Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Knowledge and Evidence for Buddhism
tmottes
Veteran
There has been a decent amount of rumination about what methods can and can't be used to determine knowledge (thought with evidence to support that thought) and what can be considered evidence or not when it comes to some of the buddhist teachings... rebirth, the different realms, etc. I was looking for some information regarding the scientific method and its history when I stumbled upon this site (oddly enough its a buddhist site). Keep in mind the author(s) is/are NOT anti-science, but rather anti-dogmatic about science and its claims to "correct" or "true" knowledge. I have included the links with an excerpt to "wet the palette". I encourage EVERYBODY who is remotely interested in knowledge and understanding to read these articles and explore the site further.
Dispelling Some Common Myths about Science
The Myth of the Magic Scientific Method
The Terrible Truth about Truth
Pseudo-science or Proto-science
Dispelling Some Common Myths about Science
For example, certain religious ideas are considered to be knowledge by the people who hold them, knowledge of a superior sort that can only be provided by divine revelation, knowledge justified by pure faith alone. If that is knowledge, it is certainly a different kind of knowledge than what scientists develop using observable evidence and logic and experimentation -- but observation and logic and even experimentation are found in most human activities.-------
The Myth of the Magic Scientific Method
Modern science is an amazing phenomenon, and people naturally wonder how it works. Oddly, science has never been thoroughly studied scientifically, so we have quite an array of different answers to this question, some of them accurate and some of them ridiculous. Unfortunately, the answer that became most popular was a guess made by some philosophers, which turned out to be worse than useless. Even more unfortunately, that guess is now commonly believed to be the simple truth about how science proceeds to develop new knowledge.-------
Discussions of methodology in science are clouded by a dreadful confusion because the phrase "the scientific method" is used in two very different ways, one appropriate and one highly misleading. The appropriate one speaks in a very general way of science as a powerful process for improving understanding.
The Terrible Truth about Truth
Many people believe that science is the best route, if not the only route, to truth about the natural world. Other people, including many scientists, believe that scientific knowledge may not be perfectly true, but it is closer to the truth than other sources of knowledge and belief.-------
Both those views are misguided, not because of any problem with scientific knowledge itself, but because of our overly simple beliefs about it. In this essay I will argue that totally correct knowledge -- "truth" -- is neither the goal, nor the product, nor any part of the process of scientific work.
Pseudo-science or Proto-science
Most scientists and people who are interested in science believe that certain subjects are intrinsically unscientific, or at least a-scientific -- topics that cannot be legitimately (or successfully) studied scientifically. This belief in the existence of "unscientific" topics is dangerous to the practice and teaching of genuine science.
Anything real can be studied scientifically. Whether someone's favorite topic corresponds to anything real or not may be an open question, a question that may never be answered.
For a scientists to claim that a topic is no more than "unscientific nonsense," or "psuedo-science," writing off an entire area of interest, when neither they nor any other scientist has ever actually studied it scientifically, is an expression of arrogance. "Unscientific" interests, a better term for which is "pre-scientific," are the necessary beginning point of scientific exploration in any new area. The exploration itself automatically improves the quality of the participants' understanding.
2
Comments
That's not to say I found everything I read through to be totally off base.
I agree with him that there is nothing special about the kind of person who can "do" science. After all, as a former science teacher I had 12 year-olds "doing" science. And I always laughed at (usually) girls who would say things like, "I can't do science, and my mother said she never could either."
But where religion comes in, there are a lot of people who just don't "get" science. For example, I had a secretary who was a born again Christian. One day she brought up Mormonism because she knew my hometown was where Joseph Smith founded Mormonism. She said, "Those Mormons. They believe that angel gave Jospeph Smith golden plates with their bible on it. If that's really true, why can't they show us the golden plates?" I replied, "Well, Sandie, do you believe God gave Moses the Ten Commandments on stone tablets?" "Yes, of course." "Can you show me the tablets?" "Well, that's different!" Now there's a person who can't...oops...doesn't have a mind that works scientifically. Same for people who "know" that evolution says man evolved from apes.
People are naive if they think science is always right. But "real" science is more right than just guessing.
People are naive if they think everything in science was initially discovered via the scientific method. No, scientists often stumble upon things, although those things are usually then verified through a more scientific procedure.
But let me give you an example of where I "use" science. When I prescribed a new medication, I look up the data. I want to know what side effects have been discovered, and how often. For example, one friend told me I shouldn't use a new medication because it caused seizures. So I looked up the data and found that fewer people using the medication had had seizures than in the control group who had taken only a placebo. That's science!
And, it's okay to have a religious belief that is not supported by science. It's not okay to support a religious belief with faulty science...or by no science, but say it's scientific.
I guess you bring to light and interesting question: what is really the difference between thorough critical thinking and science? Experimentation is certainly one answer; although, I arguably use experimentations in my critical thinking, haha.
I think overall science gives us a starting baseline and rules. It says, we all know where we are starting and what the rules are, so we know that at the end we can judge observations against other observations that have played the same game.
IMHO and for me personally (how I acquire and use data/knowledge), I don't think that science is the only game in town; I don't think its the only game that can provide evidence of something. I don't think we should ever blindly accept evidence (scientific or otherwise). If I am excluding anything that is not part of the science game, then what knowledge am I potentially missing?
I try to use belief lite. I take things that makes sense, I research and analyze, I experiment, and I keep my eye out for any additional information/data/knowledge that may refute, support, or redefine that belief. I use my personal experience as a computer: providing it some input and seeing what comes out, all the while keeping in mind that my "computer" is programmed differently than others, and it is always subject to change based on any new input.
To begin with, the page you reference is creationist grounding to minimize the importance of a scientific approach to investigating the universe. Even without noting that the website doesn't bother telling us who this "Dr Hawles" is or what he is a "Doctor" of (Divinity? Philosophy? Or is it a self-assumed title? Who knows? He has absolutely no webpresence at all. You actually must say, "anonymous" is the author for now) This tells us immediately that the people pushing this have no clue how science works. Tacking the title "Doctor" onto your name does not give you magical powers to penetrate the mysteries of the universe in every direction in spite of what your education, training and research actually is.
Thus the people who use this anonymous diatribe begin with an appeal to authority. This is from a real "Doctor" so he knows what he's talking about. That's not how science works.
For the rest, we could go through and point out the seeds of anti-science bias in the writing. For instance, "Oddly, science has never been thoroughly studied scientifically, " is total BS. I took several courses in college on the history and methods of science. A short google gives me my old text book, http://www.questia.com/library/76773537/studies-in-the-history-and-methods-of-the-sciences
There is nothing mysterious about the scientific method, and nothing comparable when it comes to investigating and forming conclusions about our world.
We can talk about the limits of science. One limit is, something has to actually exist before it can be studied and science applied to examine and determine the nature of it. By exist, I mean it has to have some sort of effect on reality that can be measured. We have become amazingly creative on finding ways to measure these effects. Black holes. Dark matter. Dark energy. We have found ways to measure how they effect the universe, even though we can't actually examine a black hole.
And I have not even touched on the subject of religion and faith versus science yet. How's that for a start?
There was a post about a month back with some philosophy lectures that I'm still in the process of watching but so far I like the one on formal logic. While certain things such as the argument in your post can't be empirically disproven it can be logically.
Scientism as originally coined meant the belief that science could be effectively applied to moral value systems as a part of the study of human behavior. Thus, people could build a moral framework strictly from scientific principles. Today there are philosophers and other thinkers that still attempt to do just that. However, all such attempts have deep flaws so far.
The term Scientism has come to be used in an attempt to claim science is a religion ruled by beliefs and dogma just like Christianity, and so religious beliefshould be taught as equally valid in the classroom. To naysayers, any appeal to science is scientism.
Science has limits. However, unlike all the other "isms" including religion, science is self-correcting in its beliefs.
Yes, the term "scientism" was around before the "creationists seized on it"—I mean the term was coined in 1877, found in Fraser's magazine for town and country (this is from the O.E.D.).
I completely understand the "self-correcting" aspect of science: it's part of its beauty. It is the aspect that is supposed to keep people who use science from becoming dogmatic about their findings. It also gives us a clearer picture of reality each time we expose problems with our current theories. Where I find the dogma is more on an meta level. Holding fast to the idea that conclusions based in the framework of science somehow have a monopoly on evidence and knowledge. I understand that this is a slippery slope when it come to all sorts of absurd ideas and concepts. Which is why I stress critical thinking, and encourage the rejection of blind faith. Even some of the products of critical thinking and logic are not up to the task of withstanding scientific scrutiny; however, it doesn't make them any less reasonable/rational.
Science has a scope of the emperical world. How does it address experiences outside that scope? It doesn't. The dogma says, no scientific evidence equals no existence, until evidence otherwise is shown. Then somehow it pops into existence? Non-dogmatic science remains silent: the tool being used is not the right tool for the job. If you hold the dogma that in order for knowledge or evidence to be credible it must be available to science, then you ignore all the other tools in the tool box. You miss out on the whole experience. You look at a tree and think it is a forest. Will science ever step outside its self-imposed empirical boundaries? Should it? Only when a new tool is able to record, interpret, process, etc non-empirical (dare I say subjective) data.
In the meantime, I will see/use/praise science for doing what it does best; and I will continue to use a "personal science" to understand MY subjective experience. There are/will be others like me, and we will exchange and share our "personal science" conclusions in an attempt to guide each other and falsify our own personal beliefs and conclusions. IMHO, this is core of the buddha's suggestion to try it out for yourself. He conducted a "personal science" experiment and asks you do the same, to see if the results are the same. He gives a clear set of methods, raw data from his research, and provides conclusions. You want to see if his conclusions are valid, do your own research, which can and should include conducting your own experiments: experiments in your own experience, your own body, and your own mind.
Not from a scientific point of view it isn't.
The whole world does not revolved around dictionary definitions.
Here it is in a few sentences.
Science cannot create a universal moral code, because the universe is not moral. It cannot create universal justice because the universe is not just. The universe doesn't care one bit if you suffer or not. Our social institutions don't even care if you suffer or not. In the sweep of humanity, life has been cheap and justice more likely than not meant who had the best weapons. Science can map social behavior and the human brain, but the human spirit has always been the one miracle that cannot be constrained by formulas.
Religion is a conscious human being looking up at the stars and down at a grave and asking, "Why? Why me?" Science can't answer that. Religion seeks to.
You can't really reduce science and the scientific method down to a short video clip, anymore than you can reduce Buddhism down to a pamphlet.
Being skeptical of the claims of the physical sciences is the way proper science is done—it has to question its own conclusions and the axiomatic, non-physical ground it rests upon—even its so-called laws. In a word, it invites its own destruction.
At one time the cosmological hypothesis of a big bang seemed true but with the discovery of non-cosmological red shift, the big bang lost much of its bang. A gravitationally derived universe is probably impossible. Gravity is too weak as compared with plasma. For those like Hans Alfvén, the big bang never happened. Nature could not care less about math or Einstein.
As far as the scientific method is concerned, it may not be the case that a implies only b. It is more like a could imply b, b1, b2, b3, etc.
Authoritative claims abound in science and technology—it sounds like triumphalism. But many of the claims were later proven to be wrong. For example, in 1933, Ernst Rutherford said, "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Before that, Lord Kelvin said, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Buddhist need not pay too much attention to the present claims of science which will eventually be superseded by more claims; the old ones being into the dust bin of history along with the Saturnian model of the atom and Einstein's speed of light limit.
But he was not a scientist.
Period.
One man -- no matter who he is -- no matter what he says he saw...that's not science.
It is not a flaw of the scientific method that scientific theories perish and new ones rise. It is the whole idea of it. We can actually learn something about the subject and our understanding - as limited as it is – will grow.
Religious beliefs don’t change. But that’s not what’s so great about them. When religious beliefs describe our reality as a matter of fact and they are dogmatic about it; they are just a form of blindness; an unwillingness to look at the facts and learn from them.
So they're really working theories... practical ways of looking at things that are the best "big picture" we have at any one time. That's also the downside however, because we can't know for sure if our current theories are final. Religion's certainty can appeal very much to those who find scientific theory to be uncertain, even though religious doctrines can often not be proven by any method. It's a paradox.
Buddhism is kinda in the middle. It claims things are a certain way and says this can be known... but you have to follow the Path to know it. It's something that will be subjectively known rather than objectively proven.
If we depended on “subjective knowing” we would still believe the world is flat. No meditator achieved what astronomers did. No Buddhist reached the idea of evolution through sitting on a mat and digging deeply in his own mind. What’s more important such ideas don’t get substantiated properly by sitting and meditating on it.
I think we have to see the limitations of Buddhism. I’m all for it; but I’m in the 21st century.
The Buddha had absolutely no idea about many things.
As to the Buddhism bit at the end, you can ignore the "in the middle" since that's confusing. What I meant was that Buddhism is like scientific methodology in that one follows the steps given by another (i.e. the Noble Eightfold Path) to come to the same conclusion (i.e. Enlightenment). The difference of course is that it all takes place in the mind, it's not something that can be shown to others. It's like a science of the mind but of course it's not an official science. The closest thing it comes to is psychology, but it's not really that either. Buddhism doesn't feat neatly into either the "religion" or "science" categories and yet has elements of both.
I agree with you fully that the Buddha probably didn't know a lot of things, including things we've come to know since through science. He was just a man after all! What he did know was liberation, and that's what he taught. A lot of the other stuff might be overthrown by science, and we shouldn't cling to the teachings that are contradicted just because the Buddha taught them (if he even did). He even warned us not to do so. However we should still keep an open mind... if we're not certain they've been contradicted, they may still be right. Science hasn't contradicted rebirth, for one, yet neither has it proven it.
We should just focus on our practice. :om:
There are no problems when we keep in mind the Buddha was just a human like us.
You can also reduce Buddhism to the four noble truths. All else is a deepened explanation of those, but not something new.
But that aside - the big difference between science and Buddhism is that science works with falsification and Buddhism with validation. That's why Buddhism is a step ahead of science and will always be. Also important, science is as accurate as its description (the physical laws for example) while in Buddhism the description of things is always less accurate than reality.
But as a said before somewhere else, the value of science with respect to Buddhism is very limited. Even if things like rebirth/enlightenment are proven scientifically, it wouldn't be useful if we didn't realize them. As an example, science already seems to disprove the idea of free will, yet people who hear this still feel like they have some free will. However, if we see through it in meditation, we won't feel like that any longer and will behave accordingly. That's a big and important difference. The same will happen if we can verify things like rebirth; it'll change us as a person, while science doesn't nescessarily change anybody with it's knowledge - at least not on such a deep level.
I do believe that has not yet happened... So, if ,
what of that declaration....?
It also depends what we call Buddhism. In some of the suttas (I think mainly the later commentaries/abhidhamma) there are some things -about geography for example- that are clearly not true.
However, those are minor things, not essential for our understanding. So I wouldn't call those Buddhism. Buddhism to me is the four noble truths, eightfold path, dependent origination - all those central teachings.
But unlike science, once Buddhism came to be regarded as Revealed Truth, then anything in the sacred scriptures is to be accepted and you are not allowed to challenge or change anything. Science questions assumptions from even the great thinkers of the past and anticipates old beliefs will be superceded by new knowledge. Religion rejects questioning since the assumption is the original Revealed Truth is by definiton pure and complete and any deviation from ancient teachings is curruption, not advancement.
There will never be a call from some scientific community to "Return to that old time science, the kind our grandfathers believed, where the earth was the center of the universe and everything made sense!"
Granted, Buddhism isn't as bad as most other religions. It started off grounded in human experience and tries to make the case that arguments about unprovable beliefs in gods and such are distractions. One sutra even slipped in a call to question and decide for yourself (but people, being what they are, insist the only conclusion an enlightened person should come to is that the sutras are right).
My own take is that the Dharma can withstand a bit of criticism, a touch of doubt, and seeing the monks and even Buddha as great thinkers, but just people. They were not gods. They lived before telescopes and microscopes and knew nothing about genetics or cells or dna, so a theory about past life karma causing birth defects seemed logical. Today we know better, but refuse to give up the belief because our sacred founders believed it.
There is a core set of observations that Buddha gave us about suffering, the cause and elimination. There is a wider set of instructions the other great Masters gave us as to the nature of our minds and how to change the way we think about ourselves and the world. It changed my life and that itself was a miracle. The rest is fascinating but irrelivent to me.
I mean to say, is there anything that scientists say or do, or which is done on the advice of scientists, that puts people off Buddhism or makes it more difficult to practice?
Not just a rhetorical question, because I can think of a few possible things. Could be worth considering.
That's why a lot of things Buddhism can verify fall outside of the range of science and I think we should be very careful when science seems to direct our understanding. Science has often proved itself wrong before - which is its strength but also its inherent weakness. When Einstein proposed his theories on relativity, not everybody believed him, preferring to stick with the old models. Likewise, Einstein did not want to take on the ideas of quantummechanics even when confronted with the evidence. He just couldn't take it because it was beyond his belief of how the universe should work. He couldn't belief the universe works with chance, or as he said "god doesn't play dice", well, so far it seems he does.
I think we should be careful to not have such fixed views based on science, especially when it is about subjects science knows little about - like rebirth. Science is fallible - it's meant to be. When we based on science take a view of how the universe should be, we make the same mistake as Einstein did.
I really like this line. I feel it sums up things rather nicely.
We might eventually find that certain things in Buddhism are not correct. But that won't mean the overall philosophy is wrong or needs to be discarded.