The Field, and Lynn McTaggert

How does it make it difficult?

When you have fact and build a spiritual framework around it, and help people gain spiritual health, it can be a powerful thing indeed.

I am not suggesting the entire IP be secularized, and stripped of any spirituality or philosophy. I simply think all of that should not be couched as science, as Lynn McTaggert does.

I could likely rewrite the whole thing to everyone's satisfaction, were i more experienced here. But that is some ways down the road, all i can do is make suggestions.

Ty wrote: When you have fact and build a spiritual framework around it, and help people gain spiritual health, it can be a powerful thing indeed.

Do you have any proof of that statement? That almost sounds like speculation and assumption based on personal opinion being distributed as truth. But that is just the impression it gave me.

Science and Spirituality are good things and each has their own place. They complement each other but I doubt they work well in place of each other and usually don’t work well together.

Questions... Is it having faith if you need proof? If you need proof, are you actively believing in something or have you just had it proved to you?

There is no proven unifying theory that can verify the existence of the Force or group the universe in a singular equation. Even our best working models are flawed. But, we have faith in our endeavors and believe that we will one day solve the riddle. So we search.

It's part of the structure of quite a few religions and philosophies. I'm sure you've heard the idea that there is a grain of truth in every legend?

You said fact, not truth!

There is a difference.

I do not know one single religion built around any scientific fact. I would love to find one because it would be uniquely original and completely interesting to witness. I have even looked into Scientology... nothing.

Fact and truth are mostly the same thing. Too many problems are caused by people who think that spiritual visions, talking with god, miracles or other supernatural phenomena are outside of logic's grasp. Philosophers of ancient times examined everything under the sun, finding facts in some cases, and what you could call truths in others. The way most people use truth seems to indicate a best guess, and somehing not necessarily verifiable. Fact is an objective, verifiable truth. So they did find both.

Some facts are about human nature. For instance, most people just want to live their lives as they like to live them, mostly unhindered but supported by the convenience of a society and the benefits the social contract offers.
Confucius based quite a few teachings off of this basic knowledge of human nature.

In Judaism, they knew what was needed for a healthy marriage, and so enshrined the concept of Eschet chayil into the interplay between man and woman.
These sorts of things are examples of truths, or facts about human life, that we knew long ago and integrated into our superstitions, our belief systems, and our concepts of divinity.
Now we have different kinds of truths, different kinds of facts - ones that are scientifically verifiable. Is it not a powerful thing to be able to say that you know how the world works, and to be able to find the wonder in it?
How can you see something like the video on cosmic perspective I linked, and not get a chill down your spine? There is beauty and a sense of our own small, wonderful place in the universe in science. There is poetry, and there is love. You can find personal revelation for how you wish to live your life elsewhere, but insofar as we know how the world works, should we not celebrate it? Should we not love the world around us and find ourselves in awe of the majesty of nature?

That sort of thing has fueled religions for centuries. It's about time it was drawn from a source other than superstition.

A fact (derived from the Latin factum) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal.

The commonly understood opposite of truth is falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also take on a logical, factual, or ethical meaning. The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy and religion. Many human activities depend upon the concept, which is assumed rather than a subject of discussion, including science, law, and everyday life.

Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars, philosophers, and theologians. Language and words are a means by which humans convey information to one another and the method used to determine what is a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth: what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that faith-based and empirically based knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective or objective, relative or absolute.

In short, fact is not debatable. Truth can be subject to interpretation.

Fact:
Electron mobility versus temperature for different doping levels.
1. High purity Si (Nd< 10-12 cm-3); time-of-flight technique (Canali et al. [1973])
2. High purity Si (Nd< 4•10-13 cm-3): photo-Hall effect (Norton et al. [1973])
3. Nd= 1.75•1016 cm-3; Na = 1.48•1015 cm-3; Hall effect (Morin and Maita [1954]).
4. Nd= 1.3•1017 cm-3; Na = 2.2•1015 cm-3; Hall effect (Morin and Maita [1954]).

Truth:

Nick P
Sorry, there is no such thing. Absolute truth presupposes that it is the same for everyone. Each persons perception of the information will be different. Semantics says that nothing can be described sufficiently accurately for it to be unequivocable apparent to all other individuals what is being described.
Edit
Everything said above could be untrue in certain circumstances. I've seen green pooh, if time stops none of us die, if the computer fails you won't get the 2 points, the Earth is not round it's an oblate spheroid. I could go on but at least think about it.

I think we're straying a bit far from the topic at hand, here.

What do you feel should be in the IP, if you were able to design it from scratch?

Ty wrote: Fact and truth are mostly the same thing.

That's not too scientific, would you say?

So, can I say McTaggart is mostly fact? Or at least she speaks truthfully, as she believes her own words?

Lol... Words are fun...

Wes, I can't tell by your post if you are being pissy, so throw some smiles in there...

Cause I know you are as goofy and lighthearted as me...

And, thats a truthful fact!

All of this is besides the point. If you believe in the Force, then you believe science may eventually manage to prove its existence. Those religious groups which oppose the study of our world/universe because they do not like the answers are not true believers.

As to the meaning of "truth", it has become synonymous with "observational bias". Which means that whatever anyone thinks they see is true. In other words: meaningless.

After all, bad journalists don't usually get a column in the Times.

Only bad journalists work for the news industry, and when it comes to Murdoch industries, they're not just bad, they're also criminals.

ren wrote: If you believe in the Force, then you believe science may eventually manage to prove its existence

I really don't though... that's the thing, I think the Force is just bigger than anything we're ever going to achieve in science. I'm from a secular background and I believe physical laws to be manifestations of the Force... so whilst we'll probably move closer to understanding aspects of the Force, I think any attempt to prove it using a scientific basis is doomed to fail.

Perhaps another reason I'm not keen on having McTaggert's book in the IP; for me it's against the spirit of religion. Religion is about faith, not proof.