This was posted by Brian to the wanderers list: As a scientist myself, I hope people appreciate the fact that the scientific method is inflexible, requires replication, and is based on testing hypothesis using rigorous statistical techniques. It is also mainly correlational (A is associated with B) when it comes to human affairs, and becomes causual (A causes B) in the more mechanical area (yeast makes dough rise). When you look at studies in the social sciences (so called "soft" sciences), the amount of explanation provided (what is called the "explained variance" or "R squared" value) is typically in the 30% or so range, leaving a whole bunch unexplained (this is given in the form of an equation, such as Y = a + bX, where Y is what you are trying to predict and X is what you use to predict it). So, prediction is the goal using sets of observations of Y and a lot of Xs (Xs derived from your theory). (For example, when I discussed my research many years ago with my brother who was then a biochemist and specialist in donut dough, he laughed at me because he had R squared in the 99.5% range compared to my 40% range. Of course, people are more complex than donut dough, but that made no difference to him; he was a "hard" scientist and I a mere "soft" one.)
The Y you choose to investigate (predict) is determined by what is deemed important in your theory in your field of expertise. Because science is a type of club, if your Y isn't accepted as important in your club, Y don't get published, don't get a good job, and don't get respected. Thus, the "hobby" research into "paranormal" experience by physicists. In a real sense, one has to be aware that it is all very political just like a lot of life. Not only the Ys but the Xs are also up to critical review, as you have to be also to document that they are based on accepted theory and are appropriately measured (have to be reliable and valid and all that). Years ago there was the assumption that there existed an entity called the "unobserved observer," i.e., the scientist. It was presumed that she or he was a neutral (objective) collector of facts (a fact being a valid observation of datum). It was never questioned that the observer had any effect on the facts measured, particularly in the "real" sciences of physics (more problematic in the social sciences). Now that quantum physics has changed all that, it has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole affair, because now the observer becomes an X in the equation (in a real sense). (Dr. Wolf's books such as PARALLEL UNIVERSES are helpful here and he writes so one has a shot at understanding all this.) It also becomes challenging for these hard scientists to have to deal with the reality that the act of measuring something creates it or that particles have consciousness independent of time/space or that events in the "future" create events in the "past" and all those wonderful and previously dismissed as metaphysical realities. It is wonderfully ironic that their hard science has to deal with what has heretofore been regarded as so much metaphysical nonsense. I take the position that the scientific method is as much a religion (set of belief system as to what is True) as any other religion. In this religion, one has to have total belief in it or one is not an accepted member of the religious community. Now in this religion, you have to believe that what is "real" is defined by what you can measure. What is "real" and "significant" is only what you can measure and replicate. Realities which one cannot measure with the current tools of measurement do not exist. Since the current tools are 3D based, there is no 4D, etc. In a very real sense, the whole belief system is tool-based. Also, it is helpful to remember that in this belief system, one never "proves" anything. One posits the hypothesis (guess) that Y is not associated by X (the null hypothesis), and if it is more often than expected based on the presumed lack of association, one makes the conclusion that the null hypothesis is rejected at a particular significant level. (This is not just an academic argument. It has effects on us all. For example, this is how the tobacco industry could get away with taking the position that tobacco did not cause cancer. Cause is impossible to prove in this scientific method unless X results in Y every time. One observation of X not resulting in Y destroys the argument that X causes Y, and one is left with saying that X is associated with Y. While the world watched in disbelief, the CEOs of the major tobacco firms could say with straight faces that they did not believe that tobacco caused cancer. Having worked for a major tobacco company as a marketing research manager, I have some experience in this area. It was interesting to have conversations with the chemists. They were firm in the scientific conviction that tobacco smoke has no "taste" and could prove it. People might think that it does, but that didn't make it real. On the marketing research side, of course, we dealt with "taste" all the time. We conducted "taste tests" all the time. It didn't matter that it was not real, what mattered was that consumers believed that it was real. The company changed the tobacco blends in the brands all the time. We never told the loyal consumers. They never knew it. They also never knew that all sorts of stuff was sprayed on the tobacco (called "top dressing") to make it easier to inhale (not choke). This included sugary stuff like cocoa. The mix of stuff sprayed on the tobacco was and remains a trade secret. So, here is another reason why the CEOs could believe that tobacco did not cause cancer. For all they knew it might have been the stuff sprayed on the tobacco! This, in fact, has been the belief of some Native Americans who regard natural tobacco as sacred. Another interesting fact was that we had the express directive to not investigate health-related factors associated with smoking. We did not ask questions we did not want answers to. We were told that we were not in the health business, but in the consumer products business (i.e., image business) manufacturing and distributing a legitimate farm crop. They had no data on health factors because not only did they not ask about them but when they by chance showed up, the data was destroyed on the rationale that the consumer didn't properly answer the question, that is, gave us information we did not ask about. In any case, all original data was always shredded and only the final reports were saved. All data, of course, belonged to the company so it took the position that it had every legal right to get rid of it. They also had the policy that one did not discuss health issues with anyone in the company, never kept written notes, etc.) The tool-based scientific method was never made to tackle spiritual realities. What is distressing to a lot of folks, nonetheless, is the belief held so dear by many Western scientists that it is the ONLY yardstick to define what is real and not real. It is a "holier than thou" attitude. Not only that but they seem to enjoy making ordinary folks feel stupid because they believe in these "non-sense" things and destroy the careers of scientists who would dare share in these "delusions." So, it is a wonderful modern irony that rigorous science must now face the challenges facing quantum physics and all the nonsensical realities facing it. They have to face the challenge of the dictum of "as below, so above" or "as subatomic, so atomic" and all that. It is also refreshing to hear some physicists saying that although they see no theoretical need for a God to create the universe(s), it would be impossible without God to maintain it (them). Blessings, Brian -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
