duendy said:
j
i would rather th scentific method check itsELF!....you know, likeits history, and metaphysical assumptions .....Obviously i dont mean an entity, i mean the peple that rave on about it as THE measuring stick for ALL---even peoples 'non-ordinary' experiences whic it does insidiously as the mask of 'mental hygene'.....!
If you meet any of them, please point them in my direction. They may well be deluded. People often forget that a tool is a tool, with certain ways of using it safely.
As for non ordinary experiences, I am kind of split. Ultimately whoever is saying something needs to produce some evidence. Like with UFO's, they are called UFO's, precisely because they are unidentified. Some people have put forwards some ideas, many fo which have been debunked, or are just plain unlikely. But theres still this residue of stuff which has not or cannot be explained.
duendy said:
this is what is happening. ANYone who speaks of things NOT cnsidered measured or measureable, is considered by this sci-cult as being woo woo or crackpot or etc....that is by the scientific materilaist branchy. rtherer are other flava of scince just as dedicated who are more open to exploring difficult fields of inquiry.......so i am not anti science as such. i am anti the cult that is positivist---backed up by a philsosphy which is of same ilk
Well, as I have said before, to be scientific it has to be independantly verifiable and in some way measurable. Theres nothing that can be done about it, thats just how science works. Observation, theory formation, testing of theory against observations, predictions etc.
But, positivists are probably fools, I agree there. I am reading an interesting book called "The revival of the Democractic Intellect" by Andrew Lockhart Walker. Its essentially a book about the poverty and mindlessness of the modern university system in the UK, and how the old Scotish system was better. He takes on logical positivism and make many good points about the way science is misused by the powers that be. He does at times though get confused to my mind about exaclty what science does/ is, he makes the same mistake buddha1 and yourself do, which is to confuse the scientific method and its fruits with some kind of monstrous world viewpoint. Indeed, he seems to go so far as to suggest that science is almost culturally determined. Which is is not, what is culturally determined is what use shall be made of scientific discoveries. The Chinese invented clocks before they did in europe (yes, clocks arent quite scientific, but anyhow...) but they did not use them in any great numbers, for cultural/ philosophical reasons. Both atheists and religious people, despite you would think having somewhat different world views, find themselves agreeing on many matters of science. (eg evolution)
Lockhart Walker also seems to see that the 2 cultures, humanities and science, split is bridgeable. I do not agree. In fact I have extreme trouble seeing how they are interpenetrated in the way he seems to suggest. Certainly, humanities issues have been used to suggest scientifici research, and vice versa, let alone the effects of science upon artists, who have used it for inspiration. BUt I see it more as a conversation rather than interpenetration.
Indeed, Lockhart Walker is looking for a more unified idea of "reality", like what we used to have after the enlightenment. In my opinion, he is somewhat deluded in this respect, and also seems to seek it in a unity of science and humanities, whereas I see it more as science taking steps further onwards and upwards in understanding, (the modern synthetic areas of cross disciplinary research are a good start) so that, knowing finally how everything is connected to everything else, we can make what we can of it. And if that isnt a dangerously philosophico/ religious statement I dont know what is.
Yet this problem with a science/ humanities split is I think tangentially related to the problems of liberal edcuation and creating a rounded human being. I can see that people think it is central to the problem, but I dont think it is quite that simple.
Anyway, with what I have learnt since university, I think university should be completely reformed and changed, as should schools. And lets not get into too much specialisation. Moreover, I understand from American friends that the USA university and college system maintains something of this breadth of arts subjects with its students. but it has effectively degenerated to stuff that I had to do when I was at senior school, ie before university. And it is also not supported or part of the the wider society, therefore students do not get the full benefit of it because they do not see the point.
