332 lines
21 KiB
Plaintext
332 lines
21 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: A CHANGED VIEW OF SCIENCE FILE: UFO2720
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mon 24 Feb 92 8:15
|
|
By: Robin Gober
|
|
To: ALL
|
|
Re: Intergration
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we last left Doc. Rogers he was faced with how to resolve the
|
|
conflict of viewing a subjective experience as an experientialist or
|
|
scientist. I see a lot of things in this debate that can be useful to a
|
|
Contactee. As a Contactee I know, as William James stated that these
|
|
experiences can be very real and very authoritative. I also that as a
|
|
thinking Contactee, sometimes, I like to be able to view the the
|
|
experience objectively as well. I think Rogers gives some very good
|
|
guide lines on how to go about this.
|
|
|
|
"A Changed View of Science
|
|
|
|
[...] Gradually I have come to believe that the most basic error in the
|
|
original formulation was in the description of science. I should like,
|
|
in this section, to attempt to correct that error, and in the following
|
|
section to reconcile the revised points of view.
|
|
|
|
The major shortcoming was, I believe, in viewing science as something
|
|
`out there,' something spelled with a capital S, a `body of knowledge'
|
|
existing somewhere in space and time. in common with psychologists I
|
|
thought of science as a systematized and organized collection of
|
|
tentatively verified facts, and saw the methodology of science as the
|
|
socially approved means of accumulating this body of knowledge, and
|
|
continuing its verification. It has seemed somewhat like a reservoir
|
|
into which all and sundry may dip their buckets to obtain water--with a
|
|
guarantee of 99% purity. When viewed in this external and impersonal
|
|
fashion, it seems not unreasonable to see Science not only as
|
|
discovering knowledge in lofty fashion, but as involving
|
|
depersonalization, a tendency to manipulate, a denial of the basic
|
|
freedom of choice which I have met experientially in therapy. I should
|
|
like now to view the scientific approach from a different, and I hope,
|
|
a more accurate perspective.
|
|
|
|
Science in Persons
|
|
|
|
Science exists only in people. Each scientific project has its creative
|
|
inception, its process, and its tentative conclusion, in a person or
|
|
persons. Knowledge--even scientific knowledge can be communicated only
|
|
to those who are subjectively ready to receive its communication. The
|
|
utilization of science also occurs only through people who are in
|
|
pursuit of values which have meaning to them. These statements
|
|
summarize very briefly something of the change in emphasis which I
|
|
would like to make in my description of science. Let me follow through
|
|
the various phases of science from this point of view."
|
|
|
|
_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D. 1961
|
|
|
|
"The Creative Phase
|
|
|
|
Science has its inception in a particular person who is pursuing aims,
|
|
values, purposes, which have personal and subjective meaning for him.
|
|
As a part of this pursuit, he, in some area,`wants to find out.'
|
|
Consequently, if he is to be a good scientist, he immerses himself in
|
|
the relevant experience, whether that be the physics laboratory, the
|
|
world of the plant or animal life, the hospital, the psychological
|
|
laboratory or clinic, or whatever. This immersion is complete and
|
|
subjective, similar to the immersion of the therapist in therapy,[or
|
|
the Contactee in the encounter]. He senses the field in which he is
|
|
interested, he lives it. He does more than `think' about it--he lets
|
|
his organism take over and react to it, both on a knowing and on an
|
|
unknowing level. He comes to sense more than he could possibly
|
|
verbalize about his field, and reacts organismically in terms of
|
|
relationships which are not present in his awareness. Out of his
|
|
complete subjective immersion comes a creative forming, a sense of
|
|
direction, a vague formulation of relationships hitherto unrecognized.
|
|
Whittled down, sharpened, formulated in clearer terms, this creative
|
|
forming becomes a hypothesis-- a statement of a tentative, personal,
|
|
subjective faith. The scientist is saying, `I have a hunch that such
|
|
and such a relationship exits, and the existence of this phenomenon has
|
|
relevance to my personal values.' What I am describing is the initial
|
|
phase of science, probably its most important phase, but one which
|
|
American scientists, particularly psychologists, have been prone to
|
|
minimize or ignore. It is not so much that it has been denied as that
|
|
it has been quickly brushed off. Kenneth Spence has said that this
|
|
aspect of science is `simply taken for granted.' Like many experiences
|
|
taken for granted, it also tends to be forgotten. It is indeed in the
|
|
matrix of immediate personal, subjective experience that all science,
|
|
and each individual scientific research, has its origin."
|
|
|
|
_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
"Reality, our good buddie!" --Robin Gober
|
|
|
|
"Checking With Reality
|
|
|
|
The scientist has then creatively achieved his hypothesis, his
|
|
tentative faith. But does it check with reality? Experience has shown
|
|
each one of us that it is very easy to deceive ourselves, to believe
|
|
something which later experience shows is not so. How can I tell
|
|
whether this tentative belief has some real relationship to observed
|
|
facts? I can use, not one line of evidence only, but several. I can
|
|
surround my observation of the facts with various precautions to make
|
|
sure I am not deceiving myself. I can consult with others who have also
|
|
been concerned with avoiding self-deception, an learn useful ways of
|
|
catching myself in unwarranted beliefs, based on misinterpretation of
|
|
observations. I can, in short, begin to use all the elaborate
|
|
methodology which science has accumulated. I discover that stating my
|
|
hypothesis in operational terms will avoid many blind alleys and false
|
|
conclusions. I learn that control groups can help me to avoid drawing
|
|
false inferences. [The same way I use information from other recovery
|
|
groups on topics like trauma, P.T.S.D.,Codependants, and Religious
|
|
Addiction] I learn that correlations and t tests and critical ratios
|
|
and a whole array of statistical procedures can likewise aid me in
|
|
drawing only reasonable inferences. Thus scientific methodology is seen
|
|
for what it truly is -- a way of preventing me from deceiving myself in
|
|
regard to my creatively formed subjective hunches which have developed
|
|
out of the relationship between me and my material. It is in this
|
|
context, and perhaps only in this context, that the vast structure of
|
|
operationism, logical positivism, research design, test of
|
|
significance, ect. have their place. They exist, not for themselves,
|
|
but as servants in the attempt to check the subjective feeling or hunch
|
|
or hypothesis of a person with the objective fact. And even throughout
|
|
the use of such rigorous and impersonal methods, the important choices
|
|
are all made subjectively by the scientist. To which of a number of
|
|
hypotheses shall I devote time? What kind of control group is most
|
|
suitable for avoiding self-deception in this in this particular
|
|
research? How far shall I carry the statistical analysis? How much
|
|
credence may I place in the findings? Each of these is necessarily a
|
|
subjective personal judgment, emphasizing that the splendid structure
|
|
of science rest basically upon its subjective use by persons. It is the
|
|
best instrument we have yet been able to devise to check upon our
|
|
organismic sensing of the universe.
|
|
|
|
_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
"The Findings
|
|
|
|
If, as scientist, I like the way I have gone about my investigation, if
|
|
I have been open to all the evidence if I have selected and used
|
|
intelligently all the precautions against self-deception which I have
|
|
been able to assimilate from others or to devise myself, then I will
|
|
give my tentative belief to the findings which have emerged. I will
|
|
regard them as a springboard for further investigation and further
|
|
seeking. It seems to me that in the best of science, the primary
|
|
purpose is to provide a more satisfactory and dependable hypothesis,
|
|
belief, faith, for the investigator himself. In regard to the findings
|
|
of science, the subjective foundation is well shown in the fact that at
|
|
times the scientist may refuse to believe his own findings. `The
|
|
experiment showed thus and so, but I believe it to be wrong,' is a
|
|
theme which every scientist has experienced at some time or other. Some
|
|
very fruitful discoveries have grown out of the persistent disbelief,
|
|
by a scientist, in his won findings and those of others. In the last
|
|
analysis he may place more trust in his total organismic reactions than
|
|
in the methods of science. There is no doubt that this can result in
|
|
serious error as well as in scientific discoveries, but it indicates
|
|
again the leading place of the subjective in the use of science.
|
|
|
|
Communication of Scientific Findings
|
|
|
|
Wading along a coral reef in the Caribbean this morning, I saw a large
|
|
blue fish -- I think. If you, quite independently, saw it too, then I
|
|
feel more confident in my own observation. This is what is know as
|
|
intersubjective verification, and it plays an important part in our
|
|
understanding of science. If I take you (whether in conversation or in
|
|
print or behaviorally) through the steps I have taken in an
|
|
investigation, and it seems to you too that I have not deceived myself,
|
|
and I have indeed come across a new relationship which is relevant to
|
|
my values, and that I am justified in having a tentative faith in this
|
|
relationship, then we have the beginnings of Science with a capital S.
|
|
It is at this point that we are likely to think we have created a body
|
|
of scientific knowledge. Actually there is no such body of knowledge.
|
|
There are only tentative beliefs, existing subjectively, in a number of
|
|
different persons. If these beliefs are not tentative, then what exists
|
|
is dogma, not science. If on the other hand, no one but the
|
|
investigator believes the finding then this finding is either a
|
|
personal and deviant matter, an instance of psycho-pathology, or else
|
|
it is an unusual truth discovered by a genius, which as yet no one is
|
|
subjectively ready to believe. This leads me to comment on the group
|
|
which can put tentative faith in any given scientific finding."
|
|
|
|
_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
"Communication to Whom?
|
|
|
|
It is clear that scientific findings can be communicated only to those
|
|
who have agreed to the same ground rules of investigation. The
|
|
Australian bushman will be quite unimpressed with the finding of
|
|
science regarding bacterial infection. He knows that illness truly is
|
|
caused by evil spirits. It is only when he too agrees to scientific
|
|
method as a good means of preventing self-deception, that he will be
|
|
likely to accept its findings. But even among those who have adopted
|
|
the ground rules of science, tentative belief in the findings of a
|
|
scientific research can only occur where there is a subjective
|
|
readiness to believe. One could find many examples. Most psychologists
|
|
are quite ready to believe evidence showing that the lecture system
|
|
produces significant increments of learning, and quite unready to
|
|
believe that the turn of an unseen card may be called through an
|
|
ability labelled extra-sensory perception. Yet the scientific evidence
|
|
for the latter is considerably more impeccable than for the former.
|
|
Likewise when the so-called `Iowa studies' first came out, indicating
|
|
that intelligence might be considerably altered by environmental
|
|
conditions, there was great disbelief among psychologists, and many
|
|
attacks on the imperfect scientific methods used. The scientific
|
|
evidence for this finding is not much better today than it was when the
|
|
Iowa studies first appeared, but the subjective readiness of
|
|
psychologists to believe such a finding has altered greatly.[Much like
|
|
the subject of Contact/Abduction] A historian of science has noted that
|
|
empiricists, had they existed at the time, would have been the first to
|
|
desbelieve the findings of Copernicus. It appears then that whether I
|
|
believe the scientific findings of others or those from my own studies,
|
|
depends in part on my readiness to put a tentative belief in such
|
|
findings. One reason we are not particularly aware of this subjective
|
|
fact is that in the physical sciences particularly, we have gradually
|
|
adopted a very large area of experience in which we are ready to
|
|
believe and finding which can be shown to rest upon the rules of the
|
|
scientific game, properly played.
|
|
|
|
The Use of Science
|
|
|
|
But not only is the origin, process, and conclusion of science
|
|
something which exists only in the subjective experience of persons --
|
|
so also is its utilization. `Science' will never depersonalize, or
|
|
manipulate, or control individuals. It is only persons who can and will
|
|
do that.[as in cults] That is surely a most obvious and trite
|
|
observation, yet a deep realization of it has had much meaning for me.
|
|
It means that the use which will be made of scientific findings in the
|
|
field of personality is and will be a matter of subjective personal
|
|
choice. -- the same type of choice as a person makes in therapy. To the
|
|
extent that he has defensively closed off areas of his awareness, the
|
|
person is more likely to make choices which are socially destructive.
|
|
[As in a Contactee closing off feelings of anger, pain or fear]. To the
|
|
extent that he is open to all phases of his experience we may be sure
|
|
that this person will be more likely to use the findings and methods of
|
|
science (or any other tool or capacity) in a manner which is personally
|
|
and socially constructive. There is, in actuality then, no threatening
|
|
entity of `Science' which can in any way affect our destiny. There are
|
|
only people. While many of them are indeed threatening and dangerours
|
|
in their defensiveness, and modern scientific knowledge multiplies the
|
|
social threat and danger, this is not the whole picture. There are two
|
|
other significant facets. (1) There are many person who are relatively
|
|
open to their experience and hence likely to be socially constructive.
|
|
(2) Both the subjective experience of psychotherapy and the scientific
|
|
findings regarding it indicate that individuals are motivated to
|
|
change, and may be helped to change, in the direction of greater
|
|
openness to experience, and hence in the direction of behavior which is
|
|
enhancing of self and society, rather than destructive. To put it
|
|
briefly, Science can never threaten us. Only persons can do that. And
|
|
while individuals can be vastly destructive with the tools placed in
|
|
their hands by scientific knowledge, this is only one side of the
|
|
picture. We already have subjective and objective knowledge of the
|
|
basic principles by which individual may achieve the more constructive
|
|
social behavior which is natural to their organismic process of
|
|
becoming."
|
|
|
|
_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
"A New Integration
|
|
|
|
What this line of thought has achieved for me is a fresh integration in
|
|
which the conflict between the `experientialist' and the `scientist'
|
|
tends to disappear. This particular intergration may not be acceptable
|
|
to others, but it does have meaning to me. Its major tenets have been
|
|
largely implicit in the preceding section, but I will try to state them
|
|
here in a way which takes cognizance of the arguments between the
|
|
opposing points of view. Science, as well as therapy, as well as all
|
|
other aspects of living, [as well as being a Contactee] is rooted in
|
|
and based upon the immediate, subjective, experience of a person. It
|
|
springs from the inner, total, organismic experiencing which is only
|
|
partially and imperfectly communicable. It is one phase of subjective
|
|
living. It is because I find value and reward in human relationships
|
|
that I enter into a relationship known as therapeutic, where feelings
|
|
and cognition merge into one unitary experience which is lived rather
|
|
than examined, in which awareness is non-reflective, and where I am the
|
|
participant rather than observer. But because I am curious about the
|
|
exquisite orderliness which appears to exist in the universe and in
|
|
this relationship I can abstract myself from the experience and look
|
|
upon it as an observer, making myself and/or others the objects of that
|
|
observation.[I feel the same way about Contact encounters] As observer
|
|
I use all of the hunches which grow out of the living experience. To
|
|
avoid deceiving myself as observer, to gain a more accurate picture of
|
|
the order which exists, I make use of all the cannons of science.
|
|
Science is not an impersonal something,but simply a person living
|
|
subjectively an other phase of himself. A deeper understanding of
|
|
therapy (or of any other problem) [like Contact issues] may come from
|
|
living it, or from the communication within the self between the two
|
|
types of experience. As to the subjective experience of choice, it is
|
|
not only primary in therapy, but it is also primary in the use of
|
|
scientific method by a person.
|
|
|
|
[This is it,folks, the really good part]
|
|
|
|
What I will do with the knowledge gained through scientific method --
|
|
whether I will use it to understand, enhance, enrich, or use it to
|
|
control manipulate and destroy -- is a matter of subjective choice
|
|
dependent upon the values which have personal meaning for me. If, out
|
|
of fright and defensiveness, I block out from my awareness large areas
|
|
of experience, -- if I can see only those facts which support my
|
|
present beliefs, and am blind to all others -- if I can see only the
|
|
objective aspects of life, and cannot perceive the subjective -- if in
|
|
any way I cut off my perception from the full range of its actual
|
|
sensitivity -- then I am likely to be socially destructive, whether I
|
|
use as tool the knowledge and instruments of science, or the power and
|
|
emotional strength of a subjective relationship. And on the other hand
|
|
if I am open to my experience,and can permit all of the sensing of my
|
|
intricate organism to be available to my awareness, then I am likely to
|
|
use myself, my subjective experience, _and_ my scientific knowledge, in
|
|
ways which are realistically constructive. This then is the degree of
|
|
integration I have currently been able to achieve between two
|
|
approaches first experienced as conflicting."
|
|
|
|
_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D. 1961
|
|
|
|
Houghton Mifflin Company
|
|
Boston
|
|
ISBN: 0-395-08134-3
|
|
ISBN: 0-395-08409-1 pbk.
|
|
|
|
ENDNOTES: I placed all of my comments in [ ] I hated to interject
|
|
myself into the text but it seemed like the best way to make sure that
|
|
I stayed on topic. I believe most readers are smart enough to have
|
|
caught those connections without my help.
|
|
|
|
take care!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |