Theos-World Response to Dallas
May 13, 1999 08:47 AM
by Gerald Schueler
>>"Sad" because school we have been taught theories as though they were
facts and I have 60 years to look back on the changes made.>>
I absolutely agree with you. Especially true for undergraduate
schools. Graduate schools already distinguish fact from
theory pretty well.
>>I would not like to be ever caught saying something was a fact
when it was not.<<
Sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference. Science
pretty much defines a "fact" as something observable by
many people, and thus equates reality with observational
conformance. If someone observes something that cannot
be confirmed by others, then it remains theory. A lot of
occult work, especially work on the inner planes, is
subjective and not easily substantiated by others, and
so it is a fact to the one who experiences it, but a theory
to others. NDEs are a good example. So are past lives.
>>Have you looked into the evidence that de Quatrefages offered ?>>
I think he mainly gives us theory, albeit some good ideas. The
idea that monkeys came from humans rather than the other
way around is slowly catching on in science circles, but
both, as far as I know, remain theoretical. Some excellent
modern scientists are challenging Darwin's "survival of the
fittest" concept as well with mutual cooperation and
symbiosis theories which are much closer to Theosophy.
>>I have no "beef" with pure observational and factual Science.
studied it in college and worked for a publisher of reference
level and college Scientific books (VAN NOSTRAND).>>
OK. It is the scientific method of unbiased observation
that is important. HPB claimed that her Adepts did this,
but their "hard evidence" is all subjective, like NDEs
and recall of past lives. We also have to remember that
there were other groups of Adepts doing the same
thing, and that not everyone agrees to the "facts."
Perhaps the most important thing to come from these
Adepts are predictions that can, in fact, be proved,
such as the prediction of hearing stars before seeing
them, which has been scientifically proved correct.
>>So I do respect truth in reporting and the bold assertion that
what is offered is TENTATIVE, something to use until a better
solution or fact supplants it.>>
Again, what is truth and what is theory is debatable. I have
to think that most of the SD and the whole teaching of
Rounds and Races and Globes is a perfect example.
This will probably never be "provable" but it can be
demonstrable in the same sense that occultists demonstrate
the Tree of Life and other models of the universe. We
can actually visit the Globes in our subtle body and see
for ourself. But such methods won't usually convince
others unless they can do the same thing.
>>Incidentally the climate now is far more subdued than the
authoritative one of the 30s and 40s
At the end of the last century the smugness of science
was thick enough to cut with a knife (patent office
closing for impossibility of new inventions, etc). Although
HPB helped change this atmosphere, Einstein did even
more. Then along came quantum physics and now
chaos theory, so that today there are hardly any
scientists who remain smug in their theories. Too many
theories have been proved wrong. But proving them
wrong while under the umbrella of the scientific method
is the correct way to bring about such changes.
We each use the scientific method in our daily lives,
mostly unconscious, to build up and maintain our
individual world views. Every person has a unique
world view, and each is based on personal
experience (observation) and interpretation (theory).
-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application