Discussions

Wisdom and Science

Posted July 23, 2014 by Silverghost in Open

commented on July 23, 2014
by Silverghost

Quote

8

Even though modern day science derived from mysticism and philosophy, it still at most tries to distance itself from these ideological principles, is this wise? I don’t think it is wise for the main reason science used on it’s own is very emotionally cold at times, it has little to do with humanity and even ethics as it will do whatever to execute and prove an experiment. The cruelty done to animals and humans is a good example of this. Psychology is a science and is about humanity however most sciences don’t take the science of psychology into consideration especially if it’s going to interfere with an experiment.

What makes things worse for modern day science is the domination by multinationals, it wants it’s pound of flesh no matter what the consequences are and of course one of these consequences is pollution.

To me, science ideological principles should never be used on their own and should definitely not be dominated by multinationals or any other controlling force controlled primarily by the controlling factors of the ego. Science to me was never supposed to be used on it’s own, it was obvious what was going to happen if it was, a free for all and total abuse by outside influences more concerned with profits than science itself.

Where has the wisdom gone within science? If modern day science was controlled, or strongly influenced by wisdom, would modern day science be as destructive? I don’t think so because wisdom would tell the scientists not to experiment on anything that was going to be destructive without taking appropriate precautions. Today we still have no full proof plan to deal with major nuclear fallouts or leakages; the recent disaster in Fukushima nuclear plant is a good example of this, the cover up of this disaster is amazing. This is bad science practices controlled by multinational forces.

Science obviously needs to be governed by other ideological principles that are not controlled by the ego to give it ethics and the wisdom to experiment and produce safe constructive science, it is obvious it can’t do this on it’s own and certainly not dominated by a an egotistical force like multinationals.

The following by Prof Tom McLeish is quite interesting only if you are open minded and have no dogmatic ideological principles you hold above all other ideological principles.

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198702610.do

Tom McLeish, Professor of Physics and Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, University of Durham
Extract: Science finds its place within an old story of participative reconciliation with a nature, of which we start ignorant and fearful, but learn to perceive and work with in wisdom. Surprisingly, science becomes a deeply religious activity. There are urgent lessons for education, the political process of decision-making on science and technology, our relationship with the global environment, and the way that both religious and secular communities alike celebrate and govern science.

Why is Science Such a Pain? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpD2X-qqL8o

Yes I know their are people on here who think they are more intelligent and who will bash such views but that will once again prove my point about dogmatism within science.

  • 8 Comments  
  • Silverghost Jul 23, 2014

    I thought I would share the last paragraph of this topic as well.

    The physicist Max Planck (1858 – 1947) once wrote, “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve”. Spiritual masters through the ages have devised methods different to those of science for investigating this great mystery by immersing themselves in it, making use of silence, stillness and solitude, for example. The conclusion is clear. Science and spirituality belong to one another… And science alone cannot give anyone the full picture.

    Again what have I bean saying and have been bashed consistently for but I suppose all these people are far less intellectual than certain other people on here. Going by this kind of logics, all scientists who don't support extremist science ideology are dumb, surely no one can believe this but it's obvious they do!!

  • Silverghost Jul 23, 2014

    A psychological look at science and spirituality: I do find the ideological principles of psychology being far less bias than certain religious and science ideologies; it’s no doubt why I use it so much. This article also mentions Edgar Mitchell.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spiritual-wisdom-secular-times/201402/science-and-spirituality-0

    Extract: When I was at school, people often asked, “Are you an artist or a scientist?” This was the 1960’s. “Why restrict oneself?” I always thought. “Galileo and Da Vinci were both artists and scientists, so, why not both?” Likewise science and spirituality need not be thought of as separate for, it seems to me, they are also highly compatible. They are complementary, needing each other to make something whole, something bigger than either of them alone. Properly integrated, they permit a level of understanding that amounts to much more than their sum.

    To give another example, Apollo 14 astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, returning to earth from the moon in February 1971, “Was filled with an inner conviction as certain as any mathematical equation he’d ever solved. He knew that the beautiful blue world to which he was returning is part of a living system, harmonious and whole – and that we all participate, as he expressed it later, ‘in a universe of consciousness’.”

    Both these men of science were deeply affected. Mitchell’s experience too was obviously life-changing because in response, in 1973, he founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

    This is no doubt new age dribble as well but judged by people who a far less educated, it actually agrees with some of my points fellers, bash away anyway fellers as I know you have too to keep control over this board.

  • NoetPoet Jul 23, 2014

    @dustproduction

    I don't want to feed the fire, but I'm worried that this clown is going to flood the discussion boards with his incoherent ignorant nonsense. I will ignore him for a little while, see if he calms down or goes away, but I'm not liking the chances.....

    PS I think he might also be sock-puppeting as "Cloudstrom" (SIC)

  • Silverghost Jul 23, 2014

    Cutting close to the bone again does attract some childish unintellectual responses at times I must say.

    I have been quite recently on other science sites, being interested in science myself, the dogmatic people react in quite the same way however I have never come a cross a science site that is as extreme within their ideological principles. The power playing is obvious and is used by extremists of their own ideologies to mainly keep or gain control, it is obvious who the controllers are on this discussion board.

    I have similar responses from certain spiritual forums however all they do at most is ostracise me as many have done on other science sites. No one likes their ideological principles questioned especially if they are dogmatic about such principles.

    The contrasting difference between mentalities is amazing from site to site, I'm on other sites and I don't have the same response because it is obvious to me they aren't as dogmatic about their own ideological principles.

    This discussion board could be quite worthwhile if it wasn't wholly controlled by people fixated to their own ideology which is what happened in the Dark Ages.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 23, 2014

    @ NoetPoet

    Why feed the fire? There is no consistent logic that one can expect for a individual that replies solely on subjective narrative.

    The reference which is provided here states the following:

    "
    Communicates science from within real stories over a timespan of millennia
    Argues that science can be a deeply religious activity
    Takes the most significant Biblical book for science to be Job (rather than e.g. Genesis)
    Takes the most significant science area for thinking about science and meaning/purpose as Statistical Mechanics (rather than e.g. Quantum Mechanics or Cosmology)
    Insists that rather than debating "science and theology" we need both "science of theology" and a "theology of science"
    Readers will be able to use suggestions practically, whether in church, politics or university
    "Do you have wisdom to count the clouds?" asks the voice of God from the whirlwind in the stunningly beautiful catalogue of nature-questions from the Old Testament Book of Job. Tom McLeish takes a scientist's reading of this ancient text as a centrepiece to make the case for science as a deeply human and ancient activity, embedded in some of the oldest stories told about human desire to understand the natural world. Drawing on stories from the modern science of chaos and uncertainty alongside medieval, patristic, classical and Biblical sources, Faith and Wisdom in Science challenges much of the current 'science and religion' debate as operating with the wrong assumptions and in the wrong space. Its narrative approach develops a natural critique of the cultural separation of sciences and humanities, suggesting an approach to science, or in its more ancient form natural philosophy - the 'love of wisdom of natural things' - that can draw on theological and cultural roots. Following the theme of pain in human confrontation with nature, it develops a 'Theology of Science', recognising that both scientific and theological worldviews must be 'of' each other, not holding separate domains. Science finds its place within an old story of participative reconciliation with a nature, of which we start ignorant and fearful, but learn to perceive and work with in wisdom. Surprisingly, science becomes a deeply religious activity. There are urgent lessons for education, the political process of decision-making on science and technology, our relationship with the global environment, and the way that both religious and secular communities alike celebrate and govern science.
    Readership: Educated lay readership in science and theology. Church people looking for "where science fits in" to their faith tradition. Students of Theology or Science Studies."

    Is the commenter supporting the dogma of religion over the "dogma" of science? No.
    And is it safe to think that the commenter has even read the book. Again, no.

    Please, stop feeding the fire, and leave it to others to engage this foolish debate.

  • NoetPoet Jul 23, 2014

    Another rant bashing a straw-man version of science, brought to you by our resident 'anti-dogmatist' *yawn*

  • Cloudstrom Jul 23, 2014

    Haha :) now that said it all!

    ...such articulation is truly unanimous :)

  • Silverghost Jul 23, 2014

    The following is one of the best write ups I’ve come across about western science dogmas but of course if you are scientifically dogmatics yourself this will make no sense at all.

    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/is-science-another-of-those-fanatical-religions/article3537221.ece

    Extract: Is science really serious when scientists claim that only science is authentic and all else is unreal? Has science lost its heart? Is science another of those fanatical tight-knit religions? Why is science being sold as the only route to human wisdom? Eons before modern science of the West came into being humankind existed here with all the wisdom which we claim we have today.

    Science and technology in ancient India, China and Egypt have had their hoary past. Some of the leading western scientists paid their obeisance to the wisdom of those civilisations. Many of them have admitted that they built their views sitting on the shoulders of some of the thinker-philosophers of yore! In the true sense of the word, science is only a method to understand the working of this universe. In that sense, science is a great exercise, but to sell science as the be-all and end-all of human wisdom to the exclusion of all other fields of knowledge is the height of foolishness and short-sightedness. It is that institution of science that one has to shun.

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS