Topic: Mythology and the Assumptions of Science

Anything real can be studied scientifically.

Science is no longer a tool. It is a master. We have made it so.

And of course scientists will behave with all the self restraint of priests.

Thanks for the pseudo/proto knowledge. Good point. Although I think it's fair to say that pseudo science is a derogatory term for that which cannot be tested.

I think it would be good if people didn't look at things as unscientific or not-science, but as their own thing, as something valid, with their own advantages and disadvantages.

Anything real can be studied scientifically.

I would say, anything natural. See how powerfully memetic that is? If it can't be tested scientifically, like God, then it's not real.

What we call "science" is only one particular science, a style of filtering experience that has been designed by and for a culture of uniformity and central control. It accepts only experiences that can be translated into numbers, that are available to everyone, and that can be reproduced on command. This is what scientists mean when they demand "proof." But this is only a tiny thread of all possible experiences, most of which are unique, not quantifiable, not reproducible, and not the same for all observers.

I'll now add my own thoughts into the mix. I posit that the method of gaining knowledge that uses the pattern "observe, hypothesize, test" (you can call this method whatever makes you comfortable, I'm calling it the "scientific method")

Do you think "observe, hypothesize, test", describes a method unique to science, and even to humans? If not, why do you call it "the scientific method"? If yes, have you seen the video below, and how would you describe the behavior it shows?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ykewnc0oE

I posit that the method of gaining knowledge that uses the pattern "observe, hypothesize, test" (you can call this method whatever makes you comfortable, I'm calling it the "scientific method") is fantastic for figuring out the reality of matter and energy, but absolutely fails when confronted with figuring out reality that does NOT include the realms of matter and energy.

Do you think "observe, hypothesize, test", describes a method unique to science, and even to humans?

Do you think "observe, hypothesize, test", describes a method unique to science, and even to humans?

Ummm.... no. No, not even a little bit.

Hey, Willem, where did you get the idea that I only think humans can do this?

I percieve that you don't seem to have even read my post, other than seeing the S word and jumping all over what you might perceive as an attack on/my personal lack of knowledge on "The observe, hypothesize, test method." The post wasn't about that.

It was about the possibility that this "Vibrationary Realm" of matter and energy may be the only part of the universe that "The observe, hypothesize, test method" can unravel, with other ways of gaining knowledge being necessary to unravel the other realms.

Cool video, though.

[quote:70e9305d44="Willem"] Do you think "observe, hypothesize, test", describes a method unique to science, and even to humans?

Things like Cartesian dualism and all the rest are philosophical ideas that our particular sciences have adopted are no more intrinsic to science than monoculture is to eating. To say that science comrpomises your relationship with the rest of the world because of the way we do science is the kind of logical that gets you from observing the horrors of factory farming to giving up on eating .

So if one wanted to continue to do science (according to your definition), while embracing an animist worldview, could you simply add in consent (which would narrow the variety of experiments considerably, as some amount of subjects would say no), and expand one's observations to include intuitive and other data? (Which gets to what I wanted to ask Chuck about.)

Yes, add in consent; the idea that this would limit experiments drastically is kind of belied by the fact that we've added this requirement for human subjects since WW2, and the same counter-argument was made then, and it turned out to be bunk.

A knife, for instance, is a very minimal, almost primitive tool to people in
a modern industrial society. But for the Mayan people, the spiritual debt
that must be paid for the creation of such a tool is great. To start with,
the person who is going to make the knife has to build a fire hot enough to
produce coals. To pay for that, he’s got to give a sacrificial gift to the
fuel, to the fire.

Jensen: Like what?

Prechtel: Ideally, the gift should be something made by hand, which is the
one thing humans have that spirits don’t.

Once the fire is hot enough, the knife maker must smelt the iron ore out of
the rock. The part that’s left over, which gets thrown away in Western
culture, is the most holy part in shamanic rituals. What’s left over
represents the debt, the hollowness that’s been carved out of the universe
by human ingenuity, and so must be refilled with human ingenuity. A ritual
gift equal to the amount that was removed from the other world has to be put
back to make up for the wound caused to the divine. Human ingenuity is a
wonderful thing, but only so long as it’s used to feed the deities that give
us the ability to perform such extravagant feats in the first place.

So, just to get the iron, the shaman has to pay for the ore, the fire, the
wind, and so on — not in dollars and cents, but in ritual activity equal to
what’s been given. Then that iron must be made into steel, and the steel has
to be hammered into the shape of a knife, sharpened, and tempered, and a
handle must be put on it. There is a deity to be fed for each part of the
procedure. When the knife is finished, it is called the "tooth of earth." It
will cut wood, meat, and plants. But if the necessary sacrifices have been
ignored in the name of rationalism, literalism, and human superiority, it
will cut humans instead.

All of those ritual gifts make the knife enormously "expensive," and make
the process quite involved and time-consuming. The need for ritual makes
some things too spiritually expensive to bother with. That’s why the Mayans
didn’t invent space shuttles or shopping malls or backhoes. They live as
they do not because it’s a romantic way to live — it’s not; it’s enormously
hard — but because it works.

Western culture believes that all material is dead, and so there is no debt
incurred when human ingenuity removes something from the other world.
Consequently, we end up with shopping malls and space shuttles and other
examples of "advanced" technology, while the spirits who give us the ability
to make those things are starving, becoming bony and thin, which is one
reason why anorexia is such a prob-lem: the young are acting out this image.
The universe is in a state of starvation and emotional grief because it has
not been given what it needs in the form of ritual food and actual physical
gifts. We think we’re getting away with something by stealing from the other
side, but it all leads to violence. The Greek oracle at Delphi saw this a
long time ago and said, "Woe to humans, the invention of steel."

No, because if you include intuitive and other non-rational data, it becomes non-reproduceable, so it ceases to be science. Then it's just thinking methodically. Science is a subset of that.

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why."

What counter-arguments? If you don't think it would limit experiments, then wonderful. Very "half-full" of you, rather than "half-empty". Perhaps, better phrased, it limits the way in which we experiment. Obviously to achieve animist consent, we'd have to ask a lot more beings than just the humans involved.

I feel like you and I disconnect here, as if your imagination may not have encompassed yet what I point to. To provide an example of what I mean, imagine doing science, using laboratory tools (and laboratories! and consent forms! everything!) that you created through the following process:

I'd suggest that it requires a curiousity on your part to see if one can explore intuition "scientifically"; dismissing it out of hand (with what evidence, exactly?) doesn't constitute a scientific opinion. It merely expresses the mythology behind the science that our culture does. I've proposed this here enough times that if it hasn't inspired your curiousity yet, it probably won't anytime soon. Fair enough.

So much for separating intuition from hypotheses, and science...

But the solution to the relative status of traditional knowledge compared to science is not to simply label knowledge as “science.” It is to find ways create space within which it can find legitimate expression in our society and be accorded a status other than “superstition.” It is also to better educate people about scientific knowledge and its limits, so that all citizens can better distinguish between good and bad science. Seeking to give traditional forms of knowledge the same status of science accomplishes neither of these goals. Even worse, it makes it harder for us to understand why we should care about traditional knowledge. After all, if it is simply science with another name, why bother?

People said that asking humans for consent would bring science to a screeching halt. It hasn't. Asking permission before you conduct an experiment isn't that much of a burden, and it certainly doesn't change most experiments, because if someone refuses, someone else will go along with it.

People said that asking humans for consent would bring science to a screeching halt. It hasn't.

Asking permission before you conduct an experiment isn't that much of a burden, and it certainly doesn't change most experiments, because if someone refuses, someone else will go along with it.

Yes, that's about what I'm presuming here. You seem to have an impression that this is somehow "not science" in some meaningful way that I simply don't understand.

I think the disconnect is coming from you forgetting one of my dearly-held points: science is not the only or best way to gain knowledge.

Intuition is a great way to gain knowledge. It is inherently unrepeatable, so it isn't science.

I didn't. I just wanted to know more about what you thought, and perhaps work up to understanding why you thought "observe, hypothesize, test", couldn't apply to anything but a primary reality. [and]
Oh. I believe I simply asked a question (or three).

Go then. There are other worlds than these.

For instance, the "Observe, hypothesize, test" method is truly wonderful for understaning the function of the Vibrationary Realm, but I don't think could be very useful in understanding the Realm of Agape; the two Realms just operate in very different ways.

Does that mean it's invalid? Inferior? Not worthwhile? To get to any of those, you need another assumption--that science is the only, or at least the best, way of gaining knowledge. That's something I completely reject. Intuition is an excellent way of gaining knowledge; when done properly, it is in every way science's peer. But it is not science, any more than an orange is an apple.

I posit in this wild and unkempt thought experiment that for every Realm that makes up our Universe, and intersects the reality we dwell in, a system or systems can exist that allows a thinker to unravel and understand that particular Realm, but may not be useful at all in trying to unravel other realms. For instance, the "Observe, hypothesize, test" method is truly wonderful for understaning the function of the Vibrationary Realm, but I don't think could be very useful in understanding the Realm of Agape; the two Realms just operate in very different ways.

Science is mostly confined to the study of Meatworld. Theoretical physics may glimpse bits of Ghostworld and Dreamworld.

Is there any way to prove that science is not the only way to obtain knowledge?

It is in my view impossible to obtain knowledge without science unless you wholeheartedly believe in a spirit world, and even then knowledge is simply gained by guessing or by science, but given a different name.

There is no spirit world. That's your disconnect. Its a metaphor for the way we percieve it, not for the way it actually is. We are all one.

Do you sincerely think you can find a cat out there willing to have you vivisect it? That sounds like a lengthy search; and if you (considering all possibilities) finally find the cat with the death-wish, I suspect it would take you a while, thus at minimum "slowing down" the speed at which you do that kind of science. If you didn't mean this, ok, but I meant exactly this.

I am curious about how the proponents of science plan to pass this knowledge along to their descendants. It is very easy pass along scientific knowledge than one can see or put their hands on, like gravity or nuclear theory (ala star formation), but what about other things like principles of engineering, electricity, or aerodynamics, or more importantly in my mind, germs?

Fucking burn all that bullshit about science. I hope that when the shit goes down people will hang scientists and burn all libraries and laboratories too. I can't believe you're even bringing it up. Science is a religion, and not based in real experience itself, but self-propigated-test-tubed-aristolian-language-of-bullshit - straight out of mother cultures ass hole.

I agree with Scout. When civilization falls, I will watch the burning of libraries, full of horrifically obtained data, without a single regret, and with some measure of relief. Who wants any comfort or recreation made possible from that kind of information on their conscience? Surely, a blood-soaked document in its entirety.

I don't think we need to forget anything - I simply think the abuse of the beings on inquires into will affect your relationship with them. You don't need to forget anything; you can just change your paradigm of inquiry.

You'll note I haven't suggested you to forget, to deny, or even to ignore scientific knowledge.

Most of the people being tested on these days only give their consent because they need money. This is because they are poor people. Regardless of "consent," people are being exploited here, and as always, it's the poor people and not the uberrich corporate executives daughter who are participating in medical testing, joining the army, working at the bottom of a pyramid, etc.

This is simply an illusion of consent.

I find it useful to differentiate between the words "science" vs. "inquiry"(or "tracking"). At this point, surely you can imagine why. Whether or not you find it useful, at this point I have a hard time believing you don't understand it.

If the process Martin Prechtel describes the animist science in your mind, then we do find ourselves of like mind in that; if you don't see how this differs from any civilized scientific process ever done, then at that point we differ.

Though a Vision from a Vision Quest doesn't repeat (well, it does sometimes, but that involves something else)...but simple intuition can and does repeat when well trained. If you don't have this capacity, nor have curiousity to attain it, I understand. I fail to see your evidence for how something that (if you can't) you don't do extends to all human experience.

You can; this also helps to build skill at it.

I don't claim it as such; I claim it as data, the same as something you'd see, hear, feel, smell, etc.

Is there any way to prove that science is not the only way to obtain knowledge?

Speaking of little buggers, what do you think of the following infrared evidence that life lives in our upper atmosphere?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1891970137640135436

Is there any way to prove that science is not the only way to obtain knowledge?

Fucking burn all that bullshit about science.

I agree with Scout. When civilization falls, I will watch the burning of libraries, full of horrifically obtained data, without a single regret, and with some measure of relief. Who wants any comfort or recreation made possible from that kind of information on their conscience? Surely, a blood-soaked document in its entirety.

You'll note I haven't suggested you to forget, to deny, or even to ignore scientific knowledge.

I can see it now. In a few months, maybe a few years, after you have some more dirt time under your nose, you'll be saying the same shit as us... only you'll pretend like you just fucking invented it. You don't listen to anyones ideas that don't back up your own, and when you do you act like your the first person in the world to hear about it.

You've never observed yourself?

Er, no. That's impossible.

pompous

street performers

The Realm of Vibration and the Realm of Agape are not really different, they simply have different metaphors. When you create new metaphors that are inclusive, that's when you start to gain true understanding...

There is no spirit world. That's your disconnect. Its a metaphor for the way we percieve it, not for the way it actually is. We are all one.

One of the major assumptions of science is that humans actually can understand the world around them. By and large I think that assumption is a reasonable one. I think tracking would have a similar assumption, too?

Having said that, science isn't able to answer every question posed to it, ie: there are limitations to its use.

Little children squabbling on a playground!

I mean, while pointing fingers, you gotta ask, why am I getting defensive over this?

One person says that you can use science along with tracking, one person says that science=tracking, and someone else says that science and tracking cannot coexist, and so you insult each other and make sarcastic remarks just because someone doesn't agree with you.

Yanno, I hate to point this out, but I do believe you were just busting Ron's ass for posting stuff like this.

Hypothetically speaking, just because we all share the same reality, does that naturally follow that we must "all be one" on every level? I'd say that on the uber-macrocosmic level, sure, maybe the Realms are all the same Realm. But maybe you look a bit closer, and you instantly see the Realms beginning to drift into separate entities.

God damn, why do I always find myself relying on Canadians to say what I'm trying to say? Maybe it's your innate genetic superiority, or perhaps it's from the increase in intelligence that comes from your sitting within the Holy Aura of a Royal Mounty. (Let us pray.)

(maybe I need to work on my delivery 8O )

... that's still no good... I'll work on it :wink:

Is it like a vampire coffin, where you roll up into your mom's gynormous pussy to revitalize your emo energy?

self-righteous assholes and their endless bullshit, and eventually it shows.

finally throwing down

you're around here is so you can get off on how much better you are than everybody else.

You're not an "Urban Scout." You're a street performer with a heavy-handed, dumbass schtick.

Kicker is, you're not, and you never will be.

I knew you'd be the first idiot to go for the obvious one. It's just so ... you. And yes, we all laughed at you for being that much of an idiot.

... you do have quite a bit of words to read from which he could get an idea of who you are. Not as well as you know yourself, of course, however, he might be seeing a portion thats in your blind spot.

& as for being a jackass about it, as I see it he's just playing the Trickster, the flow reverser.
Which is a great role.

I really do think there is a genuine disconnect somewhere in the scientific paradigm. It has to do with the idea of objectiveness, of observing a process happening. From my perspective the supposed observation-of-a-process is part of the process itself -- there is no separation. Willem said something a while back (it might have been on this thread, it might have been somewhere else) about how when you're dealing with quantum physics reality changes depending on the questions you ask. In other words there is no way to really stand back from a process happening and observe it objectively. This is what "science" as I'm using the word is attempting to do, from my perspective.

The whole "observing" thing reminds me of anthropologists "observing" another culture, and then reporting back to their culture having collected their observations, and then calling these observations objective! This really never made any sense to me. How would the presence of the anthropologist, the observer, not change the culture being observed? How is their perspective not relative or subjective?

For God's sake, why even strive for objectivity?

I've been trying to say this for two days, as part of my wierd theory that "since science has limitations, might science only be able to explain a small part of the Universe, with the rest explainable only through other ways of knowing?"

What he sees is a public face, and a pretty closely guarded one at that. Ask anyone who's met me in meatspace--the me that writes is not the me that lives. At all. It's like night and day.

Willem said something a while back (it might have been on this thread, it might have been somewhere else) about how when you're dealing with quantum physics reality changes depending on the questions you ask.

The whole "observing" thing reminds me of anthropologists "observing" another culture, and then reporting back to their culture having collected their observations, and then calling these observations objective! This really never made any sense to me. How would the presence of the anthropologist, the observer, not change the culture being observed? How is their perspective not relative or subjective? For God's sake, why even strive for objectivity?

Hmm. I think I answered my last question in asking it: For God's sake. We strive for objectivity for God's sake. To find Truth.

What does it matter? Science has achieved some wonderful things, of course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day.

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.