[MD] The Trouble With Wilber

[david buchanan]

dmb said to David M:
(On how to tell the difference between mystics and nuts who say they are) 
...Its no different from any other area of inquiry. We have to guard against 
fraud and abuse in medicine, rocket science or anything else.

DM replied:
Nonsense, science suggests/uses repeatable experiments, try again.

dmb says:
If you were doing a stand up comedy act I'd call that an absurd nonsequitor 
but since we are talking about the philosophy of science I'd call it an 
absurd nonsequitor that isn't funny in the least. I mean, if I said science 
DOESN't use repeatable experiments you'd have a great point, but I didn't. 
If anyone said so around here, it would be news to me. And an empirical 
study of mystical states would be no different in this regard either. 
Expanding what counts as valid empirical evidence beyond sensory experience 
does not alter the basic rules of science nor is it immune to the same 
problems. Like nuts trying to pass themselves off as legitimate thinkers, 
for example. You're alway going to get some of that no matter where you are 
or what you're doing. Obviously.

And I'd seriously like to know what you mean by "the sphere of the 
possible". Where did you get this notion? This is another chance to have a 
real conversation, if you're interested.

P.S. I found Husserl's phenomenology to be one of the least interesting 
things I ever encountered in the philosophical world. And the word has 
become impossibly vague since then. I was totally underwhelmed by it. Yawn. 
I don't object to the basic idea of beginning with experience and in fact 
William James coulda, shoulda, woulda been the founder of an American 
phenomenology if thing has turned out just a little differently.

_________________________________________________________________
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN 
http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm