Life philosophy

Science often refers to the need for truth, evidence and facts in order to verify something. By what exactly are facts, can we provide proof that a claim can be established beyond a reasonable doubt? Read about the swamps of philosophy and the salvation of intuition!


The scientific paradigm

In our Western society, science has more or less hijacked the norm-forming criterion for what can be considered true, right and reliable. So-called "verifiable facts" must be the basis of various decisions, concepts and constructions. Facts must be measurable in repeatable experiments that produce the same results. But the matter is more complicated than that because there are in fact no objective (independent) experiments. Whoever creates the experiment makes a personal selection of what is to be investigated and how the experiment is to be carried out. The scientific falls at the same moment that the question is asked, because then it is no longer objective but to the highest degree subjective. In addition, the outcome needs to be interpreted, whereby someone has to make a personal assessment at the most.

Anna Victoria Hallberg, Ph.D in literary studies and researcher at Södertörn University, says: "Research is done for truth - but science is not facts... and anyone who thinks that researchers are impartial experts who deal with facts has misunderstood the basis of science".

Dr. Sanna Ehdin, Ph.D in immune technology from Lund University adds: "I, who have 12 years of research behind me, know that there are (at least) three major weaknesses in research:

1. The same person who sets up the experiment interprets and selects results and draws conclusions. The set-up of the experiment is based on a hypothesis, so biased already there.

2. You have to produce publishable results, otherwise no grants or work... Unless you have a fixed salary from companies like the pharmaceutical industry, and how objective are those results? Not especially - since Nature's editor-in-chief estimates that half of everything published in peer-reviewed research journals are falsifications. Some are ghost-writers who lend their name or title to dubious articles for payment...

3. It has been scientifically proven that the person who observes something can influence the outcome of the result with the help of thought. So human consciousness is a very powerful and often overlooked force"
 

The thicket of philosophy

There is a diversity of theories and postulates within philosophy, several of them totally contradictory. Elementary logic suggests that most of them must be wrong. The universe can be compared to a building. If the constructor had not had very clear measurements and models to start from, the building would never have been built. But the building is there, we have it all around us. Does the understanding of the Universe then lie beyond what is conceivable for humans? Of course not, it's just that the understanding of existence is beyond science! Today's science uses too narrow concepts, too blunt tools. Science can only show half the reality, if even that.

Science requires citations if you want to claim something. In other words, you must refer to an existing and accepted book or journal. It does not work to refer to something that one's wise uncle Oscar said on his deathbed, even if it was never so deep and articulate. However, if the same uncle Oscar had written down his musings and published a book, then the credibility would immediately increase by several hundred percent, even if it was the same material. Dead people have an incredibly greater impact than the living, perhaps because there rests a much greater authority over the dead. They are no longer there, but the books are there, and the truth is there...
 

Evidence-based knowledge

All political or social efforts today, it can be medical measures, knowledge-building pedagogy or some other form of action program; all must be based on so-called "evidence-based knowledge". So what is this? Simply put, you can say that you only carry out measures that can be proven to be effective, which are based on demonstrable and measurable facts. The word evidence comes from the Latin "evidentia", which is said to mean clarity, but which in a transferred sense stands for "evidence of" or "scientific support for". However, if you look up the word more carefully, you get the meaning "obvious". In that case, evidence-based knowledge would be based on what is obvious, on what can be inferred with a bit of common sense.

However, municipal and state bodies dislike something as "peasant" as common sense, they want hard and unequivocal facts to base their scientific standards on. The word "evidence" is thus chosen to GIVE A FEELING OF unambiguity, fact and continuity. But already in the definition of what evidence-based means, the contours begin to blur with unpleasant speed. The evidence-based model must therefore be based on the following three factors:


- The best available knowledge

- The professional's expertise

- The situation, experience and wishes of the person concerned


When you choose the term "best available knowledge", you have already admitted that there is no absolute knowledge, only prevailing theories. It is also acknowledged that there are not scientific studies on all the efforts that are made, some knowledge comes from "other sources". The only requirement is really that the sources of the information are openly reported.

Invoking "the expertise of the professional" sounds undeniably good, but there are experts in ALL areas and specializations. If there are two different schools of what is considered the right method, there is also an expert for each school. Which expert should you choose? Is there a third expert who, through evidence-based science, can distinguish which expert is preferable in the field in question?

What does "the situation, experience and wishes of the person concerned" have to do with the evidence-based approach? Aren't the individual's experiences an extremely subjective point of view that stands in direct contrast to scientific facts? Does the individual always know what is best in his particular case, this is of course not always the case.

The evidence-based research already in the description of its own methodology comes to the conclusion that it is difficult to demonstrate different connections through research. The results are not strong enough or are affected depending on who measures, how and what is measured. A surprisingly indulgent conclusion is that one wants to make sure that the efforts are "at least not harmful"! You cannot therefore guarantee that an intervention will mean an improvement for the individual, but you HOPE that the intervention will not make things worse than they already are. What is all the talk about evidence-based methodology other than a modern version of the "Emperor's New Clothes".

In other words, evidence-based knowledge is only a term, signifying; ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Mature and well-informed decisions must draw on people's full range of knowledge; on intuition as well as on science. However, intuition needs to be verified just as science needs to be questioned. Science sets up experiments and gets certain results, but these results need to be INTERPRETED. No one must imagine that science would be an ounce less fuzzy than intuition. All theoretical models require a large portion of humility, but we do not see a glimpse of such in today's society.

The evaluation is said to be an important part of the evidence-based methodology. However, the reality is that an evaluation rarely or never takes place. The substantial difficulties with the basic investigation are so massive and have to be revised so many times that the investigation gets totally stuck in the "fact swamp". The evaluation, which is itself an investigation, will rest on analyzes that have never been fully implemented, or that have changed during the process. Why would this endless dribbling with facts, terms, hypotheses and slush lead to any other result than; "the operation was successful, the patient died".
 

Intuition and the concept of plausibility analysis

The intuitive energy is something fundamentally different from science. Through intuition, questions are asked to the conscious Universe. The answers that come can be correct or incorrect, in fact almost half of the answers are incorrect. But the answers are unique in that they reveal possibilities that previously did not exist, it is new knowledge, for better or for worse. The thinking logical self is then tasked with finding out; is the given answer reasonable? Namely, intuition builds an image, a structure with collected information. The logic needs to determine if new information fits into the picture, or if the information can be considered false. In this way, a worldview is built up, seemingly out of nothing.

Through intuition and plausibility analysis, we can finally provide answers to all the riddles that have eluded philosophers throughout the centuries. Questions like: What is the meaning of life, are we born again, does God exist, what is God, does the Universe have an end, is there a smallest particle, and so on. Science cannot answer these questions, but intuition can. It has done so in all ages, coming as "Gnosis" to men and women who realized that everything is a whole and that wisdom already exists. No one really needs to reinvent the wheel, it's just a matter of tuning in, establishing the right frequency for the Universe's knowledge bank. Once the question is formulated, the answer is already given.
 

Intuitive questions and answers through plausibility analysis
 

◄ Go back