Well, after the Ki thread got so convoluted with arguments over scientific terminology and technique, I thought we should open a technical discussion on Kuzushi. That got nowhere because of the same pseudo-scientific element that tried to define ki as a set of bodyskills that would always produce kuzushi. And that was again backed up with some scientific malarky.
So, as someone who works with PhD scientists all day every day, and has done so for the past five years, many of my personal acquaintances also being highly degreed, I thought we might try a thread on the scientific method.
Why in Meditation?
Well, science is a mental construct. It's a set of rules for thinking about things and what we will accept as "true".
As my Chinese MD colleague recently said, science is basically DME, Design of the Study or Question, Measurement, and Evaluation.
You make your question, you collect and quantify your data, you evaluate the data and arrive at conclusions.
Some people on the Ki and Kuzushi threads were able to stick to these parameters pretty well. Others less so. Some posters were outright dismal in the kinds of things they tried to justify with "science".
Science is a way to view the world.
However, it is not the only way to view the world. It is the best way to view some things in the world--such as design of nuclear reactors, for instance--and the worst way to view others, such as whether your girlfriend likes you.
Science is good for analyzing rates of cancer and adjusting for race, age, occupation, smoking, etc.
It is bad for explaining a painting, a sculpture or a Zen koan.
Science is only as good as the mind that is using it.
If someone allows invalid data to be counted as valid, that's a mental weakness. If they falsify or insert wishful data, it's invalid. If they choose only situations or examples or data that support their hypothesis, it's invalid. Their answers cannot be trusted. If they cannot say where their data originated, their claims are worthless.
But if they are very clear and objective and maintain consistent parameters and rules of evidence as they gather and quantify their data; and if they maintain the same standards as they evaluate the data and draw their conclusions, the results can be very valuable.
Still, there are places for science and places where we're pretty stupid to try to use it.
Please make your comments at will.