Formscapes vs. Professor Dave drama

[undeather]

52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Rigor itself is a bias and will lead you to getting stuck.

As I said, the notion of rigor is relative and subjective. So whatever you consider rigor to be, your mind will use that to lock you into a paradigm. Rigor is not the same thing as truth. The only proper priority must be truth, not anything else. And even that is a bias. If you are not aware of these biases you will fall into self-deception. As every scientist on this planet has done.

I think what you are failing to understand is that rigor and exactitude is what makes the scientific process much more resistent to bias and discrepancies. It litearlly leads you closer to relative truths. Through applying the principle of scientific rigor, data derived through experiments becomes clearer, more reliable, more consistent and more coherent. This is why shitty experiments with bad study design (=low amount of scientific rigor) do not replicate, while better ones do. The replication crisis was YOUR point against science just earlier and now you are dismissing the one principle that has shown to significantly alter the quality of experiemnts. I mean, just take a look at the world - better science just works better. 

This is not about dogma in science, which is obviously there. This is not about absolute truth, God or enlightenment. We are talking about the relative domain and a particular niche thereof. Science will always do better if an adquate amount of rigor is added to the mix. If science isn’t rigorous, it’s reckless

If you think this is not the case, please just provide ONE example.

Edited February 2 by undeather

[Yousif]

19 minutes ago, undeather said:

I think what you are failing to understand is that rigor and exactitude is what makes the scientific process much more resistent to bias and discrepancies. It litearlly leads you closer to relative truths. Through applying the principle of scientific rigor, data derived through experiments becomes clearer, more reliable, more consistent and more coherent. This is why shitty experiments with bad study design (=low amount of scientific rigor) do not replicate, while better ones do. The replication crisis was YOUR point against science just earlier and now you are dismissing the one principle that has shown to significantly alter the quality of experiemnts. I mean, just take a look at the world - better science just works better. 

This is not about dogma in science, which is obviously there. This is not about absolute truth, God or enlightenment. We are talking about the relative domain and a particular niche thereof. Science will always do better if an adquate amount of rigor is added to the mix. If science isn’t rigorous, it’s reckless

If you think this is not the case, please just provide ONE example.

You’re refusing to understand that enlightenment isn’t just about god realization or truth, it’s a way of seeing into the truth of anything and everything, the observer and the thing being observed are one and the same, if you can acknowledge that then science will approve of psychedelics, subjective experiences which will take science to a whole different level if accepted because then you’re actually looking at things as they are.

 

you’re not understanding that if science uses the bigger picture of the puzzle ( absolute truth ) relative truths or matters will be so much easier and much more efficient to put together ( the pieces of the puzzle or relative truths)

 

life is mystical, to have a true vision of the true state of affairs requires mystical visions, it’s not just about god, you’ll have a true look at the state of science, politics, physicality, society, health, and everything else. 
 

this is not just philosophy or theory, it’s the real deal.

[zurew]

I don't know why you guys always need to pivot to enlightenment and awakening as if that would respond to the problem that is being presented. None of those long paragraphs about awakening , the Absolute or enlightenment directly engages with any of the point that being presented and none of them contradicts the idea of rigor either.

[undeather]

29 minutes ago, Yousif said:

You’re refusing to understand that enlightenment isn’t just about god realization or truth, it’s a way of seeing into the truth of anything and everything, the observer and the thing being observed are one and the same, if you can acknowledge that then science will approve of psychedelics, subjective experiences which will take science to a whole different level if accepted because then you’re actually looking at things as they are.

 

you’re not understanding that if science uses the bigger picture of the puzzle ( absolute truth ) relative truths or matters will be so much easier and much more efficient to put together ( the pieces of the puzzle or relative truths)

 

life is mystical, to have a true vision of the true state of affairs requires mystical visions, it’s not just about god, you’ll have a true look at the state of science, politics, physicality, society, health, and everything else. 
 

this is not just philosophy or theory, it’s the real deal.

Oh my sweet summer child....

@zurew is correct. 
We are not denying the greater reality of being, god and the absolute. All that is great and I agree for the most part. I have been here for 8+ years, what do you think my ontological paradigm is? Yet sometimes, you just have to  engange with the argument at hand and not deflect with vacuous sophistry that doesn't add anything substantial to the conversation.

If you have a problem with the concept of rigor in scientific resreach - the please, for gods sake, just give us ONE consistent argument why you think this way. Please enlighten us with your persepctive.

Edited February 2 by undeather

[Yousif]

11 minutes ago, undeather said:

Oh my sweet summer child....

@zurew is correct. 
We are not denying the greater reality of being, god and the absolute. All that is great and I agree for the most part. Yet sometimes, you just have to  engange with the argument at hand and not deflect with vacuous sophistry that doesn't add anything substantial to the conversation.

If you have a problem with the concept of rigor in scientific resreach - the please, for gods sake, just give us ONE consistent argument why you think this way. Please enlighten us with your persepctive.

Like I said, to better put together the puzzle pieces ( relative matters including the matter of rigor) , it would be much more efficient to first take a look at what the bigger picture is which is awakening, which science denies as legitimate,

you don’t really know being more rigorous will make science better, you’re Just assuming. 
 

and again if you got the bigger picture wrong like science as it is now, you’re not gonna put the puzzle pieces in their proper order, and like leo said the notion of being rigorous is relative and subjective, you say this is how things should be done for maximum efficiency but you’re just assuming without any basis for your assumption, not so scientific if you ask me. 
 

just because science is  good now, doesn’t mean it can’t be drastically improved and/or revolutionized,

 

we are not attacking science because we hate it, we’re simply providing constructive criticism of science in order to better it so no need to get defensive.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Lack of rigor is itself a bias

Yes, of course.

I am not advocating zero rigor.

Anyways, you guys are acting dense as Dave here, so I'll leave you to it.

No one here understands the trickeries of understanding reality. Stop kidding yourselves. Such arrogance.

Edited February 2 by Leo Gura

[undeather]

1 hour ago, Yousif said:

Like I said, to better put together the puzzle pieces ( relative matters including the matter of rigor) , it would be much more efficient to first take a look at what the bigger picture is which is awakening, which science denies as legitimate,

you don’t really know being more rigorous will make science better, you’re Just assuming. 
 

and again if you got the bigger picture wrong like science as it is now, you’re not gonna put the puzzle pieces in their proper order, and like leo said the notion of being rigorous is relative and subjective, you say this is how things should be done for maximum efficiency but you’re just assuming without any basis for your assumption, not so scientific if you ask me. 
 

just because science is  good now, doesn’t mean it can’t be drastically improved and/or revolutionized,

 

we are not attacking science because we hate it, we’re simply providing constructive criticism of science in order to better it so no need to get defensive.

Okay.

Science denies nothing. Science is the systematic study of structure and behaviour. It doesn't have a will on it's own. It's a method.
Scientists who interpret scientific data deny stuff. Some scientists deny "the absolute"/"god", others don't. There are enlightened scientists.
Many scientists living in the past and present (Schrödinger, Leibnitz, DaVinci, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli..) are more or less mystics.

I am a scientist. I have authored/co-authored dozens of scientific studies. I am deeply spiritual. I have experienced "god" under 5-MeO. I have had multiple enlightenemt experiences with and without psychodelics. I am an ontological idealist, meaning that I am convinced that conciousness = god = one = me.

Saying that science will progress through less rigor as a leading principle is like saying that the Ikea shelf will look better if we don't look at the assembly plan and just start building it. The premise itself is just stupid because it's self defeating. You will not improve science by being less rigorous towards it's own principles. Do you get what I want to say? Being enlightened doesn't change shit about your engangement with the scientific process. It might change the way you interpret the results, but the process itself stays the same. You will still need a hammer to build a house - even if you are the most enlightened person on earth. The rules of reality don't change just because you have had an enlightenemt experience.

And please, again - PLEASE-,just give us ONE example. Don't talk around it. Just write down what's wrong with rigor in plain and simple english. I don't care how integral/enlightened your perspective is. I don't care about puzzle pieces and assumptions. Just tell us what's wrong with the concept and we can then further discuss the implications. We have provided many examples so far (previous posts) that show a clear increase of scientific quality through being more rigorous. The last 200 years of scientific history is one huge case report of how a better and more rigorous scientific process leads to better outcomes and true results. 

It's always the same with this community. People talk with such an entitled sense of confidence, as if some enlightenment-expereicnes gave them some sort of occult insights into everything. In reality, this is just pure ignorance.

Edited February 2 by undeather

[zurew]

50 minutes ago, undeather said:

It's always the same with this community. People talk with such an entitled sense of confidence, as if some enlightenment-expereicnes gave them some sort of occult insights into everything. 

Yep, couldn't agree more.

A lot of users here have picked up a very clear bias against logic and against relative domain stuff from Leo. They haven't integrated logic, they have a logic shadow. We can discuss the limits of logic and the limits of relative domain things, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that most people here (im confident including Leo) don't understand properly how basic formal logic works, let alone trying to question the laws of logic and trying to understand what that entails and what possible implications that can bring.

After some awakening experiences and or enlightenment most of them thinks they can have an authority to speak on any subject, without studying or deeply contemplating that specific subject beforehand. The inferences that one can make from the knowledge of one subject can only go so far and has very clear limits when it comes to using that knowledge and making inferences about another subject.

So far, based on all the guys I know who claimed to be awakened and or enlightened none of them managed to infer or come to all the scientific knowledge that we know - using enlightenment or awakening alone.

So it seems that cross domain induction and inference making is very limited and we should have much much more epistemic humility when it comes to using the knowledge of one domain to make knowledge claims about another domain.

 

The other thing is that this community loves to ramble a lot, rather than trying to engage with points or try to directly answer questions. 

 

Edited February 2 by zurew

[Yousif]

36 minutes ago, undeather said:

It's always the same with this community. People talk with such an entitled sense of confidence

Says the one talking with such an entitled sense of confidence. 

there’s no changing your mind, you go ahead and believe what you want.

[Yousif]

It’s logical to wanna better science, it’s logical to wanna upgrade the methods of science, it’s logical that lower stages of development cannot understand the perspective of higher stages on the spiral so I’m just wasting my time, or am I ?😂

[undeather]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Yep, couldn't agree more.

A lot of users here have picked up a very clear bias against logic and against relative domain stuff from Leo. They haven't integrated logic, they have a logic shadow. We can discuss the limits of logic and the limits of relative domain things, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that most people here (im confident including Leo) don't understand properly how basic formal logic works, let alone trying to question the laws of logic and trying to understand what that entails and what possible implications that can bring.

After some awakening experiences and or enlightenment most of them thinks they can have an authority to speak on any subject, without studying or deeply contemplating that specific subject beforehand. The inferences that one can make from the knowledge of one subject can only go so far and has very clear limits when it comes to using that knowledge and making inferences about another subject.

So far, based on all the guys I know who claimed to be awakened and or enlightened none of them managed to infer or come to all the scientific knowledge that we know - using enlightenment or awakening alone.

So it seems that cross domain induction and inference making is very limited and we should have much much more epistemic humility when it comes to using the knowledge of one domain to make knowledge claims about another domain.

 

The other thing is that this community loves to ramble a lot, rather than trying to engage with points or try to directly answer questions. 

 

I couldn't agree more! Well said!
 

1 hour ago, Yousif said:

Says the one talking with such an entitled sense of confidence. 

there’s no changing your mind, you go ahead and believe what you want.

1 hour ago, Yousif said:

It’s logical to wanna better science, it’s logical to wanna upgrade the methods of science, it’s logical that lower stages of development cannot understand the perspective of higher stages on the spiral so I’m just wasting my time, or am I ?😂

Look buddy, I think there is some maturation work for you to do. 
You are a 23 old kid who lacks epistemic humility in any way or form. 

And to further prove this point, you are now posting a spiral dynamics-scheme - implying  @zurew & I are stuck at some kind of rationalistic, lower level paradigm. Oh, what a great 2nd tier thinker you are. Don Beck is rotating in his grave right now by this platant misuse of his ideas. Do you even know who that is? Have you ever actually read the orignal works on spirtal dynamics? Or you are just parroting ?

When you were 10 yeras old and still struggling with calculating fractions at school, I was already taking courses at the integral institute. Ken Wilber himself told me that I am pretty much a systemic thinker back then. This was 13 yeras ago. My whole medical practice is centered around the idea of "integral medicine", which is a second tier approach our current understanding of medicine. What I do day in, day out literally centers around integrating science & spirituality into better outcomes for my patients. So please stop being such a buffoon. 

In fact, in the past I have even coached people to grow their level of conciousness and see where they are stuck using spiral dynamics or Wilber's very similar model.

I am nice today, so here is how to grow as a persson:
Your developement status is called "pseudo 2nd tier". You have come into contact and kind of inherited higher tier concepts & expereinces like enlightenment, unity & god conciousness. What you suffer from is called a "tier 1 shadow" - meaning that you have not adequately embodied imporatnt stages of tier one. This is what hinders you from getting to a healthy integral perspective. Notice how you shun stage orange concepts like logic & science. The aim is to transcend & include  those paradigms. You lack the inclusion part. Judging from what you uttered today, it's safe to say that you neither understand science nor logic. For you to get to the next level means to deeply contemplate/understand those concepts. You need to make yoruself clear that you actually don't know much about anything and that's okay. It will change your life for good. Being holistic means a deep embodyment of ALL stages. Take it or leave it. 

Anyway, I am not going to waste more time answering. 
Take care

 

Edited February 2 by undeather

[Yousif]

1 hour ago, undeather said:

I couldn't agree more! Well said!
 

Look buddy, I think there is some maturation work for you to do. 
You are a 23 old kid who lacks epistemic humility in any way or form. 

And to further prove this point, you are now posting a spiral dynamics-scheme - implying  @zurew & I are stuck at some kind of rationalistic, lower level paradigm. Oh, what a great 2nd tier thinker you are. Don Beck is rotating in his grave right now by this platant misuse of his ideas. Do you even know who that is? Have you ever actually read the orignal works on spirtal dynamics? Or you are just parroting ?

When you were 10 yeras old and still struggling with calculating fractions at school, I was already taking courses at the integral institute. Ken Wilber himself told me that I am pretty much a systemic thinker back then. This was 13 yeras ago. My whole medical practice is centered around the idea of "integral medicine", which is a second tier approach our current understanding of medicine. What I do day in, day out literally centers around integrating science & spirituality into better outcomes for my patients. So please stop being such a buffoon. 

In fact, in the past I have even coached people to grow their level of conciousness and see where they are stuck using spiral dynamics or Wilber's very similar model.

I am nice today, so here is how to grow as a persson:
Your developement status is called "pseudo 2nd tier". You have come into contact and kind of inherited higher tier concepts & expereinces like enlightenment, unity & god conciousness. What you suffer from is called a "tier 1 shadow" - meaning that you have not adequately embodied imporatnt stages of tier one. This is what hinders you from getting to a healthy integral perspective. Notice how you shun stage orange concepts like logic & science. The aim is to transcend & include  those paradigms. You lack the inclusion part. Judging from what you uttered today, it's safe to say that you neither understand science nor logic. For you to get to the next level means to deeply contemplate/understand those concepts. You need to make yoruself clear that you actually don't know much about anything and that's okay. It will change your life for good. Being holistic means a deep embodyment of ALL stages. Take it or leave it. 

Anyway, I am not going to waste more time answering. 
Take care

Did uncle ken really pet you and told you were a good boi? Wow that’s so nice,

Being older has nothing to do with it, maybe you grew up believing in forest spirits until you’re 70, where did your logic go?

 

Now I feel bad for the people that wasted their money on such nonsense, 

 

Did uncle ken really pet you and told you were a good boi? Wow that’s so nice. 
 

I never was not logical or scientific with anything I said here, stop projecting yourself onto me, 

You’re a typical scientist, you say you’re open minded, and spiritual and all the good stuff but you really not, you say you’re all for the truth but really you’re not, just the fact that you’re still in the science industry tells me you’re not, Look into the case of timothy larry and Richard Albert ( aka ram dass) and how they got kicked out of Harvard for using psychedelics and for criticizing the scientific method.

I feel bad for you, you really think you know what you’re talking about, you have no clue what spirituality is, if you had any idea nothing else would matter but it, I hope that one day you wake up to yourself.

 

[Extreme Z7]

11 hours ago, undeather said:

 I mean, just take a look at the world - better science just works better.

Dogmatic pragmatism bullshit.

A better efficient way to gas the Jews, for example, does not lead to a better world.

Edited February 3 by Extreme Z7

[undeather]

42 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Dogmatic pragmatism bullshit.

A better efficient way to gas the Jews, for example, does not lead to a better world.

You confuse scientific rigor with the implications of morality in the context of scientific progress. 
Science can tell is what is (in the relative domain), but not what ought to be done.

You didn't even understand the premise, yet you call bullshit. 

Edited February 3 by undeather

[Extreme Z7]

26 minutes ago, undeather said:

You confuse scientific rigor with the implications of morality in the context of scientific progress. 
Science can tell is what is (in the relative domain), but not what ought to be done.

You didn't even understand the premise, yet you call bullshit. 

I was responding specifically to your phrase "Just take a look at the world. . ."
So don't try to convince me into believing that you're only talking about science as an isolated relative construct.

I've dealt with enough paranoid science defenders like you to know that you don't know when you're delving into far greater topics than you realize.

Science will not just become better with more Rigour. Science will also become better with more Love, Ethics, and Consciousness.

Science will become better with more Truth.

Edited February 3 by Extreme Z7

[Arthogaan]

Relevant to the discussion.

You cannot go more scientific than direct investigation of the present moment.

 

[undeather]

8 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

I was responding specifically to your phrase "Just take a look at the world. . ."
So don't try to convince me into believing that you're only talking about science as an isolated relative construct.

I've dealt with enough paranoid science defenders like you to know that you don't know when you're delving into far greater topics than you realize.

Science will not just become better with more Rigour. Science will also become better with more Love, Ethics, and Consciousness.

Science will become better with more Truth.

I did mean exactly that. A more rigorous scientific process will generally lead to better outcomes across scientific domains (like medicine) than a less rigorous approach. This was the "contentious" argument this whole circus started with. People just didn't engange and deflected into absurdity. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

I completely agree with you by the way! This is the first post in here that actually has some tangible arguments. Thank you!
Science doesn't automatically make the world a better place - it's an amoral method of investigation. Everything tends become better with more love, ethics and a higher level of consciousness across the population. In fact, I would even argue that this asymmetry is the one major issue with the scientific enterprise as a moment - as Edward Wilson put it:"We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology." - the collective wisdom of our species can't hold up with the challenges of an exponentially growing scientific progress-curve. AI and the ubquitous danger of biochemical warfare through bioprinters are existential threats to an extend we have not faced before. And there are many more examples! Science does play a role in this whole dilemma and I think it's a very fair and a good critique to point that out. That said, one has also factor in all the amazing benefits science has brought us! Both sides are true.

Again, maybe you did not read all the previous posts - but I am completely with you. I have always been very open about the problems in and with science - first and foremost the dogmatic attitude held by some institutions and a lot of practicing scientists. Spirituality, consciousness and enlightenment are big parts of my life - consolidating these truths with science and daily life is literally my job. 

That said, what makes me angry are the mind-bendingly ignorant and stupid answers some of the previous members came up with. If you want to critique science, then at least know what the hell you are talking about. If you want to argue against the virtue of rigor in science, then give some examples and a tangible argument to work with. Yet everything decomposed into a feverish jabbering, some spiritual buzzwords and pure ignorance masquerading as contemplative insight. If they just did what you are doing, it would have been fine. 

Edited February 3 by undeather

[zurew]

8 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

I've dealt with enough paranoid science defenders like you

How is he a paranoid science defender? All his position was, that for science rigor is important and you guys are yet to make a specific argument against rigor, without pivoting to enlightenment or any other topic.

Saying that rigor is a bias - is a completely meaningless and useless criticism alone - because lack of rigor is also bias. Bias alone is not necessarily bad and I have already made arguments in favour of that.

8 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

I was responding specifically to your phrase "Just take a look at the world. . ."
So don't try to convince me into believing that you're only talking about science as an isolated relative construct.

Being charitable is important.  So if we are reading his statement charitably -  all else equal, science will generally make the world a better place.

 

Btw, nothing was said nor implied from our part about love, consciousness or awakening not being important in general. 

If anyone has a substantive argument against rigor - go ahead construct one, but don't pretend that saying "thats an assumption" or "thats a bias" is anything nearly substantive or constructive.

Edited February 3 by zurew

[yetineti]

@undeather You’re not God realized or awakening. You want plain English?

You have bastardized this work and you’ve started a thread to be close minded.

You’ve asked multiple times for people to ‘just explain the problem with the concept of science.’

At the same time, ‘do you even know my ontological paradigm.’

You’re saying your own problems.

No one who is awakened is in a ‘paradigm’ and science is just a concept just like religion.

Figuring this science thing out will cause you emotional pain. Do not expect words on a screen to solve it for you. Until you’ve have had an extreme emotional feeling around this topic, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Leo was very lenient with you in my opinion- and brave at that. Trying to convince a scientist science is not perfect is like trying to explain to a christian the Bible was just analogous.

 

[yetineti]

For all of you glums that will get mad at me for not addressing the specific points:

Overemphasis on rigor and rationality can lead to a narrow worldview, prioritizing empirical evidence and logical reasoning above all else. This approach risks marginalizing subjective experiences, emotions, and intuition, which are central to the human condition. By insisting on objective quantification, the scientific method may inadvertently devalue or ignore aspects of reality that resist such measurement, leading to a fragmented understanding of the world.

Moreover, the belief in rationality as an end in itself can foster an environment where scientific advancements are pursued without adequate consideration of ethical implications, societal impacts, or the welfare of future generations. The history of science is peppered with instances where the pursuit of knowledge was divorced from moral considerations, leading to harm.

Furthermore, the scientific establishment is not immune to biases, conflicts of interest, and the influence of power structures, which can distort research agendas, funding priorities, and the dissemination of findings. The illusion of objectivity can be exploited to justify policies, technologies, and interventions that serve the interests of a powerful few at the expense of the many, under the guise of neutrality and progress.

In its most extreme form, an unwavering faith in science and rationality can contribute to a technocratic ideology that dismisses alternative ways of knowing and being in the world. This can culminate in a form of intellectual imperialism that disregards cultural wisdom, traditional knowledge, and spiritual insights, impoverishing humanity's collective understanding and experience.

In sum, while the scientific method has undeniably contributed to human advancement, an uncritical adherence to its principles can lead to a reductionist view of existence, ethical blind spots, and the perpetuation of social and environmental injustices. It's crucial to balance the pursuit of empirical knowledge with humility, ethical reflection, and an openness to the diverse ways of understanding our world.

 

 

Edited February 3 by yetineti