State-specific sciences

In previous chapters I argue that the ordinary (or any) d-SoC is a semi arbitrary construction, a specialized tool, useful for some things but not for others. A consequence of this is that science is specialized, because it is a one-d-SoC science. As a method of learning science has been applied only in a limited way because it has been used in only one of many possible d-SoCs. This chapter works out the consequences of this idea in detail and proposes that if we are to understand d-ASCs adequately, as well as ourselves as human beings, we must develop state-specific sciences.1 

Blackburn [7] recently noted that many of our most talented young people are turned off from science as a solution, he proposed that we recognize the validity of a more sensuous-intuitive approach to nature, treating it as complementary to the classical intellectual approach. 

I have seen the same rejection of science by many of the brightest students in California, and the problem is indeed seri- 

II originally presented the proposal for state-specific sciences in an article in Science [119.] Most of it is reprinted here with the permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I have updated the text and terminology to fit the rest of this book. 

Would you risk going to jail to experience these  

---

States of consciousness and state-specific sciences. Science,... 

There are four basic rules of scientific method to which an investigator is committed (1) good observation, (2) the public nature of observation, (3) the necessity to theorize logically, and (4) the testing of theory by observable consequences. These constitute the scientific enterprise. I consider below the wider application of each rule to d-ASCs and indicate how unnecessary physicaliStic restrictions may be dropped. I also show that all these commitments or rules can be accommodated in the development of state-specific sciences. 

Further, for the state-specific sciences I propose, we cannot specify the requirements that constitute adequate training. These can only be determined after considerable trial and error, we should also recognize that very few people may complete the training successfully. Some people do not have the necessary innate characteristics to become physicists, and some probably do not have the innate characteristics to become scientific investigators of meditative states. 

I propose the creation of various state-specific sciences, if such... 

The fact that the experimenter can function skillfully in the d-SoC itself for a state-specific science does not necessarily mean he must always be the subject, while he may often be the subject, observer, and experimenter simultaneously, it is quite possible for him to collect data from experimental manipulations of other subjects in the d-SoC, and either be in that d-SoC himself at the time of data collection or be in that d-SoC himself for data reduction and theorizing. 

Examples of some observations made and theorizing done by a scientist in a specific d-ASC would illustrate the nature of a proposed state-specific science. But this is not possible because no state-specific sciences have yet been established.f61 Also, any example that would make good sense to the readers of this chapter (who are, presumably, all in an ordinary d-SoC) would not really illustrate the uniqueness of state-specific science, if it did make sense, it would be an example of a problem that could be approached adequately from both the d-ASC and our ordinary terms of accepted scientific procedures for our ordinary d-SoC and miss the point about the necessity for developing state-specific sciences. 

Some aspects of organized religion appear to resemble state-specific sciences. There are techniques that allow that believer to enter a d-ASC and then have religious experiences in that d-ASC that are proof of his religious belief. People who have had such experiences usually describe them as ineffable, not fully comprehensible in an ordinary d-SoC. Conversions at revival meetings are the most common examples of religious experiences occurring in d-ASCs induced by an intensely emotional atmosphere. 

The esoteric training systems of some religions seem to have even more resemblance to state-specific sciences. Often there are devoted specialists, complex techniques, and repeated experiencing of the d-ASCs in order to further religious knowledge. 

Nevertheless, the proposed state-specific sciences are not simply... 

Any (state-specific) science may be considered as consisting of two parts observations and theories. The observations are what can be experienced relatively directly the theories are the inferences about what nonobservable factors account for the observations. For example, the phenomenon of synesthesia (seeing colors as a result of hearing sounds) is a theoretical proposition for me in my ordinary d-SoC I do not experience it and can only generate theories about what other people report about it. if I were under the influence of psychedelic drug such as LSD or marijuana 105, I could probably experience synesthesia directly, and my descriptions of the experience would become data. 

Area TlT2 permits theoretical inferences about common subject matter from the two perspectives, in area OlT2, by contrast, the theoretical propositions of state-specific science 2 are matters of direct observation for the scientist in d-SoC 1, and vice versa for the area Tlo2. State-specific science 3 consists of a body of observation and theory exclusive to that science and has no overlap with the two other sciences it does not confirm, contradict, or complement them. 

The possibility of stimulating interactions between different state-specific sciences is very real. Creative breakthroughs in normal consciousness sciences have frequently been made by scientists temporarily in a d-ASC 18. in such instances, the scientists concerned saw quite different views of their problems and performed different kinds of reasoning, conscious or nonconscious, which led to results that could be tested within their normal consciousness science. 

A widespread and misleading assumption that hinders the development of state-specific sciences and confuses their interrelationships is the assumption that because two people are "normal" (not certified insane), their ordinary d-SoCs are essentially the same, in reality I suspect that there are enormous differences between the d-SoCs of some normal people. Because societies train people to behave and communicate along socially approved lines, these differences are obscured. 

A second major problem in developing state-specific sciences is that in some d-ASCs one s abilities to visualize and imagine are immensely enhanced, so that whatever one imagines seems perfectly real. Thus one can imagine that something is being observed and experience it as datum, if the scientist can conjure up anything he wishes, how can he ever get at truth ... 

Another approach is to realize that this problem is not unique to d-ASCs. One can have illusions and misperceptions in the ordinary d-SoC. Before the rise of modern physical science, all sorts of things were imagined about the nature of the physical world that could not be directly refuted. The same techniques that eliminated these illusions in the physical sciences can also eliminate them in state-specific sciences dealing with nonphysical data. All observations must be subjected to consensual validation and all their theoretical consequences must be examined. Those that do not show consistent patterns and cannot be replicated can be distinguished from those phenomena that do show general lawfulness across individuals. 

A third major problem is that state-specific sciences probably cannot be developed for all d-ASCs some d-ASCs may depend or result from genuine deterioration of observational and reasoning abilities or from a deterioration of volition. But the development of each state-specific science should result from trial and error, and not from a priori decisions based on reasoning in the ordinary d-SoC that would rule out attempts to develop a science for some particular state. 

The personal perils an investigator faces in attempting develop a state-specific science are of two kinds those associated with reactions colloquially called a bad trip and a good trip. 

I believe that an examination of human history and our current situation provides the strongest argument for the need to develop state specific sciences. Throughout history man has been influenced by the spiritual and mystical factors expressed (usually in watered-down form) in the religions that attract the masses. Spiritual and mystical experiences are primary phenomena of various d-ASCs because of such experiences, untold numbers of both the noblest and most horrible acts of which men are capable have been committed. Yet in all the time that western science as existed, no concerted attempt has been made to understand these d-ASC phenomena in scientific terms. 

I have nothing against religious and mystical groups. Yet I suspect that the vast majority of them have developed compelling belief systems rather than state-specific sciences, will scientific method be extended to the development of state-specific sciences to improve our human situation Or will the immense power of d-ASCs be left in the hands of many cults and sects ... 

Ordinary consciousness science" is not a good example of a pure state-specific science because many important discoveries have occurred during d-ASCs such as reverie, dreaming, and meditative states. Cback)... 

In proposing the idea of state-specific sciences some years ago, I noted that our ordinary state of consciousness is limited and arbitrary in many ways. In our ordinary state we do not have access to the full range of human perceptions, logics, emotions, and possibilities of action, but only to a specialized selection of them. This selection is generally useful for everyday problems of survival and fulfillment in our particular culture, but quite inadequate for other human issues that go beyond the everyday. We have discussed these limitations in detail in earlier chapters. 

Tart, States of Consciousness and State-Specific Sciences, Science 176 (1972) 1203-1210 Tart, States of Consciousness-, Tart, Transpersonal Psychologies. 

---