Julie Beischel writes in “Beyond Reasonable: Scientific Evidence for Survival,” her prize-winning essay in the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies competition:
Science is considered the most valid and reliable method for acquiring knowledge. It combines the methods of inference and of experience to collect verifiable evidence for natural phenomena. Our Western society and culture require the objective, agreed-upon standards of science to determine what is real. Because people have already made such scientific discoveries as the laws of thermodynamics, the layout of the solar system, and the relationships of chemicals as clarified on the periodic table of elements, we currently use science to know facts like which pharmaceuticals are relatively efficacious and safe and which weather patterns are on their way to our location.
I have long supported the position that science should not have limitations. At the Windbridge Research Center, where I serve as Director of Research, we understand science as simply a set of tools for answering questions. We have found that those tools can be applied to nearly any topic, even a controversial one like life after death. Competent scientists follow the data wherever they lead and do not make unfounded assumptions about what is possible or about how the world works. Assuming that we fully understand every phenomenon in the universe is illogical. True science leaves room for discoveries. Scientists, ideally, just follow the data, draw conclusions, and develop theories. Through science, knowledge is ever evolving.
Viewing science as a widely applicable equal opportunist is not standard. Currently, phenomena considered metaphysical, like mind or spirit, are usually specifically called out as beyond the bounds of science. Some academic sources list metaphysical knowledge gained through various world traditions as important but clarify that “material explanations for observable phenomena are always sufficient and metaphysical explanations are never needed”.
Some sources go even further. One research methods textbook I came across had this to say about the topic of this essay:
Science always investigates empirically solvable problems—questions that are potentially answerable by means of currently available research techniques. If a theory cannot be tested using empirical techniques, then scientists are not interested in it. For example, the question “Is there life after death?” is not an empirical question and thus cannot be tested scientifically.
I beg to differ. No, that’s incorrect. More accurately: I forcefully disagree, with vehemence. Again, science can be used to learn about nearly anything. Also: “cannot be tested scientifically”? Challenge accepted.
As I have previously noted elsewhere, in the Western world, phenomena not easily explained by the traditional, established sciences are usually dismissed as impossible. As a result, people who believe in phenomena like mediumship are labeled ignorant, gullible, or delusional, and the unfortunate individuals who experience mediumistic communication are called frauds, con artists, schizophrenics, evil, or worse. Now, what if we calmed down, put aside our assumptions about how the world works, and actually applied the scientific method to the phenomenon of mediumship? Well, I did just that.
In an effort to evoke your knowing by authority, I will provide my credentials for studying mediums here. After receiving my PhD in 2003, I served as the William James Post- doctoral Fellow in Mediumship and Survival Research in the Department of Psychology at the University of Arizona. I went on, with my husband and research partner, Mark Boccuzzi, to co-found the Windbridge Institute, LLC, in 2008, and then the Windbridge Research Center non- profit in 2017, in order to continue addressing the survival of consciousness hypothesis. I have received multiple mediumship research grants from international funding foundations, have shared my findings at various conferences through juried and invited presentations, and published my work performing controlled laboratory research with mediums in several peer-reviewed journals.
Dr. Julie Beischel is the Director of Research at the Windbridge Research Center. She received her PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a minor in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona and uses her interdisciplinary training to apply the scientific method to controversial topics. For over 15 years, Dr. Beischel has worked full-time studying mediums: individuals who report experiencing communication with the deceased and who regularly, reliably, and on-demand report the specific resulting messages to the living. References cited in her paper are deleted from these excerpts but a full paper with references is available at the Bigelow website (https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php).
No comments:
Post a Comment