That also sounds like an Epica song title.
That's not entirely correct. The scientific world has a problem with fields of study that do not employ the scientific method. There are some "fringe sciences" that do employ the scientific method, but these have never yielded any results that are out of the ordinary, and therefore nothing scientifically interesting.But on the contrary, scientific world has a problem with fringe sciences.
This simply isn't true, let alone that you missed the context.That's not entirely correct. The scientific world has a problem with fields of study that do not employ the scientific method. There are some "fringe sciences" that do employ the scientific method, but these have never yielded any results that are out of the ordinary, and therefore nothing scientifically interesting.
When Zhukovsky saw that flying machines were reproducible, there was no doubt that calculated flight was possible. His peers patronized him. As flying machines were implemented without involvement of scientists or scientific method, they discarded the flight theory.Prof Nikolay Yegorovich Zhukovsky (Russian: Никола́й Его́рович Жуко́вский; January 17 [O.S. January 5] 1847 – March 17, 1921) was a Russian scientist, mathematician and engineer, and a founding father of modern aero- and hydrodynamics. Whereas contemporary scientists scoffed at the idea of human flight, Zhukovsky was the first to undertake the study of airflow. He is often called the Father of Russian Aviation.
This is correct.No offence jazz - honestly - but I don't think you understand what science actually is. Science isn't about claiming to "know" everything that can be "known". It is about finding out. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that the current state of science is the best approximation of knowledge we can currently obtain, and that in ten, twenty or fifty years, this approximation will have changed, sometimes fundamentally.
That's why I said "no offence" and "honestly", because I realised how it could be perceived. I'm a scientist myself (or a scholar, by the definition in English), and thus I'm not neutral in this discussion. Imagine it a bit like a firefighter talking about his job when the general perception is that his job consists mainly in pouring water on fire.That's not a good way of starting a peaceful discussion. Please come down from your high horse a little bit, okay?
Okay... so this disqualifies everything I said? Does it bother you that not only another scientist here (Wiz) agreed with me on this, but also that probably most other scientists in the world would? Are they all wrong about their job?Take out your latin and remember what 'scientia' actually means.
If you're giving me only vague statements on what your thoughts are and expect me to just know what you mean like that, I'm not sure you should be telling me about high horses.I'll give you a hint: Meditation isn't science.
I'm glad you're honest about this, but if you want to talk to only one person and not have others barge in with their thoughts, I suggest you carry this to a PM conversation.and I was actually trying to get into a discussion with him, because, as I see it, there are some contradictions in his argumentation.
Misunderstanding, then. We're on the same page regarding para-whatever...I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing when we use the term 'fringe science'. I'm the last one to deny that there are scientific breakthroughs that go without proper recognition, but I was thinking of entire academic and pseudo-academic fields such as Parapsychology.
Yes there is, wisdom in ancient texts, and stuff. Where you see 'dignitaries' I see ordinary people. In robes. With a theology degree. I approach them as normal people, some are plain old idiots, some are enlightened and educated beyond my levels. But that robe 'means' that he's 'closer to God' than you. Which is entirely false.When you say "people in stupid robes", I guess you mean dignitaries of organized religions? I agree that there's a hell of a lot of bullshit in most, if not all, organized religions. But there's great wisdom in these ancient texts and traditions as well. And when it comes to the metaphysical, people like Stephen Hawking, who proclaim to know everything there is to know, are at least as ridiculous and stupid as those "people in stupid robes" IMO. Because, for example, you say you've had "experiences" -- I don't know what those experiences are, but I suppose they'll never be scientifically provable or falsifiable. Mystical texts and traditions in different religions (often seen as heresy by the official dignitaries as well) try to describe exactly those.
There's nothing inherently wrong with something being an ideology. Scientific method is the viable path to knowledge. Science recognizes it can be wrong, it always tests itself out and always refreshes itself. It does not claim to "know everything" as you asserted it does and it never has. On the contrary, science has always been about admitting that we don't know everything, that's what seperated it from dogmatic religious and metaphysical thought.If science proclaims to be the only viable path to knowledge, especially in philosophical questions -- as Hawking does -- then it over-estimates itself and, worse, becomes a new ideology.
I didn't say you were, and I also don't have the impression that you are.I'm by no means anti-science, and I'm not attacking you or any scientist for doing your job at all;
The neurological stimuli obtained through the process of meditation could be acquired otherwise; but I know that's not your point. I don't want to deny you the belief that you acquire knowledge through meditation that is something deeper and special, but personally, I don't share it. There is a lot of value in calming down, stepping back, musing and meditating, but there's nothing metaphysical to it.I'm saying that Meditation might be a path to a different kind of knowledge that you can't obtain through science.
There is no logical value to this statement. If he makes a statement like that and uses it as an argument, the burden of proof is on him, whether he likes it or not. He can't just shrug it off like that.If I say, ‘Natural laws are the expression of G-d’s will’ there is nothing conceivable that will ever prove or disprove this.
Why qualify it? Many to this day think that about plain old psychology. Sure it tries to play with the big boys buy going into brain chemistry, but that's nothing biology, chemistry ad neuroscience hasn't already looked into.Misunderstanding, then. We're on the same page regarding para-whatever...