THE SCIENCE GENE
Posted by anthonynorth on November 20, 2008
Have you tried my current affairs? Stay informed.
Also, fiction and poetry.
To me, the paranormal has value. I don’t accept ‘classical’ interpretations, but think a wider psycho-sociology is involved, and most of my writing in this area is based on this premise. However, I also think something else.
Understanding of the paranormal could have wide implications for society in general, and knowledge in particular. I attempt to put rational hypotheses before the public, and simply ask for a fair hearing, which I usually get.
Except, that is, for the average science type.
When it comes to this modern breed, I immediately fall into the same category as anyone else who is prepared to give the paranormal a chance.
I never expected any different. The general scientific acceptance of curiosity may work for most areas of life and the universe, but regarding the paranormal, there is a form of mental block. Simply considering the subject is enough to be discounted.
I’m interested in why this is.
Could it be down to a simple inability in them to comprehend the subject? Certainly it appears so. But this is not an explanation. But maybe an explanation CAN be forthcoming.
It is all to do with genetic culturalism. Now, what IS this? Behaviour is said to be down to nature or nurture. The former is due to our genes, whilst the latter is said to be to do with our upbringing, etc. Yet I’ve recently begun writing about a third factor in this equation.
Culture could play an important part.
We exist in culture. We are labeled through our culture. Our knowledge is very much a part of our culture. Hence, culture plays an important part in our behaviour.
Behaviour seems to change over time – we have slowly become more skeptical of superstition, for instance. More and more are becoming vegetarian – our views on race, gender, etc, seem to be more inclusive.
How do such changes happen?
Well, they seem to happen within culture. But could it be that changes in culture lead, over several generations, to changes in the behavioural elements of our genetic structure?
We talk of change through the ‘meme’, but I’m suggesting here that it could be a real genetic influence, and not just a concept. In effect, what we are is not enshrined in genetic stone, but fluid. We change as our culture directs.
As with evolution generally, the culturally fittest ideas could well survive to be conditioned into the person. Hence behaviour – the cultural prevalence of the religious or scientific impulse, for instance – can be programmed into the person.
Does this give a hint of a reason for science’s intransigence when it comes to the paranormal? I don’t know. But it should be discussed, for it suggests that the ‘natural’ bias against the paranormal is not ‘natural’ at all, but the result of a form of cultural brainwashing
Indeed, it suggests that, in terms of behaviour, nothing is ‘natural’ at all. Rather, we are fluid receptors of change and ideals produced by an over-culture of our collective behaviour and ideas.
WE think, therefore I am could be a reality – in more ways than one.
© Anthony North, November 2008
BEYOND THE BLOG 
SandyCarlson said
How are scientists hamstrung by their own egoes, their own sort of god-playing, I wonder? Surely even they have noticed their tendency to do this?
A little humility would go a long way on the science side of this conversation.
anthonynorth said
Hi Sandy,
If only – though I won’t hold my breath 😉
Brenda ND said
Hmmm. You always have very interesting thoughts.
anthonynorth said
Hi Brenda ND,
Many thanks. I try my best.
Comedy Plus said
Reminds me of a recent visit to a cardiologist. What a horses arse he was. He was so rude to me that I just couldn’t believe it. Went for a treadmill test and he didn’t think I was in good enough shape for the test (based on the first minute of the test). Hello! He told me I needed to exercise and I wouldn’t even make it through the first phase of the test and I’d be done. I mean rude. He didn’t even look at the medication I am taking and one of those medications had a side effect of shortness of breath. I did in fact make it trough the test and my heart was fine. I also exercise daily. He jumped to conclusions because of one thing and he was wrong. Your post reminded me of this doctor. Unable to see the big picture because they are so self important.
Have a great day Anthony. 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Sandee,
That’s terrible, but it happens all too often nowadays. Doctors know best – like so many over the last 25 years who’ve claimed my cfs doesn’t exist.
What they know, they really know, and let you know it.
What they don’t know, they ignore.
Twilight said
I think there is a “science gene”, but it’s much rarer than it appears from the clamour of skeptical voices which rise against anything even vaguely connected to the paranormal. I suspect that most of those voices are driven, as you say, AN, by culture and a form of brain wash. There’s another factor too – the bandwagon – wanting to belong to a group. Many of those skeptics are really quite unqualified to be speaking out against the paranormal, they repeat stuff like so many parrots.
I’ve nothing against real honest-to-goodness working scientists who have studied the subject they criticise as deeply as they have studied all other areas of their work, but still come up feeling skeptical. But so few bother to study the paranormal in depth with an open mind.
Isn’t there a left-brain/right-brain theory about this too? One side is supposed to be the realist, pragmatic, scientist side, and the other the artistic, creative side. So even without resorting to astrology, it could be that nature and genes bestow emphasis on one side or t’other for some mortals, while others, like yourself, AN, receive a well-balanced helping. 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Twilight,
I like the well balanced bit 🙂
Yes, I have respect for scientists who are prepared to study the subject, even if they then decide there’s nothing to it. As for the others, I have a habit of calling them ‘mister’, ‘cos they have no right to speak with the authority of science. They are leymen.
One of the problems is that data has to be compared to theory, and it is often the case that data can be ignored by a refusal to accept theory. As long as this remains the case, science in general can ignore the subject.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
I agree with you, just because the ‘norm’ is accepted it doesn’t necessarily mean that the accepted norm is correct, it might be partially right but that doesn’t mean that it is the ‘best’ answer.
I like Twilight’s “bandwagon” too, and that takes us back to the power of the fear of ridicule again.
Its a pity that there aren’t more ‘ley’men rather than laymen, maybe there is something to be said for these leylines after all? 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Thanks for that. Yes, we all want to belong to a group, and this can have a massive effect of the psyche, polluting a reality view even further.
Maybe those sceptics should be placed on the leyline as the bandwagon rolls over them 🙂
For any sceptics reading this: That last sentence – IS – A – JOKE!!!
Selma said
Very well said.
Hear Hear!
I am really interested in this discussion because I have a few friends who work in the science field who are very dismissive of the paranormal. They always go on about how there’s no proof and all that but I feel that’s just a cop out. There are also lots of things in science which are theories rather than fact. I do think your point about cultural brainwashing is a very valid one and I feel it holds a lot of water with regard to the scientists I know. At the moment I am trying to convince them to spend a night in a local haunted house with me so we can film and measure any paranormal activity but they are always busy. Excuses. Excuses!
anthonynorth said
Hi Selma,
Thanks for that. It reminds me of a science friend I used to have who was troubled by strange dreams where he seemed to be looking at himself. I suggested out of body experience and he ridiculed me. To settle it, I told him to get his wife to write a series of numbers on a piece of card and put it on the top of the wardrobe. Next time he had such a dream I suggested he consciously tried to read the numbers.
He would never – ever – talk about the subject again.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
Thats a ‘ripper’ of a one liner, love it!
I’ve never been a member of a bandwagon troupe before, but now that I am, I realize what I was missing out on before.
The only way I can think of to to describe it, in the words of a very special person, is “POWER TO THE GOLDFISH”.
Lets see if they can work THAT one out! 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Ah, well, that’s the thing. Surrealism is so – surreal 😉
By the way glad to have you aboard.
alanborky said
Isn’t a very major component of all antagonism, (to those with different religions, philosophies, sexual persuasions, etc.), fear – specifically, fear that those who differ from us might imflict us with their ‘contagion’, making us somehow more like themselves?
How many times have I read pieces by the likes of James Randi and Daniel Dennett, ‘proving’ such things as telepathy are impossible, only to conclude, “[besides which], I don’t like the idea [of other people] being able to traipse around my head!”
I also remember once watching a British talkshow during which some professor/scientist started fulminating against the irrationality of Astrology.
Asked if he’d actually ever studied the subject, he responded, “Good god, no!” utterly aghast at the suggestion. When the journalist hosting the show suggested if he’d had then his challenging of it would carry much greater authority, the professor admitted he didn’t like the “fogging affect” he’d observed it having on the minds of others known to him who’d originally started studying it in order to perform just such a demolition of it.
anthonynorth said
Hi Alanborky,
An important point here. Fear always makes people irrational – even the supposed rational.
James Randi said
I’m still sitting on that million dollars…
anthonynorth said
Hi James,
Is that really you? Now, how do you prove it? I just don’t believe it.
But whoever you are, if the million was offered under those terms in the 19th century, Darwin would have failed.
Give us a break.
James Randi said
Tsk, a mind, like a parachute, needs to be open to work. Yours, on the other hand, is open so much that skeptism and rationality have fallen out.
anthonynorth said
Hi James,
Now, the question is, have you based that comment on a considered analysis of the scores of posts here on the paranormal, or simply assumed?
I’ve noticed that sceptics do this quite a lot 😉
James Randi said
considered analysis. Why don’t understand this?
James Randi said
So basically, you are wonderingwhy scientist don’t believe your paranormal drek? Prehaps it has to do with proof, repeatable results, etc.
I’ve heard of people who believe the Earth is flat. Do you? Why not? Do you think they’re fools, delusional, or crazy?
anthonynorth said
Hi James,
Naw, you’re definitely not THAT James Randi. You’re arguments and research are too simplistic. What is my ‘paranormal drek’? Do you know? I ask again, have you researched my work, or are you just going on this post?
Do you understand what science actually is?
James Randi said
“Do you understand what science actually is?”
Oh, the irony!
anthonynorth said
Hi James,
This is getting rather boring. Let me make it easy for you. I don’t believe in ghosts. I don’t believe in telepathy. I don’t believe in anything paranormal. But I do believe people experience things suggestive of such phenomena.
Without going to ‘classical’ ideas, I think a rational answer IS possible by a simple extension of our present knowledge. So to talk of me as a ‘believer’ is incorrect. You have not researched. You have not been rational or reasonable.
Hey, James. YOU have a belief!!!
Now, if you haven’t anything sensible to say, go pester someone else.
James Randi said
You are right about one thing: this is getting boring.
Let me make it easy for you. I don’t believe in ghosts. I don’t believe in telepathy. I don’t believe in anything paranormal. But I do believe people experience things suggestive of such phenomena. It’s called ‘delusions’.
anthonynorth said
Hi James,
No one makes you come here. Just delusions? Well, that’s very good. At this moment, thousands of people around the world are experiencing things thery don’t understand, are getting no help, and are scared – some absolutely terrified! And people like you make crass comments like that.
A disgrace. Merry Xmas. Don’t come back.
James Randi said
Heh, wrong again, Anthony.
I work for a mental health agency, we try to get people the help they need. Help that comes from therapy and, perhaps, medication, not feeding on their delusions and telling them yes, poisonous toads in your stomach and demons are causing your problems!
Looking over the comments, I see lots of agreement with you. I don’t see sceptics. A true scientist welcomes criticism.
But you aren’t, are you? A disgrace.
Merry Christmas.
anthonynorth said
Hi James,
So you are assuming that otherwise perfectly rational people who see such things have mental health problems. I assure you, you don’t see them. They don’t consider they have such problems.
As for criticism, I have no problem with that. But it is isn’t me you’ve been criticising is it? You’ve been belittling others. That is what I classed as a disgrace.
Shane said
This is an interesting concept proposed, Anthonynorth.
Late to the scene, I realize, but I was only early once – when I was born.
On a more serious note, I am not convinced everything ends up hard-coded in our biological genetics, but there does seem to be a social/cultural geneology. You are raised under the influence of your parents, children have been observed to follow the trends of their parents as they mature, and then raise their own kids, who continue the process.
As such, family values, traditions, etc can be seen to be a sort of geneology. Like their biological counterparts, these genes merge in the offspring of the parents.
However, there are more “social genes” beyond family values. Who you hang around drastically influences your personality and behavior – especially as a teenager and young adult. These “genes” are far more fluid – converging and separating as you mingle with people. Ever notice how your personality will tend to differ based on who you are around? If not – it’s easier to notice this in your peers.
As to the whole “cultural conditioning against the paranormal” – it does happen. It is diminishing over time, but still quite prevailent. If you look back over a century ago, there was quite a bit of scientific research into the paranormal. Electricity and the atom proved to be a much easier nut to crack and implement into devices – and science hone most of its efforts towards the atom. Now, research into physics requires a multibillion dollar particle accelerator or some other high-dollar and inaccessible devices to replicate extremes.
This naturally puts a lot of good minds out of a job, and still itching to push the borders of understanding. With many instruments available now that could not even be imagined a century-and-a-half ago, researchers have taken back to the paranormal. It’s quite chaotic at the moment, and I feel too few researchers in the paranormal field have an appropriate understanding of electromagnetic theory and quantum-field theory to really get some answers and provide meaningful research.
Further complicating the issue is that most of the research going on is not really scienfic. At best – it’s akin to a wildlife documentary – an attempt to document the paranormal and classify it. Until we can figure out how to interact with it reliably, there is very little science that can really be done – and even then, it’s limited to field experimentation.
Then, there comes the ethical impact. Let’s say we do confirm ghosts are departed human entities with a continued perception and emotion…. running tests on them is akin to running tests on a human being – which runs into huge ethical problems.
People like James, up there, will consider that a non-issue, as the paranormal are obviously caused by mentally ill individuals. While I suffer from a bit of narcissism, I’d contend I’m reasonably mentally stable.
I’ve seen a few things I can’t quite rationalize with known physical laws. I’ve heard too many stories from too many people, who have no reason to be telling such stories aside from it’s weird and it happened. I figure second-hand experiences different from first-hand experiences. I’ve seen how some people can just make awkward conclusions before – especially in identifying things visually. I’ve also seen how people can develop flawed recollections of events, though many scientific studies into the phenomena are geared to demonstrate extreme examples of memory modification to support skeptic opinion, often with a failure to follow-up to see if memory is further modified many months or years later (this is important, as it is possible the memory was incorrectly transcribed into long-term memory; and the mechanisms behind memory far more complex and unique to individuals than first throught).
But this has turned into its own blog piece, so I’ll leave it at that.
anthonynorth said
Hi Shane,
Thanks for that reply. I think, with subjects such as the paranormal, a hold up comes with non-acceptance of rational hypotheses. Without such ideas, data cannot be properly rationalised. In refusing such hypotheses, science does, in effect, invalidate any data offered. It’s very convenient for them.
That’s why I think we need philosophising on the paranormal, to suggest rational hypothesis to the point that science has to take it seriously. I don’t know if you’ve found my THE UNEXPLAINED page. If not it’s here:
If you’re interested in the subject, you may find the essay of interest – plus over a hundred essays of mine linked from there.