While the law of attraction can be universally applied this should not be misconstrued to meant hat it has not been the recipient of its fair share of criticism following the revelation of its potential to the general public. Numerous scientific and theological societies have gone to great lengths to voice their disapproval of this upstart new theory.
Science
Scientific theory is best explained by Michael J. Losier in a segment of his recently published novel Law of Attraction.
“There is a physiological foundation for positive thinking and its effect in creating the law of attraction.
As you may recall from your high school science classes, there are many forms of energy: atomic, thermal, electromotive, kinetic and potential. Energy can never be destroyed.
You may also recall that all matter is made up of atoms, and each atom has
a nucleus (made up of protons and electrons) around which orbit electrons.
Electrons in atoms always orbit the nucleus in prescribed “orbitals” or energy levels that ensure the stability of the atom. Electrons may be compelled to assume “higher” orbits by the addition of energy, or may give off energy when they drop to a “lower” orbit. When it comes to “vibrations,” if atoms are “aligned,” they create a motive force, all pulling together in the same direction, in much the same way as metals can be magnetized by aligning their molecules in the same direction. This creation of positive (+) and negative (-) poles is a fact of nature and science. Suffice to say, science has shown that if there are physical laws that can be observed and quantified in one arena, there are most probably similar laws in other arenas, even if they cannot at this time be quantified.
So you see, the law of attraction isn’t a fancy term or new age magic; it is a law of nature that every atom of your body is constantly responding to whether you know it or not.”
The ideas contained within this explanation were briefly touched on in previous explanations concerning the foundations of the law of attraction; however, in order to understand the controversy surrounding these assumptions it is important that you first understand what these assumptions are.
Supporters of the theory claim that the effectiveness of the law of attractions stems from its origin in the filed of physics and its supporting facts in the field of quantum mechanics; after all, the primary argument against many metaphysical occurrences is that while their origins may be speculated on, these origins very rarely have more than a small amount of circumstantial physical evidence to back them up. Who is going to argue about the validity of a theory which, although assumed to actually be manifesting itself on a higher plane, has its roots planted firmly in the grounds of modern science.
Unfortunately, much of the “scientific evidence” which has been brought forward to date in support of the law of attraction has not been conclusively proven with sufficient reproducibility to allow it to be considered an actual law of nature. The entire axis upon which the scientific world revolves was best described by Richard Feynman, one of the finest physicists of his time and a man whose writings and teachings can still be found in almost every bookstore and college campus in the country.
In his book Six Easy Pieces Feynman states:
Electrons in atoms always orbit the nucleus in prescribed “orbitals” or energy levels that ensure the stability of the atom. Electrons may be compelled to assume “higher” orbits by the addition of energy, or may give off energy when they drop to a “lower” orbit. When it comes to “vibrations,” if atoms are “aligned,” they create a motive force, all pulling together in the same direction, in much the same way as metals can be magnetized by aligning their molecules in the same direction. This creation of positive (+) and negative (-) poles is a fact of nature and science. Suffice to say, science has shown that if there are physical laws that can be observed and quantified in one arena, there are most probably similar laws in other arenas, even if they cannot at this time be quantified.
So you see, the law of attraction isn’t a fancy term or new age magic; it is a law of nature that every atom of your body is constantly responding to whether you know it or not.”
The ideas contained within this explanation were briefly touched on in previous explanations concerning the foundations of the law of attraction; however, in order to understand the controversy surrounding these assumptions it is important that you first understand what these assumptions are.
Supporters of the theory claim that the effectiveness of the law of attractions stems from its origin in the filed of physics and its supporting facts in the field of quantum mechanics; after all, the primary argument against many metaphysical occurrences is that while their origins may be speculated on, these origins very rarely have more than a small amount of circumstantial physical evidence to back them up. Who is going to argue about the validity of a theory which, although assumed to actually be manifesting itself on a higher plane, has its roots planted firmly in the grounds of modern science.
Unfortunately, much of the “scientific evidence” which has been brought forward to date in support of the law of attraction has not been conclusively proven with sufficient reproducibility to allow it to be considered an actual law of nature. The entire axis upon which the scientific world revolves was best described by Richard Feynman, one of the finest physicists of his time and a man whose writings and teachings can still be found in almost every bookstore and college campus in the country.
In his book Six Easy Pieces Feynman states:
“...nature, as we understand it today, behaves in such a way that it is
fundamentally impossible to make a precise prediction of exactly what will happen in
a given experiment. This is a horrible thing; in fact, philosophers have said before that
one of the fundamental requisites of science is that whenever you set up the same
conditions the same thing must happen. This is simply not true, it is not a
fundamental condition of science...We stated...the sole test of the validity of any idea
is experiment. If it turns out that most experiments work out the same in Quito as the
do in Stockholm, the those “most experiments” will be used to formulate some
general law...We will invent some way o summarize the results of the experiment,
and we do not have to be told ahead of time what this way will look like. If we are
told that the same experiments will always produce the same result, that is all very
well, but if when we try it, it does not, then it does not.”
That’s right, straight from the mouth of one of the most revered names in science to your eyes. Contrary to what your teachers told you in grade school it is not necessary for an experiment to reproduce itself in order to be considered both valid and significant. This is an important lesson to remember throughout life; however, with respect to the process of a theory becoming established as a law it is important that any experiment conducted with that theory as its fundamental backbone be reproducible under most circumstances.
The experimental trials of the law of attraction which have been performed with the use of test subjects have left a great deal of grey in the decision as to whether or not the law is actually a law at all. Since researchers are dealing with the human psyche rather than a physical object which can be manipulated and controlled it is all but impossible to establish proper testing conditions which will guarantee a high level of accuracy and completely unbiased results.
In order for a trial of the law of attraction to be considered conclusive it is necessary that the test subject follow the guidelines meticulously. This means that they must remove all of the negative energy from the subconscious portion of their psyche. This is a condition that is considered to be “mission critical” in an experiment yet is impossible for researchers to control.
A test subject cannot be forced through any artificial means to remove negative thoughts from their subconscious; they may not even know that these negative thoughts are there (after all, there is a reason that it is called the subconscious). Since the key element to finding success with the law of attraction is to allow positive energy to dominate your thought processes any negative energy remaining, even deeply buried away from the conscious mind, will have an adverse reaction on the results of the experiment.
That’s right, straight from the mouth of one of the most revered names in science to your eyes. Contrary to what your teachers told you in grade school it is not necessary for an experiment to reproduce itself in order to be considered both valid and significant. This is an important lesson to remember throughout life; however, with respect to the process of a theory becoming established as a law it is important that any experiment conducted with that theory as its fundamental backbone be reproducible under most circumstances.
The experimental trials of the law of attraction which have been performed with the use of test subjects have left a great deal of grey in the decision as to whether or not the law is actually a law at all. Since researchers are dealing with the human psyche rather than a physical object which can be manipulated and controlled it is all but impossible to establish proper testing conditions which will guarantee a high level of accuracy and completely unbiased results.
In order for a trial of the law of attraction to be considered conclusive it is necessary that the test subject follow the guidelines meticulously. This means that they must remove all of the negative energy from the subconscious portion of their psyche. This is a condition that is considered to be “mission critical” in an experiment yet is impossible for researchers to control.
A test subject cannot be forced through any artificial means to remove negative thoughts from their subconscious; they may not even know that these negative thoughts are there (after all, there is a reason that it is called the subconscious). Since the key element to finding success with the law of attraction is to allow positive energy to dominate your thought processes any negative energy remaining, even deeply buried away from the conscious mind, will have an adverse reaction on the results of the experiment.
In addition, since researchers are dealing with the human psyche there is another
factor which has never been officially proven through scientific means but which is
accepted as fact all around the world: the power of the human mind. You may be
looking at this in confusion, asking yourself why the power of the human mind would
be a problem when it is the power of the human mind which you are attempting to
harness in order to find success with the law of attraction.
The reasons are simple. There are three main factors which stand in the way of a person achieving their goals. One of these is the body, the other is the environment. Each of these plays a small role in a person’s ability to carry out a task which they have chosen for themselves; however, they are not the key factor responsible for the success or failure of a person’s appointed mission. The human mind is the primary obstacle standing in the way of a person and their dreams. If they do not believe that they will be able to overcome the other environmental and social obstacles standing in the way of achieving their goal then they will not be able to. On the other hand, if they believe that they will be able to triumph over these adversities they are almost guaranteed success. This is not always due to some form of cosmic influence, however.
Let us look at this dilemma through the eyes of a young adult who is straight out of college and attempting to start his career. If he has a great deal of doubt in his ability to succeed in his chosen field and land a job he will be happy for his mind will recognize that negativity and make it fact. He will not be as aggressive as he needs to be in hunting down jobs, and when he does find a job he will almost inevitably crash and burn in the very first interview because he will be so sure of his failure that he will not be able to put his best foot forward. On the other side of the coin, if he is confident that he will be able to succeed he will portray that confidence in everything that he does, allowing him to get through his interview with flying colors and land the job of his dreams.
There was no cosmic influence here, merely a readjustment in attitude that led to a readjustment in presentation. It is impossible to look at the results of an experiment relating to the law of attraction and be able to say with one hundred percent surety that the positive results of these trials were a result of some form of cosmic influence rather than sheer human determination.
Experimental results are not the only issues causing contention among the scientific community. A large portion of the theory has fallen under fire as well. The simple truth of the matter is that from a scientific standpoint the cold, hard evidence supporting the physical existence of the law of attraction in nature is weak indeed. Unlike many other experiments dealing with non-metaphysical properties of science it is virtually impossible for scientists to actually examine the individual components which make the law of attraction.
The reasons are simple. There are three main factors which stand in the way of a person achieving their goals. One of these is the body, the other is the environment. Each of these plays a small role in a person’s ability to carry out a task which they have chosen for themselves; however, they are not the key factor responsible for the success or failure of a person’s appointed mission. The human mind is the primary obstacle standing in the way of a person and their dreams. If they do not believe that they will be able to overcome the other environmental and social obstacles standing in the way of achieving their goal then they will not be able to. On the other hand, if they believe that they will be able to triumph over these adversities they are almost guaranteed success. This is not always due to some form of cosmic influence, however.
Let us look at this dilemma through the eyes of a young adult who is straight out of college and attempting to start his career. If he has a great deal of doubt in his ability to succeed in his chosen field and land a job he will be happy for his mind will recognize that negativity and make it fact. He will not be as aggressive as he needs to be in hunting down jobs, and when he does find a job he will almost inevitably crash and burn in the very first interview because he will be so sure of his failure that he will not be able to put his best foot forward. On the other side of the coin, if he is confident that he will be able to succeed he will portray that confidence in everything that he does, allowing him to get through his interview with flying colors and land the job of his dreams.
There was no cosmic influence here, merely a readjustment in attitude that led to a readjustment in presentation. It is impossible to look at the results of an experiment relating to the law of attraction and be able to say with one hundred percent surety that the positive results of these trials were a result of some form of cosmic influence rather than sheer human determination.
Experimental results are not the only issues causing contention among the scientific community. A large portion of the theory has fallen under fire as well. The simple truth of the matter is that from a scientific standpoint the cold, hard evidence supporting the physical existence of the law of attraction in nature is weak indeed. Unlike many other experiments dealing with non-metaphysical properties of science it is virtually impossible for scientists to actually examine the individual components which make the law of attraction.
Vibrations being emitted from the body with respect to moods and emotions are
still largely a conceptual idea, and while scientists may be able to pinpoint the precise
energy signatures being emitted by the body the technology to recognize whether it is
good or bad, stemming solely from the body’s physical self or having some
foundation in the body’s emotional channels simply does not exist.
In addition to these difficulties scientists do not yet have a means with which to identify the specific energy waves which comprise an event. For every change dealt to the status quo in nature there is both a waterfall of precursor events which must occur in order for events to proceed as needed for a specific outcome and a “ripple effect” of changes which will occur as a result of this change. It is impossible to determine whether or not there is, in fact, an energy based reason for each of these events, and how the various forms of energy which must collaborate to bring circumstances to these ends work together is still a mystery.
Are you confused yet? Probably, which is precisely the point upon which a great deal of the controversy surrounding this law is founded. The theory simply does not make sense in any manner that can be specifically addressed by a scientific team and proven using scientific methods. Where does that leave the scientific community? Still turning its wheels looking for answers.
In addition to these difficulties scientists do not yet have a means with which to identify the specific energy waves which comprise an event. For every change dealt to the status quo in nature there is both a waterfall of precursor events which must occur in order for events to proceed as needed for a specific outcome and a “ripple effect” of changes which will occur as a result of this change. It is impossible to determine whether or not there is, in fact, an energy based reason for each of these events, and how the various forms of energy which must collaborate to bring circumstances to these ends work together is still a mystery.
Are you confused yet? Probably, which is precisely the point upon which a great deal of the controversy surrounding this law is founded. The theory simply does not make sense in any manner that can be specifically addressed by a scientific team and proven using scientific methods. Where does that leave the scientific community? Still turning its wheels looking for answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment