You do not seem to understand the difference between philosophy and science. The Buddha's subjective report would not cut it, nor would replicability defined as performing the same exercises with embedded expectations.
You do not seem to understand that it can all be rolled into one. For example what do you call it when your doctor tells you to start meditating to reduce your blood pressure, not that this has happened to me, but what if you were to use a method developed by the Buddha, and it worked for you, what would this have to do with the inapplicability of the buddhas so called subjective report, except that your doctor said to do it in the name of medical science.
After all, relaxation and controlled breathing are associated with higher states of suggestibility..
The fact that relaxation and controlled breathing are associated with higher states of suggestibility does not contradict anything so it’s not saying much, except to suggest perhaps that this suggestibility you talk of might be devised and applied in a scientific way.
Philosophy is what we do when dealing with issues not readily amenable to scientific treatment
Well in dealing with this, I am going to have to turn to something that you just said to Sun Tzu, and which is something to which I'd already responded earlier, so it's definitely fair game.
I said that medicine in the ancient world was "hit or miss". The fact that some remedies were discovered to work is not a contradiction of my point.
If this is the case, and I believe that it is, then excuse me but your point is pointless, because if what you are telling us about ancient medicine cannot discern it from modern medicine, than what is the difference, and what is your point.
Can’t say I wasn’t warned about all this. You can have the last word. |
