Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science(arsspiritus.com)
arsspiritus.com
Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
http://arsspiritus.com/science-quotes-will-make-question-reality/
13 comments
The scientific method lays out series of steps. The inspiration that leads to creating a hypothesis often involves connecting concepts and expanding awareness.
Mysticism seems like a process of wonder & appreciation of Existence. The unified whole where some parts are explained and some unexplained. A journey, not a destination. The phenomena beyond the reach of current understanding. The process of expanding consciousness.
If the concept of mysticism motivates people to explore Existence, then it sounds like it would have a positive impact, no?
Please note the differences between esoteric mysticism (spirituality) vs exoteric religion. One involves the process of inner exploration and the other involves the process of social coercion.
Mysticism seems like a process of wonder & appreciation of Existence. The unified whole where some parts are explained and some unexplained. A journey, not a destination. The phenomena beyond the reach of current understanding. The process of expanding consciousness.
If the concept of mysticism motivates people to explore Existence, then it sounds like it would have a positive impact, no?
Please note the differences between esoteric mysticism (spirituality) vs exoteric religion. One involves the process of inner exploration and the other involves the process of social coercion.
That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach. Science is a process. Individual's sense of wonder is a precious thing but not science even if a scientist attempted to express it.
I.e. there was nothing extra sciency in Eintein's sneeze, a cobbler does not excrement shoes nor is Usain Bolt practicing sports when he sleeps.
I.e. there was nothing extra sciency in Eintein's sneeze, a cobbler does not excrement shoes nor is Usain Bolt practicing sports when he sleeps.
The scientific method is like an API. It does not matter how you make the connections as long as the scientific method is correctly done.
> That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach.
Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem.
> That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach.
Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem.
"Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem"
Well, yes. But the headline was a bit more generalizing than that which I found too silly not to comment upon. Richard Feynman played the bongos - but I don't think that blurs the boundary between drumming and science.
Well, yes. But the headline was a bit more generalizing than that which I found too silly not to comment upon. Richard Feynman played the bongos - but I don't think that blurs the boundary between drumming and science.
Is it only physicists in this article because physics has reached a limit in terms of what it can measure without resorting to mathematical or philosophical abstractions? I've seen a lot of these kinds of quotes from physicists but not as many in other fields. Not a criticism, just an observation/question.
My guess is that it's that these particular branches of physics and philosophy overlap considerably in the field of "what are the fundamentals of stuff". A biologist is interested in how organisms work, but is less interested in how the atoms making the organism came to be. A materials scientist is interested in how different things are tough/strong/flexible/tasty over the fundamental origin of those things. A social scientist is more interested in how humans interact with each other than how humans physically originated.
Maybe mystic beliefs are over-represented among scientists. But all these quotes show is that some scientists have these beliefs and find their beliefs to be intimately connected with their scientific views.
They are not "scientific quotes" they are "quotes by some scientists". From a Christian scientist we have I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship. -- Francis Collins
They are not "scientific quotes" they are "quotes by some scientists". From a Christian scientist we have I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship. -- Francis Collins
This is quite a fascinating series of comments by individuals with truly deep understanding of quantum phenomena. What's remarkable is the similarity of the ideas expressed, and I'm quite sure there was no consultation among them about what they said.
The transcendent theme is oneness of consciousness and matter, and the inseparability of the "parts" of nature or the universe.
Not that this is an especially recent point of view. After all, it seems reminiscent of Moses' commentaries on the immanent oneness of God, of course translated to a current-day mode of expression. I assume such experience keeps recurring because it is some way embedded in human nature.
BTW, Einstein also spoke of having this kind of "spiritual" experience. (Confer Einstein's conversations with Martin Buber.) Einstein also made a point of crediting Spinoza as the source of his spiritual leanings. Interestingly, Spinoza's "Ethics" (~1677) elaborates a view of the universe uncannily similar to that of the quoted scientists, and that seems unlikely to be merely coincidental.
The transcendent theme is oneness of consciousness and matter, and the inseparability of the "parts" of nature or the universe.
Not that this is an especially recent point of view. After all, it seems reminiscent of Moses' commentaries on the immanent oneness of God, of course translated to a current-day mode of expression. I assume such experience keeps recurring because it is some way embedded in human nature.
BTW, Einstein also spoke of having this kind of "spiritual" experience. (Confer Einstein's conversations with Martin Buber.) Einstein also made a point of crediting Spinoza as the source of his spiritual leanings. Interestingly, Spinoza's "Ethics" (~1677) elaborates a view of the universe uncannily similar to that of the quoted scientists, and that seems unlikely to be merely coincidental.
There's a quote, maybe fictional, by some great physicist (Bohr?). Someone was visiting his home, and noticed that there was a horseshoe hanging above the main door, which is traditionally done for good luck. He asked Bohr, surely you don't believe in that nonsense. To which Bohr replied, it's supposed to work regardless of whether you believe in it or not.
It's slightly sad that even when one can thrust one's mind to the fringes of a human knowledge, our brain's flaws remain; by which I mean: the human consciousness seems highly inclined to accept one's culture's common behaviours, even if that means accepting fallacies and irrationalities.
Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.
Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.
> even if that means accepting fallacies and irrationalities
The judgement of what is irrational is often irrational, subjective, & fraught with externalities. Love can be considered "irrational".
> Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.
Our consciousness is flexible. We can have logical systems in spite of unexplained phenomena. We also have a drive understand more & expand consciousness. Some people perceive this as esoteric spirituality (or mystiscism).
> by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief
I'm confused. Would you prefer that we have less novelty & think with less variation?
The judgement of what is irrational is often irrational, subjective, & fraught with externalities. Love can be considered "irrational".
> Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.
Our consciousness is flexible. We can have logical systems in spite of unexplained phenomena. We also have a drive understand more & expand consciousness. Some people perceive this as esoteric spirituality (or mystiscism).
> by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief
I'm confused. Would you prefer that we have less novelty & think with less variation?
[deleted]
Compare to: "Mystical Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Science and Mysticism"
Many of these quotes have to do with theories of consciousness. Describing consciousness is still a philosophical problem. I wouldn't call this "mysticism," just scientists trying to grapple with the mind-body problem.
Different people, different definitions. There's also some overlap between abstractions like Philosophy & "Mysticism".
> …I regard consciousness as fundamental
> Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
> Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one.
> The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion.
Reading these quotes, it seems like they are all in an abstract, or mind, domain.
> …I regard consciousness as fundamental
> Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
> Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one.
> The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion.
Reading these quotes, it seems like they are all in an abstract, or mind, domain.
If a smart guy said something that contradicted my views, I might hesitate before doubting him. He is smart, after all. Possibly even smarter than me.
Poverty of language has a point, of matter between myst and sci-psy.
It is worth noting that being an expert in one's field does not preclude one from saying stupid things. Lots of otherwise rational scientists can get caught up in mysticism.
Don't they get points for being proven geniuses?
I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they understand. It happens.
Let me put it another way.
You are asserting the conventional view.
Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful ways.
I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they understand. It happens.
Let me put it another way.
You are asserting the conventional view.
Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful ways.
>You are asserting the conventional view.
Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are religious, I'd say believing in mysticism is the conventional view.
But that argument is flawed anyway; both the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad novitatem are logical fallacies. Just because something is or is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness.
What's important is whether or not something is supported by empirical evidence, which the mystical view(s) of consciousness mentioned in the article certainly are not.
Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are religious, I'd say believing in mysticism is the conventional view.
But that argument is flawed anyway; both the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad novitatem are logical fallacies. Just because something is or is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness.
What's important is whether or not something is supported by empirical evidence, which the mystical view(s) of consciousness mentioned in the article certainly are not.
I dunno what society you live in, but in mine the scientist is held divine and our holy scriptures are handed down by Newton and Einstein. That's the convention where I live. You hear this gospel preached from one end of the internet to the other.
The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but stupid. Like an insect is effective but stupid. Crude, myopic and simplistic even. And yes, darn good for building termite mounds of logically consistent explanations.
This game sheds a very small circle of very bright light in the midst of a vast shadow.
Let's not pretend that the shadow does not exist. And let's also not pretend that a society of thinkers governed by the scientific method is up to the task of modeling the shadow. The observer's perspective will always be infinitely subtler than any map that he can craft. The map will always be just a crude cartoon compared to the reality. Moreso with our geniuses.
So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map. It is just a tiny limited thing after all. And when you put your faith in the map, or in our modern scientific mapmaking processes, you fail.
The views of smart people matter. Our games of epistemological accounting, less so.
The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but stupid. Like an insect is effective but stupid. Crude, myopic and simplistic even. And yes, darn good for building termite mounds of logically consistent explanations.
This game sheds a very small circle of very bright light in the midst of a vast shadow.
Let's not pretend that the shadow does not exist. And let's also not pretend that a society of thinkers governed by the scientific method is up to the task of modeling the shadow. The observer's perspective will always be infinitely subtler than any map that he can craft. The map will always be just a crude cartoon compared to the reality. Moreso with our geniuses.
So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map. It is just a tiny limited thing after all. And when you put your faith in the map, or in our modern scientific mapmaking processes, you fail.
The views of smart people matter. Our games of epistemological accounting, less so.
Wow. No offense, but you read like a living strawman for the argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy.
>So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map.
Really? So every time two smart people reach contradictory conclusions, we should presume that science is incorrect and logic is inconsistent?
>So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map.
Really? So every time two smart people reach contradictory conclusions, we should presume that science is incorrect and logic is inconsistent?
Authority exists. The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of the initiate.
No, that's just the insect talking. What you do is step back and reconsider your working assumptions. Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process. Stuff like that
No, that's just the insect talking. What you do is step back and reconsider your working assumptions. Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process. Stuff like that
>The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of the initiate.
But the views of a single "initiate" (What do you mean by that? It seems a strange word to use in this context.) don't trump the entirety of science and logic.
>Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process.
I do; the limits of our models are substantially more impressive than the limits of a single (fallible) person, no matter how impressive they may be.
But the views of a single "initiate" (What do you mean by that? It seems a strange word to use in this context.) don't trump the entirety of science and logic.
>Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process.
I do; the limits of our models are substantially more impressive than the limits of a single (fallible) person, no matter how impressive they may be.
A novice is one who has sampled the subject matter only shallowly, or only in the abstract. An initiate is one who has sampled the subject matter firsthand.
"Trump" is not the operative term here. More like "extend" or "augment". If science illuminates like a laser then the alternative, the squishy human approach, or whatever you want to call it, illuminates like a floodlight. Dimmer but wider.
If you respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process, then beyond those limits you put aside the science tool and pick up another. Maybe that which Feynman etc use. It certainly works for them.
"Trump" is not the operative term here. More like "extend" or "augment". If science illuminates like a laser then the alternative, the squishy human approach, or whatever you want to call it, illuminates like a floodlight. Dimmer but wider.
If you respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process, then beyond those limits you put aside the science tool and pick up another. Maybe that which Feynman etc use. It certainly works for them.
Yep! Robert Aumann is a very religious person. I find that particularly ironic given Aumann's Agreement Theorem.
[deleted]
If some person were to discover the explanation for dark matter in the universe with substantial evidence and then later in life turn around saying fairies were also real, it would not make fairies real.