Science and "seeing" / Mark

[Guest guest]

Dear Mark,

 

Science is a game, a game whose

fruits we enjoy. It is not a game

about an ultimate definition of

reality -- it is a game about

the establishment, use

and continuation of "control

and prediction".

 

Of course, science, by the nature

of the set-up of the game, must

assume a "controlling and predicting

entity" ...

 

Science is a way of investigating that has no

end.

Each theory brings new questions for

additional tests.

And this is the fun of the game - it's

open-ended and constantly

reconfiguring.

 

The interpretation of results

depend on consensus, and

agreements based on shared

observation of "tangible and measurable"

events.

 

The falsifiability of hypotheses is

one of the basic tenets, taken on

faith, which allows the game to proceed.

 

Has any hypothesis ever been "really"

falsified, or just provisionally falsified --

based on consensus about what

has been observed and what

those observations "mean"?

 

If no hypothesis were falsifiable, there

could be no science -- but there

could be either "an opening into

pure infinite potential" or a "closing

down into utter psychosis" ...

 

Science alleviates insecurity by

rendering a world were evidence

can be used to falsify, where

results are predicted, and

the universe is orderly. There is

nothing wrong with this -- it

is a construction activated

by the survival instinct, and

a degree of control, prediction, and security

are necessary for continued survival.

 

Yet, "seeing" must go beyond the biases

of perception dictated by "survival",

and enter the realm of no controlling

entities -- the unknown -- that which

offers no security other than instantaneous

being.

 

Science is a shared activity by a community

of observers who hold certain beliefs

in common.

 

To say this is entirely different from

religion would not be accurate, for

religions also are instituted by

communities holding beliefs in

common - although the "purpose"

of religions is generally metaphysical

rather than "having knowledge of

the physical" ...

 

And religion is a game, too - just one

with different rules than science.

 

And writing here, of course, is a game - one with

rules I enjoy a lot.

 

Pleasure corresponding with you!

 

Love,

Dan

 

>The whole point of science is that one can never prove a scientific

>theory. It's impossible. What happens is that scientific theories are

>conditionally accepted so long as there is no hard evidence against

>them. Once there is agreement that a theory does not fit the facts, no

>matter how long people have believed in it, it gets chucked. Newton's

>law of gravity held up for hundreds of years before Einstein shot it

>down. So, I either read your comments as saying that this mystical

>visionary experience is NOT true, or that you (as many others - no

>judgement here at all on this score) don't appreciate the way science

>works. I find it frustrating when people assume that science deals in

>proof and authority, when in reality, it is just the opposite. Science

>has been so successful in ferreting out the material secrets of the

>world by doubting itself. (Kind of an "anti-faith" principle.) Anyway,

>I think your mystical experience stands on its own and doesn't need the

>false propping up against some "authoritative" science. People who have

>had mystical experiences will easily grant you yours and those who have

>not and are skeptical won't believe you no matter what you say. I like

>the way you describe the one particle hypothesis in your early posts.

>That guy really gets around, huh? Yum!

>

>Love, Mark