|
Edited on Sat Apr-12-08 06:35 PM by fiziwig
That is how science works. When I meditate, however, I am NOT doing science. Nor do I believe that science is the only thing to "do". Nor do I subscribe to the (unproven) assumption that science is the only path to knowledge. It is, of course, a tautology (and hence, essentially meaningless) that science is the only path to "scientific knowledge".
Ultimately, the only "proof" of anything is either personal experience or by accepting anecdotal evidence. If I work through the steps a Euclidean proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, then, by working those steps, and understanding each of them, I experience the truth of the theorem. If I do not understand the steps of the proof then I am not able to experience the truth of the theorem first hand, but I am told (anecdotal) that other mathematicians do understand the proof and are capable of experiencing the truth of the theorem. So I accept on faith that this anecdotal report is true.
I have never, personally, experienced the reality of the mass of the electron, but I accept, on faith, anecdotal stories from others who claim to have experienced, first hand, the derivation of the mass of the electron. These people have no reason to deceive me, so I accept their claims at face value, but it is still nothing more than faith on my part, and anecdotal tales to everyone in the world who has not personally conducted, and understood the import of the measurements in question.
If the large majority of scientists who claim personal experience agree on what they have experienced in their measurements and experiments, then I have a good reason to trust them, and accept what they tell me on faith.
If the large majority of experienced meditators who claim personal experience agree on what they have experienced in their meditations, then I have a good reason to trust them, and accept what they tell me on faith.
The two cases are not materially different. One scientist can replicate the observations of any other scientist. One experienced meditator can replicate the observations of any other experienced meditator. The only difference is that the scientist claims some kind of special status which he refuses to grant to the experienced meditator, even though that claim to special status cannot be justified in any objective, rational way, other than recourse to the meaningless argument that "As a scientist I declare that I will accept only scientific data" and "only science is scientific", therefore only my rules are valid and your rules are spurious.
But there is nothing that makes the scientist's anecdote more reliable than the meditator's anecdote. You might claim that science has the power to prove its claims to someone else, but this is not true. Either that someone else will experience the truth of what is proven for themselves, or they will accept on faith what they are told that science has "proven". Science is only a set of instructions for proving something to yourself. Likewise, meditation training is a set of instructions for proving something to yourself.
In the end, however, all proof is by personal experience. Anything other than that is pure faith. Unless you are a truly exceptional person (i.e., and experimental physicist), you accept on faith that neutrons exist. No has ever proven it to you. They have only told you it is true and you have taken what they said on faith.
|