SCIENCE AND NEUROSIS
Posted by anthonynorth on July 28, 2007
The public believe that science is absolutely true in the ideas it offers. Scientists know this to be untrue – science can only give a probability of correctness – but in the main they are happy to allow this public misconception to remain. But are scientists now beginning to believe their own publicity?
Science has been in a constant battle with ideas that cannot be proved. Such ideas usually surround the paranormal and spirituality, best expressed in the modern world with New Age and alternative ideas. Indeed, they are becoming so influential nowadays scientists descend to mockery and other ‘debating’ forms to ridicule such stances.
MEDIA INFLUENCE
A side effect of this assault is that scientists adopt a far more fundamental stance to their own ideas than is permissible. And fuelled by beliefs in their own publicity, the scientific picture is distorted.
This process is helped by a media that swallows practically every report, survey and finding they make. In medical matters, for instance, hardly a day goes by without new advice from a scientific survey that does not deserve the media coverage it gets.
The result is the idea, among many scientists, that their work is above the norm. In terms of sociology, scientists are taking over the role once reserved for gods in Classical times, with ‘cults’ making decrees and defining the morality and action of a society.
A MATERIAL WORLD
The end product of this process is a society that is becoming increasingly more material in its lifestyles, spirituality seen as either crack pot or an alternative lifestyle used simply to ease the stresses of material living.
The idea of devotion to a deity is replaced by a self-centredness in all things spiritual, spirituality being a form of self-satisfaction.
As well as having an adverse effect on society, this mentality is dangerous for science itself. There has always been an idea that scientists tend to be eccentric and single-minded. This is an inevitability of working in the abstract. And intriguingly, the mentality has echoes in cultism proper.
ARE SCIENTISTS GURUS?
The defining psychology of a cult guru is an eccentric single-mindedness leading to an absolute belief in his rightness. Many psychologists have realized this link between the spiritual and scientific mind for some time. Living in a world of concepts will inevitability make the person blinkered to normal life, and eventually totally convinced of his rightness.
The divide between the guru and scientist has traditionally come from a peer group within science constantly questioning the scientist and his findings. Such questioning does not occur in cults, with the guru becoming so convinced of his ‘truth’ that a form of neurosis can occur if he is challenged. But with science now believing its own publicity, can we really be sure the sceptical peer group still does its job?
If we can doubt this, then there is little difference between the guru and scientist. And the mockery and ridicule they now vent upon any form of spirituality hints that the processes of neurosis are beginning to infect the scientific world.
© Anthony North, July 2007
Have you clicked Diary of a Writer on Blogroll? Meet me, up close and personal.
Click Tony On, on Blogroll, for my current affairs blog.
If you like fiction, click Fiction Page on Blogroll for my short stories.
Check out the pages
July 28, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Dear Mr. North,
I agree with you. A as young man I loved science. I just happened to have an experience with a friend; a daylight sighting of two discs. As I started to investigate,I had always thought scientist practices science, but sadly that is not true with these subjects. Psychologist suggest arrogance is a form of fear. But lets be totally honest here I think this happens in the public arena. I can tell you from personal expectances, although they will not go public, there are scientist who believe this stuff happens and is worthy of study. Would they loose their jobs over it? Nope. Would you?
Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
non-commerial blog
July 28, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hi Joseph,
Yes, I agree many scientists privately accept the existence of the paranormal and other ideas, but are loathe to declare it. This is, itself, part of the symptoms I hint at. It is to do with orthodoxy, which cannot be questioned.
And believe me, I am not anti-science. Science is vital. But it worries me that the purpose of science is being whittled away by a consensus of what can, and what cannot, be investigated.
July 29, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I’m 51. When I was in school, I was told, the only pure science is mathmatics. There, using the same mathmatical formula, anybody could prove what you found. That science was hypothesis and theory, often impossible to prove or disprove. I think it is safe to say that scientists have forgotten that this is true. Half thought the lunar lander would be swallowed in eons old dust, thus the large pads and detachable platform. They were wrong. Now, I get to read about planets circling suns they can’t even really tell me the distance to. Science, nowadays, makes me laugh and shake my head alot.
July 31, 2007 at 5:20 pm
You’re giving science and scientists a bum rap for the attitude of the media and general public toward science.
Good scientists know that their research and conclusions are always subject to scrutiny and revision based on empirical evidence. It’s called inductive reasoning and falsifiability. Bad scientists–and in this case I use the term “scientist” loosely–make deductive assertions that are not falsifiable. This is the domain of spiritualists, theists and “gurus”.
Your post is a deductive assertion. If you knew more than you obviously do about cults you would know that all of the major religions started out as cults. You use the term “neurotic” which is a catch-all term for minor mental instability which does not affect rational thought.
The problem science faces is the sensationalism of the media and the ignorance of the masses that attribute infallibility to humans and permanence to theories are simply attempting to better explain how the universe works. The bigger problem is religions and spiritualists that attempt to attribute infallibility and permanence to baseless assertions that depend on blind obedience and persecute scientists for challenging their world view.
July 31, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hi Grant,
Thankyou for this. You pretty much prove my point. First, your language comes over as slightly aggressive and superior - just as I would suspect.
Second, because I am considered not ’scientific’ enough for you, you don’t even give me the courtesy of checking me out. This is proven, and beyond falsifiability, by your statement:
‘If you knew more than you obviously do about cults you would know that all of the major religions started out as cults.’
Simply clicking my ‘Cult Watch’ on the Blogroll would have brought you to dozens of posts on Cults, which I have investigated thoroughly, including the statement that most religions begin as cults.
Please try to be more scientific.
July 31, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Hey! Hold-up! What’s this? “. . .all of the major religions started out as cults.”
And: ‘“neurotic” . . . is a catch-all term for minor mental instability which does not affect rational thought.’
What? I think not, dear friend. Not all major religions started as cults (needn’t define “cult”? How are going to prove that with, say, Hinduism or Buddhism?) and I think you should read a psychiatric text on “neurosis”
January 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“Science has been in a constant battle with ideas that cannot be proved.”
This statement, by definition, is false.
Science can only test theories, which must be able to be falsified.
Those posing ideas that cannot be proven (i.e. creationism) are not Scientists.
January 2, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Hi Robert,
I said:
‘Science has been in a constant battle with ideas that cannot be proved. Such ideas usually surround the paranormal and spirituality, best expressed in the modern world with New Age and alternative ideas.’
You said:
‘This statement, by definition, is false.’
I take it, by your point, you’re saying that the paranormal and New Age ideas can now be proved.
Interesting.
However, your comment, ‘Those posing ideas that cannot be proven … are not Scientists,’ is a difficult one. Let’s take something simple like gravity. We know that things fall to Earth. Any fool can see that. But science is about the ‘reasons’ why it happens.
For a long time Newtonian theories were seen as most likely, but not proven. The theory is merely used nowadays as an explanatory model, with scientists searching for a quantum theory of gravity.
The simplest of scientific observations, therefore, cannot be absolutely proven.
I suggest you be more cautious in your words.