If the Law of Attraction is a true principle in the universe, how long will it take for it to be proven by the scientific establishment?
KEYWORDS: computational intelligence, emotional intelligence, emotions, feelings, law of attraction, philosophy, psychology, scientific proof, Seth.
I have previously written many articles on various arguments against the Law of Attraction (all of which can be accessed via my overview page named “Law of Attraction: Is It Real?“).
This time, however, I am instead asking the question, “When Will Law of Attraction Be Proven By Science?”
In this article I am, of course, assuming that the Law of Attraction is true, and that it is an actual working principle in our space-time reality. So the question I’m asking, more precisely, is this: assuming that Law of Attraction is real, what would it take for it to be proven by science?
PART 1: WHEN PROVEN BY SCIENCE?
To my knowledge, there is no substantial research going on in the academic community, in terms of verifying the principle of Law of Attraction. Therefore, the question might be raised: “When will science prove it, if it is true?”
The answer to that question, in my view, is that we should not expect it to happen in the near future. In fact, we might not see it even in our own lifetimes.
But then, of course, another question might be posed:
“Why in the whole world must it take that long, if the universe really works according to such a principle? I mean, if that law is as important and fundamental as the proponents of the Law of Attraction claim, how can it not be one of the most important research topics on the planet?”
That is a fair question. And the answer is simply that the academic research is not always driven by what is true and what is not true, or what is “important” (for some persons), but by other factors.
And it is these other factors that are stopping or hindering the Law of Attraction to become part of the “scientific consensus”, or even be contemplated as a potential research subject.
So in the rest of this article I am going to present some possible reasons for why the scientific community will not, in the foreseeable future, be able to verify its existence.
But before I’m starting to talk about those possible reasons for why there is so little interest in researching the topic of the Law of Attraction, I will be very clear about one thing.
I am not suggesting that it is “bad” or “ethically wrong” or “morally objectionable” that the scientists are doing what they are doing (whatever they are doing).
So regardless of the exact reason for why they have not yet started researching the Law of Attraction, they are doing their thing, and I am doing mine. And that’s perfectly fine.
In other words, this article is not an article on the “impropriety” of the scientists and their practices. Rather, it is simply an article about some possible reasons for why the research on Law of Attraction has not yet started.
PART 2: SCIENTISTS
Academic science is conducted by professional researchers. These are hired by the colleges and universities and other research institutions to do their research. But they are also human beings, with various limitations (whether perceived or actual).
Not Enough Time
Apart from their research (cf. “publish or perish”), the typical university or college researchers also simultaneously teach during term time, and guide the dissertation work of their graduate students. So they have very little time for any “extra” activities (such as researching the Law of Attraction).
So if Law of Attraction is not already one of their main research topics, there would be very little time left to do any substantial research about the Law of Attraction.
Those researchers who are not fully tenured professors (i.e. typically assistant professors, associate professors, lecturers, and others) are typically very careful when it comes to their reputation.
For if their reputation is damaged, then they may very well be more or less unemployable. So by associating with “the wrong people” and “the wrong ideas”, they may effectively destroy their own academic career.
So let’s say that you are hired at a typical (non-religious) college or university, and you have recently come to conclude (rightly, I might add) that Darwin and his core ideas are wrong (see my article on Seth and Darwinian evolution). If you then try to publish your findings, or give talks about your research, then you might very well be experiencing a tremendous amount of resistance from your editors and your audience.
Thus, in order to keep your job, and your reputation intact, it is a very good idea to stay away from controversial topics. And the Law of Attraction is such a topic.
In order to even contemplate the idea of trying to prove the existence of the Law of Attraction, one must have a positive attitude toward it. And by that I essentially mean that one must have a certain emotional intelligence, not a “high IQ” type of intelligence.
So being a Mensa member is not a sufficient requirement for developing a sensibility for Law of Attraction. Maybe a Mensa membership is even a disqualifying factor. Having a Law of Attraction sensibility requires that one’s sixth sense (emotion) is NOT overridden by “computational intelligence” or “cerebral intelligence”.
The difficulty in the university setting is that most universities and colleges use various tests such as the SAT and the GRE as prerequisites for entering the programs. This means that there are a lot of “smart” and “analytical” professors out there. But their high analytical capabilities may actually hinder their emotional intelligence. [notes 1 and 2]
Thus, it is only to be expected that very few academics would be interested in pursuing the Law of Attraction (with a positive attitude toward it).
PART 3: POLITICS
Academic science is, for the most part, not independent of the rest of society. In fact it is an essential part of the whole societal establishment. And that societal establishment is, we may say, not limited to individual countries anymore, but part of a global or semi-global establishment.
So certain theories and ideas (especially in the social sciences) may not be accepted as “interesting” to pursue, because they would disrupt the “working order” of the relevant societies. One might say that such theories and ideas lack the “political correctness” that is required for moral and monetary support from the establishment.
Below I have outlined some concepts that may prevent the Law of Attraction to be seriously investigated by science, with the aim of proving that it is true. The same concepts may actually encourage scientists to investigate the Law of Attraction, but with the aim of proving that it is false.
Not Work Hard
The philosophy of the Law of Attraction is that it is our personal vibration energy that is the real cause of our current state of affairs. So it is not the amount of “hard labor” or “high productivity” that is the real cause of our current state.
The Law of Attraction attitude is therefore that we should do less work, and instead focus more on building a stable good feeling in our daily life. This attitude fits badly in today’s society, where long hours and a “work hard” mentality is so common.
The philosophy of the Law of Attraction includes the idea of “inspiration”, as an alternative to hard-core “motivation”. The idea is thus that we should always try to keep ourselves in a happy and positive state of mind, so that we can receive inspirational ideas about what to do next.
So the general philosophy is thus: If we don’t feel like doing something, then don’t do it. Of course, this may not always be possible in practice to adhere to. But in principle, that is the general attitude. We should listen to our inner guidance more, and care less about what other people (and external circumstances) demand of us.
Therefore, in the life of a follower of the Law of Attraction, especially on the personal plane (i.e. not as a worker or an employee), the ideal is to be less dependable and more irresponsible, so that there is more room for improvisation, relaxation, and fun.
For a student of the Law of Attraction, the goal is to discover new things and to create new desires, not to build a “stable”, static, non-changing life in the suburbs (or anywhere else).
This attitude fits badly with the demands of society, which require that the citizens are dependable and responsible. So there would be little interest from the establishment to try to prove that the Law of Attraction is real.
Law of Attraction openly embraces the idea of “no altruism”. So whether we talk about “empathy”, “sympathy” or similar such things, a follower of the Law of Attraction typically is expected to abandon those behaviors in order to be able to produce the desired results in his or her practices.
Once again, such an attitude is not really accepted by society. Most societies are built around the idea that there must be some sort of “welfare” practiced, and that people in need must be helped in one way or another.
Another trait of a student of the Law of Attraction is that he or she is more or less convinced that all power is his or her own hands. In other words, for such a student, what is the need for politicians?
Thus, the Law of Attraction basically threatens the whole political system, since no sane student of the Law of Attraction would ever vote.
Therefore, there would be little interest from society (via the scientific community) to promote the Law of Attraction by proving its existence.
No Human Progress
Since the typical student of the Law of Attraction is not embracing altruism, sympathy, or empathy, he or she typically also has little interest in what society as a whole is doing.
So although the student typically has nothing against progress, there is little interest from him or her to support (morally, monetarily, etc.) any projects of “making society better” or “advancing humankind” or “establishing humans on other planets” or “saving the world”, etc.
This is therefore another reason why it would not be in society’s interest to validate the Law of Attraction.
There is little hope that the scientific establishment will prove, in the near future, that the principle of the Law of Attraction is a valid description of what is going on in our universe.
What we as students of Law of Attraction should focus on is thus not whether this principle is proven by science or not (since it probably won’t happen soon anyway), but whether it works in our own lives.
In other words, validation and proof are very important. But the only way to really validate it is to try it out oneself (whether or not science has validated it).
So by learning how to master the Law of Attraction we can be our own scientists, and verify, beyond all doubt, that we all, indeed, have the creative power of the universe at our disposal. We just have to learn to go with the flow.
- One way to see the “computational intelligence” of the researchers in action is in the prevalence of the huge number of “scenarios” and “game matrices” (or “payoff matrices”) that are produced in game theory, decision theory, and academic philosophy. These are based on the assumption that we, as humans, are computational beings who are always computing what the most advantageous decision would be in a given situation. So, for example, we have the Journalist’s Dilemma (Colman 1999, p. 24), the Allais Paradox (Hastie and Dawes 2010, p. 261), the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Poundstone 1993), The Flower Example (Allingham 2002, pp. 71-73), and the Hawk-Dove-Retaliator Game (Binmore 2007, pp. 136-138).
- This “game theory” thinking (as mentioned in note 1 above) is very different than the type of thinking that we, as students of the Law of Attraction, should be doing. For we are learning to always expect the best outcome for ourselves (that is, there are no “alternate scenarios” other than ourselves getting exactly what we want). Thus, for us there is no “decision matrix” or “payoff matrix” to analyze, and no unpleasing scenarios to worry about.
- Allingham, Michael (2002), Choice Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link to book]
- Binmore, Ken (2007), Game Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link to book]
- Colman, Andrew M. (1999), Game Theory and Its Applications in the Social and Biological Sciences. Second Edition. London and New York: Routledge. [Link to book]
- Hastie, Reid, and Robyn M Dawes (2010), Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Link to book]
- Poundstone, William (1993), Prisoner’s Dilemma. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link to book (other ed.)]
NOTE: All links are clean (i.e. NOT affiliate links).