By Brian Schill

Why, from the outset, do I claim that the ideas presented here are such a radical departure from traditional scientific thinking? Because, as simple as the ideas put forth here are, they go against many of today’s traditionally unquestioned scientific tenants of reductionism, that is, the breaking down of a system into smaller and smaller parts until the most fundamental building blocks of that system are discovered. The theoretical expressions presented here can not be understood in terms of other scientific paradigms because it's not derived from them.

            The basic idea of the fundamental components of a system do not equal the whole will be presented in the next few paragraphs. These ideas are designed to aid the reader in understanding why it is of the utmost importance to take the whole of an object and study it rather than just the individual parts of the whole, specifically in this case, parapsychology. Although dissecting and researching each of the functioning parts of a system are important in understanding how the system interacts and functions with other systems, the understanding of a singular component will not explain the whole of the subject, only that specific part. In order to understand the scientific ideas within parapsychology we must not look at the subject from the “inside” – the ideas and theories that are already well trodden by other scientists – rather, we must look at them from the outside, therefore viewing the whole of the subject, rather than just a few specific parts.

Can Quantum Physics Predict Paranormal Activity?

            It is true that quantum physics can explain portions of paranormal phenomenon, but not the whole. In recent years many parapsychologists have purported to make various links to quantum physics and paranormal phenomenon, which works in certain areas, but not for the overall subject. Why is this?  Although paranormal phenomenon and quantum physics share the common attributes of non-locality and atemporality quantum physics can not predict most paranormal events, and, in addition, it can not predict any psi events at all. The reason for this inability to predict these events is that it's an error on the part of the theorist to attempt to extrapolate quantum theory beyond its logical and empirical limits. Quantum theory applies only to extremely simple systems of particulate matter and a greatly limited number of processes within the states of these fundamental particles. This means that quantum physics can not predict the behaviors and properties of systems that are larger and more complex than atoms.

            Knowing that paranormal phenomenon is, for the most part, caused by the reintroduction of free roaming bioelectric fields into a local environment we understand that electrons can and do interact with physical objects. However, traditional philosophy states that the abstract concept of the mind can not interact with physically manifested objects such as the body. The latter philosophical argument is exactly why most psi abilities, as legitimate as they may be, are ignored by most of the scientific community. This “virtual manifestation” of the abstract concept of the mind is manifested in the “ego” – the knowledge and understanding of our existence as a being, also known as our sense of self-awareness - is acknowledged by the scientific community. It is here that traditional philosophical argument creates a paradox within itself in the fact that it accepts one form of “virtual manifestation” in the form of the “ego” that can affect the body, but not in the form of psi abilities that can affect the physically manifested world.

            The latter argument could be used to promote the disbelief in electricity. If these scientists who deny psi abilities wish to prove the their idea of non-existence without tangible manifestation they may be interested to find out what kind of detrimental effects an energized electrical line would have on them if they hold the exposed electrical conductors and then ground themselves to complete the circuit. I seriously doubt that their disbelief in its tangible existence would protect them from being shocked or killed. If this argument sounds a bit absurd, you are more right than you know. These concepts are the very same rationale that many scientists use to deny the existence of paranormal phenomenon.

Reductionism, Paranormal Phenomenon and …Pigs?  

            Para psychological phenomenon, such as a ghost that is at the root of a haunting, can be viewed as a living, cognizant system of pure energy and could therefore be subjected to reductionist theory. Since traditional science has subjected paranormal phenomenon to reductionist theory and found that it does not work, we are now constrained to find out why reductionism fails to explain paranormal phenomenon.

            According to traditional science and the theory of reductionism it is believed that we will eventually understand a living system if we continually divide it into increasingly simpler parts: organs, cells, molecules, all the way down to the fundamental particles. This characterization of reductionism, though valid in a certain context, is not a practical guide for scientific logic in parapsychology. This is true for two reasons: (1) it does not specify the difference between the whole and the sum of its parts and (2) it capitulates a cycle of reductionism by focusing on systemic parts rather than the whole. Because of this, scientific research that studies living systems is compelled to rely on “reintegration” to bind the parts together so that the whole of the system may be reconstructed. Without a conceptual model however, this reintegration constructs not systems but a potpourri of reintegrated parts that are stitched together with a faulty theoretical process.

            Reductionism in the scientific world is commonly accepted because it is assumed that it is reversible. Reductionism does not work in living systems and in order to understand the fallacy of “reversible reductionism” we must consider an example of a living system, such as a pig. In applying reductionism to an animal such as a pig, which is in itself a living system, we know that dividing a pig into parts such as organs, bone, etc. do not make a whole pig, only a pile of parts of what used to be a pig. Thusly reductionism in this case can not be reversed and has a detrimental impact on the overall study. Why? Taking a living system apart goes against the natural law of systemic organization, and thusly life. When a system is taken apart, is traumatically damaged or irreparably breaks down it dies, which is the natural and expected effect of the systemic damage or division.

            Reductionism is also detrimental in the aspect that when we divide the pig into parts it irreversibly annihilates the qualities of the whole. The qualities that are lost when the pig is killed and divided are: the function and organization of the system as a whole, the integrity and layout of the internal systems and, obviously, the life of the pig. In other words, the ostensible study of the whole no longer exists either in reality (the living system of the pig) or in concept (the layout of the internal anatomical map). This is why we can say that a pack of pork chops and other parts do not make a pig – it does not entail the whole, only a cornucopia of various parts.

            This chimerical operation is the way that traditional science expects parapsychologists to make their findings; anything else, in their narrow view, is pseudoscience. Surely, there will be critics of this line of thinking, as is to be expected. What most critics don’t realize is that they must also understand that parapsychology is a human endeavor – it is a science that is operated by humans, within the capacity of human limitations and operates within human scientific institutions. Even though this is an obvious analysis of how all things work, it is here that we encounter a serious problem with traditional science – the fact that the human aspect is not addressed or acknowledged. If we don't address the humanness of science, we can't recognize the psychological and cognitive processes that resist scientific revolutions, nor can we appreciate how our motives, impeded by our limitations, foster our clinging to misleading traditional scientific mythologies.

            So, how do these concepts apply to parapsychology? From the above thoughts we see that we must study the overall science of parapsychology in both its depth and width before a solid foundation of knowledge is formed. If we research only certain parts of the subject the integrity of the whole is lost and thusly only a half-knowledge, at best, is achieved.