Joined: Jan. 2006
Norm did a good job too. But it was PG that really rose to the occasion for me.
|Meditation and reflection are not elements of the scientific method. Let us know when you figure out what are.|
referring to folks who were not in agreement rather than folks who were being ID (intellectually dishonest)
|Give it up, Norm; the layers of intellectual dishonesty are too thick to penetrate.|
Then, in response to my mention of the Tao of Physics:
|In response to the nonsense about “The Tao of Physics”, I offer this statement from Murray Gell-mann:|
Followed by a quote mine that was substance-less.
Then the doosie.
| (BWE) Well, if that’s what they really think, then I have to agree that they are probably wrong.|
Why? Can you prove it? Can you prove that I’m not the reincarnation of Marie Antoinette? I remember the terror of having the blade fall, but it was such a shock to my psyche that everything that preceded that is rather hazy. I was then reincarnated as Karl Popper, who died, and I am now his disembodied spirit, occupying the body of some poor geek and making him type these messages. Can you prove otherwise?
Catholicism too is willing to change if science (or rather, the empirical observation that science makes possible) proves it wrong. The Bible is truly the word of God, but only “symbolically”; it was written by real men inspired by God. The Eucharist is really and truly the body and blood of Christ, despite lacking his DNA. Mary was immaculately conceived, though she had flesh-and-blood parents, and then gave birth to Jesus without the involvement of a biological father – hey, science can’t prove otherwise. Jesus died, then was resurrected – hey, science can’t prove otherwise. Despite a fairly strong historical case that no such person as Jesus existed, it’s not a proof. If it were possible to build a machine that could view the past, it would at first be resisted, perhaps by arguing that it viewed an alternate universe, but if all the observations exactly coincided with historical records, yet there were no observations of Jesus, he would likely be recast the Catholic church – or perhaps the New Modern Catholic Church – as allegorical: the ideal human that God wants us to aspire to.
Science can’t prove that humans never rode on the backs of dinosaurs, and it can’t prove that the flagellum evolved. But science isn’t in the business of proof, only inference to the best explanation. Religion, including Buddhism with its dharma, are based on a different epistemological principle – authoritative assertion, aka dogma, aka “revealed truth”. But everyone, of any religion or no religion, uses the same epistemological principle as that of science – though less rigorously – in everyday life to determine whether it’s true, say, that their spouse is cheating on them, that the pedestrian is going to step off the curb into their path, that they have time to run a quick errand before the kids get home, etc. I think everyone knows down deep that authoritative assertion is not a reliable source of truth.
once again, missing the point or even possibly getting the point but being assholish about replying.
So I replied with my next 2 posts:
|Wow, blood in the water? I make too many assumptions. Ha, If you only knew. You might even be shocked and offended.|
Main Entry: prob·a·bly
Pronunciation: ‘prä-b&-blE, ‘prä(b)-blE
: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt is probably happy> it will probably rain>
What school did you say you were just starting at?
I know one thing for absolute certain fact but it’s a secret that I only tell my friends.
You also have a hole in your head that your brains are leaking out of.
Posted by BWE on September 1, 2006 12:55 AM (e)
Hmmm. To me it seems like scientifically testing for “Happy”. I was being exceptionally general and it was a misstatment. I tried to clarify but, as I noted above, I failed. Well, no harm there I hope. I may be simply off my nut. That’s OK with me. I am in many other ways too. ID makes claims of fact. As far as I know, zen does not. Admitted, I am a bit hedonistic to be a monk or even to make a claim to be really living the whole practice, but things being what they are is pretty much ok with me.
In the interest of my deep caring for Norm and popper’s immortal souls, I do feel that I should use the whole quote rather than just the tail end.
<quote> Er… Since I am grossly oversimplifying anyway, buddism uses the scientific method to explore consciousness through meditation and reflection. More to the point, the 2 are on the same path.</quote>
And then went on unsuccessfully to try to explain myself in that it is an open minded process that other’s who understand it can analyze your experience. It is not scientific. It was an abjectly failed analogy.
I am glad that you all are so gracious in helping me walk the straight and narrow.
to which pg replied:
To which I replied "Seems?"
Posted by Popper's ghost on September 1, 2006 12:59 AM (e)
BWE, I can’t make much sense of your drivel, but it seems personnally directed and offensive. That you give me a definition of “probable” suggests that you didn’t read my post or didn’t comprehend what I wrote about inference to the best explanation.
And the rest of the thread excersized the SLoT.
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far
The Daily Wingnut