I haven’t noticed any great difference between them in that regard. I think it’s more a medical attitude in general that leads to same conclusion as we see in Buddhism. Sometimes, people reinvent ideas independent of each other because they are obvious conclusions to reach.
The same thing could be said of Buddhism if a person wanted to be critical. It’s only when we narrow Buddhism to one tradition or another than it looks really coherent. Jung, for instance, was quite interested in Zen Buddhism, which had a similar method as psychology actually (the student has interviews with the teacher periodically in which they are told things to “break through” their mental block). But what has Zen in common with Theravada Buddhism, really?
Yeah. I don’t consider it a science. Some parts of psychology tries to do science, but the therapy side of it I’d call a secular philosophy-religion thing. It’s interesting to me that it straddles those categories the way Confucianism and a few other secular belief systems do. But I wouldn’t call the whole of it a science, no. Which isn’t a “bad” thing to me.
Buddhism does not clearly state hypotheses. If we infer hypotheses about rebirth, karma, enlightenment, etc., then they would still not be clearly testable.
For something to be testable, it should be reproducible and falsifiable. If the testing is done by different people, they should be able to achieve similar results. There should also be a way to prove the hypothesis is false, if it were false.
sometimes there is an obsession in contemporary Buddhists to get some approval from Science, although I fear this is because a lack of perspective.
Science always is modulated by the times and what the political powers wish to have. Astrology is no more an Science, despite probably it has a better statistics than Economics. Anyway, today Economics is an Science even when many economists are not very sure about that:
this man is right about Economics is Science, “primitive”… or whatever. The reason is not detecting some objective scientific character of Economics but the theological kernel of this God-money system. Where logically Economics should be an Science. Same happened in past times with Alchemy, Theology, Astrology and etcetera
I believe Buddhists should stop to request the approval of that confused world. Note they are building an Armageddon bomb composed by a very dangerous techno-scientific jump although without the company of some ethics. Really different of similar situations from the past, like in example, the Renaissance. Now there is no one humanist revolution associated and with a new ethics to sustain that.
The point should be the inverse. Buddhism is an already finished system with a solid ethics. It is Science who needs quite helps of this style. In example, we could ask scientists why all the modern techno-scientific discourses for that big next jump, are empty of any humanism. Why all them sounds so alien for the happiness of human beings and so useless to raise the spirit to new heights.
Look all those Ted talks and etc. What Science says today only sound to many functional improvements for an absurd culmination of a psychopathic blind device with IA and the rest. Because we should remember that all machines and IA are psychopathic developments by definition, due to a logical lack of empathy which is a main characteristic to establish that character.
Scientist are people like the rest, and probably most are trapped in the building of that machinery working in specialized parts, without possibility to change some thing despite they can observe the risks in all the extent and better than us.
The ethical contributions from outside can be a needed thing because this new revolution is not a new Quattrocento. At this moment seems to be closer to some fake-revolution or the road to a new tyranny. Specially when we are missing those essential ingredients which are proper of a change of paradigm of such magnitude, and able to guarantee its success.
So at least I understand It would be better stopping to beggar the approval from Science. It is Science who need ethical contributions with severe urgency.
It’s possible to market and present Buddhism in such a way to attract the faith of the science believers.
The hypothesis are the 4 noble truths. It’s only true to the noble ones, those who had tested them, while for unenlightened beings, they are hypothesis.
One important difference between physical science and Buddhism is that in Buddhism, one person tested the hypothesis, it only becomes true to that person. The benefit of technology is only for those who had put in the effort to construct the experiment and run it. Whereas physical sciences can have a person being a science denier and still enjoy fruits of science called technology. Most people, even most non experimental scientist don’t do the experiment to verify known science. Even most experimental scientists don’t recreate all the experiments to replicate all known science, most of science is taken by faith.
Whereas the central experiment for Buddhism is to attain to Jhanas, see impermanence, suffering, not self nature of all things to let go of all attachments, and end suffering. Each person has to complete the whole path to gain the full benefit.
How to test for rebirth: develop recollection of past lives.
How to test for kamma, develop divine eye, see the many lives and actions of many beings until the pattern of kamma emerges.
How to test for enlightenment: have right view, develop the full noble 8fold path, attain to arahanthood. Actually, stream winner already can verify enlightenment exist.
Reproducible: for 2500+ years of lineage, especially within the monastic community, the claim of Buddha had been tested and many arahants are produced. No scientific theory had stood that long a test of time by so many people.
Falsifiable: It’s harder for this, but still possible in a sense. Buddhism claimed that those who committed the 5 heavy evil kamma will go to hell in their next life. So those with divine eye can look to see if this is the case.
For rebirth, we can try to comb through the rebirth evidences, to see that the past lives that these kids claim to be, none of them should be a person who had done the 5 evil heavy kammas. Or else if they are, that there’s a time gap between the present life and the previous life to allow for time suffered in hell (unlikely, I think the saying is that the person suffers in hell for an aeon). So if we do find such case, it can falsify that part of Buddhism.
Also, do note that falsifiability as a philosophy of science is fairly new, recent, like only introduced in the 20th century. Verification is more of the model which is used in Buddhism. Even some scientists (notably string theorist and those who believe in many worlds interpretation of quantum physics) are arguing against using the criterion of falsifiability to all of science. Multiverse may not be falsifiable, but should that mean all scientists shouldn’t be allowed to think and work on it? At most we can verify that multiverse exist, if we managed to communicate with another universe, or travel to there, somehow.
Can someone explain to me the obsession with “science” that people seem to have? Am I imagining this obsession, or is it real? I used to care about science. I guess I still do regarding space travel and many other interesting points of conversation. But I truly don’t think Buddhism is science. I think progressing on this path involves giving up on science as able to quantify reality in any personally “meaningful” way. Am I crazy?
P.S. … maybe science means different things to different people and that is why it throws people off? Who knows.
The new atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc) debunk God based religions based on science, in the process, they might had turned science into a new form of religion, in the sense that whatever accords with science is good. Like in the old days in Europe, whatever doesn’t clash with Christian theology is good.
Actually this might not need to start from the new atheists, ever since the atom bomb exploded, people started to take physics seriously. Yet, a lot of religious people also have a vested interest to undermine science. Today with the immersion in tech, the information age, and soon having internet in everything, as in chips, smart stuffs, the power of science is seen immediately. There’s a natural tendency to compare religion with science to see if religion is true.
I agree 100%. The interesting thing is that even science can’t prove many things in the absolute sense. Maybe I am wrong, and I very well might be, but some things just don’t have to be proven as “true” by peer reviewed papers, etc. There are many aspects of the teachings that may be proven helpful or “true” in the eyes of the beholder per se, but may never be proven “true” by science and peer reviewed papers. Sometimes, application and observation are enough in my humble opinion.
The interesting thing is the bias that is intrinsic in self-reporting, so wouldn’t that cause an issue with traditional scientific methods (regarding things like meditation, etc)? Just a thought.
There is a long history of modernists attempting to sweep away traditional religions and beliefs, and religions finding new ways to realign themselves to stay afloat. Some of these tensions were even more relevant a century ago.
I don’t follow that conclusion. Are you saying those who follow science and not Buddhism are nihilists and hedonists? I’ve heard believers of some religions say that anyone who doesn’t believe in a creator god are unethical and have no morals!
According to the core teachings of SN/SA suttas, Buddhism is about psychotherapy, functioning as a different form of religion or practice for mental health. This is because the Buddha in the texts teaches mainly about the dukkha ‘suffering’ and the way practically leading to the cessation of dukkha. The term for psychotherapy in the SN/SA suttas is ceto-vimutti ‘mind-liberation’, which comes together with this term, paññā-vimutti ‘wisdom-liberation’.
That’s why we have brutal, absolute, total self honesty in applying mindfulness in meditation. To see things as they really are, with right view, breaking through delusions. That’s why we need Jhanas. It’s not an easy thing to break through all bias, all views, to see reality before delusion of self sets in. Science has a lot to learn to investigate the mind.
I think you’re confusing 2 things.
Science as in scientific methodology, scientific findings etc, and
Scientism, which are the attitude, philosophy, belief of scientist, those who trust science, and those who elevate scientific findings to absolute truth.
The first part is absolutely no issue with Buddhism at all. It’s good for the world.
Unfortunately, it’s the second part which people have trouble telling apart from the first, which can come to clashes with religion, even Buddhism. In particular, the philosophy of reductionism materialism/physicalism. The belief that since science doesn’t say there’s devas, ghost, it means there’s no way for there to be devas, ghost, those religions who has them are superstitious and false. The belief of mind is the brain, thus no possible way for rebirth to happen, thus rebirth is ruled out a priory via philosophical considerations.
To be clear, the second part is strictly not science. It’s merely philosophical add ons. Sometimes, oftentimes, unjustifiably. Religious people have a vested interest to attack science from this second part, which if people confuse to be the same as the first part, could lead to disastrous consequences, like anti-vaxxer, climate denial, flat earther, creationist, intelligent designer. Actually, for the literal Bible readers, they have vested interest to debunk scientific findings as well. For those who can read the Bible in a historical setting, they know that myths are not meant to be literal, but as an instruction to reach for the ineffable.
In response to the Bible literalist, the science presenters, sometimes ver towards presenting scientific findings closer to absolute truth, which adds to the issue.
It seems that even Buddhists can mix these 2 up. So it’s good to have people who think deeply into these issues, separate the core of science from the fluff and properly present the issue.
That is the view of reductionist that phenomena of mind can be described by brain and but there’s no proof that it’s really true
The eliminatives avoid the problem by ignoring the mind entirely stating it doesn’t exist in the first place now this is harder to refute if mind is really an illusion there’s no need to prove it in the first place
Here’s another take: when we find alternative medicine that works, it’s no longer ‘alternative’, it’s just medicine.
‘Alternative’ is actually a label for those things that, if put to the test, very likely we would find that its no better than a placebo.
Say you get seriously sick, do you want the alternative medicine or the medicine? Are you obsessed with science if you’ll only accept medicine?
Seeing the causal logic in the EBTs being on par with modern science is something that gives me a great deal of confidence in the Buddha to be honest. I wish more people recognized and appreciated this amazing aspect of the EBTs, hence why I posted this thread.
There are tons of scientists who are not eliminative materialists though. Science is very diverse in terms of metaphysics
To my mind, the methodology (of awakening) in the EBTs is scientific. However, awakening is not a population level phenomenon, but is what in psychology is called a ‘within-subject’ phenomenon.
E.g. the whole point of a randomized experiment is to estimate the average causal effect in the population. That is, if we do this intervention, what will happen to people on average?
However, for within-subject phenomena, we’re not interested in generalizing to a population, we’re interested in the unique processes happening inside individuals.
IMO, the Dhamma is applied at the within-subject level. The EBTs describe how to do a detailed case study of one’s own mind, including experiments like turning off the hindrances and seeing what happens.
The goal is to achieve certain causal outcomes in one’s own mind (awakening), not to describe a population-level causal mechanism though.
The point I want to make with this thread: it’s generally not recognized how scientific the methodology of the EBTs are! Someone other than me please recognize this!
It seems to me that this is unfortunately often what is taught in middle school and high school as science. E.g. “first hypothesis, then experiment, then it becomes a scientific law”, like science is just looking around until you find all the absolute truths scattered about reality.
This is a very distorted view of science though. It’s a much more messy, social process with people disagreeing a lot and sometimes not enough.
For what it’s worth, in India, there was no term which signified a “science”, as in, a group of natural philosophies that were separate from another, less “hard science” group.
What did exist was the term vidyā, which means knowledge and refers to a field of study. This is closer to the German term wissenschaft.
Indian Buddhist universities often taught five sciences or five vidyas.
The five sciences are:
the “science of language” (śabda vidyā; shēng-míng, 聲明);
the “science of logic” (hetu vidyā; yīn-míng, 因明);
the “science of medicine” (cikitsā vidyā; yào-míng, 藥明);
the “science of fine arts and crafts” (śilpa-karma-sthāna vidyā; gōngqiǎo-míng, 工巧明);
the “inner science” of spirituality (adhyātma vidyā; nèi-míng, 內明).
Thus, the idea that there is a group of fields of knowledge called science and that this is separate from less experimental, naturalistic or rigorous fields is a recent western invention.
