Why What Frightens 'Skeptics' Frightened Einstein

I'm fascinated by the fanatical zeal with which self-styled skeptics pounce on non-ordinary events and try to discount them--largely by the liberal use of words like 'preposterous'. Posing as 'scientific', these ideologues are clinging to a materialism long since discredited by quantum physics.

The fear that motivates the armchair skeptics is exemplified by their frequent use of the word 'just', as in: "what these people thought they experienced was just . . . " (imagination, hysteria, group psychosis, etc.). But why the 'just'? 'Just' is what we say when soothing fears--'it's just thunder, dear,' 'it's just a shadow', 'it's just the nice doctor'.

Similarly, newspaper reports of experiments in telepathy and other non-ordinary phenomena always refer to them as 'eerie'. But what makes it 'eerie'? Is it because these phenomena are not accessible to our five senses? Yet we cannot hear sounds above or below certain registers, or see colors of certain wavelengths, yet they exist, and we don't call them 'eerie'. And there is great variation among humans in their sensory ranges. Some are colorblind. Some have no sense of smell. Others have hyper-acuity in one sense or another. Dogs can experience olfactory and auditory frequencies we cannot--does that make them 'eerie? Frogs see a tiny portion of what we do--only what they need to survive. Humans, also, have evolved with a limited perceptual range: only what we need. It would be both arrogant and stupid to assume there isn't a great deal going on around us of which we are mostly unaware.

Einstein was scared, too. He was deeply antipathetic to quantum theory, and refused for years to accept what he called "spooky actions at a distance". Since he was a genuine scientist he was eventually forced to--no prediction based on quantum theory has ever failed. Yet the words "eerie", "weird", "strange", and "spooky" are still used a great deal in relation to quantum physics. Even the technical term used to account for non-locality--'entangled'--has a negative, uncomfortable connotation.

Telepathy and other 'Psi' phenomena have been demonstrated conclusively so many times that if they were a dieting pill it would have been on the market fifty years ago. But young scientists are still discouraged from exploring it, or for exploring any of the broader implications of quantum theory--"if you want to get tenure".

So what is it that so many scientists and professional skeptics are so freaked by?

Scientist Dean Radin says it very succinctly: "The fact that quantum objects can become entangled means that the common sense assumption that ordinary objects are entirely and absolutely separate is incorrect."
Quantum theory implies that the universe is a single integrated system containing innumerable subsystems. Everything in it is 'entangled' with everything else. But what's so 'spooky' about that? It is, after all, what the word 'universe' means. It's only 'spooky' if the idea of being a part of a larger entity is disturbing to you.

We are trained from birth to see things as disconnected. Our language does it. Learning is as much learning NOT to see as it is learning to see. What a child sees initially is an undifferentiated whole. By careful training it learns to carve pieces out of that reality and look at them as separate material objects. But why should that be considered more 'real'? It's just one way of seeing. People with greater ability to communicate telepathically aren't 'gifted'--they simply haven't been as thoroughly indoctrinated. Instead of asking why some people (perhaps everyone at birth) can communicate telepathically, we should be studying the mechanism that enables us to shut out that information most of the time.

We're attached to the idea that everything is separate because it gives us a sense of control. It would feel too chaotic to see the world as it really is, so we learn to screen more and more of it out to make it feel manageable. Language is a big help in this: we don't experience what we don't have words for.

This is particularly important for men. Men are trained to separate themselves from their feelings and to view the world in terms of mastery and conquest. Women are less prone to this, because their bodies constantly remind them of their intimate relation to the rest of life. Which is perhaps why women tend to display more 'psychic ability' than men. It's easier for men to deny their connectedness to the rest of life--pompous clerics and academics have been insisting on this separation for centuries.

(In his inauguration speech, President Obama talked of a new way of doing things. To understand the cultural paradigm shift that engendered this change--the change that both the neo-cons and the Taliban have resisted so fiercely, see my latest book, THE CHRYSALIS EFFECT: THE METAMORPHOSIS OF GLOBAL CULTURE).

Comments

[tundramonkey]

It's always easier to be a reactionary naysayer than to do actual research, especially if the research would be pooh-poohed by other researchers who are more worried about their earning ability than science. The CIA and military have studied psi and UFOs and even majickal conjuring-are they all chumps?
There are tons of undiscovered wonders in the world that will not be discovered because reactionaries scoff at them and in so doing intimidate others from doing research. But string theory is somehow not laughable in the same context.

[ch4r1iegr1]

[Scientist Dean Radin says it very succinctly: "The fact that quantum objects can become entangled means that the common sense assumption that ordinary objects are entirely and absolutely separate is incorrect."]

That's the funny part. Science (which separates things into a control group and a variable group and an observer) is ineffective in proving anything in a world where all things are interconnected.

[HeevenSteven]

"Telepathy and other 'Psi' phenomena have been demonstrated conclusively so many times "

That is completely ridiculous. Nothing "eerie" about it. Just untrue.

[JohnMichael]

Don't embarrass yourself: go do your homework.

[Grasse7]

Ahh--the classic "argument by proclamation"...

That pretty well settles the matter, I guess!

[HeevenSteven]

Show me the money.

[Goldbrick]

For those of you citing Randi's prize, try reading the fine print. Also, read up on Randi himself and you'll realize he's been spending his life misrepresenting psi and other 'paranormal' activity.

And psi has been demonstrated and established over the past 100 years. Those that think there is nothing to it do not understand scientific paradigms or have a greatly naive view that simply because mainstream science doesn't recognize something that there must be nothing to it.

Dean Radin's name was mentioned and he has a book called Entangled Minds that is a good place to start if you are interested in researching and finding the data regarding psi. He also has a youtube video that is about an hour and a half long detailing some of the evidence and detailing the nature of the taboo of psi phenomena.

There are plenty of great books out there regarding the evidence. Read them. Don't turn your brain off because some ideological magician has a prize out for demonstrations of psi. Read the daily grail's take on that prize and read Michael Prescott's blog for three chapters on it. Or better yet, just read the fine print yourself.

[HeevenSteven]

You believe something that is flat out false and has never been proven so what to do....oh yeah, invoke Kuhn: Well, you skeptics just don't understand the new paradigm...

The new paradigm evidently is that this stuff works, just don't expect it to work when it's being observed..­..negative energy and all that stuff... right...

[tundramonkey]

Like Heisenberg? Schrodinger's Cat? Quantum particles?

Waiting for a brilliant rejoinder from someone who fits the image presented in the original post.....

Not only flat out false but not proven. That's some bitchin' philosophy of science you have going on there, too.

[Lon]

The sentiment here is nice. Most of the claims are wrong.

Einstein opposed the interconnections of quantum mechanics because action at a distance is inconistent with his theory of relativity, for which there is also great support.

The reason that these two inconsistent theories can coexist is because quantum mechanics does not allow for the kind of action at a distance that would allow for the psychic phenomena that Slater is arguing for. It allows for things at a distance to be in sync. And there is no reason to think that it operates at the level of human size objects, so even the most basic of claims of "eerie" connections between people is not supported by quantum mechanics.

Also, as draikow correctly notes, there is a million dollars available to anyone who can establish a psychic phenomenon, no success.

The 1967 Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists ESP as a promising research project and runs trhough the evidence for it. The one from the '80s lists it as a failed research project. The reason is that anytime researches take it seriously, the support for it disappears. Of course when researchers turn to other things, the anecdotal evidence returns since such claims are no longer being tested.

Most scientists are the kinds of science fiction nerds who would love for psychic phenomena to be real. The things that the founders of quantum mechanics were willing to allow for would blow most people's minds. But that stuck because the evidence supported it.

[Grasse7]

You have or have not read Dean Radin's "The Concious Universe"? Just curious.

[Roofer]

Lon accurately recounts the conventional wisdom about action at a distance. But things are not as straightforward as conventional wisdom would have it.

First, it is not clear that action at a distance is inconsistent with the principle of relativity. Numerous physicists have explored the possibilities of tachyons (faster-than-light particles) and superluminal reference frames. These approaches are speculative but not disproven. Also, there are scenarios within general relativity that allow for superluminal effects.

Second, all "no-contro­llable-sig­nalling" proofs in the physics literature depend upon ad hoc assumptions (such as microcausality) that act like security patches written into the formalism precisely in order to block predictions of faster-than-light signalling. No-signalling is not an implication of quantum mechanics, but an ad hoc assumption imposed upon it. There is no general proof that superluminal signalling in quantum mechanics is impossible.

Third, it is mistaken to suggest that there is no good reason to think that quantum phenomena are involved in consciousness. Conventional wisdom says that the brain is too hot to allow for quantum coherence at the level at which neural processing occurs, but it is not proven that this is necessarily so. Very knowledgeable scientists have explored the possibility that quantum mechanics could be involved in the mind, and this is a legitimate field of inquiry.

In modern physics the questions of superluminality and the involvement of quantum mechanics in the mind remain open, whether or not one accepts the reality of alleged psi phenomena.

[fpie]

Jeez, where to start?
Einstein was not afraid of quantum theory. He suggested the first theoretic ideas (the quanta light theory) that led to the development of quantum physics. He felt that the successfulness of quantum theory at predicting obsevable reality was due to an underlying reality that is yet to be observed or theorised. He spent the better part (some say the worst part) of his career trying to formulate a unified field theory that would join the macro (reletivity) and the micro (quantum) aspects of the observed universe.
Yes our classical verssion of reality is a philisophical constuct that limits our view of the world. The alternative is no limits on our view to such an extent that all we would disern would be caos. We must choose what to look at to see anything.
As to paranormal phanominon, draikow has said it. I'm not aware of any research that shows any positive evidence to prove telepathy or any related or similar discovery. If you have the goods on it please deliver because the world needs to know! I need to know! Is it a conspiracy of all the smart guys?

[snakeyjeff]

fpie said,

"I'm not aware of any research that shows any positive evidence to prove telepathy or any related or similar discovery. If you have the goods on it please deliver because the world needs to know! "

I hazard a guess that you ARE aware of studies claiming positive evidence for telepathy but for some reason you deny that it is actually positive evidence. Critics of parapsychology have been pulling this trick for years and years. If you properly read into criticisms of psi research (don't simply go to the pile of horse manure that is Robert T Carroll's 'Skeptics Dictionary') then you will soon realise that most of the arguments against the positive experiments don't stand up to scrutiny.

[slg]

Thank you for some wonderful thinking!

Doors are spontaneously opening on the walls of fear and ignorance we've maintained for thousands of years. For those willing to step through, the Universe awaits with open arms.

[draikow]

Is this a joke?

Paranormal phenomena have NOT been conclusively demonstrated. Ever. I defy you to provide an example. If you're so sure then claim the million dollar paranormal challenge prize (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html).

You imply that because human sensory perception is limited compared to the sensory ranges of other organisms, "psi" is real, or at least possible or likely. The problem with this is that non-auditory sounds, and the like, can be measured and have empiricall­y-supporte­d causal mechanisms. Magic does not. Morevoer, until you can demonstrate something, (anything!), remotely "paranormal", your appeal to quantum mechanics is a non-sequitur.

BTW, was this post a first-draft? Does anyone edit these things? You just ramble.

[JohnMichael]

Professional skeptics would do well to start here:
http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai-presents-dr-harold-hal-puthoff

[tundramonkey]

The definitional issue you fail to account for is your use of the term "paranormal," which is a poopy word to me because once something is empirically verifiable it is no longer paranormal; it is simply normal but rare.