RSS Feed
May 21st, 2015 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda 
22nd May 2015
Guest Writer for Wake Up World
“Real scientific endeavour does not dictate what “should” be. Ideally, it designs a sound protocol through which nature can reveal what is.” ~ BDM
Doesn’t science state that paranormal occurrences are impossible? Philosophically, science can no longer maintain that position — not if it wants to appeal to today’s evidence. Evidentially speaking, many so-called paranormal phenomena have been irrefutably scientifically proved.
The body of mainstream science has a history of becoming quite hysterical in the face of information seemingly competing for its “target demographic,” or even just information that doesn’t conform to the dominant paradigm in operation at the time. As such, it is organized science that has often proved and continues to prove to be the biggest adversary to impartial discussion and consideration of novel data — an alien concept to many people due to the way science, particularly in the mainstream, has been mythologized as a totally dispassionate and objective enterprise that only cares for so-called truth (though the anthropogenic “global warming” scandal no doubt helped undermine that myth!)
We think of the man in the lab coat as impartial and analytical, but he is just as motivated by emotion as the next person, whether it be greed, fear, malice, love, pride, or ambition. Degrees and Ph.D.s don’t suddenly make someone utterly impartial and free of emotional or intellectual prejudice, or immune to other forms of corruption for that matter.
Consider the Nazi-like book-burning and the persecution of pioneering scientist Wilhelm Reich in America — an allegedly free country — in the 1950s. Had Reich hate-mongered? Had he called for the torture and killing of baby seals? Had he conducted Satanic rituals and conjured hordes of demons? Taken candy from a baby? Voted Republican? No. He merely published his research into an energy he called “orgone,” which challenged scientists’ indoctrinated preconceptions and psychological imprinting about the nature of reality. Therefore, the only logical course of action was a book burning and jail for this dangerous lunatic.[i] Of course. While the book burning was sanctioned by the government, it was supported by various scientists who were not capable of approaching his material logically and open-mindedly. Had Reich made his discoveries today his material might have received a fairer treatment (might!).
Author, philosopher, and playwright the late Robert Anton Wilson — also a man ahead of his time — expressed his “horror and considerable indignation” at Reich’s politically, ideologically, and corporately inspired persecution in 1957: “I was astounded and flabbergasted that the US government was imitating its former [Nazi] enemy to the extent of actually burning scientific papers it found heretical.”[ii] The Catholic Church of yore would have been proud. The great Indian physicist J.C. Bose had himself noted the presence of an “unconscious theological bias” operating within the institution of science.[iii] This is a theme that may be returned to repeatedly, for science provides many examples of the worst kind of religious thought when it follows in the “arrogant and authoritarian footsteps of the Papacy,” as Wilson put it. He would further quip that “someone who knew only recent history and was unaware of the past might come to the conclusion that Science, not Theology, is the main enemy of free thought and free enquiry.”[iv]
Science tends to be a more diverse area than orthodox religion and it is not as easy to generalize, but they certainly have their similarities. Kuhn wrote that an education in normal science is probably more narrow and rigid than any other except perhaps one in orthodox theology.[v] It is noteworthy that “heresy” derives from the Greek hairesis, “choice.” “To be a heretic means to have choices, to opt for another way of believing, another kind of knowing, another channel of perceiving, another course of experience. Heresy is about having options.”[vi] One thing any good dictator loathes is competition. More disturbing is “official” corporate science’s aversion to it when such competition takes the form of psychical and consciousness research — a widely lamented theme — though the situation is even worse in other areas (such as alternative health or overunity technology/free energy).
Here we will not be getting into the story of just how badly organized “skepticism” has lost its way — that’s a story for another book. Suffice it to say that the term “skeptic” comes from the Greek skepsis, which means examination and doubt, and not knee-jerk denial. Somewhere then, organized skepticism and enthusiastic debunkers went wrong. Somewhere along the way, some people began to unconsciously mistake closed-minded cynicism and arrogance for skepticism—and the one thing the best known “skeptics” never seem to doubt, of course, is their own set of ontological or existential assumptions.
When someone provides a meticulously researched, quantitative challenge to conventional materialistic dogma, there is often a frenzied and juvenile response from many scientists and “skeptical” laypeople who hide behind the authority of science rather than utilizing its methods or spirit of inquiry to seek understanding. Kuhn explained that, because novelties are subversive of mainline science’s commitment to the status quo, normal science suppresses them.[vii] Despite this, and as Kuhn noted, as long as the status quo viewpoint contains an element of the arbitrary, novelty cannot be suppressed for very long. As Wilson observed, “Science achieves, or approximates, objectivity not because the individual scientist is immune from the psychological laws that govern the rest of us, but because scientific method — a group creation — eventually overrides individual prejudices, in the long run.”[viii]
We are not going to focus here on the corruption in the world of science that too often prevents scientific progress from occurring and serves to mire civilization in destructive beliefs and behavioral patterns; we merely wish to observe that the decrees of science, in particular “mainstream” and/or corporate science, cannot always be taken at face value, particularly science’s traditional pronouncements on so-called paranormal phenomena.
Like non-scientists, scientists themselves often fall prey to emotions and attitudinal biases. As physicist Brian D. Josephson points out, “Some scientists are especially prone to whip up emotion ‘in the cause of science’ (or so they believe).”[ix]
When was the last time that emotion helped you reach a rational and impartial conclusion? Ray Hyman, a career disbeliever in psi, has gone so far to admit that “[t]he level of the debate [about psi] during the past 130 years has been an embarrassment for anyone who would like to believe that scholars and scientists adhere to standards of rationality and fair play.”[x] Dean Radin has quite rightly observed that scientific truth, particularly in the context of psi, is determined primarily by nonscientific factors such as cultural conditioning, propaganda, rhetoric, ad hominem attack, politics, and competition for limited funding. [This is particularly accurate vis a vis “global warming” or “CO2-driven climate change” (CO2 is the least of our environmental worries!) but the list goes on and on.]
In fact, it is widely observed that the Scientific Priesthood or “elite” are driven to not perceive psi. Their egos have too much at stake, too much invested in an overarching paradigm that ruled that psi is an impossibility, and too much attachment to pet theories and beliefs that depend on it not existing. This tendency towards rigid dogmatism is incompatible with the fundamental spirit and basic methods of scientific inquiry, and has led many scientists to defend moribund worldviews and theories. What is the point of further research if you think you already know what is possible and what is not? While hardcore “skeptics” think that the widespread beliefs in psi and paranormal experiences and events indicates the public’s decreasing capacity for rational thought, I will demonstrate here [in my book] that the increasing belief in psi actually reflects just the opposite, but more to the point, it also represents the maturation of science and a fundamental evolutionary trend towards the greater advancement of the human race.
Veteran parapsychologist Stephen Braude has seen the ways emotion can subvert intellectual honesty and ethics:
Since dipping into the data of parapsychology, I have encountered more examples of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty than I had previously thought possible.[xi]
While many people think the basic issue is fear of the unknown (part of Rudhyar’s cultural provincialism), the reality that will emerge here is that every “skeptic” knows the truth at a subconscious level. Their hostility and closed-mindedness, I believe, arise from the internal conflict or cognitive dissonance resulting from the clash between the hidden subconscious knowledge that is in conflict with their consciously held belief structures (often these are imprinted very early in life and remain relatively intact thereafter). “Skeptics” loathe it when portions of their repressed knowledge are presented to them at a conscious level — it is an uncomfortable experience.
As someone who isn’t afraid of playing devil’s advocate occasionally, I have found that many people tend to react like addicts when their beliefs are challenged, even if politely enough. Rather than the mature, thoughtful response along the lines of “That’s interesting, how/where did you learn that?” many people will go into defence mode and act as if their entire world is under siege — “That’s not possible, science says so! What you’re talking about is pseudo-science!” Of course, such pronouncements are almost invariably preceded and followed with zero devoted, determined, and open-minded research.
Most of these knee-jerk reactions are nothing more than the acting out of ingrained mental habits. Some people are all too happy to rehash all the hearsay and assumptions they have gathered and lived by throughout their lives, as if that constitutes a valid argument. It doesn’t, but it maintains the apparent safety of a limited weltbild. Their opinions are almost always somebody else’s but they mistake these opinions as self-evident truth, apparently by sheer force of the number of other people who happen to agree with them. “Our thoughts, opinions, prejudices, and predilections are part of our mental possessions, children of our mind, and that is why we feel and show such tender regard for them.”[xii]
Raymond Moody has written that “‘explanations’ are not just abstract intellectual systems. They are also in some respects projects of the egos of the persons who hold them. People become emotionally wedded, as it were, to the canons of scientific explanation which they devise or adopt.”[xiii] After dedicating a lifetime of research to an area, it would understandably be threatening to have your facts challenged, and yet this is the response of the pride-filled ego, not of the analytical intellect. Science can only perform its role properly when the ego is removed (or at least tempered) and replaced with an unprejudiced, impartial search for truth, whatever it turns out to be.
Source Article from http://wakeup-world.com/2015/05/22/science-aint-always-scientific-the-myth-of-objectivity-and-impartiality/
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
