To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/11/21 12:45
Subject: [K-list] Sex Juice
From: winter mute
On 1999/11/21 12:45, winter mute posted thus to the K-list:
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:05:25 Wim Borsboom wrote:
>All with due respect and love, Amanda... you know >that.
Yes, of course. :))
I'm not against hearing about your views on science. :)
They are shared by many, myself included at times.
:)
As you say:
Science is in many ways a game.
The theory with the best political support behind
it (coming from the most famous and prestigious
university, or the most famous and powerful
worker)
is often the theory that rises to fame and leaves
the others in the dust, sort of silencing them by
consensus.
This process in fact described by another theory,
that of the "meme", as opposed to the biological
entity, the "gene".
Only with genes, the game is much much cleaner, as it
as a question of energy, not power politics.
The field of science philosophy charts the rise and
fall of many a theory and working practice
and all scientists (predominantly in the nat.
sciences) know this.
(A paradigm shift, anyone. ;) )
But sometimes, a theory is so powerful and unique
and "correct" it stands
by itself even though it was worked out by an unknown
from an unknown university, everybody has to
stop and listen and take notes.
Sometimes, but not always. :)
I have no problem with your views, just want to add
a few thoughts, since I am in the sciences and know
the workings from the inside:
You write:
>Existing science should never be used to stop new or old 'uneasy'
>viewpoints to be taken seriously. Always give it another chance.
Yes, of course.
New theories are given a chance and this is how science
changes.
New ideas are given a chance and this is how
a rather revolutionary idea like the human rights
or the red cross organization comes about and the
world changes.
However, the one common denominator in natural
science and which makes it in my eyes a tad more
reliable than a sample size of one
(i.e. one person's experiences in a field of
many unknown variables)
is the need for theories and ideas to be well thought
through, detailingly described and above all:
backed by experimental evidence, positive or negative.
And this evidence must be reproduced a certain
number of times before they are "accepted",
by other ppl.
The way to go about how to construct experiments so
they in the most reproducible and simplest way
will demonstrate something about reality
(physical reality)
takes many years and this is what every student in
nat. science hopes to aspire to.
It is a way of thinking and working and
a starting point for exploring physical reality.
You and others may think this sounds terribly
old fashioned, slow moving, boring, traditional
and political, but nat. science
is to date (another science-ism
;) )
the /only/ system of thought apart from religion
(which is something else)
that has been able to make deep and lasting
impact on the world.
Let me remind you, as you most certainly know,
science is as much a part of the All as anything
else.
It moves in its own pace and it is a mysterious animal
in many ways, especially for non-workers,
but it is making changes.
The materials around us, the cars we drive,
the light in our houses, the keyboard in the
computer, the internet itself.
It was made as part of science spun out from the
laboratory to the engineering bench.
>I
>went through what I went through, and there was no way of denying those
>experiences.
Of course not. :)
I have had my share of experiences too
which do not fit
into any known scientifical paradigm and I do not
deny that or the experiences, or
the experiences of others at all. :)
This is about personal experince, not science.
(To turn it into science, you have to move from
the sample size of one and into the lab.)
It is the biology vs religion
question:
Are biological reactions caused by
religious experiences.
or are the biological reactions causing the religious
experiences ?
You can keep the biological reactions and
describe them as well as possible without doing
anything with the question of the religious experience.
Also, nat. science is well aware of the play of
energy and all theories ultimately lead to the
question of energy = matter.
It then maybe becomes merely a
a question of what kind of
energy one wants to ascribe the different
experiences to. :)
Best regards,
Amanda.
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.