If a smart guy said something that contradicted my views, I might hesitate before doubting him. He is smart, after all. Possibly even smarter than me.
Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
21–30 of 30 posts
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#22It is worth noting that being an expert in one's field does not preclude one from saying stupid things. Lots of otherwise rational scientists can get caught up in mysticism.
Don't they get points for being proven geniuses?
I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they understand. It happens.
Let me put it another way.
You are asserting the conventional view.
Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful ways.
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#23That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach. Science is a process. Individual's sense of wonder is a precious thing but not science even if a scientist attempted to express it. I.e. there was nothing extra sciency in Eintein's sneeze, a cobbler does not excrement shoes nor is Usain Bolt practicing sports when he sleeps.
The scientific method is like an API. It does not matter how you make the connections as long as the scientific method is correctly done. > That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach. Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem.
"Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem"
Well, yes. But the headline was a bit more generalizing than that which I found too silly not to comment upon. Richard Feynman played the bongos - but I don't think that blurs the boundary between drumming and science.
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#24This is quite a fascinating series of comments by individuals with truly deep understanding of quantum phenomena. What's remarkable is the similarity of the ideas expressed, and I'm quite sure there was no consultation among them about what they said.
The transcendent theme is oneness of consciousness and matter, and the inseparability of the "parts" of nature or the universe.
Not that this is an especially recent point of view. After all, it seems reminiscent of Moses' commentaries on the immanent oneness of God, of course translated to a current-day mode of expression. I assume such experience keeps recurring because it is some way embedded in human nature.
BTW, Einstein also spoke of having this kind of "spiritual" experience. (Confer Einstein's conversations with Martin Buber.) Einstein also made a point of crediting Spinoza as the source of his spiritual leanings. Interestingly, Spinoza's "Ethics" (~1677) elaborates a view of the universe uncannily similar to that of the quoted scientists, and that seems unlikely to be merely coincidental.
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#25It is worth noting that being an expert in one's field does not preclude one from saying stupid things. Lots of otherwise rational scientists can get caught up in mysticism.
Don't they get points for being proven geniuses? I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they understand. It happens. Let me put it another way. You are asserting the conventional view. Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful ways.
>You are asserting the conventional view.
Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are religious, I'd say believing in mysticism is the conventional view.
But that argument is flawed anyway; both the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad novitatem are logical fallacies. Just because something is or is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness.
What's important is whether or not something is supported by empirical evidence, which the mystical view(s) of consciousness mentioned in the article certainly are not.
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't they get points for being proven geniuses? I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they understand. It happens. Let me put it another way. You are asserting the conventional view. Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful ways.
>You are asserting the conventional view. Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are religious, I'd say believing in mysticism is the conventional view. But that argument is flawed anyway; both the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad novitatem are logical fallacies. Just because something is or is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness. What's important is wheth…
I dunno what society you live in, but in mine the scientist is held divine and our holy scriptures are handed down by Newton and Einstein. That's the convention where I live. You hear this gospel preached from one end of the internet to the other.
The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but stupid. Like an insect is effective but stupid. Crude, myopic and simplistic even. And yes, darn good for building termite mounds of logically consistent explanations.
This game sheds a very small circle of very bright light in the midst of a vast shadow.
Let's not pretend that the shadow does not exist. And let's also not pretend that a society of thinkers governed by the scientific method is up to the task of modeling the shadow. The observer's perspective will always be infinitely subtler than any map that he can craft. The map will always be just a crude cartoon compared to the reality. Moreso with our geniuses.
So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map. It is just a tiny limited thing after all. And when you put your faith in the map, or in our modern scientific mapmaking processes, you fail.
The views of smart people matter. Our games of epistemological accounting, less so.
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You are asserting the conventional view. Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are religious, I'd say believing in mysticism is the conventional view. But that argument is flawed anyway; both the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad novitatem are logical fallacies. Just because something is or is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness. What's important is wheth…
I dunno what society you live in, but in mine the scientist is held divine and our holy scriptures are handed down by Newton and Einstein. That's the convention where I live. You hear this gospel preached from one end of the internet to the other. The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but stupid. Like an in…
Wow. No offense, but you read like a living strawman for the argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy.
>So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map.
Really? So every time two smart people reach contradictory conclusions, we should presume that science is incorrect and logic is inconsistent?
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno what society you live in, but in mine the scientist is held divine and our holy scriptures are handed down by Newton and Einstein. That's the convention where I live. You hear this gospel preached from one end of the internet to the other. The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but stupid. Like an in…
Wow. No offense, but you read like a living strawman for the argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy. >So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map. Really? So every time two smart people reach contradictory conclusions, we should presume that science is incorrect and logic is inconsistent?
Authority exists. The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of the initiate.
No, that's just the insect talking. What you do is step back and reconsider your working assumptions. Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process. Stuff like that
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. No offense, but you read like a living strawman for the argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy. >So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map. Really? So every time two smart people reach contradictory conclusions, we should presume that science is incorrect and logic is inconsistent?
Authority exists. The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of the initiate. No, that's just the insect talking. What you do is step back and reconsider your working assumptions. Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process. Stuff like that
>The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of the initiate.
But the views of a single "initiate" (What do you mean by that? It seems a strange word to use in this context.) don't trump the entirety of science and logic.
>Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process.
I do; the limits of our models are substantially more impressive than the limits of a single (fallible) person, no matter how impressive they may be.
Re: Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authority exists. The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of the initiate. No, that's just the insect talking. What you do is step back and reconsider your working assumptions. Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process. Stuff like that
>The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of the initiate. But the views of a single "initiate" (What do you mean by that? It seems a strange word to use in this context.) don't trump the entirety of science and logic. >Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process. I do; the limits of our models are substantially more impressive than the limits of a single (fallible) person, no matter h…
A novice is one who has sampled the subject matter only shallowly, or only in the abstract. An initiate is one who has sampled the subject matter firsthand.
"Trump" is not the operative term here. More like "extend" or "augment". If science illuminates like a laser then the alternative, the squishy human approach, or whatever you want to call it, illuminates like a floodlight. Dimmer but wider.
If you respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process, then beyond those limits you put aside the science tool and pick up another. Maybe that which Feynman etc use. It certainly works for them.