The Crumbling Paradigm – Part Three
The Significance of Belief
The victory of the new scientific paradigm will only be achieved when it succeeds in overcoming the old materialistic cast of thought, and moulding people’s minds into a new and consistent pattern of belief, for it is belief which lies at the heart of all empirical data.
In his research into the manifestation of paranormal powers, the American psychologist Lawrence LeShan found that it was this factor of belief that was of paramount importance in the successful outcome of his experiments. As he explained:
“It became clear during this several year search that at the moment the paranormal information was acquired (when “telepathy” or “clairvoyance” or “precognition” was happening) they were reacting to the world as if it were constructed and “worked” on different grounds than those grounds on which we normally believe it to be constructed. At these moments they used a different metaphysical structure of the world than our ordinary, everyday metaphysical structure.” (Original emphasis) 1
We are reminded here of Gary Zukav’s summary of the nature of personal “reality”.
“Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends upon what we think. The central focus of this process, initially at any rate is ‘what we think’.” 2
LeShan found that the people with whom he worked were able to display paranormal abilities when they acted as if these abilities actually were a normal part of their everyday world.
In short, they did these things because they believed they could. In so doing, they also confirmed the teachings of the mystics. It is belief in the possibility of achieving Psi abilities that makes their attainment possible.
Conversely, those who do not believe in the existence of Psi, exert an obstructive mental influence that prevents these abilities from being experienced. There is also the vital ingredient of desire. As Uri Geller stressed when he was asked to explain how he was able to bend objects:
“You must want it to happen. Just take the knife or fork, stroke it gently, and will it to bend.” (Original emphasis) 3
Paranormal Abilities can be Learned
Paranormal abilities can, in fact, be acquired just like any other capabilities. This requires practice, as well as confidence in the expectation of positive results. The American mentalist Kreskin, for example, taught himself telepathy by constant practice with his younger brother Joe, by having him select objects in a room, and then attempting to “read” his thoughts. As he related in his autobiography:
“With the blessing of childhood, I didn’t know the rules – what could be done, what couldn’t. I tried it with my parents and had no success, naturally. They lost interest. But then I persuaded Joe to try it. I literally forced him to practice it with me for about four months.
“By the end of that time I could find almost any object in our small cluttered room without him saying “hot” or “cold”. I had no idea what I was doing, nor how much I was reading his facial expressions (a lot, probably) as I neared the object, but now I realize I was blindly beginning to train myself in sensitivity as ESP.” 4
Kreskin simply acted “as if the world were constructed and worked on different grounds” – grounds where telepathy was not only possible, but could intuitively be learnt.
Those sceptics who doubt the reality of telepathy may be interested to know that it forms an integral part of every stage performance that Kreskin gives. He literally “puts his money where his mouth is”.
As a stimulus to his sponsors, he challenges them to hide his cheque in any place they wish inside the auditorium. If he is unable to discover it by means of his telepathic power, then the sponsors are not obliged to pay him for his performance. Thus far, Kreskin has only once failed to find his cheque, when he accidentally suffered a severe blow to the head shortly before he was due to give a performance.
His sponsors have certainly not been guilty of a lack of imagination, for Kreskin has succeeded in recovering his cheque from such exotic hiding places as the inside of a turkey, underneath a man’s denture, inside the empty bullet chamber of a pistol, and inside a lady’s brassiere. 5
In remarking on the source of his unusual ability, Kreskin adamantly maintains that “conviction is the key.” 6 It is the unquestioning belief that something can be done that makes it possible, and that ensures success.
So the essential feature in the outcome of any experiment involving Psi is the prevailing attitude of mind.
Limiting Factors
This is not just limited to the experimenter and the subject, but to all those who are involved in the experiment in any way. It is primarily because it is so difficult to exercise control over this mental component, that scientists today experience so much difficulty in reconciling their results.
When Dr. John Hasted and his colleagues were working with Uri Geller at the University of London, they found that there were certain factors that were a prerequisite to success. They found that in attempting to produce psychokinetic phenomena in the laboratory, the attitude of all the participating scientists was a crucial factor.
Relaxation was also vital, as any tension, fear or hostility effectively reduced the chances of success. They also found that the probability of success was highest when all those present actively wanted things to work out well, and displayed a general confidence in the successful outcome of the experiment.
Critics of such tactics immediately point to this intellectual and emotional bias as an irreparable flaw in their scientific “objectivity”. The true scientist, they insist, is one who remains mentally unbiased without any prior thought of success or failure.
What these critics fail to realise, however, is that they themselves display a mental bias that is a product of their own scientific education and conditioning, and which exerts a powerful limiting effect on the outcome of any scientific experiment that is contrary to that bias.
The idea of scientific “objectivity” is, as Gary Zukav has pointed out, a myth.
All scientific experiments are subject to bias. It is a necessary consequence of all human interaction with nature. The fact that this bias is exhibited consciously, as in the case of Psi researchers, does not invalidate the results of their experiments, any more than the unconscious bias does when involved in experiments undertaken in the classical scientific tradition.
In his investigations into the phenomenon of dowsing, the Soviet researcher Alexander Pluzhnikov noted that “cold winds, illness, bad moods, and negative or idiotic remarks or questions from casual observers detrimentally affect a dowser’s ability”. 7
It is in fact a common experience that paranormally gifted people find themselves unable to demonstrate their abilities when confronted by a hostile, tense or critical audience.
Kreskin himself noted that he was “completely dependent on the moods and personalities of the subjects, their willingness to open their imaginations and ‘receive’.” He concluded, “I am helpless if they refuse”. 8
It is hardly surprising that when Kreskin was subjected to laboratory tests, he found that within minutes he felt a sharp decrease in his telepathic powers. It is this extreme sensitivity to mental influence that makes the successful replication of Psi experiments so difficult, and that poses extraordinary challenges to investigators trained in the classical scientific tradition.
The Problem with the Scientific Method of Investigation
It is not that the scientific method of investigation is unsuited to the validation of Psi phenomena, but rather that Psi experiments demand a rigorous mental control. It is this subtle point that needs to be grasped by all investigators of Psi.
Unfortunately, it is a point that opponents of Psi invariably fail to recognise or to concede. It is easy today to conduct “normal” scientific experiments and get consistent results, because the mental attitudes of the scientists conducting these experiments have long been conditioned to produce this uniformity, by virtue of their education and training within the classical scientific paradigm.
Scientists trained to think in terms of classical physics obtain results which reflect the bias of their classical education. This mental mould deals successfully and uniformly with such phenomena as heat, pressure and electricity, which are integral features of the current scientific paradigm.
It does not deal successfully or consistently with phenomena which by their very nature (why else would they be called paranormal?) lie outside of the present paradigm.
Only when a new scientific paradigm has become established in which Psi phenomena form an integral part of the theory of “normal science”, and which is reinforced by education in all schools of learning, will it be possible to overlook the mental influences of the experimenters in establishing the protocols of scientific procedure.
By then, all “normal” scientific investigators will have been conditioned into a new mould of thinking, which will produce consistent results in Psi, just as it now guarantees uniform results in traditional physics. But until such time as a new paradigm is successfully enthroned, the rigorous control of mental attitudes must remain a vital constituent of every experiment involving Psi.
Paranormal Abilities are a Product of Faith
The evidence for Psi is, in a strange way, a product of faith.
Let us suppose, for example, that I sincerely believe that such a thing as precognition actually exists. I therefore set up an experiment to see if I can verify my belief. Although I may not be successful at first, if I continue to undertake my experiments holding a positive mental outlook, I am bound to find an occasional corroborating result.
Since these sporadic results seem to bear out my hypothesis, I am bolstered by this success to continue my experiments. As these positive results continue to occur, so I gain more confidence that my hypothesis is correct. As my confidence grows, so my results tend more and more to reflect my mental expectations.
Finally, there comes a time when I am able to reproduce evidence at will. By this time I am utterly convinced that precognition is a proven fact of nature.
A skeptic on the other hand, proceeds with the opposite hypothesis. He or she assumes that there is no such thing as precognition, and does not expect to find any evidence to support it. It comes as no surprise to learn that his or her expectations are fulfilled. Even those isolated results which are indicative of the existence of such a faculty are rejected because they are inconsistent.
As the number of experimental failures begins to mount, so the skeptic becomes increasingly convinced that the original hypothesis is correct, and that there is no such thing in nature as precognition. The doubter thus arrives at the opposite conclusion, but in a curious fashion by an identical process of mind.
To the skeptic, the fact that I am able to obtain satisfactory evidence while he or she cannot, seems clear evidence of my gullibility. I got my successful results because I wanted them to happen. What I have done seems to be the very antithesis of the scientific method, which is to operate in a neutral and objective way with a completely open mind.
The skeptic dismisses my evidence because it clearly seems to be the result of my suggestibility. My faith generated results which now justify my faith.
Scientific Laws are also Products of Faith
But this process is in fact exactly how the entire edifice of science has been constructed in the first place. Every scientific law that now exists began initially as a tenuous hypothesis. Each hypothesis began in a similar way to yield positive results, infrequently at first, but enough to warrant further investigation.
As more confirmatory evidence came to hand, so the original hypothesis came to be upgraded to a valid scientific theory. As the amount of proven evidence accumulated, so more and more scientists came to be convinced that this was the way that nature actually operated.
In due course, when this evidence had reached overwhelming proportions, the theory was enshrined as scientific “law”. But each “law” of science is ultimately the product of belief, and only continues to be valid for as long as faith in the underlying belief continues to be held.
Experience feeds on belief in science just as it does in the realm of magic. Science is merely one way of describing reality, while magic is another. The one is not superior to the other, for both are merely different ways in which reality can be experienced and defined.
To the hardened realist, convinced that nature functions in one way and one way only, the foregoing example is taken to be an absurdity. If precognition did not exist in nature as an actual fact, it would be impossible for me to acquire evidence of its existence, no matter how much faith I happened to profess.
Likewise, the realist believes that the evidence that sustains scientific law could only be obtained if nature actually did operate in this way. The idea that the universe might be able to re-arrange itself to suit any underlying cast of mind seems so ridiculous as to be outrageous.
Yet this is precisely what the Sages say does occur. The reason for this apparent absurdity is that, according to the mystics, the sceptical realist has become deluded by the apparent reality of the universe.
Our Illusory World
The scientific realist remains entrenched in the belief that the universe is a conglomeration of physical objects that exist in space completely independently of the individual.
To the mystic, however, the universe is revealed to be a subjective phenomenon appearing inwardly in consciousness, and it is this image in consciousness that is then projected outwardly by every individual mind.
Once the universe is seen to be a subjective phenomenon, it is easy to see why the character that the universe comes to exhibit in consciousness, must be determined by the mental content of that consciousness. This is confirmed in the following passage taken from the ancient Hindu classic Tripura Rahasya:
“One starts by imagining something then contemplates it; and by continuous or repeated association resolves that it is true unless contradicted. In that way, the world appears real in the manner one is used to it.” 9
Furthermore, this realisation is now beginning to be glimpsed by perceptive scientists as well. For as Henry Margenau and Lawrence LeShan point out:
“This comprehension is one of the most staggering and least understood insights of modern science. We no longer search for what reality is, but rather for ways of usefully construing it; for ways to define it that will help us to achieve our goal.” (Original emphasis) 10
Parapsychologists who strive to validate Psi phenomena according to the protocols of accepted scientific thinking, need to be wary on a variety of counts. We have already seen the crucial importance of the mental outlook of all those who participate in the experiment, and how this influences the outcome of results.
Since negative beliefs inevitably decrease the likelihood of positive results, proponents of Psi would do well to confine their experiments to young children, or to those people who, for one reason or another have escaped the traditional scientific cast of mind.
It is a common feature of experience that positive Psi results are best obtained by young children, as demonstrated by the “Geller effect”. A good example of this is the incident recounted by Lyall Watson, of the child who was able to bend a key after watching a video of Uri Geller doing so.
The reason is obvious. As Kreskin noted in his experiments in telepathy: “I didn’t know the rules – what could be done, what couldn’t.” 4
The young child has not yet become “one of us.” By contrast, skeptics and opponents of Psi should concentrate their experiments on adults, preferably those who do not believe in the possibility of Psi. In this way, negative results will continue to be achieved, which will then continue to justify the traditional skepticism of science.
Because of the number of people alive today who hold opposing beliefs, it is likely that these conflicting results in Psi will continue to be produced for a considerable time to come.
It is also clear from numerous anecdotal cases, that it is possible for the mind to interact with mechanical, electrical and electronic equipment in deleterious ways. Those who design experiments to investigate Psi should therefore be extremely cautious in their utilisation of such equipment.
Tape recorders, cameras, computers and the like are notoriously unreliable in cases of Psi, and if they manage to function at all, often do so in ways that defy explanation. They are also inconsistent, functioning well on some occasions, and not at all at other times.
Yet it is precisely in this area of “objective, technological verification” that science has traditionally placed its trust. “The camera never lies” is a common scientific adage that represents the classical point of view. This axiom is held to be valid, however, only until some ghostly image appears in a photograph, or some other effect that was not anticipated or visible at the time.
When this occurs, the camera or the film is invariably presumed to be faulty, and the evidence obtained is held to be “unscientific”. The rules conveniently change according to the paradigm. When the camera, computer, tape recorder, etc., provides evidence that is permissible under the current paradigm, this is welcomed as “objective proof” of the validity of the paradigm.
But if a discarnate voice should happen to be heard on a tape recorder, this is taken to be evidence of the unreliability of technical equipment, rather than as evidence that the existing scientific paradigm is flawed.
Critics of Psi, on the other hand, should find in this strange contrariness of equipment a rich vein of doubt to exploit, for it is easy to reject evidence on these grounds, rather than believe that physical matter might actually be subject to the prevailing influence of mind.
Continued in Part Four
References
1 Lawrence LeShan, “The Medium, The Mystic and The Physicist”, Ballantine, New York, 1975, pp.xiii-xiv.
2 Gary Zukav, “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”, Bantam, New York, 1980, p.313.
3 “The Geller Papers”, edited by Charles Panati, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1976, p. 255.
4 Kreskin, “The Amazing World of Kreskin”, Avon, New York, 1974, pp. 33-34.
5 Ibid, pp. 89-90.
6 Ibid, p. 122.
7 Christopher Bird, “Applications of Dowsing: An Ancient Biophysical Art”, in “Future Science“, op.cit., p. 356.
8 Kreskin, op.cit., p. 18.
9 “Tripura Rahasya”, translated by Swami Saraswathi, Sri Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, 1962, p. 100.
10 Henry Margenau and Lawrence LeShan, “Einstein’s Space and Van Goch’s Sky”, Macmillan, New York, 1975, pp. 213-214.
