- phoenix goodman
- Tarzana, CA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
In the light of Thomas Kuhn's "Paradigm Shift" theory, and inspired by the TED controversy of removing Rupert Sheldrake's talk, let us examine the current scientific establishment.
The scientific process is capable of historical meta-analysis to make sense of its own patterns and processes. As Kuhn points out, every generation of scientists tend to assume premises that are fundamentally false but define the paradigm in which they work, and all assumptions flow from those premises.
Two major examples to illustrate are the geocentric/religious paradigm overthrown by Copernicus, and the Newtonian absolute space-time paradigm overthrown by Einstein. Of course, we must look to the actual psyche's of the establishment itself in those contexts. Was Copernicus not considered a heretic? Did not pre-Einsteinian physicists literally just ASSUME absolute spacetime as an axiom when contemplating physics? They are only easily shown to be incorrect in 20/20 hindsight, although up to that point, all the textbooks of school and general consensus among very smart 'experts' propagated those fallacious foundations.
Scientists that are overly specialized, careerist, non-philosophical, and lacking in paradigm shattering intuition/creativity might be the 'gatekeepers' of today, propagating fallacious assumptions themselves, and dismissing all non-establishment positions as heretical.
Has science itself transcended all biases? Has it overcome all incorrect assumptions? Was Newtonian absolute spacetime the final barrier? If not, then we MUST give 'heretics' a shot, should we not? What if they are a paradigm shifter?
As a thought experiment- if we are to contemplate the hypothetical that there are indeed wrong assumptions, what might they be?
Could it be that matter emerges from mind, and not the other way around?
Can Cartesian dualism be solved?
Could it be that the paradigm of Empiricism is merely a subset of the superior Rationalism?
Was Leibniz right?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Chris Kelly 20+
This is indeed the case, but try to get a scientist to prove their own paragigm wrong - there's nothing in it for them.. Too much modern science is based on a fundamentally flawed premise, yet they wonder why they remain confounded..
I applaud you for challenging science within the TED forum. Bravo.
Lewis Smart 20+
I'm not suggesting that you're "wrong", but I think it's absurd for you to suggest that you're "right". Such a binary approach will distort understanding.
I see no way to know either way, and I'm happy to own that. Agnosticism in this case provides the most dynamic foundation for seeking understanding, whether the path taken is one of science or one of agnostic mysticism. I urge to you that mystics should treat mysteries as provisional in the same way that scientists treat facts as provisional. Two sides of the same coin.
Chris Kelly 20+
"In what way is it 'indeed the case'?" ... I refer you to my comments within this conversation:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/16838/are_we_on_the_brink_of_creatin_1.html?c=625598
***
I am not "suggesting" that I am "right" ... I am flat out stating it as fact. I am profoundly correct in this subject.
Just because *you* "see no way to know either way" does not mean others are without knowledge.
Just because *you* are comfortable "owning" your lack of knowledge does not mean everyone else embraces ignorance of the most fundamentally important aspect of life to comprehend.
SOME people are capable of applying scientific (observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena) study to areas of life which modern "scientists" fear to tread.
There is nothing "mystical" about understanding and comprehending the truth. The truth is, most of life takes place beyond our physical senses.
Just because modern science limits itself to the study of that which is materialistically observable, (therefore incapable of full comprehension), does not mean that we are limited by the constructs of modern science.
Some of us have developed the faculties of mind required to comprehend that which is beyond physical matter.
So-called 'mysteries' are quite well understood by those who have found the explanation by modern scientists to be sorely inept.
Just as there is no money in a 'cure' for cancer (all the money is in the 'research' ... where's the motivation for a 'cure'?) there is no motivating factor for science to attempt to 'prove' that which it cannot comprehend within the limitations of materialistic study.
You were correct in saying "science treat facts as provisional". Some of us just aren't satisfied with "this is a 'fact' until we learn more" ... some of us reject agnosticism for gnosis ...
ie. KNOWLEDGE.
Some of us know.
Lewis Smart 20+
Chris Kelly 20+
Do you not source strength or comfort from the "knowledge you hold", Lewis?
***
"However, I warn you that you're in over your head if you presume to believe that this gives you some edge over others, "
Thank you for the "warning". It sounds like projection; is that what you do with your knowledge, Lewis? Hold it as some "edge over others"? Very telling, as I said nothing to indicate either being 'in over' my head or using my knowledge as an "edge over others".
What I find most pitiable is that you don't even want to know, so content are you in your state of self-proclaimed agnosticism that you fear the knowledge that might alter your paradigm.
***
"... or if there's something inherently desirable in your angle."
My "angle", Lewis?
Methinks thou dost project too much. I have no angle, Lewis ... I've been very straightforward and forthright.
***
"How would a gnostic know what it feels like to be agnostic?"
The same way a teacher knows what it's like to be a student.
By the way, while you may define yourself as "agnostic", I do not define myself as "a gnostic", only because there is a religious order of Gnostics, and I do not affiliate myself with any organized religion.
Lewis Smart 20+
Of course, that was my point, and my gladness was genuine.
I'm not interested in chasing your dodges. If I'm projecting on you, it's only as much as you are on me. None of your responses correlate to my actual position.