In order for science to support a theory, it has to be falsifiable, verifiable, or have some empirical deductive/inductive proof. If an experiment could be created to provide any of the criteria necessary to apply the scientific method, then there is a possibility for the “Law of Attraction Theory.” This does not mean people cannot employ, believe in, or choose to use the theory, merely that it is not predicated upon any scientific precept.
Presently, the law of attraction theory resembles a religious precept requiring an act of faith to be employed. Since faith is a very powerful precept, the need for some scientific explanation is likely to undermine the overall effect of the belief. Nevertheless, some may feel more confident in the theory if it had some empirical support. Moreover, if science were able to deploy some inductive/deductive proof of the theory’s success, it may receive universal recognition.
There are several tests that something such as the law of attraction theory must pass in order to develop some sort of empirical proof. One, it would need a definition that is both necessary and sufficient to develop some criteria for a theoretical construct. Two, it would need an empirical test determining through deductive or inductive proof the theory works, furthermore, the test must be reproducible by anyone attempting to perform it. Third, the theory should be determined to be delusory (internal within a human mind) or veritic (external and independent of human intervention). Since the theory “is,” to a large degree, a means of self-orientation towards a goal or belief, it is going to be quite hard to find an experimentally verifiable test that is reproducible in a laboratory context.
None of this should dissuade a practitioner from attempting to apply the principles of the theory. It should provide some degree of clarity as to why science cannot presently support the results. This may be considered a shortfall of science if necessary however, the scientific method is sufficiently rigid as to create reproducible and positive progress in fields where science is both needed and necessary. This particular theory does not reside in one of those fields. It remains rather firmly entrenched in Metaphysics a discipline of philosophy. A long time ago, philosophy ejected such towering luminaries as Isaac Newton who was a natural philosopher, in favor of a looser context and style enabling others to receive credit for intellectual efforts devoid of any empirical proof.
This division between science and philosophy should serve as a poignant example of why such theories as the “law of attraction theory,” are incapable of developing the necessary and sufficient criteria for scientific empiricism. This should not be considered a criticism, but rather a challenge for the future of scientific and philosophical exploration as well as religious and cultural beliefs.
