A Public Debate on Science, Pseudo-science, and Spiritualism From the Perspectives of a Physicist, Sociologist, and Biologist
Alan Scott, Bob Salt, Ken Parejko
(The following articles are shown in order of appearance in the Dunn County News - a local Menomonie, Wisconsin newspaper.)
Alan Scott - Physicist
I just finished reading an article in the Dunn County News (September 14, '97). The newspaper quotes an individual talking about the healing value of magnets. He states "...football player who broke his ankle whose doctor declared it would take eight weeks for recovery. After using magnets and bioceramics for two weeks the break couldn't even be found". He also states "...child who fell hand first on burning charcoal at a picnic. Her mother picked her up, put a magnet on the child's hand, and 20 minutes later the burn was gone...".
After reading this article, I found myself shouting "Show me the evidence!" I challenge this person to support these claims with an article from a reputable magazine.
I could go into a long discussion on how magnetic fields influence simple objects, but for the best of me, I cannot see how magnetic fields would help as opposed to hinder the healing process. I would argue the predominant influence these magnets have on injuries is to absorb heat energy away from the injury - which can be done much more efficiently with cold packs.
This is symptomatic of the overall poor state of science literacy in this country. A lot of people believe in weird things that are simply not true or are unsubstantiated.
Why is this? I believe the answer lies in our culture and education.
Popular culture has been deluging us with stories of the supernatural. TV has the "X-Files" with genetically engineered alien DNA running amok. The movies have John Travolta who can toss objects with his mind and predict earthquakes. In many bookstores, you'll find more books on clairvoyants, faith healers, astrologers, occults and other pseudo-scientific notions than on physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
James Garland, president of Miami University in Ohio, has written an excellent essay on this subject entitled "An Alien Ate My Laundry: The Decline of Reason in the Age of Science." He states, "...our culture is turning to magic and superstition as a way of bringing order into a world that seems increasingly mysterious. I further believe that this embrace of the irrational is not a harmless indulgence of the imagination, but a growing deterioration in the ability of the general populace to think critically and to distinguish between fantasy and reality."
Our country's education system has not sufficiently acquainted students with the methods of science. Upon graduation, many have not gained the critical thinking ability to strain out the bogus science from the real science. To what degree is this occurring? A 1990 Gallup poll of 1,236 adult Americans show that 60 percent believe in astrology, 46 percent indicate that extra-sensory perception (ESP) is possible, 42 percent believe we can communicate with the dead, 67 percent have had a psychic experience. And if these numbers aren't disturbing enough, let us not forget that President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan scheduled presidential meetings and speeches on days selected by their astrologer in California! In Ronald Reagan's autobiography entitled "Where's the Rest of Me?," there is an entire chapter on astrology.
I just read in Scientific American (October '97) that Brian Alters and educational psychologist William Michael have found that about 45 percent (surveying 1,200 college freshman at 10 different schools) of incoming freshman reject the theory of evolution. These students tended to believe in misconceptions of evolutionary science. Two such misconceptions are "mutations are never beneficial to animals" and "methods used to determine the age of fossils and rocks are not accurate". Even the Pope in Rome has recognized evolution to be "more than just an hypothesis." Some religious groups consider the theory of evolution as entirely false and believe the earth to be only about 10,000 years old (in fact, it is about 4.6 billion years old). To reject evolution in its entirety, one must disregard many fundamental principles in physics, biology, geology, archeology, paleontology, and in some respects astronomy.
I make an attempt to combat science illiteracy in my introductory physics courses at UW-Stout. I require students to read an insightful and colorful essay written by Richard Feynman. The essay, called "Cargo Cult Science," examines the meaning of science and pseudo-science. In one part of the essay he contrasts "doing credible science" and the world of advertising. He states, "Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will --including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with."
In this age of exponentially expanding information, it is hard to keep pace with all the new processes and novelties. This might be one reason people turn to mysticism and magic - to simplify and make order out of disorder.
We need to equip students to manage this new era with wisdom and understanding. They must resist the lure of pseudo-science, which promises easy solutions to complex problems. This country cannot be truly free if it allows itself to be complacent about the pervasiveness of pseudo-science in its culture!
Bob Salt - Sociologist
I feel the need to respond to Dr. Alan Scott's guest editorial where he claimed that belief in the healing value of magnets and belief in astrology, psychic ability, contact with the dead, etc., were signs of science illiteracy.
Unfortunately, Dr. Scott gives no evidence that people who believe in these things are poorly educated in science. He also provides no evidence that he has studied these phenomena or that they are in any way false. His entire argument is based on underlying assumptions that he fails to elaborate. In his judgment, these beliefs are wrong.
I am prepared to articulate a response to Dr. Scott that takes an opposing point of view on these issues. I will address the underlying assumptions he seems to be making and provide evidence that his conclusions are not justified.
Since Dr. Scott does not give any evidence to claim that beliefs in transpersonal or paranormal phenomena are false, I am uncertain why he draws his conclusions. I am going to guess that he starts with a prior assumption that they are invalid without even investigating these subjects. The basis for this assumption is likely to be the common tradition in modern science and philosophy to treat the material world and spiritual/metaphysical world as separate entities with science dealing only with the material world/universe and religion dealing with the spiritual and metaphysical.
This division goes back to the 13th Century in Europe and in more modern times was articulated by Descartes and Kant. Descartes' view, which has come to dominate western society and science, is that the universe is like a big machine.A later school of thought, known as materialism, believed that all that was knowable was matter and that there wasn't any spiritual dimension to the universe. This point of view seems to underly the position that Dr. Scott takes.
In opposition to this position is the view that there is a spiritual/nonphysical dimension to the universe and that it is knowable. This belief has existed for thousands of years in both Eastern and Western variations. In the West, a primary proponent of this view was Plato, but there have been many other scholars to take the same position.
While it is true today that Dr. Scott is in the majority in his view, there are many scholars even in his own discipline of physics who have believed or argued that there is a metaphysical or spiritual dimension to the universe. A few such physicists are Albert Einstein, Fred Alan Wolf, Gary Zukov, Frietjof Capra and David Darling.
Outside of physics, there are many scholars who demonstrate that there is indeed a spiritual dimension to the universe. These scholars include Deepak Chopra, Bernie Siegel, Elizabeth Kubler Ross and many others. In the social and behavioral sciences, many scholars have studied transpersonal and/or paranormal phenomena. They have established much scientific evidence for things like psychic abilities and communication with the dead. This is not to claim that there aren't people who defraud others in these fields, but that there are many verified cases.
My guess is that Dr. Scott is unaware of this research. I would hope that rather than make critical statements about other's beliefs without any investigation, that as a scientist he would study these topics.
I am reminded of a comment made by Andrew Weil, M.D., a Harvard-trained physician who also investigates the value of so-called alternative medicine. He said that there are two kinds of skeptics, open minded and closed minded. Open-minded skeptics are willing to consider new ideas but want to see the evidence, whereas close-minded skeptics have decided in advance what they believe and are not willing to consider alternative views of reality.
As Dr. Raymond Moody said in a speech this spring, scientists are supposed to be open to new theories and evidence. However, as Kuhn pointed out almost three decades ago, science is usually conducted by people trying to find support for and working within the established world view, what he called a paradigm. Kuhn demonstrated that scientists rarely reject their paradigm even in the face of contradictory evidence.
On a more personal note, I was in Dr. Scott's camp on this issue until a few years ago when I was sent a book on past life regression. I read it and was forced to consider that it might be valid due to the overwhelming evidence in the book "Many Lives, Many Masters" by Brian Weiss. As a scholarly person I needed more evidence, so I went to the Stout Library and read seven books on the topic of reincarnation. The evidence forced me to conclude that my prior view was wrong.
Indeed there is much scientific evidence for this position (see the research of Ian
Stevenson, for example). It also leads to the conclusion that we have a soul and that there is a God and spiritual realm in the universe.
I have experienced some rejection from my religious and scientific communities over my changed beliefs, but the evidence is too convincing to go back. I believe that if you review not just the scientific evidence, but even your own life experience, you will see evidence of psychic and spiritual phenomena.
My Story: While in Pennsylvania on a trip, I dreamed three straight nights that I was in a fire. When I returned home that first day back, my housemate put what he thought were dead coals in a plastic bag in the garage. Seven hours later, they created a fire that caused thousands of dollars in damage and required the fire department to put out the blaze.Was this pure coincidence that I had these three prior dreams or did I experience precognition in the dream state? I do not claim to have highly developed psychic ability, but that is only one of a number of personal stories of myself or family members or acquaintances that are not explainable in Dr. Scott's view of life.
I encourage all readers to look at the possibility of a spiritual/metaphysical realm in life, to know that they are spiritual beings with a soul and to open mindedly search for ways to grow spiritually. And, oh yes, it's good to know science, too, but don't let the scientists cover their eyes to truths that challenge their assumptions.
Ken Parejko - Biologist
As a scientist (biologist) and I believe, a very spiritual person, I think we have something to gain from the views of both Dr. Scott and Dr. Salt.It is clear to me in my classes that students do not have a firm grasp on what science really is. It is not a hard set of facts as presented in textbooks.Science is a process by which we come to understand the natural world and ourselves. It is not the only avenue to such an understanding, but it is a powerfully accurate and reliable way.
Walk into a room and flip on a light switch. A whole series of events occurs that depend on our understanding of metals, electricity, dynamos and so on.This understanding did not come through metaphysics. It came through physics. Asking a shaman to magically create lights is much less reliable.
Once students come to understand that scientific knowledge is always tenuous and subject to change, then science becomes much more interesting and exciting. What science does offer us is a way to judge claims about the natural world.What is the evidence for the claim, we must ask? Does the claim go beyond the evidence?
And as Carl Sagan and Bill Nye so often put it, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Claims of the influence of stars on human or earthly events, or the efficacy of numerology, of alien abductions, of the healing power of magnets or of clairvoyance require good, strong evidence.
Our minds are rather like winnowing screens, with which we winnow the daily harvest of our lives. It is important for us to separate the grain from the chaff and weeds that might contaminate the grain.If the screen of our minds is too fine and doesn't allow even the good grain to pass through, then we may end up starving. If the screen is too coarse and allows both weed seeds and the grain through, then the harvest of tomorrow, may be choked with trouble.
When does open mindedness become gullibility? Was it open minded for the members of Heaven's Gate to believe that a spaceship was shadowing the comet Hale-Bopp and that their destiny was to climb aboard? Is it open mindedness for participants in the Flame Foundation to pay $800 apiece to hear a lecture on why they, like the two founders of the foundation, are in fact immortal? Not in the spiritual sense, but in actual physicality. All they have to do is believe that they will never die and they won't, they are told.Several years ago in the San Luis Valley of Colorado, a strange-looking crystal skull was found in the desert. The local newspaper reported how people felt strange vibrations coming out of the skull, weird things began to happen to its finders and a psychic recommended that the owners keep a good distance from it. It was claimed the skull came from Atlantis, or was an alien artifact with supernatural powers. Were these people being open minded? The owners of the property adjacent to where the skull was found read about it in the paper and called in to point out that their son was a glass-blower who made crystal glass skulls and he had discarded that particular skull exactly where it had been found. When Colin Andrews, who publicized the crop circles of England, was shown a certain crop circle, he pointed out how it was too intricate to possibly have been made by humans. There was no sign of footsteps. Yes, he said, obviously created by extraterrestrials. Even after the reporters who had made that crop circle the night before showed him a videotape of them making it, he insisted it was not made by humans. It is not only scientists who become close minded and refuse to face the evidence.
The line between open mindedness and gullibility is sometimes a fine one. Intellect and the scientific method help us to not fall, or jump, over it. If we are to learn from human history, which is full of the terrible consequences of uncritical gullibility, then we should pause along with Dr. Scott and be concerned for the future.
Unfortunately, TV programs like "Dark Skies" and "X-Files" confuse the scientifically naive. One professor at the University of California recently complained that as evidence for the reality of alien abductions, college students in an astronomy class were citing episodes of the "X-Files." In modern America, the boundary between fiction and fact has become dangerously blurred.
Most of us have had experiences that science cannot explain. As Dr. Salt points out, to deny the spiritual aspect of life is to deny an important, fundament