-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Experience rather than experiment is the basic source of human knowledge
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I disagree.... every spiritual experience I have is an experiment into my relationship with the divine. I try different prayers, different forms of seeking visions (within reason) and so on.
wa:do
To me, that would depend on the precise epistemological difference between experience and experiment. How do you see that difference?
confused453
Active Member
So you experience being on fire first, and then experiment with the fire, to see what fire does to stuff?
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
I see experimenting as being part of the experience.
I am currently experiencing my experiment with physical reality. And I experiment with my experience.
I am currently experiencing my experiment with physical reality. And I experiment with my experience.
Yes we learn by experience but sometimes it is necessary to test out scenarios rather than just allowing it to happen in random life circumstances. It is a very safe practice to test something out before putting it into production.
Example: Taking a poison and learning from experience or testing the poison before allowing it to harm anything. Of course we could just make the new guy eat the poison first, amirite?
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
.. Sometimes I wish I could just frubal myself...
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Not tested as is done in sciences, hence it is not named experimentation, it is named only an experience- the mother of experimentation.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I don't get you; please elaborate.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I think in science the experiment is materially testable; in religion it is related to soul or spirit so it cannot be tested as is done in science or supposed to be done under scientific method which is relevant only to things material.
I think in sciences they fixed a meaning or symbol for the word experiment which was not there to start with in the languages of the human beings. This changed meaning is now commonly used and creates an ambiguity.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
So you experience being on fire first, and then experiment with the fire, to see what fire does to stuff?
From our experience when we see smoke and flames from afar we have a reason to believe that a building is on fire; when we get close to it we experience the heat and burning affects then we are certain that it is fire; this way the experience become a testable experiment; it only confirms what we already knew from our experience.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
That could be done only with the things material or physical; it does not necessarily deny the things which are out of the physical or material realm, by definition, I think.
gnostic
The Lost One
The earliest evidence and use of fire came from the Homo Erectus, about 400,000 years ago (which would be late Lower Paleolithic period), thousands of years before the first human - Homo sapiens.
The earliest widespread use of fire didn't occur until about 125,000 years ago (so around about mid Middle Paleolithic).
My point is that it required experimentation, to recreate fire, just as it required experimentation to make stone tools. It also required practices to create tools or start fire. All this was before farming, which began in the Neolithic period (discounting forest farming).
Learning required experimentation and practices, even if you have mentor, all of which is part of learning processes or experiences. And skill are refined with experiences. And this way of learning persisted in the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Middle Ages and modern.
The notion that religion provide "basic source of human knowledge" is ridiculous myth. It may provide some education, but religion is hardly pinnacle for learning. At best, religion will only provide rudimentary knowledge of law, morality and ethic. But when compare with today standard, it is archaic, and with patriarchal Abrahamic religions, it is biased against women (inequality).
But a very large part of my own education don't come from religion.
The earliest widespread use of fire didn't occur until about 125,000 years ago (so around about mid Middle Paleolithic).
My point is that it required experimentation, to recreate fire, just as it required experimentation to make stone tools. It also required practices to create tools or start fire. All this was before farming, which began in the Neolithic period (discounting forest farming).
Learning required experimentation and practices, even if you have mentor, all of which is part of learning processes or experiences. And skill are refined with experiences. And this way of learning persisted in the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Middle Ages and modern.
The notion that religion provide "basic source of human knowledge" is ridiculous myth. It may provide some education, but religion is hardly pinnacle for learning. At best, religion will only provide rudimentary knowledge of law, morality and ethic. But when compare with today standard, it is archaic, and with patriarchal Abrahamic religions, it is biased against women (inequality).
But a very large part of my own education don't come from religion.
waitasec
Veteran Member
this...
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I think here one is talking of a period when science had not yet formally drifted away from human life to a seclusion state in the form of experimentation in the lab; that did not mean that humans had no knowledge before it.
Science drifted away from the main human life not in a very distant past to talk in terms of Homo Erectus ,Homo sapiens and Middle Paleolithic times.
Hence science and scientists should keep confined to experimentation in the lab and not out of it. Out of the lab humans only buy things which sell in the market with a price they pay from their hard earnings.
It is OK if one is voluntarily ignorant of a large part of human knowledge
waitasec
Veteran Member
we have experienced science as a tool birthed from experiment
willful ignorance is dangerous.
confused453
Active Member
Wikipedia says that "experiment is a test under controlled conditions made to either demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried."
I think this is when dealing with science.
"(obsolete) Experience, practical familiarity with something."
I guess, when not dealing with science, it's the same thing.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I've seen it written somewhere....90% of what you know...
you have seen with your eyes.
We are visual creatures. The human eye is remarkable.
Still, it remains....seeing is not believing....or understanding.
Watching two black belts go at it can be entertaining.
Become a black belt and do so for yourself.
What you think you know...will shift.
you have seen with your eyes.
We are visual creatures. The human eye is remarkable.
Still, it remains....seeing is not believing....or understanding.
Watching two black belts go at it can be entertaining.
Become a black belt and do so for yourself.
What you think you know...will shift.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Observation: Experience and experimentation are both used as a basis for human knowledge.
Question: Is experience or experimentation more basic a source of human knowledge?
Hypothesis: Experience rather than experimentation is a more basic source of human knowledge.
Prediction: By stating the hypothetical position to a public forum, the general agreement to the hypothesis will show that experience is more basic to human knowledge than experimentation.
Experiment:
Materials:
1 public forum (Religious Education Forum - Discuss, Compare and Debate Religions in Our Online Community)
1 hypothesis
Procedure:
Type and submit the hypothetical statement for discussion on the public forum and allow the topic to be debated and discussed freely.
Results: Experience and experimentation have been shown to be identical, proving the hypothesis false. (I'm obviously jumping to a conclusion here, but I think you get my drift)
Just because you did not formally structure the experiment as I have just done, does not mean you aren't adhering to this process. That's the real trick of it. The scientific method was not really invented, it was discovered. This is the method by which all experience becomes knowledge. The only deviance between scientific knowledge and knowledge of other types (religious, philosophical, social, political) is the level of scrutiny given to each step. Which is where the 'ball of crazy' I mentioned before rears its ugly head. I think I'll leave that for another topic though, unless it becomes relevant here.