Archive for scientific literacy

Spiritual Superiority and Scientific Ignorance

March 22, 2012 alan Balance Views, beliefs, brain science, closed minded, cognitive dissonance, conversations, critical thinking, dogmatic opinions, empiricism, experience, feelings, Free Will, fundamentalism, god, Good, inflexibility, is this for real, logical fallacies, logical fallacy, metaphysics, mind, mysticism, neurology, neuroscience, opinion, opinions, perception, perception bias, personal truth, psychology, rational mystic, rational mysticism, sceptic, scepticism, science, scientific literacy, scientific method, sensation, senses, Skeptic, skepticism. science, the real twilight zone

So we’re back again…

On a recent The Real Twilight Zone episode there was a presentation by a singer who was interested in the connection people had to the land. More to the point she was promoting an event in which groups of people could gather at the same time across the UK and ‘sing thanks’ to the planet.

Now, as you might expect, I immediately see the social, emotional and cultural value of such an activity. Bringing individuals together in order share an experience in which the focus is ‘gratitude’ and ‘personal connection with place’ is a vote winner in my book.

But because I accept this positive and affirmative action I need not accept some of the metaphysical constructs that my guest on the show presented.

Ley Lines. Earth Energies and the plausibility of Dowsing being areas which need not go hand in hand with a general support for the Earth Singing activity.

It was interesting to sit back and watch the debate that this interview provoked and so I thought I’d try to encapsulate some idea that allow me, as a Rational Mystic, to hold what may appear to be contradictory views.

So, lets start with Philosophy.

As a discipline this area of academic study can be considered as providing a framework which supports and encourages debate. The framework is built around logic, reasoning and the synthesis of information to extend and explore understanding.

My apologies to any Philosophers ‘out there’ who might feel I’ve oversimplified their specialism. So to make sure I’m at least getting some of this right, lets listen to a philosopher….

 

Now, Science.

Science is about asking questions, proposing hypotheses, collecting observations, conducting experiments, analysing data and sharing findings  - the scientific method. The business of science is to construct meaningful questions which set out to identify the ways in which the cosmos (in it’s broadest sense) works. The derivation of Laws and Theories, upon which further hypotheses can be tested is part and parcel of the process of science.

Again, my apologies to any Scientists ‘out there’ who feel misrepresented.

Science provides a method by which we can explore the world and the cosmos. There is often a by-product to this processes of science which results in technological innovation.

Philosophy provides a vehicle through which findings from scientific explorations, historical reflection and personal introspection can be brought together  in broader terms – such as the consideration of morals, ethics and mores.

Both approaches can be mutually supportive. One deals solely with the world of objective reality no matter how abstract that reality can become. The other deals with what the findings and innovations of science mean – their relevance to the past, present and future and what we can call ‘the human condition’.

It is also true to say that both approaches to knowing and understanding are based upon human constructs – i.e. methods, ways of questioning, ways of being.

They are also built around the ability to ‘deconstruct’ ideas and phenomena in order to question the specifics (the variables) whether they be in terms of abstract concepts, physical objects, observations and even the structure of words themselves. Defining ‘terms’ and ‘variables’ is an essential part of the philosophical and scientific debate.

So what of ‘mysticism’?

Well the branch of philosophy known as Metaphysics deals with aspects of what we know as mysticism. For me it as about personal, subjective experience that we either seek (or not) to place into our own constructs of how the cosmos works.
The same experience can happen to dozens of people all of whom will interpret it initially according to the way they feel they connect with the world – and this is a good thing.

The challenge comes when we try to share what we have experienced and what we mean by the words we use to describe experience. Now I personally enjoy metaphysical debate and provocation BUT only when the people I debate with can engage is such a personal thing without feeling their beliefs are under attack…

Our personal constructs about the world are just that – personal AND we are connected emotionally to the things we accept as being ‘real. Hence there will of course be some hesitation, or even reluctance, to consider questions which run counter to what we ‘feel to be true’.

The more dogmatic we are in our beliefs the less open we are to real debate. I would go a stage further, however, and suggest that fundamentalism is dogmatism plus fear.

If we are unable to tolerate anothers position is it because we feel threatened by their difference?

If we cannot debate our position is it because we are so insecure in our own beliefs that we cannot bear any question?

If we believe that to question spiritual ‘truths’ is wrong are we in danger of persecuting others for their understandings?

Whether there is or is not a God or are or are not Angels is not really a question for science. Behaviours which result from a belief is of interest to psychologists and sociologists and were there to be ‘physical manifestations’ of spiritual beings then sure, science would be able to ask questions.

Most of the statements and beliefs held by those on a ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’path and the experiences often quoted as evidence are by their very nature ‘intangible’ and not easily reducible to things science can measure. This does not mean the experiencing of them is not important or relevant to the individual or shared collective consciousness.

For me it is easy to recognise and value the different ways of interacting with the world; the different kinds of experiences we can have and the questions we can choose to ask (or not).

For me it is easy to recognise and value the limitations of each of the ‘ways of experiencing’. It is great that ‘science does not know everything’ because this allows for questions and development of new ideas as well as the redefinition of old ones.

So back to the title of this essay ..

Scientific Ignorance for me is best demonstrated by those who say things like …

“Science doesn’t know everything you know” – said with a ‘told you so’ patronising edge

“It’s only a Theory” – said as if to reduce the status of scientific theory to a ‘cute idea’.

From so-called scientists,

“Well my ideas is so revolutionary that the scientific community won’t even consider it” – usually from those who have an idea (which they call a Theory) that does not fit with ‘conventional wisdom’…

And, from creationists,

“Well if evolution was a true then why don’t we see monkeys having human babies” – yes this was actually said by a Creationist!

Spiritual Superiority can be summed-up when anyone with a metaphysical or spiritual point to make suggests that ‘the reason you don’t understand is because you’ve not reached the same level as we have….” or any other such hierarchical claim.

For me ….

The Rationalist wants to ask empirical questions about objective reality

The Mystic is happy to ‘talk’ about ideas which are inclusive BUT is more interested in what a personal, subjective experience means to me.

I want to be open to different ways of experiencing, relating to and being with myself in relation to the wonderful cosmos and the potential that we have as people to be more than we are…

I want to think about ‘how I know what I know’ and absorb what I can from the range of teachers, philosophers, scientists, mystics and situations I have been fortunate enough to encounter.

….I’m obviously not sure of what I don’t know and so tentative about the things I do think I know…. of course what I feel is another thing entirely.

So for those of you who like ‘videos’ here are some I found to keep you thinking. Not saying I like the style, or endorse the views – but there’s some food for thought here…

 

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
No comments , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Believing in Science

October 23, 2010 alan sceptic, science, scientific literacy, scientific method

I have been engaging in an interesting debate on Facebook with one of my Facebook friends. First of all I must say that debate, even if passionate and energetic, is an essential aspect of learning. True debates are not about personal attacks, but are about presenting opinions and ideas in a provocative, challenging and thoughtful way. The moment they degenerate into emotionally driven comments about the person and not the idea then they cease to be productive.

One of the comments that Pygar (see my Rational Mystic Facebook page) made was bout the notion that science is in and of itself a belief system. Hence it is possible to be a believer in science.

As readers of this blog will know it is an assertion that I reject philosophically and recognise that often such a blanket rejection of science is generally an argument that is used to reject scientific findings based on nothing more than a false anaology between so called ‘priests of science’ and ‘priests of religion’.

In my debate with Pygar I have come to a rather interesting revelation – one that will no doubt be obvious to many, but one that proves to be an interesting reframe for me.

Whilst I maintain that Science as a whole is not something one can believe in the Scientific Method (process) is one I have FAITH in – so we could say that I believe in the scientific method.

SCIENCE is an all encompassing word which is about what people ‘do’ as well as the particular philosophical paradigm they subscribe to.

In many “New Age”, “Complementary” and ‘Alternative” circles the words ‘science’ and ‘scientific’ are frequently used in a derogatory way. In such circles the rhetoric often involves the claim that ‘scientist think they know everything’, or ‘scientists only have theories’, or ‘scientist often disagree and get things wrong’

Well these arguments should hold no water for anyone with even a basic level of scientific literacy.

Scientific Method is about asking questions; about finding out; about reviewing ideas and approaches when new evidence comes to light. Scientific theory is not simply a cute idea – it is something which grows out of observations, measurements, peer review, testing and re-testing.

The media and science popularists are often guilty of misrepresenting tentative findings as the ‘latest scientific fact or discovery’ which then sits in the public consciousness. When new evidence or findings are announced those same commentators (who often have a limited science background themselves) wag their fingers at the scientists ‘inconsistency’ or constant ‘bickering’… again missing the point of scientific method.

Of course scientists themselves do have a responsibility in this area. They are often not the best at communicating their ideas or even the tentative nature of their research. Also, it must be said, that not all scientists are created equal. As within any field of human endeavour there are those who excel and those who fall short of the ideals they initially set themselves.

It is also worth remembering that a PhD represents an ability to undertake structured research and a focus in a particularly small area of a larger discipline. This means that expertise is somewhat tightly focussed and any scientist commenting on topics ‘out side’ of their particular field can be on rather dodgy ground.

In public consciousness if someone is given the title ‘Scientist’ or ‘Doctor’ there is the tendency to assume they know what they are talking about. This assumption is well worth checking.

The current climate change debate is a particular example. We constantly hear of ‘scientists’ who disagree with the IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change). Well, the most important question to ask there is about the expertise of those who disagree compared with the expertise of those comprising the IPCC.

For me a scientist researching in the field of metrology has far more credibility than one researching immunology when commentating on this issue. Both are experts in ‘their field’, but surely one has far more to say about climate change than the other. Hopefully both can apply scientific method to their considerations and possibly a fair degree of critical thinking – but this will depend upon the quality of the scientist in question.

So back to my belief in the scientific method.

It is about the nature of questioning ‘how do we know?’

A personal opinion is based upon the beliefs and knowledge an individual has.

Some opinions are so firmly fixed that there is a rejection of new findings or discoveries which cause us to question what we know. Beliefs and opinions are emotionally charged, which is why arguments stemming from them need to be checked for logical inconsistencies, prejudices and assumptions.

When presented with an opinion or belief for debate, I will deliberately poke and probe for the evidence that supports that opinion and attempt to challenge the logical fallacies and emotional rhetoric it may contain.

Whilst holding an opinion myself, I hope that I can be aware enough of checking any new evidence against what I think I know and in that way increase my understanding. My belief, if you like, in the scientific method means that I am bound to allow my ideas evolve in the light of new information and evidence so long as that evidence has been challenged and questioned.

The argument that scientists are ‘closed minded’ does not really sit with the notion of true scientific method. They can appear to be closed when they question the validity of the arguments being put forward. The constant emotionally driven and overworked arguments of the ‘true believer’ are particularly frustrating in that the assumptions behind them have been challenged and found lacking time and time again. In essence there is the general feeling that sometimes such challengers to science per se are unwilling to put in the time and effort to prepare their arguments for intellectual debate.

Of course another problem is that some folks try to apply scientific method to things that are beyond the scope of the scientist.

Metaphysical and Philosophical discussions about the nature of divinity are not really issues for science. Psychology and Sociology may well have something of value to add and the findings of the other sciences will form a background to any discussion BUT unless an idea or assertion can be falsified and open to experimental approaches then it is not something science can say much about.

It is particularly galling when the detractors of science within the “New Age” or “Alternative” movement ‘cherry pick’ scientific concepts which support their arguments and then defame ‘scientists’ as a ‘closed minded bunch of contrary and argumentative hacks’ – as someone once said to me in a debate.

So here’s the skinny…

If you are offering an idea or opinion (belief) up for debate then:

  • Be aware that the evidence under pinning it will be checked
  • Generalised statements of lacking specific references will be questioned
  • Logical fallacies within your argument may be identified and challenged
  • Your conclusions from evidence or philosophical approach will be considered
  • Your emotional buttons, passions, may be pushed

At the end of such a debate you will need to be able to honestly reflect upon what you have seen, heard, or been presented with – you may even need to change your mind!

Remember that in our culture debates are often adversarial in nature. A series of points and counter points will be made each one from the perspective and opinions of those involved in the debate. It is always useful to take a respite from such contrapuntal dialogue and simply review all of the evidence and the sources of the evidence supporting a particular opinion. Bring the ‘best’ evidence to the debate and see where questioning of that leads.

Frankly, some folks have more invested in maintaining their opinion, belief or attitude despite evidence rather than because of it. These people will thrive on responding to points and ideas with ad hominin (personal) attacks, whilst being unable to stick to one particular point or piece of evidence.

Sometimes those who claim that others are ‘closed minded’ and ‘intractable are simply reflecting those same attitudes in themselves. An honest look in a mirror is always a good idea.

Next time you share your opinion, attitude or belief it is worth asking yourself if it is something you want to offer for debate or something you simply want others to acknowledge and accept. For me any such comment that is made within a pubic arena or within a conversation is something that is being offered for consideration and debate.

Next time you challenge validity of the scientific method perhaps it is worth considering whether or not the opinion, belief or attitude you hold can be questioned scientifically.

As a Rational Mystic I want to be able to choose the frame of reference most suitable for any debate I enter into – and in so doing increase my knowledge of the pragmatic and my experience of the metaphysical.

2 comments

Conversations Between Worlds

September 13, 2010 alan conversations, paranormal experiences, paranormal groups, paranormal investigations, rational mystic, rational mysticism, sceptic, scientific literacy, scientific method

This NOT a post about Channeling or some other form of communication with spiritual, spectral or alien intelligences.

It is a a post about a clash of approaches – one that the idealist in me hopes can be resolved, but that experience continues to remind me of the challenges we face.

In previous posts I have tried to articulate my thoughts on scientific process; beliefs, experiences and that eclectic mix of people who choose to call themselves paranormal researchers!

I’ve come-up with a series of conversation models which describe the typical interactions between the various travelers in this world of smoke, mirrors, perceptions, egos and intentions. 

Lets start with a conversation that may happen between a fanatical ‘scientist’ and a ‘believer’…

Believer : I saw a ghost!

Fanatical Scientist: Bollocks!

Now of course we know that scientific method is about questions, evidence and research. There may well be certain scientists who are ‘closed’ to the paranormal and are probably closed because of some of the more inane and credulous believers ‘out there’ who have simply worn them out with their lack of intellectual honesty or rigour. Believe me I really understand that frustration.

For the specific attention of some of those in this area of interest who have a prejudiced view of science remember good scientists never claim:

  • They have all the answers
  • They posses the only truth
  • They are not interested in the possibility of the improbable
  • They ‘believe’ in the ‘religion’ of science

Now what about the conversation between a ‘good scientist’ and a ‘fanatical believer’

Fanatical Believer: I saw a ghost!

Good Scientist: Really – how do you know it wasn’t something else?


Fanatical Believer: What! Are you calling me mad! Well others saw it too – you’re like all those other scientists, think you know everything….. well let me tell you.…

Of course most well balanced and emotionally intelligent ‘believers’ (and scientists for that matter) accept that questioning the content of someone’s experience is not an attack on their sanity. It is, perhaps, the fanatical believer who is doing far more to damage the reputation of others actively working in this area than anything else.

The real problem is that some ‘believers’ find it difficult to have their experience questioned and so a very common communication model is this:-

Believer : I saw a ghost


Scientist : Interesting, could it have been something else?

Believer : Well no because the place is haunted anyway, and other people have also seen something similar 

Scientist : Well, I wonder if people who do not believe in ghosts have a similar experience?


Believer : See you don’t believe me, you think I and everyone else is making it up – we are mad or fooling ourselves

 I think there is a pattern here – notice how quickly the believer becomes emotionally and personally engaged in the debate. In fact perhaps there can be no meaningful debate about the experiences a believer has for in the very questioning of that experience there is the assumption (often incorrect assumption) that their personal integrity is being challenged.

It gets very tiring to be honestly questioning an experience in order to define the evidence that may support a particular hypothesis when you are having to deal with emotional responses, personal insecurities, prejudices and uninformed attitudes of others who consider themselves to be investigating!

In many respects investigations and experiments need to be as emotionally neutral as possible. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there are more people involved in the world of ‘paranormal investigations’ who are really seeking to support their pre-existing metaphysical belief system than in wanting to define any degree of ‘truth’ or ‘mechanism’ or ‘reality’ behind the subjective experiences we as human beings have.

This is why I call myself a Rational Mystic…

I do hold a particular set of ‘beliefs’ about the universe and those beliefs are best defined using metaphorical frames…. more of that elsewhere for those really interested.

I have a set of understandings, based upon reading, empirical research and experience that shape ideas about the nature of human perception, human experience and communication.

I have a set of understandings, based upon reading and the empirical research of others that inform me of some of the ways in which nature and the universe work.

I am learning, and continue to learn, about the most effective ways to engage in meaningful debate and use creative thinking and critical thinking ‘tools’ to extend and improve my learning.

I can, and try, to keep to the evidence, the nature of the evidence and the quality of the information being presented when in mind when in ‘rational mode’.

I can, and do, abandon myself to flights of metaphysical fantasy and spiritual exploration when in ‘mystic’ mode.

Here is the core of the issue..

When I talk as a mystic I know I am sharing what I personally feel about the nature of the human psyche and the universe. I am happy to be challenged on those ideas, and questioned but I am aware that there are personal emotions attached to each idea. I choose when and where I offer those ideas and if I want them to be evidentially challenged or empirically questioned. I do not expect people to believe me or buy into my personal truths. More importantly when questioned I can simply say that is what I believe but I am happy to listen and consider your opinion.

When I talk rationally I want to bring to bear all of my questioning, thinking and empirical faculties. I assume that since I am being asked to consider ‘evidence’ then this approach is valid. Of course I will start with a default position and that is the position of what ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ explanation exists for the evidence being presented.

If I am being honest with myself and true to my values then if I cannot find a rational explanation for something after personal and intellectual research then I will accept the irrational (mystical) possibilities presented AND will do so eagerly and with much excitement.

Some believers SAY they are presenting evidence when they are simply seeking to reinforce a belief with observations they have already accepted as ‘evidence’ supporting their opinions. When their evidence is questioned in the spirit they (thought) they offered it they react emotionally and often disproportionately.

We are literally communicating between worlds and perhaps, as I have mentioned elsewhere, believers in a specific thing are potentially the worst kind of investigator since they may lack the intellectual discipline required to be truly empirical.

 
  

No comments