How should scientists approach their research while being truth oriented

[Staples]

Leo criticises scientists and rationalists a lot. 

I'm taking a course in psychology with a focus on lab work right now and am curious how I can approach my work and present my results in the best possible way. Boiling down what I'm asking, I'd like to know how we can bring together the scientific method and the "enlightened" approach to research.

How can we bring together statistically driven data and subjective, immeasurable experience?

[aurum]

15 minutes ago, Staples said:

Boiling down what I'm asking, I'd like to know how we can bring together the scientific method and the "enlightened" approach to research

Use the scientific method to question everything about your world. That's what it is supposed to be about: free, honest inquiry.

Of course if you actually want to experience God, you'll have to go a step further and become what you're seeking. And that won't happen with a bunch of statistics.

It's great that many people seemingly want to blend the rational and the spiritual these days. It's definitely a step in the right direction. But every tool has its limit, and rationality is no different.

[Faceless]

Isn’t thought what is used in research, investigation, inquiry, and so on. 

So to know the limits of thought is a necessity. If thought doesn’t run true then ??‍♂️

Edited January 28, 2018 by Faceless

[Thanatos13]

The more you delve into science the more you can see through spirituality. There is a reasons spirituality deflects criticism against it as mind or ego, and that’s not coincidence.

[jwkspeck]

Epistemology, skepticism and understanding paradigms is huge.

Rationalist paradigms are different from spiritual paradigms, but every perspective is valid.

Don't forget all language is dualistic, it's all relative. And also don't forget that a lot of what you'll be learning might not be empirical, so continue your own contemplation to find reconciliation. The hand pointing to truth is only one part of Truth.

[Thanatos13]

5 minutes ago, jwkspeck said:

Epistemology, skepticism and understanding paradigms is huge.

Rationalist paradigms are different from spiritual paradigms, but every perspective is valid.

Don't forget all language is dualistic, it's all relative. And also don't forget that a lot of what you'll be learning might not be empirical, so continue your own contemplation to find reconciliation. The hand pointing to truth is only one part of Truth.

The assumption that all perspectives are valid is a false statement. You won’t get very far in “truth” if you think that. There is a reason science is gaining ground while spirituality struggles. 

While language MIGHT be relative, what its describing is not. 

You are making a mistake by believing Leo’s video about skepticism. 

[jwkspeck]

Note I'm not saying every perspective understands truth. I'm saying they're valid, they are part of the big picture.

I'm curious why you think science and spirituality are competing and spirituality is struggling.

I'd like to read your explanation of why they would be invalid, and I'm also interested in why you think I'm wrong in "believing" Leo's video.

Do you think you can get to absolute truth through thought?

[Leo Gura]

@Staples Here are a few practical applications of epistemology to scienctific research:

• Question all your assumptions
• Don't confuse your models for the territory
• Be much more openminded
• Learn to admit "I don't know" when that is the case
• Study epistemology
• Study paradigms
• Study the history of epistemic blunders within science
• Be more holistic and synthetic vs analytical
• Learn to tap into your intuition vs overthinking your problems
• Take psychedelics and contemplate your research from that state of infinite mind
• Etc.

[sarapr]

@Leo Gura Is it even possible to do science for the sake of getting truth?

All science is done using language and language is in the way of getting to truth so science can only go so far right?

[Faceless]

@sarapr That’s right friend. How can Thought being conditioned “fragmented” capture truth “the whole” not conditioned. 

If this is realized the application of science does tend to run true in the sense as not bias and so on. This seeing the limits of thought brings about a much more orderly way of thinking. 

Investigate limitations of thought, nature and process of thought. 

Also truth, reality, actuality. 

Priceless!!!!

These are great ways to becomes aware of thought and it’s limits . ?

Edited January 28, 2018 by Faceless

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, sarapr said:

@Leo Gura Is it even possible to do science for the sake of getting truth?

All science is done using language and language is in the way of getting to truth so science can only go so far right?

The job of science is to grasp relative truths, not the Absolute.

So as long as you keep that in mind, you can do good science.

[Staples]

@Leo Gura What exactly do you mean by relative truth? Relative to what?

[Faceless]

@Staples

I think maybe he was referring to correct information. As far as knowledge and so on. There’s correct and incorrect information. All information within the structure of thought is relative. 

But I couldn’t be sure that’s what he meant. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Faceless

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Staples said:

@Leo Gura What exactly do you mean by relative truth? Relative to what?

There is Absolute truth and relative truth.

Absolute truth you've never encountered even once in your life (if you had, you'd know).

And relative truth is the domain of all other human knowledge. All science is relative truth. Physics is relative truth. That you were born and that you will die is relative truth. Etc.

It's relative because all of reality is absolutely relative. A truth can only exist relative to some arbitrary standard which you designate. Without any standards, there is nothing true. Which is Absolute Truth -- utter groundlessness. This is difficult to understand unless you have a direct consciousness of the Absolute.

Relative truth (like science) is useful stuff. It's important and necessary for survival. But just keep in mind that's not ultimately true. It's true only relative to your survival and present state of consciousness. Once your present state of consciousness is altered (like if you die), all science and other relative truths fly out the window. They become untrue because all along they were predicated upon you being alive as a human being.

Yeah... this is heavy heavy stuff.

Consider this: if you were an ant, which truths of yours would survive? Any?

[SOUL]

Science is used to learn about the natural world, spirituality is used to learn about our own nature, they aren't contradictory, they can be complementary. It isn't quite as clear cut as science is objective and spirituality is subjective since we are creatures with both objective and subjective experience, our experience is holistic.

Truth is relative to what is being measured compared to the standard used, some people believe the subjective as the absolute truth and dismiss the objective while others see it inverted to that. Recognizing how our life experience encompasses the whole can allow us to grow past being locked in a limited belief paradigm.

Edited January 30, 2018 by SOUL

[Leo Gura]

The biggest irony is that science is subjective whereas spirituality is objective.

[SOUL]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The biggest irony is that science is subjective whereas spirituality is objective.

Explain this statement if you will.

Edit:

Ah, I see now that you explained this in another reply.

The natural world behaves the way it does objectively, we don't have to believe in gravity for us to be effected by it's forces. Yes, our experience of gravity is subjectively perceived but it doesn't make the natural world behave subjectively, we don't fly away because we subjectively perceive we can fly.

Our spiritual or mystical experience is our own, it's our subjective perception and what one calls "truth" another calls 'false'. If someone believes that you go to hell if your don't submit to their belief system it isn't any more truth than them being subject to a belief of the infinite absolute or a tribal shaman's belief in animism.

Sure, quite often people believe their own subjective experience faithfully in such a way they believe it to be the "absolute truth". That's what makes it so "absolute" for them in their own experience but no matter how much one believes in their truth of hell or reincarnate or nothingness, they can't make it truth for anyone else.

Yet, well all fall down even if we don't believe it.

Edited January 30, 2018 by SOUL

[Faceless]

I observe on a daily basis subjectivity in both the psychological field “modern day spirituality” and the scientific field. 

The capacity to sustain a true, rational, logical line of “ trueness” is dependent of the very mechanism used by the observer which is thought. 

If we do not understand this mechanism of thought it will not run crooked and be disorderly. Only when there is order in thought can one be truly objective. 

[SOUL]

@Faceless Although, order of thought is subjectively perceived.

What I think you mean is logically consistent. Such as if someone thinks that violence is unhealthy and say that they live a healthy life but they also spank their children, this is logically inconsistent or lacking this order you speak of, it's "trueness"

Their idea of violence is unhealthy isn't really a "truth" for them because they don't live 'true' to it Their belief that they live a healthy life is a subjective delusion in this scenario because their genuine actions contradict their belief regardless of the rationalization.

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, SOUL said:

What I think you mean is logically consistent. Such as if someone thinks that violence is unhealthy and say that they live a healthy life but they also spank their children, this is logically inconsistent or lacking this order you speak of, it's "trueness"

I agree..that’s the contradicting nature of thought. Without a seeing understanding of the whole of thought “the self “ thought is selective according to its preferences, desires, and so on. This type of thinking is influenced by personal bias and so on. 

 

5 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Their idea of violence is unhealthy isn't really a "truth" for them because they don't live 'true' to it Their belief that they live a healthy life is a subjective delusion in this scenario because their genuine actions contradict their belief regardless of the rationalization.

 I agree again.. Through this compulsion to rationalize in the attempt to validate ones conclusions thought becomes corrupt. In seeing the truth that thought is limited by the thinker and there agenda makes for a true line of thought. As in not being caught in the deception of ignorance of that fact that thought seeks security and by doing so is unable to be objective.