The Science of Superstitions

By Sam Vaknin
Author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is
the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and
true science."

Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, 1931
The debate between realism and anti-realism is, at least, a century
old. Does Science describe the real world - or are its theories true
only within a certain conceptual framework? Is science only
instrumental or empirically adequate or is there more to it than
that?

The current - mythological - image of scientific enquiry is as
follows:

Without resorting to reality, one can, given infinite time and
resources, produce all conceivable theories. One of these theories
is bound to be the "truth". To decide among them, scientists conduct
experiments and compare their results to predictions yielded by the
theories. A theory is falsified when one or more of its predictions
fails. No amount of positive results - i.e., outcomes that confirm
the theory's predictions - can "prove right" a theory. Theories can
only be proven false by that great arbiter, reality.

Jose Ortega y Gasset said (in an unrelated exchange) that all ideas
stem from pre-rational beliefs. William James concurred by saying
that accepting a truth often requires an act of will which goes
beyond facts and into the realm of feelings. Maybe so, but there is
little doubt today that beliefs are somehow involved in the
formation of many scientific ideas, if not of the very endeavor of
Science. After all, Science is a human activity and humans always
believe that things exist (=are true) or could be true.

A distinction is traditionally made between believing in something's
existence, truth, value of appropriateness (this is the way that it
ought to be) - and believing that something. The latter is a
propositional attitude: we think that something, we wish that
something, we feel that something and we believe that something.
Believing in A and believing that A - are different.

It is reasonable to assume that belief is a limited affair. Few of
us would tend to believe in contradictions and falsehoods. Catholic
theologians talk about explicit belief (in something which is known
to the believer to be true) versus implicit one (in the known
consequences of something whose truth cannot be known). Truly, we
believe in the probability of something (we, thus, express an
opinion) - or in its certain existence (truth).

All humans believe in the existence of connections or relationships
between things. This is not something which can be proven or proven
false (to use Popper's test). That things consistently follow each
other does not prove they are related in any objective, "real",
manner - except in our minds. This belief in some order (if we
define order as permanent relations between separate physical or
abstract entities) permeates both Science and Superstition. They
both believe that there must be - and is - a connection between
things out there.

Science limits itself and believes that only certain entities inter-
relate within well defined conceptual frames (called theories). Not
everything has the potential to connect to everything else. Entities
are discriminated, differentiated, classified and assimilated in
worldviews in accordance with the types of connections that they
forge with each other.

Moreover, Science believes that it has a set of very effective tools
to diagnose, distinguish, observe and describe these relationships.
It proves its point by issuing highly accurate predictions based on
the relationships discerned through the use of said tools. Science
(mostly) claims that these connections are "true" in the sense that
they are certain - not probable.

The cycle of formulation, prediction and falsification (or proof) is
the core of the human scientific activity. Alleged connections that
cannot be captured in these nets of reasoning are cast out either
as "hypothetical" or as "false". In other words: Science
defines "relations between entities" as "relations between entities
which have been established and tested using the scientific
apparatus and arsenal of tools". This, admittedly, is a very
cyclical argument, as close to tautology as it gets.

Superstition is a much simpler matter: everything is connected to
everything in ways unbeknown to us. We can only witness the results
of these subterranean currents and deduce the existence of such
currents from the observable flotsam. The planets influence our
lives, dry coffee sediments contain information about the future,
black cats portend disasters, certain dates are propitious, certain
numbers are to be avoided. The world is unsafe because it can never
be fathomed. But the fact that we - limited as we are - cannot learn
about a hidden connection - should not imply that it does not exist.

Science believes in two categories of relationships between entities
(physical and abstract alike). The one is the category of direct
links - the other that of links through a third entity. In the first
case, A and B are seen to be directly related. In the second case,
there is no apparent link between A and B, but a third entity, C
could well provide such a connection (for instance, if A and B are
parts of C or are separately, but concurrently somehow influenced by
it).

Each of these two categories is divided to three subcategories:
causal relationships, functional relationships and correlative
relationship.

A and B will be said to be causally related if A precedes B, B never
occurs if A does not precede it and always occurs after A occurs. To
the discerning eye, this would seem to be a relationship of
correlation ("whenever A happens B happens") and this is true.
Causation is subsumed by a the 1.0 correlation relationship
category. In other words: it is a private case of the more general
case of correlation.

A and B are functionally related if B can be predicted by assuming A
but we have no way of establishing the truth value of A. The latter
is a postulate or axiom. The time dependent Schrödinger Equation is
a postulate (cannot be derived, it is only reasonable). Still, it is
the dynamic laws underlying wave mechanics, an integral part of
quantum mechanics, the most accurate scientific theory that we have.
An unproved, non-derivable equation is related functionally to a
host of exceedingly precise statements about the real world
(observed experimental results).

A and B are correlated if A explains a considerable part of the
existence or the nature of B. It is then clear that A and B are
related. Evolution has equipped us with highly developed correlation
mechanisms because they are efficient in insuring survival. To see a
tiger and to associate the awesome sight with a sound is very useful.

Still, we cannot state with any modicum of certainty that we possess
all the conceivable tools for the detection, description, analysis
and utilization of relations between entities. Put differently: we
cannot say that there are no connections that escape the tight nets
that we cast in order to capture them. We cannot, for instance, say
with any degree of certainty that there are no hyper-structures
which would provide new, surprising insights into the
interconnectedness of objects in the real world or in our mind. We
cannot even say that the epistemological structures with which we
were endowed are final or satisfactory. We do not know enough about
knowing.

Consider the cases of Non-Aristotelian logic formalisms, Non-
Euclidean geometries, Newtonian Mechanics and non classical physical
theories (the relativity theories and, more so, quantum mechanics
and its various interpretations). All of them revealed to us
connections which we could not have imagined prior to their
appearance. All of them created new tools for the capture of
interconnectivity and inter-relatedness. All of them suggested one
kind or the other of mental hyper-structures in which new links
between entities (hitherto considered disparate) could be
established.

So far, so good for superstitions. Today's superstition could well
become tomorrow's Science given the right theoretical developments.
The source of the clash lies elsewhere, in the insistence of
superstitions upon a causal relation.

The general structure of a superstition is: A is caused by B. The
causation propagates through unknown (one or more) mechanisms. These
mechanisms are unidentified (empirically) or unidentifiable (in
principle). For instance, al the mechanisms of causal propagation
which are somehow connected to divine powers can never, in
principle, be understood (because the true nature of divinity is
sealed to human understanding).

Thus, superstitions incorporate mechanisms of action which are,
either, unknown to Science - or are impossible to know, as far as
Science goes. All the "action-at-a-distance" mechanisms are of the
latter type (unknowable). Parapsychological mechanisms are more of
the first kind (unknown).

The philosophical argument behind superstitions is pretty
straightforward and appealing. Perhaps this is the source of their
appeal. It goes as follows:

a.. There is nothing that can be thought of that is impossible (in
all the Universes);
b.. There is nothing impossible (in all the Universes) that can be
thought of;
c.. Everything that can be thought about - is, therefore, possible
(somewhere in the Universes);
d.. Everything that is possible exists (somewhere in the
Universes).
If something can be thought of (=is possible) and is not known
(=proven or observed) yet - it is most probably due to the
shortcomings of Science and not because it does not exist.

Some of these propositions can be easily attacked. For instance: we
can think about contradictions and falsehoods but (apart from a form
of mental representation) no one will claim that they exist in
reality or that they are possible. These statements, though, apply
very well to entities, the existence of which has yet to be
disproved (=not known as false, or whose truth value is uncertain)
and to improbable (though possible) things. It is in these formal
logical niches that superstition thrives.

Continue to Science and Religion

Appendix - Interview granted by Sam Vaknin to Adam Anderson

1. Do you believe that superstitions have affected American culture?
And if so, how?



A. In its treatment of nature, Western culture is based on realism
and rationalism and purports to be devoid of superstitions. Granted,
many Westerners - perhaps the majority - are still into esoteric
practices, such as Astrology. But the official culture and its
bearers - scientists, for instance - disavow such throwbacks to a
darker past.



Today, superstitions are less concerned with the physical Universe
and more with human affairs. Political falsities - such as anti-
Semitism - supplanted magic and alchemy. Fantastic beliefs permeate
the fields of economics, sociology, and psychology, for instance.
The effects of progressive taxation, the usefulness of social
welfare, the role of the media, the objectivity of science, the
mechanism of democracy, and the function of psychotherapy - are six
examples of such groundless fables.



Indeed, one oft-neglected aspect of superstitions is their
pernicious economic cost. Irrational action carries a price tag. It
is impossible to optimize one's economic activity by making the
right decisions and then acting on them in a society or culture
permeated by the occult. Esotericism skews the proper allocation of
scarce resources.



2. Are there any superstitions that exist today that you believe
could become facts tomorrow, or that you believe have more fact than
fiction hidden in them?



A. Superstitions stem from one of these four premises:

a.. That there is nothing that can be thought of that is
impossible (in all possible Universes);
b.. That there is nothing impossible (in all possible Universes)
that can be thought of;
c.. That everything that can be thought of - is, therefore,
possible (somewhere in these Universes);
d.. That everything that is possible exists (somewhere in these
Universes).
As long as our knowledge is imperfect (asymptotic to the truth),
everything is possible. As Arthur Clark, the British scientist and
renowned author of science fiction, said: "Any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic".



Still, regardless of how "magical" it becomes, positive science is
increasingly challenged by the esoteric. The emergence of pseudo-
science is the sad outcome of the blurring of contemporary
distinctions between physics and metaphysics. Modern science borders
on speculation and attempts, to its disadvantage, to tackle
questions that once were the exclusive preserve of religion or
philosophy. The scientific method is ill-built to cope with such
quests and is inferior to the tools developed over centuries by
philosophers, theologians, and mystics.



Moreover, scientists often confuse language of representation with
meaning and knowledge represented. That a discipline of knowledge
uses quantitative methods and the symbol system of mathematics does
not make it a science. The phrase "social sciences" is an oxymoron -
and it misleads the layman into thinking that science is not that
different to literature, religion, astrology, numerology, or other
esoteric "systems".



The emergence of "relative", New Age, and politically correct
philosophies rendered science merely one option among many.
Knowledge, people believe, can be gleaned either directly (mysticism
and spirituality) or indirectly (scientific practice). Both paths
are equivalent and equipotent. Who is to say that science is
superior to other "bodies of wisdom"? Self-interested scientific
chauvinism is out - indiscriminate "pluralism" is in.



3. I have found one definition of the word "superstition" that
states that it is "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance,
fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception
of causation." What is your opinion about said definition?



A. It describes what motivates people to adopt superstitions -
ignorance and fear of the unknown. Superstitions are, indeed,
a "false conception of causation" which inevitably leads to "trust
in magic". the only part I disagree with is the trust in chance.
Superstitions are organizing principles. They serve as alternatives
to other worldviews, such as religion or science. Superstitions seek
to replace chance with an "explanation" replete with the power to
predict future events and establish chains of causes and effects.



4. Many people believe that superstitions were created to simply
teach a lesson, like the old superstition that "the girl that takes
the last cookie will be an old maid" was made to teach little girls
manners. Do you think that all superstitions derive from some lesson
trying to be taught that today's society has simply forgotten or
cannot connect to anymore?



A. Jose Ortega y Gasset said (in an unrelated exchange) that all
ideas stem from pre-rational beliefs. William James concurred by
saying that accepting a truth often requires an act of will which
goes beyond facts and into the realm of feelings. Superstitions
permeate our world. Some superstitions are intended to convey useful
lessons, others form a part of the process of socialization, yet
others are abused by various elites to control the masses. But most
of them are there to comfort us by proffering "instant" causal
explanations and by rendering our Universe more meaningful.



5. Do you believe that superstitions change with the changes in
culture?

A. The content of superstitions and the metaphors we use change from
culture to culture - but not the underlying shock and awe that
yielded them in the first place. Man feels dwarfed in a Cosmos
beyond his comprehension. He seeks meaning, direction, safety, and
guidance. Superstitions purport to provide all these the easy way.
To be superstitious one does not to study or to toil. Superstitions
are readily accessible and unequivocal. In troubled times, they are
an irresistible proposition.