Subjective Science?

[Guest guest]

This journal article offers a most relevant adjunct to my earlier letter on

" Science and Scientism "

-------------------

<http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/jahn1/1.html>

Science of the Subjective

G. Jahn & J. Dunne

J of Scientific Exploration Vol 11:2, page 201, 1997.

Abstract

Over the greater portion of its long scholarly history, the particular form

of human observation, reasoning, and technical deployment we properly term

" science " has relied at least as much on subjective experience and

inspiration as it has on objective experiments and theories. Only over the

past few centuries has subjectivity been progressively excluded from the

practice of science, leaving an essentially secular analytical paradigm.

Quite recently, however, a compounding constellation of newly inexplicable

physical evidence, coupled with a growing scholarly interest in the nature

and capability of human consciousness, are beginning to suggest that this

sterilization of science may have been excessive and could ultimately limit

its epistemological reach and cultural relevance. In particular, an array of

demonstrable consciousness-related anomalous physical phenomena, a persistent

pattern of biological and medical anomalies, systematic studies of mind/brain

relationships and the mechanics of human creativity, and a burgeoning

catalogue of human factors effects within contemporary information processing

technologies, all display empirical correlations with subjective aspects that

greatly complicate, and in many cases preclude, their comprehension on

strictly objective grounds.

However, any disciplined re-admission of subjective elements into rigorous

scientific methodology will hinge on the precision with which they can be

defined, measured, and represented, and on the resilience of established

scientific techniques to their inclusion. For example, any neo-subjective

science, while retaining the logical rigor, empirical/theoretical dialogue,

and cultural purpose of its rigidly objective predecessor, would have the

following requirements: acknowledgment of a proactive role for human

consciousness; more explicit and profound use of interdisciplinary metaphors;

more generous interpretations of measurability, replicability, and resonance;

a reduction of ontological aspirations; and an overarching teleological caus

ality.

Most importantly, the subjective and objective aspects of this holistic

science would have to stand in mutually respectful and constructive

complementarity to one another if the composite discipline were to fulfill

itself and its role in society.

Scientific Definition

The word " science " derives from a Latin verb, scire, meaning to know or to

understand; it could thus properly apply to any process of comprehension of

any topic or form of experience. But in contemporary usage the term has taken

on an array of more specific implications, depending on the context, the

user, or the audience. In some instances it connotes bodies of established

technical knowledge, such as biology, chemistry, geology, or physics, or the

technological applications thereof. In other situations it conveys more

dynamic images of visionary, portentous research into new and exciting

natural or cultural phenomena. In yet another variant, it refers to the

communities of scholars and practitioners of such topics, or to the social

authority they exert. Or finally, the term science can imply a methodology,

or standard, or ethic of intellectual exploration that distinguishes its

process from other less rigorous forms of human reasoning and creativity,

regardless of the particular subjects addressed, or of the credentials of the

persons addressing them.

In most situations, the distinctions matter little; largely the same

impressions can be conveyed and the same conclusions reached by any of these

definitions. But in certain rarer cases, such definitions can conflict in

serious ways, with much less agreement on the proper circumscription of the

topics, on the requisite qualifications of the scholars studying them, or on

the proper methods for their study. It is just such examples that test the

fundamentality and integrity of any definition, doctrine, or demonstration

that claims the authority of science, and it is our conviction that when such

contradictions arise, criteria based on methodology, epistemological

purposes, and ethical values should take precedence over any topical,

academic, or cultural circumscriptions.

It is in this spirit that we shall address our subject, referring for

background to the historical evolution of scientific methodologies,

attitudes, and conceptual currencies.

Scientific Methodology

The early scientific heritage that evolved through the cultures of the

Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Orientals, Byzantines, and Medieval alchemists

involved intimate admixtures of metaphysical rituals with rigorous analytical

techniques, yet generated extensive pragmatic knowledge and products, some of

which, like the ancient pyramids or stone circles, still defy modern

replication or comprehension. The initiation of more secular scientific

practice is usually attributed to the renowned renaissance scholar and

statesman, Sir Francis Bacon, who pleaded for constructive dialogue between

experiment and theory in his characteristically florid terms:

Those who have treated the sciences were either empirics or rationalists. The

empirics, like ants, only lay up stores, and use them; the rationalists, like

spiders, spin webs out of themselves; but the bee takes a middle course,

gathering her matter from the flowers of the field and garden, and digesting

and preparing it by her native powers.

In like manner, that is the true offices and work of philosophy, which, not

trusting too much to the faculties of the mind, does not lay up the matter,

afforded by natural history and mechanical experience, entire or unfashioned,

in the memory, but treasures it, after being first elaborated and digested in

the understanding; and, therefore, we have a good ground of hope, from the

close and strict union of the experimental and rational faculty, which have

not hitherto been united.

Notwithstanding this plea, it should be noted that Bacon, along with many of

his peers and successors in this period of " scientific enlightenment, "

including Boyle, Hooke, and Isaac Newton, were practicing

Hermeticists who retained lifelong interests in the metaphysical dimensions

of physical phenomena. It has been argued that it was only their need to

insulate scientific inquiry from the prevailing theological dogma that

engendered progressively more objective interpretation of this " scientific

method, " [6] which in the hands of their successors has led to the exclusion

of virtually all subjective material. While the immense accomplishments of

this modern objective science are abundantly evident, the consequences of

continued future exclusion of all subjective elements from scientific

purview, which Bacon and his colleagues certainly would not have endorsed,

merit some careful consideration.

Scientific Attitude

Beyond its disciplined reliance upon constructive iteration of sound

experimental data with incisive theoretical models, good science is

characterized by thorough and respectful cognizance of relevant past and

present work by others, humility in the face of empirical evidence, and

openness of mind to new topics, new approaches, new ideas, and new scholars.

In particular, it maintains a profound respect for demonstrable experimental

and theoretical anomalies and their crucial role within the scientific

dialogue of experiment and theory. There is no more critical test of the

integrity of any scientific process than its reaction to anomalous features

uncovered in either its experimental or theoretical endeavors, i.e. empirical

observations demonstrably inconsistent with established theoretical

expectations, or theoretical predictions that conflict with established

experimental data.

Such anomalies demand immediate attention to discriminate between artifacts

of flawed experimentation or theoretical logic, and the entry of genuine new

phenomena onto the scientific stage. Error in this discrimination can divert

or extend science along false scholarly trails, while proper identification

and assimilation of real anomalies can open more penetrating paths than those

previously followed.

Unfortunately, such intellectual respect for the role of anomalies has tended

to be more honored in the abstract than in actual practice. As physician

Larry Dossey has observed:

In any field of science there are always phenomena that do not fit in what

can be called 'low' and 'high' anomalies. Low anomalies are those that offer

minor and temporary challenges to prevailing concepts and that can eventually

be explained according to extant wisdom. High anomalies, on the other hand,

cannot in principle be accommodated by conventional, orthodox models. They

require a break with current thinking.

They may be emotionally wrenching even for those most familiar with them, and

are generally surrounded by a swirl of controversy.

It is simply the nature of workers in any field in science to feel more

comfortable with what they can explain. That is why high anomalies tend to be

ignored, usually with the mystification that they will be cleared up at some

future date. That is also why they are frequently dismissed as erroneous

observation and sometimes condemned as fraudulent. High anomalies do not go

down easily.

But good science, of any topic, cannot turn away from anomalies; they are the

most precious resource, however unrefined, for its future growth and

refinement.........

Objective science, in its neoclassical format, and subjective science, as we

now propose it, should be regarded as two complementary ethics, fundamentally

united by the yearning of the human consciousness for understanding of its

relationship to the cosmos and for participation in the creation of reality,

although necessarily distinguished by the tactical approaches employed in

pursuing these goals. Thus, objective science, launching itself from the

sharp distinction between self and non-self implicit in its Aristotelian

heritage, must continue to utilize its ability to discriminate, to isolate,

and to represent elements of reality via precise observation and

dispassionate logic.

Subjective science should complement this thrust by acknowledging and

utilizing the innate consciousness strategies of association and assimilation

to achieve a unity of self and not-self, in its search for a participatory

role in the mechanics of creation. Failure to recognize and utilize the essen

tial complementarity between these objective and subjective strategies

andpurposes of consciousness within an integrated scientific method will

ultimately frustrate any research, experimental or theoretical, that attempts

to comprehend either the dimensions of human consciousness or the subtleties

of the physical world....

-----------------

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

Supertraining/