Many of the New Scientific Methods we employ in our research are derived from their counterparts developed for human healing. What is emerging here is a paradigm shift from the the old-style mechanistic "normal" science. Some elements derive from Quantum Mechanics and other holistic branches of "normal" science. Still more derive from religious and mystical traditions, and from non-Western societies, in which different socio-cultural constructions have also led to alternative Laws of Nature. Clearly this vastly expands the range of methods and, correspondingly, of results in the New Science. The following is a modest selection.
This principle asks you to take any methodological principle or "good practice rule" of "normal" science, and to turn it first into a rhetorical question and then into its negation. A classic application is Hahneman's inversion of the dose-effect relationship. The undisputed modern master of this meta-principle is Rupert Sheldrake, beginning with his theory of the morphogenetic field, and leading to his recent work "The Science Delusion", which is entirely based on the Principle of Inversion. Rumor has it that Sheldrake is now working on a summary of his life's work by applying the principle to the so-called golden rule of scientific methods, which can be paraphrased as "Thou shalt not fool thyself".
This principle was discovered by Isaac Newton, and in its rather narrow interpretation in terms of mechanical forces is one of the cornerstones of the old physics. Quantum mechanics has generalized this principle, to interactions between arbitrary systems: It is impossible that system A acts on system B, without B also acting on A. Still more generally one can extend this to a new kind of syllogism (rule of logical inference): If B follows from A, then A follows, in a certain sense, from B. The qualification "in a certain sense" is needed to avoid some absurd conclusions, but mostly this rule works. A similar qualification was made by Niels Bohr, father of Quantum Mechanics, in his dictum: "The opposite of a simple truth is a falsehood, but the opposite of a deep truth is a deep truth". In this sense the New Science is dealing with deep truths, for which the mechanistic rules of formal logic need to be extended.
"Anecdotal evidence" is sometimes used as a derogatory term by proponents of "normal" medicine, to disparage the evidence from individual cases as opposed to statistical clinical trials. However, we do not want to cure "statistical collectives": we want to cure individuals (humans or computers). Therefore, quite the opposite is true: the statistical methods are just irrelevant for treating individuals, and should carefully be avoided. Come to think of it, the demands of a double-blind (!!) study are just ridiculous: How can you expect to see the light with both eyes closed?
The description of individual cases should be enhanced by due attention to circumstances. There is some wisdom in which newspaper headlines describe a case, e.g., "New York plumber (53) dies of heart attack". By itself the fact that somebody died of a heart-attack would be boring and insignificant. With the additional detail given, we can relate to the incident much better, creating an additional layer of meaning. Similarly, the individuals in a case description should be visible as persons, rather than abstract numbers. What may seem as irrelevant detail for a skeptical scientist may well be the heart of a healing story.
One of the profound innovations in Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" (NKS) is doing away with the protocol of academic citations. Citations do break the flow of a narrative, and cause unnecessary pedantic interruptions. Of course, an author may want to build on previous work, but then it is much better to just point to the existence of other studies, and making references a part of the narrative, describing other scientists rather than naming them. For example, one can say "Russian scientists have found..", or "copious parapsychological evidence proves...", which will actually be more convincing than a number in square brackets.
A fundamental rule of inference of New Age Science is the following rule: "When I carry out action A to achieve effect E, and when E actually happens, then A has caused it". For example, when I am testing a new method to treat headaches, and my headache gets better, then I know that the method works. This evidence can be further enhanced by first trying something which does not work, from a medicinal dance all the way to "everything school medicine had to offer", or "the treatments of seven classical practitioners". If after several failed attempts something works, this must truly be the cause of improvement.
Intentionality is a key causative element in holistic science. For example, since homoepathic drugs become more powerful with higher dilution, they would be at their best if never delivered to a patient. Naively one might conclude that they then also act on every person in the world in the same way. But this is is a fallacy: The intentional element makes a difference. It sees to it that this universal treatment reaches only those for whom it is intended, i.e., typically those who have paid.
The term "evidence based medicine" is sometimes used in a very narrow sense for medicine based on "normal" scientific studies and statistical clinical trials (see e.g., S. Singh and E. Ernst: "Trick or Treatment - Alternative medicine on trial", Bantam Press 2008). Here we take a broader view of evidence: If something is evident to you, you are entitled to say so, and nobody can take that away from you. After all, like the Axioms of Greek mathematics the "truths we hold evident" are the basis of everything.
A wonderful development in New Age healing is how different methods interact with each other. For example, healing crystals work better under a pyramid, or perhaps, when diluted D81. This creates a deep coherence, whose superficial outward aspect is that the aids for apparently most diverse methods are found in the very same shops. This is ultimately due to the convergence of Methods and Principles as outlined on this page (NOT to gullibility as their common denominator, as some cynical skeptics have said.)
Practitioners of alternative medicine often observe that their cures do not share the mechanical reliability of "normal" medicine. There is always a residual probability for the cure not to take effect. This is fully understood from the quantum (hence probabilistic) nature of holistic healing. However, like a quantum jump, a cure, when it happens, is often described as dramatic and total: The targeted disease of symptom vanishes completely, never to return. This has been called the Bull's Eye Principle, and we follow this usage, although it mistakenly suggests that holistic healing is like random shooting, in which one just waits for spontaneous improvement and attributes this to the treatment.
"Normal" science in its complicated ways has finally achieved a state of knowledge, which has been present in the mystical paths to enlightenment for thousands of years. This convergence of the most modern to the most ancient was first pointed out by Capra in his "Tao of Physics", and has since then been a basis of the New Age World View. It has also served as a short cut to the modern branches of physics, notably relativity theory and quantum mechanics. From a deep New Age perspective these can be summarized in the slogans "Everything is relative", i.e., relative to social construct, and the two quantum slogans "Everything is connected to everything else" and "Mind controls matter", referring to the phenomena of entanglement and Wigner's theory of collapse of the wave function in the mind of the observer. Trained physicists often do not agree that these are adequate and comprehensive summaries, but that is only because they insist on saying things in mathematical language, which they spent so much time in learning, but which is actually only designed to keep the layman/laywoman out. And where quantum information theorists are struggling to turn paradoxes like entanglement into products (e.g., quantum computers or quantum cryptography) New Age scientists have already achieved success: When everything is connected to everything else, remote healing becomes a viable business model, and mind over matter means that "You can achieve whatever you wish".
Among the hampering tenets of "normal" science is the demand never to overstate your case, and stick to what has actually observed again and again. This timid style can therefore never add to the morphogenetic field of the world, i.e., "normal" science is not creative at all. In contrast, New Age Science, by the Thomas Theorem, has the potential to change the world, and if you know that your statements do have this feedback potential, timidity is downright damaging. If you wish something to be true, claim it as a statement of fact, and this prophecy will rush to fulfill itself. If you are a practitioner of the healing arts, this is also crucial for convincing your clients and, once again, for the success of the cure and your business model.