Alex's question at the end of the Podcast:
What should we make of science that is outside of Western science--do other cultures offer a "science" in the way that we think about it, and does it deserve our attention?
A number of writers have made the observation that the science of the "interior", which is necessarily experienced by an individual consciousness, is every bit as rigorous as the science of the "exterior" as it is conceived of in the West. The thing is, that the evidence gathered by interior-directed science cannot, by definition, be shared by everyone on demand. One can't show others the data from a mystical experience one might have had. One can only describe an experience.
On the other hand, there are plenty of descriptions of what happens in certain states, what effects they have, and plenty of methods for getting into those states. If a pukka spiritual teacher knows enough about a student, s/he can prescribe practices suitable to their state, which, if carried out diligently, will lead to predicted results. In that sense, interior science is verifiable, and you can have significant numbers of people who agree on that.
In a way, that's no different from what in principle happens in Western science. Someone designs an experiment and comes up with results, and then someone else (is supposed to, but increasingly this isn't happening) repeats the experiment and verifies it; and maybe in time, it leads to practical applications in technology. However, because of the enormous degree of specialisation, many scientists simply accept the truth of what other scientists outside their own field say; in that way, they're no more informed than Joe Public. And within certain specialisations, some ideas become fashionable and clung to even in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence. I think in fields like evolutionary biology, neuroscience, cosmology, medicine, and climate science (amongst many others), the system tends to promote the pursuit of complete fantasy.
You couldn't get away with that in the science of the interior, because it relies on personal, first-hand experience. One necessarily has to "repeat the experiment", viz. replicate the experience, if one is genuinely going to be able to claim its truth.
I agree that it's necessary to be able to tell the truth to oneself, and that applies under any definition of science. Western science is steeped in untruths these days, and the system is gamed so that the promulgation of untruth is actively rewarded. We think of ourselves as rational, educated people, capable of objectively evaluating what is real, when actually there's an enormous amount of (not necessarily intentional) self-deception. We're as steeped in superstition as we ever were, but sticking the label "accepted science" on something is meant to make it true. Well, it ain't always so, any more than with religious doctrine.
As was pointed out, things aren't all hunky-dory on the other side, either. There's also lots of self-deception that can go on in interior science. Self-deception is the thing that needs to be attended to: the first step in being able to competently perform science of any kind. I find Degracia's heightened awareness of his own ignorance extremely refreshing: there's far too much certainty in science in general: far too much arrogance, as well as laziness in questioning inculcated ideas. In the end, only one thing is certain: consciousness exists, and is something I experience.
