Photo Essay —

SCIENCE AND THE ELEPHANT

DYUTIMAN MUKHOPADHYAY

https://philpapers.org/rec/MUKSAT

 Dyutiman Mukhopadhyay

March 2025

 I was so happy when I got the right answer

And the pigeon came for the crumbs, too

But then I saw the dead dog,

And I thought:

So What?

—Dekalog I (from Dekalog TV Series, 1989–1990)

Directed by Krzysztof Kieślowski

A while back, a psychic experiencer invited me to comment on his thesis concerning the reality of spiritual/psychic experiences. Through his lifelong, painstaking research, he sought scientific evidence—particularly from psychology, psychoanalysis, and cognitive neuroscience—to substantiate the reality of psychic phenomena. My attempt to respond is elaborated in the following passages. This is a brief conceptual analysis of the limitations of scientific empiricism, which I have attempted to convey without relying too much on the scientific or philosophical jargon commonly used by experts—though I acknowledge the fact that ‘the truth’, as Oscar Wilde once said, ‘is rarely pure and never simple’:

‘Dear—,

Many thanks for your invitation to comment on your thesis. I sincerely appreciate the depth and volume of research you have undertaken. However, I regret that I don't have a scientific standpoint to critique your work and I truly believe this is a failure on my part as a scientist. In my humble opinion, the deeper I have delved into psychology, neuroscience, and the study of the brain, the more I recognized their confounding limitations—and I got lost in their pretentious superficiality. This pretence of scientific authenticity, which is actually a coping strategy to conceal modern science’s limitations, often leads to an existential crisis which many great scientists have admitted to be suffering from even at the peak of their careers (Newton, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Grothendieck, and Gödel to name a few). I am nowhere near these giants and fortunately, my disreputable indifference to scientific empiricism saved me from this contagious crisis. 

Psychic experiences cannot be explained through scientific empiricism unless there is a paradigm shift in the currently valid methods of scientific inquiry. As is often argued, to promote this paradigm shift in the scientific method, it is imperative to investigate non-traditional experimental procedures, including those involving measures that are conventionally regarded as non-scientific—like faith, spirituality, psychic insights, transcendence and other phenomena that have traditionally been kept out of experimental sciences (just like the word consciousness—which was hardly used in the domain of science even a few decades ago).

The word empiricism—which can also mean gaining knowledge through experience has been forcefully constricted especially since the European Scientific Revolution (1543–1687) to a tailor-made term in modern-day science where it roughly has been reduced to imply documentation through experimentation (the Latin word experientia, from which the words experience and experiment are derived, is cognate with the Ancient Greek word empeiria from which the English word empirical originates).

It is a common misconception that objective observation and empirical data form the basis of scientific investigation. As we dig deeper, we find that scientific hypotheses and conclusions also rely heavily on assumed facts and presumptive axioms. For example, the axioms of geometry, which form the basis of most classical physics, are assumed rather than demonstrated beyond the mathematical realm. The wave-particle duality of light serves as an example of the uncertainties inherent in quantum physics and highlights the boundaries of objective certainty within scientific inquiry. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle emphasises the intrinsic boundaries of knowledge within the scientific framework by stating that it is impossible to simultaneously measure some pairs of attributes with perfect precision. Though theories and models are built upon the best available data, scientific understanding is dynamic and ever-evolving, revealing a constant balancing act between confidence and ignorance.

Unfortunately, the same scientific principles are not acknowledged when it comes to experimentally measuring psychic and other spiritual phenomena. Not only do experimental sciences find it inconceivable to include parameters like faith and transcendence as experimental measures of the psyche, but there is even a simultaneous reluctance to follow the standard scientific method when it comes to analysing such psychic phenomena. A convenient alternative approach specifically adopted in experimental psychology is to merely explain these phenomena within the boundaries of psycho-centrism—thus pathologising the phenomena as a human problem. These psychology discourses which claim to dissect psychic/spiritual/cult phenomena are surprisingly devoid of the scientific rigour necessary to prove/disprove a hypothesis. They are mostly devoid of any statistical validation, the sample sizes, if any, are often notoriously small, and meta-analytic studies are rare. Their own approach dangerously negates even the most conventional scientific method while critiquing/exploring/experimenting upon phenomena often bracketed within the non-scientific. This is a huge problem since modern scientific inquiry is based on observation and experimentation, hypothesis and theory testing, reproducibility, and empirical evidence. On another front, empirical research based on statistical inference has limitations—especially in the field of experimental psychology. The validity of the results may be impacted by several inconsistencies and confounding variables that can emerge when designing such research. In his seminal paper, Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation Carl G. Hempel (1962) argues that statistical explanations are inductive because they do not provide certainty but rather likelihoods. When we use a statistical law to explain an event, we are generalising from observed frequencies or probabilities to explain individual cases. This process is inherently inductive because it involves inferring from specific instances (data or observed cases) to broader generalisations (probabilistic laws). Unlike deductive reasoning, where conclusions are guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, inductive reasoning only provides probable conclusions based on the evidence available. So, it becomes clear that given the already inherent problematic nature of inductive reasoning in statistics, if the rules of both the scientific method and the statistical method are broken, experimental psychology remains in no position to prove/disprove psychic/spiritual phenomena.

Cognitive neuroscience, too, conveniently resorts to brain imaging and is content defining the brain signatures of psychic experiences—assuming this has put an end to any other argument. In reality, often the results of these lit-up brain regions tell nothing more than what is already known or established. Art historian David Freedberg, who has worked with neuroscientists, once said in the context of neuro-aesthetics: ‘The humanities don’t really know about what happens in the brain—we can just look at the results from neuroscience about aesthetics…However, do tell, but tell us what we don’t already know’ (Hutton, 2014). The same goes for studying the neuroscience of altered states of consciousness, and the imaging results often beg the question: So What?

Psycho-centric/neuro-centric postulates presume that psychic experiences are merely altered physiological states primed by psychological predispositions influenced by society and culture. It is simply beyond the scope of current experimental psychology/neurosciences to even consider whether or not this physiological state is just another essential step leading to a yet unexplained phenomenon. Perhaps the activation of cortico-limbic dopaminergic, serotonergic, or opioid pathways in the brain plays a role in attaining spirituality or psychic experiences. Perhaps synchronous oscillations within the delta and theta frequencies contribute to such experiences. Perhaps standard symptoms of psychosis/schizophrenia are pre-conditions to attaining these altered psychological states. However, how do these psychological/physiological/neurological mechanisms prove or disprove the existence of spirituality or the psyche—or any experience, for that matter? Again, these are not novel insights but widely recognised problems debated in philosophy discourses—and yet continue to remain as open secrets.

This situation mirrors the allegory of the blind men and the elephant (Figure 1), where each man, having never encountered an elephant before, attempts to conceptualize it by touching only a part of its body. Their descriptions differ wildly, and they even accuse one another of deception.

A majority of scientists would argue that they are not claiming to be knowing or working on absolute truth—they are just trying to work on a part of reality. Now—this is even more dangerous—it’s like saying: I know that the elephant doesn’t actually look like its tusk—but let me stick to my task of knowing the elephant by its tusk—some other scientist would be working on the tail to follow its trail. Needless to say, this is an immature approach. At the most, they can say: Okay, let us make a needle from the tusk which would help mankind stitch torn clothes —which is fine.

A common counterargument is: How does one know an elephant through faith? Faith here refers to an unyielding belief in something or someone for which there is no need for quantitative, measurable proof. If we reframe this question to: How do we understand form through faith?—the answer is that one doesn’t need to know form through faith the way we deduce form through physical measurement and sensory perceptions. Even trying to do so nullifies faith itself. Faith doesn’t obey the same rules of measurement and quantification that the known senses require to construct the meaning of the world—even though one might argue that faith itself is a product of higher-order cognitive function.

That is why when Jesus utters on the Cross: ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’ (Luke 23:34, Figure 2)—it is irrelevant to ponder whether or not Christ was talking to an old man with a white beard. Or when J.M.W. Turner paints the Snow Storm: Hannibal and his Army Crossing the Alps (1812) on a 57.5 in X 93.5 in canvas, it is not a coincidence that the ‘form’ of Hannibal’s elephant (with almost no trace of Hannibal himself) is inconspicuous and dwarfed by the sublimity of an untranslatable, awe-inspiring force of nature (Figure 3). Or when Helen Frankenthaler paints the Mountains and Sea (1952, Figure 4), the last thing in her mind is to present the mountains and the sea in a way human beings perceive as conventional forms. Or when Susan J. Barnes (1989) states about The Rothko Chapel (made of fourteen completely black-hued paintings by Mark Rothko—1964-1967) that it has become a place of private prayer for individuals of all faiths—the last thing that she was trying to imply is that the individuals can deduce the form of a Homo sapiens-like God hidden in those black canvases even though an individual might indeed see someone like that through faith (Figure 5). There are no rules set in stone here.

Who established the criterion that a scientific inquiry is valid only if it is quantifiable? Why does science disregard other modes of inference—such as those attained through faith, transcendence, and intuition? Why are these regarded as being beyond the scope of legitimate investigation? Just because numerical measurement successfully determines the distance between the Earth and the Moon, how can it serve as the universal yardstick for validating all inquiries—including those concerning altered experiences, faith, religion, honesty, morality, and other belief systems?

Experimental psychology, in many ways, comes closest to challenging this standard scientific paradigm while remaining within the ambit of scientific logic. However, it ultimately falls into the same trap of documentation, as its assessment criteria are biased toward empirical (with its distorted meaning) validation.

I apologize if my suggestions seem unhelpful. Like you, I have attempted to understand the nature of truth through multiple perspectives. Beyond the sheer joy of artistic expression, every intellectual pursuit has, for me, eventually faltered—like the blind man trying to see an elephant.

The fallibility of human experience, prejudices, and irrationality are often placed as standard arguments against validating psychic and mystical experiences. However, strangely enough, the same fallibility is not weighed similarly when it comes to the domain of scientific empirical validation. The history of science with regard to the heliocentric solar system, insights into the universe through unverified thought experiments, the scandals regarding the origin of the Human race, and the ‘spooky’ (in Einstein’s words) postulates in quantum physics are just some examples to consider.

From a purely biological perspective, we as thinkers with our developed pre-frontal cortex are far less efficient in our resilience in maintaining and sustaining our progeny when compared to a virus that evolves, sustains and multiplies in an incomparably more proficient manner. Our problem-solving and decision-making ability more often than not makes us appear as enfant terrible compared to other animals who do not know how to light a fire but arguably lead a more rational life. From a purely philosophical perspective, we as thinkers have yet to scratch the surface of the famous question—Who am I?  

Kind Regards,

Dyutiman Mukhopadhyay, 2021’  

References:

Barnes, S., de Menil, J., de Menil, D., Rothko, M., Newman, B., & Johnson, P. (1989). The Rothko Chapel: An act of faith. Rothko Chapel. ISBN 978-0-945472-00-1.

Dekalog. (1989–1990). TV Series. Directed by K. Kieslowski. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092337/

Frankenthaler, H. (1952). Mountains and Sea [Oil and charcoal on canvas]. Retrieved from https://www.nga.gov/audio-video/audio/collection-highlights-east-building-english/mountains-and-sea-frankenthaler.html

Hempel, C. G. (1962). Deductive-nomological vs. statistical explanation. In Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 98–105). Free Press.

Hutton, N. (2014, February 17). Art and the default mode network. The Beautiful Brain. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from http://thebeautifulbrain.com/2014/02/art-and-the-default-mode-network/

Labatut, B. (2021). When we cease to understand the world (A. MacKay, Trans.). Pushkin Press.

Luke 23:34. (n.d.). The Bible, New International Version. Retrieved from https://www.bible.com/bible/111/LUK.23.34.NIV

Newberg, A. B., & Yaden, D. B. (2018). A neurotheological perspective on altered states of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(11–12), 204–225.

Timmermann, C., Roseman, L., Schartner, M., Milliere, R., Williams, L., Erritzoe, D., Muthukumaraswamy, S., Ashton, M., Bendrioua, A., Kaur, O., Turton, S., Nour, M. M., Day, C. M., Leech, R., Nutt, D. J., & Carhart-Harris, R. L. (2019). Neural correlates of the DMT experience assessed with multivariate EEG. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 16324. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51974-4