--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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,
You are one, but certainly not the only. > 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. Would it help if I said that "instruments" in medicine also refer to scoring systems such as the Glasgow Coma Score, or the Mini-Mental Status Exam? Sorry - I don't always separate out professional definitions from general ones in my thinking; I will try to do better in the future. > 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. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but since no-one can get inside another's mind, no-one can be sure they are experiencing the exact same numinous event. > > <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) If you place 'verifiable/scientific' in front of "knowledge about the universe" I'd agree; but that such experiences are a human attribute (maybe some of the higher animals have similar ones, but we can't tell that) *is* a verifiable fact: "X% of the general population claims to have felt the presence of a divine being at least once in their lives." > > 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. But that hasn't been _my_ point at all; I have stated that it is important emotionally *to me* -- as have others, WRT themselves. Of course, there are folks who claim that they have special knowledge of the universe, but they truly can't prove it. > > <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? Until the microscope was invented, no-one had any proof that tiny creatures could live in a spoonful of pond water, although there _were_ stories about water sprites, and pixies, and boggles... which is why I wrote that we might someday be able to actually detect/investigate such ephemera-to-us-at-this-point. > > 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? <rolls eyes and stomps feet exasperatedly> *Honestly,* Erik, I happen to know that you *did* read those posts, since you dismissed my conjecture of the biological/cultural utility of having both 'experiencers' and 'non-experiencers' as "politically correct nonsense" (IIRC the exact phrasing). But NO WHERE did I call anybody a "poor soul" or express pity, and the analogy I used, red/green color blindness, was chosen *specifically* because NO ONE can claim *pride* in being able to distinguish colors. > I just don't see why someone would WANT to have such > experiences, Did I not make it clear that I JUST HAVE THEM, and have since childhood? I was attempting to answer, honestly, a question posed to the list. > let alone why someone would consider such experiences > reasonable evidence by > itself to make conclusions about the universe in > contradiction to all of science. Once upon a time, science "proved" that Negroes were inferior, that women were a sub-species of human; I posted a study abstract to the list that "proved" that Baycol was as good as other statin drugs -- but later it was noted that a number of Baycol users were dying, compared to other statins. Science is not static, and what was impossible yesteryear is today the merely mundane. In the fifties (or was it the forties?), they did not even imagine the microchip, and thought computers 'might weigh less than a ton,' and that there might be a need for as many as a dozen or so in the world... (IIRC) > > <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. False dichotomy - that one cannot base one's actions on both verifiable science, and one's numinous experiences. As far as it is possible, clinicians design patient treatment on well-designed studies, and when science 'knows no further,' on their own experiences and those of their colleagues. I just presented the current data on pancreatic cancer to a friend's friend: it is dismal, with only 20% of patients eligible for potentially 'curative' surgery at diagnosis, and of those, the median survival range is 12-19 months. Yet the individual is not a median or a mean, and I also told him of a pin that I sometimes wear: "Sometimes you have to look Reality square in the eye - and defy it." Because we still see "but darkly," though the ambient light is much better than it was 100, or 50, or just 25 years ago. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
