Science based on evidence, Buddhism based on Experience.

[wordy]

Science based on evidence, Buddhism based on Experience.

I like science very much. I don't like Buddhism.

some Buddhists claim that Buddhism is like science or that it is an early science or that some experience they have can be validated by scientific evidence.

Sam Harris seems to be on those who have that view. He is studying to become a neuro scientist that can set up his own experiments.

Maybe he already have started on it.

I looked on the internet for comments on evidence and google found this one from E-sangha.

Science is evidence based, Buddhism is experience based. If Buddhism was scientific I'm sure we would be experimenting to see if a tree falling in the woods when no one else is around does infact make a sound.

so obviously my title got inspired by that text. I don't know which view that person have apart from that short citation. One need to be member to read more. I could only take what google allowed me. The only text I found on internet with the search word I used.

Maybe he is a respected buddhist or maybe he is a critic of Buddhism. I have no idea but I've been told that E-sangha don't allow strong criticism so most likely he is a supporter of buddhism.

But I remember that many many Buddhists do claim that Buddhism is science or that it is supported by scientific evidence.

so I got curious on what others think of it. I doubt that Buddhism is supported by science.

[BWE]

Science is a method not an underpinning. I'm not being bitchy or anything but as soon as you call the body of knowledge generated through the empirical observation and the scientific method 'science' you will have people arguing right past each other and no one will understand the other's problems.

I think it's fair to say that all positive claims can be studied scientifically in one way or another.

[DMB]

Since science became so successful, various religions have tried to muscle in on the act and claim some of the glory. Such claims were not being made 1000 years ago.

[wordy]

Science is a method not an underpinning. I'm not being bitchy or anything but as soon as you call the body of knowledge generated through the empirical observation and the scientific method 'science' you will have people arguing right past each other and no one will understand the other's problems.

I think it's fair to say that all positive claims can be studied scientifically in one way or another.

Science is a method not an underpinning. What is an underpinning?

I have written in English at least 4 hours a day since 1997 and never had use for that way to express myself. is it a much used phrase? What did you want to say this time using it?

You are not in an indirect way saying that Buddhism is science?

[DMB]

Underpinning is a metaphor from building. It literally means base or foundation.

[Eudaimonist]

Science based on evidence, Buddhism based on Experience.

What is the difference?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[BWE]

Science is a method not an underpinning. What is an underpinning?

I have written in English at least 4 hours a day since 1997 and never had use for that way to express myself. is it a much used phrase? What did you want to say this time using it?

You are not in an indirect way saying that Buddhism is science?
Nope. Underpinning means, in this case foundational element. But it's used (sorry about the colloquialism) in this case to mean base set of information upon which we support our assumptions about the world.

Buddhism is not science but it could be studied scientifically depending on the claim. What I meant was that any positive claim can be investigated as a hypothesis and studied scientifically. Sometimes you don't get very far but probably only if you chose too broad of a subject.