"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . it sounds like you're wanting to see something organized.

Yes, I'm looking for a change in the mindset of decision-makers in academia, the workplace, and I guess the government, also, regarding how spirituality is viewed. It has been considered taboo - no place in science. I think changing that would improve the results we get overall.

If the moon spins every 28 days than shouldn't the earth spin every 365 days, I don't get it, orbital mechanic must be wrong.

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN

Shouldn't you be defending your Thomas Campbell post of something? How did we get on the topic of orbits?

Anyway, in our solar system, Tidal locking of moon orbits is common, and we say that the Earth's moon is a tidally locked body.

This explains why the orbit time and revolution time are the same, and for similar reasons rotation orbit resonance can occur which explains Mercury's orbit (also explained in that link).

The Earth isn't tidally locked, which explains why the rotation period is different than the orbit period. In fact we suspect a planet about the size of Mars smashed into the Earth and that's why the Earth rotates faster (the same impact that formed the moon).

If the Earth and its moon were both tidally locked to each other like Pluto and its moon Charon, then our day would be 28 days long like the moon.

I don't know of any planets in our solar system tidally locked to our sun, though we think Gliese b, c, d, e and g may possibly be tidally locked to their parent star, at least according to that wiki link and the USA today source it references:

www.usatoday.com...

Astronomer Wesley Traub of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., doubts Gliese 581 c is hospitable enough for life. "It is probably tidally locked to the star, like the moon to the Earth," he says. That means the star-facing side of the planet would receive boiling heat, while the far side would be frozen.

That doesn't sound too pleasant, so we should be glad the Earth spins faster than its orbit.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yes, I'm looking for a change in the mindset of decision-makers in academia, the workplace, and I guess the government, also, regarding how spirituality is viewed. It has been considered taboo - no place in science.

It's not taboo for scientists to write about spirituality, I've just provided examples from not just Newton, but also more recent scientists like Einstein and Sagan have expressed their thoughts on spirituality, and how they weave their spiritual views in with science.

But these views are presented outside of scientific papers, because it is by definition, not science. So you're correct, things that are outside the scope of science have "no place in science". It's still unclear how you would give them a place in science if they are beyond the means of science to observe, in other words "supernatural" meaning not part of the observable natural world.

The closest thing I can think of to scientific paper on the "supernatural" is this "Feeling the future" paper by Daryl Bem. The scientific establishment allowed his paper to be peer-reviewed and published in spite of the fact that he didn't use Bayesian analysis as his critics who didn't review the paper felt he should have. But the peer reviewers apparently allowed the paper because he had observable statistical results, even though the underlying mechanisms were not understood or "supernatural".

And the last I heard, every attempt to replicate his results has failed, though the final deadline for results is December 2011 so it probably won't be until 2012 that he follows up, if he does. So far, it would seem this attempt to document something outside the normal scope of science in a scientific paper isn't working out too well.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's still unclear how you would give them a place in science if they are beyond the means of science to observe, in other words "supernatural" meaning not part of the observable natural world.

I have in mind giving spirituality a place in science by means of consciousness-raising on the part of the scientific establishment to the knowing that comes from humans via their individual consciousness, in addition to knowledge they acquire via their five senses. I'm not talking about supernatural topics for scientific research projects. I'm talking about a change in the environment scientists, overall, have to work within. I think it needs to become normal to allow insight gained through meditation, for example, to enter into scientific dialog/discussion.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
[I have in mind giving spirituality a place in science by means of consciousness-raising on the part of the scientific establishment to the knowing that comes from humans via their individual consciousness, in addition to knowledge they acquire via their five senses. I'm not talking about supernatural topics for scientific research projects. I'm talking about a change in the environment scientists, overall, have to work within. I think it needs to become normal to allow insight gained through meditation, for example, to enter into scientific dialog/discussion.

As long as an insight is verifiable/reproduceable and measureable it can be part of the scientific method however it was inspired.

Or are you saying hat non-verifiable or non-measureable insights should be "allowed" in the scientific method?

Lots of people would like the later to be the case for their pet projects - most recently of course some religious fundamentalists attempting to subborn the word "science" to lend credence to their creation myth.

But of course the REASON science remains a powerful tool with a great deal of credence is PRECISELY that its discipline and rigorous application of the scientific method precvents non-scientific subjects from hitch hiking on its coat tails.

And thank God for that!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have in mind giving spirituality a place in science by means of consciousness-raising on the part of the scientific establishment to the knowing that comes from humans via their individual consciousness

If the knowing from consciousness was the same for all people and/or all scientists, that might make sense. But that doesn't appear to be the case.

As far as I can tell, the "knowing" that comes from sources of consciousness which are not independently verifiable through experiment and observation are inconsistent from person to person. Again, this is why we have many different spiritual viewpoints, but only one standard model.

It's a different topic than science. To use an ATS forum analogy, it's like discussing poetry in the politics forum. Poetry is a perfectly valid topic, but if you try to talk about it in a politics forum, a mod will probably move it to a more appropriate forum. Likewise, spirituality is a perfectly valid topic, it's just not science, so even though I see it discussed by scientists, it's not in their scientific papers, but in a different "forum".

If they put you in charge someday, you can try to make this happen and show us what you mean, but until then, I've tried to explain why it won't happen but I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's still unclear how you would give them a place in science if they are beyond the means of science to observe, in other words "supernatural" meaning not part of the observable natural world.

I have in mind giving spirituality a place in science by means of consciousness-raising on the part of the scientific establishment to the knowing that comes from humans via their individual consciousness, in addition to knowledge they acquire via their five senses. I'm not talking about supernatural topics for scientific research projects.

Frankly, that paragraph is just as oxymoronic as it gets. You are saying that "extra knowledge" is literally "extra-sensory", then insist it's not supernatural.

Meh.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As far as I can tell, the "knowing" that comes from sources of consciousness which are not independently verifiable through experiment and observation are inconsistent from person to person.

The opinions of scientists about the interpretations of the results of experimentation are also inconsistent from person to person.

Scientists don't independently verify through experiment and observation their opinions about what the results mean, they argue about it, using their intellect as guided by what they've learned through normal channels.

I'm suggesting that the scope for the hard work of the interpretation and analysis of what the experiments demonstrate be broadened.

reply to post by Mary Rose


So you're not suggesting anything more than scientits are people and so prone to having independant opinions.

Opinion and interpretation in science are based upon the facts - the stronger the factual basis for any given opinion hte less room for alternative interpretations exists.

Shrug....that gets a big "so what?" from me.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The opinions of scientists about the interpretations of the results of experimentation are also inconsistent from person to person.

That's true, but since the scientists limit their interpretations to preclude things which are not spiritual, supernatural, or otherwise not confirmable with observations, then it's possible that some future observation may settle the interpretation debate.

An example of this would be the periodic table of the elements which was credited to Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. At that time there were interpretations about why elements should be grouped by behavior periodically, but the electron wasn't even discovered until 1897, so they couldn't have understood the correct interpretation or cause in 1869 without knowing about the electron.

But the electron was subsequently discoverable, and was subsequently discovered, and provided the interpretation we lacked in 1869 that helps us understand why the table is periodic. It is my belief, and I suspect the belief of most scientists, that most causes, even if not presently understood, may eventually be discovered as natural causes in much the same way.

It sounds like you want to include extrasensory items which are not discoverable in the future by any objective observation. If it will never be resolved by observation it seems to have little value to assign a supernatural or spiritual source or cause. In fact I could solve every unsolved problem in physics right now that way, by just saying "god did it". I may not be able to prove I'm right but at the present, nobody can prove me wrong. But what does this add to science? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Opinion and interpretation in science are based upon the facts . . .

And who determines what the facts are?

People do, by persuading others and reaching consensus - until something new happens and the "facts" change.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I believe the scientific method provides the answers to your question - "facts" are those observations that are independantly verifiable, repeatable, and explainable. So there is no need for spiritualism to be involved in determining what is factual and what is not, and indeed it would generally appear to be detrimental.

Perhaps it might provide some guidance to someone trying to decide whether a given level of evidence is adequate for some purpose or not. However if that person wants to justify their position to their peers they are going to have to give some cogent reasoning. If they can manage to include some form of spiritualism in there it will have to meet whatever tests all other justifications meet.

I think your point has lost something here - I am no longer sure what it is you think you are trying to tell me.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
If they can manage to include some form of spiritualism in there it will have to meet whatever tests all other justifications meet.

Of course.

I'm suggesting adding to the process, not taking anything away or substituting any part of the time-honored scientific method.

I simply think we can do better.

I am actually glad that spirituality is more or less banished from science. It basically had the result that people let go of their predispositioned believes, and accept whatever they find. It has resulted in an exponential increase in scientific discoveries in the last century. On the other hand, I am completely ok with using meditation or any spiritual believe as a source for ideas, but once it enters the realm or science, the source of the idea should no longer be of any significance.

On another forum I discussed this subject with a religious person, he also wanted to somehow reconcile science with religion/spirituality. He claimed that currently science is too one sided and it will hit a dead end and can never give us a complete understanding without spirituality. I am not really sure why people want this in the first place. This is not what science is for, and there are plenty of ideologies that do ambition such goals. Why do people want to change science into an ideology? Why not just leave science alone? Currently the rate of progress is already above everyones head. I'd rather say we slow down the scientific progress and think a bit more about the complications that come with the discoveries we make.

reply to post by -PLB-


I don't want to change science into an ideology. And the word "religion" makes me run the other way as fast as I can.

But the word "spirituality" is altogether different in my mind.

It seems to me that science simply needs to have a heart as well as a head.

I think we're too specialized, separated, and cerebral for our own good, overall, on planet earth. Science should have an end-result of making things better through the technology that science gives us. I think embracing spirituality - not religion - would help give us better results.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think we're too specialized, separated, and cerebral for our own good, overall, on planet earth. Science should have an end-result of making things better through the technology that science gives us. I think embracing spirituality - not religion - would help give us better results.

I have a ton of New Age crystals in my garage. Left by previous owner. Looks like you could put them to good use.

Oh, and by the way, the moniker of this thread, Mr. Marko -- he does claim that he's guided by a divine force. Like, seriously. What's really pathetic is that he has nothing to show for it. Talking and talking about cure for all decease does not a cure make. So I don't know, Mary, this exemplar just doesn't prove you are right, maybe the opposite.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What's really pathetic is that he has nothing to show for it.

Of course not.

That's what needs to change. The movers and shakers of this world need to keep on keeping on. Things take a long time.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm suggesting adding to the process, not taking anything away or substituting any part of the time-honored scientific method.

Can you think of an example of how this would work? Real or hypothetical? It sounds like you're wanting to add unscientific stuff to science which is taking away from the objective nature of science. And as Buddhasystem said, if Rodin is any example of how this would work, it's a disaster.

There's a good wiki explaining some of the issues with a proposal that sounds a lot like yours, so you're not the first person to suggest something along these lines. Ever hear of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy? It seems to have some similarities to what you suggest:
Anthroposophy

Though Rudolf Steiner studied natural science at the Vienna Technical University at the undergraduate level, his doctorate was in epistemology and very little of his work is directly concerned with the empirical sciences....His primary interest was in applying the methodology of science to realms of inner experience and the spiritual worlds

- [Anthroposophy's] methodology is to employ a scientific way of thinking, but to apply this methodology, which normally excludes our inner experience from consideration, instead to the human being proper.

Whether this is a sufficient basis for anthroposophy to be considered a spiritual science has been a matter of controversy. As Freda Easton explained in her study of Waldorf schools, "Whether one accepts anthroposophy as a science depends upon whether one accepts Steiner's interpretation of a science that extends the consciousness and capacity of human beings to experience their inner spiritual world." Sven Ove Hansson has disputed anthroposophy's claim to a scientific basis, stating that its ideas are not empirically derived and neither reproducible nor testable.

Carlo Willmann points out that as, on its own terms, anthroposophical methodology offers no possibility of being falsified except through its own procedures of spiritual investigation, no intersubjective validation is possible by conventional scientific methods; it thus cannot stand up to positivistic science's criticism.

I have the same concern as Sven Hansson: how would your proposal, or Anthroposophy be reproducible or testable?

The article goes on but it just seems to get deeper and deeper into "woo":

"fringe" sciences such as anthroposophical medicine and biodynamic agriculture justified partly on the basis of the ethical and ecological values they promote, rather than purely on a scientific basis.

which is about where we might expect an idea like this to end up. If it can't be objectively observed, it seems like things can be made up, because without objective observation, you can make just about any claim without having to prove it, right?

reply to post by -PLB-

I don't see a place for spirituality in science any more than I see a place for poetry in a thread about politics. Spirituality and poetry have a place, but it's elsewhere.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Can you think of an example of how this would work?

I'm envisioning a different atmosphere for scientists to have on the job or within academia.

I'm envisioning people feeling freer to creatively express thoughts they have that would normally not be thought of as scientific.

I like the scientific method just the way it is.

But I sense there is something missing in the environment that scientists work in. It seems that reasoning rules and intuition is not allowed. I think we need both.

reply to post by Mary Rose
So you don't have an example?