I would suggest that what they’re describing is a scientific theory which might be experimentally provable, based on some experiments that strongly point at the theory being true.
Whereas Buddhism is a religion. Or a philosophy, if you prefer.
I do recall Logic class being classified under philosophy, but it’s been a long time.
The difference is disprovability. Can you construct an experiment that would, if successful, disprove Buddhism? If not, it’s not science, and there is an enormous difference between Science and not-Science.
There have been thousands of philosophers, and dozens of philosophies which disagree on key points and are therefore incompatible. Can you reconcile Ayn Rand’s libertarianism and Buddhism? If not, how can you determine which is the correct way to live? If it boils down to personal choice, like whether blue is better than red, then it’s opinion and tells us nothing about reality except what you, the individual, prefer. Which is not very useful to more than a handful of people.
I understand your point, but please allow me to convey mine.
Can you construct an experiment that would, if successful, prove or disprove logic, without relying on logic as a means to determine the proof or disproof?
If it can’t be done, then it would seem like everything that has ever been proven relies on this assumption of the value of logic as a means to gain knowledge about the universe, which you know, is fine… but it hasn’t been proven or disproven, which imo would make it fall under the same categories you mention, as it would seem like what is a part of reality and what isn’t couldn’t be determined without using a fundamental axiom that is taken for granted.
Just like what you are describing in your third paragraph, which are all judgements of value which assume behaviors, beliefs and world views as a means to achieve a better society or life or rely on other unproveable assumptions of value that are impossible to prove, logic also seems to me like an assumption that is impossible to prove.
Not trying to convince you, though. I just wanted to explain my perspective.
What you are describing is buddhism with extra steps.
I would suggest that what they’re describing is a scientific theory which might be experimentally provable, based on some experiments that strongly point at the theory being true.
Whereas Buddhism is a religion. Or a philosophy, if you prefer.
more like polyverse with quantum foam.
Sounds delicious. You have the recipe?
I do prefer, and thank you, but ermm… does science not rely on philosophy? Is logic not philosophy?
I do recall Logic class being classified under philosophy, but it’s been a long time.
The difference is disprovability. Can you construct an experiment that would, if successful, disprove Buddhism? If not, it’s not science, and there is an enormous difference between Science and not-Science.
There have been thousands of philosophers, and dozens of philosophies which disagree on key points and are therefore incompatible. Can you reconcile Ayn Rand’s libertarianism and Buddhism? If not, how can you determine which is the correct way to live? If it boils down to personal choice, like whether blue is better than red, then it’s opinion and tells us nothing about reality except what you, the individual, prefer. Which is not very useful to more than a handful of people.
I understand your point, but please allow me to convey mine.
Can you construct an experiment that would, if successful, prove or disprove logic, without relying on logic as a means to determine the proof or disproof?
If it can’t be done, then it would seem like everything that has ever been proven relies on this assumption of the value of logic as a means to gain knowledge about the universe, which you know, is fine… but it hasn’t been proven or disproven, which imo would make it fall under the same categories you mention, as it would seem like what is a part of reality and what isn’t couldn’t be determined without using a fundamental axiom that is taken for granted.
Just like what you are describing in your third paragraph, which are all judgements of value which assume behaviors, beliefs and world views as a means to achieve a better society or life or rely on other unproveable assumptions of value that are impossible to prove, logic also seems to me like an assumption that is impossible to prove.
Not trying to convince you, though. I just wanted to explain my perspective.