Are we beginning to see a major paradigm shift, steadily moving away from the prevailing physicalist, materialist.mechanistic mindset?
Integral theory is one attempt to move beyond any narrow,exclusive views of reality proclaimed by representives of science, religion, philosophy, spiritual traditions or whatever. Jennifer Gidley writes about integral thinking and the evolution of consciousness here
There are periods in human and cultural evolution when humanity passes through such fundamental transformations that our reality shifts and new patterns of thought are required to make sense of the unfolding human drama . . . The profound transformation we are now witnessing has been emerging on a global scale over millennia and has matured to a tipping point and rate of acceleration that has radically altered and will continue to alter our human condition in every aspect. We must therefore expand our perspective and call forth unprecedented narrative powers to name, diagnose, and articulate this shift… Integral philosopher Ashok Gangadean in the opening quotation encapsulates what many integral theorists have been voicing over the past decade. It is this integral research on emergent movement(s) of consciousness that I am referring to as the evolution of consciousness discourse This research points to the emergence of a new structure,stage(s) or movement of consciousness that has been referred to by various terms, most notably, post-formal integral and planetary.
Jude Currivan says that instead of big bang we have the big breath. The “outbreath” that gives rise to the physical unverse. Matter and energy are the products of information. The physical universe is in-formed as she puts it.
She discusses her views here in “Restating and reunifying reality: Our in-formed and holographic universe”.
This is part of an annual Mystics and Scientists conference promoted by The Scientific & Medical Network
The metaphor of the big bang conjures up images of a destructive explosion leading to chaos. But we should imagine the universe as a birth of order and organisation and this is more in keeping with a breathing process by which we communicate compositions of song, poetry and prose. Evolution is the creation of order out of chaos.
So are we seeing a movement to a more integrated, holistic understanding of reality where, rather than being a mere by product of a particular arrangement of matter, consciousness plays a primal, central role? The cosmos is breathed into existence, the out-breathing Word, the Logos, creates the living universe. Consciousness is the alpha and omega.
There’s no telling what each one of us is capable of under the various pressures which circumstances bring. Maybe the monster was always lurking within them waiting to show itself if the conditions were right. Atrocities are carried out through ignorance. It was and still is good advice to make an effort to “Know thyself”.
I think this is accurate. I will note that certain norms, in particular what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a claim, varies enormously from sub-field to sub-field, depending on what experiments are do-able. And that changes over time with the development of new techniques.
Regarding the popularity of Popper, he’s the FIRST philosopher of science that most people encounter (and for many perhaps the only one), and KN is correct that he has an appeal to scientists in that they spend almost all their time demonstrating that alternative explanations are false, so falsification is front-of-mind.
From personal experience, I suspect that Kuhn is under-rated because too many people espouse a horrid caricature of his thesis.
Yes he does. Did you read the quote I posted?
“He must begin with a certain fundamental attitude of soul”
“Without this attitude no one can become a student”
And I’m being charitable here and assuming he’s talking about the soul rhetorically, not just assuming you already believe there’s such thing, even though that’s most likely the case.
And how are we supposed to put his claims to the test anyway? All that stuff about the soul, the spiritual, the eternal, etc, are simply assumed from the get go, right?
Well, if by “higher realities” what you and Steiner mean is that we learn stuff as we grow old, that’s rather unremarkable if you ask me. I don’t need meditation or “inner tranquility” to know that.
A couple of things: First: you said “it is advantageous to start with the feeling that there is something higher”, nothing about evidence. I don’t know if others have such evidence, but I’m all ears.
And second, if one already has evidence for higher realities, acquired before following Steiner’s teachings, what’s the point in following his method?
I didn’t say the book is meant to prime people into believing. What I said is only those who are already believers will believe. I know nothing about Buddhism or meditation or any form of “spirituality”. The little I’ve read didn’t make any sense to me whatsoever.
Blatant quote mine. I wrote, “He makes no demands on those who do not believe or those who are indifferent”.
For those who do believe that they can gain knowledge by following his instructions then why wouldn’t they expect to have specific demands made on them. If you wanted to learn advanced calculus would you object to having to have learned basic arithmetic as a prerequisite?
Who doesn’t feel wonder?
Some people look at wonders and wonder how?
Ever wonder why biology is called natural history? A first step toward understanding how is to inquire into the history of things.
For Steiner the soul is that part of us which we experience through feeling, our personal relationship to what we experience (subjective). The spirit is the part concerned with pure thinking (objective).
I would say it’s probably a good thing not to think of the soul and the spirit as objects but more akin to living processes.
I’ll continue later or more likely tomorrow.
I would have thought it was more problem solving in Kuhn’s sense of making incremental steps under the existing paradigm.
[Big Edit]
Maybe you are including null hypothesis testing as falsification? Or maybe Inference to the Best Explanation?
I had always understood Popper’s falsification as a way of deciding whether a hypothesis is scientific, not as an activity of scientists. But I have not read a lot of Popper, mostly just characterizations of him by Phil of Science intros, which depict his philosophy in that light and then go on to criticize the idea as missing a lot of what scientists do.
I think Popper also claimed he had solved the problem of induction, but that again seems to be a theoretical philosophical claim, not something that would concern a working scientist. I also suspect scientists don’t do a lot of induction in the strict sense of the word, mostly IBE, which is perhaps what you meant.
Of course, you’re the actual working scientist so I’ll take your word for it, once I ensure we are using the concept falsification the same way.
It is often taken to be a way of deciding whether a proposed theory is scientific. Note that I used “theory” rather than “hypothesis” there. Some theories may start as hypotheses. But most hypotheses are never intended as proposals for a theory. And scientists often make speculative hypotheses that they have no way of testing.
Not really.
The person training to be a scientist is better advised to work in the lab under the tutorship of scientists. That’s where he will pick up the practices that the Mertonian norms attempt to codify. That’s a better way of learning than just studying the list of norms.
I would guess so. But, in all honesty, I would have to read it before I could make a reasoned judgment. And a biologist would be a better judge than I.
Correct. I was riffing on KN’s observation that “falsification” is what researchers spend most of their time doing. By that, I mean that the heavy lifting, experimentally, is considering (preferably in advance) all of the other potential explanations for the hoped-for result, and designing and executing control conditions to rule most of them out. It’s all about eliminating terms from the denominator in Bayes’s Law…
OK that makes sense as something scientists would spend a lot of time on.
From what I recall, Popper thought that “the problem of induction” could not be solved. His falsificationism was an attempt to make sense of scientific practice without induction. Rather, the experiential consequences of a hypothesis are deduced. But since the following is logically invalid:
P –> Q
Q
Therefore, P
Popper emphasized instead that scientists are trying to refute their conjectures rather than confirm them!
Interesting suggestion. I suspect you’re right. Kuhn is one of those figures who is very ill-served by his supporters.
Yes, that is a better way of describing his work.
Sorry about that, it was unintentional. But to be honest, that’s not a very good counter argument, IMO. Of course we’re free to believe or not believe and it would be ludicrous if Steiner suggested otherwise. The elephant in the room is that he claims his method works only for those who already (want to) believe.
I’m repeating myself so I’ll leave it at that.
Have you finally come to your senses and accepted that quantum entanglement is faster than the “constant” speed of light?😊
We can’t use QE to send the classical information faster than the speed of light… not yet…
But if relativity is incomplete, who knows what can be done…
It’s funny you said that… My colleague has recently told me he had always wondered whether his wife’s grandfather is z former Nazi…Whenever the II WW subject comes up, he changes the subject or becomes mute… His war past had been officially erased…
GR Confirmed Again: Falsification Fails
“The physicists found that the two cylinders fell at identical rates, within two-trillionths of a percent of each other—confirming Einstein’s theory of gravity yet again with almost 100 times more precision than any prior experiment. ‘There was no deviation from general relativity,’
https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-extreme-art-of-dropping-stuff-could-upend-physics/
This experiment may be viewed as starting as a falsification attempt but ending with scientists claiming confirmation to a greater degree than provided by previous experiments.
I think null hypothesis testing experiments often have that goal: the experimenter has a hypothesis, tries to falsify it testing a null, but then publishes a failed falsification as confirming some alternative hypothesis (though this is statistically dicey in many cases).
Popper recognized, I believe, that scientists do claim confirmation as something worthwhile. He tried to fit it into his ideas on falsification as something scientists (should?) do routinely by saying that confirmation was at most corroboration, but I believe most other philosophers have concluded his attempts to formalize that idea failed.
A person would have to make some progress along the path before gaining any evidence that would convince them of the reality of their experience. A woman born blind can have no better evidence of the reality of colours than to have an operation that gives her sight after which she can experience colours for herself.
I wrote, “If Steiner writes that it is advantageous to start with the feeling that there is something higher then surely that will dissuade anyone who does not have this feeling from contemplating the path. That without this attitude maybe this path is not for you.”
A simple humorous example using algebra can be found here. (warning, colourful language) In order to learn algebra it would be an advantage to start with the feeling that maybe there is more to it than at first meets the eye.
Do you think that a budding astronomer on gaining evidence of the existence of Andromeda should stop there and think it pointless to continue studying astronomy?
CharlieM,
I’ve never heard a mathematician claim that you need to start with the feeling that algebra makes logical sense in order to learn it. Or a physicist claim that you need to start with the feeling that time is relative to accept relativity, etc, etc…
Yes indeed.We can study how living systems compare to human machines and constructions.
Looking at function we can make direct comparisons. A hawk’s wing and an aircraft wing both use aerodynamic forces to achieve lift. But when we look at how forms develop and evolve, their history, living systems and human constructions are diametrically opposed. The former can be traced from the whole to the parts, the latter the parts to the whole. And it is here that the machine metaphor becomes very misleading. The problem is modern biology has grown out of a mechanistic world view which is hard to shake off.
In “falsification” experiments that probe the accuracy of predictions, you are really testing the limits of equations that describe and predict phenomena.
No one falsified Newton. We found that Newton’s equations are approximations, and their usefulness disappears under extreme conditions.
We know, pretty much by the same kind of reasoning, that relativity and quantum theory must be approximations, because they are incompatible at their extremes.
My take, which has no value to anyone else, is that this condition is baked into reality.
Can you see any sense in trying to improve one’s moral conduct, mental discipline, and wisdom?
From here:
From this brief account of the noble eightfold path, one may see that it is a way of life to be followed, practiced and developed by each individual. It is self-discipline in body, word, and mind, self-development, and self-purification. It has nothing to do with belief, prayer, worship, or ceremony. In that sense, it has nothing which may popularly be called “religious.” It is a Path leading to the realization of Ultimate Reality, to complete freedom, happiness, and peace through moral, spiritual, and intellectual perfection.
Of course I do, you’re just doing it wrong. The last two anyway
Okay, I’ll put it another way. Let’s say a tutor instills in the students that they should be open about sharing scientific knowledge, their results should be valid for anyone who wished to study it, its primary aim should not be for self gain and it should be open to criticism. Would you class this as good practice on the part of the tutor?
Would the test of particles of light show the same results?
Could these results be used to disprove the existence of ether?
Sound like a great project for you and your kids to take on: strap some photons to a satellite and launch it into low-earth orbit… while you chase a few birds around, for completeness sake
Because, of course, massless particles are a great choice to test gravity. Right?
Yes, that’s pretty much my view.
Or, to say it differently, my theory of everything says that there will never be a satisfying theory of everything.
Yes, except that “do as I say, not as I do” is a poor way of tutoring. So it is best for the students to learn from what the tutor actually does. If that is included in your “instill”, then fine.
You cannot disprove the existence of ether.
Really? How so?
You could at most demonstrate that the ether has no observable effects. But that falls short of proving that it doesn’t exist.
Photons have energy, no? Einstein says energy is equal to the mass of a body multiplied by the speed of light squared…
Unless you don’t agree with Einstein? 😉
It does, if you use it in the model for dark energy, or matter, or both…
How about entanglement?
Those are the effects that can be ascribed to ether…
LOL, so what? Fact remains it’s just plain ridiculous to test gravity with massless particles
😎
If you don’t understand the nature of the experiment, you can use electrons instead…
Did you read the article at all?
In the experiment, the researchers buckled two metal cylinders inside a satellite called Microscope, launched them into low-Earth orbit, and measured how the cylinders fell around Earth for two years. Inside the satellite, they used glorified seat belts to secure the cylinders, each made of a different metal alloy. As the satellite hurtled 440 miles overhead, the smart seat belts measured the force required to keep each cylinder in place. Should one cylinder require more force to stay still, that would indicate its free-fall acceleration was faster than its neighbor’s. If a deviation in gravity existed, surely this years-long drop would reveal it.
How do you think the effects of gravity on light photos were tested in the famous experiment in 1919?
Did the stars emit some other form of photons that were effected by gravity???
I’m trying to be very patient here… especially with those who would like to have a serious discussion…
Unfortunately…
I can ascribe the taste of chocolate to ether. So what?
Ascribing is something that we do. It isn’t something that the ether does.
Actually, this can work with the sense of smell of chocolate…
If QM is dependent on ether, as it appears to be in many scenarios…
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-quantum-mechanics-lets-us-see-smell-and-touch
OK, how do you replicate the experiment with photons then?
Let’s think about this for a moment. Is it not the height of arrogance for a person to believe that there’s nothing higher than one’s self? And as Steiner wrote, “The heights of the spirit can only be climbed by passing through the portals of humility.” So seekers of higher knowledge, start with the humble feeling that there are things that are beyond their understanding and awareness. As Shakespeare has Hamlet saying, “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your (our) philosophy”
It is not unreasonable to expect someone who is seeking to learn a subject or undergo training to come with the right attitude.
Repeating your statements:
But would anyone who thought that algebra didn’t make logical sense wish to learn it? To attempt this would result in an inner conflict. And if they were made to learn it nonetheless, then that would be an infringement of their free will. They would be under compulsion. If they are to learn it in freedom then they must first have the feeling that there is some value in it.
That would mean you are being asked to begin with a feeling about a specific understanding of relativity involving time. You are being asked to prejudge a relationship within the theory.
In the case of feeling that there is something higher there are no specifics you are being asked to have any feelings about. You must keep an open mind as to what is meant by higher worlds. “There is more to existence beyond the limited awareness I experience at this time. But the bubble of my experience is ever expanding”.
Most probably all three 🙂
Of course. Why would anyone trust an instructor who did not believe in that which they are instructing others to do?
Not really, if that higher thing is within oneself as you claim. Also, I don’t subscribe to the idea that I’m the pinnacle of existence or anything like that. It’s a false dichotomy.
Sure, but the right attitude, I would say, is curiosity and sane skepticism, not gullibility. Once again, I don’t see how starting with a feeling that you’ll find what you’re looking for, is a good thing, let alone a necessary precondition, as Steiner claims.
Not sure what you mean there. You don’t need to start assuming anything about the validity of GR to evaluate the evidence for a proper scientific theory like GR.
If you do not think of yourself as the pinnacle of existence then it stand to reason you must have the feeling that there is something higher than yourself. You have passed the humility test 🙂
And so we need to think about what we mean by, “one’s self”, the “ego”, the “I”. Is the “I” an illusion, a bag of physical substance, or can it encompass more than this. If you believe that you are just a bag of matter which has specific properties and attributes then that is what you will remain. If you have the feeling, “No, I am more than that”, then this should spur you on to think about what this means. From the wisdom of India we get the phrase, Tat Tvam Asi, Thou Art That. The paths that have been laid out by those who have gone before involves an expansion of the ego and the only evidence that is available must be through personal experience. Do not believe but see for yourself.
The point is that what you find may not be what you expected. To paraphrase Steiner “I’ve travelled along this road and this is what I have found. Here are some directions so that you too can begin the journey to see what you will find.” If you have the feeling that there is no road right at the start then, obviously, you are not going to even begin the journey. Your attitude must be, “There is more to discover so I will go in that direction and see for myself.” But no other person can give you the experience. That has to come from within yourself. Unless I travel a similar path I can neither confirm nor deny what he relates about his experiences.
It does’t matter. Steiner was not proposing a theory, he was instructing on beginning a journey he had taken. He advises not to assume what he tells us is true. Go and look for yourself. You may believe he went on a journey full of falsehoods, or it only took him into his own personal imaginations, but you can’t deny he went on a journey.
Unless there’s no such thing as the pinnacle of existence… what does that even mean?
This is something theists do all the time, namely, to assume that if one doesn’t accept their worldview, then we’re nothing more than a bag of matter or chemicals. It’s ridiculous, of course, and blatant question begging, but somehow you guys can’t shake the urge to utter such nonsense at every opportunity. It’s always the same crap: look at yourself with your god goggles on and everything is wonderful, life is beautifully intricate, we’re perfectly tuned machines designed masterfully… take the goggles off and we’re just a bag of chemicals. Yawn.
Obviously? No, that’s not obvious at all, and it’s been my point of contention since the beginning of our discussion. That’s bullshit, sorry to say. If there’s something to find, it shouldn’t matter at all. How do you know you’re not fooling yourself with that attitude? Can you explain why someone who approaches Steiner’s method skeptically, but open minded, will never succeed?
You wrote, I don’t subscribe to the idea that I’m the pinnacle of existence or anything like that.
The pinnacle is a metaphor for the highest, right? It would be the height of arrogance to believe you are the highest, right? But that isn’t where you would place yourself, where you see yourself. You are not as arrogant so as to believe that of yourself. This implies there could be higher forms of existence above the level where you see yourself.