Korean Job Discussion Forums

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

Real science that's grounded in materialism is not likely to accept anything that exists that is not materially constituted. Underlying philosophy is important if not essential for realizing a more complete scientific understanding of reality in all its dimensions, and new paradigms and methods may be required to ascertain higher knowledge.

Other comments on that article refer to noted physicists and other scientists who evidently have a broader view of science and take the study of past-life remembrances seriously...

The skeptics here don’t seem to understand what true skepticism is. Ian Stevenson, and I presume Jim Tucker, gathered a lot of data in as careful a manner as they could. I have not seen or heard of serious criticism of their methods. The best explanation for that data happens to be reincarnation, but Stevenson has always been open to other explanations, including delusion and fraud. The tone of the skepticism I have seen in these comments seems to suggest that the skeptics already know the answer to something without data or hypothesis to test—the opposite of the scientific method. Just because it is a hard question, and the methods may not be definitive, does not mean it should not be approached. I guess the skeptics here know more than Carl Sagan, who said, “[t]here are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study,” the third of which was “that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.” Carl Sagan-1996

http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation

Stain · Joined: 08 Jan 2014

Plain Meaning · Joined: 18 Oct 2014

Otus · Joined: 09 Feb 2006

Ernst Mach is another good example of a 'real' Scientist. He used the 'falsifiability principle' to show that the Newtonian concept of space was metaphysical nonsense.

Smithington · Joined: 14 Dec 2011

Died By Bear · Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:08 pm Post subject:

Everything has to turn into an argument.

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

Newton was a real scientist. The fact that some of his predictions (e.g., the orbit of Mercury) could be proven false by observations led to refinement and eventual replacement of his theory by Relativity.

Although Albert Einstein was somewhat influenced by Ernst Mach's criticism of Newton's position on space and time, he eventually realized that (atheist) Ernst was mainly opposed to Newton's (theistic) philosophy, and Einstein concluded that his physical criticism was not sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Although materialists use falsifiability to discredit any form of Creationism, I think that Scientific Materialism has proven incapable of describing all aspects of life and should be replaced by a more inclusive underlying philosophy.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/philosophy/scientific-materialism.php

I also think that predictions can be made about reincarnation cases (or even UFO aliens). Obviously, a high percentage of them can be explained by fraud or other known factors, but if a statistically significant percentage of cases can not be explained by known natural causes, then reincarnation may eventually be accepted as a paradigm-changing theory/axiomatic law of nature.

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

Otus · Joined: 09 Feb 2006

Whereas Newton thought his notions of space and time had some theological basis, Leibniz explicitly opposed it stating at beginning of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence that it led to atheism.

Mach perhaps came at it from a different direction, calling the Newtonian concepts metaphysical nonsense for reasons that ironically Leibniz would most likely be in agreement with.

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

He might be relatively right but absolutely wrong (due to imperfect senses.)

Mach's positivism led him to reject as physical theory anything (e.g., atomic theory) that was not based entirely on directly observable phenomena.

Because human senses are limited - even when amplified by the most sophisticated instruments available - we can never directly perceive the smallest sub-atomic particles (what to speak of the minute spirit-soul, which is described in Vedic writings as having the dimension of one-ten-thousandth the tip of a hair/theoretical point...)

In ancient Vedic analytical philosophy, there was an atomic theory of sorts based on inference...

Paramanu -- the smallest particle of earth, water, fire, and air. In vaisesika the smallest indivisible part of matter is called paramanu, or atom. This is not to be confused with the modern scientific term atom because an atom as described in nuclear physics is itself composed of many parts. The vaisesika usage of the word is different. It simply refers to the most minute indivisible state of matter. The atoms of earth, water, fire, and air are eternal because an atom is partless and cannot be produced or destroyed. The common elements of earth, water, fire, and air, however, are noneternal because they are produced by combinations of atoms and therefore can disintegrate or change. The existence of atoms is proved by inference -- not by perception -- in the following way. All the composite objects of the world are made up of parts. In separating the parts of a composite object, one passes from the larger to the smaller, and then from the smaller to the smallest part. But when one comes to the smallest part that cannot be further divided in any way, then the process of separation has to stop. That indivisible and minutest part in vaisesika is called the atom.

If one does not accept the concept of indivisibility, then he will commit the fallacy of infinite regression. Because it has no parts, the atom cannot be said to be produced, and it cannot be destroyed because destruction means to break a thing down into its parts, and in an atom there are no parts. Atoms, therefore, can be neither produced nor destroyed; they are eternal...
http://www.suhotraswami.net/library/The_six_systems_of_Vedic_philosophy.pdf

Otus · Joined: 09 Feb 2006

Sounds like a monad except a monad cannot be a particle. A particle or any physical entity presupposes divisibility.

The Cosmic Hum · Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

Actually, it seems to be completely logical. Perhaps the different usage of the term "atom" is what's throwing you off...

Vedic knowledge purports to be handed down from God - if He's lying, there's not much hope...

Smithington · Joined: 14 Dec 2011

RTeacher, all I'm hearing is moral musings, poetry, religion, and a whole lot of "what if's". The world is full of possibilities. But this isn't the dark ages, we demand proof for spectacular claims. And I'm not seeing any proof of anything. Add to that the fact that no supernatural event has ever been proven. Given that fact, the only reasonable default position is a hard agnosticism.

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

Higher (than material) truth is available to sincere seekers - whether they be scientists, philosophers, artists, poets, or carpenters. In the final analysis, empirical evidence is clearly over-rated in the search for Absolute Truth.

There's a nice section on reincarnation in this online book...
http://www.bbt.se/Manuals/EN%20ID%20text%20to%20p30%20CR%20blank.pdf