And my pique is not the fault of others, it is from within myself — at least in large part.
I started thinking about all the ways that Vedic and Taoist and Hermetic thought has informed Western Science - almost totally without attribution — and thought, "hey, why not find a nice graduate program in the History and Philosophy of Science where I can explore this stuff and get some insights and guidance from others." No surprise - outside of India (Vedic) and China (Taoist) and nowhere (Hermetic), there are no such programs. There are a lot of programs, but none of them seem to have courses or course content that exposes what I am looking for. Instant pique. But then, I looked at my own library. I have exactly two sources: Needham's two volumes on Science and Civilization in China, and Basham's The Wonder That was India. I have read other material, but have not actually built up a collection of sources. For drugs and consciousness I have a lot more, but still a sparse resource. Never have I spent the time and effort to establish a network of folks to talk to. I am certain, as you said, they are there. So, why exactly am disparaging of others, of Scientists. With regard Science as it has become institutionalized I have very little respect. Just like religion, I can accept the Theology (sometimes) but reject almost every aspect of the Church. davew On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, at 3:28 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > FWIW, I agree completely with your gist, if not with your pique. The > lost opportunity is implicit in the ebb and flow of collective > enterprises. Similar opportunity costs color the efforts of any large > scale enterprise. I can't blame science or scientists for their lost > opportunities because triage is necessary [†]. But there is plenty of > kinship for you out there. I saw this the other day: > > Your Mind is an Excellent Servant, but a Terrible Master - David > Foster Wallace > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAd4HGJS4o > > I'm tempted to dive into particulars on your examples (Vedic, Buddhist, > Hermetics). But my contributions would be laughable. I'll learn from > any contributions I hope others make. I've spent far too little of my > life in those domains. > > [†] Both for the individual trying to decide what to spend their life > researching and the whole (as Wolpert points out > <https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1476h/1476%20(Wolpert).pdf>). > Most of the prejudice I encounter doesn't seem mean-spirited, though. > Even virulent scientismists seem to be victims of their own, personally > felt, opportunity costs. > > On 3/14/20 3:21 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > Glen, I really appreciate your response and insights. > > > > You are certainly correct that much, or most, of my pique is simply > > impatience. But, I am here now, with these questions, and with a limited > > window within which to be patient. Should my great grandchildren have my > > interests, Science might serve them well, but is is frustrating right now. > > > > Science is far more reflective that I generally give it credit for. Your > > examples, save one, illustrate that. The one that I object to is "assessing > > scientific literacy" which, based on limited exposure, seems to be more of > > "checking to see if you are bright enough to agree with us" than evaluating > > what it would mean to be scientifically literate. > > > > A closely related, I think, topic is the push by computer science to have > > "computational thinking" embedded in elementary and secondary education as > > "essential." Computational thinking is exactly the wrong kind of thinking > > as most of the critical things we need to think about are not algorithmic > > in nature. The scientific and computational part of the climate crisis is > > the easy part. figuring out the complex social-cultural-economic-politcal > > answers to the problem is the hard part and I doubt it is reducible to > > scientific thinking and absolutely positive it is not amenable to > > computational thinking. > > > > Maybe when Hari Seldon has his psychohistory all worked out it will be > > different. :) > > > > It may very well be possible to develop a science of philosophy, but it > > will require relinquishing what, again to me, appears to be a double > > standard. Scientists are willing to wax philosophical about quantum > > interpretations but would, 99 times out of a hundred, reject out of hand > > any discussion of the cosmological philosophy in the Vaisesika Sutras — > > despite the fact that that Schrodinger says the idea for superposition came > > from the Upanishads. > > > > George Everest (the mountain is named after him) introduced Vedic teachings > > on math and logic to George Boole, Augustus de Morgan, and Charles Babbage; > > shaping the evolution of Vector Analysis, Boolean Logic, and a whole lot of > > math behind computer science. > > > > One could make a very strong argument that most of the Science that emerged > > in England in the 1800-2000, including Newton, was derived from Vedic and > > some Buddhist philosophies. But try to get a Ph.D. in any science today > > with a dissertation proposal that incorporated Akasa. [The Vedas posited > > five elements as the constituents of the universe — Aristotle's four, > > earth, air, fire, water, plus Akasa, which is consciousness.] > > > > Swami Vivekananda once explained Vedic philosophical ideas about the > > relationship between energy and matter to Nicholas Tesla. Tesla tried for > > years to find the equation that Einstein came up with much later. Try to > > get a research grant for something like that. > > > > A practical question: how would one go about developing a "science" of the > > philosophy of Hermetic Alchemy and its 2500 years of philosophical > > investigation. Information, perhaps deep insights, that was tossed out the > > window simply because some pseudo-alchemists tried to con people into > > thinking that lead could be turned into gold. > > > > Of course the proposal for developing such a science would have to be at > > least eligible for grants and gaining tenure, or it is not, in a practicial > > (take note Nick) sense. > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
