The Fallacy of Scientific Truth – Part Four
The Illusion of Science
“Space is neutral”, declared the Indian Sage Nisargadatta Maharaj, “One can fill it with what one likes.” 1
Science is the enduring proof of the truth of his assertion. The entire edifice of science has been built upon the foundations of belief. Science has proved to be so successful in describing the behaviour of the universe because we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that it does.
Furthermore, we have come to believe in the validity of scientific law because we have accepted our sensory experience of the universe as evidential proof, without ever questioning the methods whereby this evidence has been attained.
Because we experience circumstances in life which bear out these “rules of nature”, and because our experience is matched by others who think as we do, we have assumed that our experiences are evidence of the way that nature “really is”. What we fail to see is that nature has simply come to mould itself according to our beliefs.
Once the original division between the realms of matter and of mind was officially formalised, science sought to strip itself of any type of emotional or mental contamination. It became part of the etiquette of science, honoured as an article of faith, that all empirical experiments should be separated from all forms of subjective interference.
In this way, results would be seen to be independent of the human participant. Scientific experiments were undertaken with the expressed aim of identifying nature “as it really is”, freed from the influence of human bias.
This preoccupation with the objectivity of science has long been regarded as a fundamental virtue of the scientific method. It was believed that by carefully avoiding any emotional bias in the conduct of scientific experiments, and by reporting these results in neutral language, sanitised of any emotional content, that it would be possible to isolate certain basic laws of nature.
Those scientists who were considered to have invested their hopes or desires in the outcome of their empirical experiments were attacked as being emotionally biased, and their results dismissed as correspondingly “unscientific”.
What went unrecognised until quite recently, was that this “objective” approach of science was a myth, and that it was impossible, even in principle, to conduct a truly objective experiment.
There simply was no such thing as a neutral scientist. Every scientist came with a mind pregnant with expectations and limiting beliefs. These expectations and beliefs could never be isolated from the experiment itself.
Every scientific experiment was nothing more or less than a personal confrontation with nature, and the results of this interaction were inextricably tied to the mind-set of the scientist concerned.
It was precisely for this reason that scientists had achieved in the past, and would continue to experience in the future, such variable results as Kuhn and Josephson had described. There is no scientific experiment that can be successfully shielded from its human influence.
Since each experiment is an interaction between the experimenter and nature, and because there is no such thing as an independent nature or objective universe separate from the experimenter, the results of each experiment must inevitably bear the unique imprint of the mind-set of that experimenter.
The fallacy of the traditional objective view of science has been neatly exposed by Gary Zukav.
“The concept of scientific objectivity rests upon the assumption of an external world which is “out there” as opposed to an “I” which is “in here” According to this view Nature, in all her diversity, is “out there”.
The task of the scientist is to observe the “out there” as objectively as possible. To observe something objectively means to see it as it would appear to an observer who has no prejudices about what he observes.
The problem that went unnoticed for three centuries is that a person who carries such an attitude certainly is prejudiced. His prejudice is to be “objective”, that is, to be without a preformed opinion.
In fact it is impossible to be without an opinion. An opinion is a point of view. The point of view that one can be without a point of view is a point of view. The new physics, quantum mechanics, tells us clearly that it is not possible to observe reality without changing it.
If we observe a certain particle collision experiment, not only do we have no way of proving that the result would have been the same if we had not been watching it, all that we know indicates that it would not have been the same, because the result that we got was affected by the fact that we were looking for it.
According to quantum mechanics there is no such thing as objectivity. We cannot eliminate ourselves from the picture. ” 2
Science and Art
Because it is impossible to extricate the scientist from the picture, the picture of the universe which has been painted by science has come to resolve itself as a pure work of art fashioned by scientists themselves. As Maharaj has stated:
“Once you create for yourself a world in time and space, governed by causality, you are bound to search for and find causes for everything. You put the question and impose the answer.” 3
The entire structure of science proves ultimately to be nothing but a collective figment of scientific imagination. This does not mean to say that science is invalid, for the universe continues to appear to function just as if it truly was created according to those laws which science has identified.
But these scientific laws are not real. They do not represent the way the universe was ordained. Science cannot bind the universe according to unvarying law, nor can nature’s expression be limited to a single set of rules.
As the Sages have revealed, the universe always takes its shape according to that pattern of belief which gives it form. For, as we read in the Vedanta classic Tripura Rahasya:
“The relation between space and objects and between time and events is according to your estimate of them; there is no intrinsic relationship between them.” 4
We find an echo of this truth in the words of Yoka Daishi, a Chinese Zen Master of the eighth-century A.D.
“Whatever propositions are made by logic are no (true) propositions, for they stand in no intrinsic relation to my inner light.” 5
The universe is not a collection of objects that exist in outer space, but is in fact a composite picture painted by our minds.
What science has done, and done very successfully, is to colour that picture according to its own special tints. It has moulded the universe into a particular manifestation which conforms to its pattern of scientific belief.
We, who have placed our trust in science, believing implicitly in its ability to reveal the universe “as it really is”, have misplaced our trust. Although everything that science has portrayed the universe to be can be validated by experiment and personal experience, the scientific description of the world is simply one particular theory of the mind among many.
The universe is not bound by this scientific description. It can change its manifestation at any time, according to the dictates of the presiding mind. We have only to change the attitude of our minds and our personal universe will come to reflect that change.
The validity of science lasts only as long as we continue to place our trust in its underlying tenets of belief.
The moment we cease to pay allegiance to the scientific model, we cease to be bound by scientific law.
The “laws of nature”, the basic “laws of science”, have no fundamental validity. They are not ordained by God, nor are they the product of chance. And we are not bound by them unless we choose to be.
What we have come to claim as laws are merely the codification of our ideas, the crystallisation of our thoughts. They appear to be universal because we have all independently and collectively learned to agree on that description.
Each one of us has come to be bound by these laws because they are inherent in the description of the universe that we have personally adopted. We little knew in our formative years how these gossamer threads of thought would one day come to bind us in hoops of steel, yet that has been our fate.
The laws of physics are the laws of physicists. The consistency of scientific experience is proof only of the consistency of scientific belief, not evidence that the laws themselves are fundamental and unchanging. What we find in nature is what we ourselves have put there.
The avowed purpose of physical science is, as Henry Margenau has indicated, “to organize, to make rational and meaningful, all cognitive human experience.” 6
The problem which science has thus far failed to recognise or address, is that all cognitive human experience is not uniform.
The experiences of each person are unique to that individual, and rest upon the tenets of their own personal belief. Those who think differently experience differently.
The success of science rests upon the fact that, by a careful process of education and conditioning, people have been taught to adopt common ways of thinking. Since, however, there will always be those who choose not to be indoctrinated, science will never be able to speak for “all cognitive human experience.”
Science will never be able to explain in rational and meaningful terms all human experience, but only those experiences which are governed by the consensus which science has itself decreed.
Science will always be confronted by the dilemma which so troubled Albert Einstein: “Alas, our theory is too poor for experience“. Its ultimate limitation will always be demonstrated by the retort of Nils Bohr: “No, No, experience is too rich for our theory.” 7
Science is dominated by the pursuit of scientific truth, that residue of experience which can be shown to be fundamental to all life. Yet science will never be able to reveal the character of the “true” Reality, for no experience can hold a candle to its Being.
Reality is that substratum which underlies all cognitive experience. In the analogy of the cinema, Reality is the screen on which the passing images of the manifested universe appear.
While the pictures cannot be portrayed without the presence of the screen, the screen itself is unaffected by the nature of these scenes. Its integral character remains unblemished.
What science has done has been to reveal to us the nature of the pictures which are reflected upon the screen of Reality. In fact, it has done more. It has actually served to shape these pictures for those who have identified themselves with the scientific mode of thought.
These pictures can never reveal the character of the screen. No picture can show the true nature of the screen. In order to see the screen it is necessary for the flow of images to stop, and this has been the traditional teaching of the Sages down the ages.
Science and Magic
The splendour of science is that is has enabled us to create a structured universe, which appears to be logical, consistent and understandable, and has enabled us thereby to live confident and comfortable lives.
Furthermore, it has enabled us to fashion matter in ever more astonishing ways, and to pamper us in the fulfillment of our desires. The tragedy of science is that it has truncated life, by limiting itself to those things that are of material satisfaction, and by excluding those subjective thoughts and feelings which endow life with supreme significance.
Yet the cycle of the times is changing, and the impending marriage of physics and metaphysics holds promise of healing this artificial rift. The irony of the scientific description of the universe, is that it has triumphed by those very methods which it fought against and sought to overcome.
Western science was born of a medieval society governed by faith and dominated by forces of ignorance and superstition. The crowning achievement of science has been its victory of reason over faith.
It succeeded in replacing the terror filled world of superstition with a rational exposition which illuminated the mysteries which had for so long defied the understanding of humanity.
Scientists, then, have come to represent the very antithesis of those guardians of aboriginal society, the witchdoctor and the shaman. In commenting on the role of the shaman in illiterate society, the explorer Harold Wright wrote:
“The witchdoctor, in effect, steps into the dark and troubled world of primitive man’s mind, beset by fears and anxieties; and by the use of “magic” in various forms, he reduces anxiety and establishes faith.” 8
Science too, has penetrated the dark and troubled world of modern man, beset as it is by a host of anxieties and fears. It has allayed these fears by revealing a less threatening world, which is perceived to be more predictable and understandable. It has presented a world that is responsive to reason and logic.
Science has assured us that those mysteries which still confront us can be resolved by the scientific priesthood. It has used its own “magic”, in the form of its technological marvels to awaken our wonder and to establish faith in its pronouncements.
While the primitive shaman has operated within an unreasoned framework of belief which has made his “magic” possible and relevant, the scientist by contrast, has worked within a reasoned climate of belief, and achieved his “magic” by a similar exploitation of belief.
Both the shaman and the scientist have demonstrated their efficacy and power through their manipulation of belief. The “magic” of the modern scientist, however, far surpasses that of the ancient shaman. Science is not only able to heal, rejuvenate and build, but also to destroy on a scale which dwarfs the imagination.
The truth of the entire scientific enterprise over the last four hundred years is that the scientists of today are no different from those guardians of aboriginal societies, the shamans, the healers and the prophets. Scientists have in fact become the witchdoctors of our times. They are the modern magicians.
And the universe itself is an equal partner in this magic. For no sooner does a shaman, scientist or magician describe the universe according to a specific paradigm, or pattern of belief, than the universe magically transforms itself into an image that exactly matches that belief.
What scientists have yet to realise, however, is that they have always been free to change their so-called “laws” of nature or “laws” of physics to reflect anything they wish, and the universe will always change and act accordingly, as long as scientists genuinely believe this to be true, and teach it in all their schools and universities.
The fallacy of the scientific quest is that, at its most fundamental level, science is not about seeking answers or finding out “the truth”. It is, instead, an exercise in learning how to manipulate form, and getting nature to conform with the prevailing pattern of belief.
And not only are modern scientists no different from their ancient forbears in the role they play within society, but the entire body of western scientific knowledge is simply just another paradigm of thought – another suit of clothes in which to dress the phenomena we see and sense around us.
While the vast majority of trained scientists today firmly believe that they are in the forefront of human understanding about the true nature of the universe, there are a few isolated individuals who have begun to sense the fallacy of scientific truth.
For, as Edward Harrison, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Massachusetts, remarked on the occasion of receiving the Melcher Award in 1986:
“Human beings of all societies and in all periods of history believe that their ideas on the nature of the real world are the most secure, and that their ideas on religion, ethics and justice are the most enlightened.
Like us, they think that final knowledge is at last within reach. Like us they pity the people in earlier ages for not knowing the true facts. Unfailingly, human beings pity their ancestors for being ignorant and forget that their descendants will pity them for the same reason.
Dare I say that secure knowledge can never be found? That our boundless ignorance explains why we feel so confident of success in bounded knowledge? That each discovery creates in the long run more mystery than it solves? That we stand no closer to the ultimate truth than did our forbears? And that we are no better than the people who lived a thousand and even ten thousand years ago?” 9
Professor Harrison points toward a truth which is as old as humanity, and which we find reflected in the ancient writings of the Hindu sages:
“The greatest of all delusions is the conviction that knowledge is not a delusion.” 10
References
1 “I Am That“, Conversations with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, translated by Maurice Frydman, Book I, Chetana, Bombay, 1973, p. 100.
2 Gary Zukav, “The Dancing Wu Li Masters“, Bantam, New York, 1980, pp. 30-31.
3 “I Am That“, Book I, op.cit., p. 45.
4 “Tripura Rahasya“, translated by Swami Saraswathi, Sri Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, 1962, p. 103.
5 D. T. Suzuki, “Manual of Zen Buddhism“,. Rider, London, 1983, p. 97.
6 Henry Margenau and Lawrence LeShan, “Einstein’s Space and Van Goch’s Sky“, Macmillan, New York, 1982, p. 51.
7 Gary Zukav, “The Dancing Wu Li Masters“, Foreword by David Finkelstein, New York, July 1978.
8 Harry Wright, “Witness to Witchcraft“, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1957, p. 53.
9 Quoted in Fate magazine, June, 1988, p. 7.
10 “Tripura Rahasya“, op.cit., p. 157
