3 ms·
An unwelcome comparison: For certain people you can’t just teach Buddhist meditation using Buddhist terminology and context because that’s “woo”. However if you
by keybored 3y ago
An unwelcome comparison: For certain people you can’t just teach Buddhist meditation using Buddhist terminology and context because that’s “woo”. However if you dress it up in vaguely “neuroscience” terms then it’s fine. And preferably you have some scientific studies at hand to prove that meditation has an effect. (Although no one demands biomechanic studies from their intro tennis teacher.)
Compare with all the moaning and complaining that comes from some people when you talk about functional programming and how it might relate to computer science.[1] Then you might have a better chance inventing ad hoc words for basics like “map” (preferably very prosey) and claiming that Martin Fowler invented it.
[1] This goes triply for anything having to do with proofs, at least proof software associated with FP.
- richk449 3y agoInteresting point. One difference: It is easy to tell if a tennis instructor is giving “good” instruction, where good means instructions that help you be a better tennis player. You just look at their students. If you want to know if they give good fundamentals for long term growth, you look at their much older students. How do you know if a meditation teacher is giving good instructions? Seems much harder to me. It is interesting that many of the traditional religions have hard to quantify benefits. Buddhism offers a personal inward help, and the abrahamic religions often benefit communities.