Here's what makes something scientific or ascientific

Recently I was talking with someone about Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), the India-based religious group centered on a guru that I was a member of for 35 years. 

I mentioned to this person that I'd always loved science, so one thing that attracted me to RSSB way back in 1970 was that it sometimes used Science of the Soul to describe itself. 

I liked the idea of a spiritual science. But back then I hadn't given a lot of thought to what makes something a science.

There's lots of different definitions. In her book, "Existential Physics," here's how Sabine Hossenfelder speaks about science and what she calls ascience or nonscience.

The distinction between scientific and nonscientific explanations is central to this book, so it deserves a closer look. Science is about finding useful descriptions of the world; by useful I mean they allow us to make predictions for new experiments, or they quantitatively explain already existing observations.

...The belief that an omniscient being called God made the chemical elements is not a good scientific theory. You might say it is in some sense a simple explanation, and maybe you find it compelling. However, the God hypothesis has no quantifiable explanatory power. You can't calculate anything from it. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it unscientific.

So while Science of the Soul sounds nice, my current conclusion is that it has nothing to do with science. After all, there's no evidence that soul even exists, much less that it is capable of revealing hitherto unknown knowledge about reality.

God is a belief. Soul is a belief. Returning to God via one's soul is a belief. These can be comforting beliefs, but if we're concerned about truth rather than mere comfort, it has to be admitted that those notions are thoroughly religious, not scientific. 

Which as Hossenfelder said, doesn't make them wrong. It is very difficult, maybe impossible, to prove conclusively that something doesn't exist. God and soul may exist. However, there is no demonstrable evidence that they do. 

Hence, God and soul are ascientific, which is pretty much the same as nonscientific. Atheism simply means not-theistic with the addition of a beginning "a." Same applies to ascientific.

Hossenfelder views theories about the multiverse (other universes that can't be observed) as ascientific even though many scientists speak and write about them a lot. She writes:

The scientific status of these multiverse ideas is thus the same as that of the many-worlds interpretation [of quantum mechanics]. Assuming the reality of something unobservable is unnecessary to describe what we observe. Hence, assuming that these other universes are real is ascientific. 

This isn't a particularly difficult argument, so I find it stunning that my physics colleagues can't seem to comprehend it.

...Well, as I have explained so often, this isn't about what I believe or not; it's about what we can know or not. I am saying that what's beyond what we can observe is purely a matter of belief. Science doesn't say anything about whether it exists or doesn't exist.

Hence, claiming it [the multiverse] exists is ascientific, and so is claiming it doesn't exist. If you want to talk about it, fine, but don't pretend it's science. At that point they're [her physics colleagues] usually either confused or offended or both.

...No one should be denigrated for what they believe in. If you want to believe in the existence of infinitely many universes with infinitely many copies of yourself, some of whom are immortal, that's fine with me. 

But please don't pretend it's science.

Now, I feel the same way about nonscientific religious beliefs, which I used to embrace. I realize how appealing those beliefs can be. They supported me for many years. I can't blame anyone for holding on to such beliefs. 

Life can be painful, difficult, scary, frustrating, sad. If an unscientific belief helps you get through life with more ease, great. Keep on believing if that works for you.

But as Hossenfelder says, please don't pretend that what you're doing is science, a reflection of what reality actually is like. Religious belief doesn't cause problems when the believer understands that what they have faith in is purely subjective with no clear connection to objective reality.

However, when religious belief is wrongly considered to be Truth From On High, that's when harmless belief turns into dangerous dogma.

Comments

[Dungeness]

@ Hossenfelder [ I am saying that what's beyond what we can observe is purely a matter of belief. Science doesn't say anything about whether it exists or doesn't exist. ]

The mystic would demur "hey, what mystics can observe in consciousness
is more than belief. Their methodology is clear and scientific. Findings and
visions are established provably, repeatably. There's no room for blind
acceptance of one-offs nor subsequent speculation. Refreshingly, there's
no club requirement or society to join either. Follow a mystic path with
sincere mindfulness and devotion. You can confirm mystic claims within.
If not, try another door to discover truth. But, remain open-minded. There
are invariably more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of."

[Nick]

Singh brothers jailed for 6 months!
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/sc-jails-malvinder-and-shivinder-singh-for-6-months-over-contempt/articleshow/94385188.cms

[Appreciative Reader]

That's for contempt of court, apparently. Which means their actual sentencing (or acquittal, as it might be) is yet to come. I mean, it's not as if they can make their peace with having got off with just six months.

Which also raises the question --- not that I'm aware of the exact nature of the contempt of court here --- won't a similar contempt of court case also apply to the Bearded One? (Well they're all beareded ones, but I mean the Bearded One, capitalized.) I mean over and above the actual case against him? That is, he seems to be flitting around evading court appearences, isn't it? (I ask without actual detailed knowledge of what the answer is, but it is my [admittedl vague] impression that he's simply been putting off properly facing the charges against him, for like forever.)

[Nick]

Appreciative Reader, from what I understand, the Singh brothers gave their money to the Bearded one….so no matter how these brothers earned the money (including fraudulently) but then they donated or gave away this money to the bearded one so I don’t think he can be charged for that. At best, he can be asked to return the money back….anyway, these are my 2 cents, if anyone has more knowledge on this case, please comment.

[Appreciative Reader]

No, fair enough, Nick. The courts are there to uphold the law, not morality, and certainly not GIHF-worthy uber-morality. Agreed, as far as that much.

But then they're in for contempt of court, apparently, those two dupes of GSD's, so that can't have been about the merits of the case per se. I doubt they've gone around assaulting the judge or the prosecuting counsel, so the sentence is probably for not complying with court's injunctions about interim payments or furnishing information, something like that.

So well, I was wondering, --- wondering idly, without myself being very well informed on this! --- if GSD's repeated evasion of court summons citing some excuse or the other, and also his not providing clear information to court about all of his financial affairs (I'm assuming he hasn't, but I don't actually know that!), might not similarly amount to contempt, and if he shouldn't be sitting with his nephews inside their jail cell, for some similar contempt.

...But you're right, of course, these two dupes doing illegal things on GSD's say-so, and giving him money that wasn't theirs to give, that is, legally speaking, squarely on the two trimmed beards, not the longer flowing beard, absolutely.