{"title":"佛教接受指责的实践如何促进科学和后真理观点之间的对话","authors":"Daniel M. Bingham, Natalie G. Ochmanek","doi":"10.1080/14660466.2019.1590113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Disregard for scientific evidence in favor of opinion and personal belief is dangerous and dominates post-truth perspectives, indicating scientists need new ways of cultivating cooperation for a healthy and sustainable future. Post-truth crises such as climate change denial and vaccine hesitancy reflect learned, non-scientific ways of thinking and so blaming proponents is unhelpful. A solution for improved dialogue may lie in the traditional Tibetan mind-training practice of “drive all blames into one,” in which blame is counterintuitively accepted and transformed into compassion through deep contemplation. The practice is rooted in the Buddhist teachings that all manifestations are empty of separate-self and interdependent, which reflect parallel scientific principles in ecology and evolutionary biology—namely, that organism and environment co-arise, and all life derives from a common ancestor. The practice brings awareness to the fact that all evidence is partial and blaming others reflects illusion of separation and ignorance of interdependence, which causes conflict and suffering. We discuss how practicing “drive all blames into one” can help to improve dialogue between scientific and post-truth perspectives.","PeriodicalId":45250,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"100 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How the Buddhist practice of accepting blame can improve dialogue between scientific and post-truth perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Daniel M. Bingham, Natalie G. Ochmanek\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14660466.2019.1590113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Disregard for scientific evidence in favor of opinion and personal belief is dangerous and dominates post-truth perspectives, indicating scientists need new ways of cultivating cooperation for a healthy and sustainable future. Post-truth crises such as climate change denial and vaccine hesitancy reflect learned, non-scientific ways of thinking and so blaming proponents is unhelpful. A solution for improved dialogue may lie in the traditional Tibetan mind-training practice of “drive all blames into one,” in which blame is counterintuitively accepted and transformed into compassion through deep contemplation. The practice is rooted in the Buddhist teachings that all manifestations are empty of separate-self and interdependent, which reflect parallel scientific principles in ecology and evolutionary biology—namely, that organism and environment co-arise, and all life derives from a common ancestor. The practice brings awareness to the fact that all evidence is partial and blaming others reflects illusion of separation and ignorance of interdependence, which causes conflict and suffering. We discuss how practicing “drive all blames into one” can help to improve dialogue between scientific and post-truth perspectives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Practice\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"100 - 102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2019.1590113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2019.1590113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
How the Buddhist practice of accepting blame can improve dialogue between scientific and post-truth perspectives
ABSTRACT Disregard for scientific evidence in favor of opinion and personal belief is dangerous and dominates post-truth perspectives, indicating scientists need new ways of cultivating cooperation for a healthy and sustainable future. Post-truth crises such as climate change denial and vaccine hesitancy reflect learned, non-scientific ways of thinking and so blaming proponents is unhelpful. A solution for improved dialogue may lie in the traditional Tibetan mind-training practice of “drive all blames into one,” in which blame is counterintuitively accepted and transformed into compassion through deep contemplation. The practice is rooted in the Buddhist teachings that all manifestations are empty of separate-self and interdependent, which reflect parallel scientific principles in ecology and evolutionary biology—namely, that organism and environment co-arise, and all life derives from a common ancestor. The practice brings awareness to the fact that all evidence is partial and blaming others reflects illusion of separation and ignorance of interdependence, which causes conflict and suffering. We discuss how practicing “drive all blames into one” can help to improve dialogue between scientific and post-truth perspectives.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Practice provides a multidisciplinary forum for authoritative discussion and analysis of issues of wide interest to the international community of environmental professionals, with the intent of developing innovative solutions to environmental problems for public policy implementation, professional practice, or both. Peer-reviewed original research papers, environmental reviews, and commentaries, along with news articles, book reviews, and points of view, link findings in science and technology with issues of public policy, health, environmental quality, law, political economy, management, and the appropriate standards for expertise. Published for the National Association of Environmental Professionals