Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Last paragraph: You can drop it, please.
Actually, now that I think I know what you mean by contemplative scientist I can go back to what you say
So, maybe it is better that each tries to explore the other's view, if interested, and come back in a few diaries' time.

I admit that this is not exactly a balanced approach since Valentin doesn't appear to be a contemplative scientist but knows your side.

How does the fact of whether one or both or none of two people is a "contemplative scientist" determine what is a "balanced approach"?

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 07:17:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[You read an write at light speed...]

What I meant by "balanced approach":

If one has been trained as a scientist and the other one in Buddhist contemplation and none knows the discipline of the other. Both can find out about the other and maybe learn from it.

If both are trained scientists but one has the vague idea (open mind) that there is merit to integrating contemplative (or other) methods into what is considered as scientific, then both don't have the same amount of work to do.

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 07:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"A vague idea" and "an open mind" are not quite the same thing, though.

The raison d'etre of science is to provide universal answers. I find it very hard to imagine a "contemplative" approach that provides universality. That is not to say that contemplation is not interesting, but it cannot meaningfully be called science.

(Mig has a good Keynes quote saying something similar about economics and Queen Victoria...)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 04:22:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From The General Theory:
But the proper place for such things as net real output and the general level of prices lies within the field of historical and statistical description, and their purpose should be to satisfy historical or social curiosity, a purpose for which perfect precision--such as our causal analysis requires, whether or not our knowledge of the actual values of the relevant quantities is complete or exact--is neither usual nor necessary. To say that net output to-day is greater, but the price-level lower, than ten years ago or one year ago, is a proposition of a similar character to the statement that Queen Victoria was a better Queen but not a happier woman than Queen Elizabeth--a proposition not without meaning and not without interest, but unsuitable material for the differential calculus. Our precision will be a mock precision if we try to use such partly vague and non-quantitative concepts as the basis of our quantitative analysis.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 04:25:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Herd Immunity .. Filling the Gaps

by Oui - Jul 24
1 comment

LQD - Long Term Covid: The Brain

by ATinNM - Jul 13

Say No to Racism

by Oui - Jul 12

England surrenders to Covid

by IdiotSavant - Jul 9

Occasional Series