Reliability of Different Studies

[scameter]

I have been having somewhat of a dilemma lately about the reliability of different studies. By this I mean studies, such as history, science, biography, etc., that attempt to be factual, and how accurate they really are. It is so easy for historians, scientists, etc., to skew their studies, so how can one know if the individual skewed their research or not, including the results? For those untrained in those fields, which is most of us, we can't really do it ourselves; we have to trust the experts. But what if they're lying to us?

[scameter]

Anyone have any views on this?

[kris]

While it may be easy for scientists, historians and other "experts" to skew their studies, what is highly improbable is for "all" experts in a given category to collude with each other in a vast conspiracy to dupe the rest of us non-experts in the field. Since "experts" like all other people do not see eye to eye with each other, this is our insurance against a massive conspiracy to fool the general populace. Besides, even as non-experts, we have the the right, and I think a responsibility, to question everything we are told, even by experts.

[scameter]

But with every expert claiming to be an expert, even though their study results often vary, which one do we pick?

[kris]

There is no good substitute to thinking for oneself.

[scameter]

So just pick by what you think's right?

[Akamu]

So just pick by what you think's right?

Would any human have it otherwise than to ultimately pick what they think is right? Why would one choose to believe something they think is wrong? :unsure:

[coberst]

I have been having somewhat of a dilemma lately about the reliability of different studies. By this I mean studies, such as history, science, biography, etc., that attempt to be factual, and how accurate they really are. It is so easy for historians, scientists, etc., to skew their studies, so how can one know if the individual skewed their research or not, including the results? For those untrained in those fields, which is most of us, we can't really do it ourselves; we have to trust the experts. But what if they're lying to us?

We can find out what others in the field think of the author the book. The world is filled with books written by experts in the field for the lay reader. It is as easy as finding out who was a great baseball player 30 years ago.

[scameter]

Akamu, that's not what I meant. When you go to the doctor, do you need to be a doctor yourself to decide what medicine and treatment to take? No, you trust their expertise. I'm asking should/could the same be said in a field of study that has different versions, such as history or science.
Coberst, but how do you know if they're right or not?

[bito]

scam, the questions you are asking in this thread are insightful indeed, for they cut right to the heart of man's suffering his "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (so as to think himself wise, so as to think himself separate from God).

[scameter]

True I suppose. It relates to the fallibility of man when attempting to do things by his own skills.

[bito]

True I suppose. It relates to the fallibility of man when attempting to do things by his own skills.

Man owns no thought, for all thought arises from the Invisible Creator via mans' conscience unto man's awareness. It is both the error and vanity (and suffering) of man to believe that the Creator's thoughts belong to him. Man does not create his visions; man is a vessel for the Creator's Vision of Himself.

The moment man takes and interprets a thought, "I think, therefore I am," the silence of his conscience (conscious union with the The Infinite) cannot be heard. This is why man has come to believe that morals and ethics, rules and laws are necessary for his well being, and why he is ever torn between "this thought" and "that thought." He has become used to the noise of his dualing human intellect.

[coberst]

Akamu, that's not what I meant. When you go to the doctor, do you need to be a doctor yourself to decide what medicine and treatment to take? No, you trust their expertise. I'm asking should/could the same be said in a field of study that has different versions, such as history or science.
Coberst, but how do you know if they're right or not?

We must make judgments constantly. There are bad judgments, good judgments, and better judgments. The thing to do is to study CT (Critical Thinking), which will help one to make better judgments.

[scameter]

Bito, to be entirely honest, I think that the concepts you put forth on this forum, and the corresponding viewpoint from which they come in your mind, are unreal. This is merely my opinion, and in no way am I critisizing or attempting to discourage you; believe what you want to believe. It just seems to me that you use a conceptual method of examining life and tearing it apart. For instance, you look at man and say that we view life in categories and individuality, looking at objects we experience, each other, and ourselves and individual entities in reality. You then say that us separating things is egotistic and causes suffering, that we should view life with no categories, no logic or form, no individuality or persons, and no types or degrees. Essentially, we should view life as air views it, which is emptily and without any real experience. We should live with no thought, feeling, passion, enjoyment, or any other sort of differentiation of senses in our mind, because that is individuation which leads to suffering. We should just sit and do nothing, think nothing and feel nothing except peaceful happiness. For one, I think that is impossible, simply because we are animals and no other animal does that. And for two, because we have a soul, and that makes us want to consciously experience life, which requires the logical methods, including individuation, that our brain has developed. Even people like the Buddha and Lao Tzu did not live like this most of the time.
And, coberst, I think that what judgement is the best judgement is impossible to determine by simple human reason. It would ultimately come down to a matter of preference, hence the rise of relativism.

[bito]

Bito, to be entirely honest, I think that the concepts you put forth on this forum, and the corresponding viewpoint from which they come in your mind, are unreal. This is merely my opinion, and in no way am I critisizing or attempting to discourage you; believe what you want to believe. It just seems to me that you use a conceptual method of examining life and tearing it apart. For instance, you look at man and say that we view life in categories and individuality, looking at objects we experience, each other, and ourselves and individual entities in reality. You then say that us separating things is egotistic and causes suffering, that we should view life with no categories, no logic or form, no individuality or persons, and no types or degrees. Essentially, we should view life as air views it, which is emptily and without any real experience. We should live with no thought, feeling, passion, enjoyment, or any other sort of differentiation of senses in our mind, because that is individuation which leads to suffering. We should just sit and do nothing, think nothing and feel nothing except peaceful happiness. For one, I think that is impossible, simply because we are animals and no other animal does that. And for two, because we have a soul, and that makes us want to consciously experience life, which requires the logical methods, including individuation, that our brain has developed. Even people like the Buddha and Lao Tzu did not live like this most of the time.


scam, when the soul is done wandering, nothing is destroyed but the sense of being lost to Itself. Discovering one's inherent power is not to "sit and do nothing, think nothing and feel nothing except peaceful happiness." It is to be fully awake, it is to be fully in one's substance of being, it is to be fully present. When one is fully awake, thought is not absent to one's awareness, for thought is the very substance and essence of the universe. When one is fully awake, thought is comprehended to be the invisible laws and principles of the universe, of God, flowing into man's conscience so as to govern the moment - moment by moment by moment - ~ the Infinity of You.

:love:

[scameter]

But you seem to be inferring many different things from other things when there is no apparent creation. You say that being fully awake is to be fully in one's substance and the present. You then infer from that thought is the very essence and substance of the universe, simply because it is still there when one is awake. You then infer that when awake, a person will necessarily realize that thought is the essence of everything, including the universe and God, and you then infer from that somehow that we are infinite. I don't really see the connection between these inferences, or where they come from within the argument.

[Flux]

In the same way that I believe in Australia, I believe the experts when they largely concur about a fact such as evolution, the existence of the cosmic microwave background, or Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

But what if, as you say, one is faced with a topic on which the experts themselves disagree? For example, say modern cosmology--which version of string theory is correct, or are no versions correct? Personally, I feel that if even experts cannot yet come to an agreement on these matters, one is perfectly justified in abstaining from judgment. If one believes that one must be the evaluate and judge of all scientific propositions, one allow oneself to become a breeding ground for error. This is not to say that one cannot have opinions, or can’t talk about things like string theory. It just means that must jump to conclusions on matters that leave even experts baffled.

[scameter]

True. I honestly think think that the best way to go with controversial, and by that I mean multi-sided, academic affairs such as modern cosmology, one should pick which view one thinks is the best and makes most sense to them, but claim no certainty towards it, allowing room for future growth.

[bito]

But you seem to be inferring many different things from other things when there is no apparent creation. You say that being fully awake is to be fully in one's substance and the present. You then infer from that thought is the very essence and substance of the universe, simply because it is still there when one is awake. You then infer that when awake, a person will necessarily realize that thought is the essence of everything, including the universe and God, and you then infer from that somehow that we are infinite. I don't really see the connection between these inferences, or where they come from within the argument.

scam, it is said in the Bible: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD."

What this means is that the thoughts of God are infinite, and being infinite, they cannot be comprehended by the (dividing, separating) human intellect. This is why it is impossible to define God, to discover God through the intellect, for God is infinite and omnipresent, as is Soul, of which you are an expression.

I am not saying that your intellect is to be cast aside, rather that your intellect needs to become a servant of your soul, that aspect of your being that intuits its wholeness, its infinite nature and longs to live this wholeness, these unconditioned thoughts of the One Mind of God. When the intellect becomes the servant of the soul rather than its master, the intellect becomes illumed - enLIGHTened by the grace of the reaching 'for truth' soul.

You question the reliability of different studies. Could this be your soul questioning the ability of the intellect to comprehend the nature of Divine Thought?

[scameter]

Well, academic studies aren't divine thought, so not directly. I do indeed want to think in the infinite way that God does, and in the purely good way that God does, but while I'm physical I cannot do that. "Those who love me do what I say," as Jesus said. And, since I love him, the center of my spiritual life is living in the morality and spirituality Jesus taught.