Why Scientists need to accept Eastern thought

[blü 2]

I think it is just another version of how with the
right attitude one can know so much more than
those foolish people who actually study.

I hope @Swami will give me a considered response. I'm interested to understand the point he's making, which at present I suspect I don't.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think one has to be aware that they are doing philosophy for it to be philosophy. For instance--and I am completely opening another can of worms here and will likely regret it!--math is essentially another philosophical tool and has its own philosophical basis. Again, it is a child of axiological and logical understandings. The use of math, experimentation, moral considerations, conclusions, and applications are all philosophically based.

And I disagree here. There *are* philosophical questions that math can address and other philosophical questions *about* math (its validity, meaning, etc). But the subject of math is not a branch of philosophy. For example, mathematicians very seldom think about whether the objects they study exist in some Platonic reality. The question of what it means to be a number may arise, but only tangentially, and then we get on with the math.

Philosophy tends to ask whether or why certain types of thought are valid. It tends to ask much more general questions that are not specific to any particular branch of study.

As another example, physicists very seldom concern themselves with attempting to define the term 'physical'. Instead they just get along with studying stuff and call whatever they study 'physical'.

I thought of this, and considered changing my wording to "science is philosophy applied." But how is the doing of something not the something itself. In other words, even if I were to say that science is practical application of philosophical concepts, how is this not "doing philosophy"?

And I might agree a bit more here. But, just like engineering and physics are two different disciplines, so are physics and philosophy. The practical use of physics in engineering isn't the same as 'doing physics', although usually engineers are more aware of (some) physics than physicists are of philosophy.

For the most part, the issues that philosophers of science discuss are simply not issues to most working scientists. The questions of the working scientists tend to be ignored by the working philosophers (even those doing philosophy of science!). The two ways of thinking have diverged over the last few centuries to the place that saying either is a branch of the other seems rather strange.

 

[Audie]

I hope @Swami will give me a considered response. I'm interested to understand the point he's making, which at present I suspect I don't.

I hope so too

 

[Nanoha]

Lots of stuff here. I consider historical knowledge to be valid knowledge to the extent it is testable. So, having more than one treatment of the same event can helpt o ensure consistency. Having archeological evidence (physical evidence) can help to ensure the story was factual (and not distorted).

And we *don't* accept just any written 'history' at face value. We investigate the evidence from several different sources to be sure it is all consistent *prior* to accepting it as 'knowledge'.

Then you'd be in disagreement with the vast, vast majority of historians. Historical evidence is not empirical evidence. We cannot replay the events and say, "Okay, Caesar, cross the Rubicon again, so we can make sure this actually could have happened."

In particular, for 'eastern knowledge' to be *actual* knowledge, there has to be a way to test it.

Do you know any epistemologists who define knowledge this way?

If two people disagree, is there a procedure to resolve the disagreement? In the sciences, there is: conduct an experiment that serves to highlight the differences and see what actually happens. This is why testability is so crucial. In math, there is a similar dispute resolution procedure: follow the argument using logic until you get back to the axioms.

There's no similarity there. The process of reasoning in mathematics is purely rational, while the natural sciences are empirical.

What is the dispute resolution procedure for 'eastern knowledge'?

You use logical reasoning, i.e. rational evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Then you'd be in disagreement with the vast, vast majority of historians. Historical evidence is not empirical evidence. We cannot replay the events and say, "Okay, Caesar, cross the Rubicon again, so we can make sure this actually could have happened."

And that isn't what is required. But we *do* require some sort of evidence backing up the written story. That is why, for example, Herodotus is seen as rather unreliable.

We can, and do, point to the changes in societies as a result of the historical events and can point to physical aspects of those changes. Typically, the said his event is a good hypothesis for the observed effects.

Do you know any epistemologists who define knowledge this way?

Justified true belief is justified through testing.

There's no similarity there. The process of reasoning in mathematics is purely rational, while the natural sciences are empirical.

That's debatable, but you miss the point. When two mathematicians disagree about whether some result has been proven, there is a resolution procedure to say, at least, who is incorrect.

In the sciences, there is also a dispute resolution procedure: observation made of a situation where the disputed idea gives different results. At the very least, we can tell who is wrong.

You use logical reasoning, i.e. rational evidence.

Reasoning alone, with no observations to back it up, fails to say *anything* aside from whatever axioms are chosen. It cannot, for example, say whether the basic assumptions are true or not.

Far too much of philosophy is based on 'obviously true' ideas that can be shown to be false or which carry no actual meaning. It becomes an exercise of rearranging prejudices as opposed to actually finding knowledge.

 

[paarsurrey]

I will try to keep my topic simple. There are multiple reasons why Western scientists need to adopt but I will only offer two:

1. Eastern thought provides an objective approach to acquire knowledge.
Eastern mystics discovered a practice and tool long ago to explore consciousness and reality, and that practice is 'meditation'. This method is objective because it removes the filters that tend to distort reality - the mind and senses. If you cease all mental and sensory input, then you are no longer subject to bias, feelings, limitations but rather you experience reality as it is.

2. Eastern thought has a wealth of knowledge that deals with the same things that scientists deal with- the nature of consciousness and reality.
Eastern thinkers did not intend to explore every bit of physical Universe like science does. Eastern thinkers main focus was on the nature of consciousness and reality. As such, the mystics have discovered different states of consciousness that go beyond the limited classifications of scientists. One fact from Eastern thought is that consciousness does not exist independently of matter. Another fact is that consciousness can transcend "self" when it exists in everything (or as part of everything) as opposed to being fixed to one thing. Call this universal or Cosmic consciousness. Given the fact that Western materialist scientists are stumped when it comes to consciousness, it would be wise they seek insight from Eastern thinkers. To date, many scientists are flocking to the Dalai Lama so that should tell you something.
Your thoughts. Do you agree that science needs to adopt Eastern thought?

"to explore consciousness and reality, and that practice is 'meditation'"

Who was the first person who discovered that that "meditation" tells about consciousness and reality, when and on what basis, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Nope. It is NOT objective because it is not public and repeatable for others. The rest is philosophy and not science.

Could science have ever existed without philosophy and mathematics, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If science doesn't believe in any of this stuff.Why is quantum physics giving it so much attention?

A good question.

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

Could science have ever existed without philosophy and mathematics, please?

Regards

I think math is a language we have invented to help us communicate the science. Some sort of philosophical endeavor was necessary at some point to get the process going.

But, truthfully, it is mostly in the attitude that we can learn about how the universe works by testing and observation. If that is philosophy, then some is required.

 

[paarsurrey]

Objectivity is not dependent on repeatability. Do you believe only the natural sciences can provide us with objective knowledge? Historical knowledge is not derived through repeated experiment, neither is philosophical knowledge; and science is in fact a branch of philosophy and would be impossible without it. The criteria of falsifiability, the scientific method itself, and all the cornerstones of modern scientific methodology are products of the philosophy of science. Before the modern age, what we now call science was merely known as 'natural philosophy.'

"Science is science" doesn't mean anything. Conceptions of the nature of science are a product of culture. For the majority of human history, science merely signified knowledge and any field related to the pursuit of it, which allowed theology to be classified as a science. Saying that the science of modern, Western society is the only science is a form of bigotry and extreme historical arrogance.

"natural sciences"
"'natural philosophy.'"

Why to qualify "Sciences" and or "Philosophy" with the word "natural", please?
Anybody to reply

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think math is a language we have invented to help us communicate the science. Some sort of philosophical endeavor was necessary at some point to get the process going.

But, truthfully, it is mostly in the attitude that we can learn about how the universe works by testing and observation. If that is philosophy, then some is required.

Mathematics started with words "one", "two" , "three" etc and etc, which were much much later given symbols/signs "1","2","3" ........ etc. It is natural language that caused Mathematics to exist. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

No because science is not a philosophy nor a religion.

It's a process of establishing facts through observation and experimentation.

"observation"

How to observe, please?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

Mathematics started with words "one", "two" , "three" etc and etc, which were much much later given symbols "1","2","3" ........ etc. It is natural language that caused Mathematics to exist. Right, please?

Regards

Again, math is a type of language.

 

[paarsurrey]

You have provided no clear way the scientific method could be improved.
Instead you suggested that scientist should adopt 'Eastern thought' into their body of knowledge.

Doing this would just make science not science.

But science covers only limited aspects of life. Life is not limited to science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Again, math is a type of language.

Math does not have natural words of a natural language. It consists of symbols/signs, these are type of terms, why call it a language, please? Does nature have symbols?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think math is a language we have invented to help us communicate the science. Some sort of philosophical endeavor was necessary at some point to get the process going.

But, truthfully, it is mostly in the attitude that we can learn about how the universe works by testing and observation. If that is philosophy, then some is required.

"how the universe works by testing and observation"

The Universe is set to work under the set process, and it works irrespective of our testing and observation, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

The other issue is, that the minds of Hindus have also been greatly influenced by both Christianity and Islam and had many centuries to do so.

Very very funny. They did not make even an iota of difference. Hinduism is impervious to all these imperfections / deformities (Vikaras).

One GOD is a deformity, since God does not exist, it is human imagination (avataras too). And any one saying that he/she has a message from this non-existing God is a plain con job. Some succeed, some don't (in fooling people).

I disagree. The scientific method works precisely the way it's supposed to work the way that it is. No other method has reliably enabled us to discover more about how the universe functions than the scientific method. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

We are not talking of a new method, but only of any way it could be improved. And there is nothing that cannot be improved (be is science or religion). That would be unscientific.

 

[Nanoha]

We can, and do, point to the changes in societies as a result of the historical events and can point to physical aspects of those changes. Typically, the said his event is a good hypothesis for the observed effects.

Except these, historically speaking, would be effects that have already occurred. You can't repeat the events and replicate the effects.

Justified true belief is justified through testing.

Not an answer to my question, but sure, it can. Who says, though, that experiment is the only justification for belief?

Reasoning alone, with no observations to back it up, fails to say *anything* aside from whatever axioms are chosen. It cannot, for example, say whether the basic assumptions are true or not.

That's why one ideally uses uncontroversial, self-evident premises.

Far too much of philosophy is based on 'obviously true' ideas that can be shown to be false or which carry no actual meaning.

Can you give an example?

It becomes an exercise of rearranging prejudices as opposed to actually finding knowledge.

Sure, if you presuppose that the only knowledge is empirical knowledge.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's why one ideally uses uncontroversial, self-evident premises.
Can you give an example?

Yeah, can you give an example? There is no uncontroversial, self-evident premise. Not even the existence of this universe as we feel / observe it.

Coincidentally the majority of the Christians and Muslims I have met (95% at least) suffer from this EGO disease, believing their religion is superior.
At least Hinduism taught me the opposite. All are equal, meaning `1 is not superior, and the other is not inferior`.

Which is why all religions are not equal. Some have the wisdom to accept what you have written, most don't - and will tell us that the message brought by their dash.dash.dash is the best, latest or final from God.

Most scientists spend their entire careers untroubled by any philosophical thoughts at all.

I don't think that is true. On the contrary, I find all scientists, even the least famous, have always spoken on philosophy, what to talk of Einstein or Feynman.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Very very funny. They did not make even an iota of difference. Hinduism is impervious to all these imperfections / deformities (Vikaras).

One GOD is a deformity, since God does not exist, it is human imagination (avataras too). And any one saying that he/she has a message from this non-existing God is a plain con job. Some succeed, some don't (in fooling people). We are not talking of a new method, but only of any way it could be improved. And there is nothing that cannot be improved (be is science or religion). That would be unscientific.

Such is this world reflected in our mind and our choices.

Regards Tony