A response article to the attitude towards mysticism on this website and on scientific websites in general
Foreword by Avi Blizovsky
This site did not invent the arguments against mysticism. In the five years of the website's existence (since 1997), many articles against one or another mystical phenomenon have been published. Some of them are from my pen, and some are taken from publications that I had access to - by Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov (from Fantasy 2000), Dr. Avshalom Elitzur (courtesy of Galileo), several articles published in "A Place for Thought-Basher", and even an article by Prof. Yuval Naman - who was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics, and many more. Some of them are already concentrated in the new science of "mysticism and its dangers", those who deal with the justification of Darwin's theory in the science of Darwin and the theory of evolution and those who deal with aliens are in the science of "life in space".
If there are any articles that provoked emotional reactions, it was these articles, because not many people can criticize the postponement of a space flight, the development of a new drug, the decoding of the human genome, or even the production of bacteria in a laboratory from the building blocks of DNA. But for some reason, many people take evolution as a personal insult, the many proofs of the invalidity of astrology are suppressed by people because of the relief that pseudo-science puts on them, and of course many are angry that scientists are not ready to accept their belief in aliens, a super-sensory perception and even brought upon us the disaster of postmodernism - such which says that there is no objective point of view and science is only one way to describe the world and it is not a superior way to other ways. It is not clear what the origin of this thesis is because science changes theories and updates new ones every morning - the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around as was thought until 500 years ago, Newton's theory still allows us to fly spaceships and know with a precision of seconds when they will reach a distant planet a few years later, even because at very high speeds it was no longer valid and Einstein was needed, in the middle of the 20th century they thought that the earth had not changed, then everyone switched to plate tectonics, they thought that the world existed forever and submitted to the evidence of the big bang, and finally, they thought that the dinosaurs died gradually and switched to the theory of impact comet.
Daniel Gisser, who has a bachelor's degree in mathematics from the Hebrew University, works in the field of computers (software development), 41 years old (my age), read all these articles on the site and asked to comment on them. As a known skeptic, I want to doubt everything, but there are those who want to doubt the doubters, and he wrote a detailed article.
The article is presented later, but there are some basic sayings that I would like to comment on, for example Gisser writes: "Science has shed the mystical beliefs not because they are incorrect but because they cannot be measured". I do not agree with him, evolution can be proven against creation in a short time - all the fossils prove evolution and disprove creation. Likewise, the physical theory of the big bang that happened 15 billion years ago denies the age of the universe of less than 6,000 years that many religious people still give it today. Things that are in people's heads such as mystical experiences are more difficult to disprove, but neuro-physiological tests were conducted here as well (see an article from the Freedom website that will be published soon in Science and will be linked below).
Regarding Gisser's response to the claim that science is developing, while the heretical teachings are frozen in time. A response that says that these teachings, and Kabbalah as an example of them, have finished their development and exhausted it, and this will happen to science one day as well. An unlikely answer because the mystical teachings are supposed to explain the same world that science explains, and therefore they must develop together with science and respond to it. Freezing in time is a refuge for charlatans. I have many more comments. I'm sure you readers are too, and therefore their place is at the bottom of the page - in the forum of this article.
The article is a bit long (2,800 words) but interesting. I don't agree with a word of it, but here it is.
About science, scientists and mysticism
by Daniel Gisser
Many times we come across this or that article written by some scientist in which many arguments appear and with great fervor against mysticism. I do not wish to convince these scientists that there is real mysticism, but to show them and the readers of these articles that these claims are often not only not strong but are even misleading.
I will not focus on any mystical theory, but on ways of thinking and a critical approach to common arguments expressed by people who support the scientific approach. That is why I will use the term mysticism and all its inflections for any phenomenon that is not approved by the scientific establishment (including the phenomenon of the giants).
I will start by presenting two basic issues that are very important for those who are interested in critically reading scientific articles against mysticism. These topics will be presented as a discussion only. Practical examples will be presented in the third part of the article:
* The limitations of science
* The difference between scientists and science. Do the scientists correctly represent the scientific approach or themselves as people.
As mentioned above, in the last part of this article I will provide specific examples of the deficient ways of thinking.
The limitations of science:
Since the beginning of human thought, it was derived from the five senses of man. In addition to these senses, there were also various "senses" (whether they existed in reality or existed only in imagination) that were used by, for example, prophets, religious men who received messages and various healers.
Through these sixty senses, and from the experience of thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of years, enormous knowledge has been accumulated. Since this knowledge cannot be reached through the physical senses, this knowledge was defined as a collection of beliefs or as a religion.
During the years of culture, many questions also accumulated regarding physical phenomena observed in nature. The religious believers tried to explain these phenomena, but the combination of mystical knowledge, which is inherently more intuitive and qualitative than measurable, on the one hand, and religious jealousy, on the other hand, gave rise to forced and artificial explanations. Attempts to understand the motion of the planets by assuming that the Earth is the center of their motion have failed one after another.
To explain the physical phenomena, many people began to try and create theories that correspond to these observations. For example, Kepler determined the center of motion of the planets as the place of the sun. Gradually more and more complex theories were created. Out of the strong desire to reach explanations of the physical phenomena, which will not depend on this or that belief, a new approach has developed that refers only to things that can be measured.
This is actually how science was created: a set of conclusions confirmed by a set of measuring tools. Any scientific idea will fall or rise according to the existence of a measurement method (experiment) that will prove it.
Any scientific theory can be treated as a set of propositions that can be measured in a satisfactory way. Reasonable because there is no measurement that is completely accurate and every experiment is within known error limits.
Because of the inaccuracy of the measurements, erroneous theories were created that described the behavior of the material well, but turned out to be mistakes when the measurements became more accurate. Newton's theory never correctly described the motion of bodies, but there was no way to measure it. Only after more precise experiments was Einstein able to prove that this theory was wrong.
Science overthrew the mystical beliefs not because they were incorrect but because they could not be measured. We as humans need to look at the whole picture to understand reality. There is a huge variety of phenomena that cannot be measured and to ignore them means to bury your head in the sand and take it out only in the dark. The danger is that the religious jealousy that led to the burning of the library in Alexandria will be repeated by people jealous of science and will invalidate the great power of human knowledge from earlier times. There is no reasonable reason to believe that the phenomena we measure in our current instruments occupy more than a tiny fraction of the world. The occult is vast and vast in scope and it is likely that the various mystical teachings that were built in a strict, logical and orderly manner over tens of thousands of years also contain correct explanations of many phenomena.
The difference between science and scientists
If science could speak, then when he was asked what he thought about mysticism, he would answer: There are many phenomena that have been explained by science, but many phenomena have not been explained, and for other phenomena there are explanations that make internal sense in mysticism as well.
On the other hand, if we ask a scientist like Carl Sagan what he thinks about mysticism, he will say that he has no doubt that all the phenomena and/or their interpretation by the mystics arise from psychological needs only and the fear of death and the unknown. The demons and spirits roam inside the minds of the believers and are enticed by the gusts of charlatans of all kinds. The believers will be described unilaterally as confused and lost people, weak people who are dragged by the nose by greedy charlatans. From the fact that there are many charlatans it follows that all active mystics are charlatans.
These claims will be argued with great passion and without the horse and a lot of evidence will be presented without proof, which will be presented as self-evidently true. Arguments will also be brought forward that are actually only assumptions (axioms) and not real knowledge. Among the multitude of claims, the critical reader will also find those that are clearly mistaken.
Often there will be a detailed presentation of mystical theories and for each and every one of its laws counter claims will be made that show their invalidity individually. A view of the whole will not be presented to see if the presented laws fit nicely into each other and that their origin comes from a reasonable assumption point.
The things will appear as if they are said out of fear of the collapse and retreat of modern culture and science will be presented as the only way to arrive at any truth.
There is no need to go into all these descriptions. It is enough to see that they are raised with such great passion and in a perfect presentation of black and white and paint a one-dimensional and reduced picture of the mystics to understand that the words are spoken from the mouth of the scientist and not from the mouth of science or the man of science.
If we examine the scientists as people we will find that they have good reasons arising from the psychological structure of man to question mysticism:
1. The fear of the unknown.
Contrary to the popular belief that mysticism gives people a way and security (for example those who are afraid of death) mysticism presents the world as a stable and impermanent chain. The mystical world is ambiguous and unclear. For example, there are those who believe that our thoughts and desires determine what we will be called and the people we will meet. This belief can scare even the owners of the IDF's valor. The thought that the ground at your feet doesn't actually exist is quite daunting. For some people, it is better to shut up in a world where there are only certain facts and ignore and rule out any other observation that relates to the unknown. In other words, look for the coin only under the flashlight (measuring tools exist) and then at most we didn't find it, but we also didn't find the demons hiding in the darkness outside the light range of the flashlight.
2. A person who was involved in science all his life got a certain point of view on the world. It is very difficult to switch points of view. The mind revolts against changes in all its strength and the scientists as human beings are no different in this. If you learned that the speed of movement is limited by light and that light itself takes many years to get from star to star, you may ignore the observations of non-scientists where some UFO is seen. This is because the stars are simply too far away, and because there is no repeatable experiment showing aliens.
3. Scientists make a living from their work and receive respect and appreciation through it. It is important for scientists to gain the respect of other people in their field of work who know how to appreciate their ability. The ego exists and works like all other human beings.
No scientist would be happy to hear that perhaps the busy field in which he worked most of his life covers only a small part of reality, if at all. The challenge to the exclusivity of science (for example, Western medicine) arouses great concern, even though the technological achievements of science are proven and known
Each person has a complete set that belongs to him and contains many beliefs, opinions, knowledge about the world as well as a way of thinking to which he has become accustomed. A person watching the event will analyze the aforementioned event according to that whole. One event can have as many spreaders as the number of viewers.
I will now give an example that shows in a good way how the scientist as a person prevails over the scientist as a man of science.
Let's take a phenomenon known to science: when you connect magnets in a certain area of the head and create an electromagnetic field with them, you get an interesting phenomenon. The person to whom the electrodes were connected begins to see a white light. He begins to feel as if someone is touching him or looking at him. Sometimes you see figures that are surprisingly similar to the description of aliens. In some cases the person who experienced the phenomena wants to repeat them and feels a lack after the experiment is over.
These phenomena are the same as those reported by some of the people who came back to life after being in a state of clinical death and some of the people who claimed to have met aliens as well as those who claimed to have seen ghosts.
There are two essentially different explanations for this phenomenon. Both are equally valid, both are very simple and have not been patchworked together, and both fit seamlessly into the theories that support them.
Explanation a.
All these phenomena that have happened to people (aliens, ghosts, life after death...) result from the appearance of a magnetic field or from the appearance of sound waves at an appropriate frequency at the time of the event. For example, the medical devices that will be used to save a person from death during a medical event may emit strong electromagnetic radiation, which will cause some kind of illusion.
Explanation b.
In the brain there is an area (not necessarily physical, it could be in another dimension) responsible for contacting and receiving information from objects and entities that are not perceived by our five normal senses. When electromagnetic energy at a certain frequency is passed through it, it is stimulated into action. The result of the stimulation can be activation of the receiving system or disruption of its operation. In addition, the information is also transferred to the recognition in this situation, which does not usually happen.
In the show I saw on the Discovery Channel, a scientist was shown who researched the issue and claimed that an explanation for ghosts is of course explanation A. As a person, he went to the explanation that suited him psychologically and not necessarily the most correct.
There was also a different reaction, which I saw on another show. A scientist spoke and said that although science has progressed in the study of the phenomenon, it is not possible to determine with certainty what is happening and what is the impact of the experiment on the phenomena of visions after clinical death and the like.
In the first case the scientist responded and in the second the scientist responded.
As a final example of this chapter that emphasizes in a good way what is said in it, I will quote a quote from one of the great luminaries of the 20th century, the great scientist Albert Einstein:
"The mystical tendency of our time, which shows itself especially in the spread of so-called theosophy and spiritualism, is for me nothing more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of the reproduction and combination of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me completely empty of content."
The classic symptoms of the scientist as a person can be seen here.
The mystic is described as a weak and confused person. Here is only an assumption about the origin of our experiences. Based on this assumption, a conclusion is drawn that is completely equal to the first assumption, that is, those who assume that a soul without a body is an empty concept can conclude that our experiences are based on sensory impressions only (referring to the normal senses).
Examples of clearly unreasonable claims and approaches.
1. Claim: Since there are many charlatan mystics, then all mysticism may be fraudulent. Rational writers often give examples of people who promised, for example, to find with the help of some mystical Torah the relatives of this person and do not keep their promises and charge a lot of money for their services. These examples are nice, only if practical mysticism was supervised like that of the medical establishment there would be far fewer charlatans. The existence of charlatans cannot prove anything except that there are people willing to lie to make money.
2. Claim: When a scientific explanation is found for any phenomenon, it is the only correct one. At the time, I read an article by a scientist who said that to this day he was able to find a scientific explanation for all the evidence about aliens, and therefore the phenomenon of aliens seems to him to be nonsense. It should be well remembered: several scientific explanations are often offered for some phenomenon and only one of them is correct. The rest are wrong. So the mere existence of a scientific explanation does not mean much until it is tested. If there is no experimental way to test the claim, it is better to test its plausibility against the plausibility of other explanations. Yes, it is worth checking whether it seems too forced and artificially adapted to the observed phenomenon (like the following example).
3. Claim: If you take any event and explain every component of it rationally, then there is a scientific explanation for the entire event. In fact, if we take a phenomenon and break it down into factors and explain each of them in a possible way, we still need to see if the sum of the explanations seems logical. A few years ago a strange incident happened in Brazil. For our purposes it will be enough to bring the version of the rationale for the event: a modern and secret aircraft of the American Air Force fell from a great height and crashed near the city. Large military forces poured into the area because there happened to be a military exercise there at the time. Firefighters who reported small and strange creatures being put into a bag by soldiers were confused because by chance a couple of midgets knelt down to give birth and the soldiers took them for a ride to the hospital. The strange animals that looked like small human beings with red eyes and no pupils and were observed by girls 3 days later were a new and unknown species to science that was discovered by chance at the time of the incident, or that the girls were suffering from mass hysteria and the like. According to the evidence, the person who was touched by one of the creatures and died after a few days happened to be poisoned on the same day and all. All by chance and at the same time. It is difficult for a truly rational person to take the forced collection of these explanations and take them seriously.
4. Claim: People who have seen mystical phenomena and interpret them mystically are in a state of mass hysteria/needing to believe in what they have seen because their way has been lost/confusion and weakness/intoxication/basic lack of understanding. This claim can actually explain anything one wants and is almost always brought up by rationalists when they fail to find a possible physical explanation for any mystical evidence. Before science was able to explain the phenomenon of fireballs (a rare phenomenon that usually occurs in stormy weather) there were many testimonies of them, but no serious research was done on the subject because the scientists claimed that the witnesses' testimonies were unreliable because the spectators were in a state of mass hysteria/needing to believe in what they saw that Their path was lost to them/confusion and weakness/drunkenness/basic lack of understanding.
Only after a famous scientist observed the phenomenon himself, they began to investigate it until they managed to find an explanation for it. The rejection of the evidence was wrong.
5. Claim: Science develops all the time and criticizes itself, but the mystical teachings do not. There is no control over them and they are seen as perfection that should not be checked by its tassels. Therefore these teachings are a collection of arguments that have never been tested. Mysticism developed thousands and maybe tens of thousands of years ago. The Kabbalah that emerged several hundred years ago, developed and was studied by people in a rigorous way. Its structure is serious, logical and almost mathematical, and not only that, Kabbalah is based on a great deal of ancient knowledge accumulated over thousands of years before. It is likely that even science in hundreds or thousands of years will stop or slow down its progress because there will not be many things left to discover.
6. There are arguments that sound like they are scientifically based until you check them with their tassels.
Many people tell in amazement about amazing coincidences, for example, I haven't seen Anna for 30 years and just the day after I talked about her with a friend we met in the market. The rationalists claim that if we count all those cases that "just" happened, we will accept that the statistical probability of this phenomenon is reasonable.
In order to agree with you, it must be assumed in advance that the cases in which there is no amazing revelation of a combination, are just coincidences. In fact, there are thousands of events in our daily lives that are coincidences. For example, I thought of going to eat in the cafeteria and it turned out that Moshe, who works with me, also wanted to eat there. What can be said about such an event? Which side will we count it to? Plus, we can't even decide how likely some amazing coincidence is. One in a million? One in a hundred million? Maybe someday someone will be able to determine this probability. Until then, the statistical approach has no valid tool that can contribute to our understanding of the matter. You can't disprove anything with a proof that basically comes from the assumption that it doesn't exist.
The only thing that can be said is that such events happen, and that's it, everyone can assess their likelihood for themselves.
7. An assumption made as such was a fact. Due to the importance of the example showing a great scientist taking the wrong approach I will bring it up again.
This is a quote from the words of the scientist Albert Einstein: "The mystical tendency of our time, which shows itself especially in the spread of so-called theosophy and spiritualism, is for me nothing more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of the reproduction and combination of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me completely empty of content."
The critical reader will immediately notice that here only an assumption is made regarding the origin of our experiences presented as fact. Based on this assumption, a conclusion is drawn that is completely equal to the assumption, that is, those who assume that a soul without a body is an empty concept can conclude that our experiences are based on sensory impressions only (referring to the normal senses).
8. Claim: If a patient who was treated with mystical methods is injured when it turns out that Western medicine could have saved him, then this is evidence of the incorrectness of the mystical methods. Since the western diagnostic tools are stronger than the eastern ones and the treatment methods are focused and powerful, it is mandatory for us to visit a western doctor to try to rule out symptoms that need western treatment. In any case, there are many diseases and injuries that the mystical methods can help, which is why even in the various health funds there are alternative clinics alongside the conventional ones. If a patient who was treated by this or other mystical method is harmed, then it is likely that his problem was not correctly identified and therefore was not referred to conventional treatment. At the same time, we should not forget that the conventional treatment may also be wrong and/or unnecessary and/or cause damage where alternative treatment would have been better.
9. Assertion: As soon as there is a valid scientific explanation for one aspect of any phenomenon, then all the other aspects of this phenomenon have a valid scientific explanation. Some time ago I read an article by a scientist who said that a theory is developing that explains life. Life is probably a collection of electric currents that pass quickly through the nerves and especially through the brain (roughly, according to my memory). That's why all those who believe in souls and their reincarnations and eternal life should understand that their beliefs are nonsense and science is slowly moving forward and explaining everything. As the critical reader will notice, science has not yet finished developing this theory and it is already being said as if science explains life. But this is a marginal mistake in the previous paragraph. The basic point is that it is possible to explain and quantify what needs to be in order for life to exist. But it is only in the physical aspect. There is no way to quantify the consciousness which is defined as a feeling only, but only to define it as an axiom or as arising from other axioms and without the use of scientific tools. That is, you can say, for example, that there are electromagnetic currents in the hypothermic time dimension that pass through quantum holes at the speed of light (or any other complicated theorem) and these currents are what create consciousness, but even if the theorem is proven in the physical dimension, meaning that these phenomena have always been measured for beings with consciousness,
Still the conclusion that these phenomena are consciousness is only an assumption. A guess and nothing more. It is possible to measure what happens in the brain when fire causes a burn, but not the sensation nor how it is created. Only under what conditions is it created. That's it, that's all. The transition (or connection) from the physical dimension of the phenomenon to the sensory dimension cannot be explained. It is simply a fact that awareness exists (at least in humans) together with the body. Mysticism on this point is much more advanced than scientists. It treats consciousness as an existing fact and does not try to prove what it is. That is, the assumption is that there is a soul and it contains consciousness or is consciousness, and not that consciousness is the result of processes in the body or the soul.
To conclude, I hope that this short and concise article will be able to influence the critical approach in reading scientific articles concerning the field of mysticism.
