Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[Sunstone]

Genuine mysticism entails uncertainty. Only pseudo-mysticism has all the answers.

 

[Student of X]

How would you know?

 

[Sunstone]

How would you know?

How does anyone know anything?

 

[Student of X]

I'm just asking if you're a mystic. If not, how would you know what genuine mysticism entails? There are some things a mystic is certain of, and some things not.

"Mystic ecstasy, to the percipient of the experience, reveals a genuine truth. He or she is brought face-to-face with ultimate reality that is experienced with emotions and intuition. A transcendence of the self is achieved. The mystic returns from the experience with the certainty of having been somewhere else where a revelation of some remarkable truth was given, a truth such as reality is unitary and divine; even ordinary human experiences are phenomenal; the soul, which is the key to reality, may rise to oneness with God; that God's presence may be found everywhere hidden in the midst of daily life." -Evelyn Underhill

 

[Sunstone]

I'm just asking if you're a mystic. If not, how would you know what genuine mysticism entails? There are some things a mystic is certain of, and some things not.

"Mystic ecstasy, to the percipient of the experience, reveals a genuine truth. He or she is brought face-to-face with ultimate reality that is experienced with emotions and intuition. A transcendence of the self is achieved. The mystic returns from the experience with the certainty of having been somewhere else where a revelation of some remarkable truth was given, a truth such as reality is unitary and divine; even ordinary human experiences are phenomenal; the soul, which is the key to reality, may rise to oneness with God; that God's presence may be found everywhere hidden in the midst of daily life." -Evelyn Underhill

I always thought Underhill made a number of unwarranted assumptions. For one thing, certainty does not equate to truth.

 

[idav]

and what does the french translated into English below it say?

I hear that wasn't on the original. It is Universum, the point where heaven and earth meet.

 

[Student of X]

I always thought Underhill made a number of unwarranted assumptions. For one thing, certainty does not equate to truth.

The point was about certainties. I have many certainties that a non-mystic can't have and can't imagine.

 

[Sunstone]

The point was about certainties. I have many certainties that a non-mystic can't have and can't imagine.

No doubt. But most humans are notoriously bad observers. If ten people witness a car accident, you can expect eleven versions of what happened. And mystics seem to be no exception to that rule. That is, there is no guarantee that you -- or anyone else who calls themselves a mystic -- has accurately interpreted his or her experiences. Feelings of certainty -- no matter how great they are -- simply do not equal truth.

 

[Student of X]

No doubt. But most humans are notoriously bad observers. If ten people witness a car accident, you can expect eleven versions of what happened. And mystics seem to be no exception to that rule. That is, there is no guarantee that you -- or anyone else who calls themselves a mystic -- has accurately interpreted his or her experiences. Feelings of certainty -- no matter how great they are -- simply do not equal truth.

It's not so much about observing as it is about being. I AM the car accident.

 

[Student of X]

Hey guys, how radically would science need to change to test the 8-step mysticism of the Bard?

1. The idea of an inclusive system, a grand spiritual synthesis, reconciling religious extremes in an integrated vision of union with Divine Love.

2. The idea of syncretic mythology, in which all archaic mythological figures and events are available as a thesaurus of glyphs or token symbols - the personal language of the new metaphysical system.

3. The idea of this concordance of mythological (and historical) figures simply as a Memory System, a tabulated chart of all that can be known, of history, of the other world, and of the inner worlds, and in particular of spiritual conditions and moral types.

4. The idea of this system as a theatre.

5. The idea of these images as internally structured poetic images - the idea of the single image as a package of precisely folded multiple meanings, consistent with the meanings of a unified system.

6. The idea of as-if-actual visualization as the first practical essential for effective meditation (as in St Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Disciplines, as well as in Cabbala)

7. The idea of meditation as a conjuring, by ritual magic, of hallucinatory figures - with whom conversations can be held, and who communicate intuitive, imaginative visions and clairvoyance.

8. The idea of drama as a ritual for the manipulation of the soul.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hey guys, how radically would science need to change to test the 8-step mysticism of the Bard?

1. The idea of an inclusive system, a grand spiritual synthesis, reconciling religious extremes in an integrated vision of union with Divine Love.

2. The idea of syncretic mythology, in which all archaic mythological figures and events are available as a thesaurus of glyphs or token symbols - the personal language of the new metaphysical system.

3. The idea of this concordance of mythological (and historical) figures simply as a Memory System, a tabulated chart of all that can be known, of history, of the other world, and of the inner worlds, and in particular of spiritual conditions and moral types.

4. The idea of this system as a theatre.

5. The idea of these images as internally structured poetic images - the idea of the single image as a package of precisely folded multiple meanings, consistent with the meanings of a unified system.

6. The idea of as-if-actual visualization as the first practical essential for effective meditation (as in St Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Disciplines, as well as in Cabbala)

7. The idea of meditation as a conjuring, by ritual magic, of hallucinatory figures - with whom conversations can be held, and who communicate intuitive, imaginative visions and clairvoyance.

8. The idea of drama as a ritual for the manipulation of the soul.

Is it testable? Falsifiable?

 

[Sunstone]

It's not so much about observing as it is about being. I AM the car accident.

As Jiddu Krishnamurti used to say, "The truth is hesitant".

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes.


No.

Maybe.

I don't know. Can you repeat the question?
(I'm sorry, TMBG are rather infectious. )

In regards to the topic at hand: what Gjaller said. opcorn:

 

[Orias]

It only becomes a problem when people present their 'mind-lab' results as if they were objective truths.

Could we possibly both present our own mind lab results and still remain in subjectivity?

Or is an objective truth a matter of who speaks of something from their own subjective perception?

 

[Student of X]

Is it testable? Falsifiable?

Yes, of course. First you practice a method of meditation as a conjuring, by 'ritual magic', of hallucinatory figures and you try to interact with them. The hallucinatory figure is a god-image...an archetype in symbolic, poetic form...a package of precisely folded multiple meanings, consistent with the meanings of a unified system.

Then you communicate with the intent to receive non-local information from the hallucinatory figure, and then you verify the information. As a mystic who has done this many times I can say that it works, and that the conscious mind can receive verifiable non-local information. If you want to test my claim, you'll have to do it too. Science can't test it for you.

"So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I'd like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person's life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents." -Sam Harris

 

[jarofthoughts]

Could we possibly both present our own mind lab results and still remain in subjectivity?

Or is an objective truth a matter of who speaks of something from their own subjective perception?

Objective truths must be substantiated with objective evidence.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Material monism is the table that scientists are building their house-of-cards on. In order to do that, they had to reject the other table. The other table meaning mental monism.

As long as everyone plays along with material monism and doesn't bump the table, science runs as smoothly as can be expected. But as soon as you try to use science to investigate things that point to mental or neutral monism, you run into problems. Things like consciousness.

Material monism is a Presocratic belief which provides an explanation of the physical world by saying that all of the world's objects are composed of a single element. Among the material monists were the three Milesian philosophers: Thales, who believed that everything was composed of water; Anaximander, who believed it was apeiron; and Anaximenes, who believed it was air.
Although their ideas seem farfetched, these philosophers were the first to give an explanation of the physical world without referencing the supernatural; this opened the way for all modern science (and philosophy), which has the same goal of explaining the world without dependence on the supernatural.

Some scientists are also philosophers... the majority are not. I doubt any are concerned with the ancient concepts of Material monism.

Main line Scientists are not involved in spiritual, supernatural or religious phenomena. These are the province of the charlatan and pseudo-scientist.
Religion is not amenable to scientific thought or investigation.

 

[cablescavenger]

Is there anything you DON'T credit to science?

That might be a worthwhile question if it could be taken seriously

 

[Student of X]

That might be a worthwhile question if it could be taken seriously

I think it's worthwhile asking questions that might reveal hidden scientism in people.

Anyway, here is a little something that helps show why I think 'science kinda sucks'.

Has Modern Science Become Dysfunctional?

WASHINGTON, DC –March 27, 2012 -- The recent explosion in the number of retractions in scientific journals is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of a greater dysfunction that has been evolving the world of biomedical research say the editors-in-chief of two prominent journals in a presentation before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) today.

“Incentives have evolved over the decades to encourage some behaviors that are detrimental to good science,” says Ferric Fang, editor-in-chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, a publication of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), who is speaking today at the meeting of the Committee of Science, Technology, and Law of the NAS along with Arturo Casadevall, editor-in-chief of mBio®,the ASM’s online, open-access journal.

In the past decade the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%. While retractions still represent a very small percentage of the total, the increase is still disturbing because it undermines society’s confidence in scientific results and on public policy decisions that are based on those results, says Casadevall. Some of the retractions are due to simple error but many are a result of misconduct including falsification of data and plagiarism.

More concerning, say the editors, is that...

[...]

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yes, of course. First you practice a method of meditation as a conjuring, by 'ritual magic', of hallucinatory figures and you try to interact with them. The hallucinatory figure is a god-image...an archetype in symbolic, poetic form...a package of precisely folded multiple meanings, consistent with the meanings of a unified system.

Then you communicate with the intent to receive non-local information from the hallucinatory figure, and then you verify the information. As a mystic who has done this many times I can say that it works, and that the conscious mind can receive verifiable non-local information. If you want to test my claim, you'll have to do it too. Science can't test it for you.

"So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I'd like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person's life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents." -Sam Harris

"The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion"

What I think you may be doing though is conflating the subjective with the objective. Experiencing a godform doesn't mean it truly exists beyond the confines of your mind (based on my own experiments, I know this fully well). That fact that another person experiences a similar godform doesn't prove the objectivity of it either, anymore than two people experiencing the word "Jabberwocky" proves the existence of it. We make them real.