Remember this Philosophy Tree I posted a few posts ago? I love this thing. So let’s go back to the axiom at the top upon which all institutions of higher learning, all over the world, base their system of learning and degree-granting powers; Philosophy.
All subjects are philosophical. One of the great tenets of philosophy, established by the Greeks, is debate and discussion. It’s pretty anti-social to say, “I’m right, it’s been proven, no more discussion. Go sit down and be quiet.” As objective as a physical scientist attempts to be with their scientific method, coming under the heading “Philosophy of Science”, they are subjective humans and can never be fully free from bias. It’s proven by their emotional outburst of anger if someone wants to have a discussion with them after they make absolute statements and need everyone to agree with them because the philosophy of science is “the truth”. “Playing well with others” learned in kindergarten is a good character attribute to have. I’m not saying I’m an expert at it being a high IQ woman, but I always start out being civil and it devolves from there.
Gender bias is rampant in any STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and math) discussion where a woman needs to have a say. It’s amazingly irrational, sort of proving my point above. I think it’s a good idea to qualify your work and be tolerant of dissent or a different perspective, otherwise, no matter how right you are, you lack integrity because you don’t care how you emotionally affect others.
So, look at that empty white space under “Philosophy of Religion” which comes from Ontology and Metaphysics”? Go over to the left and the Philosophy of Science branch is loaded. That is interesting, isn’t it? Hardcore Newtonian Materialists would say, “That’s because we have hard evidence.” Yes, in your pants, which we women are happy for! but not when we have to earn money in the public workplace and you STILL have hard evidence. I would say it’s because we live in a patriarchal society controlled by money and power in the hands of men in academic institutions who routinely denigrate the scientific method of females in psychology and religion which is spirituality. They are sciences too!
Now, look at “Philosophy of Mind”. It sort of waves the right hand over to “Philosophy of Psychology” saying, “Well, there’s this!” with a glass of wine in the left hand having a party with “Philosophy of Religion”. That’s sort of where we find ourselves in the year 2017.
We don’t have any boxes under Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Religion because we don’t have any money to do the experiments. There has been plenty of documentation and proof verifying that the study of Mind, Religion (Theology), Psychology and Parapsychology are worthwhile endeavors, but you can’t see the material manifestation of feelings, thoughts, dreams, and intuitions as easily as you can see a ball rolling down a hill for a physics experiment. Well, at the very least, our field is much more complicated. What can possibly be more complicated than studying how Mind manifests as feelings and physical being?
What is really changing now is proof from the quantum physicists that thoughts, feelings, and intuitions DO manifest in the body, literally, and cause illness or wellness, depending on how you align them. Everyone intuitively knows this. We don’t feel we need a double-blind study particularly, just some common sense.
4 Replies to “Re-Program; The Erroneous Line Drawn Between Science and Spirituality”
And soon we won’t have money for any science! 🔬 😩
Why? Did something judt occur?
Yeah, Trump got elected, put a climate change denier in at EPA, and is pretty much gutting funding for all the cool science research. 😩