CRIMINOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE
Posted by anthonynorth on February 25, 2009
If the paranormal is ever to be taken seriously by modern intellectuals, it must have worth. We are said to live in pragmatic times. Thus, only those things that are of use are taken seriously – or so academe thinks.
It might be useful, of course, to remember that one of the prime movers of the philosophy of pragmatism was William James – a man who was also instrumental in psychical research.
The father of pragmatism gave the paranormal worth.
He saw it as part of the overall scheme of things. It was intrinsic to who we are as human beings, and we could not deny its existence – which is the point.
We can carry out research into the paranormal as much as we like, but it is a useless endeavour unless it can be placed within our overall knowledge structure. Until the paradigm caters for it, we cannot expect it to be taken seriously.
Hence, the paranormal needs to infiltrate knowledge.
And the road to this begins by an analysis of what our knowledge presently is. We do, of course, class ourselves as existing in a scientific paradigm. But is this really the case?
It DOES appear so. But one constant in all knowledge structures is the fact that what we see our knowledge as being is nothing more than a reflection of ourselves and our place in the universe.
Man was born in God’s image.
This is a clear declaration that man is a reflection of God. In the modern paradigm, the universe is material, and we are materialistic to reflect this view of reality.
All our sciences – all our attitudes – increasingly reflect this view. Over time, a consensus has built up which simply cannot be denied by our knowledge. And where, here, room for esoteric concepts such as the paranormal?
The point in all this is clear.
Rather than our present knowledge being based in rationality, the search begins from a conceptual notion of ourselves. From this point on, rationality prevails, but it begins with a belief.
Due to this, I think it would be best to adopt a criminological approach to understanding our knowledge structure. Everything we think must have a motive. And no matter how reasonable we think our knowledge to be, there has to be a reason behind reason.
Hence, when we look to a theory, we should investigate it in terms of a crime scene. We should forensically search for psychological prompters behind the theory in the first place.
The most obvious motive for most of today’s theories is, of course, a rejection of religion and the esoteric. Increasingly, knowledge is becoming a battle between science and religion – which is causing a distinct modus operandi.
To reflect the fundamental nature of the battle, scientific theories are becoming increasingly intransigent. They are increasingly set in stone – which is the exact opposite to what a scientific theory should be.
The reality is, nothing is as certain as the distaste of religion is demanding. Indeed, I’d go as far as saying a single way of explaining something is a crime against knowledge. And the paranormal has become a casualty of this pathology.
© Anthony North, February 2009
BEYOND THE BLOG 
paisley said
i am not at all sure that i believe in a god,, and i am positive that if i do it is not the humanized god created by the worlds great religions in order to control the masses.. in my minds eye,, if there is a god it is something we could not even begin to superimpose upon an earthly consciousness,, and not at all a mirror image of man…
anthonynorth said
Hi Paisley,
I pretty much agree with that. Hence, most of our knowledge actually speaks about ourselves and our place in the universe. Maybe, if we understood this, we’d get a better form of knowledge that is inclusive to all.
SandyCarlson said
You are absolutely right. It is a symptom of human arrogance–itself a symptom of our fear of the unknown.
anthonynorth said
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for that. Yes, knowledge is becoming more a battleground than an intellectual endeavour.
Selma said
I agree with both Sandy and Paisley.
I do think our fear of the unknown marks the way we look at both science and religion. Maybe we should take a leaf out of Alice in Wonderland’s book and accept that :’ nothing is quite as it seems.’
anthonynorth said
Hi Selma,
Indeed so. Infact, fear of the unknown causes denial and ridicule – exactly the way science AND much of religion treat the paranormal.
Comedy Plus said
What Sandy said is spot on for me. Fear. I agree with that.
Have a terrific day Anthony. 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Sandee,
Very true – and you have a good day, too.
Twilight said
Every time God is mentioned I’ve started to substitute “Nature” in my own mind.
“Man is born in Nature’s image” is good enough for me. We are reflections of nature, as it has evolved. We rely on things in Nature for our continuing existence. Nature has given us brains to work out problems for ourselves. Still, Nature has its mysteries, what we call “paranormal” is one department of these, I guess. Why not investigate all departments of Nature? 🙂
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
If God exists and we are simply one small component of his/her existence, then, we have no possible chance of comprehending the incomprehensible. Being top of the food chain on our planet has created a ‘carnivorous arrogance’ in the human race, but, as soon as we are confronted with the unknown (paranormal), we hide in our ‘hermit crab shell’ of today’s science. Fear of the unknown is possibly an even greater fear than that of death, at least we know that death will happen, so it’s a given, the ‘unknown’, well, thats not.
‘Comfort zone’ is probably analagous to stasis, and thats not the way that the human race is built, its time for courage and change, the current ‘status’ is untenable.
Hope that this one makes sense, I think that I’m starting to sound like a revolutionary, that’s a bit worrying. 😉
Rossa said
IMO, Mankind is just an energetic expression of form. Therefore what Mankind (or at least some of us do) calls God manifests itself through the creation of “forms”, lifeforms and other energy formations, which essentially encompasses everything as everything is made up of energy.
In Science this is expressed in Quantum Physics, so I have no problem with “Man is a reflection of God”, as are all known and unknown things. The word God to me is just a label our minds give to a “form” that becomes common through usage of a word or is expressed using other words in other languages.
We use these labels to identify and recognise things. For instance if I say I have a cup behind my back, the (English speaking) listener will automatically “see” the form in their mind’s eye even though they cannot see it physically with their eyes. The label helps us to identify something, anything, at least that which we think we know and understand. And there lies the rub as we don’t “know” everything so when we “see” something we don’t know our mind has to find something to call (label) it, fill in the blanks so to speak.
This fascination with knowledge and belief is found in Epistemology, which is defined here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
as:
Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry.
My own knowledge is only that which I have known or experienced to date. There is a lot of stuff I don’t know and I actually love the not knowing. It means that when I do get to know something it will always be a surprise and that’s worth getting up in the morning for!!
Linda G said
Hi Anthony,
A few Einstein quotes that I think relate to your piece:
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. Information is not knowledge.”
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know if I am.”
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” (Sign hanging in Einstein’s office at Princeton)
These also go back to your comments about the greatest thinkers are those outside the norm.
anthonynorth said
Hi Twilight,
A good question. These departments should be investigated. And another problem here is the idea of ‘departments’, or separateness of the parts.
True, science is right to specialise in this way – I have no problem with this. But it should be alongside a discipline that looks at the whole.
Nature is like this – specialised bits in an interrelated wholeness.
Hi Chris,
I agree with you, with one proviso. Not so much change, as expansion. Specialisation must continue, but alongside a wider understanding as highlighted in my comment above.
Hi Rossa,
The Platonic ‘forms’ formed, in a way, the birth of philosophy – I think it was Whitehead who spoke of philosophy being 2,000 years of footnotes to Plato. Yet, today, the entire notion is wiped out.
The epistemological knowledge we can have was best defined, I think, by Kant, who understood the ‘mind filter’ we all have, interpreting what is in us, adding to what is out there.
Science ignores much of this. They want to think they CAN know. Philosophy gets in the way of this.
Hi Linda,
In many ways I think Einstein was the last scientist. He knew what science was, and what its limits were.
Today’s scientists could learn a lot from this great man’s humility.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
Not wishing to differ (too much), but, isn’t expansion a form of change? If the objective is to have ‘our’ scientists think from a more holistic perspective rather than just a specialized perspective then isn’t that a paradigm shift in mindset?
They don’t necessarily have to lose focus on the ‘specialist’ aspect of their investigation(s), but, when trying to arrive at an overall hypothesis then the ‘holistic hat’ needs to be put on to arrive at a more meaningful conclusion.
That, to me, seems to be significant change (expansion) from the current, generally adopted ‘process’.
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Fair comment. The point I was trying to make is that I don’t want scientists to change their methodology at all. I want them to carry on exactly as they are – with one proviso.
I want the holistic approach to arise through a revitalised idea of philosophy and speculation, with science accepting its right to exist, and looking at the conclusions and ideas the philosophers reach. The result being a two way exchange, with each feeding off the other. This is why I speak of expansion rather than change.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
Yes, a ‘one-way street’ only leads to a single destination, I wonder what lies at the ‘other end of the block’?
With a bit of luck, maybe, a nice, cosy, English, country pub with fire going, roast cooking and genuine ‘social’ dialogue occurring between Philosophers and Scientists with open minds.
Now, where is Aladdin when you need him? 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Someone lamped him 😉
Linda G said
Hi Anthony,
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Some more quotes from my favorite scientist. The last is not relevant to today’s piece- but I could not resist- given the tenor of the times. 😉
anthonynorth said
Hi Linda,
That last quote should be read by everyone.
Servius Martius said
As a polytheist I tend not to worry too much about man having been created in God’s image, but otherwise I’m right with you. I am completely fascinated by nature and the universe around me and I recognise science as playing a crucial role in coming to understand it. But I don’t believe that what we can see is all that there is, and ultimately I don’t believe that science will ever answer all the questions we’re going to ask. One of the simplest is one of the least likely to be answered: “why does anything exist?”
I spend a lot of time arguing with militant atheists and militant religious people, both of whom seem to have become convinced that you can have science and rationality OR you can have religious belief and faith. And both sides buy into it: compare the Dawkins-esque rants against religion by those who consider themselves intellectually superior with the nonsense of the creationists who dismiss science as the work of Satan.
But to be honest, try as I might, I can’t see any way to separate the two. Science – be it cosmology, meteorology, oceanography, biology – naturally evokes a religious sense in me. I’m amazed it doesn’t seem to do the same for everyone, but there you go.
anthonynorth said
Hi Servius Martius,
Thanks for that comment. I think you hinted at the problem in one thing you said. The simple fact is, science asks ‘how’, and religion is interested in ‘why’. Religion decides ‘how’ doesn’t matter, and science thinks ‘why’ is irrelevant – it’s all chaotic.
If only we could get past such hurdles and think differently, but together.
Linda G said
Hi Anthony,
I think what bothers me most about modern science is the partial theory that becomes accepted/promoted as the complete theory. For instance the Big Bang, & its offshoot the Big Crunch- which evolved after Hubbell’s observation of the red shift of light in the furthest observable edges of our universe.
These theories require as much faith as any religion does. They have raised as many questions as to the creation of the universe as they have sought to explain. A unique singularity that then explodes & creates the entire known universe’s matter is just as fantastic a concept as the earth being created in 6 days (allegories aside).
So why is one then more acceptable than the other? That is a mystery to me.
anthonynorth said
Hi Linda,
I agree. There isn’t a single conceptual theory in science that is anywhere near proven. But it is becoming a matter of faith to believe.
Very religious.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
Hi Linda, If I may borrow your Eistein mantle momentarily?
Holistic : “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.”
Perspective: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
Perception: “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
Creativity: Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
Balance: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
‘True’ Religion: My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
As you’ve said before, “the last great scientist”.
Hands mantle back, “Thank you Linda”.
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
I’m quite enjoying this Einstein Appreciation society 🙂 Most deserved. I did once paraphrase one of the comments you’ve used to get a point over to a scientist or two:
‘Humour without knowledge is lame, knowledge without humour is blind’