Self / Science and such

[Guest guest]

Earlier discussion about 'role of science and ideas of 'self' from Ron

There was a strong response from Elizabeth which is worth looking at.

 

=======quote=======

 

science and other shenanigans

 

I said:

> This is why I mistrust science as the sole vehicle to study the

cosmos.

> It is unreliable and incomplete at best.

 

Ron said:

 

So is every other method we use. Science is a tool, and perhaps the

best we

have ever had for understanding the world. It is a method of finding

truth.

Specifically. the patterns of our existence.

 

Oh, absolutely - I just quibble with the belief (inherent in our culture)

that science is the only way to discover the truth, or to recognise truths,

or

to accept truths. I mean... inherent in a large part of our culture.

 

Our minds and our language have

> conjured up concepts that science can't deal with, which remain part

of

> our lives - our psyches.

 

By the same token, science has conjured up concepts difficult if not

impossible for our minds to deal with.

 

Isn't *that* the truth!

 

Science begins with philosophy. Were

it not for the theory, science would not go forward.

 

Belief in anything generates its own propagation. The philosophy of

science (or should I say, "the philosophies of science"?) has proved

itself over and over as a progressive, satisfying, useful, objective

way to look at reality. Just as the superstitions of some strange cult

may seem to the cultists to be progressive, satisfying, etc. Luckily,

strange cults have a way of fizzling out, usually. But there was a time

when Judaism or Christianity might have come under that heading.

 

I am not arguing against science. I am saying that subjective experience

has its own value. Our language has developed sharper and more accurate

words

in the realm of science than in anything else - by no accident. This makes

it difficult to talk about ideas and experiences outside the scientific

frame of experience. My argument - such as it is - is that science may

not be the only practical yardstick of experience available to us, and that

we should keep open minds as to other options - the rumours, the delusions,

whatever. Not to accept them as objective reality (if I may make a

distinction

in types of reality) but as parts of experience, perception, understanding

(as contrasted to knowledge) of the universe and the self.

> > And until it does, it's best to just take and compare notes

> > and compile empirical, repeatable evidence.

>

> Best in what sense? Do you believe that everything that is real is

> repeatable? Observable?

 

Yes. There is a way, and until we prove otherwise while it may be

wishful

thinking , it is defeatist and short sighted to assume there is a

limit and

that we know exactly where it is.

 

I thought you were the one saying there were limits, not me.

 

I believe myself to be a unique conglomeration of atoms, cells, thought,

and so on. I think the same of you and of every other individual who has

ever lived - not excluding twins and clones. Does our non-repeatability

somehow make us unprovable? Is there a lack of evidence for us?

 

It may sound as if I'm arguing with something obvious here, but I'm

actually confused on this point - the scientific concept of repeatability

and the concept of uniqueness.

 

Not true at all. Science impacts on legal truth and even on

psychological

truth. We can if fact, break it down to religion, politics and

science as

our three attempts at getting at truth.

 

That, I agree with - the three social and psychological mechanisms of

organising and trying to understand society, and hence make it better.

But the language and methods of science, while impacting on the rest (just

as anything interacts with everything, especially when it comes to human

thought) still have their own unique characteristics.

 

The same truth, by the way, from different perspectives. But

each impacts on the other and each changes the other.

 

We are getting perilously close to discussing the nature of truth,

here. Is there only one truth that encompasses all reality? Even

theoretically? I think there is - but that's a guess, not knowledge.

Not proved.

 

These are all different mechanisms of approaching a larger

truth that is recognised in every discipline.

 

Could you explain that a little? What you mean by 'larger truth'?

Are some truths bigger than others? Not all truths created

equally?

 

At the risk of putting words in your mouth, I would guess you mean

that the larger truth when it comes to (a) making human societies

viable and (b) understanding the nature of things, is in the common

goal of making life better for all.

 

Why ignore any of these approaches?

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I approve of all these approaches -

including, and maybe especially, science.

 

My caveat is: the scientists I know do not, as a general rule, seem

happier or wiser or more perceptive of themselves and the world than

anyone else I know. A cat waking up and stretching on a windowsill

seems closer to many truths (to my mind) than the knowledgeable

scientist. His knowledge is intellectual, the cat's is visceral.

Both are valid. Both reflect a complexity of truths.

 

So the only real quibble I am making, I think, is that our culture

seems focussed towards the provable at the excense of the visceral,

which therefore many people miss and lose - and I don't think they

are better for it.

 

I Agree. I don't ignore any of them. Why slight science?

 

I don't mean to slight anything. I think we're better off with a

multiplicity of approaches to study our reality with. Discount none

without examination and consideration. Wait, you say, that's the

scientific method. Uh-huh. But it may not be something quantifiable,

measurable, repeatable, explainable or understandable.

 

All are ways of explaining experience and observation. My claim that

science may be the best starting point is driven by the idea that it

is the only one of the three categories of investigation which

include the objective view as a must.

 

Right. Of course. But I think that sometimes objectivity can be a

handicap as much as a valuable resource. I am arguing the validity of

subjective experience for finding individual truth - individual ways of

understanding reality.

 

namaste,

Elizabeth