War and Peace

[Sean]

All real knowledge is organized in such a way as to make plain how it is arrived at.

Except the knowledge of the knower; the Self, the absolute or God is the axis of reality that all of relative science depends on. It can't be made plain or foregrouded, only understood intuitively. And ultimately our relation with all the world is not subject-object, but the subject-subject relation of the Self- because external reality is in fact contained within our own consciousness (as per quantum physics and post-foundationist epstemology is beginning to understand).

[Haffner]

It is a time-honoured practice among religious apologists to claim that their holy books foresaw the revelations that our science has brought us. Upon closer examination, most such claims are revealed to be tenuous at best. It usually requires a good deal of wishful thinking and cherry-picking to interpret the vagueness of most religious texts as scientific claims.

Good point. But one could say the same about many scientific claims, true?

[Haffner]

    It's not impossible that some things a religion says are true. Some scientists have seen solutions in dreams.

Has anyone read (really read) Carl Jung (besides me)?

[Daidalos]

Good point. But one could say the same about many scientific claims, true?

Care to clarify what you mean?

[Haffner]

Except the knowledge of the knower; the Self, the absolute or God is the axis of reality that all of relative science depends on. It can't be made plain or foregrouded, only understood intuitively. And ultimately our relation with all the world is not subject-object, but the subject-subject relation of the Self- because external reality is in fact contained within our own consciousness (as per quantum physics and post-foundationist epstemology is beginning to understand).

Actually, the first part of this sounds a bit Jungian...

[Haffner]

Care to clarify what you mean?

No. I'm hardly qualified, or intelligent enough. I'm just wondering how others would respond. Don't mind me please, Daidolos.

[Daidalos]

No. I'm hardly qualified, or intelligent enough. I'm just wondering how others would respond. Don't mind me please, Daidolos.

I was just confused by your question. I don't know how the excerpt you quoted could be applied to scientific claims. I was referring to how some attempt to justify their beliefs by searching holy texts for phrases that could be creatively interpreted as scientific statements; I also implied that people who engage in that dubious practice aren't particularly critical and tend to find only what they want to find, like seeing the Virgin Mary in a slice of toast.

So, my question was, how could "the same" be said about scientific claims? Were you suggesting that scientists sometimes let their own prejudices influence their science? That certainly happens sometimes, but the scientific method has an in-built mechanism to root out and expose such biases; it may take time, but science usually corrects itself. The same can hardly be said for those who wish to interpret science for their own religious motivations.

[karlhenning]

Generally good post, as is your wont, Bjorn.

The big question is why some people never smell a rat, while others routinely do.

Actually, I should phrase the question, "Why do some people never smell a rat, while others smell rats where there are none?"

[Haffner]

Were you suggesting that scientists sometimes let their own prejudices influence their science?

I guess we're back to what "objectivity" really means.

That certainly happens sometimes, but the scientific method has an in-built mechanism to root out and expose such biases;

Please describe this in-built mechanism.

it may take time, but science usually corrects itself. The same can hardly be said for those who wish to interpret science for their own religious motivations.

Please provide specific examples, besides the Mary-in-the-toast sort of thing.

[Daidalos]

I guess we're back to what "objectivity" really means.






Please describe this in-built mechanism.

Scientists publish their results and describe the methods they used to acquire them. If other scientists cannot reproduce the results independently, the results are rejected. That is, scientific claims are subject to peer-review and subsequent verification or falsification. Such scrutiny is a safeguard against individual bias and prejudice as others can check your results for themselves.

Please provide specific examples, besides the Mary-in-the-toast sort of thing.

Pretty much the entire Intelligent Design Movement is the perfect example for this kind of thing. They perform no actual research, but try to use science to justify their religious beliefs.

[Haffner]

Scientists publish their results and describe the methods they used to acquire them. If other scientists cannot reproduce the results independently, the results are rejected. That is, scientific claims are subject to peer-review and subsequent verification or falsification. Such scrutiny is a safeguard against individual bias and prejudice as others can check your results for themselves.

I'll leave that as it is. No facetiousness intended.

Pretty much the entire Intelligent Design Movement is the perfect example for this kind of thing. They perform no actual research, but try to use science to justify their religious beliefs.

That's an insightful example. Are we taking "scientific knowledge" to be a priori "objective"? If so, how far can we proceed from there on a speculative level?

[MishaK]

drogulus & Mensch, there's no important disjunction between the spiritual and the material or scientific in Hinduism.

You're the one who keeps making the silly distinction and offhandedly labeling us as "materialists". We weren't saying there was a distinction.

You don't understand guys- the 'mysticism' of the spiritual is gradually being understood by science, eg the observer brought into relation with the observed, strange relativistic effects, exotic subatomic particles etc, all of which we have to accept on faith, and which don't fit comfortably in Mensch's little mechanistic universe.

Sean, you have zero understanding of science. There is nothing any scientist accepts on faith. The moment he does, he ceases being a scientist. All you are doing is revaling your pathetic lack of understanding of the subject.

    It's not impossible that some things a religion says are true.

Or as we say in German: even a blind chicken occasionally finds a kernel.

Except the knowledge of the knower; the Self, the absolute or God is the axis of reality that all of relative science depends on. It can't be made plain or foregrouded, only understood intuitively. And ultimately our relation with all the world is not subject-object, but the subject-subject relation of the Self- because external reality is in fact contained within our own consciousness (as per quantum physics and post-foundationist epstemology is beginning to understand).

Sean, give it up. This is so fecally plenary it's about to burst. Science isn't relative. That is precisely the point of it. Scientific experiments can be repeated ad nauseam across cultural boundaries in different eras and they always yield the same results. They are not dependent upon (i.e. relative to) the person of the observer. That is precisely the value and validity of science.

That's an insightful example. Are we taking "scientific knowledge" to be a priori "objective"? If so, how far can we proceed from there on a speculative level?

Haffner, scientific study is a priori objective because results are not accepted until they can be independently verified. How good those results are and how well they hold up over time depends on the quality of data and the methods used.

[Haffner]

so fecally plenary it's about to burst.

This is priceless. Would you call that a plenary indulgence (dying laughing)?

Haffner, scientific study is a priori objective because results are not accepted until they can be independently verified. How good those results are and how well they hold up over time depends on the quality of data and the methods used.

As well as Daidolos put it, this is put even better.

[Sean]

I was saying that quantum mechanics draws the observing subject into what is observed, and Mensch replies

Scientific experiements...are not dependent upon (i.e. relative to) the person of the observer. That is precisely the value and validity of science.

Would anyone like to comment?

[Daidalos]

I was saying that quantum mechanics draws the observing subject into what is observed, and Mensch replies


Would anyone like to comment?

Again, I'm no physicist, but I don't think it is the consciousness of the observer that permutes the observation, rather the method. And the observation itself doesn't necessarily have to be performed by a human mind, but maybe the photon hitting the detector and thus registering the effect. Physicists are free to correct me.

EDIT: I really should proof-read my posts.

[Haffner]

Again, I'm no physicist, but I don't think it is the consciousness of the observer that permutes the observation, rather the method. And the observation I don't is necessarily a human mind looking into it, but maybe the photon hitting the detector and thus registering the effect. Physicists are free to correct me.

One could ask:  how could the consciousness of the observer not permeate the appllication of the method?

[paulb]

I was saying that quantum mechanics draws the observing subject into what is observed, and Mensch replies


Would anyone like to comment?

According to Jung Mench is wrong.
And Sean is support by and alligns with Jung's lifelong studies in this mysterious interconnection between the observed matter and the scientist doing the observing. Jung mentions this phenomon throughout his collected works. Refer to Wolfgang Pauli and Jung collaborations for further study

[paulb]

One could ask:  how could the consciousness of the observer not permeate the appllication of the method?

This is Jung's perspective in this facinating new field of thought.
I realize Jung  is not very welcomed in these parts, but in this case Jung amy have insights into the dual nature of matter/psyche.

[MishaK]

I was saying that quantum mechanics draws the observing subject into what is observed, and Mensch replies

Sean, for anyone to comment on your nonsense you'd have to actually explain what the heck you mean. It is plainly evident that you don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics. It's entirely over your head. If you care to put more precisely how you think quantum mechanics defies the objectivity of scientific experimentation, I'll happily respond. Can't promise that I won't laugh, though.

According to Jung Mench is wrong.
And Sean is support by and alligns with Jung's lifelong studies in this mysterious interconnection between the observed matter and the scientist doing the observing. Jung mentions this phenomon throughout his collected works. Refer to Wolfgang Pauli and Jung collaborations for further study

Paul, please report to the Fermi Lab, they'd be curious to know your findings. BTW, it is precisely the potential for subjective interpretation of data which is why all scientific studies are first submitted to peer review. If they cannot be independently verified by people who aren't drinking the same cool aid, they are not accepted. So Jung (as presented by you - I haven't read what you reference) doesn't in fact invalidate my point at all. To the contrary: he gives the precise reason why independent verification is crucial to the scientific process.

[paulb]

Yeah and when Einstein presented his case for second party verification, the 8 member board of reviews look at each other  WTF     (this last smiley went nuts after reviewing the science)