The Scientific Method # 9

And the last round :

Hi,

Good reply.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The natural phenomenon is the territory. The process of enquiry is the
conceps of drawing a map. Sceintific model of enquiry is just one of the
ways of drawing a map. The problem with your argument is that you are
equating one of the instances of the class with the class itself. This
probably comes from the belief that it is the only instance possible. It is
precisely this dogma that I am uncomfortable with. Just as scientific
enquiry, we can possibly have some other kinds of enquiry, which though may
not be as popular as scientifc one, yet may have the potential to explain
natural phenomena.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Point Taken.

I fully agree with just one reservation, that being your statement-"potential to
Explain natural phenomena."

What are the terms of this explanation? It is easy to say that there is another
way which is better, but you have, till now, offered no requirements from this
radical new method. What is your requirement from this explanation.

What it seems is that you are being nihilistic. You are basically refusing to
Accept any form of proof or explanation. When will you consider a phenomenon
reasonably explained? In what fundamental way will this non-scientific method
of enquiry that you arre seeking difer from the scientific method.?

Just a thought, is this some kind of philosophical socialism?? You know like-
"Science may be correct, but what right does it have to CLAIM that it is correct".
I a thinking of James taggart's thoughts towards Hank Rearden (Atlas Shrugged)
here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The reason for such a belief stems from the fact that scientific inquiry has
advanced quite a lot and is now capable of explaining many concepts. But
this alone does not give us the justification to claim that it IS THE ONLY
MODE OF ENQUIRY POSSIBLE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does this sound similar to what I have written above?

Read further only after you have read the previous stuff carefully.

We do require a multi-disciplinary approach, but all these disciplines have to
be scientific.

Allow me to explain this.

Most of the aspects of the SPIRITUAL disciplines and schools of thought claim
the existence of the paranormal. Now I am the first to admit that one of the biggest
Drawbacks of science at this time is its inability to fit in our CONSCIOUSNESS
in its frame work.

Just as clearly, our consciousness (aatmaa, soul whatever) is almost the only thing
That the metaphysical disciplines deal with.

I believe that these other schools you keep bringing up are just peddling a twisted
Variant of science right now. Given science's continuous quest to expand its influence,
I belive some things are possible:-

1. That these fields are proven wrong.

2. That it is PROVEN, that these can not be proved/quantified and have to understood
only empirically .e.g. (and this is a somewhat retarded example) :Science may concern
Itself with finding the weight of our souls. Later it may be realised that the concept
of "weight of consciousness" (assuming consciousness and soul to be the same thing)
doesn’t make sense.
It is like the heisenberg's principle- if you cant measure both speed and location of
a particle accurately, it is proven that it is not a failing of your method of measurement
but because of a PROVEN NATURAL PRINCIPLE that it just cant be done.

3. This is the most likely one: That these schools are quantified, and bought into the
fold of science. That is what has happened historically as bastions of mysticism have
fallen to the advances of science. From astronomy to evolution, the same story has been
Repeated in most fields of study that we now associate with science. The holy grail of
Science, in my opinion, is that it should know/explain everything that it can, and to
conclusively prove that what it can not explain can not be explained.

But before any sort of idea about consciousness can be accepted,
it has to fit into the scientific method. It has to be willing to obey the
Hypothesis-experiment-observe-deduce-huypothesise cycle.