Blissful Brain

The Blissful Brain is published by Gaia Thinking. For more information on how to order your copy, please click here.

Guardian G2: Mind over matter by Andy Darling

"Neuroscientist Shanida Nataraja has proven meditation does more than clear your head, it can put both halves of your brain to work, improving your concentration, memory, and decision-making...". To read more, please click here.

Upcoming talk: Yoga Ananda, Reigate, Surrey on Friday the 4th of June

Shanida Nataraja will be speaking at a seminar on The Blissful Brain on Friday, 04th June 2010 at 19:30 at Yoga Ananda Ltd. 46 Albert Road North, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 9EL. For more information, please click here.

Loss of Objectivity

The findings of quantum theory have also undermined the presumed objectivity of science. In classical physics, it was assumed that it was possible, at least in part, to describe our physical reality without any reference to ourselves. Newton’s concepts of absolute space and absolute time epitomise this assumption. Accordingly, scientists believed that they were capable of obtaining an objective description of the world, and that scientific discovery would yield a collection of absolute Truths that would completely explain our physical reality. In the new physics, however, not only did Einstein show that the concepts of space and time could only be considered in terms relative the observer, but at a quantum level, we see that the observer and the observed cannot be viewed as separate entities. The act of measurement is seen to collapse probability into actuality, and the precise properties exhibited by matter are seen to be dependent on the nature of the experimental probing.

The interaction between an object and an observing system, at a quantum level, infers that the objectivity of the scientific method, at this level, is lost. The quantum reality is contextual; descriptions of the behaviour of quantum particles cannot be presented independently of the practical context in which they were obtained. The applicability of this object–observer interaction to macro-systems is, however, questionable. However, some researchers maintain that the interaction between object and observer can been seen on a larger scale in a phenomenon known as the “experimenter effect”. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that the expectations, behaviour, and biases of an experimenter can influence the outcome of an experiment or the response of an experimental subject. The experimenter effect is best illustrated by the research of Marilyn Schlitz, the director of research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Schlitz designed a rigorous randomised trial that evaluated whether blindfolded subjects could detect another person staring at them from a distance. The study yielded statistically significant positive results. The British psychologist Richard Wiseman, sceptical of Schlitz’s results after failing to replicate them, invited her to repeat the experiment in England. Two parallel trials were designed, using the same subjects and equipment, one run by Schlitz and the other by Wiseman. Once again, Schlitz obtained statistically significant positive results, whereas Wiseman failed to do so.

It seems plausible that the expectations of an experimenter can, either consciously or unconsciously, bias the results of an experiment. The choice of experimental apparatus used, the conditions under which the experiment is performed, the precise time at which observations are made, and the way in which the results are analysed and presented can all influence the outcome and interpretation of an experiment. Anyone who has spent any time in academic research will tell you that there is fierce competition to produce results, to get your research published, and to receive financial aid for future research. No scientist, no matter how they may strive consciously for scientific integrity, can avoid the fact that they are working within a framework of existing scientific theory and convention. Every experiment is normally based on a defined experimental hypothesis. Although both the proving and disproving of this hypothesis are in theory viewed as equally reportable findings, the case in practice is often very different.

Consider the following example. A scientific researcher has found a protein, protein x, in the brain that appears to regulate the brain’s ability to recover from a stroke. The primary theory is therefore that protein x is important in the processes that speed recovery after a stroke. This theory has already been supported by a series of experiments in which patients with more protein x were found to recover more quickly after a stroke than those with less protein x. The next planned experiment involves the administration of a drug that increases the production of protein x, immediately after the stroke. On the basis of the preceding experimental results, it would appear to be likely that such a strategy will quicken the patient’s recovery, and therefore this is the experimental hypothesis. An outcome that agrees with this hypothesis will lend added credibility to the primary theory, whereas one that disagrees with this hypothesis will discredit the primary theory. Clearly one outcome is more appealing than the other, especially since the credibility of a theory, and the degree to which it is accepted by the scientific community, is a strong determinant of professional prestige, power, and, most importantly, funding. The end result is that the researcher enters into the experiment with expectations, and these determine the conditions under which the experiments are performed and interpreted, and thus potential could determine the outcome of this focused scrutiny.

Continued.......

Back to index