Science seeks to provide useful and verifiable explanations for our experiences of our world. Theoretical scientists propose explanations to be verified by experimental scientists. Explanations can originate in data provided by experimental scientists, schemes invented by thought experiments or revelations seen by mystics. 

We could (and I expect we soon will, as soon as the philosophers join this thread) discuss the validity and value of these approaches, but I believe the proof is how successful the results are.

The translation of mystical revelation into scientific theory could involve many people or perhaps be done by one mystical scientist that has mastered both disciplines.

Science seeks to provide useful and verifiable explanations for our experiences of our world. Theoretical scientists propose explanations to be verified by experimental scientists. Explanations can originate in data provided by experimental scientists, schemes invented by thought experiments or revelations seen by mystics. 

We could (and I expect we soon will, as soon as the philosophers join this thread) discuss the validity and value of these approaches, but I believe the proof is how successful the results are.

The translation of mystical revelation into scientific theory could involve many people or perhaps be done by one mystical scientist that has mastered both disciplines.

Hello Frank and hello Harshvardhan,

I thank you for your comments. Maybe there is a middle pathway between the two positions. It seems the greats in science were, to some extent, mystics - this is a statement of Einstein: 

The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built us by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. 

Maybe many  new insights rest on intuition, then scientists  work on verifying them using the analytic approach. 

I look forward to hearing more opinions ..... 

Hello Tina,

While there have been some thoughtful efforts to bridge "intuitive" mystical phenomena and "objective" rational science, I'm personally a bit circumspect about acceding to the assumption that those are such separate things in the first place. 

Put a bit simplistically, the heart of both what gets called "intuitive" and what gets called "objective" is something empirical. Differences in outlook can come, for instance, from scientistic demands that empirical matters be publicly observable and objectively measurable, with the latter demand often presuming out of hand that contemplative experiential practices are not measurable. But it is of course very much the case that contemplative traditions have for millennia outlined quite rigorous protocols of practice for realization and verification of modes of experience that are inherently empirical, in the sense of directly experienceable. 

Modernist science, for all its claims to objectivity, is a cultural production. Its methods and outlooks "come from somewhere." They are human artefacts. And it is sadly all too easy to find scientists who make quite biased and dogmatic pronouncements regarding spiritual phenomena about which they're actually ignorant, unappreciative of how much their outlook is just that, an outlook.

(At least one long-standing effort by a contemporary psychologist to bridge that culturally-constructed divide is Charles Tart, who proposed a model for "state-specific sciences" back in 1972, in the journal Science, and who continues to advocate for it. Since the seventies, there has of course been the rise of Transpersonal Psychology and, somewhat more recently, currents within Positive Psychology which attend to spirituality, as well as a growing amount of research in meditation, especially "mindfulness-based" practices.)

So, somewhat playfully, I would be inclined to suggest that "mystical scientist" is a redundant term. The "mystic" and the "scientist," at their healthy foundation, both look to uncover that which is always already true, by way of ineluctably pragmatic and directly experiential procedures, before and ultimately without regard for dogma, prejudice, or cultural bias.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cttart/articles/april2013articles/States+of+Consciousness+and+State+Specific+Sciences.pdf

http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/state-specific-sciences-altered-state-origin-of-the-proposal/

Hello David,

I see we share similar interests….

Thanks for contributing to this topic - there are several things that  jump out at me from your answer. 

The first being:

“While there have been some thoughtful efforts to bridge "intuitive" mystical phenomena and "objective" rational science, I'm personally a bit circumspect about acceding to the assumption that those are such separate things in the first place”.

I think this is well said - I too feel that the great scientists have always relied on “intuition” for their ideas - but often this is not recognised, even by themselves. 

“So, somewhat playfully, I would be inclined to suggest that "mystical scientist" is a redundant term”. 

The way you have described it, I (playfully) agree with you. 

However you are giving me an opportunity to clarify my question - maybe I am referring more to your first observation. I do feel that meditation can help gain insights into the nature of nature - this was what meditation was originally all about -

In my PhD thesis which I am doing at the moment, I talk about the aims of meditation as it was originally intended (at least that is the way I was taught). I quote from my thesis below:

“The core of practices associated with ego transcendence and contemplation of the Self is the "experimental phenomenological introspection into the living topological construct of the Self " (Louchakova, 2007a, p.82). For Arka, the term meditation entails "serious self pondering [which involves] the process of making profound inquiry into the depth of the soul about...[our] existence or how the Universe was created or the laws that governed living and non-living matter (2013, p.29)”.  

It was from this perspective that I feel the “mystical scientist” does make sense and I asked the question as I was interested in finding out if more scientists on research gate were  coming from this perspective and if they found it valuable. 

For me it is a complementary and fascinating way of doing science. 

It also has something to do with the “state-specific science” that Tart talks about in the second article you mentioned in your post. However there are easier ways of reaching this state than going for a rolfing session - but I understand how a session like this could help a person get to a level of consciousness which is below his normal “thinking mind” where insights start flowing, just like he describes.

My best regards - Tina

Mystical Scientist may have some hidden or  personal meaning and spiritual significance

Thank you Tina for such an excellent "question".  Perhaps the time is ripe for the phenomenological sciences !  

How could we marry the best outcomes of both approaches ?

Hello Chris, 

Yes your answer does make sense. Your phrase  "there is a great need the former can complement the later and the later can be more affective with the former" - is one that resonates with my heart.I feel that when each one of us  progresses on both fronts, we might begin to find some solutions to the many problems that face mankind today. 

Warm regards - tina

Science deals with math physics, chemistry biology botony and so on. Where as the term mystical science is more akin to metaphysics which is the science of mind and spirit. Scientific knowledge is acquired by five human senses where as mystical science depends on extra sensory perceptions like the spiritual visions using the third eye (spiritual eye) etc.Science deals with grosser matter of the universe whereas mystical science deals with more subtle matter of the universe. There seems to be wide gap between the two mainly because of the vastness of the two subjects and the differences in their level (high and low). It's like difference between two levels of teachers. School teacher and the university professor. Some times the university professor can be so out of touch with the school level teaching.

Hello @√ikram Zavari.

Thank you for your answer. You have read my question in a slightly different way and I agree mystical science is very different from science as we know it. However I was thinking more on the line of the person as a mystical scientist - i.e. somebody trained in the art of acquiring knowledge through extra sensory means but applying their intuition to  problems normally addressed by scientists who up to now have generally only used the 5 senses,( as you rightly point out). 

Warm regards - Tina 

That this time period tends to favour and pay more attention to the "5" senses does not really mean that sense making unfolds thanks to those channels alone.

Intuition (as in direct acquisition of knowledge without conscious/directed intervention) is as human a skill as logical thinking and reasoning are; thus widely used in my opinion - think those highly creative individuals whose lateral thoughts permeate all fields of human activity for example. 

Then there´s Tina´s proposition - if I get it right: that we "consciously" train our intuition so as to include it as part of our problem-solving strategies and awareness in order to inform mainstream science-making.

Such a beautiful and very much needed proposal if you ask me.

Dear @Javi Otero 

Yes you have expressed it beautifully. I feel that we need to reconnect with that deeper layer so we can solve the many problems that mankind is facing today - not only in science but in all fields. And this time instead of being a select few who could connect (like it was in some societies in the past), I would like to see many people connecting.... . 

Sincerely - Tina 

As in who the term refers to, I guess the list is endless but here's two whose work influenced mine early on: Alexander Shulgin and Albert Hofmann (see links below for some info)

http://www.shulginresearch.org/home/about/alexander-sasha-shulgin/

http://www.hofmann.org

Dear Javi 

Thanks for sharing with us the people that have inspired you - as you said the list is probably endless and if anybody would like to share with us people who they consider were "mystical scientists" please go ahead - I knew nothing of Alexander Shulgin who Javi mentions.

With warmth - Tina 

Also and more recently, Maxwell Cade

http://www.mindmirroreeg.com/w/MaxwellCade.htm