THROWING the I Ching?

[OldDog]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

How are you going to decide whether the hexagram produced by an inquiry accurately represents the situation asked about?

 

Ah, well, that's the tricky part. Admittedly, there is a fine line between receiving an independent image from the yi and looking for a particular result ... the "will to believe" you mention. Neither I, nor probably anyone else for that matter, are capable of total objectivity. All anyone can really hope to do is be aware of the human tendency to look for a particular meaning in a result and take that into consideration as you decide on the applicabilty of the result.

 

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

.... are you also going to test whether other hexagrams would have represented the situation just as well or even better?

 

No. For one thing, I think that would definitely mean looking for a predetermined result. One would be searching through all 64 hexagrams looking for what .... a confirmation of what was expected all along? I can't imagine essentially reading the entire book each time a new quiry comes up.

 

I think this is where synchronicity comes in. In examining a result ... being fully aware of 'The Tendency' ... one looks for surprising and otherwise inexplicable coincidences or parallels to the situation in the inquiry ... the germ of credibility. Then, considering how the yi (changes) are described, determine a course of action ... or non-action, as the case may be. In this way I would rely on the yi (process) present a view into the situation and possibly expand the sense of what the situation is all about. At that point, having acted or not, observe how the situation unfolds to determine whether the Yi was accurate or not.

 

The multiple-interpretabily for the hexagram is an essential feature of the Yi. Without it there would be no flexibility in the Yi and it could not function as an oracle.

 

This is how I have understood the Yi thus far. 

 

 

[wandelaar]

Well - I have ordered yarrow stalks myself, and I will do my own experiments as soon as they arrive. As my first project I will empirically investigate the probabilities of the different types of lines.

Further I don't believe that the scientific method is inherently unsuitable for investigating the I Ching. In my experience the problem is rather that most I Ching users don't want to "desecrate" the mystery of the I Ching by using something as non-spiritual as science for its investigation. There are lots of scientific experiments with the I Ching that could be done, but that apparently haven't been done for the simple reason that nobody wanted to do them. I will see what I can do.

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by wandelaar

[OldDog]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

I don't believe that the scientific method is inherently unsuitable for investigating the I Ching

 

Perhaps not... it's just that a suitable method for applying scientific principles has not been fully elucidated ... at least one that a layman csn employ easily. Quantum mechanics may be prove to be an exception. 

 

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

... the problem is rather that most I Ching users don't want to "desecrate" the mystery of the I Ching by using something as non-spiritual as science for its investigation.

 

I am sure there is a camp that believes that. Along with non-spiritual I would add non-profitable. (Uh-oh, my cynicism level is rising!) All to often, 'good science' is used to get the public to buy into (quite literally) a product or service or idea that in reality would not be supported by 'complete science'. This is probably the true meaning of 'fake/fuzzy science'. Alas, with so many sciences, how is one to choose? 

 

But seriously note, does not the Yi represent a science of its own ... state of the art for a couple of millennia BCE?  A shame it is not taught with the same degree of enthusiasm as western science. 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by OldDog
Correct grammer and wording

[wandelaar]

1 minute ago, OldDog said:

But seriously note, does not the Yi represent a science of its own ... state of the art for a couple of millennia BCE?  A shame it is not taught with the same degree of enthusiasm as western science.

 

Perhaps that is because it isn't a science at all?

 

The idea is magnificent enough:

1. We have the hexagrams that symbolize the basic situations that can appear in the world.

2. The world is dynamic so situations continually change into other situations as represented by hexagrams with changing lines.

3. So all kinds of dynamic processes should be understandable when represented in terms of hexagrams.

 

But that's about where it stops. (Sure, some Boolean algebra has been done with the hexagrams, but that hasn't helped our understanding of worldly phenomena either.) I have a great many books on the "science of the I Ching" because it looked as such a promising idea, but none of those books moves beyond the above points 1,2,3 in any convincing manner. There is no science of the I Ching worthy of the name science. Or at least, I haven't seen any. But if you or anybody else thinks there is, please let me know. I will be happy to start another topic on that.

[Michael Sternbach]

On 8.7.2018 at 9:01 PM, wandelaar said:

@ Michael Sternbach

 

Just out of interest, have you studied the sceptical position on the paranormal? In particular concerning personal experiences and anecdotal evidence?

 

I am quite familiar with those arguments. Overall, I also think that the 'scientific method' is overrated, especially when it comes to phenomena as complex and subtle as the psyche. That said, I follow your experiments with interest; how conclusive the results will really be remains to be seen, though.

[wandelaar]

6 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

I am quite familiar with those arguments. Overall, I also think that the 'scientific method' is overrated, especially when it comes to phenomena as complex and subtle as the psyche. That said, I follow your experiments with interest; how conclusive the results will really be remains to be seen, though.

 

Yes - but how are you going to evaluate my results then? Are you just going to compare my results to your own and than pick and choose in the manner of a New Age thinker who cites science where he likes its results and condemns science where he doesn't like its results? Using the I Ching in the usual manner and evaluating its effectiveness by naively noticing how effective it appears to be when used in the contexts of daily life without statistically or otherwise verifying how accurate it actually is (that is: without applying some form of scientific evaluation) is extremely inaccurate. When you are familiar with the sceptical arguments you should know that. The scientific method is not infallible, but it is hugely superior to naive observation. The scientific method also takes much more hard work to apply than naive observation, and that's why in daily life it is hardly ever used. Not because the scientific method is less accurate than naive observation, but because it takes incomparably more work to apply. The scientific method when properly applied also asks for a self-critical attitude that is quite the reverse of what you see everywhere else. If I have to distrust something it is naive observation that I distrust, not the scientific method. 

 

Nevertheless I am happy that you and others are willing to follow and commend on what I am doing. It is a rare thing to see people reach out beyond the belief-disbelief boundary in a spirit of friendly discussion.

[Michael Sternbach]

58 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Yes - but how are you going to evaluate my results then? Are you just going to compare my results to your own and than pick and choose in the manner of a New Age thinker who cites science where he likes its results and condemns science where he doesn't like its results? Using the I Ching in the usual manner and evaluating its effectiveness by naively noticing how effective it appears to be when used in the contexts of daily life without statistically or otherwise verifying how accurate it actually is (that is: without applying some form of scientific evaluation) is extremely inaccurate. When you are familiar with the sceptical arguments you should know that. The scientific method is not infallible, but it is hugely superior to naive observation. The scientific method also takes much more hard work to apply than naive observation, and that's why in daily life it is hardly ever used. Not because the scientific method is less accurate than naive observation, but because it takes incomparably more work to apply. The scientific method when properly applied also asks for a self-critical attitude that is quite the reverse of what you see everywhere else. If I have to distrust something it is naive observation that I distrust, not the scientific method. 

 

Nevertheless I am happy that you and others are willing to follow and commend on what I am doing. It is a rare thing to see people reach out beyond the belief-disbelief boundary in a spirit of friendly discussion.

 

I have neither the time nor the inclination to write a whole thesis on this right now. However, from several articles on the topic I reviewed for reference, I found the following to speak to some of the issues that the scientific method has in a way I resonate with.

 

https://onthinktanks.org/articles/the-limits-of-the-scientific-method-and-the-need-to-merge-science-and-innovation/

[wandelaar]

Current economics let alone think tanks both have a huge ideological bias. I wouldn't consider them as examples of the scientific method. But let's wait till I have some concrete results to show, I welcome more to the point criticism on what I'm doing.

Edited July 11, 2018 by wandelaar

[OldDog]

1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

I found the following to speak to some of the issues that the scientific method has in a way I resonate with.

 

I read the article and also found resonance. The part that resonates is that there are some areas of inquiry or endeavor where the methods of science break down and do not produce useful results. At that point the tools that we turn to are dialogue, rhetorics, speculation, imagination as we probe for the means to make sense of the changing conditions around us. 

 

Aristotle's observations are describing two sides of the same coin ...  things that are only as they are and things that can be otherwise ... predictable and unpredictable ... stable and unstable.

 

Science is just another tool in the toolbox. When you are not getting satisfying results with it, try a different tool. Try a wrench instead of a hammer.

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by OldDog
Grammer

[wandelaar]

35 minutes ago, OldDog said:

I read the article and also found resonance. The part that resonates is that there are some areas of inquiry or endeavor where the methods of science break down and do not produce useful results. At that point the tools that we turn to are dialogue, rhetorics, speculation, imagination as we probe for the means to make sense of the changing conditions around us. 

 

Aristotle's observations are describing two sides of the same coin ...  things that are only as they are and things that can be otherwise ... predictable and unpredictable ... stable and unstable.

 

Science is just another tool in the toolbox. When you are not getting satisfying results with it, try a different tool. Try a wrench instead of a hammer.

 

I completely agree with that, but one shouldn't call those other ways of dealing with the world science. The other ways you mention don't produce scientific knowledge but suggest ways of proceeding or creative points of view. Nothing wrong with that where science fails. Now the I Ching can be used as an "unscientific way" of dealing with the world, where a "scientific way" would be either impractical or impossible. Again, nothing wrong with that.

 

But what I am trying to do is something different. The process of using the I Ching is itself a phenomenon that can be observed scientifically. Most likely such a study will demonstrate certain patterns that appear time and again and can thus be considered fundamental to how the I Ching works (at least for the time being). That is the kind of scientific knowledge of the working of the I Ching that I am looking for.

Edited July 11, 2018 by wandelaar

[Michael Sternbach]

10 hours ago, OldDog said:

 

I read the article and also found resonance. The part that resonates is that there are some areas of inquiry or endeavor where the methods of science break down and do not produce useful results. At that point the tools that we turn to are dialogue, rhetorics, speculation, imagination as we probe for the means to make sense of the changing conditions around us. 

 

Aristotle's observations are describing two sides of the same coin ...  things that are only as they are and things that can be otherwise ... predictable and unpredictable ... stable and unstable.

 

Science is just another tool in the toolbox. When you are not getting satisfying results with it, try a different tool. Try a wrench instead of a hammer.

 

 

 

 

I am glad you liked the article. And you have summarized it rather nicely.

[Michael Sternbach]

10 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

I completely agree with that, but one shouldn't call those other ways of dealing with the world science. The other ways you mention don't produce scientific knowledge but suggest ways of proceeding or creative points of view. Nothing wrong with that where science fails. Now the I Ching can be used as an "unscientific way" of dealing with the world, where a "scientific way" would be either impractical or impossible. Again, nothing wrong with that.

 

But what I am trying to do is something different. The process of using the I Ching is itself a phenomenon that can be observed scientifically. Most likely such a study will demonstrate certain patterns that appear time and again and can thus be considered fundamental to how the I Ching works (at least for the time being). That is the kind of scientific knowledge of the working of the I Ching that I am looking for.