I am finding the ongoing changes in and challenges to my thinking interesting, and sometimes even amusing. To be clear (and repetitive, I know), I have been a science-oriented person as far back as I can remember—wondering about how things work and how to test ideas and wanting proof for everything. I still consider myself a scientist, even though I have not worked in that realm for years ... yet the way some individuals apply scientific theories is problematic for me.
First is evolutionary theory. More specifically, I don’t understand why, since change is about the only real constant there is in our lives, some people look backward in order to find/create guidelines for living today and tomorrow. One common example of this is the so-called paleo diet, which is supposedly based on what “our ancestors” ate and therefore we should eat. It should be clear from modern diets that our global, aggregate predecessors did not have a monodiet: dairy foods have historically been very rare in China and Japan, while they’ve been very common in other cultures, e.g., Scandinavia. People look at our current dental pattern, extant fossil records, and make all kinds of divergent claims about our ancestors’ consumption of meat—and to me, much of it seems selected to justify one’s current dietary preference. Back then, one diet didn’t fit all, so why should one think it will today? Also, trying to eat like our forebears did seems to me to be shortsighted—a path that contradicts the ongoing changes in our biological systems today. (That should not be read as any sort of endorsement for the increasingly artificial, processed, packaged food industry.)
The second area is the “skeptic” crowd, for lack of a better way to describe it. Quackwatch encompasses some of this, although it does address charlatans as well. My problem with these folks is that they seem to be as close-minded and dogmatic as some of the proponents of the disparaged theories and approaches. Things such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, and energy therapies are summarily dismissed, although they have a long history of success—and in some cases, such as herbal medicine, the approach is being pursued by pharmaceutical companies (although this is really nothing new, as anyone who knows the history of aspirin can attest).
A lot of what the skeptics reject rests on a differing view of how the mind and body work than the customary dualistic view encountered in Western science. The simple facts that the placebo effect is real, and that trying pretty much anything different can often bring about a short-term improvement in illness, are sufficient for me to conclude that today’s Western science does not understand well how brain activities/phenomena—or the “workings of the mind” if you prefer—can influence bodily processes. Given the gamut of known sensory capabilities, wherein one can have no sense of smell/taste and another can be so exquisitely attuned he earns a living using those senses, is it really such a leap to move from the common experience of one person sensing another giving off “vibes” to some other person sensing an aura?
Second, skeptics seem to have a hubris about them with respect to the scientific capabilities of our time, suggesting that current technology is all that’s necessary to explore all of both inner and outer space. If our science and tools cannot find something, then it must not exist, the thinking seems to go. I imagine the scientific men of previous times may have thought similarly, until the telescope came along. Or the microscope. Or the electron microscope. Or the particle accelerator. Or the computer. And so on.
Now that I’ve rambled this far, it seems that my objections can be summarized fairly neatly: some people use these ideas as rationales for trying to affix us in the past or present, rather than being open to inevitable changes coming our way. Yes, it is true that many frauds attach themselves to “alternative” ideas, or fabricate their own worthless alternative systems; but many do the same to modern science and medicine. That’s a poor basis for rejecting an idea.
I have had experiences that my rational mind cannot explain or understand. After a lifetime of rejecting them because of that inability, I have chosen instead to accept that “there are more things than are dreamt of in my philosophy”. No, I do not uncritically accept every idea I encounter, and I keep in mind that there are plenty of people who would be perfectly happy to separate me from my money without giving any value for it; but I am willing to entertain the possibility that at least some of what is now derisively referred to as “woo-woo” ideas may in the future turn out to be as observable as a Tetrahymena.
I Have Problems With Some “Scientific” Perspectives
I agree, to a point
It is probably smarter to be skeptical of alternative "sounds to good to be true" theories. Pursue them if you wish, but with your eyes open and in "condition orange".
Just because science scoffs at something doesn't mean it has no validity, but scientific evaluation is not the professional's task alone. It is also something you can do on a case by case, day to day, basis. Thereby protecting yourself.
Help me out a little?
Kent, great points. But I’m not seeing where we part ways in what you wrote.
'Scientific Method'
Ah yes...good 'ole scientific method, and suppossed scientists...
As you know, Sunni, I have a psyc research PhD like you (i.e., the culmination of years of study of scientific method, stats and research design), plus a grad degree in science/astronomy, and yet I always smile at those who discuss science and its daily operation as though it were some sort of logical, unemotional calculating machine.
The fact is, anyone who has actually engaged with the modern scientific process (eg, publishing results in 'peer-reviewed' journals and so on) should realise that there is a huge difference between the philosophy of science (i.e., the way we are taught that it should conduct itself), and the actual practice of science, where individual egos and self-esteem (in the form of protecting one's own ideas and the status quo), reign supreme. Hence, we have Kuhn's 'paradigm shifts', which basically hold that existing ideas - even when incorrect - become so entrenched that they are difficult to overthrow. Of course, if science was as objective and impartial as most people believe it to be, this would not be the case at all.
Also, as you say, there is the well known issue of the 'placebo' effect - mainstream (medical) 'science' uses it as a catch-cry for any effect that cannot be explained by drugs, which means just about everything, given that the placebo effect is often much stronger than drugs. However, this term is used in a derogatory sense, and no attempt is made to better understand what it actually represents - if it is just a person's mindset, then the fact is that modern 'medical science' - based around pharma concerns and profit margins rather than health, many would say, is in a lot of trouble indeed. What sort of pharma-free world would we live in if people's thoughts could change their state of health so dramatically?
Finally, the sceptics...again, these often act no differently to the very people they oppose, and appear so dogmatic and unscientific in their quest to maintain a given viewpoint that their stance is often indistinguishable from that of a religion. One of the most eroneous statements ever made was that regarding Sagan's 'extraordinary proof' being required for 'extraordinary' claims . To quote from Dr. Brian O'Leary's excellent book ('The Second Coming of Science', p.14):
"It is also curious that the 'extraordinary proof' argument is most frequently invoked as an argument against initiating the very investigative process that might develop such proof. The zealous skeptic often seems to overlook the fact that proof is the final stage of a successful scientific investigation, not its starting point!"
Hence, Sagan's old catch-cry is, from the outset, inherently subjective and unscientific.
Finally, in addition to 'if our science and tools cannot find something it does not exist', I would add 'if our science and tools cannot currently imagine or achieve something, it cannot be done.'
Hence, Aliens cannot be responsible for countless UFO sightings etc etc throughout history (regardless of the background of some of the witnesses and so on), because in the public domain we don't have the technology to travel interstellar distances. Hence, UFO's are always just that, and nothing more, and must not be investigated. That type of skewed logic would have got Sunni or I a 'Fail' in our undergrad methodology courses...). The same can be applied to other examples, including the mind/body distinction Sunni made (where there is an abundance of evidence suggesting the opposite of what is taught in school and most universities).
The problem is
Humanity :)
As Shaun says, there is a big difference between philosophy and the practice of science. As with any system the moment we involve actual, emotional, self-interested, messy Humans it goes to pieces.
That having been said, science, as other free endeavors, tends to be self-correcting in the long run. Of course this goes out the windows when the state gets involved and these days it is the state that funds science. When I think about it I am surprised that it is not even more messed up.
Feynman's take (I can't find the source right now) was that science had nothing useful to say about things it could not measure.
The principle of falsification is a useful one. It is more useful to say "God does not exist" because that can be proven false. All God has to do it show up and presto, the statement is shown to be false. Saying "God does exist" is not useful because it can never be disproved.
Likewise the scientific method is a very useful tool. Where I have a serious problem with many skeptics (Sagan and Gardener for example) is that they refuse to apply the method to things they dismiss. Double blind studies of acupuncture have shown it to be very effective in some cases. Yet they ignore these. And of course, they simply refuse to carry out experiments in certain areas. Rupert Sheldrake is a great example of someone who has conventional training and wants to investigate out-of-the-ordinary phenomena, using the standard approach, but can't get any funding.
Overall, I'd say that where it has been relatively free of state interference the short history of modern science is a pretty good one. However, this is probably the case because of the 'paradigm shifts' that Shaun referred to.
Diet is an interesting area. Having lived in Asia for many years, I know that the claims that an "Asian" diet is good for you are false. Some Asians live long lives, and diet is undoubtedly a contributing factor. But there are many Asian foods, a lot of which are not contributors to longevity (shellfish & noodles fried in pork lard comes to mind).
We do know a few things, such as if you are over weight your heart will have to work harder, also if you have too much of some chemicals in your body you are at higher risk. So if your family history also gives you higher risk you may want to consider reducing your intake of some foods.
Overall, diet, while important, is only one of many factors.
On the nail...
Jorge has hit the nail square on the head with:
"Where I have a serious problem with many skeptics (Sagan and Gardener for example) is that they refuse to apply the method to things they dismiss. Double blind studies of acupuncture have shown it to be very effective in some cases. Yet they ignore these. And of course, they simply refuse to carry out experiments in certain areas. Rupert Sheldrake is a great example of someone who has conventional training and wants to investigate out-of-the-ordinary phenomena, using the standard approach, but can't get any funding."
a double standard, for sure, and a most unscientific one...another would be the use of the so-called sceptic investigator James Randi in his 'debunking efforts'..having watched one of these on film, I was most unimpressed at his replacement of real scientific method with vaudeville showmanship. Not science at all...
It is so good ...
to see that others understand what I was trying to say. Jorge and Shaun, thank you very much for your insightful contributions. I’ll be trying to make some time to research Sheldrake soon.
Making the connection
I've called myself a "holistic" nurse for decades, simply because I so clearly see that the mind, body and soul (or energy life force, as I've come to see it) are all parts of each other and inseparable in reality. My disenchantment with ordinary western medicine springs from the fact that, all too often, these entwined entities are treated as completely different species instead, seldom giving people what they need to become whole and truly healed.
In the last few years I've been privileged to learn whole new galaxies of supporting material, and meet many who have both learning and practice far beyond my puny efforts. I've learned that this inner connection is not just a desired or natural state - but an inescapable fact of all life, and we ignore it to our ultimate peril.
While each person, tree and rock is uniquely itself - and even individual molecules of water or air differentiate - they are all connected somehow as well.
And now, through the gift of a dear friend (who knows who she is), I've been reading something that gives flesh and life to that conviction. It's called "Energy Medicine - The Scientific Basis" by James L. Oschman
Marvelous, challenging, thought provoking, and, since much of what he reports was well known as far back as 1950, I'm mad as a wet hen at the total inadequacy of my college chemistry and physiology, biology and other "science" courses which failed to even hint at any of it!!
Old too soon, wise too late... but I'm running as fast as I can to catch up! I'll have to live to be 200 just to read all the other books referenced! :)
Ooooh!
As has been addressed very well by Jorge and Shaun, given the differing context of those courses and the energy perspective, it isn’t surprising it wasn’t mentioned. I believe a friend of mine in grad school mentioned another book that might have opened my eyes to this perspective earlier, but I was much too busy being dogmatic to track down the book back then. If I weren’t so afraid to visit Amazon (because I always find more books I want than I should buy), I’d order it today.
But, speaking of books ... can I borrow yours when you’re finished with it? :-)
Of course!
You can borrow it just as soon as I get done with it - and write down the titles of some of the other things referenced that I want to read. Then will come the challenge of finding them. We won't talk about the dangers of going to Amazon.com!!
'The Field'
'The Field' by Lynne McTaggart is another excellent review of science that has for some strange reason not made its way into uni curriculum - including mind-body and interconnectedness of all things.
Misapplying science
I'm with you on the paleo diet thing. For one thing, paleopeople lived far different lifestyles than we do today and wanted as much fat as they could get when they could get it. It might be a long time before another mastodon comes along. If I ate like a caveman, I'd be a lot more obese than I already am (although gorging on mastodon meat sounds pretty fun). For another, paleopeople were omnivores who, depending on where they lived and what was available, ate lots of different things.
Finally, what's so scientific about leaping to the conclusion that what one's ancestors ate was actually good for them or healthier than what is available today? They usually died before they were 30, for crying out loud!
Some interesting insights
"... seen as the result of human endeavour, of human dreams,
hopes, passions, and most of all, as the result of the most
admirable union of creative imagination and rational critical
thought, I should like to write 'Science' with the biggest capital
'S' to be found in the printer's upper case.
Science is not only like art and literature, an adventure of the human
spirit, but it is among the creative arts perhaps the most human:
full of human failings and shortsightedness, it shows those
flashes of insight which open our eyes to the wonders of the world
and of the human spirit. But this is not all. Science is the
direct result of that most human of all human endeavours - to
liberate ourselves. It is part of our endeavour to see more
clearly, to understand the world and ourselves, and to act as
adult, responsible and enlightened beings.
'Enlightenment', Kant wrote, 'is the emancipation of man from
self-imposed tutelage . . . from a state of incapacity to use
his own intelligence without external guidance. Such a state
of tutelage I call "self-imposed" if it is due not to any lack
of intelligence but the lack of courage or determination to use
one's own intelligence instead of relying upon a leader.
*Sapere Aude!* Dare to use your own intelligence! This is the
maxim of the Enlightenment.' [ref. 6, Immanuel Kant, 'Was ist
Aufklarung?']
Kant challenges us to use our intelligence instead of relying upon a
leader, upon an authority. This should be taken as a challenge to
reject even the scientific expert as a leader, or even *science
itself* Science has no authority. It is not the magical product
of the given, the data, the observations. It is not a gospel of
truth. It is the result of our own endeavours and mistakes. It is
you and I who make science, as well as we can. It is you and I who
are responsible for it...
by Karl R. Popper
from "Realism and the Aim of Science"
Volume I of "The Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery"
Yes!
This:
"Second, skeptics seem to have a hubris about them with respect to the scientific capabilities of our time, suggesting that current technology is all that’s necessary to explore all of both inner and outer space."
Jesus H. Blasted Christ yes! Serious philosophical criticism has been written out of 'respectable' scientific efforts for some time now, and that's not a position that can last very long. It's a damn shame that 'respectable' philosophy departments have also written out any possibility of serious philosophical criticism. When the paradigm gestalt shift finally occurs, we shall live in very interesting times.