I tend to make the distinction because contemplative study cannot quite utilize the process of peer-review or logical or statistical reasoning. You can't arrive at gnostic knowledge through data, or information in general, because the knowledge isn't a matter of information.
-
-
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
Science is not defined by methods but by being methodical. Introspection must be accepted as an important paradigm in cognitive science, and even when only have to explain the phenomenon of people reporting a phenomenon we must do so.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
Try telling that to Dawkins, or Dennett, or... pretty much any big-time scientist or philosopher with a sizable influence in the intellectual public sphere.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
I think they would fully agree! They may just hesitate to take all conclusions of spiritual teachers at face value, before being convinced of the merits of their arguments and interpretations.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @Failed_Buddhist and
I've seen a lot of IYI nonsense from Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker. I don't think I could ever take any of the seriously.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @Failed_Buddhist and
As an undergrad, I got introduced to a number of groundbreaking ideas by the books and lectures of all three of them. These ideas are still considered to be mostly true today! I owe them a great debt.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @Failed_Buddhist and
I've never read them. They just sounded really stupid on video, making some very basic logical errors. I used to like Sam Harris until I found Taleb, who I derived far more utility from.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @Plinz and
Dawkins in particular specializes in sounding stupid on video. I do recommend reading The Selfish Gene and maybe also The Ancestor's Tale. His writings on evolutionary biology are quite good. I enjoyed Pinker's book The Language Instinct. Haven't been impressed by his others.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @MimeticValue and
Dennett has written tons of short articles and I can't recall off the top of my head which is the best starting point, but it's worth learning his perspective. I strongly disagree with his reductionist stance but he articulates that stances very well.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @MimeticValue and
Dennett comes across as a huge jerk in person (I've met him a couple of times) so you'll have to forgive his personality when judging his ideas. Same with Dawkins. Similar personality issues. Well mannered jerks. Pinker is at minimum an actually nice person (or LARPs it well).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Harris can be frustrating. His best work is his interviews with more interesting people than himself. I thought his book Waking Up (the one on secular meditation practice) was quite good though.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @Plinz and
Yeah I really liked Waking Up and some of his podcasts. But the ones were he was being an extreme decoupler without the holistic thinkers express their ideas were quite frustrating.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.