On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:47:02AM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: > Mmm, yes, I can run a survey and show that, say, ~ 70% of Americans > report having had at least one such experience; but there are > listmembers who seem to think that anything that cannot be measured by > instruments of some sort is either invalid or irrelevent. I am trying > to see this from their POV.
If you are talking about me, then you have misunderstood. Instruments have nothing to do with it. The power of science to filter out knowledge from fiction and anecdote is that the same conditions (or the same experiment) produces the same results, no matter when or who or where it happens. If you could tell me that, if I do this and this and go here or whatever, then I will experience this result, and it will also work the same for others, and we verify it, then that would be a good scientific test and it could validate that knowledge. Instruments are not the key here. The key is repeatability, and the ability to be verified or falsified by others, consistentently. > <grin> Not what *I* mean, as I'd be calling myself 'delusional' in > that case, but 'yes' in that persons who only believe what they can > measure have said, 'Those people only wish to have such experiences, > and so have made them up!' [I think most non-experiencers do not > impute *malign* lying to 'believers,' but rather 'self-delusion' or > 'foolishly willing suspension of disbelief.'] I don't think you have it quite right. I would not have used the phrase "made them up". That sounds like lying, which I don't think is the case (well, for most people -- I'm sure there are a number of "religious" con-people out there). I certainly don't dispute that some people have these numinous experiences. What I dispute is that any type of knowledge about the universe can be obtained from these experiences, if they are not repeatable and able to be verified or falsified by others consistently (well, except for knowledge about how the brain can work in these people, but I think you know what I meant) > Oh, *I* think it quite clear that those who do not allow the > _possibility_ of "numinous-experiencing capacity" as a human attribute > are either close-minded, or perhaps they simply do not have that > ability themselves, like being red/green color-blind. (I've expanded I don't think anyone denies that some people perceive these things. What I haven't seen is any reasonable evidence that these experiences impart any real knowledge about the universe, with accuracy better than what could be deduced from what is already known and random guessing. > <grin> Well, that *is* the $65,000 question, isn't it? Myself, I > think it's the manifestation of another sense (call it sixth or > seventh or spiritual if you like), which detects - albeit imperfectly > - a level of reality that we cannot currently describe or measure, > except in "soft" terms like metaphysical, higher plane, spiritual, > etherial, etc. That's a pretty big leap from some very shaky evidence. How is it that science has totally and completely missed any detection of this? > Some people have a desperate need to feel superior or elevated, and > the only way they can think of to do so is to place others 'beneath' > them on a scale. Sort of like how you keep saying that you have these special experiences and you think this gives you insight into the universe that others lack and other poor souls who don't have the genetics for this must be so jealous of you? I just don't see why someone would WANT to have such experiences, let alone why someone would consider such experiences reasonable evidence by itself to make conclusions about the universe in contradiction to all of science. > <big ol' grin> Well, I've explained it all quite plainly above! But a > more elegant phrase (IIRC) is that "We see though a glass but darkly" > -- it takes real humility to accept imperfection and limitation in > oneself. Which is an excellent reason for accepting science over numinous experiences. People can and do fool themselves. It is much harder to fool oneself when one performs a repeatable, falsifiable experiment to objectively test one's knowledge, and compares results with peers who perform the same experiment to determine if the results are exactly the same. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
