I do not think "millions of people" are killed. But you did not specify a timeframe. So that is your loophole.



I write quite a lot about science as a method. Did you not notice?

But do you understand the uproar? I don't think you do. Your world view dictates to you that reality can only be measured and explained using the scientific methodology. Now, along comes someone with a deeply intuitive insight. And then the scientist has the complete and utterly outrageous audacity to tell him he is wrong, or that his method for finding out how things work is wrong and that therefore the conclusions he reaches are faulty!

That is the moment the 'bully' hits the Harry Potter type in the face for being an inflated know-it-all. And rightly so.

I have no problem with scientific methods as long as they keep in their closely guarded playpen, behind razor wire and deep motes with Elf-crocodiles in an ivory tower, isolated from the real experience of the world.




No belief is a threat. It is the conduct of the believer that poses a possible thereat. if YOU honestly believe my friend, that a belief causes danger, then similarly you must believe that science causes danger. Yet people with scientific inclinations tell me that I have to separate science from scientists. If that is true, then you have to separate the belief from the believer.

Is that your point of view?

Scientists monopolizing reality and making statements about mystical aspects of being is scientists escaping their playpen.




Well, you talk about belief in terms of a challenge. is that what science gives you approval for? Challenging beliefs?



It is supposed to be loose and vague, otherwise it be called 'science' Do you understand now?




Defensive semantics of the scientist. It is just the loophole they grant themselves because they know the scientific method is on just as thin ice as any system of modeling. It know very well that there are a lot of ifs. Only by pre-defining the parameters of measurement, they can find the duplication of an experiment to prove something.

"A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments."
Source: Wiki

What gives? You say science gives no facts?



Illogical. Your mind is weird to me mate.

You think that asking questions automatically leads to science? I don't think so. What a deeply ingrained thought structure you have there... It is quite fascinating.




Who says I understand an iota? I only deal with patterns. Underlying fundaments on which content can be applied.

Visty, I don't think there is any need to attack Phog for his opinion here. He does make good points and doesn't deserve to be belittled for his opinions, which i actually found really thought provoking

I do however disagree with the statement about scientists making the most visible effort to solve these problems - At the end of the day, many people address these problems, its just some use other mediums which science at its current stage can not quite understand and measure yet and are naively disregarded as a mere result of chemistry (which I guess would make chemistry the creator of consciousness... which I just can't get down with)

Every single solitary discovery in the name of science began with an unfalsifiable claim. Every one, no exceptions. Just because something hasn't been verified by our current level of understanding or technology does not mean that it does not, or can not exist.

Visty you made assumtpions about me based on nothing... you don't know my worldview, I am not a scientist and never claimed to be. If you want me to respond to you at length I'll do it in PM, this thread isn't the place. Needless to say though that I have an issue with virtually everything you said, lol



Yeah I don't really know if scientists are really getting any closer to the deep questions, what I meant by "most visible effort" is that the results of their efforts are very obvious to everyone. Scientists asked questions like "why does this react in this way if I do that to it" and the results are computers, modern medicine, space travel... wingsuit base jumping etc etc. I in no way feel that scientists have the monopoly on knowledge, the problem is that the knowledge gained through mystical experiences is (to someone who hasn't experienced it) all just poetic... one person can have a mystical experience showing them that everything is one, consciousness is an illusion, we are all just a collection of interconnected energy... then someone else could have mystical experience showing them that in fact it is the opposite, the only true thing is their own consciousness, everything else is a dream and they are the controller of it all. I don't see any way these can both be right and neither one can demonstrate any truth to their experience... my dismissing them isn't about me "knowing" they are wrong or thinking science knows better.

Interesting examples, for our own individual consciousness is the only thing we can know for certain actually does exist. As for everything being interconnected energy, it is, there is no debate. We are speaking of basic physics knowledge.

Oh did it now really? Then I find it strange that we have any science at all, since our best theories have been put to the test (because they were falsifiable), passed it, and entered consensus again and again, while our worst theories have been put to the test (because they were falsifiable), failed it, and been thrown out in the graveyard of bad ideas. Perhaps you can elaborate on this statement so I understand what exactly it is you're saying, Saidin, in case I answer you in misunderstanding right now.

Yeah I realized it was a bad example. I was just typing the first things that popped into my head as examples of mystical experiences... unfortunately the first one is scientifically accurate, lol. The reason I used it is because it is something that I felt I became aware of after mushroom experiences, it was only later that I realized that physics theory is in agreement with it. I guess, for the purposes of what I was saying, the specific examples of mystical experiences aren't that important.

Heh, I seem to have confused the words unfalsifiable and falsifiable in my mind. My bad, but let me ponder on this for a while and see if I can dig myself out of the hole I created for myself...

No problem Saidin, it happens! I often mess up in discussions as well, lol. No holes created, friend.

Yes, there is bad reasoning. Perhaps bad isn't a good word for you, but there is certainly fallacious reasoning, or poor reasoning or some other synonom. Let's take a very concrete example of "good" versus "bad" reasoning.

Example 1:

1. All humans are mammals
2. Mohanan is a human.
3. Therefore Mohanan is a mammal.

Example 2:

1. All humans are mammals.
2. Mohanan is a mammal.
3. Therefore, Mohanan is a human.

Can you see where the poor reasoning, or fallacious reasoning occured? Example 1 is an example of good, or proper reasoning, example 2 however, is an example of bad, or poor or fallacious reasoning. The claim of yours that no "bad" reasoning exists is just outright ridiculous, I am sorry to say.



Did I ever say that only science reasons the right way? No, I didn't. The example above clearly shows that good reasoning and bad reasoning doesn't necessary have anything to do with science at all. Stop arguing against straw mans and stick to the real debate.



Are you serious? There is no false information? Again, this is another example of the many very strange claims you make. There is clearly false information out there, how can this even be denied? Spreading the word that water is NOT two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen is a crystal clear example of something that qualifies as false information. It is false because it is wrong. Saying that objects don't fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum is also clearly false information. This again is false because it is wrong. I could go on and on about this, but it seriously shouldn't be necessary to do this. That false information exists is obvious.



Stop acting childish and quit blowing my post out of all proportions. It's poor debate technique and doesn't serve anything well. If you're just trying to make a joke, then fine, but it is hard to interpretate it as such in the context of our discussion, and proper communication over the internet through writing when we don't know eachother is often hard.

Nevertheless, spreading bad science, misinformation and poor ideas is not good.




Don't pretend to know me or my reasons for "protecting" science and arguing against dubious claims. Furthermore, science doesn't keep reality comfortably numb, quite the opposite. It is in constant progress, constantly revealing new insight, often challenging current ideas and getting rid of bad ones. Remember how science has revolutionized our thinking and our perspective about the universe several times through history? How it has been held down by authority numerous times? Perhaps you remember how, for instance, Galilei was pursued by the church?



Perhaps the kid does, if so, that would be a win. But the kid doesn't need to figure something extraordinary out to give good reasons for why mister Nassim is wrong, all he needs to do is to learn basic physics.




Uhm, what?



There is no need to waste 8 hours of time in order to start addressing some serious issues with his claims. Just a few minutes is needed in order to do that.



I don't know what I would say because I haven't seen your theories clearly written down and published. Perhaps they turn out to be good, who knows. Or perhaps they will turn out to be dubious and inconsistent, unfalsifiable etc.



I am not trying to insult anyone.

Upon further reflection...

There are certain branches of science that work on this premise of being proponents of unfalsifiable theories. The majority of Cosmology falls into this category, it is just educated guesswork at best with no way (currently available) to prove or even test its theories. String Theory for instance. String Theorists even admit that there is likely no way their theory could every be tested and thus be proven. Big Bang, etc.

To comment on this topic of peer review. There have been a rash of retractions lately of scientific articles, particularly medical ones. It appears, that the peers in some cases are protecting their colleagues rather than doing their due diligence in vetting the information.

The pressure to publish, to keep grants, to defend ones life's work, seems to be leading to a rash of dishonesty.

I'm seeing a lot of good points in this thread...



The original spirit of this thread is about building a bridge. Not about being prooven right.

Funny thing, on this board, I'd fall into the mystic camp often. Only because this board is so often divided along such lines. If I were to spend too much time with "fluffy bunny" types (overly optimistic spiritual love and light types. I'm more accepting these days and rarely even think the term anymore I may find myself annoyed with all their "mystical hogwash".


Then again, if all them bleeding mystics around here would shushup for a good while, how much talk would we see from the "reductionist camp" around here, that would fly in the face of mainstream science? The spiritualist tends to bring the "reductionist" out of the otherwise openminded science guy.




Push and Pull.



I dunno. It would be cool to see this thread get back on track. failing at that, well, at least people seem to be arguing without being openly insulting, and that's cool at least.

Okay I'm done. Back at it fellas. Proove you are right, ha! Stick it to 'em!

I am a skeptic/mystic/scientist; I think everyone interested in psychedelic experiences is; and I don't think it's even necessary to cross any chasms between skepticsm, science, and mysticism.

Skeptic: The idea that beliefs should be rationally based. That there should be evidence that what you believe is true, and that what you believe should easily dovetail with other true things. Nobody here thinks they are irrational, or that their positions don't "make sense" in light of other true things.

Mystic: Is simply the idea that human consciousness can exist in different states--including states that are "higher" than normal states--states that can inform special insights or experiences. Everyone here believes that.

Scientist: The idea that one can form an idea of what might be true, or about how something works, and that a good strategy to help verify the idea is to effectively TEST IT to confirm that reality supports the idea.

Everyone here (except the occasional bizarre troll poster) takes positions and makes arguments with at least something like the STRUCTURE of skeptical/rational/scientific presentation, and everyone here takes at least SOME sort of mystical approach to life and consciousness.

The PROBLEM is...that some are more careful/deliberate/consistent about their skeptical or scientific claims and reasoning than others.

I bring this up because it is ARTIFICIAL and MISLEADING to say that the problem is people from different camps; and because the problem is MASKED (or possibly avoided?) by that taking that artificial position.

yep .. thanks for reiterating bedazzle.. any studies you guys have read that elaborate a little more on psychedelic/spiritual/mystical phenomena? The difficulties in opinion shouldn't be an issue here as i keep saying i just want people posting up resources..not their opinion about why science is lacking openness to the endless possibilities.. or vice versa with people's opinions on mysticism. these downfalls most of us already understand and it has been argued countless times already. articles please!

Hey Bricklaya love your idea, sorry it got squashed.

I'm probably more on the spiritual side sorry but this is my little theory for the science/spirituality relationship.

Well, I consider spirituality to simply be faith. Not so much in a God or Gods but in that inter-connectivity I like to think we all hope exists.

I certainly like the idea that because you can explain something does not make it any less amazing!

I think if one were to consider themselves solely a scientific mind they'd be confusing and limiting their self. It would be hard to connect your beliefs to the spiritual side of things because once something is out of our scope of reality it is deemed “impossible” in the realm of science.

I also would like to think most people consider “impossible” to be a limiting word in a place with very little if any limit. And so unconsciously we all consider it likely a temporary label.

I think that due to some sequence of experiences in our life, there is a divide that almost has to occur. Maybe some of our parents tried harder to create Santa in our worlds, or maybe someone we respected shows an aptitude in math. Those that focused on faith and hope, and those that focused on science and reason, and of course the ever so necessary grey area of many in between.

Throughout the course of life we'll lean more one way or the other based on experiences and developed preferences.

Its a necessary relationship, science says it's impossible and that allows focus on what needs focus. From there it is up to those who are scientifically capable and somehow focused on faith/spirituality to make up reality to make it “possible” again. (insert tired Christopher Columbus example here)

However if a person entirely focused on reality with the ideology of faith in the universe then it should be considerably easy to make the findings of science fit that reality very uniformly.

My theory and I’m sure many others share it, is that true faith in the nature of the universe would make the relationship of all growth and human discovery seem natural. And therefore science would at that time most likely have to be unneeded, and many current forms of progress nonexistent.

Columbus would not have had so much faith that the world was round were it not for some kind of scientific evidence I’m sure.

I think, It takes just the right combo of scientific ability and faith to achieve really great things.

It’s nice to think there would be a time when scientific minds and people of complete faith could be one in the same but I’d have to imagine a Utopia would occur (or rather be the reason) if it were yet possible.

Fail, sorry mate.
Totally an opinion. I kinda stopped reading when I noticed a conflict ensuing.

I hope you read my post cause it was a sincere reply.

I did try to "elaborate on how these two can be complimentary in a way that is digestible to both edges of the sword" but I failed to "particularly elaborate on some/any scientific methods that could measure the experiences in someway."

hehe no need to apologise. your post summed up the current situation for me I especially agreed with what you said about there being a natural division in ways of thinking due to personal experiences and upbringing, and how each misses out on the other in a sense

Here's an interesting article about the vast plant knowledge of amazonian shamans, and a bit of insight into how they gained this knowledge... I'm sure many of you are already aware of such things but I thought I'd post anyway as i feel phenomena like this is good evidence in itself that the hallucinogenic experience is more than just visualised thoughts and can actually teach people about the world they live in. Unfortunately there is a dimension to this that many westerners would be weary of.. and that is - how do we know that they actually did learn these things from Ayahuasca? I remember telling my mum about this, and it wasn't enough for her that they themselves claim the knowledge came from those experiences. She found it very difficult to believe and thought it would have been through trial and error. And that they were adding mythical overtones to it because that is how they think.

http://news.mongabay.com...5/0515-rhett_butler.html

Such a cool concept. Knowledge gained from other states of consciousness.

It kinda sucks when it seems someone might never try and see it both ways. Like you're Mom might not try to see both sides, super frustrating sometimes.

I was thinking today how in that theory, scientific reason and spirituality expand and limit progression in both an opposing and complimentary way.

When I'm feeling spiritually inclined I want to shout my hopes and theories to the world so they can want the change I want. I feel what I'm realizing could bring the same hope and positivity I'm feeling you know?

When I'm being excessively logical Spock style and I see someone doing this I often think "that guys crazy" and ignore them or brutally prod their theories.

When I'm scientifically inclined I want to share how much potential is being squandered on radical and unnecessary ideas. That logic is the only way to go because results are so universally definable.

When my spiritual side hears someone doing this he usually thinks they're being closed minded. (or an asshole)

But every so often I'm able to respect both logic and faith and I think that's when moments of sincere clarity arise. Those extremes are exercises in understanding there's necessity for both.

I know exactly what you mean catalyst. It can be quite frustrating at times..i would love for my mum to look into this stuff a bit more. she has gone through a lot in her life and I strongly feel that the sacrament could help her... and many others too.
Yeah its definitely good when those lenses that you look at situations with all become harmonious. It feels good when you empathise with both edges of the sword, even if your usually inclined to one side. Often when people do wrong by me, or express a vastly different opinion that I disagree with and get frustrated over, I like to remember that they have a whole set of circumstances that differ completely from mine, and how they've ended up at this moment right now, I would have to live in their shoes to really understand. Thankyou for this post.. it reminds me that I still have much work to do with myself