From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:05:54 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

round n of meta-mystical quibbling:

I think one of our problems in this discussion is the definition of
science. No surprise, since I am a physicist and have a pretty strict
interpretation of what science is. ;=)  

Forgive me if I restate the obvious. The scientific method goes as
follows: one forms a hypothesis. Performs *repeatable* experiments to
test the hypothesis. Upon analysis of resulting data, the hypothesis
is either confirmed or modified.

There are numerous problems with trying to apply this to living
things, especially humans. We are *very* complex. We don't even know
what all the relevant variables are, let alone know how to control
them, in order to have a proper experiment. 

We cannot look inside a human mind. (Unless of course, you're psychic,
and then scientific materialism has a lot of explaining to do ;-) )
When discussing the mystical experience, all you have are byproducts.
Applying Occam's Razor, one could just as well state that certain
practices induce just the right proportion of neurochemicals to be
released, which results in particular attitudes and ideas, just as
chemicals are a problem in many psychiatric disorders.

Then you are in the position of the tail wagging the dog. Scientific
studies of byproducts, to produce byproducts. Similar to treating
symptons of a disease rather than the fundamental cause. Or to be more
picturesque about it, you can try to learn about male bovines by
studying their byproducts, but don't forget what it is you are really
studying. ;=)

Just as in other fields, the study of byproducts is very useful in
mysticism. By studying behavior, the byproducts of mental states, we
can learn a great deal about mental states. However, in such a case,
who's to say B.F.Skinner couldn't produce someone who walked and
quacked just like a mystic. (If he was alive, of course.)

When we see certain behaviours, we can correlate them to instances in
which we display similar behaviours, and intuit relevant mental
states. In the case of a mystic, we may see behaviours and hear words
which correspond to our peak experiences, yet they display them
constantly. In observing such, at best, one is moved to find a way to
replicate the mental state that allows one to behave that way, or at
very least, recognize that such a person's behaviours are the product
of the best or better than one has experienced, and are therefore
worth taking note of and acting upon.

You cannot apply science to the mind. At least not yet. You can make
rigorous, detailed statistical studies of behaviour, but not the mind.
You can show correlations between certain stated practices and certain
behaviours, but you are still dealing with byproducts.

To the mystic, these byproducts are in fact incidental, and arise as a
direct consequence of the experience.

So, in this context, I hope I have made it clear how I can
simultaneously hold that the mystical cannon, and relevant rational
inquiry, is indeed relevant and has a place, but cannot touch the
experience that it dances around.

ding. get ready for round n+1 ;=)

				Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: John.Brawley@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (John Brawley)
Sender: fredgate@cheswicks.toadnet.org