|  Author | Topic: Salmon on Science (Read 785 times) |
anon
Guest
|  | Salmon on Science
« Thread Started on Oct 4, 2011, 12:30pm » | ![[Quote]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/quote.png "[Quote]") |
At Integralworld.net, Don Salmon opens his article, "Shaving Visser, Goswami, Lane and Carter with Ockham's Razor" with a quote from William James which begins, "Science taken in its essence should stand only for a method and not for any special beliefs..."
Salmon then asks, "To what extent are our current accounts of neuroscience and evolution written in accordance with William James' description of science as method, not belief?"
Many contemporary writings about evolution by scientists and non-scientists who oppose the teaching of "intelligent design" in US public schools include discussions of the distinction between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism. The authors I have in mind never fail to state that to posit that there is no God and no supernatural or supranatural entities and forces is to go beyond methodological naturalism.
Salmon writes, "Confusion seems to set in—or so it seems to me—when we call on our current methods of science to give us more than they are capable of doing."
Every scientist and non-scientist I've read who distinguishes between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism agrees with this.
But what about the confusion that seems to set in when we call on what might be called the methods of mysticism are called on "to give us more than they are capable of doing"?
Salmon quotes Krishna Prem (born an Englishman named Ronald Nixon) to explain "why, as long as we confine ourselves to the currently accepted scientific methodology, we will never discover any form of non-material causation."
In a previous article at Integralworld.net titled, "The Challenge of Writing about Sri Aurobindo's Integral Psychology," Salmon cites Buddhist practitioner and scholar Alan Wallace as saying that "one of the basic requirements for reliable exercise of what we call ‘paranormal" abilities is precisely the ability to maintain this awareness [e.g., "pure 'nondual' awareness" or "meditative awareness"] - unbroken - for at least several hours." And Salmon adds, "Traditional yogis have generally considered that, along with this ability, a profound ethical development is also essential - honesty, sincerity, humility, etc."
Elsewhere in the same article, Salmon asks, presumably rhetorically, "suppose one day, Alan Wallace's contemplative researchers succeed in producing (and reliably reproducing) significant paranormal phenomena, how will this be explained? Will it actually require a non-materialistic explanation?"
I assume that by "non-materialistic," Salmon also means non-naturalistic, non-physicalistic, and thus supranatural (supranatural being Aurobindo's preferred spelling of supernatural; as the OED explains, the prefix supra- "is for most part parallel to" the prefix super-).
And I infer that Salmon would answer his own question by saying that an event like that which he describes would not require a "non-materialistic" explanation.
Let's say that there was a way that all parties could agree on to determine if someone is able to maintain the requisite meditative or contemplative awareness for hours. A number of subjects who are so capable participate in research, and all report experience of non-ordinary phenomena - paranormal phenomena. We still have the problem of how to interpret such phenomena or experience. Given that Salmon seems to want to stipulate that we cannot use the scientific method to study such phenomena, how would we approach the problem of interpretation? (Let's say that the meditating subjects are asked to see if they can apprehend a long number that is written on a piece of paper kept in a locked safe. If we were to ask the meditators if they picked up on a number and we then compared those numbers with the number in the safe, we would be using the scientific method. As Salmon quotes Krishna Prem, this does not take us out of the "closed circle" of phenomena within which science moves.)
Let's say that all our meditators come up with the same interpretation, which is basically that their deepest meditative apprehensions make readily apparent the existence of an ontological supranatural dimension of reality. Are we now good to go? It seems to me that we are still operating within the "closed circle" to which Krishna Prem refers, though we have shifted from making an appeal to the scientific method to making an appeal to popular albeit "expert" testimony.
But what if I maintain the requisite meditative awareness for hours, and have the requisite apprehensions, and on this basis it is patently obvious to me that there exists an ontological supranatural dimension that is beyond the reach of the scientific "closed circle"? Isn't that all the "proof" I need that there is indeed an ontological supranatural dimension?
No.
I appreciate that there are many closed-minded people in the world who are also what we might consider psychically closed, who could benefit from having their "closed circle" worldviews opened up. I also know that once someone makes a transition from what for convenience I'll refer to as consensus reality to non-consensus reality, and a whole new world of experience opens up for them, there are endless traps. (There are countless non-extreme examples, but an extreme example would be when several dozen adults who seem reasonably intelligent and educated decide, on the basis of mystical experience, that there is a space ship hidden behind a comet and that within this spaceship is a portal to a "Level Above Human," and in order to access this portal, they participate in mass suicide.)
I don't think that people who are psychically (by which I mean psychologically, albeit in as broad a sense as possible) closed should remain so because of the potential risks of opening up. But I also don't think that people who do open up to what really and truly appears to be an ontological supranatural dimension should fail to recognize that appearances can be deceiving, and that there is always an interpretive process at work whenever anyone makes any kind of assertions based on deep meditative, contemplative, or mystical experience. One approach is to do exactly as Salmon seems to suggest when he quotes David Lane's advice (see Lane's articles at Integralworld.net) to "confess our own ignorance." There is no conflict whatsoever between having profound mystical experiences and confessing our own ignorance about what, if anything, these experiences may imply about ontology (what exists or doesn't exist, how things exist, etc.).
| |
|
anon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science - correction
« Reply #1 on Oct 4, 2011, 1:05pm » | |
Correction to the last sentence in this section of the above:
Elsewhere in the same article, Salmon asks, presumably rhetorically, "suppose one day, Alan Wallace's contemplative researchers succeed in producing (and reliably reproducing) significant paranormal phenomena, how will this be explained? Will it actually require a non-materialistic explanation?"
I assume that by "non-materialistic," Salmon also means non-naturalistic, non-physicalistic, and thus supranatural (supranatural being Aurobindo's preferred spelling of supernatural; as the OED explains, the prefix supra- "is for most part parallel to" the prefix super-).
And I infer that Salmon would answer his own question by saying that an event like that which he describes would not require a "non-materialistic" explanation.
The last line should say that I infer that Salmon would answer his own question by saying that an event like that which he describes would require a "non-materialistic" explanation.
| |
|
Frank Visser
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #2 on Oct 7, 2011, 10:06am » | |
hi anonymous,
i would like to post your reply to Salmon in the Reading Room of Integral World, if that's ok with you with a title and author name.
please contact f.visser3 @ upcmail.nl
thanks,
frank
| |
|
Frank Visser
Guest
| |
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #4 on Oct 13, 2011, 7:00am » | |
Hi Anon:
Actually, the theme I meant to present was that no scientific finding - including the most dramatic parapsychological ones - require materialistic or non-materialistic explanations. The idea is that, according to my understanding, you can't prove either explanations by using the scientific method. hmmm, this is not clear either, perhaps? Maybe you can think of a better way to say it:>))
By the way, I know that the way "naturalist" is used these days is synonymous with materialist and physicalist. But applying Ockham's razor as I do in the essay, I would say that materialist explanations are non-naturalistic, transcendent explanations, whereas any of the variety of Vedantic or Buddhist "explanations" (they really aren't "explanations" in the contemporary scientific sense, but let that go for now - neither are scientific explanations, explanations in the contemporary sense - see article) are more properly described as naturalistic. Another way of putting it, is that what we generally think of as concrete is really abstract, almost autistic, and what we often (though perhaps not generally) think of as abstract is actually quite concrete.
| |
|
anon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #5 on Oct 13, 2011, 8:16pm » | |
Hi Don, Thanks for your reply, as posted at Integral World under the title, "Reply to 'Anonymous'." http://www.integralworld.net/salmon6.html
In it you talk about exploring both sides (e.g., as represented by Alan Wallace and Stephen Bachelor), and say, "Anon, join me in that exploration. Why not, for fun, try on the other view, and see what it feels like. Remember at the end of my shaving science paper, I suggested that as an experiment, we might try out the view that we're not accustomed to?"
I have tried out both views. I could offer an autobiographical account of my spiritual training, discipline and meditative practice, going back to the late sixties, but what would that establish or prove?
In your 2001 essay titled, “What if We Took Indian Psychology Seriously?,” you refer to “the attainment of extraordinary states of concentration.” You write, “Such meditative states, or ‘absorptions’, provide the means by which it is possible to come into contact with other worlds, with beings of other realms, and to perceive directly the subtle energies which are manifest in the natural world as well as the human body.” Referring to training within a spiritual tradition in ethics, meditation, and wisdom, you write, “Practice of these three disciplines in concert is what leads to the unfolding of what eventually becomes a living, dynamic and all-pervading spiritual awareness - an awareness which makes it possible for the seeker to gain direct access to knowledge of universal laws.” http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_salmo_psych_frameset.htm
In the same essay you observe that some Western practitioners fall into "broad categories of misunderstanding" that can compromise their ability to enjoy "a living, dynamic and all-pervading spiritual awareness." Some Western practitioners do not undergo sufficient ethical training, some pick and choose among spiritual practices and disciplines (Alan Wallace has accurately likened this to dining at a restaurant that offers diners a buffet and only picking foods one likes), some abandon the training for the attainment of meditative absorptions, and so on.
You may be aware that after Stephen Bachelor’s book Buddhism Without Beliefs was published, he was criticized by some Buddhists for being insufficiently Buddhist, for not having what Buddhists call "Right View," for being confused as a result of failing to practice Buddhism in a traditional or more orthodox manner, etc.
My point is that being a practitioner hardly makes one's positions immune to criticism or outright dismissal. And my point is that although I can say that I have indeed tried on what you call "the other view," "the view that we're not accustomed to," "the yogic view" and "the view from infinity," you or anyone else could easily say that I'm mistaken, that while I may think I've tried on what you call “the view from infinity,” the fact of the matter is that I have not. After all, unless we embrace a relativism that would allow us to say that all meditators are equal (in terms of skill, attainments, etc.), we must acknowledge that there must be a difference between "the" yogic view and "a" yogic view.
But I at least want to observe that while some of your readers at Integral World and elsewhere may be candidates for trying on "the other view" and seeing "what it feels like," some of us (and I'm pretty sure David Lane falls into this category; I have copies of Laughing Man magazine from the early eighties where he writes with authority on all manner of subtle meditative experiences) are well familiar with what it's like to enjoy extraordinary states of absorption, and are well familiar with the types of experiences or apprehensions in question when you refer to coming "into contact with other worlds, with beings of other realms" and perception of "the subtle energies which are manifest in the natural world as well as the human body."
Based on your aforementioned 2001 essay as well as your essays at Integral World, I infer that you consider meditation a means to propositional knowledge about the ontological status of a supranatural dimension of reality. In other words, when a meditator with the proper training enters an extraordinary state of absorption and apprehends “other worlds” and “beings of other realms” and has what she considers to be “direct access to knowledge of universal laws,” this somehow establishes that the ontological status of such phenomena is supranatural, and thus beyond what the scientific method is equipped to study.
This is where the problem of interpretation that I mentioned in my previous post comes into play. I’ll offer a simple thought experiment to illustrate the problem: Let’s say that we can find two or more practitioners who meet the standards of all parties concerned. In other words, no one is inclined to dismiss one or more of these hypothetical practitioners on the basis that they have fallen into any of the broad categories of misunderstanding that you refer to in your aforementioned 2001 essay, no one is inclined to dismiss them on the basis that they are dogmatists, and all concerned parties agree that these practitioners enjoy what you call "a living, dynamic and all-pervading spiritual awareness." Is it possible that two or more such practitioners could disagree about the ontological status of the “other worlds” and “beings of other realms,” etc., which they apprehend when enjoying extraordinary states of absorption?
If we say it’s not possible, then we are saying that there exist spiritual practitioners whose views on the ontological status of certain non-ordinary phenomena are infallible. If we say that it is possible that two or more qualified (by our lights) practitioners could disagree on such a question, then we implicitly admit that appeals to higher states and appeals to the supposed authority of the more advanced spiritual practitioner do not carry much argumentative strength.
I think you are right to say, "Confusion seems to set in—or so it seems to me—when we call on our current methods of science to give us more than they are capable of doing."
I would simply add that confusion also seems to set in when we call on mysticism to give us more than it is capable of doing.
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #6 on Oct 25, 2011, 5:53am » | |
Hi Anon:
It feels like you're saying something that you think is in contrast or opposition to what I'm saying. I'm not sure, and maybe I'm misreading you, but as far as I can see, I agree with everything you're saying.
If you'd like, you may write me at donsalmon7@gmail.com. I found with Andy Smith that it was easier to get clarification on what we were attempting to communicate through email (I prefer talking directly to email, but if neither of these is possible, we can continue on the forum if you like).
Am I missing something? I fully agree about the endless traps and possibilities of confusion regarding interpretation of experience. I also think - I may have mentioned it in the Indian Psychology article - that there are many problems with the whole framework of "experience" vs or plus "interpretation", and that there are other ways of looking at the whole issue.
Anyway, again, I agree with everything you're saying in the latest post (and actually, I don't think I have any essential disagreement with what you wrote in your original post either).
Am I missing something?
Do you have a name?
Best,
Don
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #7 on Oct 25, 2011, 6:14am » | |
Hi again Anon:
Just occurred to me after posting - it seems that your'e assuming I've been trying - in the Shaving Science articles - to prove something using "mysticism" (did I use that word? Don't believe in it!)
I'll try to rephrase my point again (I think I did a pretty good job in the lastest posting on the "non-dual" rondo, but I'll try to reword it here)
The only point is that scientists make all kinds of metaphysical claims about a mind-independent world which I think are wholly unwarranted by the data. employing the principle of Ockham's razor, the assumption that the universe is permeated by (you can argue about the word here - David contested the word "consciousness" but you can substitute knowing/experiencing/feeling/sentience/awaring/consciring/chit-shakit or whatever you like) consciring does not add a new entity to our experience, whereas the assumption of a mind-independent world adds an extra idea which is not called for by the data of scientific enquiry.
I'm in no way intending this as **proof** that the world is constituted this way. It may not be, as I said in the article. I'm simply saying that confining ourselves to the data of science, it is even less warranted to make the assumption of a mind-independent world. There may BE a mind-independent world. I'm not trying to prove anything either way. I'm just saying that that assumption is not "given" by the data of science, and almost every piece of writing on science implicitly assumes it is. That's all I'm contesting, not trying to prove anything about "mysticism" (whatever that means) or about "the way things are".
The problem here, I think - which is why i'm suggesting talking or trying to write through email - is that we're talking at such a level of abstraction, about such complex subjects, with so many assumptions and preconceptions that have not been made explicit, that we could go back and forth for years and not really communicate.
Which is why I moved away from purely intellectual discussion in the latest "rondo" post and started with something simple, like a coffee cup.
If you're interested, Steve Hagen has a fantastic, related analysis of a coffee cup in his 'How The World Can Be The Way It is", based on Nagarjuna's "tetralemma".
It's essentially the same as Greg Goode's, but more from a sunyata than vedantic viewpoint (though Greg has some wonderful writings on sunyata as well; he even presents non dualistic exercises based on Richard rorty! very interesting guy. You might like at Arthur Zajonc' contemplative inquiry, and look more at some of Alan Wallace's practical books, like his "Mind in the Balance".
Alan, by the way, is fully aware of the difficulties you're mentioning about "endless traps' of making claims based on "mystical" (I'll use your word for now) experience. His whole "Institute for Consciousness Studies" at UC Santa Barbara is organized around dealing with this kind of problem. Ed Kelly, at U Virginia is also fully aware of these problems, though I find Alan's work ultimately more promising.
very best,
Don
(again, please feel free to write me at donsalmon7@gmail.com)
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #8 on Oct 25, 2011, 6:29am » | |
Hi again (wow, 3 times in one day on the IW forum!)
Here’s a good example of “unwarranted assumptions” from Markus Meister, a professor of biology at Harvard, from today’s NY Times:
“There is no evidence in favor of the idea (of life after death), and it conflicts with everything science knows about the nature of human life.”
In fact, there’s not one single piece of scientific data that is in conflict with the idea of life after death. If you doubt this, read carefully the exchange between Keith Augustine and Chris Carter. You can find the links in my “Shaving Visser, et al” article on IW. Chris goes farther than I would – saying the data are “in favor” of life after death, or at least, of consciousness existing independent of matter. I don’t agree – in fact, I’ve written a number of times to Chris telling him I disagree – I don’t think scientific methodology as it currently is practiced is strong enough to make assumptions either way. But he demolishes the whole mind-depends-on-brain metaphysic which is an interpretation of the data, and is not in any way “given” by the data. (again, I’m not saying the data proves mind is not dependent on brain, just that you can’t interpret it to say it proves that mind depends on the brain – purely agnostic position, here).
And regarding the whole “interpretation”, “experience” distinction, and other ideas about reason, here’s a nice response, again from today’s Times:
To the Editor:
While I agree with much of what Karl W. Giberson and Randall J. Stephens wrote, I disagree with the implied conclusion that reason is something that is necessarily “secular.” Such an argument also implies that faith is something that is, so to speak, added on to the universal truth of reason.
On the contrary, many theologians and philosophers contend that what we commonly call “secular” is itself a worldview that is born out of a particular history, tradition and narrative — that is, “secular” reason is not reason itself, but simply another kind of reason, just as Christian faith is a kind of reason.
MARC LAVALLEE
Arlington, Mass., Oct. 19, 2011
The writer is a doctoral candidate in practical theology at Boston University.
please feel free to write me at donsalmon7@gmail.com
best,
don
| |
|
anon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #9 on Oct 28, 2011, 11:39am » | |
Hi Don, I'll respond to some of what you say in your last three comments here.
You say, "If you'd like, you may write me at donsalmon7@gmail.com. I found with Andy Smith that it was easier to get clarification on what we were attempting to communicate through email (I prefer talking directly to email, but if neither of these is possible, we can continue on the forum if you like)."
It's certainly possible for us to communicate through email, but I cannot think of a good reason why I might prefer that to expressing my thoughts in this public space. When I post here I address all potential readers. Your emails with Andy are private and thus no one but you and Andy can benefit from your exchanges.
You say, "it seems that your'e assuming I've been trying - in the Shaving Science articles - to prove something using 'mysticism' (did I use that word? Don't believe in it!)"
I intended the word "mysticism" in as broad a sense as possible, but we can instead use the very terms you use in your latest essay at Integral world, "meditative exercises and contemplative practices."
I don't think you're trying to "prove" anything in "Shaving Science" and your other essays at IW and elsewhere, but I think your essays are persuasive essays. As you put it in your latest IW essay, you make use of "a combination of logical argument and experiential exercises" in your "Shaving Science" essay. It is the "logical argument" aspect that makes your essays persuasive essays.
You say, “It feels like you're saying something that you think is in contrast or opposition to what I'm saying.”
I would not say that I've said anything that is in contrast to anything you've explicitly stated. Instead I've been trying to address things that you seem to imply.
You say that there’s not a single piece of scientific evidence that is in conflict with the idea of life after death. (I'm not aware of anyone who disagrees with this, are you?)
You say that there are no scientific findings which preclude or require the consideration of consciousness as a causal factor in the universe. (Again, are you aware of anyone who says otherwise?)
You say that science as currently practiced has no way of knowing if consciousness has “a causal effect on the planets, the stars, on the formation of elements, on evolutionary mutations...” (Are you aware of anyone who disagrees with this?)
What you do not say that is left to your readers to infer is why you consider the limitations of science regarding all of these things and more worth mentioning. There are a great many things that science as currently practiced has no way of knowing, but you have focused on a few specific gaps in scientific knowledge.
And because you combine logical argument with experiential exercises, specifically meditative exercises and contemplative practices, I infer that you might believe that such exercises and practices can yield knowledge about some of the things that science as it is currently practiced cannot grant.
You refer me to Steve Hagen's book "How the World Can Be the Way It Is." I read it in the last century and still have a copy. I am well familiar through practice with all the kinds of experiential exercises, meditative exercises, and contemplative practices to which you refer in your essays.
You have mentioned Alan Wallace in your comments in this thread as well as in your essays at IW and elsewhere. I've met and talked with Wallace. Wallace and Ken Wilber had an interesting conversation the audio of which was available for the listening a few years ago at a website structured around Wilber's work. In their discussion, they say many of the things you say about the limitations of science as it is currently practiced where things such as consciousness, the nature of reality, and paranormal phenomena are concerned. And they imply that meditation or contemplative practices may be ways to attain knowledge about these things.
I've read most of Wallace's scholarly books and papers, as well as a few of the books he's written for a popular audience (such as a book you mention, "Tibetan Buddhism From the Ground Up"). And I've noticed that he rarely if ever comes right out and says that he believes that what is commonly referred to as paranormal phenomena is possible.
But if one listens to the podcast listed at the following site under the title, "Discussion On Kickstarting The Mind Sciences Revolution Through Paranormal Abilities," one can hear him coming as close as he apparently comes to acknowledging that he does in fact believe that there are or at least have been Tibetan Buddhists who could levitate, pass through walls, multiply themselves, disappear, and otherwise demonstrate paranormal powers. http://www.sbinstitute.com/node/775/podcast?page=6
Once we get past all the stuff about the limitations of knowledge, the limitations of science, etc., the bottom line is that some of us believe as Wallace apparently does, that downright miraculous sounding powers are possible, at least for advanced meditators or contemplatives, while some of us are skeptical about such things.
One of the points I have tried to make in my comments here, and it is a point that I want to express for anyone who cares to read my comments and not just for a specific individual such as yourself, is that it is a mistake to assume that there is a correlation between skepticism about certain things, such as paranormal phenomena, and meditative or contemplative depth (or however we might express that).
If you, for example, assume that you are addressing someone who is your meditative or contemplative peer, and they seem to have ideas about the limitations of science that differ from yours, all you need do to attempt to persuade them to consider otherwise is offer a logical argument. If you consider them your peer where meditation or contemplation is concerned, there is no reason whatsoever why you would suggest that they supplement consideration of your logical arguments with experiential meditative exercises and contemplative practices.
Conversely, when you suggest that someone supplement their consideration of your logical arguments with experiential meditative exercises and contemplative practices, it seems reasonable to infer that you do not consider that someone to be your meditative or contemplative peer. That is fine when you address a general readership, students, or clients, but problematic when you address an individual who is not a student or client unless it's been established between you and that individual that they haven't done the kinds of experiential meditative exercises and contemplative practices in question, or haven't done them to an extent that may be necessary to compliment your logical arguments.
You say that you agree with everything I say in my last post here. If so, then you agree that two people who are meditative and/or contemplative peers can disagree about things such as the nature of consciousness, paranormal phenomena, rebirth, etc., just as they can disagree about who killed JFK. And if you agree with that, then you also agree that the only thing that could lead either of these individuals to change their mind is logical argument, as opposed to a combination of logical argument and experiential exercise. And if you agree with the things I said in my last post, then you agree with me that experiential meditative exercises and contemplative practices are not sources of evidence in support of any particular ideas about consciousness and paranormal phenomena, etc.
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #10 on Oct 31, 2011, 7:49am » | |
Hi, thanks for persisting. The only point is that scientists who use scientific evidence to justify materialistic claims are making a mistake. Period. That may be wrong, but I'm just not interested - in this context - in claims pro or con about meditative experience. The suggestion for private email is that you seem to have other interests. Fine, i'd be happy to talk about them, but i''ve requested help in understanding how to better communicate the above point - or, if you disagree with that point, what is wrong with it.
Scientists who use scientific evidence to justify materialistic claims are making a mistake.
If correct, how better to express it. If wrong, help me see where my misunderstanding is.
If you want to talk about meditative experience as a support for non materialistic claims, which is a completely different subject, that's nice, but I'd rather talk about it in a different context. The above theme is the core of the work I'm doing right now, and I need some help.
I'd be glad to help you with your concern if you like. I just don't want to do it here on integral world forum, as I feel it would dilute the work I'm trying to do.
Scientists who use scientific data to support materialistic claims (such as claiming that eros plays no part in evolution, for example, as I think degracia did recently, and many in the recent past on IW have criticzied Wilber for his claim - criticizing him on SCIENTIFIC grounds) are making a mistake. (notice, I'm not the least bit interested in this context in "proving" anything about eros; just establishing a means of communicating this more clearly.
Ultimately, for most skeptics, I don't think it can be done. But there are many on the edge, who might be receptive. I'm working on finding a way - perhaps through contemplation, which I find makes hidden assumptions visible in a way logical argument doesn't - but not contemplation as a means of proving anything about non physical realities.
Is this any clearer? Actually, my preference is for real time talking, rather than private emails. I've repeatedly found that months and even years of miscommunication through email or other forms of online writing can be cleared up on a few minutes of real time talk.
828-277-6025 if you like:>)))
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #11 on Oct 31, 2011, 7:55am » | |
I missed the stuff about whether someone is my peer. Completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I think there's a misunderstanding (again, something that could be cleared up in about 2 minutes of talking, but will probably continue for months on this forum) about what I mean about meditative experience or contemplation. Perhaps I should just say mindful dialog - no question of superior or inferior experience.
But you see, you don't know what I mean by "mindful dialog", so this missing of each other will probably just continue until one or both of us gives up.
It's incredibly simple what I'm saying if you don't read anything into it, dont' look for implications, but just take it at face value.
Scientists who make materialistic claims based on scientific evidence are making a mistake.
In left brain processing mode, to use a different phrase which doesn't, maybe, push as many buttons as talking about meditation or non meditative modes, it is sometimes difficult to note assumptions as they arise. Arthur Zajonc has a form of contemplative inquiry which is similar to what I'm talking about.
If you look at the above words with as little extra 'reading into" as possible, without looking for implications, just taking it at face value (and lord, please, let's not get into endless post modernist, interpret the text and all that discussion; keep it simple), i think we actually share a very similar perspective.
So again, i'm asking for your help. I don't think this forum is a good way of doing it, but I'm persisting because it seems like it would be fun to talk with you. (directly)
thanks!
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #12 on Oct 31, 2011, 8:02am » | |
ah, 3 seems to be the magic number. I realize something in the format I wrote set off some kind of button in your assumption I was assuming a position as a "superior" meditator. I've sent the "Shaving Science" articles to several people I consider my intellectual and meditative superiors, and received very helpful criticisms. I'm not even sure superior or inferior is the point. I wouldn't be asking for help if I didn't think you knew more or could see more than I could.
If you want to get into a comparison thing, my basic assumption in putting this out to the public is that everybody who reads it will see something I missed; in that way, if you want to put it in terms of inferior and superior, my assumption is that in some way, everyone who reads this is my intellectual/meditative superior, because I assume that anybody is capable of seeing at least some of the mistakes I'm making. Some may see more than others, so again, if you must frame it as superior or inferior (I'd prefer not to, but if you must), some are a little superior to me intellectually and meditatively, and some are very superior.
I hope that helps:>))) (again, feel free to write, or preferably, call)
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #13 on Oct 31, 2011, 3:50pm » | |
Hi again anon (nice name)
I guess this one got to me. I went back another time and looked over your posts. This time it caught me that you asked, can I think of anybody who disagrees with the main points of my essay? (is there anybody who doesn't agree that science has no basis to assert that scientific findings preclude the possibility of paranormal phenomena, life after death, consciousness as a causal factor, etc)
Ok, I'll try.
The entire mainstream media (see reaction to Daryl Bem study last year - NY Times, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, Science, Nature, Scientific American, Discover, etc, just to mention predominantly US media)
A majority of posters on Integral World (Frank Visser, David Lane, Andy Smith, etc) (I think it's especially interesting that David began his article by saying he agrees with the main points, then goes on to write an article that was in stark contradiction with those same points! - this is not as much a criticism of David as me throwing my hands in the air and wondering what it is that keeps me from being able to write and communicate clearly)
60% of psychologists
50-60% of biological scientists
I don't know the numbers, but i suspect a very large number of physicists, chemists, physicians, lawyers, bankers, journalists, architects, and other high level professionals
Virtually every science textbook that almost every child around the world who is told throughout the course of their education that the parameters of science simply do not allow for the kinds of things mentioned above (see thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of websites in which bloggers and other writers patiently instruct their readers that anyone who makes the kinds of assertions listed above doesn't understand science
Susan Blakemore
J. Alan Hobson
Richard Dawkins
Daniel Dennett
Merlin Donald
George Lakoff
Barbara Ehrenreich
and hundreds of millions of others
including a majority of posters on Integral World.
So if you agree with me about the above 3 assertions, then you might agree it could possibly be significant that it might be worht a little effort to counter the common misunderstandings of the nature and limitations of science that at this moment are being taught in schools around the world, from elementary to post graduate, that permeate the mainstream media not only in the US but around the world, and that now predominate on IW.
And all this without mentioning anything about the nature of meditative/contemplative evidence!
please call or write if you can help me see what I'm misunderstanding or how I might more effectively go about this project; I feel stymied at the moment - donsalmon7@gmail.com; 828 277 6025
| |
|
Anon
Guest
| | Re: Salmon on Science
« Reply #14 on Nov 1, 2011, 2:38pm » | |
Hi Don,
When you say that science precludes certain things (such as paranormal phenomena), I assume that you mean this literally, and I realize that I may be assuming incorrectly.
You include Susan Blackmore on your list. Regarding the question, “Does psi exist?” she says, “to that question there is no obviously right answer. Where there is no right answer, we are in ignorance; and, where we are in ignorance, we should do only one thing—have an open mind.”
There was a public TV series some years back called Closer to Truth. Participants included both skeptics and non-skeptics: John Searle, Charles Tart, Dean Radin, Patricia Churchland, David Chalmers, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Fred Alan Wolf, and many others. Topics of discussion included paranormal phenomena, consciousness, the question “Can Science Seek the Soul?,” etc.
While the skeptics and non-skeptics disagreed on many things, they seemed to agree that if science could someday prove something to be true that the skeptics are currently skeptical about, the skeptics would accept that. For example, a few of the discussants agreed that if science should someday find very strong evidence in support of paranormal phenomena, we could begin referring to such phenomena as normal rather than paranormal.
Even Richard Dawkins knows better than to go so far as to say that he is absolutely certain there is no God. Instead he says, “there is almost certainly no God.”
Eugenie Scott, who has been the executive director of the National Center for Science Education since 1987, is quite clear that the scientific method or methodological naturalism is distinct from ontological naturalism. And she is quite clear that the fact that the scientific method isn’t equipped to study non-natural phenomena (i.e., super- or supra-natural, immaterial, etc.), is not evidence that such phenomena does not exist. She discusses this in her book, Evolution vs Creationism: An Introduction, which she says she wrote so that high school students could understand it.
Some people argue that methodological naturalism is dogmatic. Scott as well as philosophers Robert Pennock and Michael Ruse and biologist David Sloan Wilson, among others, make what I consider strong arguments that show that it is not a dogmatic rule.
There may be dogmatists among the people you list. If anyone dogmatically states that science precludes paranormal phenomena, etc., they are wrong. If there are science textbooks for schoolchildren that dogmatically state that science precludes paranormal phehomena, etc., those textbooks are wrong.
In one of your “Shaving Science” essays (“Shaving Visser...”) you say,“advocates for currently accepted scientific methods generally assume that they are adhering to William James' description of science as a method rather than a belief system.” But you then suggest that we “evaluate whether this is actually the case.”
You write, “To evaluate whether this is actually the case, I also proposed trying out, as an exercise, the careful examination of scientific passages to discern the presence of such beliefs. I've collected several passages from essays posted on the Integral World site that would make interesting candidates for this exercise of separating beliefs from scientific methodology.”
Here you invite readers to delve beyond the “face value” content of certain written passages, and yet in a recent comment in this thread you ask me to accept the things you say at face value and to not look for implications.
The fact that someone is strongly skeptical about paranormal phenomena, rebirth or reincarnation, life after death, consciousness as a causal factor, etc., does not mean that they are closed-minded about such things, or that they absolutely rule them out or preclude them. When I read essays at Integral World by Frank Visser and David Lane, I do not get the impression that they are closed-minded about those things they may be skeptical about.
At the end of your most recent comment above you write, “you might agree it could possibly be significant that it might be worth a little effort to counter the common misunderstandings of the nature and limitations of science that at this moment are being taught in schools around the world, from elementary to post graduate, that permeate the mainstream media not only in the US but around the world, and that now predominate on IW.”
If teachers of science and philosophy of science fail to teach students about the distinction between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism, this should be corrected.
| |
| |
|
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Reply]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/reply.png "[Reply]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Logged