All of what you said is perfectly reasonable. I've studied the scientific method in the past and I've found it pretty much perfect -- but some of the very influential people in it are minds set in stone (as you yourself implied). But hey, as a programmer I am perfectly well aware that even a perfect system might be "flawed" due to the people applying it in the wrong manner (bias, credentialism, spheres of influence).

I am only vaguely aware of the term "pseudoscience" but I can assure you that I am anything but a wacko who wants to "kill the system" or believe in conspiracies that make zero sense, and for that matter also think our scientists are idiots for "not being spiritual". Not at all! Long gone are the times where I was amazed by alluringly-sounding "what-ifs" in all those trash books with triangles and eyes in them. I'm not even sure I ever was into them -- they were intriguing but I dismissed them as bullshit by the time I was only 16...

(That's why I was very disappointed by the downvotes. Seems like I projected a very wrong image of myself. That stung me hard, I admit.)

---

I agree on the levels of skepticism, it's something I definitely missed in my comment and I thank you for bringing it up. I am not putting the spiritual methods above the scientific method, but I don't go the other way around as well. As a technical guy myself I can see clearly why science has a big advantage, too.

Let's face it: the spiritual practices will never be scientific -- not in the current form of the scientific method for sure. They require experiences on different levels of the brain / mind / consciousness / what-you-wanna-call-it. Many scientists strongly disagree these altered states of mind even exist. So there's that. (I have to wonder if they ever smoked pot or got drunk in their lives?)

I have no real point to prove in this comment. I can't disagree with a single thing you said.

It's more like me being sad that many people don't want to integrate human-level experiences into science. There are many things science announces in the last 1-20 years that many common people react to with "no shit Sherlock" and laugh (sorry, can't think of a good example right now). I believe such a mix could help science a lot.

Intuitive semi-revelations aren't scientific, yes. You won't ever hear me argue that! But those can and should be used as a starting point for a legitimate scientific research, wouldn't you agree? (Of course not all of them; nobody could care less if somebody's marijuana-induced hallucinations mean something really profound for physics).

I never heard of a scientist who actually tried really hard to study meditation; is there an official theory (and proof) about why does it seem to kill part / all of your negativity and stress? Is it because you can release dopamine into your brain by a conscious effort? Or is it because a part of the brain cleansing process which occurs naturally while sleeping is artificially caused by you with the meditative practices? A lot more can be asked.

I admit I have to do additional reading, that's a fact. But no, I am not interested in the BS stories about opening third eyes or merging with the Universe, etc. I am simply curious if the quantum foam is the hardware on which our consciousness runs and if the brain isn't simply a remotely-controlled computer; same like an SSH session to a powerful server, you know?