Astrology and Science
Validation in Science & Astrology
Astrology and Psychology
In this article, I am addressing how modern science behaves very much like a totalistic system. In that respect, it has followed the path of other totalistic systems, in defining a world view where its own beliefs and defining principles are the only valid approach and understanding of the world around us.
Usually, the term totalism refers to political systems, where there is an absolute autocracy and authoritarianism; a system with unrestricted power and
authority. The term originated during World War II, in reference to the dictatorships of the time.
A corollary of ideological totalism, is that those ideas and even facts that contradict the ideology are held as invalid by definition, as they are outside
of the ideology.
Another way that these tend to be similar, is that the ideology supersedes the experience. Even if there is overwhelming contradiction between what is said and what is done, the ideology prevails, and the contradiction is deemed evidence of not understanding or fully embracing the ideology. In a sense, the contradiction is presumed to be the fault or evidence of the malfunctioning of the experiencer and not the ideology.
Totalisms Emerge from Schisms
What is interesting about ideological totalism is that it is not all that different in principle to the stance that modern science takes, both in practice
and by belief system.
What is science's schism?
Very simply put, science emerged out of the Renaissance faced with a political confrontation with the church of the day. It began as a serious confrontation. Bruno was burned at the stake. Galileo was under house arrest. Newton faced being exposed for his beliefs and tried for heresy. For the church, the new science was an immediate philosophical and material challenge. For the emerging science, the church was a formidable adversary, especially because the university system with its ecclesiastical affiliated colleges was largely under church control.
The resolution to that conflict was a political agreement that both parties have honored, more or less until the present. That agreement was for the church to maintain its supremacy over theology, religion, the soul, individual inner experience and spiritual maters. For science, the agreement was to pursue only the practical objective reality through its discourse and experiments, and not to wander into the realm of religion and spiritual concerns.
The schism for science was that it gave away the core of its original validity.
The schism for science was that it gave away its original pursuit of knowledge of both the outer reality and the inner reality. Modern science developed with a political compromise with the church, that laid the boundaries between the realm of the church and the realm of science. Science's realm became the material universe.
Putting bounds on early science's pursuit was the antithesis of what that pursuit was. It was what Bruno died defending. It was why Galileo was willing to face house arrest, and it is why Newton was willing to secretly pursue his studies of alchemy and his own investigations of his inner reality, while facing the prospect of heresy, if discovered.
Of course the irony is that over the course of time, the scientific view began to become the popular view and the accepted belief of modern civilization. This trumped the influence of the church in many ways, and so to some extent, the political agreement is unraveling. The search for scientific truth and the underlying theories that attempt to describe our universe have become at least for some, the theology of the present age. But that theology, for all of its accomplishments in describing the phenomenal world, does not accept that which it gave away in its original split with the church.
Science's Catch 22
Science has taken the path of understanding and re-interpreting the spiritual and individual experience from the standpoint of an objective and verifiable reality. That verifiable reality, by definition does not include the spiritual, nor the individual conscious experience. All of this is replaced by theory and scientific constructs that extend from the outer verifiable reality.
In a way, science's stance is a “catch 22”, in that the spiritual is defined to be outside the realm of science, but since science has become the theology of the present civilization and defines the known reality and what is “real”, spiritually is deemed unscientific and therefore not real. Thus much of scientific research into the spiritual is an attempt to understand it from the place of chemistry, physiology, brain function anomalies and superstition. Research that investigates the spiritual as it is, has resulted in loss of credibility, prestige and grant money for the unlucky researcher that ventured into this path. Thus those that have investigated spiritual matters have faced banishment from the scientific community. It a very real way, they have been “excommunicated”.
This banishment is not confined to spiritual matters, but also for honest or objective research that has explored the unknown or found evidence that may support alternative views that do not seem to have a simple mechanism of action, or contradict established beliefs. Such research that has included investigations into the memory of water, experiments with ”cold fusion”, and non gravitational explanations for dark mater.
The banishment typically results in not allowing this research to be published in main-line journals. However, where the research has contradicted established beliefs in a manner to suggest a major revision of established theory, some journals, like Nature have taken the added step of literally sending a team which included a magician, to attempt to discredit the researcher with the stigma of cheating, while using the cover story of looking for “loopholes”.
Why do Major Scientific Journals Banish Reputable Researchers When They Do New Research?
Why would major journals do this? The simple answer is to follow the money. Major journals act like an authoritative arbitrator of scientific validity and approval. They give credence to the research they publish. Researcher's careers hang in the balance of this acceptance. On the other hand, major journals get money through subscriptions and fees for publication. That cash flow is preserved by not rocking the boat or losing prestige and income by being labeled as a fringe publisher, or by giving credence to “questionable” research.
Having to review a controversial submission puts these journals in a dilemma. If the paper gets accepted, then they risk their reputation and readership revenue. If people were to find out that they refused to allow the article to be accepted through bias, or by not allowing review by proper channels, then their objectivity and honesty may become questioned. So they have at times resorted to undermining the reputation of the researcher. Bear in mind that in some cases, as occurred in the publication Nature some of these researchers had already received Nobel prizes or were already highly respected.
All text and artwork are copyright © 2014 by Roman Oleh Yaworsky. No reproduction by any means is permitted.
Be advised: this site is monitored by CopyScape. Quotes with proper attribution are allowed. Otherwise, if you copy this material you will be automatically charged a user's fee on a per word basis.