Thanks for posting this... even if it is only preaching to the choir :)

Indeed, the irony of calling a theory uncredible without open mindedly looking at the facts that make up the theory, is like saying your own judgement on the uncredibility of a theory is baseless and therefore uncredible (based on your own judgement techniques).

Skepticism of Blind Skepticism
Open Minded Skepticism

I think it's this sort of thing that Robert Anton Wilson discusses in "The New Inquisition"--how certain scientists seem to have become as dogmatic in their skepticism as religious fundies are in their "faith".

It does take a widened realty-tunnel to confront certain circumstances, especially those in psychedelic states of mind and not become completely dogmatic about what you've experienced. "Open Minded Skepticism", as Francis Scully noted, is a good way of putting it.

The cry for openmindedness....

I am a scientist and I am openmided. That is I will entertain any idea, but I will do so incredulously.

"It may very well be 'hallucination' but then again it could be something else"

I agree, but that goes without saying. Anything we know can be something else, i'm not sure where this takes us. I am uncertain about what sort of openmindedness is required. I know the limitations of science because by definition it is a materialistic epistemology, therefore lacks efficacy if taken out of this framework and applied else where. It therefore is clearlly not universal or ahistorical. Science changes with time and the paradigm shifts which occur can not be predicted, but do seem appropriate post hoc.

mystic's I ask, what do you want from me?

Biogadfly,

For me this is a somewhat personal issue. I love science. I got my BS in physics, have taught higher level math, yada, yada.. I also use sciene whenever I can to describe something.

What do I want from the materialists? Here's what:

1) To stop bashing us mystics.

2) To, like you, recognize that science, because it is a materialistic epistimology, is therefore LIMITED.

Anything beyond that is cream on the pudding.

I believe that the scientific paradigm does have certain uses within inner space. Having a scientific mindset is a powerful thing when investing the deepest reaches of your own inner space. John Lilly did it, so why not other equally intelligence and rigorous scientists? I continue to quote John when he said, "Science is the Yoga of the West, Yoga is the Science of the East".

Then at least between us Paul there is little to discuss. I only bash poor argument and false statements, some of which come from mystics, and others. This point I assume you will agree is fine. I will not give up rationalism for expediant openmindedness. But I do acknowledge that there would be many a scientist who have a very knee jerk response to mysticism, generally becuase it has been inappropriatley delivered to them. I have been influence by zen buddism only after talking about it with a theoretical physicist who has practised for several years. This allowed for rational debate about mysticism. That is all I ask, and from my little knowledge I think many of the early theological writings are far more rationalist than the modern protaginists. Whenever we discuss it I generally agree with what he states, and as an high energy particle physicist he should be a far greater materialist than me.

Then there is also the idea of dangerous ideas. I like to use homeopathy as an example, because while allot of positive things can come out of it, and there is ALLOT of evidence to support it, it also sets up a way for extremely negative things to happen. If one tiny drop of oil gets put into the ocean and the ocean shifts it all around, would the water ratain a memory of that oil property and suddenly give rise to a large scale world-wide contamination of ghostly images of oil bringing in the effects from the oil into all of the sea life.

I always try and make it a point to try and look at things from many different angles on how techniques and technologies (physically and metaphysically) can be used and how it effects each other and everything else.

The Erosion Of (Con)$ensus Reality:

Two words for scientific materialists (especially those like the toady Dick Dawkins, who make me ill with their 'rationality' talk - just like the people who talked in cool logical tones about building the atomic bomb) - John Mack.

John Mack has come to chew bubblegum, and kick your ontological ass. And he's all out of bubblegum.

Read "Passport To The Cosmos" - it really is the bleeding edge, my friends.

http://www.centerchange.org/passport/

That's what the high priests of ScienceTM are really worried about - that they, like their outmoded worldviews, are, and perhaps always were, seriously obsolete - and toxic to both humans and Gaia.

Basically, it boils up or down to the of the Observer and the Observed (ie. that we are a central part of the process of creating the multiverse we are observing.)

Now all the krazy cats on futurehi.net need to do is make the link between what Mack is talking about, and the psychedelic movement as discussed by McKenna..

Peace

Frank B

ps. The ghost of Terence McKenna currently resides in my hard drive. His message for today is "Boddee."

"It's been known that many great artists suffer from mental illness."

Mostly they suffer from the mental illness all around them.

"Does rationality have its limits when it comes to devising new theories and hypotheses?"

Certainly seems to. Kekule literally had to dream up the benzene ring.

"The artist, the scientist, the mystic, even so called crackpots each have something valid to say within certain contexts in the great quest to understand the grand mysteries of the cosmos."

Absolutely essential people. Scientists hate to admit it, but as Kuhn revealed, science benefits from paradigm-challengers. We know the world is very strange ... on every level. We can't hope to grasp increasingly more subtle details by holding onto what we've got as if there were some "final answer". We also can't afford to relax the standard of public agreement based in empiricism. How to be open-minded without being stupid is definitely the question.

1) "..just like the people who talked in cool logical tones about building the atomic bomb"

Dear Frank you may not be a big fan of science but I'm sure you have heard of an ad hominen fallacy. Just because scientists were involved in the Manhattan project really means jack shit to what we are discussing here.

2)"That's what the high priests of ScienceTM are really worried about - that they, like their outmoded worldviews, are, and perhaps always were, seriously obsolete - and toxic to both humans and Gaia."

Science has it's zealots, yes. But I do not know one scientist who plots the materialist agenda, fearful the coming mystics assault. No scientists are worried. It's a tool and most scientists know this. There are some real pieces of shit in science but only the usual proportion that you find in all cultural groups. The days of the inquisition are gone, there are differences but scientists are could care less. A organic chemist could not give a shit about UFO or ESP etc... but if asked he is likely to be skeptical of their existence because he places importance on experimental evidence, which may be limiting but has thus far been unquestionable successful.

3)"It's been known that many great artists suffer from mental illness"

Much like the above. I think this is an empty example/point. A percentage of the population are talented and creative. A percentage of the population suffer a mental illness. Therefore some percentage of the population may be very creative and also suffer a mental illness. Now in many cases schizophrenics are creative in their ability to generate narrative and to be highly suggestable. But lets not use this as some example of the old "maybe we are the crazy ones" bullshit. I have worked with many different types of mentally ill patients, I'm a professional but some of these people are fucking nuts. So I would resist these arm chair theories.

4)"How to be open-minded without being stupid is definitely the question."

Strikes head of nail with hammer.

I agree with most of the comments, but the notion of some materialist agenda is a little to much of a conspiracy theory for me (made me think of Alex Jones).

Hey my Non Duality comment didn't come out (must of put it in arrow quotes.)

- Yes I've certainly head of the Ad Hominem fallacy (I just looked it up online) but what about the fallacy of discussing fallacies to deflect any and all criticism of science..

"But I do not know one scientist who plots the materialist agenda, fearful the coming mystics assault."

They don't need to plot anything - they live the dream. It's never done outright either - its all done with the smoke and mirrors of Officially Sanctioned scientific language. Hence the term "World View." You wouldn't be in a scientific position if you didn't already automatically agree with a fundamental set of assumptions about how the world is - and what lies firmly outside acceptable (scientific) boundaries of debate. I was simply making an quick 5c Institutional Analysis - suggesting that their world view itself is dangerous and obsolete.

Layman: You know, I sometimes wonder about science..
Scientist: I'm sorry your argument isn't scientifically valid because your not being scientific.
Layman: So I can only question science in a "scientific" manner - what about being outside the scientific paradigm?
Scientist: There's nothing that lies outside science - it's a complete world view which encompasses everything there is worth knowing about the world
Layman (walks off to smoke a fat joint and leaves scientist to his objectivity)

"There are some real pieces of shit in science but only the usual proportion that you find in all cultural groups."
- This is what's called an X-Files view. You can put the argument in terms of select individuals, but to criticise the System as a whole - that's a definite no-no. All you can say are "There are a few bad eggs in every basket" or some such cliche. That leaves you with a information output of zero - you have in fact said nothing about the system under study. What's the percentage of bad eggs - 50%?

"So I would resist these arm chair theories"
- I agree; considering all the people who post on boards like these are probably white middle class Wired Magazine readers with fast internet connections who look like they took the pepsi challenge seriously I think we're in a fantastic position to resist all arm chair theories - from the warm ontological comfort of our electronic edutainment consumer science lifestyles ;-)

"I have worked with many different types of mentally ill patients, I'm a professional"
- That would make an awesome t-shirt for a diehard scientific materialist. Or a bumper sticker on the SUV of a scientist going to a Peak Oil conference.

"Conspiracy theory" was mentioned. Oh dear. Question the ontological foundations of western science and out comes the old notion that its all one big conspiracy. Talk of conspiracy theory is merely a cheap device to limit the boundaries of a debate - in terms of what what's being discussed here on futurehi.net CT has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of questioning Western Science as a whole.

This will thankfully be my last post as I something within me senses the utter uselessness of such 'debates' online. Meaning is destroyed by data. Give me an issue and I'll give you a tissue, etc.

Random quote from the famous urban poet Anon: "YOUR DEATH WILL BE LIKE SCIENCE FICTION."

See you all on the other side - which is this side (the alien overworld..)

Frank

I feel, as with similar debates, that we both use rational argument, but start with different predicates. And these predicates reflect personal preference and experience, ergo are not resolved through any dialectical. I don't come to FutureHi to refute mystics or to promote science. This thread is getting a bit long so I respect the conclusion of discussion.

thanks for the response

i think that the scientific community has sold the same answer for long enough.the taxpayer is learning to ask a slightly different question now and as a result new answers must be forthcoming if funding is to continue.the presuppositions of newtonian mechanics are failing some of the enquiries that are forming thanks to accelerated media such as the internet and cable t.v.
the average person is learning to think about different concepts.superstrings are being discussed in the locker-room.bell`s theorum is coming up in conversation at starbucks.(faster than the speed of light.oooooh,the heresy)
this kind of change can make some scientists squirm.