When you are sharing your views with the world, it feels better and is easier if you have something to “back it up”. This is only natural, as verification is generally a good thing.
The problem comes when you start making a stretch to try to verify with something that isn’t really related to begin with. In my review of the Inner Temple, my one problem with the book was that the author fell into the same trap that many are presently: He uses quantum physics as a way to verify some of the ideas.
The issue here is, quite simply, that that’s not what quantum theory is for. In this case, he kind of de-railed the book for me for a couple chapters, as he missed the simple point: If it works, then no other verification is needed.
Granted, from a book-writing perspective, it’s easier to get people to try out new ideas and new techniques if you sound like an authority, and borrowing from cutting-edge physics looks impressive. In the long run, however, it just detracts from the value of the real info.
In theory, but in practice…
Think about it: Do you need to know exactly how a TV works from the circuitry up in order to operate it? No. Do you need to know massive amounts of physiology in order to handle a bruise or a bloody nose? No. We know from experience how to handle them.
A master-of-trade spends lots of time working and practicing. They know lots of theory, but they also have a wealth of experience and each one can tell you of at least a few cases of “in theory, this is the case but in practice that is the case”.
What I recommend is that each one of us becomes a “master-of-trade” in our own lives. That each one of us consciously becomes an expert in living. Just as in the professional world each project, site, machine, or client is unique with their own little quirks, our lives are unique. We each have our little quirks, and what works for one may not work for another. That doesn’t decrease the overall validity of a technique. That just means that it doesn’t necessarily work here.
Pseudoscience isn’t a dirty word.
Much of what I write about is considered “pseudoscience”. Let’s stop for a moment, and take a look at that word: “Pseudo” and “Science”. Pseudo classically means “false”, but not necessarily the way you’d imagine. When you look at an amoeba, it will form pseudopods to move or to grab something to eat, pseudopod meaning false leg or foot. Each of them can serve as a leg or foot, but they don’t fit the definition, so they’re “false”.
“If you believe, no proof is necessary; if you doubt, no proof is sufficient.” – Kenneth Woodward
So, let’s get back to pseudoscience for a moment. The main reason that it doesn’t fit the criteria of traditional science is because it lacks objectivity. In theory, each person should get exactly the same result no matter what because the result is an absolute. If not, then it’s not considered proper science. The problem with this view, is that it excludes a broad range of experience and knowledge. If you are willing to accept your own data and realize that your data may not be valid for others and vice-versa, you can proceed and, with scientific manor, test for yourself what does and doesn’t work for you.
What do you have to prove?
When it comes to what works for us in our lives, we tend to follow the herd mentality. We believe that just because something does work for others that it will work for us, or that it won’t work for us if it doesn’t work for them. If you are collecting your own data and coming up with your own results, then you don’t need to worry as much about what the herd is doing, because you are getting real results.
You don’t have to prove it to others in order for it to work, so let go of the herd instinct, listen to yourself, and use what works. Use what improves your life or makes you feel better, and let the rest go.
If you liked this post, then check out the RSS feed.
(Thanks to buzzybee for the image.)
