The Law of Attraction is a Pseudoscience…Just Like Everything Else

speed of light  I hear the following statement thrown about sometimes:  “The Law of Attraction is a pseudoscience”.

And I agree 100%.  It completely is.

What is the definition of a pseudoscience?  A pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

A pseudoscience cannot be proven.  Does the Law of Attraction fit into that category?  How can I say “No”?

But, Greg, How Can You Actively Promote a Pseudoscience?

Yes, there is a plethora of evidence which suggests the Law of Attraction is very real.  I write about that evidence (most of it has come into our awareness because of quantum physics).  The involved observer, the observer problem, the contextual co-creative role we play in the appearance of material reality, the inherent and pure potential of sub-atomic energy, the way sub-atomic energy doesn’t “become” something unless it is observed, the role and effect that the observer’s expectations play on the collapse of quantum energy, the insubstantial nature of matter, etc.  These are all very strong clues that we are contextual architects of our material reality.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, in fact, says that our consciousness is the prime mover which allows/commands energy to collapse and matter to form.

But these things are not definitive proof.  There is no “smoking gun” we can point to and say, “There it is; irrefutable proof that our consciousness is the primary agent in contextually creating our material reality –  that we manifest our life experiences in our own, unique, individual universe as the Law of Attraction tells us.”  We learn about, accept, and use the Law of Attraction, however, because of assumptions we make based on these strong clues and pieces of evidence.

Well, My Friend, I Promote a Lot of Pseudoscience.  And So Does Everyone Else.

Yet, allow me to ask you the following questions:

  • We know that the laws of the natural world are uniform throughout the universe.  The speed of light, for example, is the same anywhere in the universe.  Yet can anyone prove that?
  • As a matter of fact, we also know that the laws of the natural world have been constant since the big bang.  And can anyone prove that?
  • We know that our brains are capable of understanding what reality is.  Yet can you prove that?
  • We know that the scientific method is valid and reliable because reality is rational and knowable.  But can someone prove that?
  • We know that language is capable of capturing and conveying the meaning of things.  Can you prove that, though?
  • We know that our portion of the universe is a small “neighborhood” connected to the larger universe as a whole.  Yet can anyone prove that?
  • We know that the majority of the  universe is filled with dark matter and dark energy.  And can I prove that?
  • We know that numbers exist.  But can you prove it?

I could go on.  All science, on some level, rests upon assumptions.  Assumptions of uniformity.  Of rationality.  Of continuity.  It must rest upon these assumptions because the answer to each question in the list above is a big, resounding, loud “NO!”

The Acceptance of New Things We “Know” Has Always Happened Via Two Things: What New Thing Humans Decide We Will “Know” and the Death of the Critics of the New “Thing” We’re Deciding to “Know”

In fact, in that previous list, it would be accurate to use parenthesis each time I wrote the word “know”.  Because we don’t really know, we assume.

We learn about, accept, know, and use these scientific “facts” because of assumptions we make based on strong clues and pieces of evidence.   Sound familiar?

None of those things can be proven.  Yet we all “know” them to be true.

Someone might say, “That’s ridiculous, Greg.  You can’t compare those things’ unprovability with the Law of Attraction’s unprovability.  Those things are legitimate scientific facts which everyone knows; the Law of Attraction is new age hoo-ha.”

And I’ll answer, “Really?”  We accept the assumptions which allow us to “know” all those previous scientific “facts” simply because they’ve been anointed by the great minds and paradigms of our time.  They are ingrained in the modern world by communal beliefs and common agreement.  They are most definitely accepted as “true” – but that still does not change the fact that they cannot be proven.

Information From Science Isn’t Automatically True, Just As Much as Information from Religion Isn’t

Here is why we say that nothing can be proven.  You may call it semantics, but the explanation is very important.

Science studies things that can be observed and measured.  Scientists record those measurements.  Then we see if those measurements prove to be useful and valuable.  It they are useful and valuable, we say that what has been recorded is true or proven.

Engineers, for example, use scientific measurements to construct a rocket.  They were able to build, using those measurements, a rocket that carried men to the moon.  Thus, those measurements were proven useful and valuable.

But here is the important point: when information is proven true, what has really been proven is that the information is useful and valuable.  That is how science works.

Don’t Be a Hater

So if you accept something just because you like the source, and not because what the source is saying, you are misunderstanding how things are proven true or not.  Likewise, if you dismiss something simply because you don’t like the source of the information, you are also misunderstanding how things are proven true or not.

Case in point, if you don’t like the law of attraction so you call it phony, just because of your bias, you are misunderstanding why (or why not) the law of attraction would be true.  Or if you have a bias against organized religion, so you call it baloney just because of your prejudice against it, you are misunderstanding why (or why not) religious teachings would be true.

It is the usefulness and value of the information which makes it true (or not).  Not the source of the information.

Of Course We Will Continue to Say that Things Have Been Proven, Even Though They Haven’t (Literally)

I have no problem accepting those previous scientific facts I listed earlier, by the way.  They are not pseudoscience.  I’m sure you accept them too and I’d encourage you to do so with all my heart.  After all, there is a a ton of evidence which suggests or implies they are true.

Yet if someone calls the Law of Attraction a pseudoscience, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask her to call a lot of other things a pseudoscience too.

I encourage you to utilize the real way things are determined to be proven or not and, thus, become a more discerning consumer of ideas.  Don’t fall into the trap so many do, becoming cynics just because they don’t like the source of the information.

In the meantime, stay tuned to this website for more tips and techniques to use new paradigms from quantum physics to align your life with your desires…

 

Posted in Importance of Science, Interest in Using Quantum Physics, Paradigms and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , .

2 Comments

  1. I used to think that science was about an unbiased discovery of reality. But now I believe science’s function is more akin to that of a gatekeeper – only allowing-in that which can be mapped via “logic.”

    If something occurs beyond the borders of what logical reason currently understands, it is simply dismissed with implausible explanations, ridiculed, or ignored altogether. That is, until a logical web-work can be extended to include the phenomena.

    Much of what we attribute as true, today, was once considered supernatural hocus-pocus.

    The best evidence for a consciousness basis to reality, I believe, has been in front of science’s eyes all along – but they’ve preferred to put the cart before the horse:

    Properties of ALL physical phenomena are expressions of the mental concepts they represent, else their expression would be impossible.

    …just a thought.

    • “Just a thought”, Dennis? Just a fantastic thought.

      Thank you for sharing that.

      I grew up in a family with two medical doctors who will tell you exactly the same thing about medicine. Medicine, like science, often has no framework for results outside the existing logic. The mavericks in the profession who do explore, or even tout, new explanations are often criticized or marginalized.

      It takes a very brave doctor, for example, to focus on the mind-body connection. Why? Among other reasons, the mind-body connection simply can’t be studied (currently) in the same manner as traditional action/response methodology. When results cannot be neatly quantified, our current framework in science and medicine labels them as non-reproducible (via traditional stimulus/response) and as exceptions to the rule.

      Except that, often unbeknownst to most, there are volumes of “non-reproducible exceptions to the rule” out there. And more being added every day.

      Einstein maintained that great minds always encounter violent opposition. Of course, just because someone is encountering violent opposition, doesn’t mean she has a great mind (or great idea). 😉 But history is replete with examples of new ideas, trashed and vilified upon introduction, which eventually win out.

      This is why we say that new ideas don’t triumph because the critics are won over. New ideas triumph because the critics eventually die.

      Just for today, I refuse to become a curmudgeon. I am a healthy skeptic, to be sure, but I refuse to trash ideas simply because I have issues with their source.

Let's Discuss This