Alan Watts: Buddhism And Science - Pt. 1 of 2

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• watts
• nature
• buddhism
• zen
• tao
• taoism
• philosophy
• eastern
• religion
• educational

[S0chan]

Science is not a method of description. Or rather, it is a method of description of rules and laws that govern natural processes, not a method of description of said processes.

Science doesn't describe leafs, it describes what leafs do and how they do it.

Though I can understand why it would be hard to understand that distinction at that time considering the example from biology.

Obviously biology could only be an exercise in pointless classification without the theory of evolution in place.

[87SilentSpace]

@S0chan

Excellent comment!

[sopopasserby]

Please visit "Introduction to Buddhism through Science" for more information on this topic.

[Lotusflowerism]

he's like a mister rogers of philosophy

[wouldaben]

Science is a method used to predict some variables by observing other variables. The variables must be externally observable. Science operates through repeatable experiments. The controlled experiment (in which all conditions except one are identical) is the purest form of science. However, there are many phenomena humans wish to predict which defy controlled experimentation (weather forecasting, for instance), and must be investigated through correlational evidence.

[WKRPinCINN]

@S0chan ---

a. in seeking to describe the rules & laws that govern natural processes, scientific inquest therefore instates a description of said natural processes though undertaking scientific methodology. ie- describing the rules & laws of nature inaction is in itself a descriptive process.

b. science could not describe what leaves do and how they do it without describing what a leaf is.

c. biology wouldn't be pointless classification without evolution. Bio & Evo are both descriptions.

[1try80deny]

@S0chan Well put. Take those ideas and apply them to Buddhism, God, religion, etc. and one will be on the right track to figuring it out. Its in the way..."...that you use it. It comes and it goes."

[tannsz]

Even the "wiggly" complexities that we witness and experience in life are a spawn of intricate interactions between simple figures. Consciousness itself is just an ultra complex network of on's and off's. No matter what else may or may not exist in the multiverse, *we* exist in a universe that is encased in three dimensions, and so, we can only understand the universe in terms relating to these dimensions. The universe, one day, will be defined on a grid of infinite squares.

[seigneurvoland666]

But isn't science the least abstract of all systems of thought ?

[S0chan]

@Siomistic And I agree. I admit my wording of the explanation might not have been the best. Unfortunately english is not my native language..

[Siomistic]

@S0chan I only asked "are you saying the physical world is built upon thought" because you said "...they only focus on the core part...the engine upon which our world is built" which to me is a thought. In the 'real' world there are no seperate parts, 'parts' only exist in thought, language, words and images etc. I'll continue thinking on your words...thanks for the food for thought!