Translations, from Portuguese, are automatic. If you notice any errors in the text, help us identify them, clicking here.

Subscribe to our Newsletters and receive our articles directly in your email.

Introduction

Spiritism, codified by Allan Kardec in the 19th century, presented itself as a doctrine based on the observation of spiritual phenomena and on... search for rational knowledge This text discusses the nature of the soul and its relationship to the material world. It questions whether this proposal – formulated within a scientific context dominated by empiricist positivism – can be considered compatible with contemporary models of science.

During the late 19th and much of the 20th century, it was common to identify "science" strictly with positivist empiricism, that is, with obtaining knowledge only through... observable, repeatable facts and verified by the senses. This reductionism, characteristic of Comtean positivism and logical empiricism, generated later criticism for ignoring important inferential and theoretical aspects of scientific practice. Today, the philosophy of science recognizes alternative models to mere empiricism, including the method. hypothetical-deductive (testing logical predictions of hypotheses) and conceptions rationalists who value logical coherence and inference in domains where direct experimentation is unfeasible (such as cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, or studies on consciousness).

In this article, we comparatively analyze these models of science and the methodological model proposed by Kardec for Spiritism, discussing the extent to which there is compatibility. It is argued, in particular, that: (a) contemporary science admits forms of indirect validation (a) hypotheses (through inference, modeling, and theoretical coherence), not limited to strict empiricism; (b) entities not directly observable – for example, subatomic particles or certain astrophysical objects – can be scientifically accepted, provided their effects are detectable and their existence can be indirectly tested; (c) Spiritism outlined a systematic method of investigation, based on the repetition of independent mediumistic communications with control of variables and comparison of results, seeking consistency; (d) the predominant rejection of Spiritism in the current scientific community does not derive, properly speaking, from a flaw in its investigative method, but rather from its non-materialist ontology, that is, metaphysical assumptions (the existence of immortal spirits) that conflict with the methodological naturalism dominant in science. We structured the discussion in the following sections: first, we reviewed the main models of science (empiricist-positivist, hypothetical-deductive, and scientific-rational); then we described the method of Spiritism according to Kardec; then we analyzed the compatibilities and limitations between the two; finally, we presented the conclusions.

Contemporary Science Models

Empiricist-Positivist Model

In the model empiricist-positivist, Derived from the positivism of Auguste Comte and, later, from the logical empiricism of the Vienna Circle, the ideal science is that which is based solely on observable and measurable facts, obtained through the senses or instruments, with repeatable verification. All knowledge must be derived from direct experience, avoiding metaphysical hypotheses. Within this framework, a scientific proposition needs to be confirmed by repeated sensory observation; anything that cannot be directly observed or experienced would be considered "unscientific." This view led to an emphasis on controlled laboratory experiments and rigorous quantification. Undoubtedly, this model was crucial in consolidating the experimental methodology in the natural sciences. However, subsequent philosophers of science have identified serious limitations in this strict empiricism.. First, pure observations do not exist: every observation is guided by theory (as noted by Norwood Hanson and others), so relying solely on the senses would ignore the role of hypotheses in the construction of facts. Second, the requirement of strict verification has proven problematic – as the logical positivists themselves pointed out when evolving towards a notion of probabilistic “confirmation,” since few theories can be conclusively verified. In fact, Popper criticized verificationism., Arguing that a thousand favorable observations do not prove a theory, but a single contrary one can refute it; hence Popper's proposal to use falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation. Furthermore, positivist empiricism tended to completely reject any discussion of entities or causes not directly accessible to the senses – a stance that was later considered excessively restrictive. Today it is recognized that identifying science with simply collecting observable data is a naive stance.. The actual scientific practice itself was never purely inductive: even during the height of positivism, scientists like Maxwell or Darwin constructed theoretical models to explain the data, going beyond "what is seen." In short, the empiricist-positivist model bequeathed the emphasis on objectivity and experimental repetition, but it was superseded by more comprehensive conceptions.

Hypothetical-Deductive Model

The model hypothetical-deductive This describes science as a process in which hypotheses and theories are formulated and then testable logical consequences are deduced by comparing them with empirical data. This conception took shape in the scientific method of Galileo and Newton, and was made explicit in the 20th century by philosophers such as Karl Popper, who emphasized the role of... conjectures and refutations. In this approach, the goal is not to definitively verify the theories, but rather corroborate or falsify them through rigorous testing. A scientific hypothesis must do predictions or implications that can be confronted with observations: if the predictions fail, the hypothesis is refuted (or must be revised); if they pass the tests, it gains confidence (although it is never proven absolutely). This model addressed problems that naive empiricism could not solve: for example, it allowed us to understand that science advances by proposing creative ideas (hypotheses) and not just by collecting raw facts. The success of the hypothetical-deductive method is evident in the physical and biological sciences: complex theories (such as atomic theory, Darwinian evolution, or relativity) could be accepted because they generated experimentally confirmed predictions. Popperian philosophy of science formalized this ideal, requiring falsifiability – the possibility of proving the theory wrong – as a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience.. This implied rejecting theories that became so flexible as to explain any result (adjusting ad hoc to the data) and therefore escape refutation. The hypothetico-deductive model, therefore, values logic and testabilityEven unobservable entities can enter the realm of science, provided that the hypotheses about them imply measurable results. For example, 20th-century physicists postulated the existence of invisible subatomic particles (such as the neutrino). deducing effects that they would cause and seeking this evidence. Thus, the hypothetical-deductive method It broadened the scope of science beyond what is immediately visible., Without abandoning rigor: the theoretical is accepted, but confrontation with something verifiable is required (even if indirectly). This balance has become a core element of contemporary scientific conception. Even so, philosophers have noted that in the actual practice of science, hypotheses are not tested in isolation (Quine-Duhem) and that creativity and historical context influence which hypotheses are considered – ideas explored by Thomas Kuhn when showing that science works by... paradigms and scientific revolutions, more than by a simple logical algorithm. This does not invalidate the hypothetical-deductive model, but tempers it: it is understood today that the scientific method is not entirely linear or infallible, It is not a special scientific method, but rather a human construct subject to revisions. As Paul Feyerabend stated, "the idea of a special scientific method is a fairy tale."“[1] – meaning that in practice there is a variety of methods and strategies, not a single recipe.

Scientific-Rational Model

Finally, we can talk about a “rational” scientific model” or rationalist, prevalent in domains where direct and repeatable experimentation is difficult or impossible. In these fields, science operates primarily by logical inferences from indirect evidence, The construction of coherent theoretical models and the rational analysis of available observational data. Examples include cosmology (which deals with unique events such as the origin of the universe), historical geology and paleontology (which reconstruct the history of Earth and life from fossil records), archaeology (which infers past civilizations from artifacts), and even cutting-edge areas such as research on consciousness and the mind. In these cases, the scientific method needs to be flexible: often phenomena cannot be reproduced in the laboratory, so alternative methods are sought. traces, clues and explanatory coherence. The criterion for scientific validity here rests on... inferential validity and in adherence to other established knowledge, as well as in the possibility of making predictions. indirect (For example, cosmology makes predictions about observable traces today, such as cosmic microwave background radiation, to confirm theories about the Big Bang). Indirect validity becomes crucial.A theory is considered scientific if it is capable of logically explaining a variety of facts and is susceptible to some type of test, even if indirect or statistical. This implies admitting entities not directly observable provided they have explanatory power and are accessible. somehow to the investigation. No scientist has ever directly "seen" an electron or a black hole., For example, but the community accepts them as real because it is possible. interact with them indirectly, ...observing their measurable effects and controlling for those effects through systematic experiments or observations. In contemporary philosophy of science, this position is supported by schools of thought such as... realism of entities, according to which it is rational to believe in the existence of unobservable entities if we have as produce phenomena from them or detect them indirectly[2]. Thus, the rigid distinction between "observable" and "unobservable" is softened: as long as something leaves... footprints Reliable in the sensible world, it can fall within the scope of science. This scientific-rational model also emphasizes the logical coherence and theoretical integration. In applied mathematics and theoretical physics, for example, invisible structures or symmetries are often proposed, and if they bring unity and confirmed predictions, the scientific community adopts them – even if direct empirical confirmation takes decades (a typical case being the Higgs boson, theoretically predicted in the 1960s and only detected in 2012). Another characteristic of the rational model is to value the... inference by analogy and consistencyInferring causes from similarities in patterns with other phenomena. In short, modern science is not just "seeing is believing," but also... reasoning in order to believe – although always with the requirement of not contradicting empirical data.

It is important to note that these three models are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary. Real scientific practice combines empirical experimentation, hypothesis formulation and testing, and the rational construction of comprehensive theories. Chemistry, for example, relied on reproducible experiments (empiricism), but also on deductive atomic hypotheses and theoretical models. Paleontology uses both empirical evidence (fossils) and rational inferences to construct unobserved scenarios. Recognizing this plurality of methods It avoids reducing "science" to a single stereotype and allows us to more fairly evaluate unconventional knowledge, such as Spiritism, from different methodological angles.

Spiritism according to Kardec

Allan Kardec, pseudonym of Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail, structured Spiritism starting in 1857 with the publication of The Book of Spirits, followed by The Mediums' Book (1861), The Gospel According to Spiritism (1864), The Genesis (1868), among other works. From the beginning, Kardec presented Spiritism not as a revealed religion based on blind faith, but as a science and philosophy focused on the study of a "new order of phenomena"—the manifestations of Spirits—and the moral consequences of this discovery. In What is Spiritism? (1859), Kardec defines it as “a science that deals with the nature, origin and destiny of Spirits, and their relations with the physical world” (also bringing an ethical-religious aspect resulting from this knowledge). Here, we are interested in examining the method adopted by Kardec to investigate and validate Spiritist knowledge, comparing it with scientific criteria.

Kardec's method: observation, reason, and universal control.

Kardec was not a natural scientist by training, but an educator with a strong foundation in pedagogy and rationalist philosophy (influenced by thinkers such as Pestalozzi and the French spiritualist tradition). When faced with the phenomena of "table turning" and mediumistic communications, he adopted an investigative stance and... critique. His first step was to gather and observe facts: mediumistic sessions in different groups, where supposedly invisible intelligences communicated through mediums. Kardec applied a strategy of systematic comparison of these communications. Instead of taking an isolated spiritual revelation as absolute truth (a common practice in spiritualist circles of the time), he collected messages from multiple mediums in different places, with no connection between them, and compared them with each other. He thus discarded contradictions and retained the points of convergence. This procedure originated what he called... Universal Control of the Teaching of Spirits[3][4]. As explained in the Introduction of The Gospel According to Spiritism (item II), no individual communicating spirit or isolated medium could have the authority to dictate the doctrine; the guarantee of authenticity would lie in agreement spontaneous and repeated transmission of content by numerous Spirits, through various independent mediums and in various locations. “"There is only one serious guarantee for the teachings of the Spirits: the agreement that exists between the revelations they spontaneously make, using a large number of mediums unknown to each other and in various places."” — wrote Kardec[3]. If a medium obtained a new or "exotic" theory brought by a single Spirit, that idea would remain isolated and should be received with reservation; only if identical instructions Even if these ideas arose independently in various centers, one could recognize in them a general teaching from superior Spirits.[5]. “"Spiritism could not be the work of a single Spirit, nor of a single medium; it (the doctrine) could only emerge from the collective work controlled by one another."” – Kardec summarized in The Genesis[4]. Here we see a clear analogy with the scientific principle of intersubjective reproducibilityInstead of a laboratory, Kardec organized a network of correspondents and mediumistic groups that acted as replicated "experiments," and he functioned as a compiler and critical evaluator of the results.

In addition to this universal control, Kardec established another fundamental criterion: the control of reason[6]. He recommended that Everything the Spirits taught should be subjected to the scrutiny of logic and common sense. humans. If any spiritual communication contained theory “"in clear contradiction with common sense, rigorous logic, and the positive data already acquired"”, Therefore, it should be rejected, no matter how venerable the spiritual name that signed it.[6]. In other words, Kardec did not abandon critical thinking. No medium or spirit possessed infallibility.; Doctrinal consistency and broad agreement were valued more than the supposedly sacred origin of the message. The Mediums' Book, In his work, which is practically a methodological manual for investigating spiritual phenomena, Kardec dedicated chapters to warning against fraud, illusion, and spiritual mystification. He acknowledged that Inferior or deceiving spirits They could spread falsehoods, even using respectable names, and only a rational and comparative examination could expose them.[7][6]. In this sense, Spiritism aimed to... to elevate the study of "spirits" to the status of an observational science., leaving the realm of arbitrary mysticism. “"Until Allan Kardec applied the scientific method to the testimony of Spirits, communications through mediums were considered divine revelations, subject to the realm of blind faith and not rational or positive thought."” – observes Figueiredo[8]. Kardec's merit was precisely in making a "revolution" in this approach: subjecting the supposed revelations to methodical scrutiny, collecting them in large quantities, classifying them, testing their internal consistency, and comparing them with knowledge from other areas (science, philosophy). He transformed what was previously a matter of religious belief (communications from beyond the grave) into an object of structured study, thus founding, in his words, “"a new science, the science of spiritism"”.

It is important to emphasize that Kardec He distinguished two parts in spiritualist science.: one experimental part, “relating to manifestations in general” (especially physical phenomena, such as table turning, rapping, materializations), and a philosophical part, “relating to intelligent manifestations” (the content of spiritual communications)[9]. He himself states in the Introduction of The Book of Spirits: “Spiritist science comprises two parts: one experimental, […] and the other philosophical, relating to intelligent manifestations. He who has only observed the first is in the position of one who knows physics only through recreational experiments, without having penetrated the core of the science.”[9]. In other words, examining curious mediumistic phenomena without extracting principles from them would be superficial knowledge; core of the doctrine It lies in the teachings transmitted by the Spirits on fundamental questions (life after death, moral laws, etc.), the study of which requires depth and reflection. Even so, Kardec emphasizes that this philosophical study must be done with... rigorous method: “os conhecimentos […] são por demais profundos e extensos para serem adquiridos de qualquer modo, que não por um estudo perseverante, feito no silêncio e no recolhimento”[10]. He compares spiritist investigators to "diligent students" and the instructing Spirits to "professors" who have mastered the subject.[11]. This analogy makes it clear that Kardec viewed the process as a partnership between observation/experimentation (the human part of collecting and analyzing communications) and theoretical instruction (the spiritual aspect, bringing knowledge that humanity alone might not attain).

Furthermore, Kardec subjected emerging concepts of Spiritism to refinement. logical-deductive. For example, when investigating phenomena involving tables turning, he formulated the hypothesis of... perispirit – a semi-material envelope linking the spirit to the body – to explain how spirits could act upon matter. This hypothesis came from observations, but also from inferences based on what the Spirits themselves communicated. In the final chapter of The Mediums' Book, Kardec discusses the theory of psychic leverage and the fluidic action of spirits on objects, demonstrating his concern in to provide a coherent explanatory framework to the phenomena. Often, Kardec proceeded like a scientist, deducing consequences from his spiritual hypotheses and asking the Spirits if such consequences were valid., in a rational dialogue. An illustrative example is the question of density of the perispiritThe spirits told him that only the least evolved spirits produced strong physical effects (knocks, movement of objects) because they were "more materialized." Kardec then deduced that this must mean that their "spiritual body" (perispirit) was made of denser matter, giving them physical strength, and questioned whether even elevated spirits... could They could produce physical effects if they wanted to. The answer was that the higher spirits They have moral strength. And when they need physical effects, they make use of inferior spirits as "executors," just as adult humans resort to porters for manual labor.[12][13]. From this exchange, Kardec inferred the concept: “"Since the perispirit is to the spirit what the body is to man, and since its greater density corresponds to lesser spiritual superiority, this density replaces muscular strength in the spirit."”, Therefore, spirits with a dense perispirit have more power over the "fluids" to cause physical effects.[14]. Here we see Kardec articulating observation (the phenomenon of the tables) + hypothesis (perispirit of variable density) + logical deduction (density implies physical force) + indirect testing (asking the spirits and verifying if it does not contradict other information). This dynamic is very close to the hypothetical-deductive method adapted to the circumstances (with the peculiarity that the "experimenters" and "observers" include disembodied intelligences).

In his later works, Kardec made explicit the character progressive and critical of Spiritism. Far from asking for uncritical adherence, he wrote that “"Spiritists should only believe after they understand."”[15]. In other words, rational understanding precedes acceptance – a principle that distanced him from both blind mysticism and religious dogmatism. He even declares in Spiritist Magazine: “We wanted to understand [the explanations] and not believe them blindly; […] we wanted to make Spiritism a science of reasoning and not of credulity.”[16]. This phrase, from 1867, clearly shows that Kardec viewed the Spiritist endeavor as a rational science, which should be based on evidence (even if partially provided by the spirits themselves) and on sound logical inferences. He adds that “"The theory founded on experience was the brake that prevented superstitious credulity […] from causing it [Spiritism] to stray from its path."”[16]. In other words, by constructing theory only after accumulating reliable and consistent facts, the Spiritist movement was prevented from drifting into rampant superstition or individual fantasies. This methodological care is frequently ignored by modern critics, who tend to equate Spiritism with arbitrary supernatural beliefs; in fact, as authors such as Figueiredo (2016, 2019) argue, Kardec implemented a genuine research program. in the 19th century, with criteria for source control, requirements for consistency, and openness to revisions.

To summarize, we can list the main elements of the original Kardecist method:

• Observation of mediumistic phenomena (both physical and intellectual) in a systematic way, recording communications and occurrences.
• Basic hypothesis of the existence of Spirits as intelligent agents behind the phenomena and mediumship; and auxiliary hypotheses (such as the existence of the perispirit, spiritual fluids, etc.) to mechanically explain the observed effects.
• Distributed experimentation and replication: conducting numerous sessions and communications with different mediums, in different locations, to verify the qualitative repeatability of the messages and phenomena.
• Universal Remote ControlCross-comparison of the obtained content; acceptance only of what appears in a consistent and spontaneous manner in multiple independent sources.[3]. Rejection of isolated revelations or those that contradict the overall picture.
• Submission to logic and known factsAny proposed Spiritist principle must be in accordance with recognized scientific and moral data (for example, Kardec engaged with knowledge from astronomy, geology, and biology of his time in...). The Genesis, (attempting to reconcile the information from the spirits with academic facts). If there were a clash, or if the message were inherently illogical, reason and evidence would prevail against the supposedly spiritual message.[6].
• Deduction and theoretical coherenceThe collected spiritual teachings were organized rationally, drawing logical consequences and linking them into a unified philosophy. Kardec sought to give conceptual unity to the Spiritist Doctrine (for example, elaborating the law of cause and effect, the plurality of existences, the spirit scale of spirits, etc.) in a manner analogous to a scientist formulating theories from data.
• Practical and moral purposeAlthough not a "methodological" aspect in the strict sense, it is worth mentioning that Kardec viewed the moral consistency like a seal of truth. He expected that a doctrine originating from superior spirits would promote ethical improvement. Therefore, communications that led to evil, discord, or violated the principles of fraternity would be suspect. This recalls the pragmatic criterion of truth: “"By their fruits you will know them"”, also applied as methodological prudence (if a spiritual message incited something morally absurd, it probably did not come from a high source and, therefore, would not be incorporated into the doctrine).

With these pillars, Kardec affirmed that Spiritism had subjected “spiritual” phenomena to the method of observational sciences., framing them within a rational theory. He himself, in the introduction to The Genesis, He argues that the supposed "miracles" and events considered supernatural, once their spiritual cause is understood according to laws, fall into the order of natural phenomena and the "marvelous disappears."“[17]. This statement expresses a view. demystifierFar from exploring the inexplicable mystery, Spiritism aimed to explain the extraordinary so that it would cease to be so. In other words, Kardec wanted to remove Spiritism from the supernatural realm and place it within the realm of reality. nature, expanding the latter to include subtle dimensions not yet recognized by the academic science of the time.

Compatibility and Limits between Spiritism and Scientific Models

In light of the foregoing, we can now compare the method and premises of Spiritism with contemporary models of science (empiricist, hypothetical-deductive, and rational), highlighting points of compatibility as well as the limitations that hinder its recognition as "scientific" by the current academic community.

Compatibilities of Spiritism with scientific models

• Empirical observation and repetitionAlthough dealing with unusual phenomena, Kardec's Spiritism valued systematic observation and repetition of phenomena – a clear point of contact with scientific empiricism. mediumistic sessions In a sense, they functioned as controlled experiments (there were defined conditions: mediums, groups, schedules; recording of occurrences; tests such as marked tables, baskets for psychography, etc.). Kardec sought repeatability Qualitative: for example, he obtained the same answer to a spiritual question posed to different mediums unknown to each other, which he interpreted as a repetition of a result under varying conditions. This emphasis recalls the positivist ideal of repeated verification. While it is true that not all spiritualist phenomena were easily reproducible on demand (a challenge also faced in areas such as parapsychology), the methodological approach was empiricist: to collect as much fact as possible. The physical phenomena associated with Spiritism (table turning, apparitions, raps, etc.) were documented and studied experimentally by Kardec and contemporaries such as Crookes and Richet., similarly to how one studies an unknown natural phenomenon. Thus, in the aspect of observational attitude, There is compatibility with the empiricist model: Spiritism was not based solely on arguments from authority or unique revelations – it appealed to experience, even in a region considered heterodox.
• Hypothetical-deductive method and indirect testabilitySpiritism formulated clear hypotheses e.g., “"The spirits of deceased humans survive and can communicate."” – and drew verifiable consequences from them. For example, the hypothesis of Communicating spirit leads to the prediction that Different independent mediums can transmit substantially identical messages originating from the same Spirit or on the same subject., or even that certain mediums present information that is unknown through normal means (paranormal lucidity). Kardec and other researchers conducted tests such as this: they verified whether mediums could report facts that were later verified, whether similar messages appeared in different places, or whether mediums could influence physical objects (typology, table movements) under controlled conditions. In many cases, success in these predictions was claimed, reinforcing the hypotheses. Important: Kardec's method included practical forgery of deceptive communications – he deliberately asked tricky questions or requested answers from mediums to problems, in order to identify contradictions or ignorance on the part of the communicating spirits, discarding supposedly wise spirits who might fall into error. This amounts to refuting hypotheses (in this case, the hypothesis of the authenticity of such communication or spiritual identity). Although the nature of spiritualist phenomena makes it difficult to apply tests reproducible on demand (a Spirit does not “obey” the experimenter as a chemical reagent would), the logical structure is hypothetical-deductive: an invisible agent is postulated and its observable effects are derived. The very idea of universal control it resembles a multicenter trialIf the hypothesis "spirit X taught doctrine Y" is true, it is expected that multiple mediums receive the Y doctrine independently and coherently; If this does not occur (if only one medium says Y, while others present profound disagreements), then the hypothesis is considered not to have been confirmed and Y is not accepted. This type of criterion serves the purpose of testability. Furthermore, many Spiritist propositions admit, at least in principle, indirect tests or predictions. Example: the reincarnationist doctrine (Spirits returning to physical life) generates predictions such as the existence of spontaneous memories of past lives in some people – something that, in fact, was investigated by scientists like Ian Stevenson in the 20th century. Another: the existence of the perispirit implies that phenomena of the appearance or action of "spiritual bodies" can be recorded, which motivated materialization research in the past. In short, Spiritism does not formulate dogmas that are unfalsifiable in principle; it opens up for examinations, ...even though, until now, such tests have not convinced most scientists. Spiritist concepts can be (and have been) confronted with data – for example, the idea that Spirits could cause cures has been tested in studies on spiritual healing and healing mediums; the idea of spiritual influence has been tested in controlled automatic writing experiments, etc. Therefore, at the level of... research structure, There is a relevant similarity with the scientific method: Spiritism establishes a A set of hypotheses about invisible causes, deducing consequences and searching for evidence. of them.
• Rational coherence and logical inferenceKardec insisted that Spiritism be a “"science of reasoning"” and not from mere crude observation[16]. This aligns strongly with the scientific-rational model discussed. In complex scientific fields, it is accepted that... internal logical coherence The existence of a theory and its ability to explain diverse phenomena speak in favor of its validity, even before any final verification. In the case of Spiritism, there is a coherent theoretical frameworkConcepts such as reincarnation, the law of moral cause and effect, different orders of spirits, the perispirit, and fluids form an interconnected system that aims to explain everything from differences in human personality to haunting phenomena. This theoretical framework did not emerge from nothing: it was inductively constructed from hundreds of spiritual messages and experiences, and then deductively adjusted to eliminate contradictions – a process very similar to what occurs in the formulation of comprehensive scientific theories (compare this to the evolution of the theory of biological evolution, which aggregated various lines of evidence into a unified framework). inference by analogy It also appears that Kardec often resorts to analogies with physical science (such as comparing the density of the perispirit with the density of gases, or comparing the plurality of inhabited worlds with Copernicus' principle) to rationally strengthen the Spiritist theses.[18][19]. He argued, for example, that accepting the existence of an inhabited spiritual world governed by laws was no more "anti-scientific" than admitting, at the time, the existence of invisible microbes – both of which were postulated to explain observed effects. Unobservable entities They are a central point of compatibility: Spiritism postulates spirits and perispirit, which we do not see directly; however, modern science also deals with hidden entities (particles, fields, etc.), whose acceptance is based on detectable consequences. If we consider Spirits as theoretical entities, mediumistic manifestations would be the observational effects which corroborate its existence. In this sense, The epistemological status of spirits could be equated with that of other theoretical entities.They are not purely “metaphysical” objects (beyond detection), but rather they cause objective phenomena (mediumistic writing, healings, visions) that can be investigated. The criteria that science applies to quarks or dark matter – consistency of detections, absence of a simpler alternative explanation, predictive capacity – can, in theory, be applied to spiritualist phenomena. For example, if I obtain mediumistic communications with verifiable information unknown to the medium, and this is repeated in several cases, the inference to the best explanation could suggest an intelligent extracorporeal source (spirit) as the most plausible hypothesis, rather than fraud or chance. Thus, The inferential logic used in spiritualist research is of the same nature as that employed in forensic science, archaeology, or natural history., ...where a cause not directly seen is inferred from traces. It is no coincidence that Kardec called Spiritism... “"observational science"” and compared it to the historical sciences (he mentions that, as in history and geology, Spiritism deals with facts that cannot be reproduced at will, but which are observed when they occur and from which laws are derived)[20][21]. In The Genesis, He justifies the method used by saying that “The observation and agreement of facts led to the search for causes; the search for causes led to the recognition that the relations between the visible and the invisible world exist by virtue of a law; once this law was known, a multitude of spontaneous phenomena hitherto misunderstood were explained [...]; once the cause was established, these phenomena re-entered the order of natural facts.”[22][17]. This explanation could be found in a treatise on scientific methodology: this is exactly how rational sciences proceed – they accumulate facts, infer a unifying cause or law, and then interpret the scattered phenomena in this new light, removing their mysterious aspect. In short, the way of reasoning Kardec's Spiritism is compatible with the scientific method: it is inductive-deductive, demanding internal coherence and consonance with other truths. It does not rely on unquestionable dogmas, but on a network of evidence and arguments.
• Indirect validation and practical utilityCurrent science acknowledges that a theory can be accepted based on indirect validation, that is, by the set of converging evidence and explanatory capacity, even if each component cannot be verified in isolation. Spiritism is in a similar position. As Figueiredo (2016) pointed out when analyzing Spiritist epistemology, “If the hypotheses of spiritist theory cannot be validated one by one, experimentally as in [conventional] science, their coherence and usefulness can be recognized in their entirety, as a philosophical theory.”[23]. In other words, one can judge the the entire Spiritist building because of how well it is articulated and the fruits it produces, even without being able to measure each brick separately. This is in line with criteria used in complex scientific fields: for example, the theory of evolution It is accepted by the robust body of interdisciplinary evidence, even though we cannot "repeat" the Cambrian evolution; similarly, one could evaluate the spiritist theory by the set of phenomena it illuminates (near-death experiences, mediumistic phenomena, transcommunication, etc.) and by its consistency. Furthermore, Kardec and his followers argue that Spiritism has a moral and practical utilityIt provides ethical meaning, consolation, and a change of mindset. This is not a scientific criterion in itself, but within the philosophy of science there are those who recognize that... fertility of a theory The extent to which it opens new avenues for investigation and application is also a point in its favor. For example, quantum mechanics has been valued not only for explaining data, but for generating technologies and new questions. Similarly, Spiritism has generated a vast cultural movement, countless works, social assistance practices, and psychological studies (such as Spiritist psychology in Brazil). This can be seen as indicative that it touches on real aspects of human experience (even if only in the psychological dimension). In terms of research, the Spiritist doctrine has inspired experimentation (from William Crookes' investigations with physical mediums in the 19th century to current research on spiritual healing and the neurophysiology of mediums). All this suggests that, at least as research program (in the sense of Lakatos), Spiritism has shown to have a “"firm core"” (The spiritualist hypothesis) with a belt of testable auxiliary hypotheses, some corroborated and others adjusted over time. So, from a methodological and heuristic point of view, there are several Points of contact between Spiritism and science.Both seek to explain observed phenomena, both use induction and deduction, both value consistency, both correct themselves with new data, and both aspire to a unified, non-contradictory body of knowledge.

In short, if we consider only the method and the epistemological structure, Spiritism it could to be seen as compatible with contemporary scientific models: it carries out empirical observations (as empiricism demands), formulates testable hypotheses (as the hypothetical-deductive method requires), and constructs a comprehensive theory with rational inferences (as in the rational-scientific model). It is no coincidence that a communicating Spirit even declared in Spiritist Magazine: “Spiritism is a positive science; the facts upon which it rests are not yet complete; […] this science […] will prove to even the least insightful that its entirely moral objective is the regeneration of Humanity, and that, unlike all speculative sciences, its teaching is the opposite of materialism, which proceeds by hypothesis. [Spiritism] proceeds with analysis, establishes facts to trace back to causes, proclaims the spiritual element, after verification; such is its clean and straightforward manner; it is the straight line that should guide every convinced Spiritist.”[24]. This message (attributed to the spirit Jobard in 1864) impressively summarizes the view that Spiritism followed a scientific path: analytical, factual, causal, and anti-dogmatic ("without evasions"). It is worth highlighting the contrast with materialism "which proceeds by hypothesis"—that is, from the Spiritist point of view, materialism is also an unproven metaphysics. We then arrive at the heart of... divergence current.

Limits and divergences: the problem of non-materialist ontology

If the Spiritist method shares so many similarities with the scientific approach, Why is Spiritism not accepted as conventional science? Here we enter into the aspects of ontology and of historical and cultural context. The main barrier is that Spiritism affirms the existence of a reality non-material (spirits, the immortal soul, God as supreme intelligence, etc.), whereas modern science – from the end of the 19th century through the 20th century – adopted as fundamental assumption O materialist naturalism. In other words, professional science operates under the assumption (not explicitly proven, but methodologically adopted) that all phenomena can and should be explained by material causes or energy within physical space-time, excluding intentional extra-physical agents. This assumption, of course, arose from the triumphs of physics, chemistry, and biology in the 19th century in explaining much of what was previously attributed to spiritual or divine beings (lightning, diseases, the origin of species, etc.). Thus, a kind of [missing word - likely "understanding" or "understanding"] was formed. “materialist ”dogma” within the scientific culture: Any hypothesis that invokes spirits, souls, or supernatural forces is discarded a priori as unscientific.. Note: this is not an experimental refutation – it is a prior definition of scope. By convention, academic science does not seriously consider spiritualist hypotheses because it judges them to be reminiscent of pre-scientific explanations. Even when spiritualist researchers or parapsychologists present intriguing evidence, the community often rejects or ignores it, as accepting it would imply breaking with the prevailing paradigm.

We can list some. limits and objections What do current scientific perspectives raise against Spiritism (and, correspondingly, why can such objections be understood more as metaphysical choices than flaws in the Spiritist method)?

• Incompatibility with the prevailing materialist paradigmSince the beginning of the 20th century (following the decline in interest in psychic phenomena at the fin-de-siècle), science has consolidated itself into a paradigm where Consciousness is a product of the brain, not an autonomous entity.. All neuroscience and materialistic psychology are based on this. Spiritism, by postulating the Spirit as a thinking substratum independent of the body, directly contradicts this axiom. Thus, for most scientists, no matter how much evidence of anomalous phenomena is presented, Accepting a "ghost in the machinery" would amount to regressing to pre-modern explanations. Thomas Kuhn would argue that Within an established paradigm, anomalous facts are either discarded or assimilated in a way that does not shake the dominant theoretical structure.. Spiritualist phenomena have been treated as marginal anomalies, or attributed to fraud, illusion, hysteria – alternative explanations that preserve the materialist paradigm. This is a point of ontological divergence: Spiritism and contemporary science start from different premises about what exists.. As long as this difference persists, genuine dialogue will be difficult. Figueiredo (2019) notes that we live under a “dogmatic materialism, in the mold of the conceptual domination imposed by the Church for centuries” and that, from a Spiritist point of view, the current cultural landscape It marginalizes any spiritualist approach.[25]. In other words, he compares modern materialist dogmatism to ancient religious dogmatism: both reject on principle ideas that threaten their basic tenets. “"Jokingly, detractors [of Spiritism] call it an aberration of the 19th century, for doing science by considering the human being as an incarnate soul. The materialist laughs at this idea, as the priests mocked those who saw the Earth revolving around the Sun."” – writes Figueiredo, highlighting the historical parallel[26]. This quote perfectly illustrates the scenario: the modern rejection of Spiritism often occurs... with scorn, without impartial evaluation of the evidence., This is analogous to the Galilean rejection based on dogma and not experimentation. Therefore, the central divergence is not in the method (Spiritism makes observations, proposes hypotheses and tests them, just like science); it is in the... metaphysical reference. Science says: “even if we don’t have all the explanations, there must be a physical cause behind these phenomena” (if the phenomena even occur); Spiritism says: “the best explanations for these phenomena are intelligent extra-physical agents.” This dispute cannot be resolved solely with empirical data, because data can always be reinterpreted within each worldview. For example: if mediums correctly describe a hidden event, the spiritualist sees proof of communication with spirits; the materialist skeptic alleges luck, cryptomnesia, or yet-to-be-discovered fraud. Each side accuses the other of... “"violation of Occam's Razor"”The spiritualist finds it forced to suppose a thousand frauds and coincidences to deny the spirit; the materialist finds introducing spirits an unnecessary multiplication of beings. In short, there is a paradigmatic impasse.
• Difficulty in achieving strict reproducibility and control.From a strictly methodological point of view, current science also criticizes Spiritism (and psychic research in general) for the lack of consistently reproducible phenomena under controlled laboratory conditions. Although Kardec pursued qualitative repetition, he could not summon spirits on demand to repeat an identical effect as many times as he wished. Many spiritist phenomena appear to occur sporadically and depend on multiple variables (medium's personality, spiritual environment, etc.) that are not easily isolated. This contrasts with, for example, physics experiments, where any laboratory can follow a protocol and observe the same result (within the margin of error). low immediate reproducibility This places spiritualist research in a situation similar to that of historical or social sciences, which also deal with complex and contingent phenomena. The difference is that, in psychology or medicine, researchers deal with statistics on many individuals to infer effects – while in spiritualist phenomena, each event is unique and often large samples are not available (for example, a notable physical medium emerges only every few decades). Thus, the scientific requirement of measurable repeatability under standardized conditions is a practical limit for the acceptance of Spiritism. It's not so much a difference in philosophical method (because we have seen that Kardec did indeed try to replicate and control them), but there is a limitation in the object: spirits are free agents, not chemical reagents. Therefore, convincing the scientific community requires even more robust and explicit evidence. Contemporary research in parapsychology attempts to circumvent this with statistics (e.g., extrasensory perception tests with thousands of attempts to see a small but significant deviation from chance). There are meta-analyses suggesting that certain effects exist, but since they are not large and easily demonstrable, they remain controversial. Therefore, from the point of view of current scientific practice, Spiritism suffers from a scarcity of results that can be replicated in a practical way. quantitative and on demand. However, it can be argued that this does not invalidate Spiritism itself, but only explains why it has not gained legitimacy: Mainstream science favors phenomena that it can manipulate at will.. Phenomena that escape this control are left aside, even if real, until an appropriate methodology is developed for them.
• Contamination through belief and lack of neutrality.Another point of divergence is that many Spiritist scholars already... believe In the doctrine, they may lack the desired critical distance. That is, confirmation bias is alleged – seeing what one wants to see. Of course, this also occurs in other areas (researchers become enamored with their theories), but there are community mechanisms to correct it (peer review, independent replication). In Spiritism, historically, research has been restricted to the Spiritist circle or sympathizers (with exceptions of outsiders like William James or some physiologists who were interested). Conventional science tends to distrust results produced in an "ideologized environment." This generates a vicious circle: due to prejudice, independent scientists do not replicate Spiritist phenomena, therefore these are only studied by those who believe; then credibility falls. Kardec, however, invited sincere skeptics should check the facts for themselves. The Mediums' Book, He provides guidelines for avoiding self-deception, precisely concerned with objectivity. But from the point of view of the broader scientific community, this integration did not occur – Spiritism remained separate as an autonomous movement, which makes validation difficult in the eyes of institutional science. This is not exactly a methodological “error” of Spiritism; it is partly a consequence of... sociological context From the scientific perspective, after the Victorian era, studying mediums became an academic taboo (with rare exceptions), ending any possible convergence. If, hypothetically, a sufficient number of secular scientists were willing to rigorously reproduce spiritualist investigations, perhaps results could be achieved that transcended the threshold of belief. In any case, the lack of scientific recognition is also reinforced by the absence of validation by... neutral sources.
• Lack of quantitative and predictive integrationModern scientific models value theories that, in addition to providing qualitative explanations, also offer... quantification and numerical prediction. For example, Newton's theory of gravity not only qualitatively explains which planets orbit, but also quantifies orbits and predicts new positions. Spiritism offers qualitative explanations for many phenomena (it says, for example, that affection spiritually binds incarnate and disincarnate beings, explaining visions of deceased loved ones; or that high morality improves spiritual attunement, explaining healing phenomena). However, it rarely provides definitive answers. mathematical laws or specific predictions that can be numerically verified. In part, this stems from the nature of the object (free consciousnesses do not lend themselves well to equations); still, from the point of view of current philosophy of science, this is an epistemological weakness. It makes Spiritism resemble social sciences or early evolutionary theories – a lot of explanatory narrative, little measurement. This does not mean that it is not science (historical sciences are also largely qualitative), but it confers a different epistemological status from the model of physical-chemical sciences. Perhaps Spiritism could develop in this direction – for example, statistically quantifying reincarnation phenomena (percentage of children who remember past lives under certain conditions), or modeling the distribution of types of communicating spirits, etc. In Kardec, there were some attempts to outline classifications and percentages (such as the Spiritist scale of spiritual purity, or to affirm that most communicating spirits are of a medium or lower order). However, this remained qualitative. In short, for current science to recognize something as "well-established," it often seeks... formalization. Spiritism, precisely because it deals with subjective and moral aspects, has not been formally quantified. This is an inherent limitation, but one that weighs on the consideration of "is it a science?".
• Explicit metaphysical chargeSpiritism explicitly assumes several metaphysical/philosophical premises: the existence of God, teleology (moral purpose of life), a spiritual conception of the human being, and universal moral progress. Modern science, by choice, avoids teleological or theological notions, preferring mechanistic and localized explanations. Although many scientists individually believe in God or have personal visions, the scientific method works as if such things did not interfere with phenomena (principle of naturalistic objectivity). In this sense, Spiritism blends scientific propositions with others of a philosophical and ethical nature.. For example, the existence of the spirit can be put to the test, but the existence of God is beyond any empirical testing; Kardec affirms it philosophically as the first cause, but strictly speaking, this is not the case. science. This mixture makes dialogue with science difficult, as science tends to compartmentalize. However, it is worth emphasizing that many great scientific theories also arose from broad metaphysical visions (Newton, for example, was influenced by deism, and this permeated his physics; the idea of order and simplicity in nature has philosophical roots). Spiritism, for example... worldview, It goes beyond what science considers its domain – and within this going beyond lies its spiritual and moral dimension. The epistemic critique here is that Spiritism may never be entirely scientific because it contains elements of rational faith (e.g., divine justice, the purpose of existence) that are not falsifiable or measurable. However, spiritualists themselves retort that This moral/spiritual aspect does not invalidate the scientific nature of the phenomenological aspect.Comparatively, physical cosmology has mathematical (scientific) models but also deals with metaphysical questions (why there is something rather than nothing, what "caused" the Big Bang) that go beyond strict science – and yet we still consider it respectable. Kardec conceived of Spiritism as threefold: science, philosophy, and moral consequence. The scientific part would deal with spiritualist facts and their laws; the philosophy, with the implications for who we are; and the moral part, with ethical application. The intertwining of these aspects, while enriching the doctrine, also clashes with the narrow scope of the natural sciences. This difference in approach makes it difficult to recognize Spiritism in environments where an absolute separation between fact and value, science and morality, is preached.

In conclusion, we can say: Spiritism shares with science a love of facts, the use of reason, and the search for universal laws., but it clashes with established science by to postulate a spiritual ontology which most consider unacceptable. The central disagreement is more metaphysical rather than methodological. And the methodological difficulties that exist (elusive phenomena, low experimental control) end up being viewed through the lens of ontological bias: for the skeptic, they are proof that there is nothing real there, instead of simply being technical challenges to overcome. It is a scenario where, broadly speaking, Each side accuses the other of not playing by the rules.The Spiritist accuses science of closing its mind to inconvenient evidence due to a philosophical attachment to materialism; science accuses the Spiritist of not producing strong enough evidence and of appealing to the supernatural unnecessarily. To move forward, a middle ground would be needed: an honest and open scientific effort to investigate spiritual phenomena without presupposing their impossibility, and even greater rigor from Spiritist scholars in presenting evidence under increasingly demanding standards. Until this happens systematically, the "official" incompatibility persists.

Conclusion

The analysis performed indicates that There is potential compatibility. between Kardec's Spiritism and contemporary models of science, provided the focus is on methods and criteria validation, and not in metaphysical assumptions From each perspective. Spiritism was conceived with a remarkable scientific spirit for its time: Kardec adopted rigorous observation, data comparison, hypothesis formulation, and verification through agreement and reason – procedures that strongly echo scientific methods (whether empiricist or rationalist). Far from being a set of mystical dogmas, The original Spiritist doctrine presented itself as a research program on spiritual reality, Analogous, in its intentions, to a scientific program. Current science, in turn, is no longer restricted to sensory positivism: it recognizes the indispensable role of theoretical constructs, accepts indirect validations, and considers it legitimate to infer unobservable entities when there is indirect empirical support and logical coherence to do so.[2]. In that regard, Nothing, in theory, prevents the phenomena studied by Spiritism from being the subject of scientific research. Indeed, fields such as parapsychology and transpersonal psychology have addressed similar topics, albeit often under strong external skepticism.

The critical point that emerged is that the main divergence lies in ontological aspectSpiritism requires admitting the objective existence of immaterial spirits and the survival of consciousness after death, whereas the scientific establishment operates with the opposite hypothesis (that everything is reduced to physical-chemical processes). This divergence cannot be resolved simply by invoking methods – it is a confrontation of... paradigms. As long as the materialistic paradigm dominates unchallenged, spiritualist proposals will be automatically rejected as unscientific., independently The quality of their data is a concern. It's a situation reminiscent of what Kuhn described: different paradigms are incommensurable until a scientific revolution occurs or an accumulation of anomalies forces change. Today, some argue that anomalous phenomena related to consciousness (near-death experiences, truthful memories of past lives, mind-matter effects in quantum physics, etc.) are indications that the strictly materialistic paradigm may be incomplete. If this perception grows, we may witness a re-evaluation of spiritualist hypotheses in a more benevolent light. It wouldn't be the first time.Meteorology was once considered witchcraft, astronomy was once astrology, chemistry was once alchemy – pioneering ideas were rejected as pseudoscience until appropriate methods and concepts allowed them to be integrated into a legitimate scientific scope. It is possible to imagine, therefore, that the study of consciousness and possible non-local or non-material aspects of the mind will be a turning point in the coming decades, bringing to light questions to which Spiritism offered pioneering answers.

In conclusion, To the question of whether Spiritism is compatible with contemporary scientific models, the answer is twofold.. On the one hand, Yes, It is compatible in terms of methodological approach: Kardec employed empiricism, cross-testing, logic, and theoretical construction – elements present in the empiricist, hypothetical-deductive, and rational models. He himself emphasized that Spiritism must submit to the scrutiny of reason and facts, exactly as is expected of a scientific discipline.[6]. Furthermore, many Spiritist concepts do not challenge science itself, but merely extend its scope (for example, the idea of different planes of existence does not contradict any known physical law – it only postulates one beyond it). On the other hand, There is a current incompatibility. especially because the dominant science arbitrarily limits its scope to the measurable material world., rejecting phenomena of a spiritual nature as nonexistent or irrelevant. Spiritist ontology clashes with materialist ontology – and as long as the latter is a non-negotiable principle From a scientific standpoint, Spiritism will be considered "unscientific" by the mainstream., despite of its intrinsic methodological merits. Ultimately, it is a conflict between metaphysical assumptions, not evidence or logic. The very idea of science is not fixed: it has evolved and expanded over time. Perhaps in a future where science integrates the dimension of consciousness more fully, the gap with Spiritism will diminish. Until then, a difficult dialogue remains – but, as we seek to demonstrate, not because of an intrinsic impossibility of reconciling the Spiritist method and the scientific method, but rather because of a choice of worldview.

In terms of philosophy of science, the case of Spiritism illustrates how Epistemological criteria can be influenced by conventions and even cultural biases.. If we judge Spiritism by the criteria epistemic (coherence, testability, explanatory scope, error control), he performs much better than is usually assumed: Kardec foresaw and addressed validation issues that many pseudoscientists ignore. He sought precisely no falling into the traps of subjectivity (hence the universal control and the veto of the illogical). Where Spiritism "sins" in relation to current science is in its presupposition that mind and spirit are fundamental realities – but this is not a proven sin, it is a starting point for disagreement. Like all philosophical disagreements, it can only be resolved through frank debate and honest consideration of the evidence.

In short, There is nothing in the contemporary scientific method that, in principle, prohibits the investigation of spiritualist phenomena and hypotheses.; What there is is a cultural consensus who despise them for being associated with the “supernatural.” When we examine them historically, we see that this consensus can change – it has already changed in relation to other ideas. Therefore, Spiritism can claim, if not today an accepted scientific status, at least the right to be evaluated according to fair scientific criteria, and not discarded based on unproven assumptions. After all, as Kardec himself rhetorically challenges: “"Why didn't those who criticize us for taking the initiative take it themselves?"”[27]. In other words, if the scientific community believes that the Spiritist method could be improved, let them refine it and try to investigate the question of the soul themselves – this is how science advances, through curiosity and testing, not through a priori negation. Ultimately, the compatibility or incompatibility of Spiritism with science depends on how we define science: if it is a free and rational search for truth, nothing prevents dialogue; if it is a rigid set of materialistic dogmas, then there will truly be no agreement. The evidence suggests that the dividing line is not in the evidence, but in... attitude towards them. Current science acknowledges invisible planets, elusive particles, and ten mathematical dimensions – perhaps one day it will also acknowledge that consciousness can transcend the body, if solid evidence continues to emerge. When that day arrives, Allan Kardec will possibly be revisited from an interesting historical perspective: that of one of the forerunners of a broader science that includes the spirit in the understanding of reality.

References

• Allan Kardec – The Book of Spirits (1857). A foundational work of Spiritism, it presents the principles of the doctrine in the form of questions and answers attributed to the Spirits. The Introduction highlights the division between the experimental and philosophical aspects of Spiritist science.[9].
• Allan Kardec – The Mediums' Book (1861). Details the phenomena of mediumship and methods of investigation. Kardec guides careful experimentation and universal control of communications. Example: explanation of how inferior spirits produce physical effects through “"density of the perispirit"”[28][14].
• Allan Kardec – The Gospel According to Spiritism (1864). In Introduction (item II – Authority of the Spiritist Doctrine), exposes the Universal Control of the Teaching of SpiritsThe need for agreement across multiple communications to validate a principle.[3]; emphasizes subjecting all spiritual teaching to the scrutiny of reason and logic.[6].
• Allan Kardec – The Genesis (1868). Develops scientific and philosophical aspects, discussing method. Chapter I and the introductory chapters reaffirm that Spiritism proceeds through observation, deduction of laws, and rejection of the unexplained supernatural.[21][17].
• Allan Kardec – Spiritist Magazine (periodical, 1858-1869). Contains Kardec's methodological reflections and records of investigations. Examples: Magazine from May 1864, p.210, regarding opponents who misunderstand Spiritism[29]; Magazine from January 1867, p.27, where Kardec states that he made Spiritism "a science of reasoning and not of credulity"“[16].
• Paulo Henrique de Figueiredo – Spiritist Revolution. Allan Kardec's forgotten theory: (2nd ed., FEAL/Maat, 2019). A work of historical and philosophical research that recovers Kardec's original project. It analyzes the epistemological structure of Spiritism and argues that Kardec applied a scientific method appropriate to spiritual facts. It emphasizes that Spiritism is “"science of reasoning"” and discusses the possibility of validating Spiritist knowledge through global coherence.[30][23].
• Paulo Henrique de Figueiredo – Autonomy: the untold story of Spiritism (FEAL, 2019). Historical research that contextualizes Kardec within the landscape of 19th-century ideas. Contains chapters on the scientific method in the moral sciences and observational sciences, showing the influence of Rivail/Kardec's thought. Cites Kardec's documents emphasizing the diversity of origin of the communications (“"It could not be the work of a single spirit or medium."”[4]) and the role of critical reason. It also addresses the subsequent methodological distortion in the Spiritist movement and the need to return to the original rigor.
• Alan F. Chalmers – What is science, anyway? (1976, various Brazilian editions). Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Discusses the decline of positivist verificationism and highlights that scientific theories include unobservable entities, whose existence is assumed if we can infer them from phenomena.[2]. Useful for understanding the legitimacy of hypotheses such as those of Spiritism within a realistic framework.
• Thomas Kuhn – The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). It presents the idea of scientific paradigms and how ideas outside the paradigm are rejected until paradigmatic crises occur. It helps to contextualize the rejection of Spiritism as a result of an established materialist paradigm, rather than the empirical refutation of Spiritist ideas (since most of them were never even formally tested by mainstream science).
• Karl Popper – The Logic of Scientific Research (1934). Defines the hypothetical-deductive method and falsifiability. Although Popper viewed paranormal phenomena with skepticism, his criteria can be applied: are spiritualist theses falsifiable? (Ex: “Spirits exist” – difficult to falsify directly, but the derivative “Mediums must provide verifiable information that they would not normally obtain” is testable). He also discusses the conjectural nature of all science, which opens up space to consider spiritualist conjectures if they are treated critically.
• Paul Feyerabend – Against the Method (1975). He criticizes the notion of a single scientific method and defends methodological pluralism ("anything goes"). His famous quote that there is no fixed scientific method.[31] This supports the idea that spiritualist research should not be dismissed simply because it does not follow conventional patterns, since the history of science itself shows episodes of unorthodox methods leading to discoveries.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – entries “Scientific Realism and Instrumentalism” and “Theoretical Terms in Science”. They discuss the status of theoretical entities and the question of observability. They provide a conceptual basis for arguing that admitting spirits is no different, in principle, from admitting electrons: it is a matter of postulating something to explain phenomena, then evaluating its explanatory success.
• Brian D. Josephson – “Pathological Disbelief” (2004). A short article by Nobel laureate physicist Brian Josephson discussing how the scientific community sometimes rejects new phenomena due to prejudice, citing the case of psychic research. Although it does not directly address Spiritualism, it reinforces the thesis that sociological mechanisms – and not a lack of evidence – often hinder the acceptance of certain fields.
• Ian Stevenson – Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1974). Empirical study on children who claim memories of past lives, rigorously conducted with interviews and verifications. It is an example of scientific research (published in journals) on a central spiritualist theme (reincarnation). The results, although controversial, show that it is possible to approach these issues with academic methodology and obtain suggestive evidence, challenging conventional explanations.

(The references above were selected to cover primary sources of Spiritism, contemporary analyses of Spiritist methodology, and works of philosophy of science relevant to the concepts discussed. Emphasis was placed on authors and documents cited in the text, as indicated by the reference notes.)[8][24]

---

[1] [2] [31] SciELO Brazil – Ciência: conceitos-chave em filosofia Ciência: conceitos-chave em filosofia

https://www.scielo.br/j/trans/a/ZW8cbFBfqgYW6KMdKSnswmx

[3] [5] [6] [7] O Evangelho segundo o Espiritismo – Introdução – II — Autoridade da doutrina Espírita – Kardecpédia

https://kardecpedia.com/roteiro-de-estudos/887/o-evangelho-segundo-o-espiritismo/2052/introducao/ii-autoridade-da-doutrina-espirita%20paragrafo%206%20em%20diante

[4] [8] [15] [16] [17] [20] [21] [22] [24] [25] [26] [27] [29] Autonomy: The Untold Story of Spiritism_nodrm.pdf

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [18] [19] [23] [28] [30] Spiritist Revolution. Allan Kardec's forgotten theory:

---

Reading Recommendations (Books)

• Free PDFs by Kardec – https://bit.ly/3sXXBxk
• Autonomy – The Untold History of Spiritism: https://amzn.to/3PIvbyy
• Allan Kardec's Legacy: https://amzn.to/3RIn2gv
• Final point – the reunion with spiritualism with Allan Kardec: https://amzn.to/48PLaE7
• Neither Heaven nor Hell – The Laws of the Soul According to Spiritism: https://amzn.to/3F2voYO
• Genesis – Miracles and Predictions According to Spiritism (unadulterated): Free PDF or https://amzn.to/3RM91hF
• Heaven and Hell: Or divine justice according to Spiritism (unadulterated): Free PDF or https://amzn.to/3ZGrcal
• Spiritist Revolution. Allan Kardec's forgotten theory: https://amzn.to/3t7HIUH
• Mesmer. The denied science of animal magnetism: https://amzn.to/3PYc1X2
• The Book of Mediums: https://amzn.to/3PDNTHK
• The Spirits' Book: https://amzn.to/3QkcFx9
• Spiritist Magazine – complete collection: https://amzn.to/48Uxh7s
• Practical Instructions on Spiritist Manifestations: https://amzn.to/3QiR8Gc
• Spiritism in its Simplest Expression: https://amzn.to/3M6fXT5