Danhalen

agreed. self realization does not produce cults. it is when self realization of one person is preached, and accepted by followers that it becomes cultish. note that meditation itself is not a cult.

how does that show that science is a cult? science is the vehicle used to make discoveries. it is how those discoveries are interpreted that can be cultish, not the science behind it.

there is no such thing as "true science", perhaps "correct science", but not true. how can i possibly show you the true way to make observations on how things work? science makes no claims to truth in and of itself, religion does. that is the difference.

you still have yet to show how science, itself, can be considered "cultish".

Capn_Danger

I can see how meditation could help someone explore their own psyche, or find personal understanding. But how exactly does meditation allow us to view reality more clearly (and I don't mean just by helping us to percieve it in a more effective manner) ? Or at the very least, do you have any sort of evidence for that claim, aside from personal testimony? Now, the problem with saying that you know it works because you've experienced it is that this sort of reasoning is circular (read=invalid). You have no way of knowing if your perceptions of the external world, or your ability to understand the external world, by referencing your perceptions alone. Unless you reference something in the external world, that is.

Oh, come now. Logic isn't subjective- it can't ever be, by it's definition. Logic comes from very basic characteristics about reality: for instance, that something can't be and not be at the same time. There's nothing subjective about that. Even inductive logic is objective; in the same situation and with the same resources, anyone using logic correctly will come to the exact same conclusion. If not, they have not correctly applied it's principles.

What I was insisting is that meditating does not give us the ability to be have greater confidence in our ability to think critically and analytically about the world around us. It might have an affect on our emotional and mental well-being, but that's separate from our ability to think rationally (unless you have some sort of mental illness).

On the contrary, rational thinking is a skill. Anybody can think rationally if they choose to. Oftentimes, someone needs to point out it's value to us before we become critical thinkers, but anybody can choose to have good reasons for what they believe, thought it does take a lot of personal honesty to do that. The idea that people can learn to think rationally through religion is utterly laughable- religion, almost without exception, is one of the great promoters of irrational thinking in this world. And I really don't know what group of scientists you're referring to: scientists, and educated people in general, are quite a bit less religious than the average.

I'll agree with your point that some people are naturally more emotional than others, but that doesn't mean that anybody has to let emotion rule their thinking- and that's the real problem I'm talking about. Your claim that a person's general level of emotional excitement can be altered through meditation sounds suspiciously non-committal and vague (though I'm not saying meditation can't have emotional benefits). Gaining control of your emotions, or being less emotional, does not neccesarily equate to thinking more clearly- those two things are separate. I'll admit this can be hard to do when you have very strong feelings, so long as a person doesn't base his or her beliefs on emotions or feelings, they'll be ready to think clearly. Meditation can probably help in dealing with feelings and emotions, but it doesn't teach us to apply the basic principles of reasoning.

Wow. I'm still having fun...

nbdy

So believing in stuff has been usefull in getting other people to believe in stuff. we are really trivializing the meaning of usefull are we not?
any way, if this is the best example religion has of its usefullness, i think ill be safe in assuming science has a big leg up.

guess what, i can raise the dead, dont belive me? see how this works?
unless you have some verifiable evidence for your extraordinary claim im gonna have to put this in the previously established Wild ass claims in a sad attempt to add believability to your religion catagory

cajela

This is a really good example of the kind of thing that happens. Note: "laughed at" - not sacked or denied publication opportunities. As evidenced by the next section:

So he got published in a peer reviewed journal. That means that some people thought the work was good, or at least worth a further look. But it didn't persuade everyone.

Exactly. Science involves overcoming the obstacles. You can't just stand up and say "I have a really cool idea". Any crank can do that, and thousands do every year. You have to come up with the evidence, and the evidence has to be looked at and evaluated, and it necessarily takes time to filter through into the entire community.

Now maybe sometimes, in some cases, these filters are too loose or too tight. And scientists are humans, so soemtimes lab politics and personalities will cause trouble. But on the whole, science is a self-correcting mechanism. And if your overturning of established theories is good enough, you won't get excommunicated, you'll get a Nobel prize.


By the way, one study does not make a very convincing argument. It takes quite a lot of studies. Replicability is essential for experimental sciences. In fact, people put quite a lot of thought into considering what is a good enough standard of evidence for something to become accepted. Here's how the Australian NHMRC classifies quality of evidence:

Grade Definition
I Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant randomised controlled trials.
II Evidence obtained from at least one properly-designed randomised controlled trial.
III - 1 Evidence obtained from well-designed pseudo-randomised controlled trials (alternate allocation or some other method).
III - 2 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with concurrent controls and allocation not randomised (cohort studies), case-control analytic studies, or interrupted time series with a control group.
III - 3 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with historical control, two or more single-arm studies, or interrupted time series without a parallel control group.
IV Evidence obtained from case series, either post-test or pre-test and post-test.


Here's a reference.
http://www.emia.com.au/MedicalProvid...afmm/ch11.html

Danhalen

these quotes all put together make me giggle! :Cheeky:

a false claim about logic, followed by an accurate correction, then followed by a logical fallacy (non causa pro causa), and finish it up with another correction.

my conclusion is that logic is subjective when in the hands of a believer!!

mirage

<sigh> <Edited> You started off with evolution as "nothing new". Now since there is roughly no element of the theory of evolution contained in your Scriptures, this is simply wrong. There is something new, common descent being just one example. So you are wrong. <Edited>

Firstly, where did you show that? I missed it. Secondly, so what if they "were influenced". That could mean almost anything. Do the Vedas have an absolute speed of light? Do they have Minkowski spacetime. If you want to have any hope of being at all interesting you will have to provide some specific information. Amaze us all with your Vedic insights into relativity and evolution please. All you have done so far is sneer at amazing feats of intellect, saying that the Yogis were and are way ahead. I'm all ears. Details please. Vague speculation is very cheap. Testable workable quantitative theory is gold dust.

Narapoia

You have not shown this, you have asserted it and refused to supply sources and evidence as per the western thinkers. Are the names you mentioned above the only scientists who have shown understanding of eastern philosophies?

I will also repeat the question of my previous post. If you want me to believe that these yogis stopped breathing indefinately because it says so in some ancient sanskrit will you please tell me whether jesus came back from the dead and is the son of the one true god as per the bible? Did the sun stop in the sky? Did animals really talk a few thousand years ago? How about allah, is he the one true god because it says so in another set of ancient writings?

If you do understand this relationship please demonstrate so, with evidence please, not just assertions.

A religion can also make people belive it is okay to rape, murder, torture, impoverish, incarcerate and enslave fellow humans because their particular flavour of imaginary friend says it's okay. I do know what religion can do, I have studied history. If you think that this is useful you need your head examined. If you think it is not useful please demonstrate how your religion allegedly curing the common cold outweighs all this vileness.

Proof please. A reference to something written originally in a modern language would really help the credibility.

Dharma

My experience is objective because I can say my experience MATCHES that of experiences of others who have written that same experience down. For example, if I say I have been through the phase where I can feel the Chi as put down by Chinese sages in their "chi maps", than that means the hundreds if not thousands of sages who agreed with the findings and kept those records, then the findings of those sages would be deemed correct...this same methodology is used in science...several scientists have to be able to reproduce the results of some scientific experiment INDEPENDANTLY using the same methods for the results of that experiment to be deemed valid.

If some scientist says, nah, it can't be without performing the same experiment than than this scientist isn't a scientist, you're a scientific "infidel". Similarly, if you say, Nah, I won't meditate the way they tell me too, but I'm just gonna be an ass and call all this non-sense without testing it myself, then you also have no right going around saying that this is not valid knowledge...


logic can be subjective, if the mind itself is subjective which is why everyone isn't logical, but who doesn't think we are logical? There are degrees of logic. the degree of logic where you attain perfect Logic is considered the perfection of the mind and thus perfect understanding.

If you feel crappy, are you saying that doesn't affect your ability to think? rationality can only happen once you overcome your emotions...try telling someone who's loved one died "to be rational"... heck, death happens you know, get over it...

radagast

I knew what you meant.

They are both methods of knowing, but knowing in two completely different spheres. Yoga/Meditation teaches you about you, about what exists between your ears. Science specifically excludes itself from that which cannot be compared between two people of differing views. i.e. the objective.

When you start trying to criticize science for not determinining what Yoga has, you get absurd criticizms, just as it would be foolish to critisize Yoga/meditation for not determining the precise mass of Cygnus x-3.

Perhaps they can help each other, but to use one to criticize the other is foolish and dualistic.

radagast

I've traversed this entire thread. I don't recall you mentioning Meditative science once. Nor do I recall exactly, you stating the above. As always I could be wrong, but I would like a link to that, if I am.

That said, what exactly, makes you the authority to pronounce these purposes and objectives for medtitation. If not you as an authority, then supporting evidence for this claim would be nice.

Ah, ad hominems, they should fly well in this forum.

Straw-man argument. How many scientists can you quote that have said the above. I can't think of one. Names would be nice.

IMO, a red-herring

Hmmm, I added the amount of meditation and current status to support knowing something about meditation. You choose to us this as an avenue for insult and derision. Meditation seems to have taken you far.

You have done nothing, that I have read, to support any authority of your own, in making pronouncements about meditation.

Then I take it from your sarcasm, that you have figured out how to cure the common cold using meditative techniques, as I said before, prior to the typical body doing so.

Also, once scientific endeavors cures the common cold, will you hold them to yet another arbitrary standard, or does this arbitrary standard hold as a measure of 'they have achieved something important'. Exactly why did you pick this arbitrary standard? Just because it hasn't been achieved?

I did notice you ignored that reference to small pox. Do you see the common cold to be so much more critical to humanity. How about Polio? Treatments for TB, Yersinia Pestis, Coccidiomycoides?

But few scientists I've known have. Mainly this I hear from laymen, like you.

I think most scientist would agree. I do. Is it the laymen's interpretation you have problems with? If so, why rail against those that would agree with the above?

I've known many that were fairly good at coherent processing without meditation. Though I have found it invaluable in my life, dealing with life. But that would be a red-herring...

Nice, but you did notice my caveat about "faster than the typical human body"? Or was this not a lack of clarity, but a bid to ignore the intent of the question?

Could you, via meditative techniques, also cure a Yersinia Pestis infection, within your body? Scientific discoveries have, but it would be an excellent method of proving to everyone here, of your superior arguments?