Talk:Erfan-e-Halgheh

Inaccuracies and falsehood

The Pseudoscientific Nature of Mohammad Ali Taheri’s Claims

Mohammad Ali Taheri, the founder of the so-called “Interuniversalism” (Erfan-e Halgheh), has gained a significant following in Iran and among the diaspora, presenting himself as a spiritual healer and scientific innovator. However, a critical examination of his teachings, practices, and published materials reveals substantial issues that align more closely with pseudoscience than legitimate scientific inquiry.

Lack of Scientific Rigor and Peer Review

One of the most glaring issues with Taheri’s claims is the absence of credible peer-reviewed support for his theories. His writings have been primarily disseminated through self-published outlets or journals lacking academic standing and rigorous editorial oversight. This bypasses the foundational mechanism of academic science: peer review. Peer review is critical not only for quality control but also for ensuring that claims are evidence-based, reproducible, and logically coherent within existing scientific frameworks.

Instead, Taheri’s ideas—such as “Cosmic Consciousness,” “Faradarmani,” and “Psymentology”—are presented without empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, or falsifiability. These are hallmarks of pseudoscience, as defined by philosophers of science such as Karl Popper and Paul Thagard. The frequent use of metaphysical and vague terminology in place of operational definitions further impedes critical scrutiny or meaningful evaluation.

Misappropriation of Scientific Concepts

Taheri frequently misuses or reinterprets established scientific terms (e.g., quantum mechanics, consciousness, energy fields) without adhering to their accepted definitions or the methodologies of the disciplines from which they are drawn. This technique—often referred to as “scientific-sounding language”—is a common tactic in pseudoscientific movements. For instance, his references to “quantum healing” and “cosmic intelligence” evoke legitimate scientific fields but are presented in a manner that is conceptually incoherent or lacks empirical support.

Moreover, Taheri and his followers often frame rejection or skepticism from the scientific community as evidence of persecution or a failure of mainstream science to be “open-minded.” This victim narrative is also a known rhetorical strategy in cultic pseudoscience, allowing the movement to insulate itself from critique.

Cultic Dynamics and Exploitation

Beyond epistemic concerns, Taheri’s organization displays characteristics typical of a cult, including claims of exclusive access to truth, charismatic authority, and a tendency to pathologize dissent. His followers often elevate his statements to infallible status, and spiritual practices are promoted as cures for physical and psychological ailments—without clinical validation or ethical oversight. This is especially dangerous when it leads individuals to forgo evidence-based medical treatments in favor of unproven spiritual interventions.

Additionally, the movement has been financially sustained through donations and fees for courses and materials, raising concerns about the exploitation of vulnerable individuals seeking healing or spiritual purpose. The absence of transparent governance or external regulation exacerbates these concerns.

Scientific Consensus and Ethical Responsibility

Scientific progress depends not only on open-minded inquiry but also on skepticism, accountability, and replicability. Taheri’s approach subverts these values. To date, no reputable scientific organization or academic body has validated his claims or practices. His theories have not been published in established scientific journals indexed in databases such as Scopus or Web of Science. Moreover, his methods have not undergone randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews that are standard in the assessment of psychological and medical interventions.

In light of this, the burden of proof rests squarely on Taheri and his proponents. Until his claims are subjected to rigorous, independent testing and transparent peer review, they should be treated as pseudoscience at best—and potentially as dangerous misinformation at worst. 5.216.30.96 (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)