LIMITATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY
By Noel Huntley, Ph.D.
There are discomforting shocks in store for those who follow unwaveringly the sacrosanct methodology of orthodox science---believing that it is the only true approach to the attainment of truth and that it produces absolute results. The application of objectivity has become a programmed framework engineered by an evolution of thought directed in this manner to regulate, even retard, man's evolution, of which we have allowed ourselves to be victims.
The basic tenet of scientific method is objectivity---in essence: separation of observer and observed. In fact the acquisition of knowledge must be ruled by this objectivity, or such knowledge is deemed unacceptable. However, the process of observation is not understood.
Blatant assumptions have been made regarding the nature of reality to the degree that these assumptions have now become a programmed format which pervades every facet of our lives. Ever since science began making significant strides in explaining the natural world by the experimental method, establishing laws and universal constants with ever-increasing confidence, there has been the occasional maverick who questioned the steps leading to the establishment of a particular result, even to the extent of implying that the result is not already there but is being brought into reality by the process of observation (a phenomenon quite compatible with quantum physics).
There is no satisfactory consistent universal scientific method for the acquisition of knowledge. The status quo is a scientific delusion. However, the so-called prejudiced results obtained through emotional bias, or errors and failures in judgement, or even downright fraud, are still not sufficient to account for the variations in results. Investigators point out that there is ample evidence in the field of plant studies and also animal behaviour to indicate that expectancies, or wishful thinking on the part of the experimenter influences the results, and that in a similar manner all substance, matter, energy, is also subject to this subtle manipulation.
Why doesn't the environment show more pronounced effects from the 'expectancy' state of mind? If we take up the notion in quantum theory that the observer is selecting a single probability from many, that is, the observation is contextual, we might expect more obvious discrepancies and anomalies in our observations. However, we must not overlook mass agreement, which is also determining what is observed. That is, that the individual and others, collectively, with hidden agreements influence the results. Nevertheless, the individual may still contribute an independent effect over this collective agreement, in particular, when the mass agreement has not been fully determined, such as in the early stages of verification of new theories.
Moreover, both individual and collective causation/selection of environmental events form the basis for a contextual relationship between observer and observed. Observer and environment are interdependent, not independent; or what is observed is in the context of the observer. Quantum physics, the most advanced science on the planet, has been telling us this for decades---and it is elementary in Buddhism. It tells us that when a measurement is made of a system, the experimenter/observer is part of the system under measurement. From another viewpoint this means that the observer/observed interaction is a reality interface in itself.
Metaphysically speaking consciousness has the power to generate a template of thought which then attracts the appropriate probabilities from an infinite source (the quantum reality) to verify or materialise the thought or belief structure. These are outrageous implications. What exactly are we inferring?
We might take the intellectual liberty of enquiring as to what is the coefficient of this 'contextualness'? Shockingly and inevitably we may find it is unity, or apparently 100 percent! This means the degree of detachment from the environment is 100%, which causes the environment to function in the unconscious range of the mind (the not-'I'). The belief structure, it appears, is the environment of apparent total objectivity! It is objective because we don't know we are projecting it---we deny it. This would appear to wipe out everything that science represents---the very edifice and foundation of scientific thought is seemingly invalidated. This is not actually true but it certainly unstabilises present scientific procedures and requires a new look at the premises involved in the acquisition of knowledge. It not only resembles the religious recognition of God as creator but goes beyond it and deifies every individual as creator or participator creator. But again let us stress that the denial will create an apparently totally objective environment, which is now under the full dictates of the 'unconscious'.
If we can't rely on observation, what is going on? The problem is that man's relationship with the environment has become unbalanced. Man's dominant left-brain thinking with suppression of the right-brain activities and intuitive faculties has created a continuous duality between self and environment, between internal processes and external processes; they have been separated. This is the 'I'/not-'I' phenomenon of the ego observation, discussed in some philosophical works and also in quantum physics. Though this gives rise to the dominance of objectivity it is implying that it is really all 'I'. Man's consciousness separates from the environment, denies participation and in doing so creates the apparent objective aspect of the universe. This separation is synonymous with the creation and appearance---selection and perception---of the external 3D world, objectivity, the ego, judgement, denial, irresponsibility and the consolidation of space and time.
Now a possible subtle instance of this selection and perception is highlighted in quantum physics with the example that when a particle is released from point A and detected at point B as a particle (observed), it cannot be assumed to have travelled from A to B (since not observed), in particular, as a particle. Meaning that if an interaction between observer and observed is not occurring, a selection hasn't been made.
We are trying to fit quantum physics speculations and theory into this scenario to aid understanding or even belief that it is the interaction process which gives a specific observation, the so-called objective observation. But we see that it is not really objective.
Does this mean scientific objectivity is unreliable? It means results will be relative to its context. This context is the objective conditions which are set up in this third-dimensional frame. This imposes a closed system. As long as we stick to this and agree that all such measurements made under these conditions give valid results and we have a technology based on this, it will all self-prove. But it only gives relative truth (to the given context). As science advances it will meet with increasing difficulties in this regard when it searches for deeper causes (a new context is required).
So far we are saying that the method of objectivity is not so simple. When we set up conditions of separation between observer and observed, we find they are not truly separate. This is evidenced in quantum physics experiments, that the results are contextual. Further recognition of this is apparent in more philosophical and metaphysical theories, such as expressed by the 'I'/not-'I' phenomenon, and in Buddhism doctrine; also from inconsistent results in academic experimental work.
Let us give a simple analogy for this phenomenon of apparent objectivity, giving a truth which is relative to a particular context. Imagine a dog chasing its own tail. Note that we are outside the system. Now consider moving into the system; that is, being the dog---its head, in particular. The dog sees its tail as objective, not realising it is connected through its body. This is an analogy for observations of anything in the environment (and we are actually connected like the dog's head is to the tail). Now consider that the dog observes its tail wagging. The scientist makes a measurement, maybe determines a law. That the tail is wagging can be proved and tested and applied. But is it a total truth?
Let us shift the context to a wider spectrum. We see when watching the dog chase its own tail that in fact the tail is not just wagging but it is going round in circles. Thus this is a greater truth; that the tail is moving in circles as well as wagging---it is waving.
When we look for causes beyond the surface we will not be able to understand what is happening to the 'tail' unless we step outside the third-dimensional context, the closed system of the tail wagging (only), which means the mind must be relied upon more (in the future all physicists will be mental physicists).
If the total consciousness of the system (such as the third dimension) is involved in the observation (this includes all ordinary 3D experience), the status of this whole closed system---consciousness and observation---will act like a zero; a 'nothing', a reference or context, from which to evaluate everything. The dog sees the tail wagging; its total consciousness is dramatising the spinning (plus tail wagging) and thus the spinning is 'zeroed out'; it just sees a tail moving up and down. But not from the next higher fractal view (of the human). All systems, however, are fundamentally open; only man closes them.
A blatant example of anchoring contextual limitations and imposing a corresponding limited belief system on the public is Einstein's relativity. (Note that Einstein was manipulated; he did not agree that relativity was complete.) Relativity references the context of what we can call the third-dimensional spectrum. As long as knowledge continues to reference this context the theory will self-prove, and as long as technology is based on it we will find that a body cannot go as fast as the speed of light, and also that the velocity of light is constant relative to all observers---one of science's so-called astounding discoveries. If, however, we reference the context of the upper spectrum which will eventually be recognised as a fourth-dimensional spectrum we shall find that a body can go faster than light and also that the speed of light is not constant---similarly other 'constants' will be found to be relative. (Note that just as the wagging tail is part of the larger system of the dog turning in a circle, so the third dimension is part of the larger system of the fourth.)
Let us give another analogy here which shows how our results in the most fundamental way will vary according to the context, in fact, we will see a new meaning---a qualitative, nonempirical meaning---to the number zero. Imagine a see-saw, that is, a plank with a fulcrum, with a person seated on each end, rocking. The fulcrum is all important; it determines the whole system, movement, etc. It can be considered a zero point from which to measure, for example, the amount of rocking. This is quite a good analogy since it has polarity (two interdependent ends), needed for our kind of existence, and it has frequency: the rocking motion. Thus this is an analogy for any kind of measurement but also for any observation, and for many experiential attributes of our 3D existence. It is an assumed context, a reference point. These two people and the see-saw are in a closed system of perception, a framework---the third dimension emphasised by objectivity. They are not aware of the fact that the see-saw is attached to the end of a larger one---on one end with another couple on the other end. Thus we have a new fulcrum and a new zero. If the first two people now make the same measurements but with respect to the second fulcrum they will get different results. In a similar way the results of, say, Einstein's relativity, is with respect to the objective context of 3D and the result will be incorrect relative to a 'higher' new zero, or what might be called a 4th-dimensional spectrum. Each system has its own zero, which will appear to be absolute relative to that system, but is in fact not absolute since it can be viewed as relative to a greater system containing the smaller one. Similarly the second see-saw is on the end of a still larger one. However, this regression does not continue indefinitely. It has a natural completion just as a twig on a tree goes into a fractal 'regression' of repeated connections to larger branches but does finally terminate in the trunk of the tree or the wholeness. Following through on this analogy of the tree, if we imagine the whole branch swaying in the breeze, clearly the twig motion is greater than its fractal connections to the trunk. In fact we can consider that the twig's first fractal connection to the next branch is a 'zero'. The twig doesn't know the branch is moving, it is only 'aware' of its own motion relative to this seemingly fixed point. And so on for the other branches. Consciousness will also be found to have these same type of fractal levels. We are the first fractal; the second one is already being called the 'soul'. The third fractal level could be the 'oversoul', etc. We see then that similarly our connection to the soul is a 'zero', since we are not generally aware of the soul, that is, being it, otherwise for a full understanding of this level one must take into account this soul level and higher ones to obtain greater truth.
Objectivity forces the mind to detect/observe in the most materialistic manner ('seeing is believing'). But as we have described it forms a closed system, including only the ego consciousness. A system cannot be understood relative to a higher system if one can't 'step outside' the first system. This is what evolution of the mind and knowledge is all about: expanding consciousness---continually stepping outside the system into a higher fractal level. However, our very educational methods close off consciousness at the ego level, denying where possible even the next soul fractal level (creating a block between the 'twig' and its next fractal level or context, the attached branch).
Context is the 'glue' or framework that holds together all knowledge in proper relationship, and this also applies to energy. Imposing objective conditions to remove any intuitive processes (what little remains with the humans) produces relative results, not absolute. These relative results change with the proper evolution of the species and planet (the planet evolves also). Of course we can't suddenly abandon objectivity, we have become dependent on it---it will be a gradual process but as stated above, scientists will eventually operate entirely in the 'mind'. The key to this problem of recovery is in the lost symbiosis between consciousness (subjectivity) and technology (objectivity).
What can we do about this problem of these limitations of objectivity? The ego and objectivity are variables. If the degree of objectivity increases, it gives greater unconsciousness of the environment and therefore will hide still more the influences on the environment of the individual's state of mind. Vice-versa as we develop perception more on the right-brain side---inner-consciousness and intuition---consciousness will experience the environment more, actually feel the qualities of objects, minds, etc. by reading vibrations (resonating consciousness' vibrations with those in the environment with instantaneous transmission of greater information---a feature recognised in quantum mechanics---received as a very positive feeling or knowingness). Consciousness will participate more consciously with the environment---the not-'I' is gradually becoming the 'I', but with consciousness allowing the separation ('objectivity').
With this reduced unconsciousness and increased oneness with the natural world, prejudices and expectancies will have no effect---in fact will not exist, since the observer is much more focussed in the present moment of observation. Laws and 'constants' will be found to be more flexible but recognisably, in accord with collective agreements (operating within the basic design of nature, framed by numbers of dimensions, etc.). An agreed upon consistency and predictability is achieved, governed by selection of available probabilities. But as we evolve towards much greater ability to knowingly create or be---that is, duplicate with consciousness' vibrations, not by representation and intellect---the universe and its laws become entirely a matter of choice and agreement, creating an existence for experiment, expression, and observation.
Return to Home Page