the misuse of scientific concepts

Hong Kong
407 Posts

Posted - Mar 08 2006 : 09:48:08 AM

Hi everyone,

Here is my thought after having a look at Ajita's subtle anatomy. (Just some general thoughts triggered by it. I'm not refering to anyone's writing in any case.)

To read something new is exciting. But only what can be tested and/or directly experienced have real impact on us. Great novels, while usually not talking about events that really occured, inspire us in ways that we can directly experience, we can feel. Scientific theory may seem complicated, but its complication only reflect the complexity of our world. A good scientific theory should be justifiable (or disputable, etc; depending on all those slightly different philosophical view points which is not too important anyway) and as simple as possible!!

We want to dispel ignorance, right? Distinguishing whether something is about spiritual/emotional truth and what is science is a very important step for that. I am not in a position to introduce "duality", which I am sure many yogi would charge me of. The difference between scientific and spiritual truth is a catagorical one; not one with strict boundary, nor does it imply a judgement of which is more important. No. It's just a reminder, to remind us not to mix up things which could be very different in nature; not to wrongly apply ideas from one field to another field. (which is igorance, not nonduality)

Analogy can indeed be inspiring. But it stops there--unless you show/demonstrate the real connection. A theory is useful only as far as it is applicable/verifiable. Otherwise, it's not a theory---it's at most poetry; which can be inspiring and have direct impact on feeling. (but usually it does nothing except pointing you to some wrong "knowledge")

Suppose someone on the street shouted: "inside everyone's intestine, there are 3.56 ghosts living. Oh yes, 3.56 is not an integer, but so what? You're just not intelligent enough to understand. But you guys will never observe these 3.56 ghosts, because the perception of human is not refined enough. The proof of their existence? See, you have 2 eyes and 1 nose, they add up to 3. And then you have 5 fingers......"

What do you think? I bet none of you will be satisfied by his answer. And yet it's surprisingly common to find something similar to the above nonsense, especially in those new-age stuff. (but also in the academic world! If you bother to know more, read the good book "Fashionable Nonsense" for a great source of such nonsense)

In particular, the misuse of scientific concepts (which actually have really nothing to do in that context) in spiritual realm is very common---and very disguisting. Yoga has its own theory, and is usually free of those nonsense. But many guru type guy nowadays mix some "new discoveries" into it.

I would strongly suggest all yogi/guru-type guy to remain as close as possible to the experience-based, no nonsense type of teaching. No "connection to string theory", no "structure of DNA", please, please. It's ok to say a few words on the analogy for illustrating ideas, but it's irresponsible to say string theory is "related to" yoga unless you show the relation clearly and convincingly. (afterall, in a vague sense, everythings are related. So the statement is just void and nonsense) No theory please, unless they give a good frame work of the practices or guide (with some good prediction) the students through the experience along the path.

Let's face it: yoga is primarily experience-based. And that's the beauty of it!! A little bit of nadis, may be some chakras; are more than enough theory. The rest are facts, experience of others, etc. Don't add string theory to make it nicer: they may feed some people's love for "seemingly deep stuff", but it only makes yoga looks stupid and irresponsible.

My suggestions are especially important if we want yoga to get serious attention from the world, from the learned guys, and from scientific world in particular. I'm glad to see that AYP has keep things "as they are"; rather than claiming some useless nonsense "new discovery".

Alvin

Edited by - Alvin Chan on Mar 08 2006 09:57:15 AM

USA
2602 Posts

Posted - Mar 08 2006 : 10:42:16 AM

Hello Alvin,

yip, pseudo-science always grates on the nerves of the scientifically-minded and trained. Your analogy about the 3.56 ghosts is good -- often stuff that is said is not even wrong, but is in fact even devoid of proper meaning, and the scientifically-trained can see it.

By all means push back against it. But it's another of those imperfections of the world that will probably stay for a while. It will be all around in the Yoga scene until Science advances much, much further, and it is all well-integrated.

So, while you do your bit to push back against it, get used to it too! Like air pollution!

yogani

USA
5195 Posts

Posted - Mar 08 2006 : 11:16:29 AM

Hi Alvin and David:

On the other hand, without symbols, parables, analogies and metaphors we would not be able to explain much about spiritual life to those who have not experienced it, or even to those who are advancing in it and needing recognizable sign posts.

In fact, all of the world's scriptures and mythologies rely on these tools. Even Taoism in its matter-of-factness relies on symbol and metaphor. The work of Joseph Campbell goes a long way in exploring and explaining the use of symbols and mythological structures in many cultures (past and present) around the world. This is science too!

But, like any tool, it can be abused, and is, particularly in claiming (going beyond symbol and metaphor) that one thing is the same as another similar looking thing. Hopefully not by present company.

Question: Are some quantum physicists wrong in stating that the unified field and sat-chit-ananda (eternal bliss consciousness) are the same? Have they proved it yet? Are we proving it yet in our practices? Or is it only an inspirational analogy? Does it matter? The proof of the pudding is in the eating -- not in the chemical analysis.

Btw, I am a degreed and licensed professional engineer, and have no credentials whatsoever in the use of symbol and metaphor. But I could not be writing anything here without them!

All of this is somewhat aside from the real science of yoga, which is still in its infancy. It can only be based on the direct observation of cause and effect ... and probably still explained by analogy for a long time to come, just as all science is.

The guru is in you.

PS -- Are the dual helical phenomena found in pranic currents, DNA and string theory demonstrating a principle in common? Someday the scientists will tell us. In the meantime, we are allowed to notice the similarities, aren't we? If we do not notice, how can we ever explore?

USA
2602 Posts

Posted - Mar 08 2006 : 12:01:27 PM

Hi Yogani,

I'm not at all hard-liner that everything has to be proven, though we should be honest about what we can prove and what we cannot prove. I do believe there are sciences of Interior experience, and I respect them, and we can call them I-Sciences (for sciences of the Interior). 'Western Science' is an E-science --- a provable science of External fact.

Some scientific hard-liners believe that there is only E-science and pseudo-science; that everything outside of E-science is bad and inaccurate. This is nothing other than a kind of narrow-mindedness in itself.

Yoga isn't itself a pseudo-science, it is an I-science (with E-science parts).

One thing that produces pseudo-science is an ill-disciplined mix of E-science and I-science. It's not that these things have to be kept entirely separate, but the integrity of each has to be respected. We can respect Classics, and respect Economics, but raise major objections if someone says that the trade deficit will balance itself because Odysseus escaped from the Cyclops; or if someone says that Odysseus will escape from the Cyclops because the trade deficit balanced itself!

Yogani asked:
Question: Are some quantum physicists wrong in stating that the unified field and sat-chit-ananda (eternal bliss consciousness) are the same?

I think it depends on whether they are speaking as scientists or poets. Yes, if they intend to be speaking scientifically, I think they are certainly wrong to say that they are one and the same -- they have no real scientific basis for it -- but I think they are right to say that there are wonderful analogies there, or *speculate* that there is some deep relationship between the two.

Is it only an inspirational analogy?

Yes, I think it's fine to equate them poetically, or experientially, but the readers should know that this is not Scientific Fact. It's a matter of not creating an ill-disciplined mix, like between Odysseus and the Trade Deficit.

Does it matter?

That depends too! It may not matter at all to a poet. But it may to a scientist! But it may also matter to person who wants to get a spiritual message out, and help it get a good ear and be well integrated with the world of science.

Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 08 2006 12:13:01 PM

Etherfish

USA
3615 Posts

Posted - Mar 08 2006 : 4:41:34 PM

Isn't string theory itself just symbolism and metaphor?
and don't forget; when something is called theory it doesn't necessarily have any basis in fact. It's an imaginary thing. Of course it has to have the illusion that it could be real.

USA
2602 Posts

Posted - Mar 08 2006 : 5:11:24 PM

Ether said:
Isn't string theory itself just symbolism and metaphor?

No. Science uses 'models' which are similar to 'metaphors'. But Science isn't just models/metaphors, no more than poetry is just words.

Something that is just metaphors won't be able to get probes to Jupiter.

Ether said:
when something is called theory it doesn't necessarily have any basis in fact.

Yes. IN Science, the ones that don't have basis in fact are given a special name: they are called incorrect theories.

The ones that do are called correct ones. The incorrect ones won't get probes to Jupiter, or even get your car started. The correct ones do.

Ether said:
It's an imaginary thing. Of course it has to have the illusion that it could be real.

As 'imaginary' as the probe reaching Jupiter; as imaginary the extension of lifespan, or as the elimination of smallpox; or as imaginary as death from smallpox used to be.

Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 08 2006 5:11:55 PM

USA
363 Posts

Posted - Mar 08 2006 : 9:49:59 PM

Hari Om
~~~~~~~

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." A.Einstein

agnir satyam rtam brhat
Frank in San-Diego

Hong Kong
407 Posts

Posted - Mar 08 2006 : 11:48:27 PM

quote:
On the other hand, without symbols, parables, analogies and metaphors we would not be able to explain much about spiritual life to those who have not experienced it, or even to those who are advancing in it and needing recognizable sign posts.

I agree. And I am less irritable towards spiritual texts talking about science now, provided that they don't go too far. I am inspiried somehow, when a book of Satyananda using "energy-matter" in physics as an analogy to explain about psychic-physical relations. Well, not very convincing, but a good way to explain as long as he doesn't claim more.

Hope this won't trigger some undesirable effects here: I must say when I first approach AYP, the most significant "theory" which hold me back is the concepts of "past life". That's common in all spiritual traditions from india. But slowly I begin to think: may be someone here need this concept to encourage them to practice, especially those older guys. May be the concept helps many people in some says.

But all these things have the side effects of holding back scientifically-oriented or rational-enough guys from entering into the yogic science. Now many people practise and advocate yoga, including the more advanced techniques. I guess as many as those who play golf.(??) Can you name even one prominent scientist (other those whose research involve studying such things) who practises and/or advocates the higher yoga? May be a few doctors, whose field is somehow closer. But physicists? mathematicians? Biologists? At least a much lower percentage is practising yoga as compared to the general public.

Bringing scientists into the yoga has great implications for the popularity and further advances of yoga. And I think reducing the amount of nonsense will help with that. Analogy, metaphors are all fine; just don't claim more. But when one devotes many pages elaborating the "relations" between DNA/string theory and spiritual stuffs, he implicitly claim that there's more in it than just metaphor. It is this kind of nonsense that we should push back against, not the terminology or symbols of yoga.

quote:
PS -- Are the dual helical phenomena found in pranic currents, DNA and string theory demonstrating a principle in common? Someday the scientists will tell us. In the meantime, we are allowed to notice the similarities, aren't we? If we do not notice, how can we ever explore?

I agree, too. But if someone wants to exercise his imagination in such way, he'd better be honest about it--it's just his imagination. Don't mislead people into believing there's more by writing pages or even a whole book. String theory, in particular, is a deep theory. Not some strings hanging here and there. Otherwise who would bother to study it? Those who would like to explore are welcomed to do that by pointing at the similarity at the core. May be the comparision with DNA is more acceptable (though still meaningless). But a comparison with string theory would probably expose the fact that the author knows nothing about the core content of string theory and makes analogy only at the level of everyday language. (namely, as "strings" hanging there) Such brutal misunderstanding (and/or oversimification) of a subject will never lead to any useful new discovery.

Ether, string theory is so far more a mathematical theory than a physical/scientific theory, although gradually it may be both (or may be proved to be wrong and disappear). That's different from, say, general relativity and quantum mechanics; which has made countless predictions that can be verified. So many physicists don't like string theory, and with good reasons. But still, string theory is not at all "metaphors". I would say, rather, that it is a tentative theory/model.

So, you are partly right (just in the case of the humiliating string theory) that string theory doesn't have enough basis(experimental basis). It contradicts no current findings, and it predicts many phenonminon all of which cannot be tested so far! But the "basis" of it lies in the well-respected mathematical structure and careful, vigorous logical reasoning, which for the past 200+ years have shown to be extremely powerful and accurate in predicting. So some day, string theory (or its substitutes) may do wonders for us, much more than just starting your car. Before that, we keep questioning/challenging all theories; and now we can only regard string theory as a promising mathematical game!

Alvin

Etherfish

USA
3615 Posts

Posted - Mar 09 2006 : 07:58:20 AM

Very well put Alvin.
What I meant by imaginary is that the observations haven't been made to confirm the theory. I mean, I don't pretend to understand string theory, but last time I heard there were at least eight different string theories, and if enough phenomena is observed to "confirm" one, then others will be proven wrong. The strings would be too small for us to observe with any equipment we have so far, and last time I heard, the essential ingredient for string theory to be possible was "supersymmetry" which they haven't observed yet, having to do with a sort of pairing of matter and energy.
So that seems pretty "imaginary" to me. And wrapping excess space-time dimensions around a cylinder or balling them up seems pretty metaphorical to me.

I don't think the theories have to be "correct" to put a probe on Jupiter for instance, David. They just have to be close enough approximations of nature to produce good mathematics and material building. Even Einstein's theories weren't entirely correct. They were just the best anyone had come up with so far. Relativistic particle physics only works if you ignore the effects of gravity and since then we've observed hella strong gravity fields.

For instance, sailors still managed to navigate across the oceans even when they believed the earth was flat. Electricity was in wide use where i live in 1875, but they had no idea how it worked. They just knew how to use the math and materials.

I think in Frank's quote about religion and science, Einstein may have been thinking that scientific theories will eventually need to include religion in order to be more correct. They're getting closer to that now. By "religion" I don't mean what people believe about God, because those are just theories too, only held on to more tightly, with no effort to verify them except here in yoga!
But what I mean is probably consciousness or prana will eventually have to be part of the equation for sub-atomic physics.

I see what you are saying about scientists and yoga revulsion. That's partly their fault and partly ours. you're right that any attempt to include scientific theory in yoga papers has to be more knowledgable or it will turn scientists off.
The part that is their responsibility is that to me, scientists seem to have a lot of the "throwing the baby out with the bath water" syndrome.
If they begin to read a paper that has mis-information scientifically,
they will throw the whole paper out, AND dismiss everything that person says, because "he doesn't know what he's talking about."
The problem there is that we are in a time when people are exploring new frontiers in our minds, and observing phenomena that can't be explained by science.
So scientists have a dilemma. With the information revolution, there are so many writings out there that they don't really have time to read something if it seems to start out with mis-information. And yet many of those papers may have valuable information derived from first hand observation from yoga type practices.

I guess I'm agreeing with you Alvin, that we have to be careful about the way we write any scientific stuff. I think if it was written scientifically, carefully separating conjecture from observation, that the scientists might accept it. But were certainly not going to turn yoga people in to scientists just to try and get scientists to try yoga. It's a shame. Maybe eventually a few scientists will do AYP, and start a forum about what is observed and what is proven wrong in yoga. That would be great.

Edited by - Etherfish on Mar 09 2006 09:21:05 AM

USA
2602 Posts

Posted - Mar 09 2006 : 09:34:08 AM

Ether said:
I don't think the theories have to be "correct" to put a probe on Jupiter for instance, David. They just have to be close enough approximations of nature to produce good mathematics and material building.

This is true, but "correct" is just a convenient single word for 'close enough approximations of nature to confirm observations'. Newton's laws are not considered to be 'incorrect', just 'incomplete', and the same is true for Einstein's theories; they are close enough in certain known circumstances, then they fail in other known circumstances.

Alvin, Ether and I are all agreeing, I think. Here is a draft rule:

If introducing Science, respect the meaning of Science.
Don't mix hard Science and something else in an ill-disciplined way.
If speaking Scientifically and making strong claims, make sure that the standards of Science are reached in making those claims;
othewise you can speak Scientifically and make acceptably weak claims ( that is, speculations).
Otherwise, be clear that you are not speaking Scientifically, but metaphorically, poetically.

Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 09 2006 09:37:04 AM

Etherfish

USA
3615 Posts

Posted - Mar 09 2006 : 10:04:16 AM

I agree. Being lazy, I would rather just write everything as conjecture or questions, then I don't have to worry about being correct!
But this is a wonderful thing about forums. We can discuss things and correct each other and refine the thinking process with each other. i'm not a quick enough thinker to be discussing these things in real time, but the forum gives me time to think before I respond.

A major problem in society today is the average person's inability to do analytical thinking. In my country, USA, people have been used to things being relatively comfortable for a while now. They'd rather sit and be entertained than take any action or think.
that's a flaw in democracy. In order for a government to be "By the people and For the people", you have to have people who care to participate. We don't have that now. i used to think the solution to that would be to have leaders that would think for us, and groups of people who would vote according to what their group leader said.
But I decided that doesn't work because then people pick their group leader based on emotions and charisma instead of listening to a good thinking process.

Why should we be doing difficult analyzing when we can watch a TV
show about somebody else doing difficult analyzing?
People listen to radio talk shows hosted by someone who is often a good thinker. They pick one whom they agree with, and believe they are "thinking". But all they're doing is agreeing with someone.

If you really want to think, you will discuss opposing viewpoints with people you don't agree with. Too often these talk shows are throwing out 5 second "sound bytes", the limit of the audience's attention, and basing their beliefs on those, "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater," then spending a half hour defending and substantiating that sound byte. The listeners eat it up because it feeds their anger, and validates them without their having to do any real analytical thinking. But all it really does is alienate people into groups that hate the other group and don't try to understand them.

Sorry for the rant- it came out like a hairball!

Edited by - Etherfish on Mar 09 2006 10:34:28 AM

Hong Kong
407 Posts

Posted - Mar 09 2006 : 11:27:12 AM

Nice summary, David. That's the measure to be honest and avoid bad reputation.

Are there ANY positive effects of writing pages relating physics with yoga poetically (but claim to be thoughtful and scientific)? Yes, there are some for the authors. Otherwise there won't be such guy. People enjoy reading things that are mystical, SOUND very profound. So a good way to build up reputation quickily is to pretend to be deep and thoughtful by mixing things from other field that people (and the author himself) don't understand. It's a quick way to confuse people without having to learn well their own field.

There are two types of readers: those who know enough of (say)physics to spot their mistakes and those who just believe what the authors claimed. (The author doesn't want too many reader of the first type. If they chose theoretical physics, then it's pretty safe that there ain't many such readers.) For the rest of the readers, they don't even kow enough physics, so how can they understand by the analogy which is even more alien to them than the subjects (yoga)to be explained? In either case, if the analogy goes for more than a few pages, than it's not likely to do anyone any good, except feeding the author's desire of getting attention and being admired.
---------------------

quote:
Einstein may have been thinking that scientific theories will eventually need to include religion in order to be more correct.

I guess I know what you want to say, Ether. But when scientific theories eventually include certain parts of "religion", that part will be no longer be religion. In fact it's always happening--a century ago, the origin of our universe is a religious topic, now it's science turn. Even the Pope has to publicly give way to science on this matter.

quote:
But what I mean is probably consciousness or prana will eventually have to be part of the equation for sub-atomic physics.

It's unlikely. Science may one day gets into consciousness or prana. But not in this way. Consciousness/prana are on a different levels as sub-atomic particle physics. Very much like, but even more radical than the contrast between Biology and physics. In principle, physics "contains" biology. But advances in physics will not affect biology. Not usually. Our understanding of human structure has very little to do with our knowledge of the sub-atomic particles. Another analogy is the relation between software and hardware. Will you see Window XP running by looking at the inner structure of the hardware? Will you be able to see which folders contain you favourite photos by gaining knowledge of the hardware? Again in principle yes, but not in reality. We don't work that way, and we can't. If science deals with prana/consciousness in detail, it would be a new subject at the gross level. More like biology, and certainly not steming from particle physics.

Esintein's famous quotation is very often misinterpreted as supporting superstitious, or institional religion. His other words which involve "God", too, are often misused by Christians be a "proof" that Esintein believed in God. But what he meant by "religion" is more the passion, the vision, the emotions than institional religion. So his quotation is a beautiful summary of (sorry about my poor English and some limitations to his words): Scientific investigation needs a good mind-set, a passion for the truth to drive it and good moral responsibility to balance its effects; and our emotional stuff and passions (something like that) needs some rational thinking to guide them.

He was once asked about his concept of "God" after being misinterpreted by some religious groups. His "God" means our universe.(and its secrets which to him are physical laws and mathematical formulas)

Edited by - Alvin Chan on Mar 09 2006 11:30:49 AM

Hong Kong
407 Posts

Posted - Mar 09 2006 : 11:46:18 AM

Let me clarify, that I'm not accurate enough when I say physics "contains" biology in principle. Knowing all possible reactions on the micro-level (subatomic level in this case) is one thing, and the whole effects is another. For example, gaining a complete knowledge of all colors of each dots on your computer screen WILL NOT tell you what the picture is, until you look at them as a whole. May be it's your own photo. This concept (your picture) is on a radically different level from the knowledge about the dots, although the former is "ultimately" built up from those dots. The knowledge of dots don't "contain" the concepts of your picture, but they support it.

As I perceive it, prana is at a different level similar to the photo here. We don't need any new particle physics. The fact that particle physics don't explain prana doesn't mean that they are not enough to support the theory of prana. (very much like you won't need a greater computer screen to read the greatest novel) We just need a new and systematic theory of prana, on a gross level like biology.

USA
2602 Posts

Posted - Mar 09 2006 : 12:30:47 PM

The ancients used 'prana' as if it were a substance.

But I don't see any reason to believe it is a substance at all.

This might be a good definition of it:

'prana means certain (non-specific) short-term nervous/cellular processes particularly associated with quick healing or re-ordering of the body'

It's just a vague term for something which is vague but meaningful. 'I felt prana running up my spine' == 'I had a sensation like something running up my spine, and a strong feeling that this process was bringing my body to a higher state of healing/order'.

In other words, there may be thousands of distinct processes that fall under the umbrella term of 'prana'.

Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 09 2006 12:31:42 PM

USA
363 Posts

Posted - Mar 09 2006 : 9:58:49 PM

Hari Om
~~~~~~~

Folks, I have read the posts and am scratching my head on the conclusion or point to be (simply) made e.g. the ahhh-ha! Some one care to net it out/help?

In the interim the etymologist that I am, are we all talking about the same 'science' ? and 'scientific method' ?

Science
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know;
1 the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Scientific method
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Einstein

agnir satyam rtam brhat
Frank in San-Diego

Etherfish

USA
3615 Posts

Posted - Mar 09 2006 : 10:44:41 PM

Yes that's what we're talking about, all those meanings, and people who write stuff that drops a few "sound bytes" based on science, but who don't really understand the science they come from.
This has nothing to do with Ajita by the way; it started with him, but I haven't looked at his works, I am just discussing the subject in general.

But even those definitions of science and the scientific method I think are misleading to someone who isn't a scientist.
Statements like "state of knowing" and "general truths" may lead the casual reader to conclude that science proves things. But that is not the case.
Nothing can ever be proven. Things can be dis-proven however.

Scientists are continually testing hypotheses, and they move on to the next one, not because a hypotheses is proven, but because it works. When a certain experiment consistently ends with the same result, we can use that to build something that gets that result. But the theory of why that result is obtained may be modified in the future.

So science is an exact way of determining what causes bring what results,
but not so much an exact way of understanding how the world is put together.
Of course our egos think we know, but better interpretations and modifications come up all the time.

Edited by - Etherfish on Mar 10 2006 08:12:29 AM

Etherfish

USA
3615 Posts

Posted - Mar 10 2006 : 08:10:11 AM

Alvin wrote:
"But advances in physics will not affect biology."

This is where I have to disagree. I understand what you're saying about the divisions of science as they are today. But I believe the main answers that sub-atomic physics is looking for is 1) what holds it together, and 2)what differentiates one material from another.
And I believe [conjecture here!] the answer to both of those is lifeforce (ki,prana) and consciousness. I'm not talking about onlythe body. i'm talking about ALL matter, including inanimate.
So that's the point where biology meets physics meets religion. Of course at that point it's not called religion thank (God!)<--insert your own appropriate word here.

yogani

USA
5195 Posts

Posted - Mar 10 2006 : 09:37:06 AM

Hi All:

Of course, there are plenty of measurable "E-science" spiritual events -- a wide range of external and internal physical automatic yogas being an example. Plus lots of worldly performance measures. This is not new.

But that aside, if there is a case to be made for the incompatibility of science and spirituality, then it cuts both ways. Not only should yoga not misuse science, but neither should science misuse yoga. Analysis during yoga practices does a great disservice to yoga. The analogy is the Heisenberg principle, where the measurements disrupt that which is being measured.

Personally, I think yoga and science are very compatible. It is only a matter of adapting science to the task. Since when does nature owe science anything? It is the job of science to exercise flexibility in finding the truth about nature, not the other way around.

Science and analytical methods should respect the delicacies and unique attributes of yoga and the rise of human spirituality. Some have been arguing here for that in reverse -- yoga should respect the delicacies of science. Well, it is a two-way street. With an understanding of this essential point, yoga will work much better. In yoga, the fruit is in the letting go ... including letting go of science, at least during our sitting practices. We can analyze later, and we should!

Presented herewith in the true spirit of science.

The guru is in you.

USA
2602 Posts

Posted - Mar 10 2006 : 09:40:10 AM

Frank said:
Folks, I have read the posts and am scratching my head on the conclusion or point to be (simply) made e.g. the ahhh-ha! Some one care to net it out/help?

Frank, as usual a lot of things are being said and the idea is being tossed around. But a central point we agree on (ant this is probably the best thing to take from what we said) is that speakers/writers do a disservice to themselves and their subject matter if they are not disciplined in the way they mix Science and what is not Science (by 'Science' I mean what the term means popularly, that is, 'guys in white coats with test-tubes

' and all that goes with that). We said how people can introduce Science in a disciplined way, and the way they can do it was summarized above by me in green.

Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 10 2006 10:55:15 AM

Hong Kong
407 Posts

Posted - Mar 10 2006 : 11:17:48 AM

quote:
Of course, there are plenty of measurable "E-science" spiritual events -- a wide range of external and internal physical automatic yogas being an example. Plus lots of worldly performance measures.

Oh, this is what I found most interesting, and should probably be the starting point for scientists (though still not easy, and hard to be conclusive as with any other experiments studying human-being) But I can't find any reliable account on such thing. Most are either personal accounts or "spiritual theory", not very "scientific". Most "guru" choose to mystify even those rare handles.

USA
2602 Posts

Posted - Mar 10 2006 : 11:22:57 AM

Yogani said:
Some have been arguing here for that in reverse -- yoga should respect the delicacies of science. Well, it is a two-way street.

I agree with this entirely. Non-Scientist-Yogis can learn to get along with Science better; Scientists can learn to get along with Non-Scientist-Yogis better.

We have put forward some points here about how Non-Scientist-Yogis can adapt better and behave in a way that will help them to 'get along' and be productive with Scientists. There is another true and good story to be elaborated some day on how Scientists can adapt to be more productive with Yogis.

Alvin, regarding the title of the thread, the word 'misuse' may seem to be scolding or blameful and it's usually more productive not to come across this way. What do you say I change the title of this thread to 'Towards improved use of Scientific Concepts'. The choice is yours I suppose, since you are the author of the title. (Though actually, there is a case to be made that the title of a thread is 'common property' --- the starter of the thread can always re-edit their first post and put a title inside it.).

Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 10 2006 1:36:07 PM

USA
363 Posts

Posted - Mar 10 2006 : 3:49:16 PM

Hari Om
~~~~~~~

quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian

as usual a lot of things are being said and the idea is being tossed around. ... I mean what the term means popularly, that is, 'guys in white coats with test-tubes '

Hello David, thx for the note... you have added great clarity as usual. When I think of science, I think of repeatable and verifiable. I believe this is the corner stone of 'good science'.
Repeatable i.e. one can demonstrate my findings with/without some variances others can evaluate (verify) my findings.
From this, comes predictibility yes? and the science of statistics which I use daily as a marketing guy.

'Soft science' comes with qualitative results vs. quantitative results. I Can see how this IS a pickle on the spiritual side of the fence and the inner-experience of things.

Last point - this was Ether's post - that no thing can be proven, only disproven... yes, this is one method for concluding results. Yet one fine thinker/logistician/philosopher ( Bertrand Russell) spent many a year proving a simple math equation of 1+1=2. He said he would never take on such an assignment again. So, my point is ( and I will address at a later date)... Proving can be done, yet the effort expended does not = the ROI. I will look up some of his work and pass on for those interested to consider.

Thx again,

agnir satyam rtam brhat
Frank in San-Diego

Hong Kong
407 Posts

Posted - Mar 10 2006 : 8:05:34 PM

Bertrand Russell's work is something else: the foundation of mathematics. It's very interesting, concerning the "nature" of mathematics. Not very related to natural ("real") science, though. And Russell didn't succeed to "completely" explain the nature of mathematics. (Nor did anyone else...)

Concerning natural science, the "disprovability" (in another name) is actually one of the most frequently used criteria for what is "science". Again there's an elaborate philosophy behind.

May be we can expand both topics in another thread later.

Etherfish

USA
3615 Posts

Posted - Mar 10 2006 : 8:16:50 PM

Well in geometry, there are "proofs" also. But if you research them you will find that all "proofs" are based upon simple assumptions that can't be proven! So I'm sure you will find Russells proof to be the same; based on unprovable things, but assumptions that seem absolutely true and logical.

Does anyone know what Yogani means by
"E-science" spiritual events -- a wide range of external and internal physical automatic yogas being an example"?