{"id":9230,"date":"2026-02-03T19:48:48","date_gmt":"2026-02-03T22:48:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.geolegadodeallankardec.com.br\/?p=9230"},"modified":"2026-02-03T19:54:11","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T22:54:11","slug":"spiritualism-scientific-method-and-the-mistake-of-epistemological-exclusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.geolegadodeallankardec.com.br\/en\/artigos\/assuntos-diversos\/espiritismo-metodo-cientifico-e-o-equivoco-da-exclusao-epistemologica\/","title":{"rendered":"Spiritism, the scientific method, and the fallacy of epistemological exclusion."},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image_pdf\"<\/a>\"image_print\"<\/a><\/div>\n

The assertion that Spiritism cannot be considered a science because it involves metaphysics stems from a twofold conceptual error: it ignores the historical criterion of scientificity<\/strong> and ignores The structuring role of metaphysics in the very development of modern sciences.<\/strong>. When this error is corrected, the objection simply does not hold up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 19th century, science was not defined by the object of study, but by the method employed<\/strong>. It is at this point that the original Spiritism, as systematized by Allan Kardec<\/strong>, it is rigorously anchored in the recognized scientific tradition of its time \u2014 a tradition that remains valid in broad areas of current knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With collaboration from Ariane Netto. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The method of agreement and empirical science<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The central method used by Kardec was... concordance method<\/strong>, formalized by John Stuart Mill<\/strong> in A System of Logic<\/em> (1843). The principle is clear: when a phenomenon occurs in multiple independent cases and only one common element is repeated in all of them, that element is identified as the cause or essential part of the cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This method is not peripheral. It is based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • observational epidemiology,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • the pre-experimental medical clinic,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • comparative sociology,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • evolutionary biology,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • historical linguistics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    To deny scientific validity to Spiritism for employing this method implies denying, through logical consistency, the scientific status of these areas. This is not a matter of analogy; it is a matter of... methodological identity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kardec applied the method strictly: communications obtained by different mediums, in different countries, without contact between them; systematic rejection of contradictory messages; elimination of the medium's authority as a criterion; primacy of factual convergence. This characterizes a observational science<\/strong>, exactly as defined in the 19th century and still practiced today outside the closed laboratory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Reproducibility: standard, not mechanical repetition.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    A recurring error is to demand from Spiritism the same form of reproducibility as experimental physics. This is epistemologically invalid. Several recognized sciences do not reproduce identical events; they reproduce... patterns under varying conditions<\/strong>. The observed regularity, not mechanical repetition, is the rational criterion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kardecian Spiritism meets this criterion. Denying this would also require discarding history, geology, paleontology, and cosmology\u2014fields that infer causes and entities from observable, not directly instrumental, effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Metaphysics as the foundation of science, not its opposite.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    The attempt to discredit Spiritism by calling it "metaphysics" fails because it ignores a fundamental fact of the history of ideas: Modern science was born metaphysical.<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Without the ontological and conceptual assumptions elaborated by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz<\/strong>, In particular, within the Monadology, science would not have been organized as it was. Concepts such as substance, identity, causality, law, continuity, and unity are not empirical; they are metaphysicians<\/strong>. Nevertheless, they are indispensable for any scientific practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Leibniz introduced:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • fundamental non-extensive units,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • internal causality,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • systematic correlation between phenomena without direct contact.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      None of this was empirically observable at the time, but all of this It guided the development of modern mathematics, physics, and logic.<\/strong>. The same applies to Descartes, Newton, and all of classical science. To eliminate metaphysics retrospectively is to rewrite history to suit a contemporary bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Kardec and the correct inversion of dogmatic metaphysics<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      It is important to note: Kardec did not construct a closed metaphysical system and then seek facts to confirm it. He did the opposite. He started from observed phenomena and... extracted only the minimum ontological consequences required by the data.<\/strong>. This is not speculative metaphysics; it is metaphysics derived from observation\u2014just as it occurs in other sciences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The modern objection to Spiritism is not methodological. It is ontological and cultural<\/strong>. The discomfort lies not in the method, but in the object. Confusing these two things is not science; it is epistemological ideology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Conclusion<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      To deny the scientific nature of Kardecian Spiritism requires, for the sake of consistency, denying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      • induction in non-experimental sciences,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • the comparative method,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • reproducibility through convergence,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • inference from indirect data,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • and the historical role of metaphysics in science.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        This position is not sustainable. Either one accepts that original Spiritism is a observational science<\/strong>, with clear boundaries and a defined method, or "science" is redefined so narrowly that much of the knowledge recognized today falls along with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The problem, therefore, is not with Spiritism itself. It lies in the criteria adopted to judge it.<\/p>\n

        \n\t\t\t
        \n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t