Obviously. They just don’t have any claim to the null hypothesis.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @Failed_Buddhist and
Also, if someone rapes the mind of a student by imprinting untruth, I perceive them as fundamentally confused or violating my first moral principles by removing moral agency from someone who trusts them. I won’t trust such authority any more than a pig should trust the butcher.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
Um... I don't disagree with that. Are we talking about specific gnostic practices, or the crazies who tend to teach them? Those are two different conversations. Newton was as close to a quack as anyone. Yet calculus is one of the greatest discoveries/inventions in human history.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
I don't think that an idea can be tainted by the one who has it. But by the same account, no idea can be accepted without having a pretty good idea about why it should be treated as truth.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
That's correct - I wasn't arguing otherwise. (And by the same token, you can't judge the validity of an experiential claim (e.g. if use your attention in X way, you will observe Y result) until you've followed those instructions.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
The teaching of practices is of course a very different thing than the teaching of ontological, moral or ethical precepts.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
My claim is that there are practices that can give you access to observations that cannot be accessed by looking through a scanning electron microscope, carrying out a statistical analysis, or deriving a conclusion from a set of axioms.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
Absolutely, and each observation has to be explained. The frame of the explanation itself cannot be generated by divine revelation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
Explanations are constrained by language. Some things can't be understood no matter how well it's explained (e.g. what a headache feels like). The issue with mystics is they try to explain gnostic knowledge in the same terms physicists explain electrons. This causes confusion.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @Plinz and
Ex: Claims made in Vipassana are inherently experiential. Thus they can only be understood by experience. Nothing divine about it. In vipassana, you learn the nature of experience. In science, you learn how physical systems behave/function. They are completely separate projects.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
Though they are separate projects, they are interdependent, and both are needed to get a full picture. Science can only be done within experience, so it's useful to know the nature of experience. Experience is constrained by physical processes, so it's useful to know physics.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.