3 ms·
Most of those thousands of years of work are not even remotely based on the scientific method. Such work is of historical relevance, and not much else.
by wyager 11y ago
Most of those thousands of years of work are not even remotely based on the scientific method. Such work is of historical relevance, and not much else.
- jmagoon 11y agoThis statement is, to me, demonstrative of a lack of understanding of the source material and an unwillingness to engage with 'new' ideas purely out of bias. The scientific method is a way of approaching reality that has lead to extremely useful discoveries--but, in my opinion, the hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved via the scientific method because consciousness, the experience of qualia, is not externally observable. Nagarjuna and Candrakirti were both experts in the observation of qualia, and their philosophies stem from that expertise. It's possible to even call their philosophical method 'scientific' if that is the materialist's sole judgement of the value of an idea.
- wyager 11y ago> the hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved via the scientific method Then why are you arguing about the choices of a nominally scientific institution? If you want to practice mysticism, you're free to do so, but it's strange to argue that academic institutions (which are, ideally, based in fact) should do the same. > consciousness, the experience of qualia, is not externally observable. Unless you believe in otherworldly mystical forces producing consciousness, we have neuroscience. There's no reason, in principle, that the behavior of the brain should not be entirely observable.