Main Characteristics of Scientific Research
In modern times we are witnessing the dominance of nutritional research
performed by the methods of natural science. For that reason we need to compare the key
characteristics of a scientific versus spiritual-scientific approach to
research with the aim of comprehending the relationship between these two
modes of research. [1]
Discoveries versus Interpretations of Facts
The scientific approach claims a special position in regard to the
acquisition of the true knowledge about the world phenomena, because of its
methods of investigation based on precise observation of the facts.
Although the result of this approach – a multitude of fascinating facts
which were before hidden to our ordinary sense perceptions – is not
questionable, this is not always the case with the interpretations of them.
This is due to an unconscious or conscious scientific assumption that facts
themselves have in them “something conclusive, complete. However, apart from
the factor of sensible qualities, there must be within reality a factor
which is comprehended only by thought. Thinking is an organ of man ordained
to observe something higher than is afforded by senses. To thinking is
accessible that side of reality of which a mere sense-being could never
become aware. The role of thinking is not merely to repeat the sensible, but
to penetrate into what is concealed from the senses. The sense-perceptions
give us only one side of reality. The other side is the apprehending of the
world through thinking.” [2]
For that reason spiritual science accepts the facts discovered by
natural science, but not one-sided materialistic explanations of these facts,
except in the domain of the mineral kingdom. This means
that in the realm of nutrition – which is phenomenon that exists only in
living organisms – materialistic interpretations of modern science
cannot produce fruitful explanations which would enable people to gain a
real comprehension of this complex topic.
Inclusion of Objective versus Subjective Evidence
Science strives for an objective approach to research with the aim to
exclude influences which would distort the final conclusions, such as
personal sympathies and antipathies, wishes and desires, assumptions,
prejudices, etc.
[3] Different branches of science have ambivalent
attitudes towards inclusion of subjective evidence. For example, whilst in
psychology human thoughts and feelings are recognised as real factors which
influence the overall state of a human being, the medical branch is
primarily focused on investigation of mechanisms of physiological processes
and occurrences of specific diseases. This means that only physiological
processes are regarded as real/objective, whilst influences which originate
in the inner soul life of human beings are subjective, and labelled as
anecdotal evidence,
placebo,
and similar kinds of subjective evidence upon which we cannot rely. [4]
The result of such an approach is exclusion of
psychological and mental effects on the human organism. But such a one-sided attitude creates a serious problem in the
domain of nutritional research. With the exclusion of human subjective
experiences we exclude the essential nature of the human being himself. Such
an approach is doomed to fail in the field of nutritional research, for
consumption of food is intrinsically connected with feelings of pleasure or
displeasure, subjective sensations of taste, smell, and so on – all that
which is an integral part of being human. This is confirmed by the
experiences of the food industry where there is the greatest emphasis on
challenge on how to create an ‘irresistible product’. And “what creates
irresistibility is caring, attention, visual appeal, and the appeal of
taste, aroma, texture, and consistency” [5] – that is,
the perceptions which belong mainly to the subjective
domain of human experiences. Here we have proof that in the field of
nutrition feeling and the way we experience things has an impact as real as
other objectively measurable facts.
Spiritual science puts the human being in the centre of its
research, with the awareness that inside the human being there is a
place where subjective and objective spheres meet. For that reason human
beings have potential to overcome any disparity between subjective and
objective activities. This can be done in many ways, but not when we
regard subjective experiences as unscientific – what is one of the main
characteristics of the scientific approach. With the inclusion of both
domains and investigation of how they influence each other, we create
nutritional research which is suitable for human beings.
Few Other Limits of Scientific Methods of Investigation
The aim of scientific research is to find out how and what has a
decisive effect on a particular condition or process in the human organism.
In medicine there is prevalent an opinion that “the only way to establish
cause and effect with any reliability is to do 'controlled' experiments, or
controlled trials, as they are called in medicine. Such trials attempt to
create two identical situations – two groups of subjects, in this case – and
then change only one variable to see what happens.” [6] But this could be
done, in principle, only if we had two groups of identical twins – which is
usually not the case. In this way science simply excludes the most important
part of human beings – that is, their uniqueness. The assumption behind such
trials is that people react to a specific drug or dietary change more or
less in the same manner. This is a great error which does not take into
account human individuality (which is an expression of human ego
organization), but only those parts of the human
constitution which belong to a specific family, nation and race – that is, to the
manifestations of the astral body, etheric body and the physical body. [7]
There is another limit in scientific research, based on “the error
of many scientific observations which draw their conclusions about some
effects on the basis of what happens in the course, say, of the next
five years, whereas in many cases the effects show themselves only after
decades.” [8] This is especially true in regard
to medical research when it is simply not possible to test the long-term
effect of medicines or dietary changes. It is quite common practice that
a specific drug or food is proclaimed good or bad on the basis of
short-term experiments and observations of their effects, including the
unintended side-effects.
There is also an inherent limit of the
analytic approach
used in the medical research because of the sheer number of variables
which have a cumulative effect on the state of the human organism. This
creates the situation where collected data “become subject to many
interpretations. This ambiguity exists because of the difficulty of
sorting out causes, effects, concomitant variables, and random
fluctuations when the cause are multiple or diffuse, the exposure levels
low, irregular, or hard to measure, and the relevant mechanisms poorly
understood” [9] – that is,
in the great majority of cases! This is evident from the fact that even
with the help of computers researchers are overwhelmed by the sheer
amount of data and possible relationships. The best they can do is to
focus on the mechanism of a specific disturbance or occurrence in the
body, limited to specific area of the body, and limited to specific
circumstances. [10]
In contrast to this, spiritual science enables the development of
such understanding which serves as the framework that enables us to
place specific scientific data in its proper place in the complex
structure of the human being. In this way we gain additional
confirmations for the validity of explanations provided by spiritual
science. Even more, when one has acquired knowledge of the archetypal
laws of the human being, (s)he can with their help for the first time
truly comprehend the real nature of processes in the human organism and
consequently the causes of illnesses.
In accordance with the above presented characteristics we can conclude
that spiritual science acknowledges the benefits of a natural scientific
approach to research in the limited area of life existence – that is, in the
realm of mineral world governed by physical laws. It also acknowledges that
we can investigate the effect of the mineral world in living organisms.
However, to understand the human being and the effects of nutrition we need
another approach – an approach which is able to recognise the existence of
supersensible realities (etheric, astral and spiritual bodies with their
specific forces and substances) working behind the perceptible phenomena in all living beings. For in the human being we have a place
where the physical and the supersensible worlds meet and interact with each
other. Because of this we need a new science that is capable of researching
life with new methods of investigation. This new science is spiritual
science which is capable of investigating both worlds – the physical world
and the spiritual world – in manners that are in accordance with their
essential characteristics and laws of existence.
