When Facts Aren't Accepted As Facts - How Worldview Determines Interpretation of Science

When it comes to research facts are facts right?

They are objective, measurable, cut and dry... well then why are there so many scientific controversies? Of course, you have the usual suspects of scientific disagreement:

1. General disbelief because of currently held beliefs.
2. Data that is open to interpretation.
3. Financial conflicts of interest.

Today, I want to focus on a different issue; that of worldview.

Worldview is the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. It is a filter that we see facts through and helps to determine what we believe.

Facts are supposed to be unchangeable, something that actually occurs -- A fact is a fact. How you perceive these "undeniable" occurrences is shaped by your worldview. If there is any information that threatens one's worldview then a person will experience some cognitive dissonance and either has to change their worldview or deny the new information.

Worldviews have different limits to what they can accept and answer. A narrower worldview like atheistic-materialism is unable to accept a narrative of events that a pantheistic-vitalism worldview would.

Usually, worldviews get progressively larger as we experience and learn during this great thing called life. Only when once held truths get disproven or disbelieved would a worldview possibly start to contract.

When truly passing from one worldview to another it is impossible to go back to the old worldview without dismissing facts.

Since by definition for a worldview to be different it has to account for different things. Things that are impossible in one worldview are suddenly possible in a broader worldview. Take for example the Flat Earthers. In order to believe it, you have to dismiss all the scientific evidence that the world is round. But once you believe those facts, and go from a flat earth to a round earth worldview, suddenly what was once impossible (say flying West to go East) is now possible.

Much could be said about the current state of science and worldview.

How much more could we develop and progress if the scientific community were able to adapt or at least consider a broader worldview? Currently, the scientific community is bogged down by atheistic-materialistic dogma. When something doesn't align properly it is cast aside as placebo effect or covers it up. (See my recent book review on one of them.)

The brave new world of quantum mechanics is destroying a lot of assumptions that materialism holds onto and I believe ultimately will yield signs and explanations of energetic/spiritual realms of existence.

Some current examples of scientific controversies that relate to issues of worldview are:

1. Vaccines

The argument over vaccines isn't about if they work it is about how long they are effective for and what are the side effects. The pro-vaccine side usually repeats the safe and effective mantra while saying that vaccines are too valuable to question. On the other hand, the vaccine-hesitant side usually uses science in their arguments and tries to push for more science on vaccine safety.

It is a worldview that vaccines are safe and effective that prevents further scientific progress on this topic because allocating already limited resources to studying government mandated treatments is for some reason counterproductive. Despite an ever-growing epidemic of autoimmune disease and chronic inflammatory conditions that all have perturbed immune function while we have been vaccinating more than we ever have before.

2. Genetically Modified Organisms

The main conflict of worldview with the GMO issue is one of simply of reductionism vs vitalism. The pro-GMO side looks mainly just at the final outcome and possibilities of what can be accomplished. While the non-GMO side is taking a sober second look at what the effects are on our health. If the increased yields claimed by pro-GMO proponents are sustainable with the proliferation of Roundup-resistant weeds and the destroyed soil microbiome.

It doesn't help that pretty much all of the research on GMO's is controlled by the corporations that own them. It seems that it is only when independent researchers do unbiased science that there is ever an issue with GMO safety.

3. Homeopathy

The main issue is that homeopathy is incapatible with materialism based on the fact that the lower the dilution the higher the effect of the homeopathic. Dispite a rich history of use and millions of patients that benefit from homeopathy, the reductionistic-materialist will never be able to come close to comprehending how homeopathy works simply because it doesn't work in a pharmaceutical mechanism of blocking enzymes.

For people who claim there is no science to back up homeopathy they don't realize that a double blind placebo controlled trial is not the gold standard for studying homeopathy because everyone is a unique individual and could easily require a different remedy even if they all have the same medical condition. There are only a couple of instances where a double-blind placebo controlled trial would be appropriate in studying homeopathy:

1. All the patients are preselected to need the remedy and half are given a placebo.
2. The homeopath has the ability to select the remedy that the patient needs. In which case the trial is on how well homeopathy in general can treat a condition vs a specific homeopathic remedy.
3. The trials need to be screening for homeopathic aggravations and global wellness changes in order to determin if the homeopathic is indeed working and is the correct perscription for the person.

I have personally seen homeopathy work enough times that I can't just bury my head in the sand and say that it is placebo just becasue noone really knows how it exactly works. The mechanism of action of asprin was unknow for decades but that didn't stop people from using it. It made people feel better; they didn't care how it worked. So why the double standard for homeopathy?

It is generally only possible for people to talk about things that overlap their worldview. The parts that aren't the same the conversation gets lost in translation. One can't fundementally understand a concept if it is outside their worldview.

I hope that this post has made you reflect on what you are able to believe and not believe and shed some light on why other people have a hard time believing the same things. I hope this will spark some respectfull debate.

If you are going to comment please share what worldview you are coming from. I have a Vitalistic-Christian worldview.

References

Picture 1 / Picture 2 / Picture 3 - vaccines / Picture 4 -GMO / Pic 5 -Homeopathy