Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 09:25am PT
|
All this is the result of a Catholic priest trying to reconcile general relativity with Genesis, and can't be attributed to Einstein. I think the big bang theory became the most popular one because most physicists believe in God.
An interesting opinion, but contrary to the development of the physics. The interesting thing about science is that the scientific argument is central, not the person making the argument. If that argument survives the various tests and is found to be productive in understanding more about the physical universe, it is acceptable physical theory.
The personal motives of the people making the arguments is not important.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 09:36am PT
|
I may be losing “mind” in all of this, unless one is arguing that mind (consciousness?) is below all of it.
part of the argument that Largo has made has been the insufficiency of "orthodox science" to address the OP question.
Physics, as a representative of "orthodox science" has been a focus, held up both as an example of dogmatic adherence to a set of principles, and as a potential source of explanation. This seems paradoxical, but there is no end to the mischief one can get into when discussing quantum mechanics.
This is exacerbated by speculation of competent theorists (like Penrose) who would propose that the various apparent mysteries of "mind" could be solved with the magic silver bullet of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately for these ideas, they can be tested. Theoretical speculation is part of science, experimental verification is also a part of science, and dropping speculative ideas that fail verification a necessary part of science.
The failure in this case is to so narrow the possible instances of quantum mechanical "structures" capable of maintaining the speculation that it becomes very improbable.
This fails your desire to have definite answers to questions, but that is the nature of science too.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 11:02am PT
|
This fails your desire to have definite answers to question, but that is the nature of science too.
Not having answers to questions borders on unforgivable to people who think that's what science is supposed to be about. But then I'm still waiting for my answer from that crew as to why a universal consciousness would bother spawning a material world at all?
Crikey, I was sure it was the one answer Werner could provide.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 11:05am PT
|
Crikey, I was sure it was the one answer Werner could provide.
You wouldn’t understand anyway. 😉
Besides, does yer wife have to explain herself?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 12:23pm PT
|
My wife comes from a matriarchal tribe so, yes, she does all the explaining.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 11:21pm PT
|
When you stop giving a sh!t and don't give a sh!t the material world is born.
You don't give a sh!t and only care about yourself.
Selfish souls get sent to the material creation which is only one fourth of the whole.
The gross materialists are the most poor fund of knowledge living entities all while masquerading themselves in illusion as advanced ....
|
|
TClimberByTrade
climber
Santa Ana
|
|
You and Madonna would not be a good match.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The real Madonna the mother of Jesus is compatible and NOT that st00pid poser bimbo you are thinking of ....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yeah ..... she's a bimbo
|
|
TClimberByTrade
climber
Santa Ana
|
|
JL now to Antichrist associated to 666. The book is written in Hebrew and Greek. Those languages are able to form words with numbers. a=1; b=2; c=3; etc. One language 666 forms Nero and the other I think Neron. Both Nero who is referenced by 666. Monster drink if looked at carefully shows the M formed by the other language making their Monster M really 666.
|
|
TClimberByTrade
climber
Santa Ana
|
|
People who speak, read, and write Hebrew and Greek have a YouTube video about 666. I think it can be found at numberphile 666.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: . . . the insufficiency of "orthodox science" to address the OP question. . . . Physics, as a representative of "orthodox science" has been a focus . . . Theoretical speculation is part of science, experimental verification is also a part of science, and dropping speculative ideas that fail verification a necessary part of science.
Yes, I get that. “Verification” is specific and particular in empirical sciences. It entails metrics / measurement, and it relies upon a consensus of a given (scientific) community. All fair and proper according to the community of experts.
It’s my view that a few thousand years of contemplative practice across a number of contemplative traditions produce highly similar findings / results, as reported by those who practiced them. (I got a bookcase full of books and scriptures that “hang together” when much is said and done.) There are hardly metrics or measurements that can be equally compared in those documents and reports as they can in empirical sciences, AND admittedly, the phenomena in question tend to be largely subjective experiences and understandings rather than external perceptions. What I’m saying here is that scientific verification is particular and specific and may be contextually oriented to external phenomena—but that does not necessarily imply by comparison that the contemplative reports are untruthful, delusion, or invalid.
Epistemology aside for the moment, when is verification NOT verification for community participants?
Happy New Year, Ed.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
verification is particular and specific and may be contextually oriented to external phenomena—but that does not necessarily imply by comparison that the contemplative reports are untruthful, delusion, or invalid
True. If the followers of contemplative traditions, or any group of people, come to agreement about shared experience, there is likely to be good reason for it. To extend your point above; people who are neither scientists nor practitioners of scientific methods are usually not fools, either.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...and it relies upon a consensus of a given (scientific) community.
not just consensus, but independent verification, where the results of the observations/measurements can be obtained by different people using different instruments, and perhaps even very different methods.
Communication of scientific results has to meet a minimum requirement that the description of the results would allow anyone else to verify them independently.
...that does not necessarily imply by comparison that the contemplative reports are untruthful, delusion, or invalid.
I agree, but who knows? In particular, I would not question one's witness of a miracle, I might not believe that what was witnessed was "the truth." Just as I would not question one's experience of an hallucination, but also recognize it was a subjective experience.
happy new years
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: not just consensus, but independent verification, where the results of the observations/measurements can be obtained by different people using different instruments, and perhaps even very different methods. [Emphasis added]
Let’s forget miracles. Let’s talk about human practices in communities.
“Independent verification” needs unpacking. It’s not like Joe Blow, who has no experience in a field, finds the same phenomena all on his or her own. The issue of verification is complicated and embedded in a community / culture of practitioners.
An independent researcher needs to be competent, and in academia that tends to require a terminal degree and a number of academic tests to get that degree (institutionalization). Second, a researcher must be familiar with the finding that needs verifying (reading and understanding). Third, there are invariably various conversations going on about a newly found phenomena, and those conversations tend to lead thoughts and ideas. Then there is the journal players (review boards, editors, journals) who tend to say what counts as a salient finding or research and what does not. These and other typical social dynamics could make one doubt true “independent verification” in any situation. Independent verification is unlikely to spring forward from a blank mind or page. Every journal article begins with a review of the salient research, and that sets a particular context.
I guess my complaint is that for some odd reason, people have a great tendency to doubt almost everything in today’s world politically, psychologically, socially, technically—even in terms of what is “factual” or not—but not science or the work of scientists. Somehow, it seems to my way of hearing and reading, scientists have few or no human scruples, leanings, faults, or intentions that could be anything but noble and circumspect.
I never saw character training in my education. My peers were all too human.
I found that there are a great great many decisions that an independent researcher makes for him or herself in every research study, not to mention an almost untold number of assumptions.
For my money, truly independent research would be a completely solitary endeavor requiring *total* frankness and the utmost care where everything would be questioned. Furthermore, if one were to do exactly that about just one thing—any one thing—and take it to the end of the line, then one would truly understand everything. One can pick one thing, dig until one gets to the very bottom of it, and then one would have gotten to the bottom of everything.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Your unpacking would appear in need of a lot of unpacking.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
truly independent research would be a completely solitary endeavor
I would think the exact opposite, that independent research has to take place in the social setting of science, with all of human foibles in play.
Feynman gave a commencement speech about the integrity of doing science, he titled it Cargo Cult Science
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.
it helps to have someone to talk to.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Again, I'm unsure why one should believe that people who undertake research studies within the industry should be immune to contemporary complaints that relate to bias or ideological leanings.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!