Breaking Through Conventional Scientific Paradigm

The Epoch Times ^ | July 3, 2006 | Nataly Teplitsky, Ph.D.

[walford]

  "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."
—Albert Einstein

 The general, historical dialogue between religion and science goes back a long way—at least to Plato, Aristotle, and Leibniz. Before the 17th century, the goals of science were wisdom, understanding the natural order, and living in harmony with it.

Ever since the "quantum revolution" of about 70 years ago, various scientists have been finding the intriguing parallels between their results and certain mystical-transcendental religions.

Heisenberg, Bohr, Schroedinger, Eddington, Einstein—all held a mystical, spiritual view of the world. Einstein wrote in a letter to a child who asked if scientists pray: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of a man...."

...David Bohm's work in subatomic physics had led him to the conclusion that physical entities which seemed to be separate and discrete in space and time are actually unified in an implicit or underlying fashion. In Bohm's terminology, under an unfolded order of separate things and events is an enfolded order of undivided wholeness, and this whole is simultaneously available to each unfolded part. The enfolded order harbors our reality, much as the DNA in the nucleus of the cell conceals potential life and directs the nature of its unfolding...

...ever since Galileo, science has objectified nature by looking at it through lenses. Or, like Pribram put it, "Maybe reality isn't what we see with our eyes. If we did not have that lens, we might know a world organized in the frequency domain. No space, no time—just events..."

"...Has humanity taken a wrong turn somewhere in the past, which has brought about endless division, conflict and destruction?"

He confirms this when he talks about "the corruption of mankind," which was caused by "the pollution which has accumulated over the ages… in the nonmanifested consciousness of mankind, which we could call the sorrow of mankind because it leads to all this violence, corruption, disorder, self-deception…"

The nonmanifest, according to Bohm, is n-dimensional and not temporal, and cannot be handled in any way by 3-dimensional thought.

"And I think, " Bohm continues, "that this present (pragmatic) view of science has contributed considerably to the disorder in the brain. The origin of the chaos in human relationships is in our fragmented, atomistic… untruthful way of thinking..."

 "...A human being is a part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security," wrote Albert Einstein in 1950...

[microgood]

Truth:

This is a word best avoided entirely in physics except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.

Absolutely. I love science and only get concerned when some think it is something other than you describe.

[RFC_Gal]

Care to address my other points?

[microgood]

My eyes and brain working together tell me that what I am seeing is 100% correct. It isn't, humans have two blind spots that our optical pre/post processing systems work around.

And as an addendum, if we did not believe our sensory ability or that we were able to rationally understand the world around us, this conclusion could never have been reached.

[microgood]

Truth doesn't tell me that a theory might be falsified in the future, science does. It isn't science if it can not be falsified.

True, but science is an adventure in making assumptions that cannot be proven to acheive a loftier goal. Science makes assumptions that cannot be verified as true to get to a different place in reality. That is why they call them theories. For example, to embark on the theory of evolution, one has to assume all processes are naturalistic. To deliver a child, and name it, one need not engage in that abstraction.

[RFC_Gal]

"Deity(s) did it" isn't falsifiable, that is why science leaves out the supernatural.

[Fester Chugabrew]

ping

[microgood]

"Deity(s) did it" isn't falsifiable, that is why science leaves out the supernatural.

True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false. It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false.

Actually, the whole notion of making scientific theories falsifiable was very recent, and came about because of philosopher name Karl Popper. The notion of falsifiability of sciencific theories is less than 50 years old.

[glorgau]

I go with the "No space, no time—just events..."

And memories.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Bump.....

[GOPJ]

Perhaps you should undertake a course of study in English so you can learn when capitalization is meaningful.

balrog, who cares about puncuation - we're all out of 10th grade -- right?

[ARridgerunner]

ping

[BarbaricGrandeur]

Religion is merely a means for the finite to approach the Infinite. Perfectly reasonable and appropriate when it's understood for it's purpose and limitations. When we decide however, that a certain man-made system is closer than others or -- even worse -- that ours is the Only Way because the Almighty said so, then we are flirting with dogmatism. As such it is blasphemy.

The article is intellectually bankrupt. It assumes God doesn't want his name used for evil, thus the Blasphemy of Dogma. However such an idea about God must also be a Dogma. Further the history in that article is wrong concerning the Reformation. Reformation initiated years of religious wars. No one, not protestant or Catholic thought at the time that they couldn't salve the disagreement by force. Only over years of exhaustive conflict did they stop fighting over it (although they haven't really in some places). In any case the religious wars did leave everyone with a cynical attitude, which paved the way for the Enlightenment and the irreligiousness of the last few centuries.

[Coyoteman]

True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false. It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false.

Two points here:

1. You write "True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false." This is not correct. Science strives to theory. Theory is the highest level of achievement in science (see the definitions I posted earlier). Any assumption, hypothesis, or theory which cannot be falsified is not really science.

2. You write "It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false." Again, not correct. If it is not falsifiable, it is not science. (ID falls within this category: If I can't understand it, then a diety musta did it! Can't be falsified: not science.)

[microgood]

My bad. You are correct. It not necessarily false, it is just not science if it is not falsifiable.

[B-Chan]

Descartes pointed out that, since our senses can be fooled without our being able to know the difference (e.g. dreams, hallucinations, etc.), there is no way to objectively demonstrate that what we see, hear, etc. corresponds to an external "reality" in any way. Therefore, all observations made by use of our senses (including scientific observations) are suspect. We must take the existence of the world on faith. All we can know for certain is that which we experience directly, without use of our fallible senses -- i.e. our own existence. Cogito, ergo sum.

[Coyoteman]

My bad. You are correct. It not necessarily false, it is just not science if it is not falsifiable.

I am glad we agree.

On that note, goodnight. And thanks for the nice discussion (which is getting more and more rare here).

[Coyoteman]

We must take the existence of the world on faith. All we can know for certain is that which we experience directly, without use of our fallible senses -- i.e. our own existence. Cogito, ergo sum.

You might think that. I think that's a bunch of philosophy. I avoided philosophy (successfully) through 12 years of college (sociology and economics too).

I prefer science; that is, fact and theory.

Goodnight.

[Phil Southern]

You could have had an excellent post......if you just left 3/4 of it out........

-p

[metmom]

Hmmm, the philosophy of science. I thought they were supposed to be seperate....

[microgood]

On that note, goodnight. And thanks for the nice discussion (which is getting more and more rare here).

Thank you as well. Especially for what you do. Whatever theories that are developed based on the facts that are discovered, those like yourself that meticulously document the archeological facts of this wonderous planet make a timeless and permanent contribution to the world, and for that we are all grateful.