Science is biased
After writing my previous article (Scientific methods), I suddenly came to realize, there is something special about the phenomena, left out by science with the argument, there are currently no methods to properly investigate them. They all have the same characteristic: They are phenomena, pointing to a possible continuity and/or interconnectedness of the human mind. In this article, I will explain this further; besides, I will prove it is not by coincidence. As I cannot expect the reader to also have read my previous article, I will have to incorporate some of it in this article; I hope those that did read the previous article do not mind.
Many scientists agree, the human mind/consciousness – including phenomena, pointing to a possible continuity and/or interconnectedness of the human mind – hasn’t sufficiently been researched until now. An argument often used, is the lack of scientific methods to do so. Yet, when we look at problematic phenomena in the context of another subject than the human mind, we see they have surely not been left uninvestigated by science!
All fields of science, like for example quantum mechanics, have found solutions for problematic phenomena in their scientific methods. Problems, like those with subjective phenomena, have been addressed in for example the field of economics. (like the Delphi method, a method to weigh and value subjective phenomena ). Again others have been included in scientific methods within the field of archeology. Furthermore, nowadays we have smart analog computing algoritms. Etcetera. So why not use similar, or the same, methods for study of the mental level, the human mind/consciousness and phenomena, pointing to a possible continuity and/or interconnectedness of the human mind?
In all fields of science, using logic and inference and drawing conclusions based on deduction are valid methods. Yet there are no commonly accepted scientific theories on the human mind, so we haven’t got one that is considered a basis for scientific research. Collecting data, not looking at each case in detail but deriving a common theme from them, is valid. But for example in the case of researching near-death experiences, the focus is on whether those experiences truly arise after death, instead of on the strange fact, people who experience them report the same theme (like unconditional love and out-of-body perception). Then why are those methods suddenly not applicable when phenomena have to do with the continuity of the human mind?
So is a lack of methods actually an excuse?
Last but not least, if some phenomena give rise to a new way of looking at known concepts – for example the discovery, a human body consists for a much bigger part of bacterial and viral cells than of human cells, being a reason to review the concept of what we consider an ‘organism’ – those insights find their way into existing scientific methods in adjacing fields as well as to the public. This solves the problem of phenomena, considered irrelevant by the scientist. But not when it’s about findings in regard to the human mind. For example, when you measure how a human brain reacts on certain pictures or tasks, you can’t know if the presence of the scientific observer has any influence on the brain activity measured (psychologically or otherwise). Why don’t neuroscientists take this into account?
Until now, research regarding the human mind has been focussed on investigating people; not on phenomena. Those investigations of people – for example regarding telepathy – made many scientists lead to the conclusion, it cannot be proven they have certain capacities of the mind, surpassing the ordinary. Yet even if this conclusion is right, it is still a mistake to derive from this conclusion, there exist no PHENOMENA, surpassing the ordinary capacities of the mind. Like incidents in peoples lifes, where they received information not via the five senses; or where they experienced a meaningful coincidence, as such observed, defined and described by Carl Jung. Here it is of course not a matter of Jung’s theory behind the phenomena, but the observation, those phenomena do exist. So where are ideas for scientific research such as interviewing a random group of people? To collect data about their experiences of a meaningful touch of two or more events that felt miraculous (miraculous not in a religious sense, just unexplained but with a very special meaning), or things like knowing not through the five senses, their grandfather just died?
Where it comes to a possible continuity and interconnectedness of the human mind, science doesn’t come up with necessary interviews with people, with collecting data about phenomena, with research in joined effort between different fields of science, in solid theories, and well-designed experiments. In the relatively little and uncoordinated, poorly designed research that has been done, science has been isolating the individual human mind and tried to study it as such; yet it should be studied in the context of the totality of the systems it functions within.
Could it be by coincidence, science has not sufficiently investigated phenomena regarding a possible continuity of the human mind and/or some interconnectedness?
From the sample above – given all the problematic phenomena and the evidence, they are not without the scope of current scientific methods – we can use simple math to prove it is not by coincidence.
Suppose you have a stack of playing cards. 95 of them are aces and kings, 5 of them are small cards, let’s say spade 2, diamond 3, club 4 and heart 5 and 6. Now you start drawing a card a huge amount of times. In the end, of course the result will be a normal distribution, meaning 95% of the cases will be aces and kings, and 5% of the cases small cards. But then you see something strange: At a closer look, it turns out that everytime you drew an exception – one of the small cards – it is the spade 2 and never one of the other small cards!
In the case of the stack with equal cards, this is impossible. All 5 small cards have an equal chance to be drawn, so they will have to show up when you draw such a huge amount of times. It simply can’t be a coincidence. There must be a reason; if we can’t find such a reason, then it’s actually miraculous (again, not in a religious sense, just without any possible explanation for the working mechanisms behind this spade 2 showing up all the time)
Now looking at science, and the phenomena that are problematic within the context of current scientific methods: If you take all these problematic phenomena like we did in the above, then you note that those, not (properly/sufficiently) investigated by science, all have to do with a possible continuity of human consciousness and mind-connections. A ‘spade 2’: Every time science considers a certain phenomenon without the context of their methods (or even denies those phenomena exist), it is a phenomenon pointing at the continuity/continuum of human consciousness!
So it is not a coincidence. There must be a reason for this ‘spade 2’, and this reason is simple: There is bias. Science as it is now operates within the context, the human mind is solely individual and ceases to exist after death. Science deliberately keeps phenomena, pointing at a possible continuity/interconnectedness of the human mind, or consciousness, out of the field of science.
Yet science should operate within a context, leaving room for the option, consciousness – the mind – is somehow interconnected, and might have some form of continuity after death. It is necessary, this perspective on reality is being investigated by science. Many people experience a wider reality; and as science is not involved, consequently everybody invents their own explanation, theory of everything, or explains those phenomena with the aid of (religious) philosophies; or just simply has a lot of problems living in a culture where there is no accepted context for their experiences. Science could be a peacemaker; humans are intelligent, curious and we love solid explanations. It is quite unlikely, ultimately we can know everything, so different religions and philosophies will continue to exist. In the meantime, science could find common truths. So why does it refuse?
What could be the cause of this bias? Scientists are curious; that’s why they are scientists, so it is against their nature to dismiss certain phenomena. Therefore, it is most likely, the cause for the bias is unwillingness to discover the human mind, in some form, somehow does not cease to exist after death and/or is somehow interconnected.
Whatever the reason though, a proven fact is, the bias exists.