Scientific Proof and Pink Unicorns


Continuing on the thought of scientific “proof” and the “psychic” world….

Part of any academic thesis is defining terms: Let’s start there.

What is “Science”? Test tubes? Electronic readouts? Statistics?

Science isn’t tools and data. Science is what we DO with tools and data. Science is a way of learning about life, the universe and everything…and it WORKS, always. Just because you can’t stick a probe in it doesn’t mean it can’t be studied scientifically – and that goes for “psychic ability” too. Some say that psychic ability is untrue because it can’t predict the future. True, it can’t. That is easily proven. Predicting the future is bogus and impossible.

So what is “psychic ability” if it isn’t predicting the future? Like science. psychic work isn’t the tools and data, it is what we do with it. Intuition is a way of interacting with our individual life experiences, it is a method of making decisions, it is a method of coping with emotions.

Of course psychics can’t make predictions. But that is like testing your backyard for pink unicorns. It’s easy to prove they just are not there – just look. But at the same time, scientifically proving there are no pink unicorns in the yard says nothing about the sunshine, grass, hummingbirds and butterflies. Just because there are no pink unicorns in your back yard doesn’t mean it isn’t a pretty nice place. You don’t scoff at, deride and discount your entire lovely yard just because one thing is proven absent. But that is exactly what some would do – they don’t believe the yard is there because someone PROVED there are no unicorns in it. They make fun of people who like back yards because of the yard’s lack of non-existant mythical creatures. See how that works?

freeriver

Some say intuition is invalid because it can’t be “proven”. Some say science is “limited” because it can’t prove psychic ability on way or the other.

Venn

I say science works just fine. I say psychic ability exists just fine. They are both ways of understanding and interacting with life and the world we live in. They overlap in some places but not in others, like a Venn diagram. If you objectively test predictions, of course science and psychics don’t match up because predictions are not part of psychic or intuitive function. There are no pink unicorns in the yard, so of course, the scientific method of observation and testing will show there are no pink unicorns in the yard. Science is a better tool for some problems, intuition is better for others, but sometimes they do overlap.

butterfly

In social science there is a subjective measurement called the “Likert Scale”…it’s basically the 1 to 10 rating scale that is familiar to most people. It is used in scientific, modern health care all the time to manage pain medications. Apply that to “psychics”. I’ve done this informally with some of my clients. I’ll ask them to assign a number from 1 to 10 to reflect how upset they feel before and after a reading. If 1 is no stress, and 10 is maximum stress, and the rating decreases (so far they always have) then you have scientific proof that psychic interactions are effective at dealing with difficult emotions, at least in the short term. There are butterflies in the back yard. If you wanted to get REALLY scientific about it, you could control the study by comparing the before and after ratings for a group of people who don’t get a reading, a group using some other coping skill, and a group getting readings. Then there REALLY would be butterflies in the back yard. Thresholds of proof are for another day.

3daniyinyang

There is another scientific term that applies here: symbiosis.

Science and intuition are symbiotic. The two together are greater than sum of the parts. Intuition inspires science. Science keeps intuition grounded and useful. Yin and yang, internal and external, subjective and objective, scientific and psychic…they are intertwined, different, sometimes overlapping, sometimes separate parts within the greater whole of the multiverse, of the all-that-is. Psychics aren’t the predictions, and science isn’t the data…both are ways of learning and understanding, proving and disproving. Both are adventures, both make our lives richer in the end.