Science, Ignorance, and Fruit Flies

[Monadnock]

I would say the crux of this debate rests on the fact that science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Faith, that is divergent from science (knowledge), will always be emphatically wrong in its attempts to explain the universe. This simple fact has made most religions obsolete...unless they begin to meld the teachings of science into their dogma. Scientivism. That is the combination of reason and faith.

Sounds a bit like Einstein's approach, using science to learn more about our creator's design.

Some people can wake up, see the morning sun and blue sky and thank God to be here, while others with less or no faith resume studying puddles of mud for their roots.

It's all good....really.

 

[heretic888]

Oh, good grief.

Now listen, I perfectly sympathize with many of the sentiments that have been expressed on this thread. I fully get concepts such as the Separation of Church and State, equal rights to all our citizenry, the political dangers of the Religious Right, and so on. Really, I do.

But, people, come on. If'n you're gonna make a thread drooling about the wonders of "science", at least get your damn facts straight. Science, if nothing else, is about the facts.

To list just a few examples:

1) The notion that something like "sexual orientation" is solely a product of your genes is not only silly, but it is unsupported by existing data. I seem to recall the twin studies exploring this subject producing only a moderate correlation between homosexual orientation and genetic relatedness.

2) Furthermore, no biologically informed scientist really takes the whole "nature vs nurture" thing seriously anymore. It's kind of, um, stupid. The vogue explanatory model in developmental psych these days, the theory of gene/environment interaction, seems to indicate that not only do genetics and environment interact to produce what we are, but they do on such an intimate level that the two cannot be easily teased apart.

3) The notion that "change occurred gradually, slowly, step by step" is the standard theory of evolution is not quite accurate. It was the standard theory about fifty years ago, and is the introductory explanation you get in most high school textbooks. Hell, even the ideas that evolution is entirely "random" or "non-linear" isn't really all that accepted anymore. But, today, there are two many little "wrinkles" in traditional neo-Darwinism --- self-organizing systems, niche construction, social evolution, punctuated equilibria, Baldwin effects, and so on --- that makes the aforementioned explanation somewhat untenable.

4) Just so everyone knows, "scientivism" or "scientism" is just another word for positivism, or metaphysical physicalism (redundant, huh?). It's about as "scientific" as any other type of ideological fundamentalism. Oh yeah, and that "paradigm shift" is long gone by now. It ended with the Age of Reason. Nowadays, philosophy is generally more concerned with postmodern constructivism and debunking the Myth of the Given (which is what "scientism" rests on).

5) For a real look at what an integration of "science" and "religion" might be, I would suggest Ken Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Soul. Carl Sagan was a great scientist, but his philosophy is rather lacking.

Laterz.

 

[crushing]

This strikes me as quite odd, considering that the religious righties always seem to be certain that they-and they alone-know the truth about god, the universe and everything.

I can't point you to the chapter and verse, but isn't the answer 42?

 

[Xue Sheng]

I can't point you to the chapter and verse, but isn't the answer 42?

very nice, but now look what you started.

"Forty-two!" "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"

"Six by nine. Forty-two."
"That's it. That's all there is."

Of course, 6 × 9 is 54, not 42. There are several possible interpretations of this.

One would be that crushing indeed discovered the Ultimate Question, which doesn't match the Answer simply because the universe is bizarre and irrational.

"I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe."

 

[elder999]

I would say the crux of this debate rests on the fact that science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Faith, that is divergent from science (knowledge), will always be emphatically wrong in its attempts to explain the universe. This simple fact has made most religions obsolete...unless they begin to meld the teachings of science into their dogma. Scientivism. That is the combination of reason and faith.

Okay-Booker T. Washington said that there are two ways to use strength: “to push down, or to pull up.” It’s not my intention to do either, here, but it seems that I probably tend to push down, or at least get viewed that way,so I’m really going to try avoid that ….
…with that said, I don’t exactly disagree with you, but, as a scientist who is also religious (though not necessarily what you might call a “person of faith,” which I’ll get to in a minute….) I’m not sure that I can entirely agree with you here…

First, though, and more in keeping with my original intent, I’d like to point out some of the foolishness that has occurred when religion, and specifically fundamentalists, have tried to reconcile religion with science. It’s worth pointing out here that while Kacey posted a webpage for the Flat Earth Society, which I’m pretty certain is tongue-in-cheek, none of this stuff is meant as a joke at all..
Coming to the lab is that the school system was excellent, and I was raising two kids on my own. There was, at that time, quite the battle raging in the school system and our small community about teaching “creationism,” or, as it’s come to be known “intelligent design” theory. Neither or which is a legitimate theory, of course, but it is interesting that the rather heated, months-long discussion took place in the town that created the A-bomb, allegedly has the highest number of PhD.s per-capita in the country, and has a median income of $89,000.

But let’s forget Los Alamos, for the moment, and take a walk through the “Creationism Museum,” whose website can be found here

from the Creation Museum

Explore the wonders of creation. The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bible’s clear—heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards.

Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all!

God’s Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There’s no room for compromise.

This nonsense-and nonsense is what it is-actually goes on in Los Alamos, a town of a little more than 12,000 people that has more than 24 churches! I actually have a colleague whose wife home schools their children, and whose religion teaches that the fossil record is a deception from Satan, and, except for this, his near rabid support of BuSh, his listening to Rush Limbaugh, and watching Fox News as his sole source of news, we get along fairly well….as long as the conversations are about work, sports or food…..

I went to church with my Mom for Easter-while no longer considering myself a practicing Christian, my belief system also isn’t threatened by attending the occasional Episcopal service, and I’ve actually enjoyed some rather nostalgic moments by doing so-not to mention making my Mom happy. The Episcopal liturgy has changed somewhat since I was “practicing,” though, and , what with the infrequency of my attending, it was the first time I’d seen a prayer that referred to the Creator of “interstellar space, the planets in their orbits, the galaxies,life in all places” and an actual reference to God’s time and evolution being a tool of the Creator (though I don’t have it in front of me, and can’t quote it accurately right now, I’ll get it later….) I think these are the kind of things you spoke of, and, while they may be welcome, and even necessary-and wholly at the other end of the spectrum than the Creation “Museum,” I don’t completely agree that faith and science need to be reconciled, nor do I think that they are irreconcilable.

Where I really disagree with you, though, is not even so much that you see science as “a superior way of knowing the world, but more where the crux of the debate lies-which is interesting in itself, though somewhat further afield from my original intention-while a physicist (ugh!-hate that;I’ll always call myself an angineer) rather than a biologist-it was really my intention to use the example that biology offers against fundamentalist (and ther is the one difference, what you call “pure” faith, I think) thinking.


No matter, though- the crux of the argument to me is that “faith,” is almost wholly subjective, whereas science is almost wholly objective.

Both faith and science are mutable and dependent upon one's point of view. Yet, with science the best explanation can always be sought by looking at the evidence that justifies the theory. With faith, this is impossible...leading to a natural state of relativism.

Science brings us closer and closer to the truth, while "pure" faith ends in relativistic dead ends.

Unless, the two marry each other. Actually, "marriage" is a bad description because science would lead the way while faith follows. The candle of enlightenment is an apt metaphor because the light of reason leads us out of darkness.

Earlier I posted here in a somewhat related thread, that for me “it’s not enough to believe in God; I need to experience God.”

My experiencing God is completely subjective-it cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on it. It can, especially in one notable instance, be duplicated independently, which is one standard for scientific experimentation, but that duplication itself would be subjective for the duplicant, as well as the meaning of the nature of the experience itself.

Real scientific experiments, on the other hand, most generally (though not always) are duplicable, consistent, and their data is thus, objective-while the interpretation of the data is “dependent upon one’s point of view,” and that little bit of subjectivity can be a positive thing, the data itself should always be the same if the conditions are the same. That subjectivity, btw, can lead to something less than “the best explanation.”

In matters of “faith,” there is the Creator-or, should I say, the postulated Creator, since he/she/it can’t really be called theoretical, as he/she/it can’t be disproven. Such a being, though, must, by the implication of what little we can grasp of hisherits nature, be outside of the creation-that is to say, the known universe/space-time continuum, and, as such, in all likelihood be unquantifiable by known methods.

Some parallels have been drawn between quantum physics and the Buddhist view of reality, and I know several theoretical physicists who are finding this approach extremely helpful-if you’re particularly interested in this I’d suggest an investigation of Hwa-Yen Buddhism, as well as the philospophy of Alfred North Whitehead-in any case, while each of these is a view of the nature of reality, and there appears to be some agreement between them, Hwa Yen or even Zen Buddhism do not, in my opinion, constitute religions of faith or deity as much as ways of religiously attaining and maintaining a view of reality.

In my opinion, the best bet for reconciling science and religion is the scientific investigation of the most basic foundation of religion: in 1975, in my freshman religious studies class, the instructor walked in, wrote “What is religion about?” then wrote “LIFE/DEATH:what does this mean?”

 

[heretic888]

No matter, though- the crux of the argument to me is that “faith,” is almost wholly subjective, whereas science is almost wholly objective.

Your argument sounds somewhat reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Unfortunately, as I have argued in the past, the NOMA concept actually breaks down on several fronts when you critically examine it.

The subjective/objective duality is something of a cultural fantasy that we have erected, resting largely on the industrial ontology that John appealed to in his previous post. In other words, the Myth of the Given.

My experiencing God is completely subjective-it cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on it.

Assuming you are invoking some type of mystical or transpersonal experience here, I am inclined to hold such a statement as demonstrably false.

It can, especially in one notable instance, be duplicated independently, which is one standard for scientific experimentation, but that duplication itself would be subjective for the duplicant, as well as the meaning of the nature of the experience itself.

Once again, appealing to the old industrial ontology.

All experiences --- whether they be mediated through a microscope or contemplative prayer --- are "subjective for the duplicant". That is the very nature of experience. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply appealing to the Myth of the Given.

That is why peer review is so important in science. There is peer review in mysticism, too.

In matters of “faith,” there is the Creator-or, should I say, the postulated Creator, since he/she/it can’t really be called theoretical, as he/she/it can’t be disproven.

Metaphysical postulations such as "the Creator" cannot be disproven, but the particular hypotheses of certain spiritual practices or "experiments" most certainly can be.

[Such a being, though, must, by the implication of what little we can grasp of hisherits nature, be outside of the creation-that is to say, the known universe/space-time continuum, and, as such, in all likelihood be unquantifiable by known methods.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Which begs the obvious question as to why one should believe in such a "being" in the first place. After all, if a truth-claim cannot in any way be validated (or disconfirmed), then it remains nothing more than a dogmatic declaration.

This is one of the reasons why "mere metaphysics" (such as Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit) gets absolutely shredded in modern philosophy.

Some parallels have been drawn between quantum physics and the Buddhist view of reality, and I know several theoretical physicists who are finding this approach extremely helpful-if you’re particularly interested in this I’d suggest an investigation of Hwa-Yen Buddhism, as well as the philospophy of Alfred North Whitehead-in any case, while each of these is a view of the nature of reality, and there appears to be some agreement between them, Hwa Yen or even Zen Buddhism do not, in my opinion, constitute religions of faith or deity as much as ways of religiously attaining and maintaining a view of reality.

In my personal opinion, the "parallels" between Buddhism and physics are rather superficial in nature.

In my opinion, the best bet for reconciling science and religion is the scientific investigation of the most basic foundation of religion: in 1975, in my freshman religious studies class, the instructor walked in, wrote “What is religion about?” then wrote “LIFE/DEATH:what does this mean?”

Agreed.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

The subjective/objective duality is something of a cultural fantasy that we have erected, resting largely on the industrial ontology that John appealed to in his previous post. In other words, the Myth of the Given.

Could you give a quick breakdown of the Myth of the Given? I know you've explained it before, but I've been searching and cannot find a really good definition for it. I would especially like to know so I could see how my argument fits into that concept.

 

[heretic888]

Could you give a quick breakdown of the Myth of the Given? I know you've explained it before, but I've been searching and cannot find a really good definition for it. I would especially like to know so I could see how my argument fits into that concept.

As I understand it, the Myth of the Given (also known as the fundamental Enlightenment paradigm) was the standard way of "seeing" the world during the period we refer to as the Industrial Revolution or the Age of Reason (also called the Enlightenment).

The basic assumption of this paradigm is that there is an isolated, detached, antiseptic subject "in here" that observes the isolated, detached, antiseptic objective world "out there" and never the two shall 'twain. The idea here, which has been the basis for much of "traditional" science (but rather discredited by philosophers of science nowadays, thanks to guys like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn) under the philosophical guises of empiricism and positivism, is that the observer can sit back and "innocently" create "maps" of the world (this is also sometimes called the Mapping Paradigm) --- whether they be empirical observations, artwork, or logical theories --- without any hint of bias or interpretation. If the "maps" match up with the "territory" then, it was assumed, that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

In other words, the Myth of the Given is the a priori assumption that the "objective world" is pregiven, just waiting for everybody and their uncle to come by and "map" away. We now know, of course, that that whole idea is a load of bunk. Thus, we enter the Postmodern Rebellion.

What has increasingly come into the minds of philosophers and scientists of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is that reality is in many significant ways a construction. We don't just observe the world, we interpret it. In no way is this an excuse for intellectually lazy relativism or nihilism, mind you, but it also pours cold water all over the idea of this mapping nonsense.

You can see parallels to this postmodern philosophy in many other fields, as well. Relativity theory in physics (where time and space become conditional variables rather than pregiven absolutes), Jean Piaget's developmental-structuralism in psychology (where the individual is seen as constructing his or her own hierarchic schemas throughout the course of life), systems theory in ecology, and Thomas Kuhn's writings on the emergence of "paradigm shifts" in science (i.e., science is based in socially-sanctioned practices, rather than being some a priori Absolute Truth) all immediately come to mind.

I could elaborate more, but I'll just refer you to somebody much brighter than me. Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Soul gives a really good analysis of the history of modern and postmodern philosophy, as well as his own suggestion for how the whole shebang fits together.

Laterz.

P.S. Oh, and I should point out that the entire "mind/body problem" stuff --- whether Descartes' dualism or Hume's physicalism --- is kinda derived from this Myth of the Given, too. At least on the philosophical (as opposed to phenomenological) level.

 

[elder999]

Assuming you are invoking some type of mystical or transpersonal experience here, I am inclined to hold such a statement as demonstrably false.

Demonstrably false, how, exactly?

All experiences --- whether they be mediated through a microscope or contemplative prayer --- are "subjective for the duplicant". That is the very nature of experience. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply appealing to the Myth of the Given.

That is why peer review is so important in science. There is peer review in mysticism, too

Metaphysical postulations such as "the Creator" cannot be disproven, but the particular hypotheses of certain spiritual practices or "experiments" most certainly can be.

Nonetheless, the data for-or from- such experiences-and in this I’m speaking of experimentation in the sense of the scientific method-are objective. What is observed is certainly subjective, but the figures gathered certainly are not.
We’re somewhat in agreement in terms spiritual practices or “experiments,” but they most often are not verifiable or disprovable within the framework of the standard scientific method-they may be reliably duplicated, as I said, but what that means, in terms of data, is subject to debate.

Which begs the obvious question as to why one should believe in such a "being" in the first place. After all, if a truth-claim cannot in any way be validated (or disconfirmed), then it remains nothing more than a dogmatic declaration.

Well, I’m not saying that you or anyone else “should” believe in such a “being,” in the first place.


As far as what the deity is doing-who says he/she/it is "busy" running the universe? (As long as I'm being "abstract" ). I do pray, and I know my prayers get answered.

A story first, though:

When I was a lad, I attended a boarding school in Connecticut-the kind with tennis courts, an indoor hockey rink, a nine-hole golf course, Olympic swimming pool, and an excellent (for a school) dining service. In keeping with all of that, it employed-or rather, employs- a wide variety of service people to maintain those facilities.Some of them were rather eccentric, while more than a few were just regular folks…and one or two were damned crazy. We called them all “wombats”-I don’t know why- and, while some of them were to be kept away from, like the guy who ran the boiler in my dorm, or the cafeteria guy who carried on prolonged conversations with an invisible friend, even to the point of setting up an extra place for him when he ate his lunch, and animatedly gesticulating when he was making a point,most others were more than okay to socialize with, for a variety of reasons.

Another of the cafeteria guys named Terry, was not too much older than we were, played really good guitar, and got what I was told was excellent pot. This last I wouldn’t know because I couldn’t (can’t) smoke anything-at least, I can't inhale-but I was usually around to jam with any of my fellow musicians in those days.

Anyway, one day a few of us were doing just that, jamming and smoking, and one of my fellow students had the temerity to ask, “Hey, Terry, what’s the deal with that guy who talks to himself all the time?” Terry looked kind of thoughtful for a minute and said, “I don’t know, but I’ll tell you what. One day we were loading these trays of potatoes out of a rack and into the oven for baking-big suckers, must have weighed 200 lbs., and he slides one out of the rack, holds it by one corner, looks over and says ‘You got that?’ and carries it across the kitchen by the corner, with nobody holdin’ up the other friggin’ end!”

Now, being the geek that I was-the sort of geek who was going to wind up working as a physicist (ugh!) at Los Alamos after working in a nuke plant for years, and doing some pretty heavy engineering work just for fun, I did some quick calculations, based having seen those very trays and potatoes, estimating the size of the trays at 2.5 feet wide by 4 feet long , and the mean dimensions of the potatoes (Russets for baking) at 5 inches long, 2.5 inches wide and weighing around 13.5. ounces, there was no way those trays weighed 200 lbs.

They probably weighed about 110 pounds.

At this point in my life, I was already becoming familiar with the idea that the human mind is capable of marvelous things, and, while the story about the fellow who talked to himself being assisted by his invisible friend may just have been something made up by a clever guy to freak out a few stoned 14 year olds, it’s not impossible. Much weirder things have happened, and I-who wasn’t stoned, and grew up to do freaky things like bend horseshoes and smash concrete with his bare hands, and swim more than 100 yds. underwater-pretty much believe it-or at least I believe that ift could have happened just that way….

So, for me, think of it like this:God is helping me carry "my tray". I’ve done some marvelous things in my time, as well as some things that most people think of as fairly mundane-like live that time-and while you may not see him/her/it, I do, and couldn’t have done any of those things, or gotten through some pretty bad times, without him/her/it. Doesn't matter if he's actually there, or if I'm simply imagining him- I need him/her/it, and he/she/it has always come through-though I'd be the last person to insist to anyone who apparently didn't have that same need that they were doing anything wrong. Please note that the awkward multiple pronouns are my way of showing just how silly it is to speak of the mystery-that's how I usually refer to "God" :"the mystery," or "Creator," when addressing him/her/it directly.

Or just him….anyway: these things, while their physical manifestations are certainly testable (and, too look at me, you wouldn’t think I twist horseshoes-and I soon won’t be doing so any longer) whence they came is not-at least, not within the framework and rigor of the standard-western experimental model. I casn twist horsehsoes all I like, but I can't prove or disprove that my prayers make me strong....

A real good example of how you and I may differ over this-and I’m not so sure it isn’t largely semantics;we’re probably very much in agreement but say things differently-is the case of the shamanic experience. While shamanic practices provide a technology that reliably gives each participant a consistently verifiable and often altogether common experience, whether it’s just an odd-artifact of the interaction with the central nervous system with ceremony, or a genuine “mystical” experience is open to scientific debate within the framework of the standard western scientific method of experimentation. Yes, everyone reports the same thing, but what it means is open to interpretation, just as whether there actually is such a thing as a genuine mystical experience.

In my personal opinion, the "parallels" between Buddhism and physics are rather superficial in nature.

Well, Dr. N. David Mermin-retiring Horace White Professor in Physics at Cornell University,certainly sees some parallels, and in this, at least among the theoretical fellas (I’m just an engineer with a doctorate in applied physics), he’s not alone-a great many of them are utilizing Buddhism as a means of understanding some of the inherent oddness in quantum physics, and the numerous misunderstandings attendant to it.
Like this one:

“It’s demonstrably provable that when no one is looking at it, the moon is not there.

Seen here, in a remarkably lucid and funny paper.
And you can see Dr. Mermin on his homepage for the rest of this year, anyway http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~mermin/homepage/ndm.html] here[/font]

 

[elder999]

And let me say, just for claity's sake, that it's my postion that science is not meant to prove or disprove things of the spirit, and vice versa-it's the postition of most physicists, in fact, no matter how mystical an outlook their field entails or even requires.

Take a look at Nobel prizer-winner Bill Phillips for a much more lucid viewpoint-from a Christian, no-less.

 

[heretic888]

Demonstrably false, how, exactly?

Well, when you say that transpersonal experiences "cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on [them]", this is something of a fallacious argument. Just off the top of my head, I can think of four ways of "testing" or "quantifying" such phenomena:

1) Phenomenology: Study the reports as first-hand subjective accounts in their own rights; this is largely the domain of humanistic psychology and philosophy.

2) Structuralism: Compare the reports with one another, both in terms of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, making note of any emergent patterns or "structures". Piaget did something similar to this with cognitive development.

3) Neurology: Take neurological data of the participant while he or she is having one of these "experiences", including EEG patterns, the localization of the brain's electrical excitation, as well as the long-term neural density (or lack thereof) of certain regions of the brain.

4) Physiology: Make note of the physiological differences (both short-term and long-term) of individuals that have these experiences (or do practices that disclose such experiences), including blood pressure, stress level, and so on.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Nonetheless, the data for-or from- such experiences-and in this I’m speaking of experimentation in the sense of the scientific method-are objective. What is observed is certainly subjective, but the figures gathered certainly are not.

I'm inclined to agree, but have some reservations about your use of terminology.

We’re somewhat in agreement in terms spiritual practices or “experiments,” but they most often are not verifiable or disprovable within the framework of the standard scientific method-they may be reliably duplicated, as I said, but what that means, in terms of data, is subject to debate.

This is largely due to attempts to co-opt the theories of one "science" with the practices of another "science", another characteristic feature of positivism. In essence, the game being played here is that the theories of the spiritual "science" are supposed to be demonstrated with the experiments of the physical/natural "science". That just ain't gonna happen.

This would be like expecting me to "prove" the Pythagorean Theorem by doing something other than geometry. It's a ridiculous demand that would get scoffed at in any other science.

The only people who can reliably interpret the spiritual data --- the "peers" in this case --- are those that have done these experiments (or something like them) for themselves. That is how it is in any other "science" and that is how it is in this one, too.

Wilber writes extensively about this subject in his Marriage of Sense and Soul.

A real good example of how you and I may differ over this-and I’m not so sure it isn’t largely semantics;we’re probably very much in agreement but say things differently-is the case of the shamanic experience. While shamanic practices provide a technology that reliably gives each participant a consistently verifiable and often altogether common experience, whether it’s just an odd-artifact of the interaction with the central nervous system with ceremony, or a genuine “mystical” experience is open to scientific debate within the framework of the standard western scientific method of experimentation. Yes, everyone reports the same thing, but what it means is open to interpretation, just as whether there actually is such a thing as a genuine mystical experience.

No, this is like saying that a biological experiment is "open to interpretation" because a linguist has a different perspective than the biologist. The problem is, the biologist is the only one of them that has done the experiment.

Most of the skepticism concerning scientific mysticism really stems from philosophical and cultural bias, not scientific inquiry. We don't doubt the "meaning" of the experience of, say, petting a dog or eating an apple. Yet, those are also cases where neurons are firing in one's brain, as all experiences are. It is reductionistic Special Pleading to apply this skepticism to one form of experience, but not to another.

The "meaning" of meditation is known to those that have spent years mastering meditation. Nobody else can know the meaning because, to use the analogy of Galileo, they haven't bothered to look through the telescope to check it out for themselves.

Well, Dr. N. David Mermin-retiring Horace White Professor in Physics at Cornell University,certainly sees some parallels, and in this, at least among the theoretical fellas (I’m just an engineer with a doctorate in applied physics), he’s not alone-a great many of them are utilizing Buddhism as a means of understanding some of the inherent oddness in quantum physics, and the numerous misunderstandings attendant to it.

Surface similarities to be sure, but only surface similarities.

I'm also curious as to what sense these individuals are "utilizing Buddhism". Are they engaging in deep contemplative meditation aimed toward transcending the illusory self in an effort to realize the nature of Reality?? Or, are they doing math?? Big difference.

Laterz.

 

[elder999]

Surface similarities to be sure, but only surface similarities.

I'm also curious as to what sense these individuals are "utilizing Buddhism". Are they engaging in deep contemplative meditation aimed toward transcending the illusory self in an effort to realize the nature of Reality?? Or, are they doing math?? Big difference.

Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply-while I’ve had time for “off the cuff” postings, I haven’t at all had time to make abn orderly reply to yours. I thought I’d handle this last first, though, as it’s easiest-most of them don’t think of them as “surface similarities,” just “similarities.” As for what they’re doing, while not a theoreticlal guy myself-as I understand it, they’re doing both: engaging in deep contemplative meditiation in an effort to realize the nature of Reality (when they're meditating), and doing math, of course though I think they sometimes find meditating useful while they're doing math, so, sometimes at the same time….

Well, when you say that transpersonal experiences "cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on [them]", this is something of a fallacious argument. Just off the top of my head, I can think of four ways of "testing" or "quantifying" such phenomena:

1) Phenomenology: Study the reports as first-hand subjective accounts in their own rights; this is largely the domain of humanistic psychology and philosophy.

2) Structuralism: Compare the reports with one another, both in terms of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, making note of any emergent patterns or "structures". Piaget did something similar to this with cognitive development.

3) Neurology: Take neurological data of the participant while he or she is having one of these "experiences", including EEG patterns, the localization of the brain's electrical excitation, as well as the long-term neural density (or lack thereof) of certain regions of the brain.

4) Physiology: Make note of the physiological differences (both short-term and long-term) of individuals that have these experiences (or do practices that disclose such experiences), including blood pressure, stress level, and so on.

And that's just off the top of my head.

First off, I didn’t say that “transpersonal experiences , “etc., etc, etc.” I said that MY, oh, heck! Here:

My experiencing God is completely subjective-it cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on it. It can, especially in one notable instance, be duplicated independently, which is one standard for scientific experimentation, but that duplication itself would be subjective for the duplicant, as well as the meaning of the nature of the experience itself.

All of that aside, though, while I think we’re somewhat in agreement, I think you’re missing an essential point. We’ll take a look at your four ways:

1) Phenomenology-It’s not only the domain of humanistic psychology and philosophy, but exactly the approach that anthropology tends to take when examining these things-but what does it mean? How exactly does this “quantify measure or test the individual’s experience of God? I’d make the very strong case that it doesn’t.

2) Structuralism-Interesting, as this also runs parallel to your “peer review of mystical experience,” a concept that I’m in agreement with you about, and completely familiar with. Which makes for an interesting story. If one is were to undertake a shamanic journey to the underworld, by any of several means, one might encounter during this experience great reptilian beings who described themselves as “Original Lords of All Creation,” or in similar terms. Later, when the rest of the experience was complete, and one was making the requisite description to the shaman/facilitator, he or she might respond to the story of the reptilian beings by saying something like, Oh, they always say that. Again, though,. What does it mean, in terms of science.? The experience is easily and consistently duplicated , and that is significant, but significant of what? Are these “beings” part of racial memory, an artifact of the limbic system expressing itself through the subconscious/supraconscious, a hallucination or really reptilian beings who can only communicate with us when we’re in a shamanic state? I don’t believe the last, by the way, but what I believe isn’t at all important-science cannot tell me or anyone else what this experience means-can’t quantify or measure it.

3) I’m going to do 3&4 together, because they belong together, and, in many ways, they’re the most interesting, since they are what we could call hard sciences. Using the examples of say, a Buddhist Monk, and a Benedictine nun, we can examine the monk in meditation, and the nun at prayer, neurologically and physically, and verify that there are some surface similarities (maybe they’re deeper than surface similarities,) such as respiration, brain activity, pulse, etc., but, while the monk is meditating, the nun is fervently praying to Jesus, and claims that Jesus answers her. While we can measure each experience, and, physically and neurologically they appear to be in the same state, we cannot say that they are having the same experience, and, more to the point, cannot scientifically prove or disprove that the nun is talking to Jesus, or that he has or has not answered here.

I'm not even going to get into the very real (for some of us) and measurable phenomena that take place outside of the space between a person's ears in this realm, and leave it at that.


The rest of what you’ve posted is interesting, and, again, I think we’re probably largely in agreement, though our language tends to differ. As a scientist (and a mystic, I suppose, whatever that means) I don’t think one thing has anything to do with the other, though science will continue to examine such things, and reach more and more understanding-and questions…

 

[Loki]

Researchers, working at the Austrian Institute for Molecular Biology, havc found that they can change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating one gene. They can, in effect, make fruit flies even fruitier.

HAHAHAHA!!! You get a rep point for that!

I'll try to stay away from US politics, but I personally am of the view that science and faith are mutually exclusive. If it's been proved, why would you need to believe in it? It's a fact. You don't believe in Honey Nut Cheerios, do you?