The (sometimes) Myth of Scientific Objectivity.
What if all scientific objectivity was filtered through the Buddhist concept of Beginner’s Mind?
Beginner’s Mind is about opening to all possibilities instead of attaching to deeply entrenched beliefs which have the tendency to greatly restrict our innovation and vision. It’s the open mind, as compared to the closed mind.
I keep an old textbook in my library which I use to remind me how close-minded formal study can be. This is a 2009, 7th edition book called Research Design Explained, for an upper level university research class I once took. The authors are Mark L. Mitchell and Janina M. Jolley. They are married. Their bio says, “Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jolley are married to research, teaching, and each other- not necessarily in that order.” Okay, fair enough.
So, here’s the book’s introductory paragraph:
“We live in a time just after the scientific giants Einstein and Skinner made tremendous discoveries. Yet, in the United States, three-quarters of the population believe in astrology, millions more than that believe in psychics, billions of dollars are spent on diets that don’t work, billions more are spent on health care that does not work, and much of what people do when it comes to attacking a wide range of problems- from fighting crime to treating the mentally ill- is based on superstition rather than fact.”
The authors then later go on to say that it’s important to be “open minded”, which scientists are because, after all, they explored and proved the existence of telepathy which was thought to be total hooey by the scientific community at one time.
Does not compute…
(Long pause while I try to make sense of this… Keep in mind that I paid thousands of dollars to take this required class. The 600 page text book alone cost $170 dollars.)
CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BELIEVING IN PSYCHICS AS A SIGN OF AMERICAN WEAKNESS AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY PROVING THAT TELEPATHY EXISTS?
I mean, is there a difference between psychic phenomenon and telepathy?
The entire chapter is chaotic. In one paragraph they’re throwing around legitimate insults to the psychic community by calling them “witch doctors and quacks” and in another paragraph patting themselves on the back for being “open minded” by recognizing that scientific giants such as Einstein, Newton, Madame Curie, and others have all claimed to have made great scientific breakthroughs by alternative means such as dream channeling.
But this, they say, is different because these people are clearly “creative geniuses“. In other words, don’t try this at home friends, because unless you’re dead and have unlocked a door to the secrets of the Universe, you’ll be called a witch and smoked out of the laboratory.
True science isn’t a belief system.
I’m not going to make this a debate over the existence of psychic phenomenon, because there have been plenty of statistically significant peer-reviewed scientific studies which have supported its existence from very respectable institutions such as UCLA and Duke University. What angered me about the book was the audacity of the authors to paint so clearly an opinion-tainted picture, in a text book supposedly preaching the importance of objectivity. I have never been exposed to such a thinly veiled crock of subjective opinion in the form of a text book.
Listen to this incredibly unbiased statement:
“Scientifically oriented physicians treat patients based on what research has established as the most effective cure, whereas other physicians rely on their instincts and on alternative medicines- and end up causing thousands of their patients to die.”
And now I’m just laughing out loud, because that has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever heard.
Should we actually count how many patients have died at the hands of Western medicine vs. Alternative medicine? Why do they have to be pitted against each other like some dystopian cage match? They each bring their own strengths and weaknesses.
A little less brainwashing, and a little more Beginner’s Mind please.
A very wise woman recently said to me, “Just because a person’s a healer doesn’t mean they’re healed. Just because a person’s a psychotherapist doesn’t make them sane.” And to this I say, just because a person writes about scientific objectivity and open-mindedness, doesn’t make it so. I’m not trying to pick on these authors, because they’re in good company all over the world.
These are the kind of deeply entrenched incongruencies that need the brighter light of critical thinking.
Leave a Comment