What is Science?

[wandjina]

In a paragraph or so, from your perspective, I would be ever so grateful if peeps could answer me this:

-what is science?

-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion?

-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany, 'psychonautics' and personal development?

-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

Please tell us what you really think, what you really believe, uncensored views much appreciated, from the heart or the head or both!

many thanks in advance .

[SikkimRex]

Hi P!

Well, since I am (today!) reading about the particular influence of a French landscape architect called Michel Corajoud (who taught LA's in the 1960's in Versailles), this quote is kind of relevant, even though its specific to LA. (Excuse the translation, its a bit clunky..). It relates to teh interconnection between emotion or sense and science:

"This exercise accepted only the references of the landscape as a guide, the horizon, the roofs of houses, the outline of certain historical parks from some distant past, the quality of certain leaves, of grasses. The two exclusive systems, that of memory and of the phenomenon, deprive each other of reciprocal connections. From this point, we would like to look at the destabilising role of an attempt at articulation, since these two forms of relation with the world are symptomatic of the compartmentalisation of the process of scientific work, on the one hand, and artistic work on the other. Observing contour lines, exposure to sunlight, the nature of soils, the phytosanitary state of the trees, uses, densities, sounds... gives information about a place which can be measured. Perceiving the colours, the chiaroscuro, the melodies, the different matters, the traditions... gives information about the impressions a milieu can procure.

To work from the first category gives a succession of singular, raw states without any ultimate realisation. The second aims towards something arbitrary coming from an individual perception and proceeds by exacerbating the senses. Neither of the two series is able to produce the framework for a landscape project alone. What is more, each of time, even if they could be added up, their ideal sum would always be behind a new state that ceaselessly moves on. "

Claramunt, M. and C. Mosbach (1999). "Nature of a Landscape Project." Pages Paysages(7): 54-64.

Well.. thats not my opinion but... whats your view, as a kickoff??

[teonanacatl]

what is science? A form of religion where beliefs are tested using scientific methadology, beliefs constantly changing. Most science is actually rediculous as you can argue you point on almost anything and find proof that this is indeed true, and the conclusions which are drawn are a lot of the time personal beliefs. This is true in biological science more so then other sciences i found. Science involves a lot of serendipity. I think science is also about learning everything about nothing, ie you are forced to pigion hole yourself to one subject area, and i think that is stupid.

-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion? Science is a religion. Science doesnt disproove spirituallity, it tries but fails. IMHO science isnt ready to take on spirituality yet. Religion is really just about stories told to us to make us better people (in the eyes of whoever made it up) and i know a few priests who dont believe in the story told in the bible but believe in the message it delivers. Science isnt equip to explain everything.

-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany, 'psychonautics' and personal development? For me the life force of the plant is the chemistry of the plant, obviously the chemistry changes when it dies and so its life force changes. Alot of people nowadays place alot of emphasis on the plants rather then the compounds which give the effects, if you went back and gave an american indian 1g of whole peyote alkaloid extract i bet he would say its the spirit of the peyote, prime example is maria sabina and hoffmans synthetic psilocybin. Ethnobotany is about more then getting high for me (i rarely do that) its about observing plant animal interactions and learning through plants. That doesnt mean the only way to learn is to injest the plant material or purified extract, ive learnt more through growing the plants and propagating them then i have in psychedelic states. I also think there is no problem with getting high for fun, some people do but i bet they take a moral high ground when they really do use it for fun. The idea of psychedelic states helping change you is more i think about making yourself open to change easier or seeing things about yourself from other peoples perspectives, its an interesting way. I think psychedelics allow acess to the subconcious just like dreaming and that that is where the learning healing stuff happens.

-where does science stand in relation to the truth? science in a science based society is the truth, if your DNA matches somone elses then according to science you are them and therefore are guilty of the crime. Science and truth well science is somones interpretation of data, the truth is whether your peers believe you or not, it doesnt matter if you didnt do the crime if everyone thinks you did. Some times they overlap but seriously folks question the science.

I guess science provides us with a rational perspective on things, methods are tried and prooven and results are rigerously tested. I choose science over christianity but i choose life over science.

I like quotes from albert einstein.

Overall i guess what is anything? its the what is anything that i look to find the answers for in psychedelics.

there was a quote by some guy that went somthing like this:

The universe is composed of space and everything else is perspective.

so i guess science is just one perspective on the universe

Edited June 13, 2006 by teonanacatl

[MORG]

Oooooh.... I'll try not to carry on too much.... but it sounds like an invitation.

Where does science stand in relation to the truth?

This is one of my favourite things to think about.

I believe science may get us nowhere near the truth. I think our brains will probably constrain us more than we'll ever transcend, but I hope perhaps our collective brains may someday rival the maturity and complexity of the Universe, enough so we can actually understand it or a part of it as a truth.

I believe while we may get nowhere near being certain about a truth, rationality and logic are the best tools of enquiry we have at our disposal. And while these tools may have their caveats and impediments we are best served by using the best tools we have.

What is science?

Science is the investigation of phenomena/processes and the conditions/events/elements which cause, comprise and influence those phenomena. This investigation is carried out through rational, logical and empirical processes, i.e. scientific empiricism, testing and attempting to disprove hypotheses based upon thorough, objective observation and analysis.

To boil it down: Attempting to solve problems through rational and logical thought based on objective tests or observation.

Where does science stand in relation to spirituality/religion?

I suppose this depends on what you want to call spirituality and religion. Semantics aside I believe that the two are generally incompatible.

Science cannot be used to answer questions about spirituality/religion because they are built on completely different ways of viewing the world. Questions on the nature of that which is not logical and rational or physical and natural cannot be answered by a process which attempts to base itself on these qualities.

If we class science and religion as two diferent ways of explaining the world around us (eg. the question of where we came from), then science and religion cannot be combined without compromising the ideals of one or the other.

Where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany, 'psychonautics' and personal development?

There is alot of "science" undertaken by us in the community as we experiment and explore with growing, using and learning about plants etc. Some is of more scientific value than others in that some people's approach is much more methodic and rigorous than others'.

On the whole, when we experiment, even the most well thought-out series of bioassays and experiments falls down because we usually have a sample size of one (ourselves) and often confront the difficulties of objectively observing ourselves through the most common method of introspection.

This does not negate the value of what we do. I think very few, if any, of us are into ethnobotany to provide totally replicable scientific findings with statistically robust conclusions. We learn alot without having to formally prove it and I think the motivations behind our interest here vary very widely. I'm sure some here couldn't give a rat's fessle about certain scientific aspects of the biochemistry, genetics or neuro-chemical reaction to alot of the plants they enjoy.

It's enough to enjoy, and thereby we grow.

[apothecary]

In a paragraph or so, from your perspective, I would be ever so grateful if peeps could answer me this:

-what is science?

To me, science is just asking questions, trying to find an answer, looking at the answers, and then questioning the answers...

Just another useful human tool...not unlike spirituality or instinct in that sense...

-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion?

Broad question there...depends on which scientist you ask I guess...

-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany, 'psychonautics' and personal development?

Scientific principles are definitely useful when learning/experimenting with ethnobotany/psychedelics/whatever along those lines...

e.g. repetition of experiments because you should never just measure something once, double blind studies, experimenting on multiple bodies to make sure whatever effect isn't just a placebo, so on and so forth.

Also, there are various disciplines built on scientific foundations that are indispensible to recovering lost knowledge and discovering new knowledge on plants/mushrooms/whatever... chemistry and botany being the two most obvious.

But again, no point relying on these disciplines to tell you what's right or wrong in certain cases, as many times it has been shown they were plain wrong...rather they should be used as indicators...

-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

To me anyway, science is more about asking questions than seeking the truth...

[faustus]

what is science? -- an attempt to describe, interpret and understand phenomena in nature. as many interpretations can adequately account for the same phenomenon, hypotheses are generated to confirm the suitability of one interpretation over another via experimentation. over time these interpretations are refined or refuted as more and more data about the phenomenon emerges.

where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion? Science is a religion. Science doesnt disproove spirituallity, it tries but fails. IMHO science isnt ready to take on spirituality yet.

i don't think science is trying to disprove religion -- it perceives spirituality as outside the domain of science, and so seeks neither to confirm nor refute its claims. all it can really do is measures things at the periphery, e.g. near-death experiences, the neurobiological basis of religious experience, but a good scientist will note that their work isn't proving or disproving life after death. although there are viable means of refuting a scientific claim, the same is not true for religion. science doesn't like religion because it's quite content in accepting the mysteries in nature without seeking to understand them.

re science and psychedelics, the greatest puzzle to science is just what consciousness it. one way of

understanding brain is to examine it when its normal functioning is being disrupted e.g. lesions in broca's area and speech. insofar as psychedelics can "disrupt" the mind, then they stand as very useful tools for understanding the mind-brain interface.

science and truth -- more difficult question to answer. i'd probably agree with morg, although being far from perfect, science is all we've got in our quest.

[MORG]

To me anyway, science is more about asking questions than seeking the truth...

I like this point.

So often the results of a scientific study just raise more questions rather than provide definitive answers.

[Alice]

In a paragraph or so, from your perspective, I would be ever so grateful if peeps could answer me this:

-what is science?

-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion?

-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany, 'psychonautics' and personal development?

-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

Please tell us what you really think, what you really believe, uncensored views much appreciated, from the heart or the head or both!

many thanks in advance .

This is not Alice, it is her abusive boyfriend.

-what is science?

Science is a methodology, nothing more. It is a proscribed method of investigation of physical observables that is intended to allow people to render their distracted, non-linear way of thinking systematic so that their observations can be properly comprehensive. e.g. If you want to know what makes a plant grow then you develop an idea/model/hypothesis (it requires water and sunshine) so you take a number or plants, plant them without both, with sunshine, with water, with both and record your results. One variable is changed for each category, one and no more. You do not plant one plant, give it some water and 30% sunshine, and then conclude that it grew because you sang to it every night. i.e. here you have many variables and all are tested at once, hence your conclusion is possibly wrong, you haven't tested every possibility.

Historically (according to my admittedly limited understanding) scientific method in the modern sense really began with Francis Bacon. Perhaps see Wikipedia or something for more on him. Scientific method (scientific induction) = hypothesise, test, analyse results, refine hypothesis, retest, etc. etc. Do this until you have a pretty damn good idea that you're right. Statistically 'right' is generally accepted as 95% confidence in your hypothesis, though this can be increased or decreased depending on how important it is that you're absolutely right.

Is it most important to separate science (scientific method/induction) from the body of knowledge that science has produced. Scientific results do not say anything in themselves, it is up to the interpretation. The oft-used phrase "science tells us" is really quite misleading unless you know what the speaker means already. Science tells us nothing. You can say "these scientifically produced results seem to indicate that...". However there are endless examples of situations where the science has seemed to indicate something that turned out to be completely incorrect, it really is up to the people involved to do the interpreting. There is a lot of math etc. to help with the interpretation but ultimately the onus is still on the human.

-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion?

Science stands in the next room, where it belongs. Science says absolutely nothing about spirituality or religion. These subjects contain nothing which is testable, save for brain scans of 'religious experiences' or something similar, but you can't learn what it feels like to feel one with nature from a coloured picture of a brain. Anyone who says God isn't there because scientific investigation can't find him/her is making a leap that no scientist is prepared to make. If someone said "God is [here]" and people scientifically investigated that place and found no evidence of whatever God is supposed to be then you would have at least a start, you could say "as far we see, God is not [there]." You're never going to be able to test everywhere though and I think most people's idea of God is a little more complex than "he's going through the McDonald's drive through, you can catch him if you're quick."

On a personal note I will say that I deny all religions. Technically I am agnostic (as I am a scientist) but I prefer the label atheist. I think all organised religions obstruct the mind and hence the search for truth, be that truth cold hard science or the true nature of the self. I also don't believe in spirituality if you take spirituality to have anything to do with higher planes or spirits/souls that we can't see/touch. I have had very powerful 'spiritual' experiences but I think these experiences reside entirely in our consienceness. Why do we need to invent things to accept/understand the sublime joy of being part of such a brilliantly refined, beautiful and balanced ecosystem as we have (had) here on Earth? We humans are scared of so much, the chance to feel at peace and like we belong (for the natural home holds much more sway in our deep psyche than does the modern world we find ourselves in) is so rare and precious that I find more than enough explanation for my experiences with what we can find in our body and mind without this extra organ that no one seems to be able to find. N.B. This entire paragraph is my personal feeling/opinion and really has nothing to do with the excellent questions at hand.

-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany, 'psychonautics' and personal development?

Again, in the next room. Nothing particular to say, unless you want science to help you find something out, which is something science will be delighted to help you with. Go talk to science if you like, it will give you a superb way of looking at the world that will enhance immeasurably the final understanding that you reach from your investigations in each of these areas. For better or for worse science has no moral component. Attaching 'ethno' or 'psycho' to a work freaks out neither the methodology, nor most scientists. Those sort of judgements are best left to the ignorant. It's up to the investigator to work out whether or not they are doing something they are comfortable with and society is comfortable with. Science can be a lot of work and remove some of the fun/mystery but you people seem to be interested in finding truth so it's a great way of doing things. Don't get the idea that science isn't 'fun' either, it's just not that chaotic, risky sort of fun that a lot of people (me included) revel in. The joy of seeing something that you've never seen before is really something. Personal development is a bit too broad an area to respond to but I can say that my scientific education has taught me to think in a manner that has allowed me to understand myself more than ever before.

-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

Science is used to seek truth and scientists are looking for truth. In the purist sense (and most scientists, me included, are passionate and pure in this regard) that's all scientists are doing. Searching for truth for the sheer joy of it. The knowledge from scientific investigations is often called truth but the definition of 'truth' is notoriously elusive. The only way to actually know something is test every possible combination and permutation of every individual sitation and at every time point in all of the universe for all of time. Clearly this is not possible so we can't ever know anything, lets all renounce life 'cause there's no point in even trying.

Obviously this is not useful. I suggest reading an introduction to Karl Popper, he has some good things to say on this topic. Let me summarise my understanding (not complete, nor necessarily correct).

Scientific induction rests on successive experiements producing ever more accurate results, all consistent with each other. After a few million experiments you can say something is probably true. The Sun has come every day for our entire lives and the lives of our ancestors, it is 'true' that it will come up tomorrow. Obviously we don't know that 'til it happens but it's as 'true' as we are ever going to get in the real world.

However, one single experimental result will that disagrees with the hypothesis will disprove the hypothesis totally. The hypothesis must be rejected or altered if truth is to be found. This is one pillar on which the power of science rests. Such pedantic rigour results in excellent and accurate understanding.

However! Karl Popper points out a problem with this. In the same way that you can never be totally sure that a 'truth' is true, how do you know your disproving observation was accurate? You see a swan. It is white. Hypothesis: all swans are white. Test the hypothesis, look at many, many swans. You see thousands of white swans and then one day a black swan. Hypothesis incorrect, not all swans are white. This is traditional scientific induction (with the interpretation to turn the results into knowledge). Popper's question is: what if the black swan was a duck and you just can't tell your birds apart? Suddenly not only can we not find truth, we cannot know that anything is not true! We have cannot say anthing about our environment, we are totally without any understanding at all.

Clearly this is not helpful either. The only way out is to accept that while absolute, incontravertible truth is not achievable, a useful understanding, as close to truth as we are ever going to get, is. So, while we cannot know anything as 'true' we can accept that we have looked hard enough to say that something is so likely to be right as to be 'true'. This realisation does place upon scientists the burden of continually have to test and retest everyting that is held to be true, using every new situation as a test bed for everything we've decided is 'true'. All true scientists accept this burden with no complaint at all. Take Newton's equations of motion, which were used to understand all motion and physical interaction in the world for hundreds (literally) of years. Along comes Einstein and who says "wait a moment, I think that's not quite right". He comes up with a rigourously defined, mathematical hypothesis which is later tested over and over again, is still being tested today, and is eventually held to be true. Newton was probably the greatest scientist of all time but he was wrong. That's cool. We're after truth, not someone being right. The hypothesis was refined into Einstein's model, which is the best one we currently have. No one denies that Einstein may ultimately be proved to be slightly wrong (not likely to be totally wrong, the theory is totally without failure in any regard so far) and a better hypothesis arrived at. That's what it's all about. (Incidentally Newton wasn't far wrong, relativity doesn't change his model much at all unless you're moving really, really, really fast).

So, scientists seek truth using scientific method. The body of knowledge loosely referred to as science contains the conclusions reached after unbelievably large numbers of exhaustive, peer reviewed, hypothesis, test, refine cycles. The work is very respected and science has helped mankind in uncountable ways but we still might be wrong. That's okay, then there's no reason to stop doing science.

P.S. There is one form of absolute truth, analytic mathematical truth. It's probably mankind's greatest achievement (in my humble opinion) but that's a story for another day.

Peace to you all. Seek the truth, it really will set you free.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Alice

[oxydiser]

Alright, my answer is pretty slack and to the point, but i'm studying for exams...pharmacology incidentally

-what is science?

To quote the grates, science is golden. For every thing that concerns me, science can explain 95% of everything, for the other 5% science has not explained it yet.

-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion?

science>religion, they are mutually exclusive. Science is my belief system, I try to stay away from theoretical physics because it resembles religion too much

-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany, 'psychonautics' and personal development?

These things can all be explained with science, every psychonaut is in fact a scientist in their own right, exploring their body chemistry and pushing its limits while learning more about themselves, emotionally and behaviourally (personal development).

-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

science=truth, by definition... I reckon it's a fairly good approximation too.

[ballzac]

Science is the unbiased evaluation of measurements, the creation of hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses. A lot of people believe that science is somehow at odds with religion or spirituality, and also that not everything can be explained by science. The fact is that anything that can be explained at all can be explained by science. Science is simply an unbiased method of investigation in ANY field. I certainly would not accept the findings of a BIASED study, and any investigation that is UNBIASED is, by definition, scientific. Science isn't lab coats and test tubes (although they can be involved). Science is just careful evaluation of data, and extrapolation - often with the use of mathematics - from that data.

Granted, many 'scientists' ARE biased, and subconsciously (or fraudulently) alter results to fit there own hypotheses. This is not the fault of science. Science is a pure ideal for which humans strive. Science is not fallable. Humans ARE.

In relation to psychonautics, I think it is a shame that we, as a society, cannot take this field of study more seriously. It is considered important to explore other planets and collect data on minerals and whatnot, but to explore our own minds is frowned upon. For this reason, the exploration of the mind is done mainly by those who do not have the resources or training to investigate this area scientifically. This is fine for most of us, and I think most of us would rather aspects of ambiguity in our journeys than not, but I believe it would be a good thing if psychonautics was a field that could be a serious career path that people could take. Ph.D psychonautics would look nice on my business card. This does not mean, as many might expect, that these studies would be undertaken in sterile laboratory environments. On the contrary, good scientific enquiry would require a range of set/setting conditions to explore what is really at play.

Science is not a religion. Many treat it as one, but in reality it is just reliable enquiry, nothing more, nothing less, and it appears to fail, it is really us failing science, not science failing US.

[occidentalis]

-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

science=truth, by definition... I reckon it's a fairly good approximation too.

Hmm OK here I must dissent

Science=one possible truth

We did used to think Science=Truth. We thought we could poke and prod the universe as detached objective observers and record its response without actually being involved ourselves. And we thought that all of this objective poking and prodding would eventually lead to The Truth. Then quantum physics and relativity came along. Suddenly there was no Truth, just truths - truths that are different depending on who you are, what questions you are asking, and how fast you are going when you ask them.

There are ways of gaining knowledge about the world that (appear, at least) to be incompatible with the current science-based paradigm of reality. I don't think I have to go into much detail in this crowd on this topic - but I think we have all had experiences that would suggest this, and it is confirmed by shamanic practices in traditional indigenous cultures. Diseases can be diagnosed and cured on a spiritual level (or perhaps just great placebo?), and knowledge about events distant in space or time can be gained through the use of plants.

There are many ways of understanding the universe. Science is a powerful one, but it is not the only one.

And BTW, I consider myself a scientist, although I'm not quite qualified (2 more weeks ). For me, the question "what is science" is nicely answered by the statement "Keeping an open mind". Science is a structured and methodical way of keeping an open mind and asking questions which help us to come to a best guess about the way things are.

[ballzac]

There are many ways of understanding the universe. Science is a powerful one, but it is not the only one.

Any way of understanding that cannot be verified is a pretty weak understanding as far as I'm concerned, and anything that is verifiable is, by definition, scientific. I think a lot of the disagreements on this topic are purely semantic. The opening line of your post was simply a disagreement with oxydiser's DEFINITION of science. The word science comes from the latin scientia meaning knowledge. Understanding IS knowledge.

One may, while under the influence of a psychedelic, be aware of a cosmic consciousness of which they are a part. I think things like this will one day be verified by scientific enquiry, but until then it is at best an opinion and at worst a delusion.

Damn bloody internet ...I typed a whole heap more and the webpage closed and I only had this ^ bit on the clipboard. Oh well, it's late. Maybe tomorrow.

[-YT-]

"Suddenly there was no Truth, just truths - truths that are different depending on who you are, what questions you are asking, and how fast you are going when you ask them."

"There are ways of gaining knowledge about the world that (appear, at least) to be incompatible with the current science-based paradigm of reality"

Well said Creach

Understanding is Knowledge... Understanding what exactly how things work the mechanics of such things? Isnt science all based on/from the perspective/interpretation of the person/person's involved in the thoery/experiment at the time.

"Quantum science has now confirmed that the very basic components of "reality" alter in response to the presence of an observer. In other words, "reality" knows we're here. It knows we're watching. And it appears to change because we're watching. What does this tell us about ourselves and our programming?" The thought of Understanding/knowing how things work seems like some sort of comfort settting to make one feel better that they know whats going on how things work,happen slowly taking away the mysterys this world holds.

we are killing ourselves with the limits of our own perceptions.

Does anything Hold in this world? Is there any inherent truth or only what you yourself percieve to be in your own reality. Maybe what you think is "real" isnt merely more then an illusion. I find myself doubting science and theories etc from personal experience, and more so going on what i feel - the hippish cliche

[devance]

Science is not a refutation of miracles.

90% of all scientific theorys are proved to wrong.

That because of new instruments that detect scientific data.

Unknown phenonmenon can be explained with high tech instruments.

Doesn't mean there aren't some getting into unknown that getting into the so called supernatural realm.

Alot of unknown events are mentioned in the bible so it not supposed to be hidden or unexplained even in physics.

[wandjina]

Some truly excellent responses, ...thanks so much everyone! Keep 'em coming please.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, my reason for asking these questions is as follows:

As most members are aware, I'm currently conducting post-grad research on, for want of a better term, 'psychedelic science'. More broadly, on the use of psychedelics in Australia.

At present, I'm fishing (or am I floundering? ) around for ideas, dipping my toe in the water...gauging the range of opinion.

I won't go into too much detail here, but my general stance is rooted in my scientific training - undergrad background in botany, invertebrate biology and a mish mash of other Biol. Sci. My original intention was to become a botanist, or a botanical entymologist...or an entymological botanist

Anyhoo, I loved science so much I eventually decided to study it.

I completed a BSc with Hons in History and Philosophy of Science. My 'specialty' within the field is the sociology of science, or the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK).

Theoretically, I would fall within the social constructivist 'paradigm' (nod to Kuhn, raspberry to Popper )....and am currently grappling with the apparent pitfalls of relativism. Oh to be a logical postivist! Sure would make things simpler. Or would it?

I would really appreciate a few more opinions....bring on the vitriol!

Oh, and Sikkim Rex...love to hear your opinion.

Thanks folks

[wandjina]

Oh, and I've amended some of the questions. If you've got the juice, I'd be grateful if you could please answer any that you didn't before. Muchos gracias!

1-what is science?

2-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion?

3-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany?

4-where does ethnobotany stand in relation to spirituality and personal development?

5-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and personal development?

6-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

[devance]

Oh, and I've amended some of the questions. If you've got the juice, I'd be grateful if you could please answer any that you didn't before. Muchos gracias!

1-what is science?

2-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion?

3-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany?

4-where does ethnobotany stand in relation to spirituality and personal development?

5-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and personal development?

6-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

Studying linguistics is not a impossibility or useless.

Your study on similaritys in hallucenogrnic phenomenon

archtypes even to including voices is crapping out.

[wandjina]

Studying linguistics is not a impossibility or useless.

Your study on similaritys in hallucenogrnic phenomenon

archtypes even to including voices is crapping out.

If I'm understanding you correctly, Devance, unless you can add something intelligible you can blow it out your arse

[SikkimRex]

ok... fair enough...

1-what is science?

A useful way of understanding phenomena that are outisde ourselves, and that can be reliably communicated to others, with roughly consistent results. A moment of fixity in the flux.

2-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion?

Its another type of the above as far as I am concerned. It has real value but can easily become a useless orthadoxy when its attempted to be applied to human mental or cultural affairs. Subjectivity has real value and should be respected as a type of knowledge, even a type of rigour.

3-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany?

Vitally important as a means of developing the field and investigating the raw material - plants. But it has no real use in evaluating the experience or its implications. These are cultural, emotional things, importantly personal things. Subjectivity is the tool for understanding the experience.

4-where does ethnobotany stand in relation to spirituality and personal development?

Gardening is a recognised therapeutic persuit and helps connect people (emotionally, subjectively) wit teh enviornment. But the "inside" bits and the "outside" bits are different. THerefore I do not beleive that ethnobotany can nescessarily inform spirituality, though the connection to the plants that it allows will undoubtedly affect our response to the effects of plants themselves.

6-where does science stand in relation to the truth?

It depends what kind of truth. Frankly, science isnt the truth - its just a particular version of it. But in terms of understanding phenomena, sure it can be truthful. But in terms of it understanding me - (thankfully) forget it. Its pretty clear that it is a relativistic world these days.

Truth is just the level of dogmatism with which one can hold ones view in the face of conflicting evidence.

Ok wandjina?

[devance]

Studying linguistics is not a impossibility or useless.

Your study on similaritys in hallucenogrnic phenomenon

archtypes even to including voices is crapping out.

If I'm understanding you correctly, Devance, unless you can add something intelligible you can blow it out your arse

Well thats shows me a thing or too.

The way I feel about is if you can't deal with temperture in the kitchen you shoundn't be there.

frankly i'm not at all good at it.

But a hit and run isn't going to make it either

[devance]

A well thought out thread.

Sorry I can't say the the same for my uninformed comments.

I really love science because its about reproducible events.

Theorys are a testing of and getting such.

Its mental discipline thats like putting together a puzzle.

A theory thats proved wrong for a scientist is just a putting him on track to new testing path.

All the other scientist are vastly grateful not to go down a proven failed path.

So its a mental discipline thats fun but not philosophical.

Religeous or philosophical inclinations depends on the scientist.

Ultimately science is the handmaiden of spirituality and will prove such in a reproducible way.

[teonanacatl]

yeah about those reproducable results, i would say every biological experiement ive done at uni has never really worked, the results are normally a complete write off ie there was no difference when there should have been. If they wernt a write off then something that wasnt ment to happen happened. Chemistry experiments have on the most part held true and been reproducible though. Though some of the simplest chemical experiments have not worked for some reason.

[devance]

yeah about those reproducable results, i would say every biological experiement ive done at uni has never really worked, the results are normally a complete write off ie there was no difference when there should have been. If they wernt a write off then something that wasnt ment to happen happened. Chemistry experiments have on the most part held true and been reproducible though. Though some of the simplest chemical experiments have not worked for some reason.

When i was in a genetics class i tried to but failed , and so I passed anyway for trying.

E. coli mitochrodrial dna time evaluation..

I should stuck with genetics.

At least one could run a forensic lab.

[Guest Warrioe-Sage]

-what is science? To me their attitude should that of a question-mark

-where does science stand in relation to spirituality and/or religion? They will be one. Science will be fused with all, instead of being seperated as it is today, Science will be looking into the mind of God

-where does science stand in relation to ethnobotany, 'psychonautics' and personal development? they will be one. the School of Distillation, which will distil the essences of many strange foods,plants and flowers.

-where does science stand in relation to the truth? As 'truths' or 'facts' of science are are continually having to be modified or changed we need not take them to seriously. the last word has never been said !

Edited June 15, 2006 by Warrioe-Sage

[wandjina]

Ok wandjina?

shit yeah, thanks

And Devance...thanks for you last posts, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my qs...no hard feelings eh?