The end of the rope is near...

cannabineer said:
You cannot use science to lend these ideas more weight.
It injures the basic premise of science, and in doing so devalues the metaphysical argument. It should really be developed, explored and defended on its own terms.

. cn
Click to expand...
:clap:Plus rep for this^.

Reminds me of Gould's quote;
“Scientists have power by virtue of the respect commanded by the discipline... We live with poets and politicians, preachers and philosophers. All have their ways of knowing, and all are valid in their proper domain. The world is too complex and interesting for one way to hold all the answers.”
― Stephen Jay Gould, Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History
 
......reverence, yo.

Copy that, eye-e. Been through a medical emergency, as I've mentioned. Years of Mind Altering drugs and not the good kind. As a Life Scout, though, I remember the guidance and I am working back up through the Catechism.

Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Cheerful, Thrifty, Clean, Brave, and Reverent.

As we can see sometimes, it can be like herding cats. :)
 
Zaehet Strife said:
It's already using faith as a crutch... i don't think it can afford to lose another leg.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I see metaphysics as still in the realm of what-if. Unlike a religion, metaphysics' investigators get to cut&shuffle their premises from an infinite pool of maybe. There's no prejudicial doctrinal burden, no starting point dictated by an article of faith afaik. cn
 
...neer, ztrife - chicken or the egg?

...cause, my next question iiiiiisssss - was science initially inspired by faith? I remember the movie Caveman (Ringo was in this one!), the main character spun a rock shaped like a tire around his index finger (completely unaware of his discovery), while thinking about ways to get the hot girl of the cave. Anywho, I totally mean no offense here but I might be saying that I can see science as having been a take-off of 'the hunch' - maybe even 'the wish'. Purposely not discussing 'the need' as mother of invention in this. And, I'm not talking about observation also, I think it goes further than that, something like the caveman and the girl.

:)
 
cannabineer said:
This is where i cannot agree. There is no "kinda" using the scientific method. You use it whole, or not at all.
What you really truly need to embrace is that the domain of science is limited. It is limited to the material. Metaphysics of any stripe is not suitable terrain for science. By its definition, metaphysics contains unprovables (technically, unfalsifiables) among its premises.
This makes it out of bounds for science, structurally, irredeemably.

Does this mean that metaphysics is an unsuitable field of human study? I don't believe that, because science is a portion and not the totality of human experience and story.

However, you tried to extend the scientific way of doing things onto the metaphysical by the usual, invalid and frankly annoying method: to invoke hard-science concepts with a healthy dose of metaphor and evocation to seel parallels to favorite metaphysical/supernatural concepts of connectedness.
This does not work.
You cannot use science to lend these ideas more weight.
It injures the basic premise of science, and in doing so devalues the metaphysical argument. It should really be developed, explored and defended on its own terms.

One of science's salient traits is how successful it has been ...when allowed to operate within the confines of its domain. But i have witnessed a cultural phenomenon ... many not-quite-scientific enterprises have wrapped themselves in a grammar and symbology of science ... in order to get some of the reflected radiance of all that scientific success. To a knowing and caring observer, this trend is sterile, since the assumption of scientificity is usually spurious, a metaphor at best.

And here's the nub: science does not use metaphor internally, except as a pedagogic device. Science is absolutely reliant on direct, nonfigurative expression of its concepts and conclusions. Metaphysics ... cannot be.

The biggest crime or mistake applies when someone vaguely suggests that scientific method can be used to advance metaphysical inquiry, as the bit I've kept of your post posits. The tragedy occurs when a pathological or fraudulent scientist ignores Rule #1 (science is restricted to the repeatably, sensorily observable) and ascribes spurious meaning to things like the Strassmann experiment, which cannot be reproduced for love or money.

The real question then is, since it's not appropriate, why all this focus on trying to "scientize" a nonscientific pursuit? Science does not benefit. I am left to conclude that it's an effort to give metaphysical inquiry the veneer of legitimacy. but in the attempt, it cheapens both science and the actual inquiry.
Metaphysics needs to stand on its own philosophical legs and not use science as a crutch. This is my considered opinion. cn
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you for your humble OPINION Neer... Though I disagree that Strassmans experiment cannot be repeatable. Have you not heard many stories of people sharing the same psychedelic trip? To me thats an obvious example of non-material connectedness through consciousness... Also, with your opinion, do you think things like god and the afterlife can be objectively proven without the use of science? If the metaphysical is an unknown reality, why is it so frowned upon to use scientific experiments to try and detect it? They must interact with material reality somehow. I am not satisfied with the "its not material, so whats the point?" excuse. I think that is lazy and ignorant. But scientists and researchers are FINALLY making the jump into studying these things, but I doubt they will get any attention until something absolutely AMAZING gets scientifically proven and even then there will be so many resisting the truth because of their material belief... I cant agree more that material science is VERY limited lol.
 
Chief Walkin Eagle said:
Yes, thank you for your humble OPINION Neer... Though I disagree that Strassmans experiment cannot be repeatable. Have you not heard many stories of people sharing the same psychedelic trip? To me thats an obvious example of non-material connectedness through consciousness... Also, with your opinion, do you think things like god and the afterlife can be objectively proven without the use of science? If the metaphysical is an unknown reality, why is it so frowned upon to use scientific experiments to try and detect it? They must interact with material reality somehow. I am not satisfied with the "its not material, so whats the point?" excuse. I think that is lazy and ignorant. But scientists and researchers are FINALLY making the jump into studying these things, but I doubt they will get any attention until something absolutely AMAZING gets scientifically proven and even then there will be so many resisting the truth because of their material belief... I cant agree more that material science is VERY limited lol.
Click to expand...

I have never ever heard of a trip experience being recreated or revisited, except on the word of the participant.
How would you repeat Strassmann's experiment? How would you stack the deck to "contact" the same entity, and how would you remove reasonable doubt that it isn't someone/something else?

I do not believe that questions of God/afterlife can be approached scientifically, except with the bland dismissal "no data".
I am not characterizing the metaphysical as an unknown reality. That would be begging the question. I do however allow that it doesn't exclude all reality.
When staying in science's corner, "it's not material (i.e. sensory), so there is no point" is necessary. However, have you ever seen me write that the material is the entirety of the real?
As for scientists making the jump to study these things, Chief ... they cannot. Accepting a supernatural premise means it's no longer science, even though the tremendous appetite of a scientifically illiterate audience for anything that promises a fusion of science with their favorite brand of magic. There are millions of real mundane tangible dollars to be made each week in that racket.

I am not saying that science is the be-all and end-all.
I am not sayingg that the metaphysical is assuredly not real.
Nor am I saying that the metaphysical is assuredly real.
But there is a hard boundary between natural philosophy and the philosophy of more-than-nature, with nature being defined as all within the reach of scientific inquiry. nature is mundane and sensory, and hews to physical rules and patterns for which science is our best tool of understanding.

But here's the rub: we do not know that nature is all there is, and the irritating capacity of paranormal things to maybe happen (since they are beyond the reach of science, it comes down to trust in the experiencer's story ... a subset of faith) means that for an observer who hasn't made materialism a religion ... that reality may very well be bigger than what we can reach with our metaphorical calipers and probes.

But at this time there is no science of spirit, and there can't be, since spirit is necessarily above&beyond entirely material manifestations. By invocation of symmetry, you cannot make a dent in my pet hypothesis that all spiritual experience is the result of a peculiarity in our (thoroughly mundane) neural wiring. My hypothesis has the gracious property of being provable wrong, one day, should further research suggest that. cn
 
Chief Walkin Eagle said:
If the metaphysical is an unknown reality, why is it so frowned upon to use scientific experiments to try and detect it?
Click to expand...

Because science tests objective reality. You can use science to test the paranormal but it's a bit like using ultrasound to see how much gas is in your car. It's not the right tool and will probably give you meaningless results. You seem to think science is saying "I am too good to be used on silly paranormal concepts" when it is really saying, "I have nothing I can say about paranormal concepts".

They must interact with material reality somehow.
Click to expand...

If they interact with reality, then they are not beyond it. Once interaction occurs, the possibility of evidence is introduced and the scientific method can now have something to say. We know reality behaves by certain rules, not science rules, but nature's rules, so if the paranormal wants to cross over to interact with material reality, it must also play by it's rules.

I am not satisfied with the "its not material, so whats the point?" excuse.
Click to expand...

We are simply saying, if it's not material, don't use material tools. You seek the service of science conditionally. That condition is, science can only confirm what I say, if it conflicts, then it is inadequate. You remove the possibility of, if it conflicts, it's because my ideas are wrong. What is the point of using science as a test if you have no possibility of failing that test?

The idea that we are all interconnected may be valid, but it can not be used to trump what we know about reality. Your ideas can either be beyond science, or they can co-mingle with it. What they can not do is conflict, or else your entire premise falls apart.

It's very simple, If science can not be used to discount your ideas, it can neither be used to confirm them. You can not throw out the principals behind science and still call it science.
 
eye exaggerate said:
...neer, ztrife - chicken or the egg?

...cause, my next question iiiiiisssss - was science initially inspired by faith? I remember the movie Caveman (Ringo was in this one!), the main character spun a rock shaped like a tire around his index finger (completely unaware of his discovery), while thinking about ways to get the hot girl of the cave. Anywho, I totally mean no offense here but I might be saying that I can see science as having been a take-off of 'the hunch' - maybe even 'the wish'. Purposely not discussing 'the need' as mother of invention in this. And, I'm not talking about observation also, I think it goes further than that, something like the caveman and the girl.

:)
Click to expand...

Eye, I consider it not unreasonable that faith had a midwife's role in the birth of science.
But science, even in its first baby steps, required a tabula rasa attitude: Start with a blank sheet. Make verifiable observations of the world around us. Build from there. Argue a lot. discard conclusions and patterns that can be damaged by an inconvenient fact.

Science is, just like math, ultimately a humanity. It is indelibly shaped by the human minds of its proponents. And spirit-inquiry has been a basic characteristic of people since before the Venus of Willendorf ... until right now.
But just as the child is not the parent, and although a keen devotion to God has been a hallmark of many a successful, honest scientist ... science itself has shed any vestige of faith. That was a requirement.

Science, just like any other human art, has its roots in all sorts of creativity. Hunches and wishes are powerful motivators for scientists in the past and today. But what differentiates science is that, while it acknowledges the human drives of the inquirer, the question is objectivized ... dehumanized, if you will. It is this imposition of the yardstick of objectivity, the separation of the question from the asker, that has been the Go-point for the edifice of science as we know it today. cn
 
Heisenberg said:
Because science tests objective reality. You can use science to test the paranormal but it's a bit like using ultrasound to see how much gas is in your car. It's not the right tool and will probably give you meaningless results. You seem to think science is saying "I am too good to be used on silly paranormal concepts" when it is really saying, "I have nothing I can say about paranormal concepts".



If they interact with reality, then they are not beyond it. Once interaction occurs, the possibility of evidence is introduced and the scientific method can now have something to say. We know reality behaves by certain rules, not science rules, but nature's rules, so if the paranormal wants to cross over to interact with material reality, it must also play by it's rules.



We are simply saying, if it's not material, don't use material tools. You seek the service of science conditionally. That condition is, science can only confirm what I say, if it conflicts, then it is inadequate. You remove the possibility of, if it conflicts, it's because my ideas are wrong. What is the point of using science as a test if you have no possibility of failing that test?

The idea that we are all interconnected may be valid, but it can not be used to trump what we know about reality. Your ideas can either be beyond science, or they can co-mingle with it. What they can not do is conflict, or else your entire premise falls apart.

It's very simple, If science can not be used to discount your ideas, it can neither be used to confirm them. You can not throw out the principals behind science and still call it science.
Click to expand...

I never said it was beyond reality, if it happens then it is reality. If the so called "supernatural" interacts with physical reality, it must abide by our understanding of material reality? If the "supernatural" were to be proven as natural then the materialistic view of reality is obviously just the tip of the ice burg with many rules that we are oblivious to. I dont think it HAS to abide by material rules because it is not certain that those rules are all there is.
 
If we accept that consciousness carries an element that is sacred, and also accept that this element may be beyond what science can study, we still have no reason to throw out investigative values. We can still be careful.

We can agree to be critical. If we are not critical, we are dogmatic. We can agree that ideas are open to development, elimination, and refinement. All we have to do is agree that some ideas are bad, and we have now valued critical scrutiny.

We can agree on revision. Once we agree that some ideas are bad, we can agree that it is smart to look at our ideas and try to throw out what is bad and improve on what is good.

We can agree that to consider something a good idea, it must have some explanatory power that doesn't conflict with our other explanations. We can agree that it is not okay to say a box contains both an apple and an orange, but then to separately deny that it contains an orange, or an apple. We can agree that our ideas can not conflict with one another, and if they do, one of them doesn't work, one of them needs adjustment

We can agree on parsimony. The idea that we do not automatically assign elements to an explanation simply because we want to. We can agree that every assumption contained within an explanation is a possible source of error. (if we knew it was correct, it wouldn't be an assumption) We can agree that we should look at our assumptions carefully and hold them suspect. We can agree that the more conservative we are in our assumptions, the less room there is for error. We can agree that if our explanations doesn't work, then our assumptions is the best place to look for mistakes. When we agree that assumptions are sources of error, we can then agree that our assumptions must be based on some logic or prior knowledge, rather than being pulled out of our ass. I mean we can just use any old assumption, but we will waste a lot of time and end up with bad answers.

When you say an idea is beyond science that is fine. When you say an idea defies science, subverts it or otherwise gets around it, you have crossed over to special pleading. When you engage in special pleading you are saying the rigidness of science is too constrictive to give us proper answers, but you are not explaining why you throw out basic principals of investigation, like scrutiny, revision and parsimony.
 
Chief Walkin Eagle said:
I never said it was beyond reality, if it happens then it is reality. If the so called "supernatural" interacts with physical reality, it must abide by our understanding of material reality? If the "supernatural" were to be proven as natural then the materialistic view of reality is obviously just the tip of the ice burg with many rules that we are oblivious to. I dont think it HAS to abide by material rules because it is not certain that those rules are all there is.
Click to expand...

There may be rules we don't understand, but that does not explain why paranormal ideas can break the rules we do understand, Rules that we never observe nature to break. If we did see nature breaking these rules, we would have to adjust our understanding of nature, but first it must occur. Your premise is that science can't see it occur because it's not looking, or refuses to look. Show me any area of knowledge where science has done this. Name one accepted piece of knowledge about our world that science denies. Science, by definition, must be open to new ideas and observations. If it flat our refuses to study something, then it is not science.

What is the point of using science as a test if you have no possibility of failing that test? Name one idea you have had that you abandoned because of science. If you do not let science tell you what is wrong, then you have no business letting science tell you what is right.
 
Heisenberg said:
If we accept that consciousness carries an element that is sacred, and also accept that this element may be beyond what science can study, we still have no reason to throw out investigative values. We can still be careful.

We can agree to be critical. If we are not critical, we are dogmatic. We can agree that ideas are open to development, elimination, and refinement. All we have to do is agree that some ideas are bad, and we have now valued critical scrutiny.

We can agree on revision. Once we agree that some ideas are bad, we can agree that it is smart to look at our ideas and try to throw out what is bad and improve on what is good.

We can agree that to consider something a good idea, it must have some explanatory power that doesn't conflict with our other explanations. We can agree that it is not okay to say a box contains both an apple and an orange, but then to separately deny that it contains an orange, or an apple. We can agree that our ideas can not conflict with one another, and if they do, one of them doesn't work, one of them needs adjustment

We can agree on parsimony. The idea that we do not automatically assign elements to an explanation simply because we want to. We can agree that every assumption contained within an explanation is a possible source of error. (if we knew it was correct, it wouldn't be an assumption) We can agree that we should look at our assumptions carefully and hold them suspect. We can agree that the more conservative we are in our assumptions, the less room there is for error. We can agree that if our explanations doesn't work, then our assumptions is the best place to look for mistakes. When we agree that assumptions are sources of error, we can then agree that our assumptions must be based on some logic or prior knowledge, rather than being pulled out of our ass. I mean we can just use any old assumption, but we will waste a lot of time and end up with bad answers.

When you say an idea is beyond science that is fine. When you say an idea defies science, subverts it or otherwise gets around it, you have crossed over to special pleading. When you engage in special pleading you are saying the rigidness of science is too constrictive to give us proper answers, but you are not explaining why you throw out basic principals of investigation, like scrutiny, revision and parsimony.
Click to expand...

They won't understand this... lol.
 
Heisenberg said:
There may be rules we don't understand, but that does not explain why paranormal ideas can break the rules we do understand, Rules that we never observe nature to break. If we did see nature breaking these rules, we would have to adjust our understanding of nature, but first it must occur. Your premise is that science can't see it occur because it's not looking, or refuses to look. Show me any area of knowledge where science has done this. Name one accepted piece of knowledge about our world that science denies. Science, by definition, must be open to new ideas and observations. If it flat our refuses to study something, then it is not science.

What is the point of using science as a test if you have no possibility of failing that test? Name one idea you have had that you abandoned because of science. If you do not let science tell you what is wrong, then you have no business letting science tell you what is right.
Click to expand...

Where has science told me that I was wrong? Carbon dating seems to be the only thing against my theory of the ancients. Science has not disproved The Flower of Life. Again I am met with the "You're definitely wrong, heres why" attitude instead of the "I THINK you're wrong, heres why" attitude.

How could it be an accepted piece of knowledge if science denies it? I guess I could use 'god' as an example since the majority of the world accepts that there is one and science is not convinced. My latest thread can be an example of this too I guess but you couldnt even understand what was being said. Perhaps if you went to Sheldrakes website you would have a better idea of these plausible theories where the supernatural becomes natural.
 
Chief Walkin Eagle said:
Where has science told me that I was wrong? Carbon dating seems to be the only thing against my theory of the ancients. Science has not disproved The Flower of Life. Again I am met with the "You're definitely wrong, heres why" attitude instead of the "I THINK you're wrong, heres why" attitude.
Click to expand...

No matter the stance I take, the important part is the "here's why". It gives you the ability to defend or counter. It's much different than saying "you're a robot, lol", and ending the conversation. Crying about the way criticism is framed is a red herring. We are in danger of needing the waambulance.

Again you confuse scientific answers with scientific principals. If your belief was pink elephants exist, science will never prove you wrong. That does not mean science doesn't give you what you need to abandon the idea. Science does not need to give you conflicting data, it only has to point out that you do not follow the process, do not have good reason for not following the process, and still want your answers to have equal consideration. And again, this isn't science's process, it's natures process. We happen to live in a world where nature makes you go through this process to find accurate answers. The only legitimate reason to not go through this process, is if you are not studying objective nature.

So you must either criticize the process itself, confine your answers to be subjective, or adjust your answers to coincide with what nature has shown us so far.
 
cannabineer said:
Eye, I consider it not unreasonable that faith had a midwife's role in the birth of science.
But science, even in its first baby steps, required a tabula rasa attitude: Start with a blank sheet. Make verifiable observations of the world around us. Build from there. Argue a lot. discard conclusions and patterns that can be damaged by an inconvenient fact.

Science is, just like math, ultimately a humanity. It is indelibly shaped by the human minds of its proponents. And spirit-inquiry has been a basic characteristic of people since before the Venus of Willendorf ... until right now.
But just as the child is not the parent, and although a keen devotion to God has been a hallmark of many a successful, honest scientist ... science itself has shed any vestige of faith. That was a requirement.

Science, just like any other human art, has its roots in all sorts of creativity. Hunches and wishes are powerful motivators for scientists in the past and today. But what differentiates science is that, while it acknowledges the human drives of the inquirer, the question is objectivized ... dehumanized, if you will. It is this imposition of the yardstick of objectivity, the separation of the question from the asker, that has been the Go-point for the edifice of science as we know it today. cn
Click to expand...


...in synthesis - objective reasoning?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
I don't see the value in something unverifiable. If you get a feeling from inside, what does it matter if you don't know where it came from or what really caused it?



Because there are no theists willing. UTI does occasionally (thought I'm fairly sure he's not a theist).



Absolute certainty.



I wholeheartedly agree, but when those people are presented with known, accepted, observable facts that oppose their beliefs it becomes arrogant, and the defense that follows is always condescending.



How do you 'feel' symbolism and how can you be sure your personal interpretation of what you thought you felt was symbolism is true? Do you think it's wise to come to a definite conclusion based on a subjective interpretation of symbolism?



I agree, obtaining wisdom is only possible through time, experience and active study.



I think it depends entirely on what the person came across. As mentioned before, the scientific method provides a way to weed out the things our intuition is telling us is true, if it passed all the standard tests, it wouldn't be an 'intellectual impasse'.



Forgive me, eye, for not getting to this sooner, I'll give you the same explanation I gave to Canna about being tardy on a response, I've been on an alcohol binge the past few weeks and have been thoroughly too fucked up to provide a response worth your consideration. But Chief insisted...
Click to expand...

...I honestly don't have the patience to answer line for line. Good for you for being able to do so while on a bit of a bender :shock:

...we must distinguish between absolute certainty and the longing that is 'passion' for God. Longing is much different from grasping at straws (or crosses for that matter). When a person shifts from passion to longing there is a paradigm shift involved. The person just can't go back to the old self and it's 'me' ways. Instead of 'me' it's 'God' that we hope will succeed. By 'observation' we see our habits and our flaws. We 'aim' to correct them as much as is 'humanly' possible. Sin means 'miss the mark', so 'aim' is required. Therefore, meaning. If there is a meter, or some kind of 'image / symbol' to observe, we can form something.

...it's really not that wishy-washy if you can find the bones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Im back and better than ever. Help with new area/room setup and switching to LEDs
Replies
1
Views
488
Hooda Thunkit
H
theFLAKE
Just need some reassurance about something.
Replies
4
Views
368
shnkrmn
shnkrmn
Charles U Farley
The Best Breeder You've Never Heard Of
Replies
5
Views
2K
conor c
conor c
Thatoneguyyouknow_
Long time grower returns to the life
Replies
4
Views
800
Thatoneguyyouknow_
Thatoneguyyouknow_
E
Is this Tobacco Mosaic Virus? Almost three straight YEARS of total crop failure. Should I nuke the grow-op?
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
7K
curious2garden
curious2garden
Back
Top