Scientific Mysticism

What proof do you have of this jan?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uhhhh... hang on. Back up the truck, Hoth... “Science” does plenty of objective description. A geologist for example finds a rock specimen he’s never encountered before; never seen it any textbook. First he notes the appearance, the shape and heft of the rock. This rock is “flat and smooth” or “heavy with marbled hues, but chips or crumbles easily.” He notes the location of where the rock was found. How it was found. Who found it. What else was found along with or near it...etc... Don’t know the actual ‘lingo’ geologists use but I think you can get the gist.

Observation is observation. A scientist is nothing but a human who perceives with his/her senses, and translates the info into a verbal or written description without undue bias. (humans have certain notions about what "flat" means, for example.)

Though ideas may have begun formation from the first moment of observation, it’s after this point that rational predictions begin--when a good scientist practices good science. For some people predictions are more like wishes; they reflect what a given scientist hopes he‘s found. And some are simply predictions: “Said rock appears to have similarities to anthracite, or fluorspar, or flint... Let’s check it out and see where idea # 1, 5, or 23 takes us. If it doesn’t take us far, fine. We’ll set those ideas aside for now because we’re interested in the truth if such can be discovered. We have no real pre-conceived notions about what it’s supposed to be. Only some ideas about what it might be. It could also be something no one‘s found before.”

Could be.
Might be.

Think we’d agree that, yes, predictions--any kind--are often wrong, but so is the assertion that “Science” (as though it were some sentient being) builds up evidence.

Some scientist may try to build a case for their predictions. Some may do so with “evidence” that doesn’t support the claim they want to prove, or doesn‘t support it well. Evidence is evidence. But, “Evidence of what?” is the question a good scientist tries to answer.

The best scientists report what they’ve actually observed while “Science” gives them a reasonable, verifiable, means to do so. An enjoyable moment in the lab is when you have something in your hands, in a test tube, or under a microscope--and you haven’t the faintest idea of what it is--nor of what to predict it ever could be. You have to start somewhere, so you’ve started with the basic description of the “object” or “substance,” of its various properties that are known, and with other observations about its behavior under varying conditions; and note how the original description(s) doesn‘t apply once something “changes” it, and you set out to discover whatever you can discover.

And yes, a scientist--or a group of scientists--will “allow control” based on some or all of their predictions. Fortunately, enough scientists have allowed the appropriate controls and made enough reasonable predictions when designing treatments or experiments to also enable today’s man to live better than did his ancestors of less than a hundred years ago. A sign of success, albeit in a general sense. So-called “intuition” can play a role in achieving such successes, but a moment of intuition is not necessarily a “mystical” experience. We think we know what intuition is and what it’s worth. We have no cause to make it out to be more than what it is.

Better, “Science” doesn’t predict--with 100% certainty--the ultimate fate of mankind. As an “institution” it promises nothing but to attempt to help us understand more of what we’d like to know about our world and beyond. The people who choose to practice Science may do it well or poorly, but that is a matter of individual choice.

And maybe that’s what you meant to say, but it didn’t quite come across that way.

~~~

thx,

Counterbalance

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's just subjective description of sense experience when you note what a rock looks like. There's nothing objective about it. The more scientific part is when you do experiments on the sample and determine how it reacts to things, or even just predicting how it would react to things based on your subjective description. For example, it's not really scientific to say "this rock looks hard" and it is scientific to say "when I thow this rock at something or hit it with a hammer, it repeatedly shows all the charactaristics we define as being hard, in each experiment."

Objective description is not something science is capable of. As Sir Arthur Eddington noted:

A visual description may help... here's Eddington's Tailed Pentagon: http://www.ec3.com/Upperized/images/EDDINGT2.GIF

I'd say scientific descriptions mean that the observation of the thing being described can be predicted by the observation of the items and relations in the scientific "description". In other words, science describes the relations of sense experiences. Take, for example, this scientific description: "Water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bonded together." I would translate this to mean "Where you can observe two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bonded, it can be predicted that you will also be able to observe water." There's an important difference between the statements: the first purports to give a description of substance, while the second describes a relationship between observational sense experiences.

Science is predictive, not descriptive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You do not need to be a scientist or have so-called scientific fact to understand that the Earth is a living organism.

What kind of proof do you want?

Water and air are elements that make up rocks, trees, humans etc…

I said mysticism is a ‘manipulation’ of nature.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

Hoth, there can be no good science 'performed' without the human sense experience, subjective or objective, and I think most of us are capable of both objective observation and description. Describing what something is before making any predictions about one's discovery is part of the observation process. --The observation and discovery processes include the sense experience, which includes description, and is therefore a key component to conducting real "Science." Can't have one without the other. To say that "description isn't something science does" isn't accurate, imo.

We discover a rock. We look it over. We describe what we find--as it actually is. We have to do this before we can do anything else or we ain't gonna do good science. Can't discover all the properties of a rock if we've failed to distinguish it from a tree.

Nothing more, nothing less.

~~~

Counterbalance

 

Jan

Water and air are elements that make up rocks, trees, humans etc

No. They are all made up of molecules. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Air is made up of a number of molecules. These molecules may be found in all things, rocks, trees, humans, etc.. Allow me to help you:

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/scholar/

And besides, I was referring to your statement:

We all have mystic power of some sort or other.

Mysticism is defined as vague, groundless speculation. If this is what you're referring, then I might agree with you, however, rational people never base their lives or decisions on vague, groundless speculation. That would be detrimental to their existence and quite foolish.

I said mysticism is a manipulation of nature.

Again, mysticism is defined as vague, groundless speculation. How is that a manipulation of nature? Please explain how these terms are possibly connected.

 

I agree completly! All you need is a pint of Vodka and a few psycibin!

He's probably referring to the normal type of proof - evidence that fits your theory.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thank you Q - Jan, they are compounds, not elements. I'd advise you to re-take high school chemistry.

I'm mystically manipulating nature as I type! All bow down before the Allmighty Xev, Geek Goddess Extrordinare, Lovecraftian Chick and Evangelical Skeptic!

 

From 'your' perspective, you are correct.
So to try and explain how we have mystical power would be a complete waste of both our time, so please try and see my statement as my opinion.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

From your perspective, you are correct. So to try and explain how we have mystical power would be a complete waste of both our time, so please try and see my statement as my opinion.

 

Oh dear lord.....
Jan, say it ain't so........

You're a nelson???


"Maybe you are right, but if ever you are stranded in a desert and out of water, try making water from hydrogen and oxygen.

Water is the element, there are 5 great elements according to vedic literature, earth, water, fire, air and ether, everything in and around the universe is made up of these elements, and that is my understanding."

Noooooooooo! A total disregard for all science!!!!!!!
Oh and Jan, try making a human from fire, air, ether, earth and water.

 

Jan

Maybe you are right, but if ever you are stranded in a desert and out of water, try making water from hydrogen and oxygen.

I could say the same thing to you. Try making water out of a rock or a tree. But that's not the point. You're evading the topic.

btw - I know how to create water in the desert. It's not that hard. One could easily survive.

Water is the element, there are 5 great elements according to vedic literature, earth, water, fire, air and ether, everything in and around the universe is made up of these elements, and that is my understanding.

You're understanding is flawed and Vedic literature is complete nonsense. As per below:

Puranas are compiled from related historical facts which explain the teachings of the four Vedas. In the Chandogya Upanisad, the Puranas and the Mahabharata, generally known as histories, are mentioned as the fifth Veda.

All the stories mentioned in the Puranas are actual histories, not only of this planet but also on millions of other planets within the universe.

The history of millions of other planets within the universe? C'mon Jan, that is totally ridiculous. No one knows anything about any other planets except the ones within our own solar system, and there is much to learn about those.

It is easy to see how you come to this conclusion. You don’t believe in God, so from that veiwpoint we can never come to a mutual conclusion.

If one believes in gods, they are unable to come to any conclusions. Religion has already made those conclusions for them. That is why theists have no reason to think for themselves.

I will give you a more consise understanding of mysticism from a dictionary.

My definition came directly from a dictionary. I suspected you would fall for that one.

That is really a very simplistic understanding of mysticism, I see no point in really going in to it, as your philosophy is completely opposite.

It is not *my* philosophy and it is a very precise understanding of mysticism. (see above re: dictionary)

What’s detrimental and foolish is to have no understanding of a subject and then talk as though you know everything there is to know about that subject.

The subject of vague, groundless speculation is a subject anyone can profess to know. Whether one applies this method in their lives or not is what separates the rational from the irrational. To be rational, one must know this subject very well. To be irrational, one must simply apply the method.

From your perspective, you are correct. So to try and explain how we have mystical power would be a complete waste of both our time, so please try and see my statement as my opinion.

I will do so, however, I suspect you are unable to explain it. Why? Simple. One cannot explain the irrational. There is no level playing field so to speak. There are no common terms or common grounds in which to discuss the irrational.

 

Jan

You see it as irrational, I see it as rational, based on your definition, you have no understanding of it, based on mine, i do, that is all there is to it, this is why there is no point in going deeper into the subject.

Then we can agree to disagree. Don't you just love when things work out the way they do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I read somewhere here you were similar to Truthseeker. In my opinion, you are not. Please accept that as high praise.

 

Tyler:

She seems to suffer from Nelsonitis, yes. However, Jan suffers from the fact that she is unable to communicate with her betters without attempting to insult them.

Jan:

I did not say that he was not inspired by the apple - I claimed that your evidence was inconclusive.

And, millions of people believe that Newton was inspired by the apple? Millions of people believe that antibiotics work on virii. Try again.

For the record, I am open to the possibility that Newton was inspired by the fall of an apple.

You do seem to have finally grasped the concept. Congratulations.

I did not speculate at all. Are you claiming to know the mind of Newton?

Ad hominem and false. Modern mysticism is the attempt to commune with a 'higher power or powers', to reach somthing beyond the material universe.

Thus doomed to failure. Bruno's mysticism was an attempt to understand the universe, which he regarded as a higher power or powers. Basically, to Bruno, God was an integrel part of the universe - it's very difficult to explain - but Bruno sought his God through science.

But Bruno was persecuted and burned alive, and the threads of his philosophy were never really picked up again.

 

oh... ffs. (ooops, did I say that out loud?)

 

Jan

No I’m not, my point is relevant, you can have all the hydrogen and oxygen in the world, but you couldn’t create water, water is already made, you may be able to extract water, but you cannot make water.

Sorry Jan, you're wrong. A little education of your part might help to substantiate some credibility. In other words, look before you leap. The abyss of ignorance is very wide and very deep.

You can separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules with "electrolysis."

Water is also produced as a bi-product in generating electricity in fuel cells.

To produce electricity, hydrogen is fed into one end of the fuel cell. There it meets a platinum anode that strips an electron from each hydrogen atom, producing an electric current and a stream of hydrogen ions. The electric current flows to the electric motor, supplying it with power. At the other end of the fuel cell, a platinum cathode combines the stream of hydrogen ions coming from the platinum anode, the electric current returning from the electric motor, and oxygen. These three react to produce water.

http://www.autoalliance.org/fuel_cells.htm

Isn't science marvelous?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Jan

By the way, I'm surprised you didn't question me on my claim to make water in the desert. You were the one that initially brought up the topic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!