I’m just agreeing with mrfinnbean that science is to an individual what science is to society.
My point was individuals can do science without society, but they probably will still need a language/database before too long. Maybe I’m wrong about that in he small scale, but i’d think after several hundred experiments most people would struggle to keep track.
This zen meditation thing sounds very different - presumably there is no recording of the observations or conclusions?
Society will for sure be better at science than any individual, but the individual can still do it if they follow a scientific system of observation, hypothesis and test. Making the results and data accessible to others is a huge bonus, no doubt, shoulders of giants and that, but systematic documentation is intrinsically useful to the isolated scientist too even with no prospect of collaboration.
I don’t know about this zen malarkey. but if there’s no systematic study of reality, no observation , hypothesis, and testing cycle then i just don’t see the corollary with science.
You’re both (rightly) defending the rigor of science, but the OP’s analogy hinges on how we define “study,” not whether science is superior. They’re framing science as a way to approach reality: one that, like Zen, prioritizes direct observation over dogma.
When you call Zen “malarkey” (without knowing about the philosophy, which is not very fair) for lacking “systematic study,” it’s a bit like dismissing a telescope because it isn’t a microscope. Both tools reveal truth; they just focus differently. Zen’s “study” isn’t about accumulating data but about refining the observer until no mediation is needed. That’s not anti-science, it’s a different project. Science seeks patterns in reality’s behavior; Zen seeks reality without the pattern-seeker.
If you question Zen’s capacity to reveal reality, that’s fine and I’ll be happy to have that conversation, provided that you’re open to some philosophy.
I’m just agreeing with mrfinnbean that science is to an individual what science is to society.
My point was individuals can do science without society, but they probably will still need a language/database before too long. Maybe I’m wrong about that in he small scale, but i’d think after several hundred experiments most people would struggle to keep track.
This zen meditation thing sounds very different - presumably there is no recording of the observations or conclusions?
Society will for sure be better at science than any individual, but the individual can still do it if they follow a scientific system of observation, hypothesis and test. Making the results and data accessible to others is a huge bonus, no doubt, shoulders of giants and that, but systematic documentation is intrinsically useful to the isolated scientist too even with no prospect of collaboration.
I don’t know about this zen malarkey. but if there’s no systematic study of reality, no observation , hypothesis, and testing cycle then i just don’t see the corollary with science.
You’re both (rightly) defending the rigor of science, but the OP’s analogy hinges on how we define “study,” not whether science is superior. They’re framing science as a way to approach reality: one that, like Zen, prioritizes direct observation over dogma. When you call Zen “malarkey” (without knowing about the philosophy, which is not very fair) for lacking “systematic study,” it’s a bit like dismissing a telescope because it isn’t a microscope. Both tools reveal truth; they just focus differently. Zen’s “study” isn’t about accumulating data but about refining the observer until no mediation is needed. That’s not anti-science, it’s a different project. Science seeks patterns in reality’s behavior; Zen seeks reality without the pattern-seeker.
If you question Zen’s capacity to reveal reality, that’s fine and I’ll be happy to have that conversation, provided that you’re open to some philosophy.