Why is spiritual knowledge seen as less correct then knowledge from science?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't have a "subjective spiritual teaching", and I never said "subjective is bad". For most things, objectivity is rightfully prized. Occasionally you want subjectivity, which is fine. But when we're talking about how the universe works, I want as much objectivity as possible, which is the reason for science. If we're talking about how people should act in society, there is a large amount of subjectivity, but there always has to be agreement on some basic facts.

Well, so do I, unless it is actual subjectivity. Then I fight the attempt to use science. But that is how subjective I am.

For the second bold one: No. that is not how biology works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Regardless of your attempts to pretzel your way to sounding deep, the physical universe is all there is.

Now denote this statement of yours in pure physical terms. Wait, you can't. You are doing philosophy.

 

[George-ananda]

It is more fundamental than that. It's not that spiritual knowledge and wisdom precise experimentation. It is that spiritual cannot be demonstrated to be a phenomenon at all.

I have been a student of paranormal phenomena for decades and I believe phenomena exists beyond reasonable doubt from the accumulation of evidence. These things generally show the dramatic limitations of science's reach. Dramatically important things are not understood yet.

Since I am the only one that can provide the purpose to my life, I think that the big question is what purpose will I choose, how can I best pursue it. The better that I understand my physical environment, the better choices I can make to that end.

And for me the last sentence above would read: The better that I understand my spiritual environment, the better choices I can make to that end.

 

[Magic Man]

Now denote this statement of yours in pure physical terms. Wait, you can't. You are doing philosophy.

Would you be able to translate this into something that makes sense?

 

[ppp]

I have been a student of paranormal phenomena for decades and I believe phenomena exists beyond reasonable doubt from the accumulation of evidence. These things generally show the dramatic limitations of science's reach. Dramatically important things are not understood yet.

Demonstrable evidence? Or just a feeling?

And for me the last sentence above would read: The better that I understand my spiritual environment, the better choices I can make to that end.

Sure. I get that. I don't agree, but I do understand.

 

[Magic Man]

I have been a student of paranormal phenomena for decades and I believe phenomena exists beyond reasonable doubt from the accumulation of evidence. These things generally show the dramatic limitations of science's reach. Dramatically important things are not understood yet.

Man, it's been a long time, but I remember this. You believe paranormal phenomena exist, but not because of any real evidence.

When science doesn't support your conclusions, the answer isn't to plug your ears and say "well, that's because science's reach has dramatic limitations". The answer is to re-examine your beliefs/conclusions to see why they're not supported. The answer in this case is because the paranormal phenomena are not real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would you be able to translate this into something that makes sense?

Please reference the actual scientific theory behind this: "Regardless of your attempts to pretzel your way to sounding deep, the physical universe is all there is."
I want it in scientific terms. Not everyday ordinary English. Science and only science.
You know like the theory of gravity in scientific terms.

 

[George-ananda]

Demonstrable evidence? Or just a feeling?

Evidence available to our senses and instruments but not reproducible for physical scientific study.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Man, it's been a long time, but I remember this. You believe paranormal phenomena exist, but not because of any real evidence.

When science doesn't support your conclusions, the answer isn't to plug your ears and say "well, that's because science's reach has dramatic limitations". The answer is to re-examine your beliefs/conclusions to see why they're not supported. The answer in this case is because the paranormal phenomena are not real.

That word "real" has no objective referent. "Real" is no different that "God". You can believe in them, but you don't have to.

 

[ppp]

Evidence available to our senses and instruments but not reproducible for physical scientific study.

That does not track. How is evidence gathered by instrumentation not reproducible for scientific study. Is the instrumentation non-physical?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence available to our senses and instruments but not reproducible for physical scientific study.

In my tradition that is the hard problem of consciousness and how to describe subjectivity in physical, scientific terms. It is not possible BTW IMHO.

 

[Roguish]

I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?
Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?
Something is not right.

Spiritual knowledge is knowledge that man was meant to have.
Scientific knowledge is knowledge that man wasn't supposed to have.
But in his hunger for comfort and entertainment
he eagerly adopted it
from the dark elves,
who told him:
"This knowledge is not from us, it's from you men yourselves!
And who needs 'spirituality'?
Be done with all that seriousness,
life should be fun!"
And so man became scientific
and lived in comfort
and felt good about "his" clever scientific achievements.

Meanwhile, the dark elves plotted...

 

[Magic Man]

Please reference the actual scientific theory behind this: "Regardless of your attempts to pretzel your way to sounding deep, the physical universe is all there is."
I want it in scientific terms. Not everyday ordinary English. Science and only science.
You know like the theory of gravity in scientific terms.

I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about here. Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence for anything other than "the physical world", meaning the universe we can test with our senses and instruments.

 

[Brian2]

Scientific knowledge is objective (doesn't depend on the observer), reproducible (the experiments that led to the knowledge can be repeated) and falsifiable (an experiment that leads to a different solution invalidate, or more often, expands on, the theory).
How does spiritual knowledge fare under these criteria?
If you don't value objectivity, reproducibility and falsifiability, what are your preferred criteria for knowledge?

"objectivity, reproducibility and falsifiability," are good tools in science but that does not mean that all knowledge has to satisfy those things to be considered knowledge. This is especially the case when even science does not apply those criteria to everything it says is knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That does not track. How is evidence gathered by instrumentation not reproducible for scientific study. Is the instrumentation non-physical?

"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

Measure means more than just physical instruments. The mind is also an instrument, but you can only calibrate it subjectively for the purpose of understand subjectivity.

 

[George-ananda]

Man, it's been a long time, but I remember this. You believe paranormal phenomena exist, but not because of any real evidence.

It has been awhile and you are still totally not understanding me and probably never will admit to understanding.

I believe in paranormal phenomena because of evidence that can never be reproduced on demand which is a problem for scientific examination but not for the forces involved.

 

[Magic Man]

That word "real" has no objective referent. "Real" is no different that "God". You can believe in them, but you don't have to.

"Real" is shorthand for "able to be objectively verified", and it is much different from "God" for that reason.

 

[Magic Man]

Evidence available to our senses and instruments but not reproducible for physical scientific study.

If it's available to our senses and instruments, it's reproducible for physical scientific study.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about here. Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence for anything other than "the physical world", meaning the universe we can test with our senses and instruments.

Please explain your "no" in only psychical terms. What does it weigh? Other measurements? How do I hold it and see its meaning? Ans so on. You are doing naive empiricism. All experiences are not just external sensory one.

 

[Magic Man]

"objectivity, reproducibility and falsifiability," are good tools in science but that does not mean that all knowledge has to satisfy those things to be considered knowledge. This is especially the case when even science does not apply those criteria to everything it says is knowledge.

To be considered knowledge, something very much should satisfy those qualifications. If something doesn't, then it wouldn't be right to call it "knowledge".