Deep science

Edna McGrew writes in her "Physicists and Mystics":

Ken Wilber gives a bare bones definition of the scientific method, which he claims most general science texts agree with. He writes the "scientific method involves those knowledge-claims open to experiential validation or refutation." This definition, however, does not refer either to the domain or the objects of the scientific method. Consequently, Ken Wilber says that with this definition, you can address not only the realms of biology and anthropology, but also such domains as psychology, history, sociology and even spirituality. For me, he clarifies this whole point when he writes: "If 'science' were restricted to 'physical-sensory' object-domains, then mathematics, logic, psychology, and sociology could not be called 'scientific,' in that the central aspects of those domains are non-sensory, non-empirical, non-physical, or meta-physical occasions."

My understanding of the scientific method was based on the premise that the knowledge-claim being evaluated was to be tested using 'physical-sensory' evidence. My problem was with the definition I was using. I thought that 'experiential' evidence and 'physical-sensory' evidence meant the same thing. However, Ken Wilber makes it very clear that the use of the words 'experiential validation' in the generally accepted definition of the scientific method, does not restrict such validation to physical-sensory evidence! As an example, he points to the fact that testing the truth-value of a mathematical theorem is not based on sensory evidence, but rather on mental evidence. And he concludes that it is by using mental evidence, which can be checked by equally trained experts in their respective fields, that such subjects as mathematics, logic and psychology are correctly called sciences.

Read the whole piece.