to say he does is an interpretation of his work, not what he actually says - the definition of perennialism is "each of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin" - the operative words being "religious traditions" - mystical experiences may include a sense of universality or oneness, but they are not necessarily religious experiences, although often in a religious context - so to equate mysticism and perennialism is incorrect - perennialism is specifically about religion, mysitcism may be outside religion - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for New WikiProject

[edit]

I have made a proposal at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. Would any one like to join me in helping this project to get off the ground? This article would obviously be rated as Top Importance for this WikiProject. Vorbee (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC) It looks as if Wikipedia: WikiProject Mysticism has been created now, so I wonder whether any one who knows more about these things than me be able to say at the top of the talk page it would be of interest to this WikiProject? Many thanks, Vorbee (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification

[edit]

Greeting, There is more than one issue. The article is included in a category "Articles with unsourced statements from December 2013" which fails the B-class criteria. The extensive "References" with 12 subsections might be a little overboard. I am not sure the common practice of using such an extensive "Notes" subsection but it is close to being an article within an article. The six subsections from "Religious and spiritual traditions" to the "Classical" subsection does not seem to follow any layout I have observed. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone started defining Mystic Sciene itself?

[edit]

The study of the Mystics is already acknowledged under the science wikipedia page.

I was wondering if we have started to define Mystic Sciene, the study of mystics under science just to start the validation, and defense. Confidently defining what is being studied as a science is a step to getting our minds validated in the truth we live without changing what we learn. Supernova004 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mysticism&oldid=1209117125"