to clarify, i'm not against science or the scientific method, in fact
i sup****t it, it's only an aspect of our reality, not the whole though
can science describe the beauty of a rose, the taste of an orange, the
brilliance of light glimmering of of rippling water - no, it can
describe the "how" of the experience, the mechanics, but only a
conscious awarenesss can have or be it, which points to an entirely
different element of our reality, just as valuable, and just as
substantial
On Feb 3, 2:04 am, David Mitchell <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:43:30 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 1:39 am, David Mitchell <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:43:48 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:
>
> >> > agreed, but always defaulting and trying to come up with a
phsyically
> >> > based reality answer doesn't mean that somebaody isn't having an
obe
> >> > (or other psychoc experience)
>
> >> No; but the mundane explanation is by far the most likely, so it
makes
> >> sense to eliminate it first.
>
> > i politely disagree, and do not find that the mundane is most likely,
> > only that after we "think" we understand something, then it becomes
> > mundane, and likely, prior ro that it was an elusive mystery with some
> > other easy explanation
>
> Can you give an example of that; because I'm struggling to think what
you
> mean - almost every phenomenon I've seen described in this newsgroup,
from
> UFO events to OBE's via CIA mind-control has an obvious "mundane"
> explanation; which is, IMO, infinitely more likely than the one I see
> assigned to it.
>
> >> > me too, me too, me three - mountains of anecdotes are worth
exploring,
>
> >> "Exploring?" How?
>
> > delving, repeating, isolating, categorizing, etc.
>
> So, some kind of "scientific" method, then?
>
> >> Again, how? What methodology would you use? What criteria for proof?
> >> And if you have answers for those questions, how do you know that
your
> >> methods would work - have they been tested, and, if so, how? If not,
how
> >> do you know they would work?
>
> > i value non-scientism at least equally to scientism in terms of
> > evidence, so no criteria, no proof
>
> I'm sorry, I can't make any sense out of that sentence.
>
> > the methodology is the way in which people induce the experience,
> > consciously or not
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear - the methodology in my paragraph referred to the
> methodology you used to explore the phenomena - in your case "delving,
> repeating, isolating, categorizing, etc."
>
>
>
> >> If you _can_ answer all of _those_ questions, I rather suspect you'll
end
> >> up with something very like the scientific method. ;-)
>
> > maybe! nothing wrong with the method, unless it's clamping one's
> > worldview
>
> > i find that all kinds of subjectivity and personality enter into the
> > scientific method, because people are people!
>
> Perhaps they try; but it's specifically designed to try to eliminate
those
> elements, and, on the whole, over time, it succeeds.
>
> Which again, (and I make no apology for going on about this because it's
> im****tant) is a claim no other methodology can make.
>
> --
> =======================================================================
> = David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
> = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
> =======================================================================
|
