The Field, and Lynn McTaggert

Science uses mathematical language to describe those aspects of reality (i.e., that can be 'seen') that can be quantified. If it can’t be seen then it cannot be quantified, and so, science cannot measure it, and so, the laws and language of mathematics do not apply. It does not follow that only that which can be measured and described according to the language of mathematics is real. Also, the conclusion that mathematical language and scientific laws have greater value than other kinds of descriptions, accounts and experiences is itself a non-scientific and non-mathematical conclusion.

Science is but one kind of account, description, and explanation regarding the nature of reality and what is considered scientific truth changes; for example, the description of reality has changed from geo-centrism to Newtonian physics to Einsteinian relativity. That there exists such a thing as progress, that each subsequent description is better than what preceded it, is itself a non-scientific conclusion. Progress is assumed in the non-scientific belief that the historical record proves the inevitability of future inventions of machines to measure what cannot now be ‘seen’.

Science is itself pervaded by assumptions, value judgments and metaphoric thinking, such as, only that which can be ‘seen’ can be known. And so, science is dedicated to the invention of methods and machines to see what previously could not be seen. The assumptions here are many: 1.) everything will one day be 'visible' to the machines invented to see that aspects of reality, 2.) whatever can be seen can be quantified and measured and 3.) subject to description in the language of mathematics.

In conclusion, it is not the case that non-scientific descriptions of reality lack consistency or intellectual rigor, are merely or strictly individual prejudices, are based solely upon feelings, or cannot be substantiated using rational discourse, logic or proofs.

In conclusion, it is not the case that non-scientific descriptions of reality lack consistency or intellectual rigor, are merely or strictly individual prejudices, are based solely upon feelings, or cannot be substantiated using rational discourse, logic or proofs.

True enough in theory, in practice, I havent "seen" much evidence of your conclusion.

Most often, "Thats just the way I see it/feel about it." or something of the like is considered an intelligent, rational, logical, response born of intellectual rigor, when in fact, it is more a defense mechanism when something doesnt hold up, in consistency, or anything of the like.

Khaos wrote:
True enough in theory, in practice, I havent "seen" much evidence of your conclusion.

Most often, "Thats just the way I see it/feel about it." or something of the like is considered an intelligent, rational, logical, response born of intellectual rigor, when in fact, it is more a defense mechanism when something doesnt hold up, in consistency, or anything of the like.

Scientists who theorize about dark matter, black holes, and string theory, are every bit as much qualified to be labeled purveyors of pseudo-science as Lynn McTaggert. These are concepts that can not be empirically observed or predictably tested. They are nonetheless well received and lauded in the halls of scientific academia.

Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Daoism each employ rigorous logical arguments, present experiential proof, and value rational exchange of ideas in a careful language that describes the nature of reality in non-mathematical language. That personal reflections of individual practioners of non-scientific worldviews seek a defense in arguments from authority (holy book, dogma, tradition, or person) or some other fallacy does not invalidate the quality of the discussion by the educated elite.

Alan wrote: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Daoism each employ rigorous logical arguments, present experiential proof, and value rational exchange of ideas in a careful language that describes the nature of reality in non-mathematical language. That personal reflections of individual practioners of non-scientific worldviews seek a defense in arguments from authority (holy book, dogma, tradition, or person) or some other fallacy does not invalidate the quality of the discussion by the educated elite.

The Tao expressed Mathematically. :laugh:

Khaos wrote:

In conclusion, it is not the case that non-scientific descriptions of reality lack consistency or intellectual rigor, are merely or strictly individual prejudices, are based solely upon feelings, or cannot be substantiated using rational discourse, logic or proofs.

True enough in theory, in practice, I havent "seen" much evidence of your conclusion.

Most often, "Thats just the way I see it/feel about it." or something of the like is considered an intelligent, rational, logical, response born of intellectual rigor, when in fact, it is more a defense mechanism when something doesnt hold up, in consistency, or anything of the like.

Well, Khaos...

"Thats just the way I see it/feel about it." is how I sum up my experience and scientific data that I have collected throughout my life concerning many things....

I see hot sauce as good... Mexican food as the best kind of ethnic food, and seafood the best type of restaurant... certain restrictions and conditions apply, lol...

I see the force as this 'thing' that I lack the terminology to describe properly, or the time to describe in enough detail for you to see exactly what i see...

You cant live my life my brother, you cannot conduct my experiments, and get my results... IM shorter than you, fatter than you, dumber than you, etc, etc...

Because when I observe my world (observation, step one in science? Oh, unless we are talking theoretical stuff, lol) I am the inconsistent factor that allows for my test to be different...

The reason you can not duplicate my results? And, the reason that makes this 'wishy-washy' stuff so tough for you 'prickly' people?

Because there is a variable, it is the observer, (me, in this case) for now... And until, until mind you, Im sure there will be a day when much more of this is explained, you can do exactly as I do, you will never duplicate my results...

In a lab, under controlled conditions, maybe someday, this will be proven to the satisfaction of all... But, some of us are happy knowing it will someday, and that today doesnt have to be that day...

I realise Im back tracking a little I found myself wondering why people think that its not clear that the IP is just a discovery tool rather than "the teaching of the temple".

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1876

"Exercises, there are no right or wrong answers. As has already been said, the point is for you to tell us your views of the various pieces and thus give a potential Master a better understanding of you, the person."

This is why we set these Exercises and use Journals. It is a way for Masters to get to know you, how you think and approach matters and generally view the world."

If the IPs purpose is to get people thinking and to explore their beliefs, and for a potential master to get an understanding of how each novice approaches the world, then it seems to me that the IP is working. And the inclusion of the field has done exactly what it was indended to do.

And Im totally with Jestor on the science for dummies thing. I spent pretty much my entire life after a negative experience at school believing (despite the evidence to the contrary!) that I didnt understand maths or science. Some of the things in The field led me to explore further and ask people for explainations and eventually getting to the point where I realised I actually understood a lot more than I thought. Had there been something more complex, or written by a scientist themselves, I may have been too overwhelmed by it to bother. But (for all her failings) I find i understand the "Science from the point of view of a writer" thing. Even if its is bad science. :lol:

Brenna wrote: This is why we set these Exercises and use Journals. It is a way for Masters to get to know you, how you think and approach matters and generally view the world."

If the IPs purpose is to get people thinking and to explore their beliefs, and for a potential master to get an understanding of how each novice approaches the world, then it seems to me that the IP is working. And the inclusion of the field has done exactly what it was indended to do.

Okay, if the purpose of the IP is to test members' thought processes and personalities, that's fine. But where's the "Intro to Jediism" bit that should (logically) come before that? And please refrain from linking me to the completely unexplanatory Doctrine page, because there are as many interpretations of that as there are Jedi, so I don't necessarily believe that page, alone, cuts the mustard.

jasonwilkins wrote:

Khaos wrote:
True enough in theory, in practice, I havent "seen" much evidence of your conclusion.

Most often, "Thats just the way I see it/feel about it." or something of the like is considered an intelligent, rational, logical, response born of intellectual rigor, when in fact, it is more a defense mechanism when something doesnt hold up, in consistency, or anything of the like.

Scientists who theorize about dark matter, black holes, and string theory, are every bit as much qualified to be labeled purveyors of pseudo-science as Lynn McTaggert. These are concepts that can not be empirically observed or predictably tested. They are nonetheless well received and lauded in the halls of scientific academia.

Actually, you can empirically observe all of these things. We know how to test them, too, but no one yet has the facilities.


I think though, I've said my piece. If the Field is taken off the IP, well and good. If not, then I will simply do as many have suggested and take my posts in this thread for my journal entries. This thread was not started to try and begin a crusade against the IP, though it seems that it has almost taken on that life.

I won't say that the IP couldn't be better- it could- but it isn't really my decision, and since I've already given my input, I will simply say that if the Council decides to change anything, I am more than happy to help.

Until then, I think I'm done with this discussion. The two groups- those who believe that the force should be able to be measured empirically and those who think it is merely spiritual- will not agree. We can learn from each other, yes... but this is not really a constructive discussion anymore, at least not for me. Perhaps others are still getting something out of it, but I feel we started going in circles three, four pages ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

There are quite a few different angles to take to replace that current content, this sort of explains my approach (perhaps not all the details)... but I'm not sure yet if there is a vid/audio/doc file anywhere suitable.... its more of a method then a lesson, and each person will pitch into the content and find themselves navigating perspective from different points of view compared to others, and indeed compared to themselves through time
:S