body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

I'm triggered by people who believe in astrology, or talking to spirits or deities or reading energies or whatever. Am I just overly sensitive or closed minded or judgmental? Maybe but... I think there's something else going on here. An analogy:

28

22

293

Replying to

That’s fair overall but maybe too sensitive. I think there is validity to some occultism, which you seem to allow for. And pop science dogma is so wrong and strong that many people willing to believe in occultism are starting with a proactive, defensive quasi-confidence.

1

2

Replying to

Pop science dogma does result in a 'lashback' re: non-science stuff, but both the dogma and the lashback are unpleasant for me

10:29 PM · Oct 10, 2020

Replying to

Yah. The lashback is dogmatic, too. I don’t even think occult phenomena are paranormal, supernatural, or beyond science. I think science is still going through early growing pains. If we live long enough, it’ll shake off that dewy, post-enlightenment methodological reductionism.

1