Note from David Keirsey , October 12, 1999

Replying about the NESCI discussion.

I am trying to understand your point of view. It is crucial to understand what is the problem, given our common ground of Rosen's ideas and the understanding that conventional science is lacking recognition some fundamental techniques of inquiry and the weaknesses of their methods.

You assert that I insulted the "esoteric community" by positing that the word "mystical" has a strong connotation of "illogical". And by that act I show arrogance. I am arrogant by nature, but not intentionally ;-)

I don't know who consists of the "esoteric community". If you mean by that community to include theistic people or people who don't try restrict themselves to consistent and sound thought(in the mathematical sense), then ok, I don't mind if I insult. Although I don't intend to have rational discussions about the world, with those who use circular reasoning, and don't care or don't know they have use circular reasoning.

If you mean the esoteric community, as being those who are trying to exploring hypotheses (such as Gaia hypothesis or the Hypersea hypothesis) and are interested in prediction and “falsification” methods. Then they should not be insulted, for I am only pointing out (and not criticizing) that certain words connote certain meanings. For example, the word "Gaia" has a considerable logical and "scientific"(in its reductionistic meaning) backing with researchers such as Lovelock, Margulis, Gold, and Volk explaining exactly what they mean by the word. It is true "Gaia" does connote the goddess of "Earth", hence its mystic connotations. The old guard, for whatever reason, may try to use this connotation against those who are trying, but the truth will come out in the end: The Gaia hypothesis is a legitimate logical inquiry into how and why the world works, which is the goal of science.

On the other hand, there are people who also believe in the "Gaia" hypothesis and have intellectual agendas not compatible with the goals of science: logical inquiry and discourse. "Vitalism" in any form, whether it be theism, greens, or utopians are not interested in hypothetical and predictive reasoning. They don't realize or accept that they use circular reasoning (assume what you are trying to prove). The "scientific" way of thinking is by stating your assumptions (as many as you can, realizing that you might not state all of them) and then making logical deductions from them or making more assumptions, then comparing it with what you know, revising your deductions or assumptions as necessary.

Reductionism is one way, Rosen's category theory another. Let us, for example, consider a person who you might consider one of the "esoteric community": Rachel Carson. In her groundbreaking book, she awakened the world to the "problem" of pollution. You have to give her credit. But, Rachel Carson is no "scientist". I don't mean that in negative or positive sense. Once you read her book and you "get it" you don't have go back, for she asked a question (a very useful question), but she provides no useful answers, and it fact, in retrospect clouds the issues with her rhetoric. Her intellectual followers: most greens don't help the problem, for they have the answers they are looking for. If you want continue to look at the "problem", find answers and also ask more new questions, one would not look to greens, but people like Lovelock (which the greens don't particularly like for he doesn't give them the "right" answers).

The problem is the "esoteric community" (of the latter) has no interest in using "falsification" methods. And you are not going to convert them, either. It will never happen, because of the of the temperment of people in involved. It is better to concentrate on trying to get the "scientific" community to read and understand Rosen (difficult task indeed). Science can change, for all true scientists will eventually listen to reason. So if you use the word "mystic" to describe yourself, then you be branded as "non-scientific" and disregarded. This is unfortunate, for those who have read Rosen and understand him are few and far between.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your disclosure of your background, it was enlightening.

David Keirsey