--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <dhamiltony...@...> wrote: > > > <paste> "Several things are (in) play here: > > > > First we have Maharishi vedic science Which is an ancient set of beliefs > > that is undergoing validation predominantly by the TM organization over the > > last 35 to 40 years.
What aspects are being validated? That meditation can be good for you is abvious but what about the underlying philosophy. Are they implying that John Hagelin has proved anything? I'm actually interested in this because objective validation is the only thing that will convince anyone other than those with a pre-disposition to TM. Even though this is an ancient science the fact that it is undergoing contemporary validation by western science and technology places it in the category of a proto science, see the following definition." > > <end of paste>. > > <more paste> > Protoscience refers to historical philosophical disciplines which existed > prior to the development of scientific method, which allowed them to develop > into science proper (see prescientific). A standard example is that of > alchemy which later became chemistry, or that of astrology which later became > astronomy. > > By extension, "protoscience" may be used in reference to any "set of beliefs > or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method > but which are otherwise consistent with existing science, [thus being] a new > science working to establish itself as legitimate science For the TMOs sake I hope vedic "science" survives scientific scutiny better than astrology or alchemy did. > > http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Scientific_method > > http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Science > > http://en.wiktionary.org:80/wiki/prescientific > > http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Alchemy > > http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Chemistry > > http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Astrology I note that none of the original astrologers beliefs about the stars and planets survived the application of good scientific method. So while you can say that one 'evolved' from the other it's more like one set of beliefs was absolutely trounced out of existence by the other. Astrologers thought the sun went round the earth for a start, and if you check your horoscope you'll notice that they *still* do. They didn't know what stars were. In fact, the first person to suggest that they were suns but further away and so appear smaller was burned at the stake for his trouble. Astronomy had a difficult birth. I'm not denigrating these ancient beliefs it's just that we've come a long long way since those days and though they did a marvellous job of mapping and naming the heavens, it's time to let it go and see it for what it is, a past that didn't survive the present. >
