133 Imposition of Scientific Paradigms

Academic Journal of Suriname 2011, 2, 133 – 138 Social Sciences

Short communication

“You've ever had that feeling where you are not sure if you are awake or still dreaming?”
– Neo, in the Warchowski Brothers’ “The Matrix”

Domination of the Mind1

Daniël A. Lachman2

Applied Intellect, Paramaribo, Suriname

Abstract
Modern mainstream science is restricted to a number of paradigms, research designs and
methods, without often even knowing this. Alternatives are deemed of no scientific value. This
emergence of paradigms, designs and methods above alternatives has been possible – due to
vested interests – because of a number of reasons: extensive widespread disclosure (even by
mandating the use in alien contexts where they are actually inapplicable – envelopment), the
Consistency Condition, where modern science demands to build upon existing theories, whether
or not these are sound, and refutes new theories; the Autonomy Principle, which implies that only
perceivable facts add to scientific discussions, and the division of science into disciplines which
confine the frame of reference of academics within the border of their discipline.
The indoctrination is illustrated by using two examples. First, the false premise that neoliberal
policies are the only way to develop and are therefore the only policies that should be placed
under close scrutiny in science. Second, the false premise that alternative energies are more
expensive in set-up and operation compared to conventional fuels; these are therefore receiving
less attention in research and development worldwide.
The domination of the mind has been an obstacle to the advancement of science and societies. In
order to overcome this science its practitioners should “re-invent the wheel”, “think outside-the-
box”, “have a critical stance”, “not accept anything that they do not fully understand and endorse”,
and “not reject anything that they cannot convincingly refute”. In order words, modern science
needs to “free its mind”.

Keywords: paradigms, disclosure, indoctrination, disciplines, ludicology

1
The picture on the title page represents a screenshot of the Matrix, a computer program designed to make our
minds believe that we are experiencing the real world, as displayed in the movie “The Matrix” (The Warchowski
Brothers 1999).
2
Correspondence to: Daniël A. Lachman. Applied Intellect, Leiding 11A, Paramaribo, Suriname. Tel: 597 323281.
E-mail: danny_lachman@yahoo.com

Available on-line June 15, 2011

Acad J Sur 2011, (2), 133 - 138
134
1. Introduction
In this paper I want to put forward the
thesis that science has become dogmatic,
inflexible and locked in a mode that rejects
(radical or fundamental) alternative
hypotheses, and therefore impedes its own
advancement. I will put forward the solution to
this problem by advocating a practice of
science where “anything goes”.
In our contemporary age people are
brought up in an environment where science is
prescribed: paradigms, research designs and
methods are provided and any deviations from
these --- are not deemed scientific and thus are
invalid to belong to the realm of academia.
However, this confinement restricts the
advancement of science and societies.
Furthermore, even though
aforementioned paradigms, designs and
methods have originated in certain contexts
(with respect to culture, time, natural
environment etc.), their advocates nevertheless
propose, and even impose, these in alien
contexts. Findings originating in these alien
contexts which contradict mainstream science
are then therefore deemed “non-scientific”.
This also impedes scientific progress and is
even detrimental to the society alien to the
context from which the imposed mainstream
science originated.
Unfortunately, very often people and
institutions (even respected scientists and
universities) are not aware that they are
confined to certain paradigms (whether or not
alien to their context), and do not even realize
that alternatives exist which can produce more
and better insights and results.
This paper dissects the ways in which
self-restricting mainstream science is
globalized, and even imposed. An attempt to
come up with an answer to break outside the
outer rims of ruling paradigms will be
provided. After this introduction, the next
chapter digs into the confinement of academia
to a certain set of paradigms, how this is
established and how this confinement to these
paradigms is globalized across countries
around the world. The following chapter
provides two striking examples of scientific
doctrine which have proved to be disastrous
around the world. The fourth chapter
accompanied with examples deals with
providing a solution to think outside the ruling
Acad J Sur 2011, (2), 133 - 138
Imposition of Scientific Paradigms
paradigm. Finally, the paper ends with a
conclusion and immediately thereafter a list of
references used for this paper.
2. Methodology
In our contemporary age science and
its achievements are no longer restricted from
the wider public. Where in ancient times up till
at least the dawn of the Industrial Age science
and its forthcomings were practiced by and
disclosed to only a small fraction of society,
today everyone has the ability to learn not only
of science’s achievements but also how it
should be practiced. This public accessibility is
possible through mass media (television,
magazines, internet etc.), the educational
system (universities, academic journals, etc.)
and institutes (research and development
centers run by private organizations,
governmental bodies, Non-Governmental
Organizations, etc.).
However, or actually fortunately,
even within science opinions differ, schools of
thought battle each other, and different points
of view collide. But it is a rarity among the
rare if more than one viewpoint on a subject
matter is widely disclosed, and thus the wider
public is only aware of one viewpoint, which
as can be seen later on is not a better viewpoint
by definition. This is how scientific paradigms,
research designs and methods spread around
whereas alternatives get pushed aside. Even
more daunting, as the reigning paradigm
gathers a stronger user base and is more able to
influence its target subjects (Beder 2003,
Scheer 2005, Romm 2005, Klein 2007),
alternatives are labeled “non-academic”, “non-
science”, or – indeed – even “nonsense”, not
only by the originators of the ruling paradigm
but even by the public (e.g. Friedman 2007).
A special case of disclosure which
makes paradigms gather foothold is through
their imposition by means of mandates by their
advocates (Beder 2003, Klein 2007, Chang
2008) often disguised by carrying the label of
“development”. Sankatsing names this process
“envelopment” since it is the subjugation of an
entity to an alien paradigm regardless of the
entity’s context and its compatibility with the
paradigm (2007).
Paul Feyerabend became
controversial in academia by bringing to the
attention science’s self-restriction in his
magnum opus Against Method (1975). In his
 Daniël Lachman
work he goes as far as saying that modern
science is actually more dogmatic than really
scientific and can therefore be compared with
religion. Feyerabend points to two main forces
(he barely mentions the contribution of
disclosure discussed above) that keep the
reigning paradigm gathering more strongholds:
1. The Consistency Condition: modern
scientific practice imposes the demand to
build upon existing theories, whether or
not these are sound, and refutes new
theories.;
2. The Autonomy Principle: only perceivable
facts add to scientific discussions.
Another factor leading to the
emergence of a scientific paradigm over
alternatives is the division of science into
disciplines, which is discussed briefly by
Scheer (2005) but in-depth by Sankatsing
(2001). This division into disciplines restricts a
person’s frame of reference to the ruling
thought within that discipline. This is often
experienced in the field of engineering, where
problems cannot be solved by an engineer
from a specific discipline (e.g. mechanical
engineering) alone, since solving the problem
requires in-depth knowledge of the machine in
which it occurs and thus knowledge outside
the borders which contour the engineer’s
discipline (e.g. electrical and civil engineering,
tribology, etc.).
This “domination of the mind” occurs
more frequently than one might imagine; as a
matter of fact it happens all the time as vested
interests (in business, politics, religion etc.) try
to gain momentum or secure their stronghold.
Examples are the claims that Pythagoras came
up with his famous mathematical formula, and
in academia the rejection of certain research
paradigms, designs and methods and the
laudation of others, neoliberalism as a
condition for development, the division of
science into disciplines, etc.
The mass-scale disclosure (including
the process of envelopment), Consistency
Condition, Autonomy Principle, and the
division of science into disciplines give rise to
one ruling (set of) paradigm(s) in science,
which may not be suitable in particular
contexts, obstruct the advancement of science,
limit science to only one or a couple of
possible paths forward, and even inflict serious
damage to societies (ranging from financial
losses to numerous deaths) on a global scale as
will be shown in the next chapter.
135
2.1 Examples: from Neoliberalism to Fossil
Fuels
This chapter will discuss two
examples showing how scientific research is
purposely steered by vested interest into
directions that do not necessarily coincide with
the interests of the public; as a matter of fact,
we’ll see that this push even has detrimental
effects, such as deaths, financial losses,
corruption and huge missed opportunities.
2.1.1. Mind Domination #1: “Neoliberalism
is the Deus Ex Machina”
The neoliberal paradigm originated at
the University of Chicago’s Economics
Department in the 1960s and 1970s through
the works of Milton Friedman. He deployed its
policies, such as free trade, privatization and
reduced government spending, in Chili, which
proved to be disastrous. Jeffrey Sachs
deployed these policies in Bolivia, Poland and
Russia, which met the same fate as their
predecessor (Klein 2007).
Nevertheless, through multilateral
institutions such as the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank these policies were
still pushed forward and mandated (Beder
2003, Hiatt 2007, Chang 2008). This was done
in such a way that the public, academia and the
government strongly believed that this was the
only path to development (Girvan 2009). On
top of this, the neoliberal paradigm was
strongly advocated by highly influential people
such as Alan Greenspan, a longtime chairman
of the Unites States Federal Reserve
(Greenspan 2007), Thomas Friedman, a
Pulitzer-price winning columnist for the New
York Times (Friedman 2007 and 2008), and
Paul Collier, a longtime World Bank staff
member (Collier 2007).
As a result, in the field of science
economics was restricted to this paradigm,
which was globalized through abovementioned
institutions without any regard to local context
(what was earlier in this paper referred to as
the process of envelopment). Research done
using a different point of view was deemed
non-valuable, un-scientific or even socialist or
communist (Beder 2003). More specifically,
research proposals grounded in alternative
paradigms hardly got any funding (Romm
2005, Scheer 2005), making a breakthrough of
the alternative paradigm to the wider public
almost impossible, while ensuring that
neoliberalism was believed to be the ultimate
ointment against poverty, even though history
evidenced neoliberalism’s false dawn:
increased poverty, riots, corruption etc.
Acad J Sur 2011, (2), 133 - 138
136
2.1.2. Mind Domination #2: “Cheap Fossil
Fuels”
It is commonly believed that
alternative sources of energy, such as solar,
wind, wave, tidal, current and geothermal
power are far more expensive than power
generated from fossil and nuclear fuels. This
thought trickles down to country- or region-
level studies where conventional (thus based
on nuclear and fossil fuels) energy is
compared with alternative (renewable) energy
where the latter usually get tanked due to their
high cost of installation or their higher cost per
unit of electricity generated (KEMA 2008).
Unfortunately, this is a false
comparison, since conventional fuels benefit
from significant subsidies to begin with.
Contrary to renewable fuels, conventional
energy requires extensive infrastructural
networks and affiliated equipment, such as
refineries, mammoth tankers, pipelines,
storage tanks, waste fuel depositories etc. This
large infrastructure (and affiliated equipment)
is heavily subsidized: globally, networks and
equipment using fossil fuels receive
approximately 500 billion US dollars annually.
For nuclear fuels this amount is close to 1,500
billion US dollars (Scheer 2005). Alternative
fuels get only a mere 2% of the subsidies fossil
and nuclear fuels receive (Scheer 2005).
However, influential institutes such as
the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
are headed by exponents hailing from the
fossil and nuclear fuel industry (Beder 2003).
Furthermore, these industries are also
significant financial contributors to these
organizations. Hence, the IEA and the IAEA
have a strong bias towards fossil and nuclear
fuels, do not mention the heavily subsidized
nature of conventional fuels, and hammer on
the high costs involved with alternative
energy. This strong bias trickles down to
domestic government agencies (e.g. the
Department of Energy in the United States),
research institutes and universities, which are
closely tied to the biased IEA and IAEA
because of the funding and information these
institutes provide (Beder 2003, Romm 2005).
Thus, due to bias in the higher levels
of major influential institutions which expands
to other organizations on lower levels, the
belief that alternative/ renewable energies are
more expensive than conventional fossil and
nuclear fuel results in the fact that much more
research and government support is spent on
the latter, while the former does not get the
Acad J Sur 2011, (2), 133 - 138
Imposition of Scientific Paradigms
chance it deserves. This research, biased
towards conventional energy, is further
stimulated by the massive amounts of funding
research institutes such as universities and
national laboratories receive from
multinationals in the fossil fuel and nuclear
energy sector which vastly overwhelms entire
budgets of companies specializing in
renewables (Beder 2003, Romm 2005).
Therefore, renewable energy does not gain the
dominance in global energy production which
it should have in the pursuit to halt climate
change.
3. Results
The main question that one might
come up with when reading the above, is how
people should break out of ruling paradigms.
Sankatsing (2011) has the simple and logical
answer: You should not accept anything that
you do not fully understand and endorse.
Second, (y)ou should not reject anything that
you cannot convincingly refute (italics added).
Coinciding with the statement above,
having a critical stance, out-of-the-box
thinking, and re-inventing the wheel should
actually be promoted. As Feyerabend puts it,
people should not be made proficient in one
paradigm, but actually be acquainted to
multiple paradigms and actually develop the
skill to determine which paradigm needs to be
used in a particular context (1975). He is an
advocate of working counter-inductively (or
anarchistic as he calls it) since this is how
significant scientific progress has been
achieved in the past.
Thus paradigms, research designs and
methods should not be simply mimicked (as is
unfortunately done by governments,
multinationals, NGOs and other institutes and
individuals) from others even if mandated by
well-respected individuals and institutes.
Rather, these paradigms, designs and methods
should be examined first, which should point
out whether they are useful to be used within a
particular context or whether they need to be
refuted, replaced or adjusted. If this critical
stance is not adhered to, others will follow in
adopting the paradigms, designs and methods
harmful to their own context. An excellent
example of this is the proliferation of research
done on neoliberalism despite the fact that it
has not proven to be beneficial for the greater
good as described by Klein (2007).
There are fortunately some success
stories of entities which refused to simply copy
 Daniël Lachman
paradigms but rather focused on forming their
own, using their own context as the
foundation:
- For a long time institutions deemed it
impossible to lend poor people (primarily
in developing countries) any money
without collateral. Doing this went against
all conventional reason and was compared
to suicide. However, the Grameen Bank in
Bangladesh proved otherwise and based
its success formula on lending small
amounts of money (micro credit) to small
business start-ups. This approach proved
to be extremely successful leading to a
significant growth of the Grameen Bank.
Western banking majors are now copying
the success formula (even though they
deemed it impossible in the past), and
(ironically) the opening of a branch of the
Grameen Bank in New York to offer
micro credit to impoverished people in the
United States (Vossen 2011);
- During the second half of the 20th century
the majority of countries built electricity
and transportation fuel infrastructure on a
foundation of fossil (and to a lesser extent
nuclear) fuels. However, Brazil was a
notable exception to this: instead of
mimicking other countries who were
rejoicing in the wake of cheap and
abundant oil, this country chose to focus
on its own natural resources. For its
electricity production Brazil relied on its
massive resource of hydropower, and for
its transportation fuels Brazilians resorted
to the cultivation of sugar cane which was
processed into a bio-fuel (ethanol). Its
research institutes and universities were
primarily focused on the development and
optimization of these types of energy
sources (Lyons 2010). Decades later,
Western countries follow the example set
by Brazil.
In the 1970s there was a niche school
of thought which was against prescribed
paradigms in academia, just like Paul
Feyerabend. They called themselves the
“ludicologists”; this is derived from the Latin
verb “Luděre” which means “to play”. With
“ludicology” they referred to the attitude with
respect to scientific paradigms, research
designs and methods that – when it comes to
science – “Anything goes” (as Feyerabend puts
it in his seminal work). Therefore,
ludicologists refuse to restrict themselves to
prescriptions forwarded by academia (Ferrier
2006). With such an attitude combined with a
137
critical stance as put forward by Sankatsing,
one can choose or adjust paradigms, designs
and methods in such a way that their
application is finely tuned with the context and
therefore better geared to yield sound scientific
results.
4. Discussion
In 1999 Warner Brothers released the
science fiction blockbuster “The Matrix”
which made a huge impact because of its
special effects, style and story. In this picture,
the real world is taken over by machines with
artificial intelligence which get their power
from the body heat produced by humans.
There are literally fields where humans are
kept in a dormant state and are being grown
until they reach the appropriate size so they
can be usurped by the machines. To keep these
people dormant (and from waking up and
revolting), their minds are kept “fooled” by a
computer simulation – the Matrix – where they
experience life as we currently know it,
without really knowing what is going on, i.e.
that they are asleep and being kept captive to
be used as batteries for the machines (the
Warchowski Brothers 1999).
The main character, Neo, is also in a
dormant state and is told that the world around
him is a lie, but that he has the ability to break
and bend the rules (e.g. rules of gravity) of the
Matrix, such as dodging bullets and punching
through walls. However, to unlock these
capabilities he needs to believe that the rules of
the Matrix are flexible: he needs to “free his
mind”.
This movie is a great metaphor for
what is currently the case with contemporary
science: academics are confined within
paradigms, research designs and methods,
which have often been prescribed out of vested
interests. Furthermore, academics are usually
not even aware that they are only looking at
science from a strongly biased point of view;
they believe that their view is the only right
way and should therefore be applied
irrespective of the context. History has shown
that this is detrimental for the advancement of
science and societies, and academics must
therefore be exposed to a multitude of
paradigms, designs and methods. They must
not become proficient in one way of thinking
only, but know of various viewpoints and
become skilled in choosing the right
viewpoint, methodology, method etc. with
respect to context. To put it another way, I
Acad J Sur 2011, (2), 133 - 138
138
claim that mainstream academia needs to “free
its mind”.
References
Beder, S. 2003. Power Play. The Fight to Control the
World’s Electricity. The New Press, New York
Chang, H. 2008. Bad Samaritans: the myth of free
trade and the secret history of capitalism.
Bloomsbury Press, New York
Collier, P. 2007. The Bottom Billion. Why the Poorest
Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done
About It. Oxford University Press, New York
Ferrier, D. 2006. Transformatiemanagement (5). Van
anarchie naar creatieve productiviteit. In: De
Ware Tijd. Maandag, 11 september, De Ware
Tijd, Paramaribo
Feyerabend, Paul 1975. Against Method. Outline of
an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Verso, s.l.
Friedman, T. 2007. The World is Flat. A Brief History
of the Twenty-first Century. Release 3.0,
Picador/ Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York
Friedman, T. 2008. Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Why we
need a green revolution – and how it can
renew America. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux,
New York
Girvan, N. 2009. Trade Liberalisation And Economic
Integration. Issues of Power and Ideology.
Presentation held at the University of
Suriname’s Institute of Graduate Studies and
Research, 12 – 13 March
Greenspan, Alan 2007. The Age of Turbulence.
Adventures in a new world. Penguin Books,
London
Hiatt, Steven 2007. A Game As Old As Empire. The
Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the
Acad J Sur 2011, (2), 133 - 138
Imposition of Scientific Paradigms
Web of Global Corruption. Berret-Koehler
Publishers, San Francisco
KEMA 2008. Suriname Power Sector Assessment
and Alternatives for its Modernization. Issues
and Options Report. Final Version, Ministry of
Natural Resources of Suriname, Paramaribo
Klein, N. 2007. The Shock Doctrine. The rise of
disaster capitalism. Picador, New York
Lyons, J. 2010. Brazil Engineers a Critic-Proof Dam.
In: The Wall Street Journal. Thursday, October
7, New York City
Romm, J. J. 2005. The hype about hydrogen. Fact
and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate.
Island Press, Washington D.C.
Scheer, H. 2005. Energy autonomy. Earthscan,
London
Sankatsing, G. 2001. Social Science as a victim of its
own disciplines. The English- and Dutch-
Speaking Caribbean. In: Caribbean sociology:
Introductory Readings. Eds.: Barrow, C. and
Reddock, R., Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston
Sankatsing, G. 2007. Development and Society in
the Americas. Reflections for a lecture and
conversation at the “8th International Meeting
on Education and Thinking”, Aruba, May 2-5
Sankatsing, G. 2011. Research Philosophy and
Methodology. Session 1. Research, Philosophy
and Knowledge. Presentation held at the
University of Suriname’s Institute of Graduate
Studies and Research, 7 February
The Warchowski Brothers 1999. The Matrix. Warner
Brothers, Los Angeles
Vossen, M. 2011. Wat van ver komt, is handig. In:
Internationale Samenwerking, No. 2, NCDO,
Amsterdam