

Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science - MichaelAO
http://arsspiritus.com/science-quotes-will-make-question-reality/

======
VieElm
Isaac Newton practiced alchemy. What it comes down to is that all claims
require a standard of validation and evidence, regardless of who makes them. I
am often bothered by quotes bandied around by the incredulous about things
Albert Einstein has said as arguments for supernatural ideas. Even if it were
the case it doesn't matter if an otherwise brilliant scientist said or
believed in quackery. Some people are so unfamiliar with how science works
that there is a fundamental problem for them not understaning that it is not
being about _who_ said or wrote something, it's about _what_ they said. And
not everything those people said is of equal value.

If some person were to discover the explanation for dark matter in the
universe with substantial evidence and then later in life turn around saying
fairies were also real, it would not make fairies real.

~~~
briantakita
The scientific method lays out series of steps. The inspiration that leads to
creating a hypothesis often involves connecting concepts and expanding
awareness.

Mysticism seems like a process of wonder & appreciation of Existence. The
unified whole where some parts are explained and some unexplained. A journey,
not a destination. The phenomena beyond the reach of current understanding.
The process of expanding consciousness.

If the concept of mysticism motivates people to explore Existence, then it
sounds like it would have a positive impact, no?

Please note the differences between esoteric mysticism (spirituality) vs
exoteric religion. One involves the process of inner exploration and the other
involves the process of social coercion.

------
fsloth
That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical
approach. Science is a process. Individual's sense of wonder is a precious
thing but not science even if a scientist attempted to express it.

I.e. there was nothing extra sciency in Eintein's sneeze, a cobbler does not
excrement shoes nor is Usain Bolt practicing sports when he sleeps.

~~~
briantakita
The scientific method is like an API. It does not matter how you make the
connections as long as the scientific method is correctly done.

> That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical
> approach.

Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist.
YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the
problem.

~~~
fsloth
"Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular
scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration &
approached the problem"

Well, yes. But the headline was a bit more generalizing than that which I
found too silly not to comment upon. Richard Feynman played the bongos - but I
don't think that blurs the boundary between drumming and science.

------
hiattp
Is it only physicists in this article because physics has reached a limit in
terms of what it can measure without resorting to mathematical or
philosophical abstractions? I've seen a lot of these kinds of quotes from
physicists but not as many in other fields. Not a criticism, just an
observation/question.

~~~
vacri
My guess is that it's that these particular branches of physics and philosophy
overlap considerably in the field of "what are the fundamentals of stuff". A
biologist is interested in how organisms work, but is less interested in how
the atoms making the organism came to be. A materials scientist is interested
in how different things are tough/strong/flexible/tasty over the fundamental
origin of those things. A social scientist is more interested in how humans
interact with each other than how humans physically originated.

------
swatow
Maybe mystic beliefs are over-represented among scientists. But all these
quotes show is that some scientists have these beliefs and find their beliefs
to be intimately connected with their scientific views.

They are not "scientific quotes" they are "quotes by some scientists". From a
Christian scientist we have _I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the
complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the
God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By
investigating God 's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a
means of worship._ \-- Francis Collins

------
jrapdx3
This is quite a fascinating series of comments by individuals with truly deep
understanding of quantum phenomena. What's remarkable is the similarity of the
ideas expressed, and I'm quite sure there was no consultation among them about
what they said.

The transcendent theme is _oneness_ of consciousness and matter, and the
inseparability of the "parts" of nature or the universe.

Not that this is an especially recent point of view. After all, it seems
reminiscent of Moses' commentaries on the immanent oneness of God, of course
translated to a current-day mode of expression. I assume such experience keeps
recurring because it is some way embedded in human nature.

BTW, Einstein also spoke of having this kind of "spiritual" experience.
(Confer Einstein's conversations with Martin Buber.) Einstein also made a
point of crediting Spinoza as the source of his spiritual leanings.
Interestingly, Spinoza's "Ethics" (~1677) elaborates a view of the universe
uncannily similar to that of the quoted scientists, and that seems unlikely to
be merely coincidental.

------
conistonwater
There's a quote, maybe fictional, by some great physicist (Bohr?). Someone was
visiting his home, and noticed that there was a horseshoe hanging above the
main door, which is traditionally done for good luck. He asked Bohr, surely
you don't believe in that nonsense. To which Bohr replied, it's supposed to
work regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

~~~
srtjstjsj
indeed
[https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=bohr%20horseshoe](https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=bohr%20horseshoe)

------
Gabriel_Martin
It's slightly sad that even when one can thrust one's mind to the fringes of a
human knowledge, our brain's flaws remain; by which I mean: the human
consciousness seems highly inclined to accept one's culture's common
behaviours, even if that means accepting fallacies and irrationalities.

Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed
us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on
a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational
bullshit that gets spread around persist.

~~~
briantakita
> even if that means accepting fallacies and irrationalities

The judgement of what is irrational is often irrational, subjective, & fraught
with externalities. Love can be considered "irrational".

> Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially
> betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or
> belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any
> irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.

Our consciousness is flexible. We can have logical systems in spite of
unexplained phenomena. We also have a drive understand more & expand
consciousness. Some people perceive this as esoteric spirituality (or
mystiscism).

> by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief

I'm confused. Would you prefer that we have less novelty & think with less
variation?

------
vinchuco
Compare to: "Mystical Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Science and
Mysticism"

------
tjbrennan
Many of these quotes have to do with theories of consciousness. Describing
consciousness is still a philosophical problem. I wouldn't call this
"mysticism," just scientists trying to grapple with the mind-body problem.

~~~
briantakita
Different people, different definitions. There's also some overlap between
abstractions like Philosophy & "Mysticism".

> …I regard consciousness as fundamental

> Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in
> the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the
> mystery that we are trying to solve.

> Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one.

> The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an
> illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict
> and confusion.

Reading these quotes, it seems like they are all in an abstract, or mind,
domain.

------
swayvil
If a smart guy said something that contradicted my views, I might hesitate
before doubting him. He is smart, after all. Possibly even smarter than me.

------
pain
Poverty of language has a point, of matter between myst and sci-psy.

------
wyager
It is worth noting that being an expert in one's field does not preclude one
from saying stupid things. Lots of otherwise rational scientists can get
caught up in mysticism.

~~~
swayvil
Don't they get points for being proven geniuses?

I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they
understand. It happens.

Let me put it another way.

You are asserting the conventional view.

Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful
ways.

~~~
wyager
>You are asserting the conventional view.

Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are
religious, I'd say believing in mysticism _is_ the conventional view.

But that argument is flawed anyway; both the _argumentum ad antiquitatem_ and
_argumentum ad novitatem_ are logical fallacies. Just because something is or
is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness.

What's important is whether or not something is supported by empirical
evidence, which the mystical view(s) of consciousness mentioned in the article
certainly are not.

~~~
swayvil
I dunno what society you live in, but in mine the scientist is held divine and
our holy scriptures are handed down by Newton and Einstein. That's the
convention where I live. You hear this gospel preached from one end of the
internet to the other.

The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding
out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but
stupid. Like an insect is effective but stupid. Crude, myopic and simplistic
even. And yes, darn good for building termite mounds of logically consistent
explanations.

This game sheds a very small circle of very bright light in the midst of a
vast shadow.

Let's not pretend that the shadow does not exist. And let's also not pretend
that a society of thinkers governed by the scientific method is up to the task
of modeling the shadow. The observer's perspective will always be infinitely
subtler than any map that he can craft. The map will always be just a crude
cartoon compared to the reality. Moreso with our geniuses.

So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what
our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then
blame the map. It is just a tiny limited thing after all. And when you put
your faith in the map, or in our modern scientific mapmaking processes, you
fail.

The views of smart people matter. Our games of epistemological accounting,
less so.

~~~
wyager
Wow. No offense, but you read like a living strawman for the _argumentum ad
auctoritatem_ fallacy.

>So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and
what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert,
then blame the map.

Really? So every time two smart people reach contradictory conclusions, we
should presume that science is incorrect and logic is inconsistent?

~~~
swayvil
Authority exists. The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of
the initiate.

No, that's just the insect talking. What you do is step back and reconsider
your working assumptions. Respect the limits of your models and of the
modeling process. Stuff like that

~~~
wyager
>The views of the novice are not worth as much as those of the initiate.

But the views of a single "initiate" (What do you mean by that? It seems a
strange word to use in this context.) don't trump the entirety of science and
logic.

>Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process.

I do; the limits of our models are substantially more impressive than the
limits of a single (fallible) person, no matter how impressive they may be.

~~~
swayvil
A novice is one who has sampled the subject matter only shallowly, or only in
the abstract. An initiate is one who has sampled the subject matter firsthand.

"Trump" is not the operative term here. More like "extend" or "augment". If
science illuminates like a laser then the alternative, the squishy human
approach, or whatever you want to call it, illuminates like a floodlight.
Dimmer but wider.

If you respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process, then
beyond those limits you put aside the science tool and pick up another. Maybe
that which Feynman etc use. It certainly works for them.

