6 ms·

Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science

23 points by MichaelAO 12y ago

swayvil 12y ago
If a smart guy said something that contradicted my views, I might hesitate before doubting him. He is smart, after all. Possibly even smarter than me.
hiattp 12y ago
Is it only physicists in this article because physics has reached a limit in terms of what it can measure without resorting to mathematical or philosophical abstractions? I've seen a lot of these kinds of quotes from physicists but not as many in other fields. Not a criticism, just an observation/question.
- vacri 12y ago
  My guess is that it's that these particular branches of physics and philosophy overlap considerably in the field of "what are the fundamentals of stuff". A biologist is interested in how organisms work, but is less interested in how the atoms making the organism came to be. A materials scientist is interested in how different things are tough/strong/flexible/tasty over the fundamental origin of those things. A social scientist is more interested in how humans interact with each other than how humans physically originated.
wyager 12y ago
It is worth noting that being an expert in one's field does not preclude one from saying stupid things. Lots of otherwise rational scientists can get caught up in mysticism.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Yep! Robert Aumann is a very religious person. I find that particularly ironic given Aumann's Agreement Theorem.
- swayvil 12y ago
  Don't they get points for being proven geniuses? I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they understand. It happens. Let me put it another way. You are asserting the conventional view. Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful ways.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >You are asserting the conventional view. Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are religious, I'd say believing in mysticism is the conventional view. But that argument is flawed anyway; both the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad novitatem are logical fallacies. Just because something is or is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness. What's important is whether or not something is supported by empirical evidence, which the mystical view(s) of consciousness mentioned in the article certainly are not.
    - swayvil 12y ago
      I dunno what society you live in, but in mine the scientist is held divine and our holy scriptures are handed down by Newton and Einstein. That's the convention where I live. You hear this gospel preached from one end of the internet to the other. The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but stupid. Like an insect is effective but stupid. Crude, myopic and simplistic even. And yes, darn good for building termite mounds of logically consistent explanations. This game sheds a very small circle of very bright light in the midst of a vast shadow. Let's not pretend that the shadow does not exist. And let's also not pretend that a society of thinkers governed by the scientific method is up to the task of modeling the shadow. The observer's perspective will always be infinitely subtler than any map that he can craft. The map will always be just a crude cartoon compared to the reality. Moreso with our geniuses. So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map. It is just a tiny limited thing after all. And when you put your faith in the map, or in our modern scientific mapmaking processes, you fail. The views of smart people matter. Our games of epistemological accounting, less so.
VieElm 12y ago
Isaac Newton practiced alchemy. What it comes down to is that all claims require a standard of validation and evidence, regardless of who makes them. I am often bothered by quotes bandied around by the incredulous about things Albert Einstein has said as arguments for supernatural ideas. Even if it were the case it doesn't matter if an otherwise brilliant scientist said or believed in quackery. Some people are so unfamiliar with how science works that there is a fundamental problem for them not understaning that it is not being about who said or wrote something, it's about what they said. And not everything those people said is of equal value. If some person were to discover the explanation for dark matter in the universe with substantial evidence and then later in life turn around saying fairies were also real, it would not make fairies real.
- briantakita 12y ago
  The scientific method lays out series of steps. The inspiration that leads to creating a hypothesis often involves connecting concepts and expanding awareness. Mysticism seems like a process of wonder & appreciation of Existence. The unified whole where some parts are explained and some unexplained. A journey, not a destination. The phenomena beyond the reach of current understanding. The process of expanding consciousness. If the concept of mysticism motivates people to explore Existence, then it sounds like it would have a positive impact, no? Please note the differences between esoteric mysticism (spirituality) vs exoteric religion. One involves the process of inner exploration and the other involves the process of social coercion.
Gabriel_Martin 12y ago
It's slightly sad that even when one can thrust one's mind to the fringes of a human knowledge, our brain's flaws remain; by which I mean: the human consciousness seems highly inclined to accept one's culture's common behaviours, even if that means accepting fallacies and irrationalities. Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.
- briantakita 12y ago
  > even if that means accepting fallacies and irrationalities The judgement of what is irrational is often irrational, subjective, & fraught with externalities. Love can be considered "irrational". > Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist. Our consciousness is flexible. We can have logical systems in spite of unexplained phenomena. We also have a drive understand more & expand consciousness. Some people perceive this as esoteric spirituality (or mystiscism). > by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief I'm confused. Would you prefer that we have less novelty & think with less variation?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fsloth 12y ago
That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach. Science is a process. Individual's sense of wonder is a precious thing but not science even if a scientist attempted to express it. I.e. there was nothing extra sciency in Eintein's sneeze, a cobbler does not excrement shoes nor is Usain Bolt practicing sports when he sleeps.
- briantakita 12y ago
  The scientific method is like an API. It does not matter how you make the connections as long as the scientific method is correctly done. > That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach. Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem.
  - fsloth 12y ago
    "Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem" Well, yes. But the headline was a bit more generalizing than that which I found too silly not to comment upon. Richard Feynman played the bongos - but I don't think that blurs the boundary between drumming and science.
tjbrennan 12y ago
Many of these quotes have to do with theories of consciousness. Describing consciousness is still a philosophical problem. I wouldn't call this "mysticism," just scientists trying to grapple with the mind-body problem.
- briantakita 12y ago
  Different people, different definitions. There's also some overlap between abstractions like Philosophy & "Mysticism". > …I regard consciousness as fundamental > Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. > Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. > The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Reading these quotes, it seems like they are all in an abstract, or mind, domain.
swatow 12y ago
Maybe mystic beliefs are over-represented among scientists. But all these quotes show is that some scientists have these beliefs and find their beliefs to be intimately connected with their scientific views. They are not "scientific quotes" they are "quotes by some scientists". From a Christian scientist we have I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship. -- Francis Collins
conistonwater 12y ago
There's a quote, maybe fictional, by some great physicist (Bohr?). Someone was visiting his home, and noticed that there was a horseshoe hanging above the main door, which is traditionally done for good luck. He asked Bohr, surely you don't believe in that nonsense. To which Bohr replied, it's supposed to work regardless of whether you believe in it or not.
- srtjstjsj 12y ago
  indeed https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=bohr%20horseshoe https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=bohr%20horseshoe
pain 12y ago
Poverty of language has a point, of matter between myst and sci-psy.
vinchuco 12y ago
Compare to: "Mystical Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Science and Mysticism"
jrapdx3 12y ago
This is quite a fascinating series of comments by individuals with truly deep understanding of quantum phenomena. What's remarkable is the similarity of the ideas expressed, and I'm quite sure there was no consultation among them about what they said. The transcendent theme is oneness of consciousness and matter, and the inseparability of the "parts" of nature or the universe. Not that this is an especially recent point of view. After all, it seems reminiscent of Moses' commentaries on the immanent oneness of God, of course translated to a current-day mode of expression. I assume such experience keeps recurring because it is some way embedded in human nature. BTW, Einstein also spoke of having this kind of "spiritual" experience. (Confer Einstein's conversations with Martin Buber.) Einstein also made a point of crediting Spinoza as the source of his spiritual leanings. Interestingly, Spinoza's "Ethics" (~1677) elaborates a view of the universe uncannily similar to that of the quoted scientists, and that seems unlikely to be merely coincidental.

23 points by MichaelAO 12y ago

If a smart guy said something that contradicted my views, I might hesitate before doubting him. He is smart, after all. Possibly even smarter than me.

hiattp 12y ago

Is it only physicists in this article because physics has reached a limit in terms of what it can measure without resorting to mathematical or philosophical abstractions? I've seen a lot of these kinds of quotes from physicists but not as many in other fields. Not a criticism, just an observation/question.

vacri 12y ago
My guess is that it's that these particular branches of physics and philosophy overlap considerably in the field of "what are the fundamentals of stuff". A biologist is interested in how organisms work, but is less interested in how the atoms making the organism came to be. A materials scientist is interested in how different things are tough/strong/flexible/tasty over the fundamental origin of those things. A social scientist is more interested in how humans interact with each other than how humans physically originated.

wyager 12y ago

It is worth noting that being an expert in one's field does not preclude one from saying stupid things. Lots of otherwise rational scientists can get caught up in mysticism.

MichaelGG 12y ago
Yep! Robert Aumann is a very religious person. I find that particularly ironic given Aumann's Agreement Theorem.
swayvil 12y ago
Don't they get points for being proven geniuses? I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they understand. It happens. Let me put it another way. You are asserting the conventional view. Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful ways.
- wyager 12y ago
  >You are asserting the conventional view. Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are religious, I'd say believing in mysticism is the conventional view. But that argument is flawed anyway; both the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad novitatem are logical fallacies. Just because something is or is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness. What's important is whether or not something is supported by empirical evidence, which the mystical view(s) of consciousness mentioned in the article certainly are not.
  - swayvil 12y ago
    I dunno what society you live in, but in mine the scientist is held divine and our holy scriptures are handed down by Newton and Einstein. That's the convention where I live. You hear this gospel preached from one end of the internet to the other. The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but stupid. Like an insect is effective but stupid. Crude, myopic and simplistic even. And yes, darn good for building termite mounds of logically consistent explanations. This game sheds a very small circle of very bright light in the midst of a vast shadow. Let's not pretend that the shadow does not exist. And let's also not pretend that a society of thinkers governed by the scientific method is up to the task of modeling the shadow. The observer's perspective will always be infinitely subtler than any map that he can craft. The map will always be just a crude cartoon compared to the reality. Moreso with our geniuses. So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map. It is just a tiny limited thing after all. And when you put your faith in the map, or in our modern scientific mapmaking processes, you fail. The views of smart people matter. Our games of epistemological accounting, less so.

VieElm 12y ago

Isaac Newton practiced alchemy. What it comes down to is that all claims require a standard of validation and evidence, regardless of who makes them. I am often bothered by quotes bandied around by the incredulous about things Albert Einstein has said as arguments for supernatural ideas. Even if it were the case it doesn't matter if an otherwise brilliant scientist said or believed in quackery. Some people are so unfamiliar with how science works that there is a fundamental problem for them not understaning that it is not being about who said or wrote something, it's about what they said. And not everything those people said is of equal value. If some person were to discover the explanation for dark matter in the universe with substantial evidence and then later in life turn around saying fairies were also real, it would not make fairies real.

briantakita 12y ago
The scientific method lays out series of steps. The inspiration that leads to creating a hypothesis often involves connecting concepts and expanding awareness. Mysticism seems like a process of wonder & appreciation of Existence. The unified whole where some parts are explained and some unexplained. A journey, not a destination. The phenomena beyond the reach of current understanding. The process of expanding consciousness. If the concept of mysticism motivates people to explore Existence, then it sounds like it would have a positive impact, no? Please note the differences between esoteric mysticism (spirituality) vs exoteric religion. One involves the process of inner exploration and the other involves the process of social coercion.

Gabriel_Martin 12y ago

It's slightly sad that even when one can thrust one's mind to the fringes of a human knowledge, our brain's flaws remain; by which I mean: the human consciousness seems highly inclined to accept one's culture's common behaviours, even if that means accepting fallacies and irrationalities. Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.

briantakita 12y ago
> even if that means accepting fallacies and irrationalities The judgement of what is irrational is often irrational, subjective, & fraught with externalities. Love can be considered "irrational". > Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist. Our consciousness is flexible. We can have logical systems in spite of unexplained phenomena. We also have a drive understand more & expand consciousness. Some people perceive this as esoteric spirituality (or mystiscism). > by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief I'm confused. Would you prefer that we have less novelty & think with less variation?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fsloth 12y ago

That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach. Science is a process. Individual's sense of wonder is a precious thing but not science even if a scientist attempted to express it. I.e. there was nothing extra sciency in Eintein's sneeze, a cobbler does not excrement shoes nor is Usain Bolt practicing sports when he sleeps.

briantakita 12y ago
The scientific method is like an API. It does not matter how you make the connections as long as the scientific method is correctly done. > That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach. Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem.
- fsloth 12y ago
  "Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem" Well, yes. But the headline was a bit more generalizing than that which I found too silly not to comment upon. Richard Feynman played the bongos - but I don't think that blurs the boundary between drumming and science.

tjbrennan 12y ago

Many of these quotes have to do with theories of consciousness. Describing consciousness is still a philosophical problem. I wouldn't call this "mysticism," just scientists trying to grapple with the mind-body problem.

briantakita 12y ago
Different people, different definitions. There's also some overlap between abstractions like Philosophy & "Mysticism". > …I regard consciousness as fundamental > Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. > Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. > The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Reading these quotes, it seems like they are all in an abstract, or mind, domain.

swatow 12y ago

Maybe mystic beliefs are over-represented among scientists. But all these quotes show is that some scientists have these beliefs and find their beliefs to be intimately connected with their scientific views. They are not "scientific quotes" they are "quotes by some scientists". From a Christian scientist we have I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship. -- Francis Collins

conistonwater 12y ago

There's a quote, maybe fictional, by some great physicist (Bohr?). Someone was visiting his home, and noticed that there was a horseshoe hanging above the main door, which is traditionally done for good luck. He asked Bohr, surely you don't believe in that nonsense. To which Bohr replied, it's supposed to work regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

srtjstjsj 12y ago
indeed https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=bohr%20horseshoe https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=bohr%20horseshoe

pain 12y ago

Poverty of language has a point, of matter between myst and sci-psy.

vinchuco 12y ago

Compare to: "Mystical Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Science and Mysticism"

jrapdx3 12y ago

This is quite a fascinating series of comments by individuals with truly deep understanding of quantum phenomena. What's remarkable is the similarity of the ideas expressed, and I'm quite sure there was no consultation among them about what they said. The transcendent theme is oneness of consciousness and matter, and the inseparability of the "parts" of nature or the universe. Not that this is an especially recent point of view. After all, it seems reminiscent of Moses' commentaries on the immanent oneness of God, of course translated to a current-day mode of expression. I assume such experience keeps recurring because it is some way embedded in human nature. BTW, Einstein also spoke of having this kind of "spiritual" experience. (Confer Einstein's conversations with Martin Buber.) Einstein also made a point of crediting Spinoza as the source of his spiritual leanings. Interestingly, Spinoza's "Ethics" (~1677) elaborates a view of the universe uncannily similar to that of the quoted scientists, and that seems unlikely to be merely coincidental.