--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Thanks for your thoughts and inputs. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I don't think he's thought these points through > > > very well, or at least he isn't explaining them > > > clearly. He seems to be saying, for example, that > > > the "magical thinking" of astrology was replaced > > > by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the > > > motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the > > > "omens and signs" of astrology are grounded in > > > very detailed and precise observation of that > > > regularity. > > > > His examples could have been stronger. To me, his first two seem to > > fit his thesis, that science abandons mystical and occult > > explanations, which have not stood up well to research (or there is > > a lack of it), for material causes which have substantial research > > that show strong efficacy. > > Sure. I'm just taking issue with the examples he > uses. On the other hand, scientific explanations > and research don't *necessarily* always take the > place of mystical and occult ones; in many cases > they can c o-exist. It depends on the specific > example.
Examples? It seems to me if science is "weak" in a particular area, then myth and supernatural explanations will fill the vacuum. When science is strong. the latter diminish. But the mix also has to do with what level one is viewing, first causes, and whys. For example, science knows a lot about the first few seconds of the universe -- the what's and how's. That doesn't preclude the possibility of a deeper level of say a Shiva stirring, or an emergence from the navel of Brahma. If the latter serves some purpose, perhaps to define for some the "why's" of theuniverse, then fine. It doesn't contradict science. They are on different levels, looking at different questions. > > To me he is not attempting to negate the notion > > that there are divine forces, or even green cheese, or lepricons > > behind weather and disease. His underlying point I believe, is that > > there is no body of research that indicates these are credible > > explanations. > > But as you go on to suggest, in at least some areas, > objective scientific research is the wrong tool for > the job. I doubt he sees it that way; my impression > is he believes if it can't be proved by science, it's > essentially meaningless and not worth considering. I have not gotten that from him (yet?). If thats his view, I disagree. Some strict logical postitivists seem to hold that view. Thats a very "dry" view IMO. > > He should have used a different example than astrology, or said > > something along the lines of > > "> >"Astrology's unsubstantiated heavenly omens > > > > and signs for maladies were replaced by more reliable and > > substantiated diagnoses and remedies based on medical, educational, > > social and economic research." > > Yes, there are plenty of other better examples, or > he could have used the astrology example as you > suggest, which would have made a lot more sense. > Of course, there's more to astrology than that, but > in those areas, at least, he'd have had a point. > > That he used astrology so sloppily is, to me, a sign > that he really doesn't take subjective stuff > seriously enough to make a good case for dismissing > it. > > <snip> > > I take Kurtz as a source of good ideas, but not necessarily > > authoritative -- particularly in areas where he has limited > knowledge > > or experience. I said / implied that rigorous methods of > naturalistic > > inquiry should be applied to "subjective science." Let me refine > that. > > > > "Rigorous use of logic, reasoning, the rooting out of interpretative > > and cognitive errors and biases, unbiased, independent scientific > and > > statistical methods for testing of corrleates of the subjective > > experience, discerning causes from correlation, relegating untested > > scriptural and mythical explanations and models to being 'untested > > hypotheses' can and should be applied to "subjective sciences"." > > > > This was the original but unfulfilled promise of the orginal SCI > > taught at Stanford in 1971. It is what a lot of current cognitive > > science is about. I think Kurtz would be interested in such. At > > least it would be a good discussion. > > I'm dubious that he'd be that interested, but it sure > would be interesting if he'd take it on. I am more optimistic. But I have not read that much of him. At least if he go engaged in it, it wold be an interesting discussion. I like discussions with sharp knowledgable people with a different POV. They point out holes in ones own thinking. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
