Science values certain kinds of apprehension over others. In particular, it does not value learning that comes from within. I can’t really see a coherent, a priori justification for this position.
Posted: March 11th 2009
George Ricker www
Science is based upon knowledge that can be independently tested and verified. It yields results that also can be tested and verified.
Gnosis can be neither tested nor verified. Whatever “learning that comes from within” may mean to you, it is, by its very nature, subjective and idiosyncratic.
Science is our best approach to understanding ourselves and the universe outside ourselves. Gnosis has no real utility in either undertaking.
Posted: March 12th 2009
logicel
We know that the human brain is easily fooled. We need to limit those errors and the scientific approach allows us to do that. It is a completely coherent and totally justified position.
However, individual creativity, problem solving, and enterprise is not looked down upon, but instead is encouraged as long as it is not wallowing within in its sheltered and blinkered perspective.
Science has shown that there are no immediate hot-lines to any knowledge. It has demonstrated to us that the obtaining of worthwhile knowledge is a laborious process with many false starts, immense tediousness, and surprising conclusions. No wonder some would like to cut to the chase and avoid all that difficulty and just claim, I know.
Posted: March 12th 2009
SmartLX www
Gnosis is knowledge of the divine. It would be evidence if there were any way to verify that one has genuine gnosis. Without this, simply claiming gnosis is useless. One can’t know whether one’s mistaken. Many worldwide sincerely claim to know the divine, but they claim completely contradictory things in different geographical locations, therefore most if not all of them only think they know.
Supporting gods with gnosis is either impossible or redundant. If independent evidence existed against which one could publicly confirm one’s perceived gnosis, the question would already be settled on the basis of that other evidence and wouldn’t need the additional support.
Posted: March 11th 2009
Eric_PK
It’s pretty simple.
For something to be science, you have to be able to know when you are wrong, and there has to be a way for others to replicate your results. All science works this way.
Learning from within – whatever that means – fails both of those tests.
Historically speaking, it’s pretty clear that science has won the knowledge race, so the approach that it has taken has been startlingly effective.
Or, to put it another way, science is not about truth, it is about utility – figuring out what works.
Posted: March 11th 2009