Discussion - Does it always help ?

[granadina]

Einstein concluded - The only source of knowledge is experience .

 

If a common experience is not shared by people , is it worth trying to dig more and more

for some elusive bit of truth ?

[mooeypoo]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. Einstein believed in experimentation, which strikes me as what he meant with this sentence.

 

Part of the scientific method is that experiments and 'knowledge' in physics (new studies, etc) need to be repeatable. That means that they ARE shared with other people, otherwise they're considered a single-event thing which might be due to some error or fluke.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

[granadina]

Einstein also said -

 

'What is IMPENETRABLE to us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull senses can grasp only in their most primitive forms .'

 

 

Trying to convince someone that their precious ' mystical experience ' is a result of neuropathology , may never work unless they are prone to scientific way of looking at things .

 

One set of experiences predispose a person to embrace ' beliefs ' that may fail to elicit any interest or curiosity in someone else .

 

May be an amicable ground is a prerequisite for any discussion to be fruitful .

[mooeypoo]

Einstein also said -

 

'What is IMPENETRABLE to us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull senses can grasp only in their most primitive forms .'

 

First off, Einstein said a lot of things. We don't follow what Einstein said, we followed the research he published, the one that has ample evidence and experimentation and proof. "God doesn't play dice with the universe" is a cool saying, but no one considers it scientific, and scientists are not in the habit of following a witty saying just because a published, famous and smart scientist uttered it.

 

Not to mention that most of these quotes should come in context. The "playing dice with the universe" one, for instance, is used quite often to hint that Einstein was religious, when the exact opposite seems to be the case if you look at his entire life and his entire other quotes and actions. A person said something does not equal science.

 

Trying to convince someone that their precious ' mystical experience ' is a result of neuropathology , may never work unless they are prone to scientific way of looking at things .

 

Yes. It's called "The Scientific Method", and it is a whole methodology on exactly how to approach these type of questions in a manner that would result in consistently describing phenomena.

 

I don't quite understand the problem.

One set of experiences predispose a person to embrace ' beliefs ' that may fail to elicit any interest or curiosity in someone else .

 

May be an amicable ground is a prerequisite for any discussion to be fruitful .

 

I don't understand your point, I'm sorry.

 

Scientists are interested in describing reality, not crushing people's inner belief systems. The fact that sometimes reality does that automatically is irrelevant. If you believe in all your heart that a ball will fly upwards to the moon if you drop it off a tall building, it's your choice. That doesn't mean this is what actually happens in reality. The way to understand and explain what ACTUALLY happens is by testing things as objectively as possible, devising a hypothesis, an experiment, a methodology of mathematics and predictions, and to make it consistently repeatable with the same results.

 

That makes it universal, regardless of personal beliefs.

 

That's what the scientific method is FOR.

[PeterJ]

 

Trying to convince someone that their precious ' mystical experience ' is a result of neuropathology , may never work unless they are prone to scientific way of looking at things .

 

Erm. Since when did science become able to prove that 'mystical experience' is a result of neoropathology? This claim is not even slightly scientific. It is pseudo-scientific hand-waiving. I see no scientific definition for 'mystical experience', and even the word 'experience' causes endless trouble. The simple fact is that 'science' as you are defining it is incapable of establishing the existence of experience. The idea that it has anything worthwhile to say about this or that kind of experience is daft. You're speaking on behalf of your own view, not that of science, and so your put-down misses the mark. This sort of wild stuff does science no favours. It is your view and that is all. Fair enough.