The Abuses of Scientific Theory
By Mark Stewart
The abuses of scientific theory arise when the nature of scientific theory, which concerned me in the
previous articles, is either ignored or forgotten. It is generally true that abuse of anything arises when the
nature of that thing is forgotten or ignored. We can therefore look at the various abuses that parallel the
several statements made in my previous articles about the nature of scientific theory.
The first arises when theory is confused to, or equate with, fact – when the theory, which is the interpretation of
facts, is confused with the facts of observation themselves. I have already labored the point that this is what
very commonly happens in the popularization of science. When you are attempting to present something very
simply, you can easily present the theory as something equal to the facts. This error arises because, in
presenting a popular or simplified picture it is easy to present the concept or the theory and leave it at that.
You may never get around to presenting the facts upon which that concept is based, and from which that
concept has been derived.
By calling for the original facts, we can get underneath the theory that has been proposed and can
question the theory. When ideas are presented to me and it is indicated that the ideas or theory explains it all
in a certain manner, I am usually rather suspicious and therefore ask to look at the original data. Quite often I
find that the data fail to support the theory. I may indicate for example that there may be a linear relationship
between X and Y, but when I look at the points on the graph I don’t see a linear relationship; I see a general
scatter of data. By calling for the original facts, I have attempted to get underneath the theory that has been
proposed and I may have questioned that theory. But if the theory is presented to you as popular science, then
the facts are not usually presented to you at all. I may indicate that this is the case; there is a linear
relationship, meaning only that I have interpreted the data in that particular way. The layman, being denied
access to the underlying facts, usually has no alternative but to accept the statement at its face value. Thus
confusion easily arises between the facts and the theory. One man’s highly publicized interpretation may
become equated with reality in people’s minds. I call this type of abuse dogmatism. Dogmatism is when a theory
is presented as reality, as fact, instead of as an interpretation of facts.
The second abuse is that of extrapolation. That is when a theory, which may be perfectly good in one
realm, is extended, without justification, into realms where it is not known to apply. There is this danger,
therefore, of taking a valid, established theory that applies to a narrow realm of nature and extending it into
regions where its behavior and its validity have not been well established and visa versa. This is a very real
and serious problem that is frequently encountered in research work. Often these matters can only be resolved
by making further measurements.
The third manner in which theory can be abused is by exaggeration. That is when the theory is accorded a
status that is inappropriate to its degree of validation. I previously indicated theories could exist on all levels of
validity, from the hypothesis right through to the law of nature. If you take a hypothesis and endue it with the
standing of a law of nature, you are abusing scientific theory. It is always important to give a theory the status,
to attribute to it the validity that is appropriate to its level of development.
Then fourthly, and perhaps this is the worst abuse of all there is subjectivism. This arises when a theory is
defended against the facts of observation, i.e. when a theory is maintained in spite of new facts that emerge to
indicate that the theory is inadequate or false. Unfortunately, this happens all the time because scientists, or in
our case, paranormal investigators or researchers are human beings and they have emotions like other human
beings. There is a degree, sometimes a strong degree, of emotional involvement of a paranormal investigator
or research or a scientist for that matter in their work. If a woman or man has spent his whole life developing
and building up a certain theory, he or she is not going to take kindly to new evidence that destroys that theory.
There is a common joke among scientists, that if you have two or three results that appear to prove the thing
you want to prove, you should refrain from carrying out more experiments, in case the next result does not
agree! The temptation is to stop one’s thinking at the point where it works and to dismiss or ignore the
unpleasant facts that come along, sometimes later, to show that the theory is not as good as was thought in the
first place. There is this conservatism, this subjectivism that makes us all want to defend our theoretical
understanding of nature or the supernatural against new facts that arise.
This is not the popular concept of science of course. Science is so objective in the popular view that every
piece of evidence is taken purely on its merits, but in reality this is not so. Scientists, researchers, and yes even
paranormal investigators tend to select the evidence that supports their preconceived ideas. In this respect
they behave like the normal human beings they really are! If you are aware of your preconceived notions, while
investigating or doing paranormal research, you are one step ahead of the many who are not.
There is a fifth abuse I will mention just briefly. This occurs when scientific theory is used to justify activities in
the non-scientific realm; to justify political, social, racial, or even tendentious educational developments. This I
would call the abuse of exploitation.
In my next article I hope to lay down my presuppositions and my foundational thoughts regarding ghost
theory and how we may be able to employ the scientific method in investigating the paranormal.