But first, feel.
There is a political and a statistical aspect to science that is very interesting to me, especially because it ain’t completely true, yet it is pretty false too. The argument of authority and the correlation implying causation problematics.
The first one, the political one, is the argument of authority which is difficult to tackel in a society where the media hold the truth as a constant shifting thing to sell headlines. You’ll read this new study and this new discovery from this important scientist and of course there’s a bunch of illusion around that. Being known in a field mostly mean you’re good at the inner politics of a university department, the student become the teacher is the classical move you’ll see in any univeristy.
Suffice it to say that it is not because someone is known within a field that he has the truth about that field, nor is it because most people held something to be true that it is true.
The fact that many people believe in astrology isn’t what makes it interesting nor the fact that most astrophysisict do not care about it make it irrelevant. The problematic of astrology is somewhere else.
Same goes with the correlation problematics. The fact that emergency room are or aren’t busier during full moon is irrelevant, it doesn’t explain what is going on with the moon (and if the full moon is related to the moon at all (I propose it’s related to the sun but we’ll get back to that)).
Well, that’s the thing, it isn’t irrelevant, if behaviours changes with the moon cycles, it could point out that there is something to it, or maybe it’s just the placebo effect of believing it does. For further thought on this, we recommend Hume’s treatise on human (c’est quoi en anglais?)
And same goes for the authority argument, having spent your life studying something doesn’t make you right, but please do participate in the debate!
So yeah, authority and correlation are relevant to sciences but aren’t what makes science interesting.
Science is first and foremost a way to sense things.
Let’s consider the Galileo debate a minute. He was asking the church representatives to look through a telescope which they refused because thruth is in texts.
Again, the authority argument. The book says so, which was writtent by experts, i.e. prophets under God’s guidance.
Now, Galileo wasn’t arguing that those who wrote the bible weren’t prophets inspired by God, but why couldn’t he be a prophet inspired by God, looking at his creation through the tools available in God’s creation, isn’t that paying an hommage to God?
Anyhow, Galileo’s argument wasn’t in regards to what his geist’s dogma was but in regards to simply observing the universe.
And that’s what I did, I looked at the stars and asked myself a simple question, if they are alive, because I’m a Star Trek fan, you know, I don’t define life as carbon-based, how could they be living.
Meditating, feeling, in this state, I started feeling their beings, and the answer came: they are; they may not have legs and arms, and they don’t say « hi, how do you do ? » But they are very much aware, alive and through what I’ll try later to define as « being », they connect more than communicate, with other beings.
In other words, through your state of being, you can be with them too.
But they’ll affect you in many other ways too. A bit like Jesus’ aura was said to heal just by being in his presence, their auras extend.
But it is what I feel, I don’t presume to know what you’d feel, but let me point out two main things. There’s the counter argument are saying that we would tools to measure, not our senses, and then there’s the, what I call, seen it done it counter argument which means here someone who thinks that because they meditate 20 mins a day for a month they should have the sensitivity of a lifelong yogi.
For the tools who measure, I’d simply point us that this is a fallacy, we build the tools with our senses as tools to extend what our senses couldn’t see, but we still look with our eyes through the microscope and telescope and be it a measurement of something we cannot see, like let’s say radiowaves, we still had to see or hear or taste or smell something that brought us to considering measuring something outside of our sense range and bringing it down to that.
I’m not against idealism but for me science is essentialy a feeling thing, which doesn’t mean a materlistic thing which is only a way of definying the reality we sense.
And for the not yet being a yogi position, I’m not suggesting you’ll never be able to feel anything if you’re not sensitive, but rather saying that it’s not because you can’t feel it that it doesn’t exist, nor that those who claim to sense it are lying or deluded; you’re not the alpha omega of what can be experienced in the universe dude!
Feel the stars by Margony on DeviantArt