Some weird things plus Shermer

Ask... William LendrumYou asked paranormal investigator and exorcist Rev William Lendrum all about poletergeist activity, hauntings and the occult on Hallowen night. Emma asks: Do ghosts really exist and have you ever got rid of one?

Rev William Lendrum: The simple answer to that question is in my experience, yes, of course it all depends on what you mean by ghosts, it doesn't necessarily involve apparition or seeing something, a ghost can manifest itself in different ways.

On numerous occasions over the past 30 years, I have been asked to go and investigate houses where there has been disturbance, I could give many examples of that, but most of the examples are in the book that I published a few months ago, perhaps I could give one or two examples now.

I was asked to go a home on the Cliftonville Road, where an elderly lady had been seen on several occasions in a room in the home. Had been seen by many members of the family and of course they were very disturbed.

The lady of the home was so disturbed that she was actually in the act of selling the house, so I went there with a small team and we heard the story and I did what I normally did on occasions like this, convinced there was something strange going on.

I had a service of Holy Communion with the family and my team It was a Roman Catholic family, and naturally I gave them the option of whether they wanted to participate in the service of Holy Communion and receive from me, they were very delighted to do so, I had the service.

I spoke to the spirit, and directed the spirit to what I believe the place the Lord wanted the spirit to be. One of the things that we all noticed when we went into the room where the appearances had been taking place was that there was a great coldness in the room, everyone noticed it. After commanding the spirit to leave us and go to its own place, we closed the service with the Lords Prayer and the Blessing.

I am glad to say that the lady was not seen again in the home and the lady of the house is still living there perfectly happy. I have told this story in greater detail in the book, along with many other examples of disturbances or what we call ghosts in the home.

Peteo asks: Have you ever seen a demonic experience?

Rev William Lendrum: I have never seen a ghost. But I have seen evidence of their presence. There is a difference between the appearance of a ghost and what is usually called a poltergeist Poltergeists are noted for a number of things, lights are switched on and off, there are loud bangs all round the house on occasions, objects are moved, pictures are turned upside down, and sometimes things are thrown about and broken.

I have seen the results of that poltergeist activity, in three or four homes over the past 30 years. Let me give an example, I went to a home in County Antrim and saw plainly the results of poltergeist activity. A few hours before we arrived the lady of the house took her little girl to school. She was absent from her home for 20 mins.

When she came back to the home, she found that the bed of the little child was no longer in the bedroom, but on the landing. The bed was perfectly made up. And placed on it at regular intervals about 6 inches apart were all the childs toys. I saw that for myself when we arrived. Again I have told that story in the book in greater detail. And I could give two or three other examples of poltergeist activity.

So all that I can say in answer to the question, have I ever seen a ghost, the answer is no, but I have seen in three or four examples the effects of the activity which has taken place. I should add at this point that the way to deal with a poltergeist is not excorcism, but rather with the person who is disturbed, and who unconsciously is providing the energy for all the activity that takes place.

It's called Kinetic energy, and it normally comes from a young person in the home who is greatly disturbed, a young girl approaching puberty, or a young boy very anxious about examinations. The secret in dealing with poltergeist activity is to calm the person, who is the "owner", or epicentre of the poltergeist.

Nicola asks: Can a person really become possessed by a spirit or demon?

Rev William Lendrum: Again the answer to that is yes. But we have to be careful when using the word possessed. That word doesn't exist in the original Greek of the New Testament. The proper way to translate that expression is to use the word demonised.

By possession I presume the questioner means someone who has been taken over, or who is controlled when using the term possessed. As well as reading about these things, in the gospel accounts, I have experienced at least one person who was obviously taken over by an evil spirit.

Although I did not know it at the time when I was ministering to her, she had made a pact with Satan, surrendering her life to him. In the making of this pact, she had gone through a process of initiation, into a Satanic cult. She became an alcoholic, drug addict, prostitute, and was involved in other kinds of immoral behaviour.

One of the features which I experienced when ministering to her was that the spirit was in her, talked to me, using her vocal cords. That happened unexpectedly, and at first I was totally confused, I couldn't understand about whom she was talking, in the third person.

She was talking about herself in the third person. Eventually, a psychiatrist and I tried to deal with the spirit, but we failed, because she would not co-operate and did not want to be set free. She died in her early 30s having the appearance of a woman twice her age. Again I have told the story already, along with many others.

Daran asks: Is Exorcism dangerous to the celebrant?

Rev William Lendrum: I suppose it could be dangerous if one were not properly prepared to carry it out. There is an example in the New Testament of a jewish exorcist who tried to exorcise a man in the name of Jesus, although he was not a disciple of Jesus.He was acting with seven others, the man who was being excorised turned on him attacked him fiercely and we are told in the New Testament that they fled naked from the scene. But let me go on to answer the question fully, Jesus said to the disciples, when he was giving them authority to cast out demons, that nothing would in any wise hurt them. If a man is in full relationship with Jesus, he will not be hurt attempting an excorism, let me add a word of warning, one needs to be trained for this work, and called, and no one should attempt excorcism alone, that would be very dangerous.

John1 asks: Hello William how does one cope with an exorcism? Rev William Lendrum: I believe it is important to prepare ones self before attempting an exorcism and again I should add one should feel called to this work, and should be a leader in the church.

Some people are unwise, in this respect and have an unhealthy fascination with all kinds of paranormal activity, excorism is not a pleasant business, and I again would issue the warning that it is not something to be taken lightly and I would not encourage anyone to be involved in it and certainly not attempt it alone.

The preparation of ones self for this ministry is very important, and should involve prayer, and the receiving of the Holy Communion. That is my opinion.

Daran asks: while at seminary some fellow seminarians were attacked by a figure at the same time each night in their rooms, have you heard of simultaneous attacks?

Rev William Lendrum: No. I have never heard of it at all. Luke asks: Are shows such as Buffy and Charmed dangerous?

Rev William Lendrum: They could be dangerous for some people. My advice about these things would be to avoid them.

Carlene asks: My friend has been playing with an ouijia board. She says it's just a bit of fun. I'm not so sure. What do you think? Re

v William Lendrum: I don't think its fun. I realise that not everyone who plays with an ouijia board ends up possessed or harmed, just as not everyone who smokes gets cancer, but I have seen the terrible effects of playing with ouijia boards.

One of the best chapters that I have in the book is headed the Destructive Power of ouijia. I won't attempt to tell the story, because it is too detailed and too long except that it concerns a lady who played for an ouijia board, twice and for the next 14 years she was tormented by a presence in her bedroom and lived in considerable fear and anxiety ending up in a doctors care.

Although he could not get rid of what was tormenting her. She wrote the story for me and I have included it in this chapter Its told in considerable detail telling all the experiences that she suffered and it is a quite remarkable tale. I would describe it as the most remarkable story that I have told or could tell. Have nothing to do ouijia thats my advice, but don't worry if you have had experience with it, but don't risk it.

Aileen asks: Do you have any reason to believe that evil is something real?

Rev William Lendrum: I would point to the things that we hear, day after day, on the radio and see day after day on tv. Consider some of the things that have happened in this province over this past 30 years. In my opinion, no intelligent person could consider these things. And still believe that there is no reality in evil. Mans hearts is evil. Jeriamah, described the heart of man as deceitful and desperately wicked. I would agree with that.

Peter asks: Can ghosts or spirits actually do you physical harm?

Rev William Lendrum: No I would say the answer is no. But they can harm a person in other ways by causing fear. I refer to an experience I had in a street in the York Road area of the city. It began with the appearance of a lady to a girl, it resembled her grandmother. In the end she went to her doctor, who commended her to me. I assumed wrongly, that this was a case of human spirit occupying that home. And proceeded to excorise it. My diagnosis was wrong. It was an evil spirit, and that became evident to me as I questioned the girl afterwards, because I could see signs of demonic possession. When I spoke to the spirit, the girl rose from her seat and attacked me fiercely and almost overpowered me. When I commanded the spirit to stop the girl fell to the ground as if struck by a hammer. I continued to command the spirit to leave, and eventually there was a tremendous scream or shriek, similar to what happened in the excorcism of Jesus as recorded in the early chapters of Marks gospel. The spirt left and the girl sat up and wanted to know what happened and how she got on the floor. If I had not remembered to command that spirit to stop in the name of Jesus, that girl who was undoubtedly severely demonised would have damaged me. But that only happens because I was unaware that the girl was possessed by a spirit. It wasn't the spirit who harmed me, it was the girl inspired by the spirit.

Renee asks: Are there 'good' presences as well as 'evil'?

Rev William Lendrum: Yes. We have to remember that as far as the paranormal is concerned there are two sides there is a dark side, and a light side. The light side is demonstrated by the presence of angels, As I believe in the presence of evil spirits, so I believe in the presence of good spirits, they are called angels in the new Testament.

They appeared and ministered to Jesus at various times in his life. At his birth, in the wilderness, in Gesthemene, and so on. There are people today, who claim to have experienced the presence of angels. Some have written books, telling the story of how angels have come and ministered to those in danger or in need.

Brianna asks: What would you say is the *best* way to avoid being adversely by paranormal activity? How do we protect ourselves?

Rev William Lendrum: I don't think that it is possible always to avoid the presence of spirits, evil or otherwise. But it is possible to defend ones self against all paranormal attacks. St Paul in his letter to the Ephesians tells us to put on the whole armour of God that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. He doesn't say that we will avoid conflict, with the enemy, but we can take steps to defend ourselves by putting on the armour of God. As the hymn puts it, put on the gospel armour, each part put on with prayer. and again

A programme which claims to have contacted the spirit of Diana, Princess of Wales is to be broadcast on television next month, it emerged today. The show, named The Spirit of Diana, features video footage of seances in Paris and London in which mediums claim to have made contact with Diana's spirit. The programme will be screened on satellite and cable television channel LivingTV, which broadcasts a range of both fictional and factual paranormal shows. US programme makers Associated Television International, says the programme aims to investigate Diana's interest in spirituality. The documentary will be shown at 9pm on March 10 on LivingTV

(The following is excerpted from WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of our Time (W. H. Freeman, 1997) by Michael Shermer)

The Most Precious Thing We Have:The Difference Between Science and PseudoscienceBy Michael Shermer �If there is any science that I am capable of promoting, I think it is the science of science itself, the science of investigation, or method.� �John Stuart Mill Science has made the modern world. It gives us plastics and plastic explosives, cars and tanks, Supersonic Transports and B-1 bombers. Science has put a man on the moon and missiles in the silos. Developments in the medical sciences allow us to live twice as long as people did a mere 150 years ago. But we now have an overpopulation problem, without a corresponding overproduction solution, threatening us more than any single disease in history. Growth in the physical sciences have given us electricity, computers, lights, automobiles, and lasers. But for the first time we have the combined nuclear, chemical, and biological potential to cause the extinction of the human species. Discoveries and theories in evolution and cosmology have given us insights into the origins of life and humans. But for many people these ideas and their corresponding ideologies are threatening to traditional personal and religious beliefs and comfortable status quo. The part of the world known as the Industrial West could, in its entirety, be seen as a monument to the Scientific Revolution begun over 400 years ago, succinctly captured in a single phrase by one of its initiators: �knowledge itself is power.�

When Francis Bacon penned those words in the early 17th century, he was equating two elements that encapsulated the offspring of the Scientific Revolution to which he helped give birth�the scientific method. In his utopian work, New Atlantis, Bacon described his goal for the novum organon, or new instrument of science: �The End of our Foundation is the knowledge of Causes and secret motions of things, and the enlarging of the bounds of Human Empire, to the effecting of all things possible� (1965, p. 447). Through this new instrument Bacon felt that humans would be able to subdue and overcome the miseries holding back humanity. For Bacon, science�s ultimate purpose, then, is �the empire of man over things,� in which you are to �bind [nature] to your service and make her your slave� (p. 375). The following limerick (in sexual metaphor) from Daniel Defoe, sums up this new attitude of dominion in an 18th-century linking of science and technology (1958, p. 178): Nature�s a Virgin, very chaste and coy.To court her�s nonsense, if you will enjoy,She must be ravish�t�When she�s forced, she�s free,A perfect prostitute to Industry. The Geometric Growth of Science The industrial applications of technological developments that have resulted from scientific research have been startling, to say the least. We live in an age of science and technology. The statistics used to represent the tangible perquisites of this most powerful system stagger the imagination. The historian of science, Derek J. de Solla Price, in his book Little Science, Big Science, has observed that �using any reasonable definition of a scientist, we can say that 80 to 90 percent of all the scientists that have ever lived are alive now. Alternatively, any young scientist, starting now and looking back at the end of his career upon a normal life span, will find that 80 to 90 percent of all scientific work achieved by the end of the period will have taken place before his very eyes, and that only 10 to 20 percent will antedate his experience� (1963, pp. 1-2). De Solla Price�s conclusions are well supported with evidence. There are now, for example, well over 100,000 scientific journals published each year, producing over six million articles to be digested�clearly an impossible task.

The Dewey Decimal Classification now lists well over 1,000 different classifications under the title of �Pure Science,� within each of which are dozens of specialty journals. The graph in Figure 1 depicts the growth in the number of scientific journals, from the founding of the Royal Society in 1662 when there were two, to the present. Virtually every field of learning shows a similar exponential growth curve. As the number of individuals working in the field grow, so too does the amount of knowledge, creating more jobs, attracting more people, and so on. The membership growth curves for the American Mathematical Society (founded in 1888) and the Mathematical Association of America (founded in 1915), are dramatic demonstrations of this phenomenon. Regarding the accelerating rate of increase of individuals entering the sciences, in 1965 the Junior Minister of Science and Education in Great Britain made this astonishing observation (Hardison, 1988, p. 14): For more than 200 years scientists everywhere were a significant minority of the population.

In Britain today they outnumber the clergy and the officers of the armed forces. If the rate of progress which has been maintained ever since the time of Sir Isaac Newton were to continue for another 200 years, every man, woman and child on Earth would be a scientist, and so would every horse, cow, dog, and mule. The rate of increase in transportation speed has also shown geometric progression, most of the change being made in the last one percent of human history. Fernand Braudel tells us, for example, that �Napoleon moved no faster than Julius Caesar� (1979, p. 429). But in the last century the growth in the speed of transportation has been astronomical (figuratively and literally). The salient dates presented in Figure 3 illustrate the rise of transportation speed and show the familiar exponential growth curve.

A 1990 Gallup poll of 1,236 adult Americans show percentages of belief in the paranormal that are alarming (pp. 137-146): Astrology: 52%ESP: 46%Witches: 19%Aliens have landed on Earth: 22%The lost continent of Atlantis: 33%Dinosaurs and Humans Lived Simultaneously: 41%Noah�s flood: 65%Communication with the dead: 42%Ghosts: 35%Actually Had a Psychic Experience: 67% Other popular beliefs of our time that have little to no veracity in evidence include: Dowsing, the Bermuda triangle, poltergeists, biorhythms, creationism, levitation, psychokinesis, astrology, ghosts, psychic detectives, UFOs, remote viewing, Kirlian auras, emotions in plants, life after death, monsters, graphology, crypto-zoology, clairvoyance, mediums, pyramid power, faith healing, Big Foot, psychic prospecting, haunted houses, perpetual motion machines, antigravity locations, and, amusingly, astrological birth control. Other polls show that these phenomena are not the quirky beliefs of a handful on the lunatic fringe. They are more pervasive than most of us like to think, and this is curious considering how far science has come since the Middle Ages. In his book, Religion and the Decline of Magic (1971), historian Keith Thomas claims that with the development of a systematic method of science built up during the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, �the notion that the universe was subject to immutable natural laws killed the concept of miracles, weakened the belief in the physical efficacy of prayer, and diminished faith in the possibility of direct divine inspiration� (p. 643). Science alone, however, was not enough to displace magic since the people of that time �emancipated themselves from these magical beliefs without necessarily having devised any effective technology with which to replace them.� Surprisingly (at least to those holding a warfare model of science and theology), Thomas identifies religion as a significant force in the decline of magical thinking: �In the seventeenth century they were able to take this step because magic was ceasing to be intellectually acceptable, and because their religion taught them to try self-help before invoking supernatural aid� (p. 663). Those involved with the skeptical movement for any length of time, however, might find Thomas� descriptive word �decline� difficult to believe in view of the acceptance of paranormal beliefs revealed in the above poll.

Nevertheless, one in four or one in six is probably significantly lower than a 15th-century poll might have revealed. Nine out of 10 (or even 99 out of a 100) would likely be an understated figure for those who accepted without question what are today considered paranormal beliefs. For the most part faith in ghosts or telepathy probably changes little in the work and play habits of the majority of the one in four who claim such special knowledge. Except for the occasional �fool separated from his money,� or recipient of faith healing who disposes of needed medication, today�s paranormal beliefs probably seem relatively harmless. They are not. The reason is that if someone is willing to accept such claims on nonexistent evidence, what else are they willing to believe? Like the problem of drugs where marijuana allegedly leads to heroine, �harmless� beliefs in ghosts and UFOs might lead to more dangerous beliefs and practices. Believing you were sexually molested by space aliens might seem silly and innocuous, but believing you were sexually molested by parents or relatives can land someone in jail. Where the lack of scientific thinking has a larger and more significant impact is within the social realm. Individuals, groups, and nations have been trying to solve such social problems as war, crime, and poverty for millennia, and yet these social ills still abound. It would appear that we have failed to remember the past in such a way as not to repeat it. Can we apply the scientific method to solving social problems? If so, should we? Have the so-called �social sciences� been scientific in their analysis of human behavior, both past and present? The Division of the Sciences In short, we have the technical means for self-annihilation without the social means for preventing it. Why is this? Why have the physical and biological sciences outdistanced the social sciences in the identification of causality and the prediction and control of future actions of their respective subjects? There are two possible answers: one, the traditional paradigms of the physical and biological sciences, long emulated by social scientists, are inadequate for the exploration of such a complex subject as human behavior; two, the social sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology) and the historical sciences (e.g., cosmology, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and human history), differ in method and procedure from the experimental sciences. Though the quality of results need not differ, history and the social sciences are typically seen as inferior to those of the experimental sciences, and thus their conclusions are assumed to be less �hard,� an idea that gave rise to the appellation �soft sciences.� The pecking order is understood by all academics and felt with a sting by those wedged into the bottom. Such divisions and hierarchical rankings among the sciences are neither productive nor conducive to interdisciplinary integration, one of the most important generators of paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions. A more constructive approach toward optimizing the amount of scientific progress might be to perceive the similarities and differences among the various sciences as one of type or methodology, rather than of value differences. Within the framework of this analysis all natural and human phenomenon may be classified and examined within the physical, biological, or social sciences. Within each of these sciences two methodologies are used: experimental and historical. Cosmology, for example, is a historical physical science. Physiology is an experimental biological science. Paleontology is a historical biological science. History and archaeology are historical social sciences. Such an intellectual structure is the first step toward a rational application of science in the realm of human behavior. In Washington D.C. there is a visual icon of George Santayana�s historical admonition: �Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness.

Mental methods include hunches, guesses, ideas, hypotheses, theories, and paradigms; behavioral methods include background research, data collection, data organization, colleague collaboration and communication, experiments, correlation of findings, statistical analyses, manuscript preparation, conference presentations, and publications. This description works well for understanding the physical and biological sciences, but can it apply to human history? There are many (probably most) who would argue that the historical �sciences� are not sufficiently rigorous to be so classified. With this broader definition of science, however, it may be observed that history can be, and on many levels already is, a science. Practicing historians have developed �mental and behavioral methods� in their historical analyses that attempt to contribute to a �testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation� about past phenomena. Their mental and behavioral methods are learned in graduate training and professional development. An organized historical work is rejected or confirmed by the community of historians through the testing of hypotheses and theories and the examination of historical data. Through this process historical phenomena are described and interpreted and may become factual, in the following sense of the word: Scientific facts are data or conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. (Adapted from Gould�s 1983 {p. 255} definition of a fact: �In science, �fact� can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent�). James Kloppenberg (1989) has argued in a similar fashion in his description of �pragmatic hermeneutics,� a clumsy term that means historical facts, hypotheses, and interpretations �can be checked against all the available evidence and subjected to the most rigorous critical tests� and �if they are verified provisionally, they stand� and if �disproved, new interpretations must be advanced and subjected to similar testing� (p. 1030). History is a science using a different mode of analysis than the experimental sciences. The historical sciences are rooted in the rich array of data from the past that, while nonreplicable, are nevertheless valid as sources of information for piecing together specific events and confirming general hypotheses.

The inability to actually observe past events or set up controlled experiments is no obstacle to a sound science of paleontology or geology, so why should it be for a sound science of human history? The key is the ability to test one�s hypothesis. Based on data from the past the historian tentatively constructs a hypothesis then checks that against �new� data uncovered from the historical source. Archaeologist William Adams concludes a paper on �Invasion, Diffusion and Evolution,� with the following statement on the need for evidence that sounds as potent as any experimental scientist would demand (1968, p. 213): As long as there is no ultimate proof in archaeology, every existing interpretation has to be subject to reexamination in the light of fresh discoveries. There is unhappily no point at which we can forget the evidence and accept the interpretation. Since every theory is no more than a probability, any building of theory on theory will significantly reduce the probability. Only solid evidence will significantly reduce the probability. Only solid evidence can ultimately serve as the building blocks of history. In fact, it may reasonably be argued that most of the �observations� of archetypal experimental scientists� astronomers and physicists�are not made with their senses but with recording equipment, and thus they, like historical scientists, are really examining �artifacts� of observation. The tracks of a sub-atomic particle in a cloud chamber, the images of a planet recorded in binary digits in a computer, the video and audio �images� and �sounds� transduced from rescrambled magnetic bits on a tape, are not direct observations. They are artifacts from a �past� observation, even if the past is just seconds, minutes, or hours. In the case of astronomy the past may be millions of years in the time it takes light to arrive from distant galaxies, and in this sense astronomy is a type of historical science. Phenomena are not, in some artificial dichotomy, either observable or unobservable for either the experimental or historical scientist.

There is a continuum from direct observation with light to indirect observation with artifacts, ranging from more to less reliable. Noted for his trenchant defense of the historical sciences, Gould makes this argument for the �high status� of history (1989, p. 282): We cannot see a past event directly, but science is usually based on inference, not unvarnished observation (you don�t see electrons, gravity, or black holes either). The firm requirement for all science�whether stereotypical or historical�lies in secure testability, not direct observation. We must be able to determine whether our hypotheses are definitely wrong or probably correct. History�s richness drives us to different methods of testing, but testability is our criterion as well. We work with our strength of rich and diverse data recording the consequences of past events; we do not bewail our inability to see the past directly. Based on this analysis the following definition may be made: History is a product of the discovery and description of past phenomena. Therefore, we may make this general definition, which follows from those above: A science of history is a set of mental and behavioral methods designed to discover, describe, and interpret past phenomena, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. History is a product of both discovery and description because there is an objective past to be discovered, but describing and interpreting it can be subjective. Since the facts never speak for themselves the scientific enterprise is fundamentally a human one.

As Henri Poincare observed regarding the role of interpretation in science: �A group of facts is no more a science than a pile of bricks is a building� (Frank, 1957, p. 87). Theory influences observation in both the experimental and historical sciences, and as the philosopher of history Arthur Danto noted: �One does not go naked into the archives. But then, it might be argued, neither does one go naked into the laboratory� (1965, p. 101). Paradigms and Progress I believe that science and scientific paradigms are not only different from all other non-scientific paradigms, but contain certain features that make them progressive. Progress, taken in a value-neutral sense, means the cumulative growth of knowledge over time. Let us examine first what a paradigm is, and then, what constitutes progress. The Kuhnian (1962) usage of paradigm is generally adopted here, where a paradigm defines the �normal science� of an age, founded on �past scientific achievements�that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice� (p. 10). Today, textbooks are the primary proselytizers and protectors of the paradigm, presenting to the next generation the past generations� knowledge and theories. Before textbooks, Kuhn notes that the classics served in this capacity. They did so in two ways that form the basis for Kuhn�s definition of paradigm: Their achievement was sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity. Simultaneously, it was sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practioners to resolve. Achievements that share these two characteristics I shall henceforth refer to as �paradigms,� a term that relates closely to �normal science� (p. 10). Kuhn was challenged by Margaret Masterman for not definintg paradigm clearly (Lakatos and Musgrave, 1970, pp. 59-89). His 1977 expanded definition of �all shared group commitments, all components of what I now wish to call the disciplinary matrix� (p. 319), without extensive examples and discussion, still fails to give the reader a sense of just what Kuhn means by paradigm. Because of this lack of clarity, the following definition will be used, based on that given for science: A scientific paradigm is a mental model shared by most but not all members of a scientific community, designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.

A paradigm is usually shared by most but not all because most of the time competing paradigms coexist�a necessity for new paradigms to displace old ones. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse, in The Darwinian Paradigm (1989), has identified at least four usages of the word, including: (1) Sociological, focusing on �a group of people who come together, feeling themselves as having a shared outlook (whether they do really, or not), and to an extent separating themselves off from other scientists� (pp. 124-125). Behaviorists and humanists in the psychology are a good example of a sociological paradigm. (2) Psychological, where individuals within the paradigm literally see the world differently from those outside the paradigm. An analogy can be made to people viewing the reversible figures in perceptual experiments, such as the old woman/ young woman shifting figure where the perception of one precludes the perception of the other. In this particular perceptual experiment, the presentation to subjects of a strong �young woman� image, followed by the ambiguous figure, always produces the perception of the young woman; the presentation of a strong �old woman� image, followed by the ambiguous figure, produces the perception of the old woman 95 percent of the time (Leeper, 1935). (3) Epistemological, where �one�s ways of doing science are bound up with the paradigm� because the research techniques, problems, and solutions are determined by the hypotheses, theories, and models. A theory of phrenology that leads to the development of phrenological equipment for measuring bumps on the skull would be an example of an epistemological paradigm. (4) Ontological, where in the deepest sense �what there is depends crucially on what paradigm you hold. For Priestley, there literally was no such thing as oxygen....In the case of Lavoisier, he not only believed in oxygen: oxygen existed� (pp. 125-126). Similarly, for Buffon, Lyell, and others, varieties in a population were merely degenerates from the originally created kind; nature eliminated them to preserve the essence of the species. For Darwin and Wallace, varieties were the key to evolutionary change. My definition of paradigm is applicable in the sociological, psychological, and epistemological uses.

Pseudoscientists do not correct the errors of their predecessors, they perpetuate them. Science has a self-correcting feature that operates like natural selection in nature. Science, like nature, preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. When paradigms shift (for example, during scientific revolutions) scientists do not abandon the entire science; just as a new species is not begun from scratch. Rather, what remains useful in the paradigm is retained, as new features are added and new interpretations given; just as homologous features of an organism�s skeletal structure remain the same while new changes are constructed around it (the whale�s flipper retains the same bone structure as its land-based ancestor�carpals, metacarpals, and phelanges�adding tissue and tendons as needed). Einstein emphasized this point in reflecting upon his own contributions to physics and cosmology (in Weaver, 1987, v. ii, p. 133): Creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place.

It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up. The shift from one scientific paradigm to another may be a mark of improvement in the understanding of causality, the prediction of future events, or the alteration of the environment. It is, in fact, the attempt to refine and improve the paradigm that can ultimately lead to its own demise, as anomalous data unaccounted for by the old paradigm (as well as old data accounted for but capable of reinterpretation) fit into the new paradigm in a more complete way. Werner Heisenberg, who did just that in his addition of the uncertainty principle to physics, sums up how and where these shifts occur (Weaver, v. ii, p. 475): It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place at those points where two different lines of thought meet.

Hence if they actually meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that new and interesting developments may follow. What causes a paradigm to shift and who is most likely to be involved in the shift? Kuhn explains: �Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have either been very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change� (1962, p. 90).

Interestingly, this quote heads the first volume of Martin Bernal�s brilliant and controversial Black Athena, a historical analysis of the Afroasiatic influence on classical Western civilization. Bernal quotes Kuhn �to justify my presumption, as someone trained in Chinese history, to write on subjects so far removed from my original field.� Although Bernal is not audacious enough to propose his own paradigm shift, he does claim the �changes of view�are nonetheless fundamental� (1987, p. 1). Bernal contrasts the �Aryan model� of Greek history that views Greece as essentially Indo-European, with the �Ancient Model� that sees it as Afroasiatic, or Levantine and Egyptian. Bernal suggests replacing the Aryan Model not with the Ancient Model, but with what he calls the Revised Ancient Model that �accepts that there is a real basis to the stories of Egyptian and Phoenician colonization of Greece set out in the Ancient Model. However, it sees them as beginning somewhat earlier, in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC.� Bernal, however, does not want to completely abandon the Aryan Model because the Revised Ancient Model �tentativ ely accepts the Aryan Model�s hypothesis of invasions�or infiltrations�from the north by Indo-European speakers sometime during the 4th or 3rd millennium BC� (p. 2).

Clearly Bernal is not suggesting a simple paradigm replacement with no transfer of knowledge or interpretive framework. Instead, his is a program where a paradigm may dislodge another paradigm while retaining elements of the old. The Revised Ancient Model, he explains, �adds no extra unknown or unknowable factors. Instead it removes two introduced by proponents of the Aryan Model.� Bernal claims these are: �(1) the non-Indo-European speaking �Pre-Hellenic� peoples upon whom every inexplicable aspect of Greek culture has been thrust; and (2) the mysterious diseases of �Egyptomania�, �barbarophilia� and interpretatio Graeca which, the �Aryanists� allege, have deluded so many otherwise intelligent, balanced and informed Ancient Greeks with the belief that Egyptians and Phoenicians had played a central role in the formation of their culture.� Bernal�s entire analysis is a splendid example of historical science using the hypothetico-deductive method to turn dry-as-dust data into enlightening historical experiments (p. 7): The removal of these two factors and the revival of the Ancient Model leaves the Greek, West Semitic and Egyptian cultures and languages in direct confrontation, generating hundreds if not thousands of testable hypotheses-predictions that if word or concept a occurred in culture x, one should expect to find its equivalent in culture y.

These could enlighten aspects of all three civilizations, but especially those areas of Greek culture that cannot be explained by the Aryan Model. Despite his claims of neutrality in testing the models in Volume 1 of Black Athena, in Volume 2 Bernal admits �I have given up the mask of impartiality between the two models.� Considering his commitment to the one and his obvious distaste for the other, Bernal says �instead of judging their competitive heuristic utility in a �neutral� way, I shall try to show how much more completely and convincingly the Revised Ancient Model can describe and explain the development and nature of Ancient Greek civilization than can the Aryan Model� (1991, p. 3). The Revised Ancient Model has built upon components of both the

Ancient and the Aryan Models while at the same time replacing them. There is cumulative growth and paradigmatic change. This is scientific progress, which in the context of this analysis may be defined as follows: Scientific progress is the cumulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained and non-useful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge. The Triumph of Science These definitions of science, scientific paradigm, and scientific progress are not to be confused with those of earlier positivist scientists and historians who envisioned science as a systematic step by step unfolding of the Truth about Reality through a progressive system of positive knowledge. The classic statement of that position was made by George Sarton, the founder of the history of science discipline and of its flagship journal, Isis (1936, p. 5): Definition. Science is systematized positive knowledge, or what has been taken as such at different ages and in different places. Theorem. The acquisition and systematization of positive knowledge are the only human activities which are truly cumulative and progressive. Corollary. The history of science is the only history which can illustrate the progress of mankind. Though I have defined science as progressive, I admit it is not possible to know if the knowledge uncovered by the scientific method is positive (�certain�), or not, because we have no outside source�no Archimedean point�from which to view Reality.

Further, science is not the only human activity that is cumulative and progressive. Technology also meets the criteria for being labeled progressive. Therefore, a history of both science and technology would illustrate the progress of civilization. The general distaste modern historians of science have for Sarton�s definition, theorem, and corollary may not lie with the conception of science as progressive; rather, it is with the inference that progress is morally good and valuable for human society�because only science is progressive, it is morally better than all other human traditions. By this positivist analysis cultures that embrace science and technology are better than cultures that do not. Such attitudes can and have led to imperialistic and racist attitudes toward �lesser� peoples who do not understand the world as �clearly� as those in the West. The general dislike by modern thinkers for this philosophy of science is understandable and justified. We need not, however, throw out science because of its previous identification with moral progress. We have, after all, learned a great deal about the history and philosophy of science since Sarton�s time. There is no question that science is heavily influenced by the culture in which it is embedded, and that scientists may all share a common bias that leads them to think a certain way about nature. But this does not take anything away from the progressive nature of science. Progress in this sense is meant as a value-neutral description. Progress is neither good nor bad; it simply is. Many think progress is good, but there are plenty who think progress is destructive, and they, in turn, generally dislike science and technology�at least they are consistent. It must be noted as well that those who do not embrace science and technology may be just as happy as those who do, maybe even more so. But this is an a-scientific statement because happiness is a subjective, nonquantifiable emotion. We cannot judge or define progress based on happiness. The only thing that can rationally be said about happiness is that all humans want more of it. The method of attaining greater happiness, however, is totally subjective and a matter of individual choice. An automobile may be one individual�s pride and joy, another�s headache and nightmare. Quiet solitude in a remote mountain retreat may bring peace and serenity to some, anxiety and boredom to others. Happiness, like good art, can never mean more than, �I like it;� unhappiness, like bad art, can never mean more than, �I do not like it.�

Try telling an artist of abstract paintings why a Rembrandt is �better� than an irregular series of lines and cubes; or tell a fan of John Cage�s random noises that Beethoven�s Ninth is �superior.� After hours of fruitless attempts to find some objective standard of judgment, it will always come down to �I like it� or �I do not like it.� In this regard Sydney Hook makes this interesting comparison between the arts and sciences: �Raphael�s Sistine Madonna without Raphael, Beethoven�s sonatas and symphonies without Beethoven, are inconceivable. In science, on the other hand, it is quite probable that most of the achievements of any given scientist would have been attained by other individuals working in the field� (1943, p. 35). The reason for this is that science, with progress as one of its primary goals, seeks understanding through objective methods (even though it rarely attains it). The arts seek provocation of emotion and reflection through subjective means. The more subjective the endeavor, the more personal it becomes, and therefore difficult if not impossible for anyone else to replicate. The more objective the pursuit, the more likely someone else would have made the achievement. Darwin�s theory of natural selection would have been (and, in fact, was by Wallace) replicated because the scientific process is empirically verifiable. In a crude dichotomy, the difference between science and art is discovery versus creation. Freud�s theory of psychoanalysis probably would not have been presented by another, because it was a creation of one individual�s mind more than it was a discovery. We cannot, in any absolute sense, equate happiness with progress, or progress with happiness. But if an individual finds happiness in the progress produced by science and technology, there is a rational way to quantify and define how this progress can be accomplished.

As scientific progress was defined above, the definition for technological systems can similarly be made: Technological progress is the cumulative growth of a system of knowledge and artifacts over time, where useful features are retained and non-useful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or acceptance of the technologies in the market. Therefore it becomes possible to make a rational distinction between progressive and non-progressive cultures (that makes no judgments on whether these differences are good or bad, moral or immoral): Progressive cultures have as a primary goal the cumulative growth of a system of knowledge and artifacts over time, where useful features are retained and non-useful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge, and the rejection or acceptance of artifacts. Cultural progress is inextricably linked with both scientific progress and technological progress. Culture, of course, involves much more than science and technology, but for a cultural tradition to be progressive, it must meet the above definition of cumulative growth through an indebtedness to the past. In science, useful features are retained and non-useful features are abandoned through the confirmation or rejection of testable knowledge. The scientific method, in this way, is constructed to be progressive. In technology, useful features are retained and non-useful features are abandoned based on the rejection or acceptance of the technologies in the market. For science, the market is primarily the community of scientists. For technology, the market is primarily the consuming public. Other cultural traditions (art, myths, religion) may retain some of the features found in science and technology, such as being accepted or rejected within their own community or by the public, but none have as their primary goal cumulative growth through an indebtedness to the past. Thus, only science and technology are truly progressive. Cultures that encourage the development of science and technology will be progressive.

Cultures that inhibit the development of science and technology will be nonprogressive. This does not make one culture better than another culture, or one way of life more moral than another way of life, or one people happier than another people. But if an individual or group desires a lifestyle that includes the vast diversity of knowledge and artifacts, cherishes novelty and change, seeks an ever-growing standard of living as defined in the Industrial West, then a progressive system based on science and technology will produce that culture. No doubt, in this age of �political correctness� where most peoples of the world have not shared this bias of science and progress (and are seen to have been exploited by this philosophy), this is not a popular position. Among academics as well, the word �progress� has taken on a pejorative meaning, implying superiority over those who have not progressed as far. In my oral doctoral defense I was firmly advised by my committee to replace the modifier �progress� with �change� when referring to science. My response to those who challenge the validity of science and the scientific method as a means of understanding causality in the world, is to quote one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, if not the millennium, Albert Einstein: One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike�and yet it is the most precious thing we have. That is the fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience.

A DERRY mother has spoken out for the first time about her horrific experience with a psychic medium who told her that her dead daughter was 'sobbing for her mother' and desperate to come home.Marie Ferguson, who lost her nine years-old daughter Raychel in June 2001, said she became a "broken woman" after her child's death and out of sheer desperation turned to a psychic to give her comfort. "I tried to remain strong for the rest of the family," said Marie "but most days I would just sit in Raychel's room or near her grave."Nothing helped, and so out of sheer desperation I turned to a medium."Marie first off all visited a tarot reader with friend Ursula Mercer, who lost her son Ciaran to leukaemia a few weeks before Raychel's death in 2001.The women were then referred to a psychic medium whom they believed would help them find some sort of peace.Marie and Ursula were told to bring clothing belonging to their children and they met the medium in Letterkenny."I had a feeling that something wasn't right when we went into her gloomy living room," said Marie."She knew that one of our children had died from cancer but originally thought it was Raychel. When she knew she had got it wrong she changed her mind saying it was Ciaran."I felt a flicker of hope after the psychic said she could see a Barbie tea set because Raychel had owned one, but then things got out of control."The woman got down on her hands and knees holding Raychel's shoes and began crying that Raychel was not happy. 'She wants to come home.' she said. 'She's sobbing for you.'"Urusla Mercer said she told the medium to stop saying that, however the woman told her that Raychel was desperate to say "Goodbye." "Raychel can't e-mail or fax her mother you know," the psychic told her.Marie says that at this point she had had enough and tried to leave."As I stumbled for the door she stopped me and demanded her ?30," recalled Marie. "I threw it down and ran."The experience almost tipped me over the edge. I had gone there to find comfort and peace and been left with trauma. I slumped into a deep depression." 'Psychic Told Me Raychel was Miserable' Previous 1 2 Marie and Ursula say they believe they both had been set up by the psychic who had exploited their grief for financial gain.They also believe the medium had found out information about their late children before to use in their visit with her.Ursula Mercer said the medium was a "drama queen" who exploited them knowing they were desperate to hear something about their children."She told me Ciaran was sending me lots of love," she said. "But she also said ridiculous things like his hair was growing and that he was going to school up there."Marie and Ursula now say they realise the psychic was not genuine and want to warn others about the dangers of using unreputable people like this."I have since had a reading with psychic Rita Rogers on the phone," said Marie."When I spoke to her there was no doubt that Raychel had come through. Rita said Raychel had died in hospital because her fluid levels had been depleted. She also named my three sons and husband."She told me Raychel was happy and with people who loved her. I am still grieving but it helps to know my little girl is safe."It disgusts me how this woman exploited our grief for financial gain. People have since told me that no reputable medium would deliver such traumatic news. It's a warning to use only mediums who belong to a professional organisation."Raychel Ferguson died in June 2001after she was admitted to Altnagelvin Hospital suffering from mild appendicitis.The nine years-old was operated on and expected to make a full recovery. However, less than 12 hours after the operation she began vomiting. Two days Raychel died after she was transferred to the Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.An inquest into her death earlier this year heard that Raychel could have survived if she had been given a simple saline solution while recovering from the operation in Altnagelvin.

Go to sociolgy now click on the image below

Go to politics click on image below