What can we say about the Supernatural

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Voyager

sigh That’s why I said faster than light, not as fast as light. Any massless particle can move as fast as light, and it is any electromagnetic radiation, not just the special case of light. Nitpicky enough?

The way I see it, you’re the one nitpicking, not me. I’m just demonstrating that the level of nitpicking you’re doing doesn’t really invalidate what I’m saying.

Humans are the only species with a syntactic language. As near as we know, it’s fair to say, “No animal in the universe has a syntactic language. Unless you’re talking about humans.” That doesn’t make humans supernatural.

There are things in the universe which are unique. Their uniqueness does not make them supernatural.

That would indeed be a competing hypothesis. It wouldn’t graduate to a theory until you found out something about this mysterious force. If you did, then you would indeed have shown that everything is natural. I’m not denying that is a possibility.

And if you didn’t, then you wouldn’t have shown that anything is supernatural. Concluding otherwise is known as the God of the Gaps.

But what if this effort were a failure?

At what point do you judge it a failure? Scientists don’t ever judge it a failure: they keep looking.

You never heard of experimental error?

I have. It might help if you explained your understanding of it and how it applies here; I suspect you may not fully understand the difference between experimental error and scientific fraud.

A basic principle is universality and consistency, not to mention elegance. Natural laws don’t work one place and not another, and they don’t work for me and not for you. If we were driven, by the unlikely event of observing events not explicible by current science, and were unsuccessful in coming up with natural explanations for these events, is it better to throw out these very basic principles or isolate the events by calling them supernatural (tentatively.)?

It’s better to throw out the basic principles, because clearly they’re not as basic as we thought they were. Better yet, though, is how science actually works: the basic principles are modified.

We might say, “Light has no mass.” But then someone discovers math demonstrating that certain stars, upon their collapse, become so dense that their gravity sucks in light. Now, as you and I both know, nothing sucks in light. Do we:
a) Throw out our theories about light?
b) Declare black holes to be supernatural?
c) Modify our understanding of light to account for this new information about a unique set of conditions?

The scientific community chooses “c” every time.

One reason we reject the inclusion of God in theories and laws is that they become intractable if it is F = ma, unless God throws in a fudge factor. We have to treat the supernatural as not affecting our laws. That’s exactly what believers who do science do, right? Though they believe a god exists who can violate laws, they wall him off into the realm of the supernatural, and don’t consider him to impact science. They don’t waste their time finding natural explanations for God’s actions.

One group of believers do this - the “scientific” creationists. And you know as well as I what a muddle they make of both science and religion.

No. One reason we reject the inclusion of God in theories is that there’s no evidence that God exists. Nor is there evidence that God goes about throwing in fudge factors. If at some point we gain strong evidence that there’s an entity that’s going around and altering subatomic properties, then our theories must begin to account for that. At that point, we’ll get a new branch of science dedicated to studying the patterns by which this entity enacts the fudge factor, and studying possible mechanisms by which this alteration occurs.

The scientific creationists fuck stuff up by assuming a fudge factor without evidence. WHat you’re suggesting–that upon “failing” to discover a mechanism for a bizarre event, we “isolate” it by calling it supernatural–is exactly what the Creationists do.

Daniel

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

GIGObuster Though, when you find these Mystic Nazis that are trying their damnedest to censor the truth, I’d love to meet them.

Look in the White House, Congress, and quite a few state governments and courts; there are people everywhere who want to shove various religious myths and strictures down people’s throats.

[QUOTE=mswas]
My original point about mysticism and science not being in conflict still stands. Ancient Scientists were largely mystics because what we today call “science” was not yet invented. They are in conflict, as one is based on evidence, and the other isn’t. There were no “ancient scientists”; they didn’t have the scientific method in ancient times ( as you point out; your own sentence in a contradiction )…

@mswas

A mystic delves into the mysteries of the universe. Some are correct, some are incorrect, and some come to a conclusion that others take wildly out of context, that seem incorrect but may not be when placed in the appropriate context.

No, a mystic lies or deludes himself. If they get something right, it’s by sheer luck.

[MaxTheVool]

Here’s perhaps a slightly different way to look at it: Suppose that, next week, a human is found who can communicate telepathically with other humans. Off the top of my head, I can think of three explanations for this:
(1) Trickery/fraud
(2) Some previously unknown but studyable natural phenomenon
(3) The supernatural

Assuming we reject (1) for the purposes of this argument, what meaningful difference is there between (2) and (3)?

I believe it is this: If scientists spend enough time studying this guy, and his brain, and his powers, they should begin to notice differences between him and other humans. They should begin to be able to notice repeatable patterns in what he can and can not do. They should start to be able to make predictions about what he can do. They should start to come up with hypotheses about how this communication actually happens, what structures in the brain generate it, what type of radiation (or subspace echos, or whatever) it uses to propogate, etc. Enough of all of these types of breakthroughs and enough hard work, and the telepathy is very much (2). On the other hand, it’s at least within the realm of imagination that they would spend hundreds and hundreds of years studying every last cell of the guy’s brain (assuming he was very long-lived), and likely make many other advances in neuroscience along the way, and end up with what seems like a 100% perfect understanding of every last thing that’s going on in every last neuron of his brain, along with every observable physics-y side effect and neuron thingamajig, and still have NO idea how the telepathy works, or any way to at all measure or test it. If years and study continue to pass, and scientists continue to learn absolutely nothing about this telepathy, it becomes increasingly more reasonable to describe it as “supernatural”.

The thing is, though, that over thousands of years of human history, every single phenomenon ever encountered and studied has turned out to be (2). So, if a guy shows up and demonstrates (with no possibility of fraud) that he has telepathy, history would indicate that the odds are 125,268,328,450 to 1 that telepathy will end up being (2) instead of (3).

[David_Simmons]

What can be said about the supernatural?

For one thing, it can only be detected by its manifestations in the natural.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@MaxTheVool

So, if a guy shows up and demonstrates (with no possibility of fraud) that he has telepathy, history would indicate that the odds are 125,268,328,450 to 1 that telepathy will end up being (2) instead of (3).

I’ll accept that your 125,268,328,450 is correct–but cite on the 1?

I agree with your point, with this caveat (which I’ve repeated repeatedly in this thread): there’s no time limit on scientific inquiry, no point at which scientists throw their hands up, sigh prettily, and exclaim, “Enough! We shall never understand this!” The most we can say about a phenomenon is that we do not understand it yet.

As such, it’s very difficult for me to understand how a human would distinguish between a natural phenomenon that we don’t understand yet, and a supernatural phenomenon that we will never understand.

Daniel

[mswas]

@Der Trihs

No, a mystic lies or deludes himself. If they get something right, it’s by sheer luck.

This is just sheer bigotry.

GIGObuster No, the modern religiousity that you hate is actually antithetical to mysticism. If you ever bothered to read any mystic literature, you would see that they are generally against this type of thinking. Not all priests are mystics. Many priests are simply bureaucrats attempting to maintain a hold on political influence for their representative organization.

Part of the whole idea that Mystics are “Concealing” things is born from a time of greater ignorance, where Mystics used writing to pass their knowledge from one mystic to another. Writing has since been used to ‘conceal’ knowledge by any number of people throughout history and into the modern day. Again mystics are being held to an arbitrary standard that other groups are not being held to, though scientists do the same all the time in order to keep their discoveries within the organization in the case of patented medicines, or how to keep destructive weapons technology out of the hands of enemy nations. There are any number of reasons that people conceal knowledge and keep it from the general public. You are simply trying to single out Mystics due to your own ignorance about what Mysticism actually is, and does.

Read “Cosmic Trigger: Final Secrets of the Illuminati” by Robert Anton Wilson (Discordianism)

or

“Knowing How to Know” by Idries Shah. (Sufism)

or

“Return of the Warriors” by Theun Mares (Toltec)

You will find that in all of these books, all of which are from completely different mystical disciplines, they caution against holding onto religious dogma, as it is an obsession and obsessions keep one from attaining the truth.

Caveat: In my opinion both Wilson and Shah have a deeper understanding than Mares. Mares talks about the “Warrior’s path” and the “Scholar’s Path” as being seperate, so that’s the only time you’ll find anything resembling anti-science, but he’s not being anti-scientific, he is simply saying you need to choose one path or the other. I disagree with him on a few things, that being one.

If you do not disagree with me that there are some theories about global warming that have turned out to be incorrect, and will turn out to be incorrect, then your cites are completely and wholly irrelevant. Unless you are trying to make the point that scientists are never wrong, then giving me cites about global warming is pointless.

There is no competition between scientists and mystics. It’s a fallacy. It’s two different ways of getting to knowledge. Science is helpful because it helps one verify knowledge in a way that uses commonly accepted definitions in order to explain it to other people. Apples are not in competition with oranges, as much as some would like for that to be the case.

If you truly want to follow the skeptical scientific path, the advice I would give you is to learn the tiniest bit about the subject that you are dismissing out of hand, that way, if you turn out to be correct, you can dismiss it from a more highly educated position, and if you are incorrect then you will stop spreading ignorance. Because as of now, I am not convinced that you know the first thing about Mysticism, yet you feel qualified to dismiss it out of hand.

Erek

[Grey_Mauser]

[QUOTE=Scientists don’t ever judge it a failure: they keep looking.
Daniel[/QUOTE]

One problem - science is about observing and then creating plausible models explaining what has been observed. So, the process has to begin with an observation. So far as I know, nothing supernatural has ever been observed (an observation being the making of a record of a reliable and reproducible occurance), so no model is possible.

[MaxTheVool]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I agree with your point, with this caveat (which I’ve repeated repeatedly in this thread): there’s no time limit on scientific inquiry, no point at which scientists throw their hands up, sigh prettily, and exclaim, “Enough! We shall never understand this!” The most we can say about a phenomenon is that we do not understand it yet.

As such, it’s very difficult for me to understand how a human would distinguish between a natural phenomenon that we don’t understand yet, and a supernatural phenomenon that we will never understand.

I agree. It’s hard to see when scientists would say “OK, we give up, this is definitely supernatural”. However, one might imagine a situation when the “this is supernatural” hypothesis might be the one which, by occam’s razor, actually DID start to seem the more likely one, particularly if there’s (a) a repeatable and anomalous result in an otherwise well-understood field of study, and (b) if it shows repeatable correlations to human events that make no sense.

For instance: If the pope became known as the pope of candles, due to his love for candles, and then he died, and then for a month after his death, no candle in the world would light, and everything else burned just fine, but anything that was shaped like a candle and made out of wax wouldn’t burn, and scientists in laboratories all over the world verified this phenomenon, but couldn’t figure out any remote reason why, and it applied only to things that, to humans, looked like “candles”, not things that were built like candles but looked different, nor things that were made of non-wax but looked like candles, and then after a month this phenomenon stopped…
Or to look at it from a different perspective, suppose I develop a cellular automaton so complex and rich that in it, intelligent sentient beings evolve. They begin to study the world in which they live. Eventually, their study of “physics” may be so successful that they deduce the rules of the automaton in which they live with 100% accuracy. Now, the program I have running on my PC which is modelling their world allows me to arbitrary go in and “break the rules” of the automaton at any time I like, and in any way I like. So I can go in and kill them, create them, destroy things, create things, etc. I am effectively God to them. To them, am I supernatural? Now, one might respond that they should be able to deduce the existence of MY universe, and redefine their terms so that I am natural. Except that they can not possibly do so in any meaningful fashion. To them, their universe as modelled on my PC is precisely identical to their universe as imagined by an autistic super-genius rodent monster from Alpha Centauri. It is 100% impossible for them, even if they get stoned and say “whoa, dude, I wonder if we’re just living in a cellular automaton running on some guy’s computer”, to actually deduce whether they are or not, or to learn anything about that computer or the world in which that computer resides.

Sure, if I do some God-like messing-with-them, they could change their “natural” laws to be “here are the precise rules that govern how every cell of our universe works… oh, and those rules can change at any time based on the arbitrary whims of something that, by definition, we can never perceive or understand”. But if they do, doesn’t it make more sense to call the first part of that “natural” and the second part “supernatural”?

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

This is just sheer bigotry.

Really ? Whenever mystical beliefs are checked against fact, they turn out to be wrong. That’s not bigotry, it’s the simple truth.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Part of the whole idea that Mystics are “Concealing” things is born from a time of greater ignorance, where Mystics used writing to pass their knowledge from one mystic to another. Writing has since been used to ‘conceal’ knowledge by any number of people throughout history and into the modern day.

@mswas

Again mystics are being held to an arbitrary standard that other groups are not being held to, though scientists do the same all the time in order to keep their discoveries within the organization in the case of patented medicines, or how to keep destructive weapons technology out of the hands of enemy nations.

Science doesn’t need to prove it works; mysticism does. The essence of mysticism is failure; if it worked, there would be evidence, and if there’s evidence it’s not mysticism anymore.

@mswas

There are any number of reasons that people conceal knowledge and keep it from the general public. You are simply trying to single out Mystics due to your own ignorance about what Mysticism actually is, and does.

It’s all a bunch of silliness and lies; they conceal what they “know” because they don’t want people to point at them and laugh.

@mswas

There is no competition between scientists and mystics. It’s a fallacy.

Yes there is; science works, mystics fail. That’s a big difference.

@mswas

It’s two different ways of getting to knowledge.

Science is about knowledge, mysticism isn’t.

@mswas

Science is helpful because it helps one verify knowledge in a way that uses commonly accepted definitions in order to explain it to other people. Apples are not in competition with oranges, as much as some would like for that to be the case.

Science is helpful because it works. This isn’t between apples and oranges; it’s between apples and nothingness.

@mswas

Because as of now, I am not convinced that you know the first thing about Mysticism, yet you feel qualified to dismiss it out of hand.

I don’t know a thing about Babylonian cosmology; despite that, I feel qualified to dismiss it. Some things have proven themselves so useless that they aren’t worth wasting my time on; mysticism is one of those things.

@MaxTheVool

Sure, if I do some God-like messing-with-them, they could change their “natural” laws to be “here are the precise rules that govern how every cell of our universe works… oh, and those rules can change at any time based on the arbitrary whims of something that, by definition, we can never perceive or understand”. But if they do, doesn’t it make more sense to call the first part of that “natural” and the second part “supernatural”?

No, it makes more sense for them to say “The laws we perceive are arbitrary rules, not laws, and possibly artificial. Whatever natural laws there are, are beyond our perception.”

[MaxTheVool]

@Der Trihs

No, it makes more sense for them to say “The laws we perceive are arbitrary rules, not laws, and possibly artificial. Whatever natural laws there are, are beyond our perception.”

Rendering the word “natural” totally meaningless and useless for them? They can make a distinction between the fundamental way the universe they live in works 99.99999% of the time, with immutable and predictable and studyable laws, and the arbitrary and incomprehensible, but verifiable, times when those laws don’t work. They shouldn’t then refer to “natural” laws?

[Liberal]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Again, you’re mistaking a definition for a property. If an entity exists everywhere in the universe at once, then that’s a natural property of that entity.

The notion that existence is a property is controversial, to say the least. “Exists” and “is real” are not synonyms. If they were, then it would be possible to make a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition. For example, suppose there were a fortune teller who predicted that in two years, a son named George would be born to John and Mary. Suppose further that, sure enough, it happens. The fortune teller then declares that “Finally, the George whom I predicted exists”. One inference to be taken from that statement is that George did not exist before. And so a paradox emerges: if George did not exist, then he was non-existent — meaning that nothing at all could be said about him, including the making of predictions concerning him; i.e., there is nothing that can be said about a non-existent entity because nothing exists to talk about. George might have been “not real” or “imaginary”, but he could never have been “nonexistent”. Temporality is a property; no one will argue with that. But existence is not, Fregian blathering to the contrary notwithstanding. Likewise, “omnipresence” might be a property, but the existence of the omnipresent being cannot be.

[Der_Trihs]

@MaxTheVool

Rendering the word “natural” totally meaningless and useless for them? They can make a distinction between the fundamental way the universe they live in works 99.99999% of the time, with immutable and predictable and studyable laws, and the arbitrary and incomprehensible, but verifiable, times when those laws don’t work. They shouldn’t then refer to “natural” laws?

No, they shouldn’t. In the situation you describe, they have no access to nature; they can say nothing about it beyond speculation. It’s even harder than us trying to figure out what ( if anything ) existed before the universe/outside the universe. At least we have a universe to study; they wouldn’t even have that.

[GIGObuster]

I was going to reply to **mswas ** but **Der Trihs ** already posted what I was going to.

I only have to add that I already read, considered and tried mysticism; on top of that, I came from a Catholic institution. So yes, I feel qualified to dismiss it, but it was not a dismissal out of hand, it took me awhile after finding how narcissistic the proponents of mystic solutions were.

One tale I remember from those days that convinced me that even if the mystic solutions are correct, they are so self-centered that they can be safely dismissed.

IIRC the tale did go like this:

A young student was training to become a master, attempting to do something to impress everyone and his master, he spent years learning to walk over water, he finally managed to do so, and showed his skill to his master. After the demonstration the student asked how great this skill was, and the master just called him a fool for having wasted all those years in a useless skill.

And on top of that, I found then that the writer of “the third eye” was a fraud.

I prefer science since it works for believer and skeptic alike.

[Liberal]

@GIGObuster

I prefer science since it works for believer and skeptic alike.

It works for one specific thing and one specific thing only: testing a falsifiable hypothesis. That’s great, but it ain’t everything.

[mswas]

@GIGObuster

I was going to reply to **mswas ** but **Der Trihs ** already posted what I was going to.

I only have to add that I already read, considered and tried mysticism; on top of that, I came from a Catholic institution. So yes, I feel qualified to dismiss it, but it was not a dismissal out of hand, it took me awhile after finding how narcissistic the proponents of mystic solutions were.

One tale I remember from those days that convinced me that even if the mystic solutions are correct, they are so self-centered that they can be safely dismissed.

Yeah, I know all about black people too, no need to learn about them individually. If Der Trihs is your cite, well then you are not a proponent of science either my friend. He likes to make his points on fiat. Like he said, he knows nothing about Babylonian cosmology but he feels qualified to dismiss it. That is an anti-scientific stance.

Your position is equally self-centered. I am not buying into this myth of objectivity. If you can show me a person who can be objective, that would be fascinating, because I’ve never met anyone who was capable of such a feat. Your materialist subjectivity doesn’t sway me. The fact that you will toss out scientific rigor in order to propose your own bias, shows me that there is little value in what you have to say on the subject, as you do not know.

If you are taking the same position that Der Trihs takes, then I will take the same position with you that I do with him, and largely ignore you.

If you are going to be a proponent of science, at least stick to your guns, and do it right, none of this half-assed shit where you like to argue for science but are willing to dump on something you know nothing about because someone somewhere told you it wasn’t part of science.

Lots of things that mystics came up with are held up by scientists as facts. Gravity, and the Pythagorean theorem come to mind as a couple examples. The height of ignorance in my opinion is one who thinks that only recently were people capable of coming by the truth. The fact of the matter is that the average person is just as ignorant today as they were 2000 years ago. You and Der Trihs, are nothing if not the average person. You can’t even hold up to the standards of rigorous analysis you hold others to. You are dismissing a very broad term like mysticism, because you met a couple people who claimed to be mystics that you didn’t like.

You missed the point of your allegory. The reason his ability to walk on water was useless was because he was doing it to impress his master, and because a boat would accomplish the task just as well, and he spent all his time fixating on this one task. (remember what I said about obsession?) If he learned to walk on water and still felt the need to impress his master, then of course, he was an idiot, that doesn’t make walking on water an useless ability. He learned a skill but did not achieve mastery.

You took an allegory you didn’t understand, gave it no context, and then held it up as your example. I’ve heard that allegory before. You may as well be asking “If a tree falls and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound?”

It’s very easy to take mystical teachings that you cannot understand out of context and then hold them up as BS. They require context to be useful.

However, not every teaching is meant for everyone, and I am not trying to get you into mysticism, but it would be quite nice if you actually held yourself to the standards of scientific rigor that you hold mystics to. IE, you are not qualified to pass judgement on anything you know nothing about, even Babylonian cosmology. Something may not be useful for you because you lack the CONTEXT to understand it, but you are not everyone, and not everyone lacks the context.

Erek

[GIGObuster]

@Liberal

It works for one specific thing and one specific thing only: testing a falsifiable hypothesis. That’s great, but it ain’t everything.

Not quite: It also works to dismiss mystic solutions even if they exist: mystics try to claim that they can still use their solutions when others brought by science are available, like for example: I would rely on a picture phone to get actual remote viewing from afar, rather than the physic solutions that some mystics claim, are effective.

[MaxTheVool]

@Der Trihs

No, they shouldn’t. In the situation you describe, they have no access to nature; they can say nothing about it beyond speculation. It’s even harder than us trying to figure out what ( if anything ) existed before the universe/outside the universe.

So if a religious person believes in God, and believes that God can, and has, reached in and directly influenced our universe in ways that violate natural laws, then that person should NOT believe that those laws are natural laws, rather, artificial and arbitrary and constructed laws, as they were constructed by God?

At least we have a universe to study; they wouldn’t even have that.

[/quote]

What makes our universe any different from theirs?

[mswas]

@GIGObuster

Not quite: It also works to dismiss mystic solutions even if they exist: mystics try to claim that they can still use their solutions when others brought by science are available, like for example: I would rely on a picture phone to get actual remote viewing from afar, rather than the physic solutions that some mystics claim, are effective.

You are still laboring under the false assumption that there is a necessary dichotomy between mysticism and science. There is not.

Erek

[GIGObuster]

@mswas

Yeah, I know all about black people too, no need to learn about them individually. If Der Trihs is your cite, well then you are not a proponent of science either my friend. He likes to make his points on fiat. Like he said, he knows nothing about Babylonian cosmology but he feels qualified to dismiss it. That is an anti-scientific stance.

Your position is equally self-centered. I am not buying into this myth of objectivity. If you can show me a person who can be objective, that would be fascinating, because I’ve never met anyone who was capable of such a feat.

And that is why we have modern science.

Your materialist subjectivity doesn’t sway me. The fact that you will toss out scientific rigor in order to propose your own bias, shows me that there is little value in what you have to say on the subject, as you do not know.

That is the other way around, as you are showing here.

If you are taking the same position that Der Trihs takes, then I will take the same position with you that I do with him, and largely ignore you.

Non kosher in these boards my friend.

If you are going to be a proponent of science, at least stick to your guns, and do it right, none of this half-assed shit where you like to argue for science but are willing to dump on something you know nothing about because someone somewhere told you it wasn’t part of science.

As I already mentioned I already considered and tried it, YOU need to bring the evidence and so far is misleading.

Lots of things that mystics came up with are held up by scientists as facts. Gravity, and the Pythagorean theorem come to mind as a couple examples. The height of ignorance in my opinion is one who thinks that only recently were people capable of coming by the truth. The fact of the matter is that the average person is just as ignorant today as they were 2000 years ago. You and Der Trihs, are nothing if not the average person. You can’t even hold up to the standards of rigorous analysis you hold others to. You are dismissing a very broad term like mysticism, because you met a couple people who claimed to be mystics that you didn’t like.

Lie, I got it from resarch on the subject too.

You missed the point of your allegory. The reason his ability to walk on water was useless was because he was doing it to impress his master, and because a boat would accomplish the task just as well, and he spent all his time fixating on this one task. (remember what I said about obsession?) If he learned to walk on water and still felt the need to impress his master, then of course, he was an idiot, that doesn’t make walking on water an useless ability. He learned a skill but did not achieve mastery.

See my reply to Liberal, my point was that mystic solutions are navel gazing compared on what constant experimentation is giving to us all, not just to enlightened folk.

You took an allegory you didn’t understand, gave it no context, and then held it up as your example. I’ve heard that allegory before. You may as well be asking “If a tree falls and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound?”

Yes, technology makes that possible.

It’s very easy to take mystical teachings that you cannot understand out of context and then hold them up as BS. They require context to be useful.

The context of today shows that they are virtually useless.

However, not every teaching is meant for everyone, and I am not trying to get you into mysticism, but it would be quite nice if you actually held yourself to the standards of scientific rigor that you hold mystics to. IE, you are not qualified to pass judgement on anything you know nothing about, even Babylonian cosmology. Something may not be useful for you because you lack the CONTEXT to understand it, but you are not everyone, and not everyone lacks the context.

Liar, I took that path before and saw their shortcomings; you are the one that is incapable of skepticism when in a different thread you refused to check what a fraud Lobsang Rampa was. Ever since, one can dismiss your un-skeptical dictates.

[GIGObuster]

@mswas

You are still laboring under the false assumption that there is a necessary dichotomy between mysticism and science. There is not.

Erek

You are really not getting it, I am also coming with the assumption that even if there is no dichotomy, mysticism can not hold a candle to the solutions we can get from science. I am saying that mysticism can be valid, but with all the knowledge out there, a waste of time even if it is somewhat effective.