Psychology, Science, Evidence and Intuition
Mood:  bright
Topic: No master tool
I find much to commend in Psychology, even if it is a western concept. Its emphasis on the scientific outlook and evidence has much to speak for in its favour. However, the only problem is when we make science (or evidence) a master tool, a litmus test to judge all phenomena. There is no master tool, actually. In empirical matters, we need observational evidence. But in intuitive matters, we need contemplation and introspection. Why should one exclude the other? I think they complement each other in a holistic understanding of the world, and phenomena.
I believe just as science is no master tool, neither is intuition or contemplation. But an amalgam of the two, by truly committed and sincere workers, is the cure for a distressed modern society vacillating between the skepticism of science and the credulity of religion. Here statements like those of Einstein start making sense:
Science without religion is lame, religion, without science, is blind.
If an essentially lame Science (by lame, I mean a branch which cannot go very far on its own) can ride an essentially blind religion (by blind, I mean oblivious to empirical phenomena), probably both will complete the journey. And they will offer man a means of self-actualization.
Herein is both the fruition of the two branches, as the well being and glory of mankind itself.


Ajai
17 Feb 2006