Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00249)

Hello,

Well I've been sitting on this one for awhile now but
I thought I'd bite the bullet and finally get it out
there into the big wide world. Please be cautious and
recognise the limitations. Also recognise the
implications if such research can be taken further. I
know some of you out there will probably think that
karma, or other doctrines in the SD, need not be
proven by science. But, hey, it's always good when
they are, aren't they? All comments, public or
private, are more than welcome.

Mic


Scientific Proof of Karma?

Proof of many Eastern doctrines has been sorely
lacking in Western science due to a number of reasons.
These reasons include a lack of understanding of
Eastern doctrines among Western scientists, a belief
that spiritual doctrines cannot be proven with the
tools of a materialistic science, and, perhaps, a
notion of superiority that Westerners held or hold
over their Eastern counter-parts. 

One doctrine that has received general acceptance in
the West is the universal notion of karma. Such
acceptance is often manifested in popular culture
through television, theatre, movies, literature and
music. Karma is taken to mean that for every action
there is a reaction. Therefore the good one does now
returns as an equal good in the future. It is taken to
mean the doctrine of inevitable consequence. Even
though this notion is readily accepted, scientific
proof of karma is not forthcoming either due to a lack
of will on behalf of scientists or for some of the
reasons previously outlined. But if karma is a
universal phenomena, as strongly claimed by those who
advocate karma, then scientific proof should be
readily available.

It is the purpose here to attempt to find a scientific
method that has the potential to demonstrate karma.
The results show that this is indeed possible however
the research is in an embryological stage and any
generalisations that can be generated here should be
done so with utmost caution.

Background to the most Appropriate Methodology

Science has many tools at its disposal that can be
utilised to achieve a predefined outcome. Experimental
studies are common, where one variable is controlled
while another is manipulated and any differences are
subsequently compared, and observational studies are
also commonly conducted in the name of science.
However, due to time and monetary constraints these
methods may not always be the most efficient. Recently
there has been a surge in the number of scientific
papers that have used computer modelling which often
overcome time, monetary and even practical
constraints. 

Another method that is used, particularly in
evolutionary biology and ecology, is that of games.
Games can be conveniently employed to define a
universal state that is tightly constrained according
to the rules imposed by the user. These rules can be
infinite and manipulated for the most desirable
outcome. These rules are effectively the variables
that are manipulated in a traditional experiment.
Therefore control groups and treatment groups,
hypotheses and statistical analysis can be easily
established and conducted. Conclusions can thus be
readily drawn.

The methods presented here are in accord with
experimental data obtained from scientific games. The
game chosen here is that of “snakes & ladders”. 

Methodology

Games in science are typically conducted using
computer programs with strict mathematical formulae
that define the behaviour of all the variables
involved. As the purpose of this exercise was to
establish the validity of a scientific method that
could be applied to the proof or disproof of karma a
preliminary hand method was employed. However, the
data gathered is by no means less scientific because
it was conducted by hand and not by computer. It is
anticipated that for general acceptance of the
theory/doctrine of karma rigorous computer programming
would be the most desirable option.

Materials
A snakes & ladders board game was chosen because it is
effectively circular and has no definite end. The user
defines when the game ends. When a player reaches the
last place on the board the player is returned to the
start to go through the process once more. There are
an equal number of chances for landing on a snake and
a ladder and the amount of places one advances or
retreats having landed on either a snake or a ladder
is also equal. Four players were chosen, two control
and two treatments. A standard dice was used to
determine how far players advanced in one go. 

Procedure
All players started the game at place 1. Each player
was moved in succession and the place where they moved
to was either recorded as neutral, good or bad.
Neutral was defined as a place which contained neither
a snake nor a ladder. Good was defined as landing on a
ladder and bad was defined as landing on a snake. The
control players proceeded throughout the game as
normal. The treatment players, on the other hand, had
a cheat mechanism which aimed at simulating as doing
something bad which would later return as a bad event,
hence demonstrating karma. A random number generator
determined when a cheat move could take place.
Therefore, if the random number generator showed a 6
then on the sixth move the treatment players had the
option of cheating. After this 6th move had been
conducted another random number was chosen for the
next cheat move. So the next random number generated
may have been a 3. So on the subsequent third move a
cheat could be conducted. A cheat is defined as not
accepting to land on a snake when a treatment player
happen to coincide a particular move with a cheat move
and landing on a snake. The treatment player moved one
space forward or backward depending on which was the
more favourable. 

Hypothesis
The hypothesis being tested here is that the treatment
group should land on a snake more often than the
control group. Therefore the null hypothesis is the
control and treatment groups both landed on snakes as
often as the other. The alternative hypothesis is that
the treatment group landed on snakes more often than
the control group. The amount of times either group
landed on a ladder was not compared. Statistical
analysis was deemed inappropriate for this method as
it could not be guaranteed that a subsequent move was
independent of a previous move. These limitations
should be recognised and the author once again
stresses the preliminary nature of this study and the
caution that should be expressed. 

Results

Overall the results supported the alternative
hypothesis in that the control had an equal amount of
good and bad hits whereas the treatment had more bad
hits than good hits. 

Each player had a total of 607 moves in the game.
Control 1 landed on a ladder (good) 66 times and
landed on a snake (bad) 67 times. Control 2 landed on
a ladder 65 times and a snake 72 times. Treatment 1
landed on a ladder 64 times and a snake 97 times.
Treatment 2 landed 60 and 76 times on a ladder and a
snake respectively. These results are summarised in
Table 1.

There were 191 opportunities for the Treatment players
to cheat throughout the game. Treatment 1 cheated on
23 occasions and Treatment 2 cheated on 14 occasions. 

Table 1: The number of times the Control and Treatment
players landed on a good or bad hit during the snakes
& ladders game.

Good (ladder)	Bad (snake)
Control 1	66	67
Control 2	65	72
Treatment 1	64	97
Treatment 2	60	76



Discussion

I’ll save this one for the list.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/