From the very beginning of the scientific tradition in the sixteenth century, not everyone agreed with the notion that the secrets of nature had to be pried loose from a reluctant source. A notable example is the German polymath Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832). Goethe, the author of Faust and many other diverse works, was a major force; his work influenced philosophers such as Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Cassirer, Jung and Wittgenstein. He was opposed to the scientific method of the day, which emphasized objectivity, neutrality and remoteness. He believed the understanding of nature came through participation. To understand a plant, e.g., one must enter into the life of the plant. He called his scientific approach "a delicate empiricism which in a most inward way makes itself identical with the object and thereby becomes the actual theory."
It's easy to disregard Goethe as a crank who couldn't get with the scientific program, but he is not so easily dismissed. Echoes of Goethe's approach keep cropping up. An example is Nobel geneticist Barbara McClintock, who worked with genes and corn plants. She once said that her success was due to the fact that she had "a feeling for the organism." That's putting it mildly. McClintock would psychologically enter into a problem so deeply that she became the problem. She would cease to exist as a person; on emerging from contemplating the issue, she literally could not remember her name. Goethe would have understood.
As Jeremy Rifkin shows, Goethe's theme of participatory science was taken up 130 years later by Heinz Kohut (1913-1981), the eminent Austrian-born American psychoanalyst. Kohut believed that conventional scientific methodology was "experience-distant," removed from actual observation. He proposed an "experience-near" approach as an alternative, in which data could be acquired directly from empathy and introspection. Empathy was crucial, he maintained, to prevent scientific pursuits from "becoming increasingly isolated from human life." Eliminating empathy from science had resulted in a cold, disinterested and rational approach that fostered the aims of brutal totalitarian regimes and had led to "some of the most inhuman goals the world has ever known." Summing up, Kohut said that the new ideal in science "can be condensed into a single evocative phrase: we must strive not only for scientific empathy but also for an empathic science."
American psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) agreed with Kohut. He was scornful of the idea of a neutral observer who is uninvolved and removed from her object of study. He specified that that the goal of an empathic approach was not to destroy conventional science, but to enlarge it.
Henry David Thoreau, an American original who loved knowledge, knew as much. "If you would learn the secrets of nature," he insisted, "you must practice more humanity than others."
I recall a moment of colossal confusion as a university student that might have been tempered had I known about Kohut's views. I had fallen in love with science in high school but had not yet decided on a specific career choice. One evening I attended a campus lecture by a visiting scientist eminent in his field. Someone in the audience asked whether scientists were justified in researching lethal microbes and chemical nerve agents whose sole purpose was to kill human beings. Without a nanosecond's pause he responded enthusiastically, "Of course they should be free to research these things. You cannot rein in the human mind. It should be free to explore anything. Scientists have no responsibility for how these things are used. Politicians do that." His imperious attitude implied that only an imbecile would ask such a question in the first place. I was gobsmacked. At the time I thought this was the most selfish, arrogant and utterly stupid comment I had ever heard. I wasn't alone. The entire audience was hushed in disbelief. I went away bewildered and perplexed. This was science? Now I know why Goethe, Kohut and Maslow are important cairns along the path of science. They are correctives to the notion that science should ideally be done by brains on sticks -- humans who honor only the intellect and are devoid of empathy, who divorce themselves totally from ethical and moral issues.
Rifkin believes that Kohut's "experience-near" approach and Maslow's notion of "caring subjectivity" in science have been influential in the more than half century since they were proposed. He observes, "A new generation of researchers, like Jane Goodall in primatology, have used the 'experience-near,' empathic approach to scientific investigation, to elicit new discoveries and insights about the nature of nature that would have been impossible to imagine using the traditional disinterested, value-neutral, scientific method."
Jane Goodall is a telling example. When her mentor, anthropologist Louis Leakey, sent her in 1960 to study chimpanzees in Gombe National Park in Tanzania, she had no training as a scientist. Goodall explains, "He wanted someone whose mind was uncluttered by scientific theory because back then ethology was trying to make itself into a hard science and was very reductionistic -- very reductionistic." Her project became one of the longest continuous field studies of any animal. She produced startling discoveries of chimpanzee behavior, such as meat-eating and the fashioning and use of tools. Like McClintock, Goodall intuitively understood the wisdom of an empathic approach to field research. She gave names to her subjects and became emotionally engaged with them, which horrified more than a few ethologists and evoked stern criticism. Goodall remains unapologetic. In a recent interview she stated, "There is absolutely no problem in having empathy and being objective. Empathy helps us gain an understanding at a different level that you can then test in a rigorous scientific way."
References
Rifkin J. The Empathic Civilization. New York, NY: Tarcher/Penguin; 2009: 307-309.
Goethe JWV. Maximen und Reflexionen. Köln, Germany: Anaconda Verlag GmbH; 2008: 435.
Keller EF. A Feeling for the Organism. New York, NY: Times Books; 1984:101.
Kohut H. The psychoanalyst in the community of scholars. In: Ornstein PH (ed.). The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut: 1950-1978. Vol. 1. New York, NY: International Universities Press; 1978: 82.
Kohut H. The psychoanalyst in the community of scholars. In: Ornstein PH (ed.). The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut: 1950-1978. Vol. 2. New York, NY: International Universities Press; 1978: 174.
Kohut H. The psychoanalyst in the community of scholars. In: Ornstein PH (ed.). The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut: 1950-1978. Vol. 1. New York, NY: International Universities Press; 1978: 707.
Rifkin J. The Empathic Civilization. New York, NY: Tarcher/Penguin; 2009: 609.
Maslow AH. The Psychology of Science: A Renaissance. South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions, Ltd. 1966: 50.
Thoreau HD. Quoted in: Eiseley L. The Man Who Saw Through Time. New York, NY: Scribner's; 1961: 113.
Rifkin J. The Empathic Civilization. New York, NY: Tarcher/Penguin; 2009: 611.
Goodall J. Leakey's angel, 50 years on. Interview of Jane Goodall by Charlotte Uhlenbroek. New Scientist. February 20, 2010; 205 (2748): 28-29.
John Robbins: Human Nature: What Kind of Creature Are We?
Dr. Larry Dossey: Is the Universe Merely a Statistical Accident?
Thomas Moore: Molding the Raw Material of the Soul
Mariana Caplan, Ph.D.: 10 Spiritually Transmitted Diseases
Is This Your Brain On God? : NPR
Religion and Spirituality in Psychiatry
Talks to mull how science, spirituality can compliment each other
Will science ever explore spirituality?
7 Notes, 7 Chakras: Music, Spirituality and the Body (VIDEO)
Just replace the gravity pendulum with the torsion pendulum formula when thinking about homeostasis, and it all makes sense.
Cheers.
To Dossey I would say: What is right and lovely and good to you--call it empathy, moral, or whatever--is not necessarily good. It is only good to YOU. I want to point out that to the German Nazis, their extermination and experimentation programs, and their war, were right and lovely and good. One man's "empathy" is another man's hell.
Leave human ideals out of it. We are frail, and frankly we don't know what is "good." Science is science. Don't screw it up.
His project is totally vacuous, notice there is no practical program here, just hand-waving.
Likewise, there is not actual critique of the scientific method. Why? Perhaps because the point of using the scientific method, of science itself, is to get past mere appearance and bias to see what holds true beyond single fallible observers and fallible human perception in general. At best, Dossey is more like talking about personal motivation to engage in science, something most scientists have without need for his guru-like guidance.
All he is really proposing is a rhetorical shift, so that new-age language that makes people feel good replace a more professional styles of writing. Its like he's proposing a non-solution to a non-existent problem.
Each one of us can master the sacred energies to create a personal life of fulfillment and joy, and a world that is sensible, healthy, caring and peaceful. We can change our own lives, and we can transform our planet. It is up to us, and not dependent on the crumbling hierarchies and gatekeepers of power, money, persuasion, commerce and religion.
http://blog.soul-therapy.com/2010/07/mastering-living-energy.html
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Soul-Therapy/278635488830
http://www.soul-therapy.com/
Looks like a lot of hallmark card b.s. to me.
your discussion of Goethe's emphasis on scientific investigation as " 'a delicate empiricism which in a most inward way makes itself identical with the object and thereby becomes the actual theory.' "
The quote sounded so reminiscent of Friedrich Schiller's approach to the aesthetic, and for good
reason: Goethe and Schiller were buddies who contributed to Weimar classicism.
But I want to call special attention to your emphasis on the contributions of Heinz Kohut, who was
to change the course of psychotherapy. From Freud's classical analytic model where the therapist
remains an aloof, transferential figure, Kohut was troubled that certain types of persons actually
became worse during the treatment process. His recognition of their narcissistic vulnerabilities
led him to develop the "experience-near" model where the therapist's empathic attunement to the patient's experience helped restore more cohesive self functioning. After establishing this new,
successful treatment method and his theoretical orientation of Self Psychology, Kohut was followed
by gifted followers and thinkers who carry forward and extend his ideas. The indisputable role of
empathy as a process crucial to professions such as education and health care cannot be argued.
I appreciate the discussion which you've introduced about empathy as equally important to
scientific investigation.
And unless we follow rather than denigrate the healing professions and allow empathy to "humanize" science and restore values that are humane, and supportive to humans, wildlife, and life on earth, we are great risk from a dehumanized science, which purports to exclude all human values so as to purvey itself as neutral and objective, even though it's acted as an enabling servant to the all too human values of gain and greed. Psychologists and social scientists have terms for those who refuse to see or care about the harm they cause. "Objective" isn't one of them.
Alison
www.healthjournalist.com
Also, how am i supposed to become one with a neutrino, or dark matter.
But just because we are aware of our own inability to be objective doesn't mean we should just stop trying.
I get really angry sometimes, and nothing I do can change that. So I guess I should just give in to the rage and go about lopping off heads.
This is the contemporary view and largely held by many atheists I've interfaced with on Huffpo. It is science exploding in all directions irregardless of past, present or future consequences that are resultant of the "innocent" process of the sciences.
I can't agree more with the position the author of this post maintains. We should all dare scientists of all stripes to be more like Dr. Dossey, Dr. Goodall, Dr. Fossey (RIP), and, Dr. Galdikas. When they look at the face of their subjects, they see a reflection of themselves. This is the essence of empathy.
It is becoming ever-increasingly important to recognize that every single atom of every molecule of every thing is a reflection of one another manifesting in different forms. The underpinning is conciousness. The Universe itself seems to be concious in nature. All living beings share that Great Conciousness. It's time to recognize that and act accordingly.
The sciences without empathy are empty endeavors doomed to ultimate failure.
If I would have found a state of compassion (here's the hairsplitting word), I think I would have been able to be with the people there without getting ill and thus losing the opportunity to continue to cheer them up and also have a relationship with my great-aunt who happened coincidentally to be in that facility,
I'm not so sure that 'compassion' is a word that could be used equally throughout this article as I sense a shamanic component where plant forms in particular are referenced, where the word 'empathy' seems better used.
I find that having compassion while having a clear mind from meditative experience (which sandalwood references) puts me in the best state to be of service to my fellow beings on the planet.
They don't know what they're missing, but if they don't know what it is they're missing they'll never miss it. I can empathize with that.
Modern civilization (which for all its faults is also where progress comes from) is based on measuring things, not feeling things, and no, we aren't worse off for that. Measurements are reliable; feelings are not.
Articles like this and Dr. Lanza's vapid quantum musings are a disservice to HuffPo readers.
Translation - Those of us who want to make stuff have and not have to have any evidence or rational thought behind it.
I don't deny that our civilization has made great progress in certain areas, but also engendered downside consequences, that place many people, and forms of life in peril as we speak.If for some reason, you are unaware of them, or cannot experience, connect, or value feelings of concern, sorrow, or regret about that, I see no point in listing these downsides because if you have thus far been inured to the suffering caused to others, there is no reason to believe that yet another list would either intellectually convince you, or move you to a concern that you may not welcome, value, or wish to feel.
One may be well-endowed with certain capacities in the range of human intelligence, while remaining woefully ignorant of, or perhaps suppressed by early conditioning from developing other areas. That you characterize "empathy" which is concern for another, not oneself, as "an ego-centric psychological desire," speaks to a need to learn more about "emotional intelligence." Psychologist Daniel Goleman's book on the topic is a great place to begin. I would imagine that if you have some caring relationships with people who are not afraid to be emotionally honest with you, then even if you don't admit it here, you may already have a sense of what I am talking about.
If not, then I feel a great deal for empathy for you-- and it's never to late to start.
Good luck!
Alison
www.healthjournalist.com
To understand cancer, you have to become cancer. To understand global warming, you have to be atmospheric pollutants. To understand slavery, you have to be a slave ... or a slave-master.
Why do you persist in attacking science? Oh yeah, you're given an uncritical forum for your views.
Remind me never to get sick in Dallas.
.
How does one empathize with a photon?
So at best, this approach can only be employed in certain fields.
As empathy may be in the mind of the beholder, are those who rally against scientific research actually empathetic? If so, what are they empathetic to? These same legislators certainly show no empathy to the citizens of this country who are suffering in large part to these legislators dismissal of expenditures, such as Unemployment benefits.
Granted this is a mixture of Science and Politics, but as the second try to manipulate the use of Scientific Research for political gain and manipulate individuals by combining ignorance and religion, a vague political notion of empathy in Scientific Research somehow rings false.