Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Science & Spirituality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-04-2012, 11:17 PM
spiritualized
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintessence
What do you consider the "primary assumptions" of the scientific method to be?

The primary unfounded & unproven assumption; is that all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality. i.e. Materialism. No evidence of any kind for such an assumption - & is in fact proved wrong by it's own science!

That is an illusion of knowledge. It's illusions of Knowledge, not ignorance that are the biggest stumbling blocks to genuine progress.

Personally I love science; especially physics. But it's full of assumptions; & in certain areas; especially concerning the mind/brain/consciousness - we get into serious difficulty. We have no genuine science of Mind in the Western World; we're stuck on even a definition of consciousness - let alone being able to solve the 'hard problem' or to understand it's nature & the relationship with the brain. It's also critical that 'we' get a handle on this question.

Toward the First Revolution in the Mind Sciences -

http://youtu.be/AhntEOGslbs

Rupert Sheldrake appears to be the most current & evidence based scientist that is challenging the medieval assumptions of a mechanical Universe; reductionism & materialism.

http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

Who's science do we go on; what models do we use? Newtonian? Einstein? Max Plank? Michael Talbot? Ervin Laszlo? Or others.

Materialism is very obviously not science; & in my view a materialistic World view is as dead as the way it sees Life - such a paradigm can't last; it will go; along with the fundamentalist mind sets that mirror it.

http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-04-2012, 03:33 AM
StephenK
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant
Hi Stephen,
Proper science is supported empirical evidence. Religions are supported by faith alone (be it faith in God(s) or faith in the reliability of scripture.)

I understand your idealism in regards to good science but that hasn't been practiced by the medical industry for a very long time... it's been drug
driven using a mechanical format that ignores the holistic interaction that our bodies are molded around. You really need to listen to the interview
with Bruce Lipton... I've run through it 3 times already and will likely drink in his wisdom several more times still... the man knows his stuff and is not at
all impressed with the science that has been driving modern medicine..

He then ties the whole thing straight into the energetic universe understanding that draws a quantum appreciation for how the energy of our
emotional natures directly influence the well-being of this none-solid body we now find ourselves in... it's all energy... looks are clearly deceiving.. :^)

The Biology of Belief - Dr. Bruce Lipton pt. 1 - 34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2oLUF611Y0

And then settle in for an informational bath.

Dr. Mercola's Videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/mercola/videos?view=1&page=1

I've listened to most all of them.. (I download them from youtube, convert them to mp3's and listen to them at work :^) these are each amazing
researchers in the field of medicine... and subject after subject they dismantle this impression that the public has that we're in good hands when
we visit the average physician.... they don't so much blame the doctor but they have very little to no use for the system that's teaching them...

It's one thing if this were just a casual intellectual dalliance into the variables of perception and historical president, but this is consistent and real
damage being done by those we put our faith in... I'm happy to see you found the most popular article that demonstrated the dangers of seeking
such medical care... my wife has worked as a nurse around the direct reality of the same... this whole subject is a real eye-opener... it's a
demonstration of what happens when the honest scientist is over run by the denizens of the dark side....
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-04-2012, 03:41 AM
StephenK
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiritualized

Personally I love science; especially physics. But it's full of assumptions; & in certain areas; especially concerning the mind/brain/consciousness - we get into serious difficulty. We have no genuine science of Mind in the Western World; we're stuck on even a definition of consciousness - let alone being able to solve the 'hard problem' or to understand it's nature & the relationship with the brain. It's also critical that 'we' get a handle on this question.


Pretty-much...! if they can't see it and make a drug for it, then it doesn't exist...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-04-2012, 05:19 AM
Quintessence
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiritualized
The primary unfounded & unproven assumption; is that all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality. i.e. Materialism. No evidence of any kind for such an assumption - & is in fact proved wrong by it's own science!

That's actually a pretty decent point and illustrates one of the limitations of the scientific method. However, if this assumption is discarded, what you have is no longer science. Science basically says, "hey, we're only going to deal with things we can measure and test with statistics; we can't comment on things outside of that." Some people twist this or misunderstand this as "if it can't be measured or tested with statistics, it isn't important, isn't valid, or doesn't exist." An honest scientist won't say that; they'll recognize that materialism is one of the limits of the scientific method. It's why science can't disprove something like the existence of the Christian god or many other metaphysical claims. It irritates me when folks say that it can.

There are a few instances where science can deal with "immaterial" things, particularly in the soft sciences. They're soft for exactly that reason; they make more assumptions about things and more frequently run into the problem of falsifiability. For instance, Freud's ideas about the id, ego, and superego are fantastic, but they can't be proven false. It's a useful way of understanding human psychology, but it's not the only way we can think about it (as evidenced by the many other major branches of thought about human personality).

Social sciences are great. They remind me in many ways of working with the occult. You create a paradigm - a map - and use it to interpret the territory. You understand the map isn't the territory, but the map can be very useful for certain purposes.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-04-2012, 09:19 AM
spiritualized
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintessence
it isn't important, isn't valid, or doesn't exist." An honest scientist won't say that; they'll recognize that materialism is one of the limits of the scientific method. It's why science can't disprove something like the existence of the Christian god or many other metaphysical claims. It irritates me when folks say that it can.

Yea, this is the problem. Making assumptions & filling gaps in knowledge with illusions of knowledge. Fair enough to say that science understands about 7% of how the 'physical' Universe/World works; & that it contains useful models about reality - But to mistake it for reality; or that it explains reality; is a grave mistake.

This is worth a listen to -

Science's First Mistake - Professor Ian Angell -

http://vimeo.com/24014769

Also some interesting discussion here - 'Les Lancaster: "Psychology and Mysticism: Refining our Maps of Mind' -

http://spiritualcrisisnetwork.org.uk/innerjourneys/

Quote:
There are a few instances where science can deal with "immaterial" things, particularly in the soft sciences. They're soft for exactly that reason; they make more assumptions about things and more frequently run into the problem of falsifiability. For instance, Freud's ideas about the id, ego, and superego are fantastic, but they can't be proven false. It's a useful way of understanding human psychology, but it's not the only way we can think about it (as evidenced by the many other major branches of thought about human personality).

There has been those that have created a complete cartography of the psyche - Jung probably being about the most well known.

Science has done the same with the brain - But the notions & models of the physical brain by science are really no less of a guess. As an example; look deeper at the theories of the Dopaminergic system & neocortex - All we really have is models, theories & approximations. Science pretends to have concrete answers - it doesn't. Useful models maybe; but not concrete facts. The danger is when science is stated as indisputable fact/reality.

Quote:
Social sciences are great. They remind me in many ways of working with the occult. You create a paradigm - a map - and use it to interpret the territory. You understand the map isn't the territory, but the map can be very useful for certain purposes.

Yes - very much so.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-04-2012, 12:39 PM
Seawolf Seawolf is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,274
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintessence
It's why science can't disprove something like the existence of the Christian god or many other metaphysical claims. It irritates me when folks say that it can.
I may be wrong, but I didn't think science proved the existence of anything, it just tests the properties and effects of things so we can learn more about them. Existence is a philosophical question. We experience a seemingly material universe, but we can only measure the effects of it. We can only measure what we can observe.

There's no difference in studying the 'spiritual' or different methods of health care. We can test the properties and effects. The question is, *will* we study those things? If science believes it's not even worth looking at, then I guess not.
__________________
"Just came back from the storm." -Jimi Hendrix
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-04-2012, 01:34 PM
StephenK
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seawolf
There's no difference in studying the 'spiritual' or different methods of health care. We can test the properties and effects. The question is, *will* we study those things? If science believes it's not even worth looking at, then I guess not.

As with all observations we form a mental platform which suggests the "constructs of a possibility" and then explore those "assumed constructs" for
their mirrored validity. Does the model respond with predicable replication?

The trick here is in remembering that we're guessing... something may indeed appear certain, but quantum mechanics suggests that the
perspective of the viewer can influence the outcome. So the results from a particular study may well reflect the mindset of those doing the looking.

If we then risk the assumption that something is "solid", based on those outcomes, then we may well have narrowed our understandings, instead of broadening them.

In studying Bruce Lipton, he essentially unravels our previous assumptions about DNA...(hard science) He'd been working with stem cells since the late 60's (I was surprised to
find out that they've known about stem cells for this long!) and was teaching doctors about the basic workflow of organic matter. It was during
this time that he discovered that the definitions were all wrong.. and he had to leave the system because in his teaching capacity he was
perpetuating a lie.

In the true spirit of quantum physics it became obvious to him that the ghost in the machine was our conscious participation. That "how we
thought" effected our health and well being in a direct and observable way. That "as we expect", "so we create"... and this follows down to the cellular
level... In a visceral manor he deconstructs matter. It's all energy in relation to energy... and thus, "as we expect" effects the gelling of energy
into a format of observable light.

And while doing so we inhabit a "field", intimately composed of what nature has imagined, and powerfully influenced by what other individuals are imagining
as well. We're essentially immersed in a matrix-of-thought, with these thoughts being jelled through our senses in such a way to "appear" solid.

The thing that I love about Bruce is that he first orients us to what our modern day consciousness perceives... and then slowly unravels this outer
shell, until you find yourself looking around you through this perception of observable energy... energy that is entwined with other energy... and he
does so in a way that one can actually taste... the man's a genius! :^)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-04-2012, 01:42 PM
Seawolf Seawolf is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,274
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenK
So the results from a particular study may well reflect the mindset of those doing the looking.
Isn't that what 'double blind' experiments are for? To prevent observer bias? If I was studying a healing method, I wouldn't want any bias to enter the testing so I can find out if it really works.
__________________
"Just came back from the storm." -Jimi Hendrix
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-04-2012, 02:10 PM
StephenK
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seawolf
Isn't that what 'double blind' experiments are for? To prevent observer bias? If I was studying a healing method, I wouldn't want any bias to enter the testing so I can find out if it really works.

But you then have to account for those being studied... Bruce mentioned a study that was focused on the placebo effect. Cancer patients were split
into two groups with half being given chemo treatments and the other half placebos. Roughly a third of those given the placebo experienced the actual
symptoms of chemo... including "hair loss" and the usual nausea... even though no actual chemicals were involved... the patient "believed deeply" and
so they created... double blind may work with inanimate objects but conscious beings weave their own tales... and these interior story lines can often ripple
outward, thus becoming observable components...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-04-2012, 02:30 PM
Seawolf Seawolf is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,274
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenK
But you then have to account for those being studied... Bruce mentioned a study that was focused on the placebo effect. Cancer patients were split
into two groups with half being given chemo treatments and the other half placebos. Roughly a third of those given the placebo experienced the actual
symptoms of chemo... including "hair loss" and the usual nausea... even though no actual chemicals were involved... the patient "believed deeply" and
so they created... double blind may work with inanimate objects but conscious beings weave their own tales... and these interior story lines can often ripple
outward, thus becoming observable components...
In a double blind study though, the placebo effect is lessened because the subject doesn't know if he's getting the drug or the placebo. The researcher doesn't know either, thus the 'double' blind.

If I was going to test a healing method, I'd do it on people that don't believe it will work. Hopefully they'd be so skeptical that even signs of improvement wouldn't cause them to believe.
__________________
"Just came back from the storm." -Jimi Hendrix
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums