Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"The majority once thought the world was flat. "
It has been a very long time since any person of science thought the world was flat. In fact, it was scientists and mathematicians who showed otherwise - and the religionists who insisted otherwise.

But the theosophists (Adepts) knew, even before the scientists discovered it wasn't flat, all while the religionists were arguing with the scientists over issues of definition and belief.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
The majority also once thought that most people have legs. In this, the majority was and is right. Statements aren't true or false based on what the majority maintain - especially when the majority includes people with firm convictions about things of which they are entirely ignorant.

And based on your comments made previously in another thread: ...errors creep in at all levels and in all branches. A huge part of science is being able to find its errors - the fact that it is self-correcting.
There is some deceit in science. There are also things that are just plain wrong.
We might agree that science as you would like to define it, is not a majority but a system living within a majority. Self correcting in that what it applies itself to incorrectly, it may be ignorant of. Such might be the case regarding any application to something that cannot be disproved by science, regardless of whether scientists decide to distance themselves from it because it doesn't fit in to their scientific box.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"None of my posts were to indicate a distinctive measure of my knowledge of science,"
And yet your lack of knowledge was revealed!

In your mind, you determined I don't qualify to belong to your definition of ideals, that is clear.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"What we have discussed is the label of science"
There are the facts and laws and theories of science and then there is the process of science - the principles upon which it operates. What is science is not determined by the former, but by the latter - the principles. And that is what determines whether something gets the label of science. The fact that you ignore this or are unaware of it or just plain don't see the relevance is unimportant.
Good at least we have narrowed your determination to a personal opinion rather than any truth in whether I agree with the principles and how I see them apply to both science and theosophy.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Despite your best attempts to conceal the source and motive of your convictions, your contempt of actual science has been revealed.

I have no contempt for science.. that'd be your delusion not mine.


Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Obscurantists despise the respect that science has rightfully earned in society and they envy it. As I have said in this forum several times before. They use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their cults:

The first is to show how, after all, their own cultish beliefs are supported by science - indeed their beliefs augment and improve upon science.

In the other, they attempt to portray, amply, and exaggerate the failings of science. Obscurantists despise the respect that science has rightfully earned in society and they envy it. As I have said in this forum several times before. They use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their cults:


Those that would like to dogmatically isolate science from inquiry, despise the social interest that Theosophy reflects in society, and they envy it. After all when you think about the idea that over 90% of the population believes there is a God of some sort, by your determination science should without proof that God does not exist listen to the majority.

Fanatic isolationalists who call themselves scientists, use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their scientific beliefs against spiritual inquiry:

The first is to show how, their own cultish beliefs are scientific - indeed their beliefs attempt to nullify any experience one might have of their God by testimony that there is no scientific process or instrument that can prove a God of any experience exists or does not exist.

In the other, they attempt to portray, amply, and exaggerate the failings of Theosophy.


Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"What we have discussed is the label of science"

You can't establish the correct label of a thing without determining whether the label is correctly applied. You don't understand what the label means - and so you don't have any problem at all applying it to your cult.


by the very definition of Science:
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


Theosophy as I know and experience it, regardless of your input in the form of sweeping generalities applied to superstition and projection, is a science.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!