Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then shouldn't your posts reflect that claim rather than constantly refute it? If you are so smart, why are you unable to detect that your methodology is false? We have. The above is something that you apparently need to keep telling yourself in order to cope with a group of people, who also aren't stupid, who tell you that you are wrong.
What methodology are you referring to? There is only one scientific method. I taught Quantitative Research Methods at the Graduate level for 30 years. So, what common sense misguided misunderstanding do you have of my methodology? I carefully parse my views into those that are science-based and those that are beliefs based on my knowledge and experience. My Doctorate fields are Social Psychology and Quantitative Research Methods.
What methodology are you referring to? There is only one scientific method. I taught Quantitative Research Methods at the Graduate level for 30 years. So, what common sense misguided misunderstanding do you have of my methodology? I carefully parse my views into those that are science-based and those that are beliefs based on my knowledge and experience. My Doctorate fields are Social Psychology and Quantitative Research Methods.
Mystic,
No doubt you are a smart guy, but there are enough oddities in your posts for me to question them.
Let’s take this posting. No faculty member that I know would capitalize “Graduate” in the middle of a sentence.
Similarly, people typically say either ‘My doctoral field is...” or ‘My doctorate is in...’. Your construction is an awkward hybrid.
I will concede that forum posts are very casual, and I am certainly guilty of typos, grammatical errors and spellcheck misdeeds, but I also don’t try to present myself as the smartest, most educated guy in the room with unassailable positions.
Science is a methodology that encompasses many fields, not just physics.
I know that. The way you listed the 4 disciples in your post was as if they were all equivalents. The problem is that science is a very broad term encompassing many disciplines, while physics is a subset of science. It’s simply a very odd way of putting things.
What methodology are you referring to? There is only one scientific method. I taught Quantitative Research Methods at the Graduate level for 30 years. So, what common sense misguided misunderstanding do you have of my methodology? I carefully parse my views into those that are science-based and those that are beliefs based on my knowledge and experience. My Doctorate fields are Social Psychology and Quantitative Research Methods.
After having been told countless times, you still feel the need to ask what the problem is with your methodology? Is this pretense on your part or a stunning lack of comprehension?
So that we don't have to deal with your claiming your question went unanswered....once more..and for all time...you cannot mix science and pseudo science and expect to still have science. You cannot introduce supernatural claims in your explorations of natural law. Chemistry and alchemy are not the same thing and they cannot operate in harmony.
I am completely confident that none of the above was taught to you during any of your scholastic matriculation, so trying to back up your belief in mixing a scientific discipline with fill in the gaps mysticism is entirely your own idea, not the product of an advanced education. If you desire acceptance of this idea, you need to find an audience more gullible than the rationalists who participate in this forum.
I will concede that forum posts are very casual, and I am certainly guilty of typos, grammatical errors and spellcheck misdeeds, but I also don’t try to present myself as the smartest, most educated guy in the room with unassailable positions.
Neither do I, but I AM a smart and very educated guy with scientifically defensible positions AND plausible hypotheses that exceed any pseudo-science label. I do NOT believe in any such concept as the supernatural.
I know that. The way you listed the 4 disciples in your post was as if they were all equivalents. The problem is that science is a very broad term encompassing many disciplines, while physics is a subset of science. It’s simply a very odd way of putting things.
Science is not a discipline. It is a category of disciplines that employ a specific methodology. It was my intent to identify specific areas of expertise within science as well as a general overarching knowledge of scientific methodology which is always a part of any real PhD.
After having been told countless times, you still feel the need to ask what the problem is with your methodology? Is this pretense on your part or a stunning lack of comprehension?
So that we don't have to deal with your claiming your question went unanswered....once more..and for all time...you cannot mix science and pseudoscience and expect to still have science. You cannot introduce supernatural claims in your explorations of natural law. Chemistry and alchemy are not the same thing and they cannot operate in harmony.
I am completely confident that none of the above was taught to you during any of your scholastic matriculation, so trying to back up your belief in mixing a scientific discipline with fill in the gaps mysticism is entirely your own idea, not the product of an advanced education. If you desire acceptance of this idea, you need to find an audience more gullible than the rationalists who participate in this forum.
I cannot compensate for your refusal or inability to parse my views into those that are science-based, those that are experience-based, and those that are BELIEFS based on discovering a template within the "spiritual fossil record" of speculations about God. There is no such thing as the supernatural and my plausible hypotheses are far from pseudo-science.
I cannot compensate for your refusal or inability to parse my views into those that are science-based, those that are experience-based, and those that are BELIEFS based on discovering a template within the "spiritual fossil record" of speculations about God. There is no such thing as the supernatural and my plausible hypotheses are far from pseudo-science.
You mean to say that you hold no beliefs which are the product of combining experience with academic learning? That all is compartmentalized? If that were actually true, it would allow you to simultaneously hold contradictory ideas, one based on scientific principles and an opposing one based on experience., and perhaps yet another based on insight gained from deep meditation, which you seem to have convinced yourself is different from any other sort of thinking.
That last, that marketing of meditation as some sort of superior method of doping things out, that right there is based on an unproven assumption on your part. If you believe that ideas which flow from meditation somehow or other are superior to ideas produced in another manner, then you are working with a false methodology. Only error must follow.
You mean to say that you hold no beliefs which are the product of combining experience with academic learning? That all is compartmentalized? If that were actually true, it would allow you to simultaneously hold contradictory ideas, one based on scientific principles and an opposing one based on experience., and perhaps yet another based on insight gained from deep meditation, which you seem to have convinced yourself is different from any other sort of thinking.
That last, that marketing of meditation as some sort of superior method of doping things out, that right there is based on an unproven assumption on your part. If you believe that ideas which flow from meditation somehow or other are superior to ideas produced in another manner, then you are working with a false methodology. Only error must follow.
Absolutely ALL our experiences and information about reality are the product of our brain processes so it is bogus and illogical thinking to pretend that some of our experiences are somehow less reliable and inferior to others because we can identify the brain area that produces them. It is fallacious reasoning to pretend that the experience of a presence (God) or OBE is false just because we know what area of the brain produces it. It is equally plausible that our brain is designed to process aspects of our reality using those areas and not just our typical sensory system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
