StellaByStarlite
Posts: 790
Joined: 2/10/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bearincuffs Yet there is one point which many people seem to miss and this can apply to the scientific community also, "science" is also a label which can apply to other areas besides biology, chemistry, physics, etc. In many cases, science has become too narrow minded and too structured. One example I can think of is in the realm of Alchemy. Several ancient alchemists, through their work and experimenting, were using the principles of science to further their knowledge in the occult. Especially when they were attempting to find the elusive "philosopher's stone" thereby allowing them to transform base metal into gold. And it was from this experimentation that many concepts of chenistry were discoverd and then refined throughout the years. The way I see it, during this period of human history, science and mystcism were in conjunction with one another instead of being at opposite ends of this spectrum, as it is now. It is my thought that in this modern day and age, I feel that using science along with the occult, will greatly help mankind in understanding much of what is still hidden. When it boils down to is science does not have all the answers and neither does the occult. Yet maybe if the realm of science and the occult were "blended" then the finding answers will be more within our grasp. My thoughts are that mankind will never completely reveal all the answers to what we don't know. The adage of the more answers we get, the more question will arise, I believe this is true and applies to everything, irregardless if it's science and/or the occult. Hello, bearincuffs. =) What might seem "narrow-minded" for some is actually a necessary process. Scientists are all too aware of the human tendency towards bias and so the method in itself is very stodgy. That's why they have the double-blind controlled study, the error bar, fuzzy logic, and relentless debate. Getting from speculation to fact isn't easy by any means. And actually, the scientific definition of fact is much different from mainstream. Generally speaking, in the science community, things are assumed false until proven correct. The methods employed by the various branches of science you mentioned differ in detail, but the view is pretty much the same. I do agree with you, though, in that science doesn't offer ALL the answers. It never claimed to do so, either. But in terms of understanding the natural world, it's simply the most reliable. it wasn't shamans who developed a more accurate weather prediction method. And it wasn't psychics who gave us telecommunication, either. There are currently millions of people who manage to live contented lives without consulting a natal chart. And new technology in the medicine field saves lives. No, science is not perfect, but it delivers the goods. =) Cheers, Stella
|