Here is something I found this morning in a book entitled "Experiment in Depth" by P.W. Martin (Pantheon Books, Inc., 1955). I consider it a perfectly clear statement of my position.--Jana

“For the first time in human history, science and religion have thus the possibility of working together. This is far from saying that all is clear. There are certain inherent difficulties in applying scientific method to the data coming from the other side of consciousness which can only be partially overcome. It is not necessary here to enter into these difficulties in detail, but the more formidable of them may be briefly set down.

“The first lies in the nature of the experience. We are not dealing with the so-called objective world, the data coming to us by way of the senses, but with a trans-subjective world (as Jung has sometimes called it), effects apprehended by methods of inner perceptions of which we as yet know little. This raises a series of problems; including particularly the ineluctable fact that, while some people are psycho-perceptive, others are not--as, in the outer world, some people have keen sight and hearing while others are not so blest. The individuation process might be taking place in a man, but he be totally unable to detect it at work. Even with the highly psycho-perceptive, the information gathered is as each man sees it from his private window on to the inner world; and through this window he perceives in terms of his own symbolic imagery, which must then be interpreted into more general terms if the phenomena themselves are to be understood.

“In the second place, there is the rather special situation that, in the experiment in depth*, we are dealing with an emerging possibility, something that may be coming into existence here and there, not something that has always and everywhere existed. In much the same way, if we could go backwards down the time-stream, to the period of our remote ancestors, we would have the question before us whether a strange new development--what we now call human consciousness--was or was not taking place. And if we could go yet further back, we would find a still more puzzling enigma: whether or not another new thing was coming into being--life. Clearly, to put an emerging possibility of this kind upon a scientific basis presents special difficulties. Conceivably--in a matter such as this we have no means of knowing--not everyone can make the creative contact directly. The possibility may have emerged for some but not for others: the same as, some half-million or a million years ago, only a small handful of our remote ancestors may have shown traces of human consciousness; and, many millions of years earlier, only an occasional sample of inter-tidal scum have shown traces of life. In selecting his evidence from the ‘more developed minds’ (a procedure for which he was criticized at the time) William James exercised sure judgement. It is for this reason that it is especially necessary for people high above the average in ability and insight to undertake the experiment in depth.

“In the third place, in a field such as this, there can be no certainty in the conclusions reached, only an increasing degree of probability. Jung once said of his life’s work that, in its present form, it constitutes no more than a ‘subjective confession’. Since then, the fact that some hundreds of men and women, using the psycho-perceptive methods, have substantially corroborated certain of his conclusions, gives reason to suppose that this ‘subjective confession’ is something more than mere personal phantasy on his part. As and when this body of corroborative experience (deepening and widening as independent investigators in increasing numbers make the experiment) is set down and funded in suitable form, our knowledge of this realm of activity can be made more sure. But it can never be made final. The type of enquirer who seeks, above all, certainty, rather than a developing truth, will find here little to his hand.

“Given these conditions, what is the right course to pursue? Is scientific method to be restricted to those areas where something approaching certainty can be achieved? If so, we condemn all those pioneers of science who in the past went forward, under every disadvantage, bent on discovering what they could with such instruments as they had; and by their courage and determination built up the body of scientific knowledge we now possess. And we condemn science itself to a meagre and misleading existence, based as it would be on such fragmentary knowledge as can be acquired by the so-called ‘exact’ techniques; ignoring that the small segment of reality thus adventitiously explored would be just as likely to distort as to illuminate our view of the whole.

“Clearly, scientific investigation cannot be thus confined. It is true that where the pursuit of science is little more than a ‘persona’ activity, or where the feeling of certainty it brings is clutched at as a substitute for religion, there is a natural tendency to play safe and refuse to apply scientific method anywhere outside the accepted ruts. But where the scientific spirit truly moves there can be little doubt as to what should be its scope of enquiry. Scientific method is for the discovery of truth on all fronts, the psyche no less than the physical world. And since our knowledge of the psyche is far behind that of the physical world, the investigation itself far more difficult, and the issues at stake infinitely more momentous, it is on this sector that we need to concentrate.” (pp. 200-202)
--P.W. Martin “Experiment in Depth” (Pantheon Books, Inc., 1955)

*From the Foreword: “The experiment in depth set out in the ensuing pages derives mainly from the work of three men: C.G. Jung, the psychologist; T.S. Eliot, the poet; and A.J. Toynbee, the historian. Each of them, in his own way, has employed what Eliot once termed the ‘mythical method’--the exploration of those symbols, visions, idees-forces which, acting powerfully from the unconscious depths, enable men and communities to find new energies, new values and new aims. In the present age the mythical method has been used chiefly by the totalitarian ideologies, for purposes of domination and power. The question examined here is whether and how it can be used to better purpose.”
--Ibid.