Spirituality is a Science

[Sriram]

We want you to say what the method is.

Check out the OP please.

[Sriram]

Any practice that employs prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results is a Science.  Nothing old or outdated about that. 

[Enki]

Any practice that employs prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results is a Science.  Nothing old or outdated about that. 

And nothing particularly scientific about that, I would suggest. I'll give you just three examples which satisfy your conditions, any one of which I would suggest is a far cry from science:hairdressing, producing a curriculum vitae, any flat pack assembly. If you genuinely see these as sciences, then I suggest the number of sciences that you would accept is almost endless...and to my mind rather meaningless.

[Maeght]

And nothing particularly scientific about that, I would suggest. I'll give you just three examples which satisfy your conditions, any one of which I would suggest is a far cry from science:hairdressing, producing a curriculum vitae, any flat pack assembly. If you genuinely see these as sciences, then I suggest the number of sciences that you would accept is almost endless...and to my mind rather meaningless.

Absolutely.

[jeremyp]

Check out the OP please.

Why? It doesn't have a method in it?

[jeremyp]

Any practice that employs prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results is a Science.  Nothing old or outdated about that. 

Homeopathy employs "prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results", the specific results being selling water to marks for lots of money. It's not a science.

The real point of science is to invent models that describe the real world and then to test them to see if they work. How does that apply to spirituality. Where's there model? Where are the tests?

[Sriram]

Homeopathy employs "prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results", the specific results being selling water to marks for lots of money. It's not a science.

The real point of science is to invent models that describe the real world and then to test them to see if they work. How does that apply to spirituality. Where's there model? Where are the tests?

If Homeopathy achieves prescribed results...then it is a Science. But your contention is that it does not cure illnesses, which means it is not a Science (according to you).

[Sriram]

And nothing particularly scientific about that, I would suggest. I'll give you just three examples which satisfy your conditions, any one of which I would suggest is a far cry from science:hairdressing, producing a curriculum vitae, any flat pack assembly. If you genuinely see these as sciences, then I suggest the number of sciences that you would accept is almost endless...and to my mind rather meaningless.

As I have mentioned earlier, certain activities are art because only some people can perform them. But the moment the principles are understood and specific methods are prescribed to achieve certain desired results....it becomes a Science.

Science is also...

'A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.'

In that sense, even hairdressing, producing a CV, maintaining a library etc. can be a Science....in the sense that anyone following certain methods can produce similar results. 

[Sebastian Toe]

As I have mentioned earlier, certain activities are art because only some people can perform them. But the moment the principles are understood and specific methods are prescribed to achieve certain desired results....it becomes a Science.

Science is also...

'A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.'

In that sense, even hairdressing, producing a CV, maintaining a library etc. can be a Science....in the sense that anyone following certain methods can produce similar results.

Is there anything that can be then described as not a science?

[Sriram]

Yes...anything that does not have a prescribed method and which does not produce consistent results!  I have already mentioned 'art' as one of them.

[Maeght]

Science is also...

'A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.'

In that sense, even hairdressing, producing a CV, maintaining a library etc. can be a Science....in the sense that anyone following certain methods can produce similar results.

Where in that definition does it mention methods which produce results?

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes...anything that does not have a prescribed method and which does not produce consistent results!  I have already mentioned 'art' as one of them.

I don't see any mention of consistent results in your quoted description.

[jeremyp]

If Homeopathy achieves prescribed results...then it is a Science.

It achieves the prescribed result of bilking vulnerable people. That doesn't make it science.

But your contention is that it does not cure illnesses, which means it is not a Science (according to you).

It is not a science because it does not use scientific principles.

[Sriram]

It achieves the prescribed result of bilking vulnerable people. That doesn't make it science.
It is not a science because it does not use scientific principles.

jeremyp...you're tying yourself into knots over this!   

If Homeopathy doesn't work...it is not a science. If it works in accordance with their theory and methods...it is a Science.  In any case, we are not discussing homeopathy and its effectiveness. 

If any activity can be developed into a system with a clear method  producing predictable and consistent results,  it is a Science.

Guys...get used to it!

[Udayana]

This is all about the definition of the word "science". Any system or model that is unfalsifiable should be excluded as it misleads people - often intentionally.

[Maeght]

If any activity can be developed into a system with a clear method  producing predictable and consistent results,  it is a Science.

Guys...get used to it!

Are you trying to infer anything about the beliefs associated with spirituality by wanting it to be considered a science?

[Dicky Underpants]

If any activity can be developed into a system with a clear method  producing predictable and consistent results,  it is a Science.

Guys...get used to it!

Unfortunately for you, Sriram, your persistent misuse of the word in its modern meaning rather backfires on you. In seeking to imply that Spirituality is an activity that " can be developed into a system with a clear method  producing predictable and consistent results" you are faced with the anomaly that all religious systems fail to produce 'predictable' results. Yoga etc certainly can produce a change in consciousness, as can the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius or St John of the Cross. But there's no provable consistency, any more than drinking many pints of alcohol will produce a provable consistency of effect in most people who drink such amounts - not even to the point of being completely drunk. Many effects could be observed, including extreme vomiting. There are a likely to be changes of consciousness, but not predictable ones.
There is a discipline to correlate such mental and physical states: it is called phenomenology, and that falls short of being a science.
Your reason for trying to foist this archaic and vacuous meaning on the word science is, I suspect, rather akin to that of biblical fundamentalists, and their talk of "Creation Science". They realise they live in a culture where scientific enquiry in the true modern sense is a dominating and respected feature of modern life, and wish to claim the word 'Science' for themselves, in a spurious attempt to gain respectability for their cranky ideas - to be more 'scientific' than the scientists themselves. However, the modern discipline of science was simply a development of what was previously called natural philosophy, and that had a specific aim and scope. Science asserts a certain kind of authority: here is a systematic approach which will reliably advance our understanding of the natural world.  But the knowledge is always provisional: every idea, every assumption is subject to challenge, to question and possible refutatation.

[Dicky Underpants]

This is all about the definition of the word "science". Any system or model that is unfalsifiable should be excluded as it misleads people - often intentionally.

And that beautifully and succinctly sums up the whole matter.

[Dicky Underpants]

In that sense, even hairdressing, producing a CV, maintaining a library etc. can be a Science....in the sense that anyone following certain methods can produce similar results.

It is quite touching to see you desperately holding on to this flaccid, woolly definition of the word, and it confirms that your real desire to reinstate an archaic usage has a psychological origin which you haven't fully admitted to yourself.

[Sriram]

1. Methods like Yoga, Pranayama, meditations produce results that are not just general in nature. They are used even by medical experts and psychiatrists to achieve certain specific results. They are used in prisons and in cases of abnormal behavior of children to achieve desired results. Depression and related mental conditions have been treated successfully through such methods.  Even many chronic  physical ailments have been treated successfully through such methods. So....these methods do have clear and specific effects.  You can't brush them off so casually.

2. Falsifiability is being questioned even by scientists regarding its usefulness in the current situation where science is increasingly faced with phenomena that are far beyond its self imposed scope and methodology. Please check out certain threads in the Science section.

3. There is nothing archaic about considering certain specific methods as Science as long as they are repeatable and predictable results are achieved. See 1 above.

4.  Restrictive definitions don't make Science more useful. It only makes more and more phenomena fall outside its scope, making a clearer understanding of life that much more difficult. 

[wigginhall]

My mum was a scientist, as she did lots of knitting.   Predictable, tick, repeatable, tick.   Is there a Nobel Prize in the offing?  Hang on, she did a lot of washing up as well, repeatable, predictable results.   There must be more. 

[Dicky Underpants]

1. Methods like Yoga, Pranayama, meditations produce results that are not just general in nature. They are used even by medical experts and psychiatrists to achieve certain specific results. They are used in prisons and in cases of abnormal behavior of children to achieve desired results. Depression and related mental conditions have been treated successfully through such methods.  Even many chronic  physical ailments have been treated successfully through such methods. So....these methods do have clear and specific effects.  You can't brush them off so casually.

That they are useful, I wouldn't question, and certainly worth trying out in the hectic modern world. Whether they are more useful than, say, gardening, or simply going for a country walk, I rather doubt. I don't think going for a country walk could be considered a science, though you might do a bit of botanising on the way, and botany is a science.

[jeremyp]

jeremyp...you're tying yourself into knots over this!   

If Homeopathy doesn't work...it is not a science. If it works in accordance with their theory and methods...it is a Science.  In any case, we are not discussing homeopathy and its effectiveness. 

If any activity can be developed into a system with a clear method  producing predictable and consistent results,  it is a Science.

Guys...get used to it!

Homeopathy was just an example. Another better one would be the earlier cited "assembling flat pack furniture". It unambiguously meets all of your criteria and yet only an obtuse person would describe it as science. Your definition is far too broad to be meaningful.

[splashscuba]

Homeopathy was just an example. Another better one would be the earlier cited "assembling flat pack furniture". It unambiguously meets all of your criteria and yet only an obtuse person would describe it as science. Your definition is far too broad to be meaningful.

Some would say assembling flat pack furniture was a black art.

I think the problem here is that people are mistaking processes as "science". Certainly science looks to investigate and define processes, but you wouldn't define them, in isolation, as science.

[Sriram]

We should stop confusing Science as an investigative methodology with Science as a systematic process towards a desired goal. The first one often leads to the second.