Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[gnomon]

Is that another fact? Can you use science to prove it?

Would you call the methodology of mysticism falsifiable?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let's try turning your question on its head and seeing what happens. In what way is mysticism - a method of subjectively studying the unnatural world - in any way scientific?

It isn't. Obviously.

Your dodging of my question is duly noted, however. Are you capable of answering it, or are you going to continue this needless obfuscation?

 

[Student of X]

Even if we were to set aside the incorrect premises here, I note that ImmortalFlame referred to "your mystical BS", not mysticism in general.

Your premise is that people can use correct premises, reason, and of course "science", to arrive at a correct understanding of mysticism?

Unless you mis-read Flame's post, it seems like you're trying to appeal to some sort of fallacious argument like "science is right and science is mystical, so since my stuff is mystical too, it must be right too."

Mysticism does not boil down to arguments and logic and using correct premises to arrive at correct 'scientific' or 'orthodox' conclusions. It boils down to transcending words altogether through altered states of consciousness. That means that in order to understand it properly, you have to do mysticism yourself or you won't have a frame of reference for the altered states. You'll get stuck in mere words, trying in vain to understand. Like a blind man trying to see color using correct premises. He may arrive at a comfortable intellectual understanding, but it's nothing compared to seeing color.

The best way I know of for a Westerner to begin the process of awakening is not meditation but to go someplace where entheogens are legal and then participate in a shamanic ceremony. That's what this short vid is about.

The Ayahuasca Monologues: Chris Kilham | Reality Sandwich

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Mysticism does not boil down to arguments and logic and using correct premises to arrive at correct conclusions.

Ah, good. It's nice to know that we can agree that it's all complete garbage, then.

 

[Student of X]

Ah, good. It's nice to know that we can agree that it's all complete garbage, then.

If you believe that reality itself boils down to logic and words, then heh yeah it's garbage. Move along, nothing to see here. Only a fool expects reality to yield to our logic and science words. Words are just what we use to trick ourselves into thinking we know what we are talking about.

But if you've had an experience of Wonder, and you know that there is more to reality and consciousness than "science" would have us believe, then it's not complete garbage. Then, science kinda sucks, in light of that that-ness.

"In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.

Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).

To Western ideology, the thought has remained a stranger... in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one, not merely similar or identical..."

Erwin Schrödinger - Wikiquote

"The I That Is God" as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you believe that reality itself boils down to logic and words, then heh yeah it's garbage. Move along, nothing to see here. Only a fool expects reality to yield to our logic and science words. Words are just what we use to trick ourselves into thinking we know what we are talking about.

But if you've had an experience of wonder, and you know that there is more to reality and consciousness than "science" would have us believe, then it's not complete garbage.

I'm going to have to stop you there.

See, the problem with your outlook is that it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science and those who utilize and appreciate it. It's really quite elementary. When I shoot down your nonsensical, baseless, pseudo-mystical nonsense, I am not saying "I have a complete grip on every aspect of reality provided by science". I am simply saying "you don't have a complete grip on reality".

Whether you agree or not, the fact remains that science is demonstrably the best and most reliable methodology with have for establishing fact from fiction. Not the only method, just the best one, and so when it comes to finding out whether or not something is true - provided you actually care about whether or not your beliefs are true - a scientific approach is the absolute best way we currently have to do that. There's nothing wrong with experiencing wonder, or having subjective personal experiences, or even attributing those experiences to some supernatural causation. The existence of science does not negate your ability to do those things in any way whatsoever. But, if you want to establish whether or not a given experience or claim is actually accurate, the only reason you could possibly give for not wanting to investigate the claim scientifically is because you don't want to face the notion that your beliefs may not accurately reflect reality.

This is why science gives us medicine. This is why science gives us agriculture. This is why science has provided real and tangible benefits to every aspect of human life and endeavor, while mysticism and supernatural ideologies have done absolutely nothing for the overall betterment of humanity save a few spurious philosophies (and maybe some cool painting and songs). This is why I have difficulty taking you and your claims seriously - because you don't understand or appreciate science, you only seem intent on lecturing everybody about your beliefs and how awesome they are, and how "limited" science is.

Science may have it's limits, but even so the methodology of science has punted humanity out of the dark ages and revolutionized every aspect of our lives. Meanwhile, your garbage about mysticism has achieved a grand total of jack, and the only reason you can give for other people to believe your garbage is "well, I believe it and think those who don't are narrow-mined/members of the establishment/totally ignorant."

Guess what? Just because you say so doesn't make it so, and just because you took some drugs and saw some crazy stuff doesn't mean that crazy stuff means anything more than the hallucinations you might see if you bang your head off a rock. The existence of things we experience and/or can't explain does not suddenly mean that there is no possible answer other than "mysticism" or "magic". To jump to such conclusions shows such a lack of actual, genuine curiosity, and, in my opinion, a complete absence of any kind of self-realization. Your philosophies aren't set up to help you or anyone else understand the world better. You don't care about understanding the world better. All you care about is believing that you understand the world better than anyone else - which is why you adopt beliefs which run contrary to or directly against commonly held ideas such as "science is good". Having a fringe belief doesn't make you deep, it just makes you self-serving and deluded.

"In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.

Blah, blah, blah, pseudo-spiritual garbage, blah-blah.

Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).

To Western ideology, the thought has remained a stranger... in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one, not merely similar or identical...

"

Erwin Schrödinger - Wikiquote

"The I That Is God" as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

Do you have a single, original or insightful thought in your head?

 

[Songbird]

I think that scientists are letting us all down, and I'll tell you why. I think science is clumsy and limited and overrated, yet there is a perception that science is unlimited in scope and potential, and science has a sort of prestige that I think is counterproductive. I don't like it when a scientist is given undue credibility for statements outside his or her area of expertise.

Science is based on flawed philosophical premises, and these premises are sort of smuggled in and forgotten about. As a result many people have a totally skewed sense of reality because of science, and scientism is practically a religion.

Anyway, sorry for the rant.

I don't mean to be snarky, but I can't tell what exactly you have a beef about. All "science" means is methodical study and knowledge. It doesn't mean there's only one method, or that methods are flawless, impartial, or impervious to evaluation or abuse, or that knowledge is objective. The generalization you seem to make is of the same kind as those who subscribe to science worship. I've never actually encountered those. At least, I've never met a person who says, "I worship science. It's the only way!" Comparing it to religion always puzzles me, because the (many) defining characteristics are different, not least of all the one where people respond to, "What's your religion?" with a religion, not a science. The two things serve different purposes, even if some areas overlap. Calling science a religion is usually an obvious hurled insult, not a valid comparison.

The sciences of chemistry, biology, and medicine, as well as botany and computer sciences, saved my babies' lives in childbirth, but that didn't compel me to worship them. Political influences, insurance liability, and other factors hinder and muddle scientific methods and have caused harm, both inadvertently and deliberately. But like they say, guns don't kill people. Science does. Wait...

Anyway, despite its clumsy methods, flawed premises, or overrated reputation, science has saved, improved, or enhanced billions of lives in various ways. It's not worship that made that happen; it's lots of work.

 

[shawn001]

If you believe that reality itself boils down to logic and words, then heh yeah it's garbage. Move along, nothing to see here. Only a fool expects reality to yield to our logic and science words. Words are just what we use to trick ourselves into thinking we know what we are talking about.

But if you've had an experience of Wonder, and you know that there is more to reality and consciousness than "science" would have us believe, then it's not complete garbage. Then, science kinda sucks, in light of that that-ness.

"In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.

Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).

To Western ideology, the thought has remained a stranger... in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one, not merely similar or identical..."

Erwin Schrödinger - Wikiquote

"The I That Is God" as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

"(somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas)"

"Never hold your farts in! They travel up your spine, into your brain and that is where ****** ideas come from."

 

[shawn001]

Student of X,

How fast is the speed of light?

 

[Orias]

Would you call the methodology of mysticism falsifiable?

Yes.

I kind of think of it like aiming a gun at someone.

t seems like you're trying to appeal to some sort of fallacious argument like "science is right and science is mystical, so since my stuff is mystical too, it must be right too."

In what way is it fallacious?

Is it not a fallacy to say, "Its not mystical because I'm not"?

 

[Orias]

[/B]

How fast is the speed of light?

186000 miles a second.

Is there some type of point behind this?

 

[shawn001]

186000 miles a second.

Is there some type of point behind this?

Yes, that we know the speed of light because of science, not because of the supernatural or mystics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In what way is it fallacious?

Is it not a fallacy to say, "Its not mystical because I'm not"?

It's probably easier to see how it's a fallacy by looking at the general case:

"A has attributes X and Y, so since B has attribute X, it must also have attribute Y."

Do you think this is true generally?

For instance, do you think this statement is true:

"My car is a Ford and my car is green, so since your car is also a Ford, it must also be green"

Hopefully you see the problem in the logic now.

 

[Orias]

Yes, that we know the speed of light because of science, not because of the supernatural or mystics.

How is it not because of the supernatural or the mystics?

Can they not be scientists too?

I recall a fella I knew in school who smoked dope for a heightened sense of reality.
His car's collision with a utility pole led to a revelation.....his philosophy didn't work.
Other than treatment for depression or psychosis, one's thinking prowess doesn't improve with drugs.

Unless you have experienced otherwise.

Where do you think the word assassin came from?

Seriously, look it up

It's probably easier to see how it's a fallacy by looking at the general case:

"A has attributes X and Y, so since B has attribute X, it must also have attribute Y."

Do you think this is true generally?

For instance, do you think this statement is true:

"My car is a Ford and my car is green, so since your car is also a Ford, it must also be green"

Hopefully you see the problem in the logic now.

I see the flaws in your examples, but I don't see how they apply to you.

Since you are the one saying that a mystic person must make everything mystical.

Part of not knowing is willing to know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see the flaws in your examples, but I don't see how they apply to you.

Since you are the one saying that a mystic person must make everything mystical.

I didn't say that.

 

[Orias]

I didn't say that.

You're right, you said he was doing that.

Aside from that the fallacy you are trying to pinpoint can be considered as a Ad Hominem or Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, which indirectly applies to all of us.

Which is my position.

 

[shawn001]

"Yes, that we know the speed of light because of science, not because of the supernatural or mystics."


How is it not because of the supernatural or the mystics?

LOL

Can they not be scientists too?

Name some hard science that uses supernatural explanations of the natural world? Does chemistry or biology or comlogy or astronomy? Your joking right?



Unless you have experienced otherwise.

Where do you think the word assassin came from?

Seriously, look it up

I have 30 years ago.


Assassin's came from Persia and Syria and were doped up on drugs in order to carry out assinations. Which is why the word "shares its etymological roots with hashish"

I see the flaws in your examples, but I don't see how they apply to you.

Since you are the one saying that a mystic person must make everything mystical.

Part of not knowing is willing to know.

The measurement of the speed of light came from science, that is how you know its 186,000 miles per second. It was scientifically measured.

 

[shawn001]

Night Terrors used to be blamed on eveil spirits.

Now we know thety are not.

Souls do not Exist
Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism


Night Terrors: Demonic Attacks

My full page on Night Terrors:

• "Nightmares and Night Terrors" by Vexen Crabtree (2005)

The following phenomenon has its basis in the biochemistry of the brain, involving the limbic system, cerebellum and duodenum and the way that they are suppressed during sleep. An incorrect balance of neurone-controlling chemicals during sleep makes some people more susceptible to night terrors than others. They occur in the early night and "experiences of entrapment, of being choked or attacked, often with shrieking, sitting-up, or sleep-walking, and tremendous acceleration of the heart. [They become] more frequent when there is greater daytime anxiety; they are frequent among wartime battle evacuees and night terrors are commonly experienced by children aged 10-14"17. The human biologist McConnel describes a likely Night Terror:

�You begin to sense - deep down inside you - that something has gone very wrong. Slowly, almost dimly, you regain enough consciousness to realize that you are suffocating, that some heavy weight is lying on your chest and crushing your lungs. Suddenly you realize your breathing has almost stopped, and you are dying for air. Terrified, you scream! At once, you seem to awaken. There is this thing hovering over you, crushing the very life out of your lungs. You shout at the thing, but it won't leave you alone.
Despite a strange feeling of paralysis, you start to resist. Your pulse begins to race, your breathing becomes rapid, and you push futilely at the thing that is choking you to death. Your legs tremble, then begin to thrash about under the covers. You sweep the bedclothes aside, stumble to your feet, and flee into the darkness. You run clumsily through the house, trying to get from the thing.
And then, all at once, you find yourself in your living room. The lights come on, the thing instantly retreats to the shadows of your mind, and you are awake. You are safe now, but you are intensely wrought up and disturbed. You shake your head, wondering what has happened to you. You can remember that you were fleeing from the thing that was crushing you. But you have forgotten your scream and talking in your sleep. The thing dream is a classic example of a night terror.�
"Understanding Human Behavior" by James V. McConnel (1986)18
​

It is clear to see how such physiological events can be interpreted supernaturally by its victims!

Before the physiological causes of these experiences was known, night terrors were interpreted as being the attacks of evil spirits. Others have experienced it as an alien abduction, an attempted possession or as the evil magic of medieval witches, along with all manner of other supernatural and paranormal explanations that have arose historically.

Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
​

 

[Orias]

LOL

I'm just going to assume that your LOL was an indirect way of avoiding my question.

I don't think you see what you are subjecting yourself too.

Assuming your argument actually holds any substance.

I have 30 years ago.


Assassin's came from Persia and Syria and were doped up on drugs in order to carry out assinations. Which is why the word "shares its etymological roots with hashish"

Wikipedia can be anyone's friend.

But no, the Hashashins derived from just Syria and move to conquer some parts of Persia as well as some parts of Europe and Mongol.

Actually, their name derives from Asasiyun and the arabic root word "asas" which means "foundation of" which correlates to their origin and meaning of existence which can be found in the Muslim way of life, faith.

The measurement of the speed of light came from science, that is how you know its 186,000 miles per second. It was scientifically measured.

Ah, so you had nothing to do with the measurement and no one explained to you how it was measured.

I understand, I don't question how my cell phone works, I just have faith that it will work...unless I have no bars

 

[PolyHedral]

Ah, so you had nothing to do with the measurement and no one explained to you how it was measured.

Actually, in this case, it wasn't measured; it was defined. That is a metre is defined as the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds.

However, the accompanying definition of the second came from science.