Choose Wisely
Do you like science? I find it fascinating. I love it. I’m attracted to scientists, too. Especially if they look like Debi Mazar in The Insider. No, she didn’t play a scientist, but she could have.
But what’s going on? It is my perception that throughout history, scientists had a kind of humility and wonder at the laws of nature and the natural world. They had to prevail against the tyranny of monarchs, the vanity of their patrons, and more than anything of course, religion. It was a scientist who first suggested the earth revolved around the sun (heliocentric), rather than the other way around, and he suffered for it.
But this is a techno age, and the whole thing has been reversed. Scientists have begun to see things as revolving around them again.
Actually, I don’t think it really is the hard core scientists that are the problem, not the really brilliant ones. Some whom I admire and follow as best I can are: Candace Pert, Edward Witten, Fred Allan Wolf, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, John Hagelin.
I think the problem is more the hangers on of scientists: those who have a background in science for their work, but don’t really practice it or conduct research and haven’t since they graduated.
There is a debate, well not much of a one really but there is a debate raging at this YouTube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxanQCuXvhk
If the video is no longer available, just know that basically, self-help guru James Arthur Ray, one of the stars of the popular new DVD The Secret, defends his ideas and methods against Psychology Professor John Norcross’s attack.
Now, one of the things Norcross states, and what lots of people down below in the text comments are contending, is that Mr. Ray’s claims are not scientifically valid. James Arthur Ray explains how the teachings of the above mentioned movie, and those of his own website and program, have resulted in major turnarounds in people’s lives. He cites a specific case and gives a woman’s name.
When prompted by the host to respond, Mr. Norcross actually follows this with, “Well of course, but we don’t know that’s causal…” and, “Cases are not science. We need randomized, clinical trials…”
I fear Mr. Norcross has mistaken the map for the terrain.
In this realm, there can really only be anecdotal evidence. This is not a fault of Mr. Ray’s methodology. We’re talking about actual people and their lives here; and if after applying Mr. Ray’s methods this lady greatly improved her life, then wouldn’t there be too many variables to apply the kind of controlled clinical study Mr. Norcross refers to? If it was possible, for example via the kind of trials conducted with control groups to validate antidepressant medications, would it really be necessary?
If the lady Mr Ray speaks of truly went from taking twelve medications a day to none, got back to doing meaningful work and is clearly doing much better; if someone actually did double their income or find the relationship they wanted, et cetera, then my friends it would seem to me that this is the idea.
These are the things that all people want in their lives. Including Professor John Norcross. Science is here to help with that, not the other way around. If a form of spirituality, or the study of certain ideas about universal laws i.e. The Secret works for people, well then… it works.
In my opinion, science is meant to aid our lives, to enhance our lives, it is not in itself the end.
If Mr. Ray gets the kinds of results he claims and his system is working, this is in no way diminished by the inability to force it into some kind of prefabricated scientific mold.
In my experience, the world always responds to our expectations of it. It could be that whichever we decide is true, Mr. Norcross’s position or Mr. Ray’s, we will find out we were right.
