Neo-Platonism: The beginning of Comparative Religion?

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Al,

I still do not find a link between a Christian polemic against Campbell and my endorsement of the scientific method, but maybe you can. The human mind works in mysterious ways! :wink:

However, the opinion piece you quoted actually illustrates my point about pseudoscience. Campbell has time and again pointed out that modern scientific discoveries have negated the literal reading of myths: in fact, the "Cosmological Function" of myth has now been taken over by science. Campbell uses the findings of science to make rational arguments in his works: contrary to popular belief, he is never "mystical" in his writing, although he recognises the importance of myths to the human psyche.

His detractor, on the other hand makes sweeping statements like "Furthermore, I have yet to find one thing which Campbell says against the Bible that can't be refuted by looking at the actual scientific, historic, and rational evidence or by reading the text in its proper context. Despite all of his criticisms, the biblical record stands intact." Obviously, his bibliography at the end is full of books written by people like himself. Nobody in the scientific community today argues for the literal veracity of the Bible.

The scientific method helps keep Tom Snyder and his ilk outside the door.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »

I couldn't argue with that, nandu -
Obviously, his bibliography at the end is full of books written by people like himself. Nobody in the scientific community today argues for the literal veracity of the Bible.

The scientific method helps keep Tom Snyder and his ilk outside the door.
Sometimes, unfortunately, what you see as valid, others see as logically unsound. By attacking methodology & logic, one can create an illusion - smoke & mirrors. That happens with science, too. Just look at the decade-long climate change debate. Look at corporate sponsored "impact studies". It happens, usually the big red flag is a lack of a sound philosophy (especially ethics). Sometimes things aren't foreseeable, sometimes there is intentional deceit. (I'm not trying to be so vague - but I'm off to bed).

Regards,
AL
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
~Max Planck

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Hey look what I found. This is a good example of what we've been talking about.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/02/2 ... thropology
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

In 1972 I took an anthropology course and did a report on that book. My interpretation was that he blamed drugs for their behavior, and not some ingrained physical reason.

In any case, he attacked the noble savage myth and should be condemned.

Ron

ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »

Nice one, Neo - bulls-eye :wink:

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote:I see. You know better than 200 years of research by the best minds in physics.
So which is it - a particle or a wave?

Scientists interpret quantum mechanics to mean that a tiny piece of material like a photon or electron is both a particle and a wave. It can be either, depending on how one looks at it or what kind of an experiment one is doing. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that photons and electrons are neither a particle or a wave -- they're undefined up until the very moment someone looks at them or performs an experiment, thus forcing them to be either a particle or a wave.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

SteveC
Associate
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Post by SteveC »

nandu wrote:Al,

I still do not find a link between a Christian polemic against Campbell and my endorsement of the scientific method, but maybe you can. The human mind works in mysterious ways! :wink:

However, the opinion piece you quoted actually illustrates my point about pseudoscience. Campbell has time and again pointed out that modern scientific discoveries have negated the literal reading of myths: in fact, the "Cosmological Function" of myth has now been taken over by science. Campbell uses the findings of science to make rational arguments in his works: contrary to popular belief, he is never "mystical" in his writing, although he recognises the importance of myths to the human psyche.
Are religion and science all that different? Both have a process of Eureka! And then a revision comes along that shows them wrong.

While the topic differs slightly (mechanical reactions versus moral reactions), the study, cause and effect, constant revisiting, building on tradition, etc., seems to be pretty similar.

Should that be a surprise? How we learn is somewhat hard-wired. What we are studying would reflect our approach.

I was at the Museum of Science yesterday. They have a large display on probability which involves dropping balls through a grid of pegs. At the bottom of the panel, they always arrange themselves in a bell curve. Looking at it, it was obvious that since the balls are dropped from the center, they formed a bell curve at the center. That would be the shortest distance for gravity to take the ball. If the balls were dropped at various positions along the top, rather than dead center, the bell curve probably would not result. So the 'cause and effect' being observed, and the importance of a bell curve being 'normal' is probably false. Wrong explanation of what is occurring. The conditions of the experiment determined the result. The result was not a natural phenomenon being observed through the experiment.

I am holy because I go to church is as specious as I am rational because I conduct science. While prophets stand on the shoulders of prophets, and scientists stand on the shoulders of scientists, there are a fair amount or unholy and irrational in their respective groups.

I agree, the mind works in mysterious ways. The thing we have the most trouble recognizing is the thing we know best: ourselves. :)
You can only see the height of a mountain from its valley.


The radical myth towards which the helix aspires is beyond the desire for money or power, yet which has greater returns than all the power and money in the world could not achieve.

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

ALOberhoulser wrote:I By attacking methodology & logic, one can create an illusion - smoke & mirrors. That happens with science, too. Just look at the decade-long climate change debate. Look at corporate sponsored "impact studies". It happens, usually the big red flag is a lack of a sound philosophy (especially ethics). Sometimes things aren't foreseeable, sometimes there is intentional deceit. (I'm not trying to be so vague - but I'm off to bed).

Regards,
AL
Science is a long term process AL.
That there is a dispute in both the evidence and its interpretation is part of the process. When debating climate change we can have three responses akin to Campbell's three types of religion.

1) Accept and celebrate the world (and its changes) as they are.
2) Withdraw from the world.
3) Try to make it better.

Now our perceptions of the world are likely illusory. Even Campbell's parsing of religion.

Take your pick.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

nandu wrote:As an engineer, it is my experience that the "philosophy" of what I do (if such a thing exists!) has absolutely zero impact on what I practically accomplish.

Science is method; please, let it remain as one.

Nandu.
While I agree with you Nandu from a pragmatic point of view, there are some philosophical aspects to science that are highly useful.

The biggest of these (for me) is science does not prove theories. This is a very common misconception. I too succumbed to this misconception for a good deal of my career. So if this is true for the best ;) most pragmatic approaches what does it say for the other approaches such divining tea leaves, astrology and meditation.
Last edited by romansh on Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom,

For me the important part of the wave particle duality is the fact that it takes two stories to describe the behavior of the simplest thing there is.

To answer your question: If one defines a thing by its attributes, (for instance, if an animal looks and smells like a cat, and lives and dies like a cat, then therefore it is a cat), then the photon is both a wave and a particle, and so are the other particles. I worked at a new multi-billion dollar research facility that was designed based on the duality of the neutron.

Intellectually this is troubling. Our intellect believes that surely it must be one or the other, and that is why the debate lasted over 200 years. It began with a paper on the nature of light by Newton in the 1660s, and ended in 1905 with Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect.

The quantum mechanical approach you quote is the most intellectually satisfying for me. For a few years the photon was called a wavicle, but name died when it was found that all particles have a dual nature.

I don’t understand your comment that science doesn’t prove theories. I looked up the definition of proof in dictionary .com and according to that definition science proves theories. Perhaps you prefer the word confirm rather than prove. This seems to me to be a better description of what the scientific method does.

Ron

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Here are couple of questions for you Ron:

1) When examining quantum phenomena does the method of observation/measurement affect the observed result: wave or particle? Or is it the otherway around?

2) Have Newton's laws of motion ever been proved?

On a day to day basis I live in a Newtonian world. At best it is an excellent approximation. In reality it could be said that Newton's law's have been disproved, ie the precession of Mercury. Our theories and scientific laws are nothing but powerful descriptions.

Don't get me wrong this is high praise coming from me. Having a theory that can be disproved is what science is all about.

All a scientist can do is find evidence that is coherent with the theory. This is evidence that theory is not 'wrong'. Because you can bet last dollar it will be one day. Evolution is a case in point; as our knowledge/evidence increase so does the mechanisms that occur grow. Our concept of evolution is evolving.

ps I really liked this post of yours
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom posted
Here are couple of questions for you Ron:

1) When examining quantum phenomena does the method of observation/measurement affect the observed result: wave or particle? Or is it the otherway around?

2) Have Newton's laws of motion ever been proved?
In response to question 1, there are some quantum mechanical systems that can be affected by the measurement technique, for example the action at a distance experiments with correlated particles. However, I don't think this applies to light. When you see a rainbow you see an example of the wave nature of light, and when you take a picture with your cell phone you are using the particle nature to get the picture.

Regarding question 2, Newton's laws are most easily confirmed in space where gravity is the only significant force that needs to be considered, but the fact that they are used successfully every day is proof of their validity.

When we discovered that space could warp we didn't negate Newton's laws. Instead we redefined what a straight line was.

Ron

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote: In response to question 1, there are some quantum mechanical systems that can be affected by the measurement technique, for example the action at a distance experiments with correlated particles. However, I don't think this applies to light. When you see a rainbow you see an example of the wave nature of light, and when you take a picture with your cell phone you are using the particle nature to get the picture.
So is it the method of measurement that affects how we see quantum phenomena or are they truly both a wave and a particle at the same time. Or as some interpretations would have it neither?
Roncooper wrote: Regarding question 2, Newton's laws are most easily confirmed in space where gravity is the only significant force that needs to be considered, but the fact that they are used successfully every day is proof of their validity.

When we discovered that space could warp we didn't negate Newton's laws. Instead we redefined what a straight line was.

Ron
In Newton's world there is the force of gravity, in Einstein's it is less clear:
... gravity is not quite a force, but rather an artifact of the natural movement of objects through curved four-dimensional spacetime.
and another quote
Einstein answered this question in a revolutionary way. According to Einstein, gravity is not a force which pulls on things; rather, it is a curvature of space and time caused by the presence of a nearby massive object (like the Earth). When something comes along and moves past the massive object, it will appear to be pulled towards it, but in reality, it isn't being pulled at all
So our interpretation of Newton's gravity has changed with Einstein.

Saying Newton's laws work under certain conditions while true, is a little bit like saying my car continues in a straight line when I let go of the steering wheel under certain conditions.

This is the whole point of science - it does not prove things, it continually finds better descriptions of the phenomena we encounter. Newton's laws may have been validated, but they are definitely wrong (disproved) and not a suitable description for use in GPS.

Similarly relativity and QM are incompatible. Our two most successful theories; one or both will have to give.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom,

You threw me a curve. Gravity isn't one of Newton's laws of motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

I don't have anything else to say about the wave particle duality. It would be repitition at this point.


Ron

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

I'm certainly no scientist, guys, by why not both/and when it comes to Einstein and Newton? Just trying to learn here...


And Neoplato, your thread seems to have gone off track. Okay with you?


Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Locked