Anonymous Icon

Are mainstream scientists taking unfair criticism?

Posted June 13, 2012 by Sungon9 in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on Dec. 17, 2013
by dustproduction



I personally feel that most mainstream scientists are being treated unfairly when it comes to the battle of "those who believe in consciousness, ESP, etc." versus "those who do not believe in these phenomena." There are certainly skeptics who openly look down upon experiments involving consciousness and such, noting that these experiments do not follow the scientific method well.

However, an important point must be made here. As Deepak Chopra has stated, for example, consciousness cannot be verified using conventional scientific means. So institutions such as IONS pursue the "science of consciousness" through unconventional means. I'm not saying that IONS is wrong, in fact I believe IONS does everything right. Yet this type of science cannot be explored through the "material world" so to speak because it involves phenomena that take place out of space=time, namely in the realm of consciousness.

Here's my issue: I feel that consistently mainstream scientists have been sort-of "bashed" unfairly. Mainstream scientists should not be lumped into the group of "those who do not believe in consciousness." In fact, apart from the open skeptics, I believe many scientists do NOT look down upon (or belittle) the study of consciousness. Their entire scientific careers, though, have been based on the scientific method and that's all that they know. Therefore, they do not make an inference on something they do not know how to test.

The only ones who should take any heat, of course, are the skeptics themselves, the ones who openly criticize IONS and other groups' efforts. Yet mainstream scientists should take any of this heat. If you feel mainstream scientists are indeed taking unnecessary criticism for following a disciple they know (but not bashing the study of consciousness), please explain with examples. If not, of course, please explain as well.

I believe most of all if we can remove this "us vs. them" mentality, we will all be better off.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 17, 2013

    Re: Yet this type of science cannot be explored through the "material world" so to speak because it involves phenomena that take place out of space=time, namely in the realm of consciousness.

    An explanation of the physical interface need to be address.

    I think it would be a worthwhile effort to examine whether "consciousness" is what we are discussing. In my earlier comment I've mentioned that the word itself has several meanings.

    We might seek to incorporate the conscious experience along with the unconscious (another ambiguous term) experience, and even include the term "non-consciousness." Daniel Kahneman is traveling down this road in his use of the terms type 1 and type 2 thinking. in "Thinking: Fast & Slow."

    All of these states are inseparable and to be defined with a common term. Currently none exist. Instead we speak about them as if they are separate systems.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 12, 2013

    “With wisdom comes knowledge because one has to be wise in the first place to gain such knowing therefore knowledge does not give one wisdom!!”

    This is actually saying wisdom is already present to have the wisdom in the first place to gain such knowledge. Should our wisdom grow with becoming more aware? Most definitely but it’s not because of the blinding effects of the controlling ego.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 12, 2013

    re: There is a clear correspondence between "knowledge" and "wisdom".

    This brings us back to the distributed cognitive cultural networks in the brain; information linked together creates knowledge packets, and these clusters of knowledge linked can at some point create wisdom and insight.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 09, 2013

    G'day Marshal

    I know of science minded people who would love to give their inventions over to the populous for nothing but we know what would happen don't we. Some of these devices would counsel out a lot of what consumerism is about, entrapment especially to debt is but one. Whose debt is it when a country goes into debt? The ordinary people’s, even if they aren't in debt personally they are still in debt because there country is in debt, it’s amazing how many people don’t realise this. Consumerist materialism is a fallacy just like any corrupt religious systematic ideology!!

    Yes again our own controlling egos tell us otherwise because that is what we want to hear, strange that isn’t it?

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 09, 2013

    G'day frequencytuner

    RE:"There is a clear correspondence between "knowledge" and "wisdom".

    I disagree most whole heartedly, has there ever been a time in human history that we have destroyed the Earth at the rate we are doing now? The answer of course is no even though we are more knowledgeable than ever about our whole environment than ever before, where is the wisdom in destroying the very thing we rely on for our very existence?

    We have never had so little forested since the dawn of man, read up about what these forests actually give us & again this is but the tip of the iceberg.


    Wisdom what wisdom I don't see any wisdom within our knowing!!

    It would seem the more knowledgeable we are becoming the less wisdom we are showing not the other way around, our egos would like to think we have more wisdom with more knowledge but human history tells us otherwise. Stop the ego controlling you & you will see what we are really doing. All I am hearing here is ego gaga.

  • marshallbarnes Dec 09, 2013

    You hit that one on bullseye, frequency tuner...

  • frequencytuner Dec 09, 2013


    Reference to: The Secrets of Nikola Tesla

  • frequencytuner Dec 09, 2013

    There is a clear correspondence between "knowledge" and "wisdom". The correct terminology escapes me, but to describe this relationship is akin to the sun (Wisdom) and the moon (knowledge) in varying degrees. As we evolve within this continuum of experience, the mainstream of Western scientific culture remains firmly on the side of knowledge, depending on measurable results and the scientific method. There is no wrong in this and the mastery of their pursuits is unrivaled: on the physical level.

    What appears to be the anchor holding this entity fixed in place is fear: fear of the unknown, the unexplainable, immeasurable and most importantly the unproven. This is largely a cultural issue and not so much scientific. There are and have always been great Western thinkers who have traversed this continuum and risked their lives and careers for Truth and Wisdom, yet the collective still shuns these brave pioneers. In the Western culture, a PhD apparently means something important to some people, and those who have earned that suffix place great pride in their ability to know certain things. The fear of realizing your entire life's education has been in vain is not something many people take lightly and will fight tooth and nail to oppose and refuse to accept the notion that there is more to learn and they do not truly "know" as much as they "think they know".

    The majority of this criticism is internal, sadly, within the community itself, as everybody seems to be out to validate their own existence and education and hypotheses at the expense of others: especially those who like Galileo and Tesla who are easy prey to criticism based on their radical views and theories. The point is that after those who saved face and criticized the 'rebels' out of fame and posterity it is those very rebels who turn out to be correct in the end.

    The best example I can think of is the drama between Tesla and Edison. Imagine if Edison had his way...

  • marshallbarnes Dec 09, 2013


    In work in a very narrow band of the scientific spectrum and it is dependent solely on results. Either it works or it doesn't or either it adds up or it doesn't. Much of science isn't conducted that way. It's theory that a majority of the science community decides is correct until such time that somehow, against the odds, someone comes along and proves everyone else is wrong. Then the new theory is accepted.

    If science worked they way you suggested you would still have consumerist materialism because someone is always going to figure out a way to make a buck off of something. Look how many New Age products are on the market. I'm not against consumerism as long as it doesn't go too far. Killing someone over $100 tennis shoes is a good example, or spending money you can't afford, to get a product. My concern is what I see as the growing threat from science as the new religion, which is really being done by the skeptical community. They have been organizing, using the "geek is cool" movement and STEM to recruit young people into their way of thinking. Fortunately, they have weaknesses that are easy to exploit and painful to have attacked. That is the hope we have for the future, but it's not a battle that can be won by anyone outside of the science community.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 08, 2013

    G'day Marshall

    This is funny because I too have stated that consumerist materialism is a new age religion & yes like in the dark ages it too is witch hunting. Many people who have devised energy free devises have been silenced one way or the other & this is but the tip of the iceberg. We have really come a long way since the dark ages haven't we. Could you imagine what science would be doing now if it had free range & support? I don't think we would need consumerist materialism to make us happy & content.

    I'm sure these multinationals running the show see themselves as Gods & in fact that is how they act. We came from many Gods to a God & now we are back to many Gods again, we have come along way!!!

  • marshallbarnes Dec 08, 2013

    Dear m,

    Thanks for the remarks. I think you made some good points and they made me realize something. In the current propaganda war waged by what I will call the science fanatic establishment (which is not the same thing as the science establishment but wants to be) the attainment of scientific knowledge is seen as not just an academic goal but a purpose of life. That has become to be the unspoken equivalent of being "good" and having value. Not what is true, not what is fair or egalitarian. More and more, I see evidence of scientists as seeing science as the new religion, with its own values and tenets. I'm not religious, so I'm not going to accept a new one that masquerades as something it's not...

  • marshallbarnes Dec 08, 2013

    Dear dust productions:

    My comments were clear and succinct. I did not mention Feynman. I was dealing with the fallacy of the comment that you directed at Billgreenjeans. There are such a things as opinions and facts. Facts, however, trump opinions when it comes to validity and someone that claims to promote science should be interested in facts, not opinions. As someone that actually works in the science world and knows many of its dirty little secrets, I can say, authoritatively, what's what and back it up with evidence. That makes what I said more than an opinion, it makes it a fact.

    Just to show how universal Thorne's quote was, Ronald Mallett, said the basic same thing as to why he kept his research into time travel a secret for so long before he came out with a published theory that he felt might work, for a time machine. The funny thing is that Thorne doesn't believe the machine will work if Mallett ever builds it and Mallett lost to me in the race to build the 1st time machine. Mine is based on a different approach and has a direct connection to Thorne's concept for wormholes but his idea for using time dilation to make a wormhole time machine won't work either. So, neither one of them has a workable concept, however, they share the same opinion about the peer pressure that can exist in the science world. In the end, it doesn't matter to me because I don't talk or write about things unless I have something very concrete to back them up. I'm also free of the restraints that effect most scientists like Mallett and Thorne because I don't answer to a department head or have to rely on government grants to fund my research, or give a damn what other scientists say because less than a handful have ever tried to criticize me and in the end they're the ones that looked stupid because they had to either lie or bend the truth, to do so. I answer to investors and mine are very pleased right now.

    As far as the Feynman quote goes, I didn't read it until now. Now that I have, I think he has it wrong and right at the same time. Doing the things he suggests, I feel, is a large part of what life is about, but that gets into philosophy which I try to avoid. But, hey, that's just an opinion...

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 02, 2013

    I will throw out one more thought, in reference to the ideas found here because to me it supports the process of scientific knowledge.

    "We now accept the fact that learning is a lifelong process of keeping abreast of change. And the most pressing task is to teach people how to learn."
    Peter Drucker

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 02, 2013

    Marshall has an impressive resume that includes:

    Expertise & Interest Descriptors
    Temporal mechanics, consciousness, creativity, technocogninetics, optics, acoustics, multimedia production, marketing, electronic effects design, space-time geometry, designing distance learning STEM projects, special effects, video art, and the practical applications of the extreme implications of quantum mechanics.

    This is public knowledge and he himself invites other to peruse his website(s).

    Welcome Marshall,

    I don't want to get off to a bad start so forgive me, but I'm a little slow, (and much of a nobody by your standards) what did I miss? You mean the regarding Feynman quote? This doesn't surprise me knowing that you authored a paper called, "Avoiding Hidden Assumption Traps When Thinking outside the Box." I see why you might side of with Bill. I guess I'll side with Feynman thought. That was his opinion.

    I'm entitled to mine as well, right?

    It says that you have an interest in consciousness. Perhaps you will comment on the Merle Donald discussion or the The Neuroscience of Enlightenment discussion.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 02, 2013

    Let's at least give the Thorne quote a reference so that its not as universal as you would make it to be:

    "Perhaps inevitably, it was through science fiction that serious scientists finally convinced themselves that time travel could be made to work, by a sufficiently advanced civilization. It happened like this. Carl Sagan, a well known astronomer, had written a novel in which he used the device of travel through a black hole to allow his characters to travel from a point near the Earth to a point near the star Vega. Although he was aware that he was bending the accepted rules of physics, this was, after all, a novel. Nevertheless, as a scientist himself Sagan wanted the science in his story to be as accurate as possible, so he asked Kip Thorne, an established expert in gravitational theory, to check it out and advise on how it might be tweaked up. After looking closely at the non-commonsensical equations, Thorne realised that such a wormhole through spacetime actually could exist as a stable entity within the framework of Einstein's theory.

    Sagan gratefully accepted Thorne's modification to his fictional "star gate", and the wormhole duly featured in the novel, Contact, published in 1985. But this was still only presented as a shortcut through space. Neither Sagan nor Thorne realised at first that what they had described would also work as a shortcut through time. Thorne seems never to have given any thought to the time travel possibilities opened up by wormholes until, in December 1986, he went with his student, Mike Morris, to a symposium in Chicago, where one of the other participants casually pointed out to Morris that a wormhole could also be used to travel backwards in time. Thorne tells the story of what happened then in his own book Black Holes and Time Warps (Picador). The key point is that space and time are treated on an essentially equal footing by Einstein's equations"

    As for the rest, you are entitled to your 'opinion' I guess.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 02, 2013

    G'day Marshall

    I love all what you have written here. A lot of academic people railroad others less educated & most of the times they get away with it.

    Knowledge doesn't equal wisdom & one needs wisdom to know how to effectively utilise knowledge in the first place. No wonder we are so much in a mess with so many academically trained robots running the show. Train an academic to become egotistical & you can do anything with them however not all academics are like this but it does look like the majority are just like this.

    I also worked in an industry working right along side of academically trained people but of course to them I wasn't working along side of them nor was I seen as a colleague mainly because of their egotism. I was actually better at doing there jobs than they were in most areas, you could imagine the scorn & in the end I was running my whole section only because of certain academics up higher could see my potential.

    Just recently I came across an academic who was ripping off two disabled people, she actually harassed them out of their own abode but also took a lot of their belongings as well, sorry but being academically trained doesn't mean one is moral & in fact it's quite the opposite. Again, no wonder this world is in so much of a mess.

    Recently I pleaded with an academic on this site not to reply to one of my posts & please show a little respect but of course in typical arrogant fashion my plea was totally ignored, I lost all respect for that person.

    This kind of behaviour doesn't stop with scientifically or welfare minded people either, I've seen this quite often on spiritual sites as well strangely enough.

  • marshallbarnes Dec 02, 2013


    You're clearly a science fanatic because you completely ignored the reasons I gave for why people resist science and instead you decided to blame it on their lack of academics. That shows that you're not able to look at a cogent argument without the lens of your own bias. You even tried to be skeptical about Kip Thorne's comment, by passing it off as something that is just a human behavior, forgetting that I mentioned it in support of a similar comment made by Billgreenjeans which you said was " an unsupported allegation, and a familiar argument of those are critical of science in general."

    The bottom line is that you are not scientific as you don't consider the evidence when presented if it doesn't meet your predisposed opinion, no matter what that evidence is, which is exactly how many scientists behave, unfortunately, which is exactly why people don't trust and choose to resist science...

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 02, 2013

    Re: It doesn't deserve unquestioning allegiance,

    Who said it does? Do let's at least apply the same standards to religion, spiritualism, or subjective opinion.
    Science is a self correcting system that seeks to falsify its own hypotheses.

    Re: science (as a) monolithic (reference).

    "Science" is a derogatory term here in Discussions. It is not a term I would use, to define the scientific process, or method. I can understand the upset people have with "science" but in fact this is their generalization and it mostly applies to the applied sciences, and not pure science.
    Still, I might encourage whose to forego a that 'science' affords.

    I have also commented: "Of course the sciences get bashed by those that misunderstand the scientific method, or have not continued to follow a scientific field in an academic way. It is fair to say that most people only get a watered-down version of applied science, including medical advances, from the media. And this problem will only get worse since we are in and anti science era in this country. We constantly hearing that high school scores in science and mathematics continue to decline in America. So, it is common to mistrust what we do not understand."
    I believe this is a fair observeration and that the numbers would support it.

    I also have my reservation about the Thorne's quote about 'science' or more accurately his fellow scientists. I will ask, Isn't the behavior that Thorne is observing a human one and not reserved to 'science?'
    Where is no shortage of scientific research into the paranormal, as I am constantly reminded here. See the discussion "Here's the Evidence" I question Thorne's point.

  • marshallbarnes Dec 02, 2013

    Dear dustproductions:

    I'm not sure who you are, do to your hiding behind your nom de plume, but billgreenjeans' comment about fear from the science community is not only accurate but has been repeated by people in the science community.

    In his book, Black Holes and Time Warps, Cal Tech's prize physicist, Kip Thorne said, "There are those of us who enjoy science fiction and in fact some who write it, but we dare not do research that could be considered too close to the science fiction fringe for fear of ridicule from our peers."

    Your comment, "This is an unsupported allegation, and a familiar argument of those are critical of science in general" is 100% bull and sounds like that of a typical science fanatic. In fact, your earlier exclamation,"WHY DO PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?" sounds much like religious people talking about nonbelievers. When people use the word "science" without definition, they are making science seem monolithic. In that case, it is easy to answer your question - People resist science because they know that science is conducted by people and people have agendas and science has been use to abuse, threaten, maim, torture, starve, and kill people just as religion has and there's nothing worse than a person whose religion is science because then it is unquestionable, unresponsible, unyielding and everything that should be resisted.

    Science is just a tool. That's it. It doesn't deserve unquestioning allegiance, and I'll be damned if it ever gets it from me...

  • marshallbarnes Dec 02, 2013

    Hello m,

    Yeah, I'm not into fairyland either. What I see is a danger from the skeptical community using the current trend of promoting science, to sneak their own agenda in. I've also had first hand experience seeing at least one scientist making a name for himself in social media (as opposed to anything having to do with science) actually promoting the idea that people with PhDs are not only smarter than everyone else but better as well. The most blatant form of elitism I've ever seen. He even went as far as protecting a scientist, who was slandering someone, because the person getting slandered didn't have a degree and the slanderer did.

    This person has also been in the lead complaining about how people don't respect scientists enough when why should they? Everyday on TV people see commercials promoting pharmaceutical drugs which then have a list of the most ridiculous side effects that must be read off, many times which sound worse than the ailment the drug is supposed to relieve. Big Pharma is a major part of the science community.

    Scientists can be quick to bash, criticize and demean not only non-scientists, but even themselves. I feel if they can dish it out, they ought be able to take it, regardless of where it comes from...

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 01, 2013

    G'day Marshall

    Yes I would say they do but no different to people who inductively reason.

    Most science minded people I have come across are open to reasonable ideological beliefs/concepts because they are curious however there not usually into fairyland ideological beliefs & concepts however on the other hand a lot of spiritually aware people aren't accepting of science period & spirituality is supposed to be about acceptance.

    science & spirituality use different reasoning processes which really in my mind shouldn't mean one is right or wrong over the other just different when used appropriately.

  • marshallbarnes Dec 01, 2013

    I see a misuse of terms in the original opening. I don't know of any scientist that is against "consciousness". What they may be against are the so-called "paranormal" aspects related to the human mind. At the same time I feel that scientists cause a lot of problems for themselves and are plagued by a tendency toward arrogance and feelings of superiority. I can say that because I work with scientists and I know how they think.

    Don't get me started on skeptics...

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 30, 2013

    Here is loads of proof of science deniers. It i the entire discussion

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 28, 2013

    In 1955, in an extraordinary address delivered to the National Academy of Sciences, Feynman did. From his soul-searching, born out of the choking dust of a mushroom cloud, the physicist expounded upon three simple but vital values tendered by science.

    "The first way in which science is of value is familiar to everyone," Feynman said. "It is that scientific knowledge enables us to do all kinds of things and to make all kinds of things."
    This could neither be more obvious, nor more true. Though once firmly anchored to the ground, man first realized that by displacing a large enough surface area of water, even immense objects could float. And so we set out to sea. Next, we found out that heating air within a large tarp made the apparatus less dense than even the air we breath. And so we took to the skies. Years later, we fired rockets with enough force to overcome the bonds of gravity, and thus break free of our atmosphere. And so we entered space. Science powered it all.
    But in that quintessential power to devise and create awesome ideas and inventions comes the power to wield such constructs for evil, Feynman cautioned.

    "Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad - but it does not carry instructions on how to use it," he added.

    Source: "The Value of Science." Richard Feynman. University of Washington.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 19, 2013

    Many commenters here on the Discussions tend towards remarks like this, "when one believes it is a spiritual being the human mind then forms concepts relative to the qualities or characteristics a spiritual being should exhibit or experience."

    This is an obviously baseless remark, without a foundation in fact.

    Why do those that submit scientific finding here continue to be labeled, "adamantly opposed to any mention of spirituality and it habitually posts comments supporting the traditional science position that consciousness consists of independent units confined within individual brains.
    Can it be show the sciences position is baseless?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 22, 2013

    I like to promote debate from both sides of an issue. Here is an excellent report about what there is about science that is worthy of examination.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 15, 2013

    "It might be easier to acquire information than to wipe away misinformation." This thought is in line with Richard Feynman's explanation of God.

    “Motivated reasoning refers to the discounting of information or evidence that challenges one’s prior beliefs accompanied by uncritical acceptance of anything that is attitude-consonant.”

    The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 09, 2013

    I think I have demonstrated my comprehension of the research I post. For others, it is best that they consider the original material and not my interpretation. And that would be, if and when, others review the material. Most time it is ignored.

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Oct 09, 2013

    "Similar would be AI, (artificial intelligence), automaticity, roboticism, such that robots need to learn to *reflect* the *reflection,* and on their own, not just dutifully repeat."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 06, 2013

    re: putting it into my own words

    There is no need. The article is there for anyone to read. "In my own words" offers nothing new except to build off the thoughts offered.

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Oct 06, 2013

    Conventional science has to own its own faith-based beliefs, such as...establishing itself upon its faith-based assumption that the only thing that matters/matters is physicality and aftermath.

    But where and how did that physicality originate? Did it magically and suddenly appear (Christian processing)? If not, under what circumstances did it manifest? Was it...evolution? What did it interact with to come into existence, and where is the other side of that interaction now?

    Why does science only validate aftermath? Something had to be a precursor to that aftermath, obviously, so where is that precursor now?

    If you respond with yet more articles, etc., summarize those articles in your own words, please, because you're the one I'm asking to reason through these questions. Thanks!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 05, 2013

    Is this occurring here in these discussion? You bet it is!

    "It’s hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs: economic, political, religious, or otherwise. But many studies have indicated that these same people aren’t happy with viewing themselves as anti-science, which can create a state of cognitive dissonance. That has left psychologists pondering the methods that these people use to rationalize the conflict.

    A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology takes a look at one of these methods, which the authors term “scientific impotence”—the decision that science can’t actually address the issue at hand properly. It finds evidence that not only supports the scientific impotence model, but suggests that it could be contagious. Once a subject has decided that a given topic is off limits to science, they tend to start applying the same logic to other issues…

    Munro polled a set of college students about their feelings about homosexuality, and then exposed them to a series of generic scientific abstracts that presented evidence that it was or wasn’t a mental illness (a control group read the same abstracts with nonsense terms in place of sexual identities). By chance, these either challenged or confirmed the students’ preconceptions. The subjects were then given the chance to state whether they accepted the information in the abstracts and, if not, why not.

    Regardless of whether the information presented confirmed or contradicted the students’ existing beliefs, all of them came away from the reading with their beliefs strengthened. As expected, a number of the subjects that had their beliefs challenged chose to indicate that the subject was beyond the ability of science to properly examine. This group then showed a weak tendency to extend that same logic to other areas, like scientific data on astrology and herbal remedies.

    A second group went through the same initial abstract-reading process, but were then given an issue to research (the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to violent crime), and offered various sources of information on the issue. The group that chose to discount scientific information on the human behavior issue were more likely than their peers to evaluate nonscientific material when it came to making a decision about the death penalty."


    "Within the scientific community, there has been substantial debate over how best to deal with the public's refusal to accept basic scientific findings, with different camps arguing for increasing scientific literacy, challenging beliefs, or emphasizing the compatibility between belief and science.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 05, 2013

    Attacks on science are not new. Galileo, for example, was charged with “vehement suspicion of heresy” and put on trial in 1633 when he was 69. To save his life, Galileo publicly renounced his belief that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe. In 1992, after more than 350 years had passed, the Vatican deferred to Galileo's scientific theory and granted him a full pardon.1–3

    As attention and respect for scientific research grow, attempts both to overdetermine scientific findings and to undermine the policy implications of sound science are becoming increasingly sophisticated and complex, putting evidence-based policymaking at risk.


    In attacking science, vested interests may also hide their identities by masquerading as grassroots coalitions or by affiliating themselves with neutral organizations. Consider, for example, the National Coalition on Ergonomics, a research group that opposes a national ergonomics standard; the Food Chain Coalition, which represents the pesticide industry and works to prevent regulations; Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Policy, physicians who oppose gun control and handgun research; and the Center for Patient Advocacy, the orthopedic group that lobbied against the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research's back treatment

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 05, 2013

    Do you know more about science and technology than the average American?

    Take our 13-question quiz to test your knowledge of scientific concepts. Then see how you did in comparison with the 1,006 randomly sampled adults asked the same questions in a national poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and Smithsonian magazine.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 26, 2013


    What are we using this collection of facts for? We're using it to make better ignorance, to come up with, if you will, higher-quality ignorance. Because, you know, there's low-quality ignorance and there's high-quality ignorance. It's not all the same.

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Sep 24, 2013

    <<As Deepak Chopra has stated, for example, consciousness cannot be verified using conventional scientific means. So institutions such as IONS pursue the "science of consciousness" through unconventional means.>>

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 24, 2013

    Who was Richard Feynman?

  • Billgreenjeans Sep 24, 2013

    Richard P. Feynman is wrong. It does matter what life is all about and plenty of people have found out what it's all about. maybe pride of think he already knows everything has kept him from finding out what life is all about or maybe he just is looking in the wrong places. It is not difficult to find out if you really want to know.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 23, 2013

    “Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough.”

    - Richard P. Feynman

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 21, 2013

    1. Thou shall not attack a person's character but the argument itself. ("Ad hominem")

    2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make it easier to attack. ("Straw Man Fallacy)

    3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. ("Hasty Generalization")

    4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. ("Begging the Question")

    5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. ("Post Hoc/False Claim")

    6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. ("Fake Dichotomy")

    7. Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance that the claim must be true or false. ("Ad Ignorantiam")

    8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him who is questioning the claim. ("Burden of Proof Reversal")

    9. Thou shall not assume "this" follows "that" when "it" has no logical connection. ("Non Sequitor")

    10. Thou shall not claim that because a premises is popular, therefore, it must be true. ("Bandwagon Fallacy")

  • Billgreenjeans Sep 21, 2013

    "Among scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, 96% described themselves as "skeptical" of ESP; 4% believed in psi. Among all scientists surveyed, 10% felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged.[26] The National Academy of Sciences had previously sponsored the Enhancing Human Performance report on mental development programs, which was critical of parapsychology." Wikipedia

    The question is what per cent of the ten per cent that think parapsychology research should be encouraged are actually doing parapsychology research. And what per cent of the 96% are afraid to speak up.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 21, 2013

    Re: "do not dare investigate those areas because of FEAR of the "science community"

    This is an unsupported allegation, and a familiar argument of those are critical of science in general.
    There is a long list of research of the type the commenter is referring to that is conducted without "fear, and with funding. There is no requirement to fund ALL research, and even mainstream scientist must compete for funding and complain about the shortage of funding.
    I will suggest that the commenter has a limited understanding of scientific research in general and is provided his limited perception of the problem, and in turn attempts to change the perception into a matter of fact.
    See The Golden Goose Award: http://www.livescience.com/23203-golden-goose-awards-honor-silly-science.html

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Sep 21, 2013

    The Universe itself "made the rules" that the PROOF of its true physics processes can only be seen/realized by EACH person individually "doing the work" required of them to see/realize it, because the only thing keeping them from their own Awakening is the clutter of their own projections, which have to be totally retrieved and owned to directly experience the Answers.

    There is nothing subjective about Enlightenment. Either you "get it," because you've earned your way to it, or you don't, because you won't.

    Those who do have the courage to "do that work" ultimately realize the EXACT SAME ANSWER at the Core. There is nothing whatsoever "subjective" about Universal Truth.

    Masking oneself conveniently behind conventional rules of reasoning and articles and authoritative conventional science, and other people's words (external dependency) will never, ever change or invalidate the true Universal Physics. They are what they are, and all the efforts to invalidate them will only bring more stress upon those who negate them.

    When you're ready, you're ready, and if you're not, you have to accept responsibility for the consequences.

    Meanwhile, since I've given you more than enough guidance toward Enlightenment to keep you busy for weeks, and perhaps years, decades, I need to be redirecting my energy and efforts toward those who ARE ready.

  • Billgreenjeans Sep 21, 2013

    "Any attempt to discuss science is rejected and the criticism is then aimed at the commenter."

    I would like to discuss the fact that many scientist would personally like to research areas that are not now researched or are under researched and do not dare investigate those areas because of FEAR of the "science community" and more importantly the "FUNDING" entities of scientific research. So scientific research seems to be controlled by special interest not the scientist themselves. Agriculture research is pledged in the same way. If a manufacture wants positive results on their product then they simply "fund a grant" to a school of agriculture and the research will be done. Outcome could be positive if another grant is wanted. Follow the money.

    Perhaps someone here has known of scientist who would like to research something but doesn't because of fear.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 20, 2013

    re: I was born with a mathematical, multidimensional superConsciousness, so everything I have been saying since I came to this site has been highly mathematical!

    While some may have been provided a unique subjective experience, there is little progress that can be made in a discussion of our personal narratives. Let's look at the general criticism of science, most of it is subject and not objective. Much of it is personal narrative.

    The point was made on another thread that those here that profess enlightenment do not always behave in an enlighten manner. This applies to most of the criticism of against what is broadly label "science." My point was that those that level such criticism know the least about the science they are critical of. Any attempt to discuss science is rejected and the criticism is then aimed at the commenter. This is now enlightenment, this is an emotional reaction in the form of anger that evolves out of the fear that the magic of the mystical spirit will be dispelled.

    Science provides a framework. It seeks to falsify theories and hypothesis that are lacking sound reasoning and repeatable objective. outcomes.
    Narrative is a perception that is subject. There is nothing to discuss if we focus on narrative.

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Sep 20, 2013

    We are mathematical beings, so the heart is the epitome of mathematics! The brain is a reflection of mathematics.

    The heart already knows and remembers the truth. That's why it becomes so stressed and distressed when people RESIST the truth! It's trying to rebalance them at all times, but they persist against their own heart. When you speak from the heart, your own DNA, which also knows the truth, physiologically warns you when you are going off in the wrong direction. That's what feelings are, the holders of physics truth! If you don't allow yourself to FEEL, you don't allow yourself to GROW! You won't allow yourself balance!

    It's all physics! Balanced Universal Physics!

    Consciousness is VERY mathematical, the realized fabric of mathematics, though at the Universal Core math falls away like a rocket booster, as I have recently said in another post, to a much higher process.

    I was born with a mathematical, multidimensional superConsciousness, so everything I have been saying since I came to this site has been highly mathematical! I can see the math in everything, profoundly so since I was a toddler. Math begins where life begins. I just happen to be exceptionally aware of it, including multidimensionally, and multilinguistically, etc.. That's how I detect imminent earthquakes, tsunamis, horrific events, etc... I can see the imbalances in the mathematical energies of them, etc., relative to all else. There's a lot more to it, but the math is an essential part of it. All 100% teachable and measurable.

    All those long, drawn out, complicated-looking formulas scientists scribble all over chalkboards and in notebooks, etc., the brain (also Universally mathematical) can process in a blip second! No pencils, no paper needed. They are simply projections of the mind and brain and can be retrieved with fluency (meaning time and space dissolved/resolved). That's what superConsciousness is! You realize "the formula" that the Universe is using, and whatever you plug into it is Answered!

    Don't get lost in conventional every-day usages of words like "heart," as science so clearly does with "philosophy," because the Answers will stare you right in the face and you won't "even" see them!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 19, 2013

    The thought occurs to me that the reason people resist the investigation of science is the same reason people avoid, and in fact, fear, mathematic. When we "speak from the heart" we are free to opine or create myth, speak of fantasy as if it employed validity. It is the great equalizer, this business of "speaking from the heart." But it is often little more than narrative, and the narrative is always subjective. Compared to our narrative, mathematics and science are is objective, governed by axioms, laws, rules and structure.
    Like speaking a foreign language to those that do not speak it can often feel shut out, suspicious.

    This is what occurs in these discussions; science is a foreign language to too many here, and those that do not speak it seek to ignore it because it exposes their there educational limitations, their unwillingness to learn or their need to.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 18, 2013

    Worth repeating. "I believe most of all if we can remove this "us vs. them" mentality, we will all be better off."

    This is a thoughtful discussion and should be revisted

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 22, 2012

    Here is a a fact for you: 1 in 5 American adults believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is somewhat shocking—but the same proportion holds for Germany and Great Britain.

    WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE? This was a topic taken up by the respected Harvard professor of psychology, Paul Bloom, along with one of his graduate students, Deena Skolnick Weisberg. They explain that it starts in childhood, "As Susan Carey once put it, the problem with teaching science to children is "not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach."

    And add, "These clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence these are among the domains where Americans' resistance to science is the strongest."

    I'll add a quote from Carlo Rovelli, a leading contributor to quantum gravity, who explains, "We teach our students: we say that we have some theories about science. Science is about hypothetico-deductive methods, we have observations, we have data, data require to be organized in theories. So then we have theories. These theories are suggested or produced from the data somehow, then checked in terms of the data. Then time passes, we have more data, theories evolve, we throw away a theory, and we find another theory which is better, a better understanding of the data, and so on and so forth."

    This is a standard idea of how science works.


  • slowlygetnthar Jul 10, 2012

    Wow. How truly disrespectful you are towards McTaggart~~about whom you clearly know nothing. Well, that's typical behavior for you.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 10, 2012

    McTaggart? hahahahaha

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 10, 2012

    Wikipedia????? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 09, 2012

    What gets funded and what doesn't has little to do with the question here. There is a great deal of research being done in the fields of consciousness for example, which is mentioned in the question, by very well known and respected scientists. Yet this research is ignored here.

    Re: Lynn McTaggart Is she more than a spokesperson and author? Her bio is slim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_McTaggart

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 08, 2012

    Look at how much money is out there for grants and where the largest cut is going. It isn't to IONS-type research.

    For folks to get money for this kind of research is difficult. Check out what Lynne McTaggart had to say about it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 06, 2012

    Anyone one who can Google would find information such as this:
    1) the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the U.S. Federal Government to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena.
    2) the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab conducted several hundred trials.
    3) early researchers included Michael Faraday, Alfred Russel Wallace, Rufus Osgood Mason and William Crookes.
    4) In the early 1970s, Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ joined the Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) In addition to their mainstream scientific research work on quantum mechanics and laser physics, they initiated several studies of the paranormal.

    Want more?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 06, 2012

    re: "...astrophysics is dispelling some of these frameworks."

    Is it sufficient to make blanket statements of this type and not provide details? What is changing?
    Enlighten us!

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 05, 2012

    One other thing that should be mentioned is that science grants for research will not be administered to investigations that are outside the frameworks commonly accepted in various disciplines. This is a huge reason for the dearth of serious exploration of psi and the paranormal. Researchers applying for such grants cannot get funded. That is part of why we see mainstream people, such as the plumbers, on the TAPS team, investigating hauntings when they are not at their day jobs!

    It is fair to criticize the scientific, especially the academic community, for its circular investigation into its "known" aspects. Maybe these, too, will evolve, outward, in a slow spiral, to incorporate what is considered "fringe" in the present context. Sometimes, it seems that the scientific communities want to stick to old models because they are "safe" and mechanistic. The field of astrophysics is dispelling some of these frameworks, but it will take a long time before newer theories and models reach common discourse within disciplines.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 03, 2012

    "Smiley face"


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 03, 2012


    "May I also suggest we dispense with the castigations, since they add little to the real discuss."

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 02, 2012

    Your sentences make no sense, so why bother waste time trying to comprehend them?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 01, 2012

    Dear Slow....

    I am pleased that you are so moved to react and to reply to anything I type here.
    And it appears you read it as well. Had you heard of Stuart Kauffman before?
    Do like me know where this was cut and pasted from if that is the charge,
    My I also suggest we dispense with the castigations, since they add little to the real discuss.
    Surely you are capable of thoughts of a higher order of awareness.



  • slowlygetnthar Jun 30, 2012

    For starters, then does not equal than. As usual, poor writing skills and incoherent copy/pasting is a pretty lame way of trying to be the poster child of scientists.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jun 30, 2012

    "With Descartes, Galileo, Newton and and Laplace reductionism began and continued its 350 year reign. Over the ensuing centuries, science and the Enlightenment have given birth to the secular society. Reductionistic physics has emerged for many as the gold standard for learning about the world. In turn science has driven a wedge between faith and reason. It was not so much Galileo's geocentric theory (derived from Copernicus) that underlay his clash with the church but his claim that only science, not revelation, is the path to knowledge."
    Stuart Kauffman

    Clearly, the question here is more interesting then "Slowgetnthar" purports.

    If we adhere to the idea that "mainstream scientists have been sort-of "bashed" unfairly," we might consider the world without modern science. The rhetorical question is: Was the world better left to the rule of the church? I suggest that those who do bash "science" (the sciences) unfairly, do so because of a lack of knowledge about the sciences,(science bashers are welcome to present an intelligent argument to this point) and I write this knowing that there are those here at IONS that conduct scientific research into the metaphysical. This thread allows for the discussion of the understanding that science has regarding consciousness in that Sungon9 refers to it in his question: " Mainstream scientists should not be lumped into the group of "those who do not believe in consciousness." What is meant by this? I will refer to the questioner to further informs us, " I believe many scientists do NOT look down upon (or belittle) the study of consciousness."
    This is correct, science does not, and it is not content to believe in consciousness either. The study of neuroscience seeks to study the brain and uncover answers about emergence of consciousness. See the writings of Antonio Damasio or this talk.

    The quote used here is from the book "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart Kauffman. I recommend it as an example of a perspective of science beyond a reductionist viewpoint, so as not to become bogged down in that argument. "Real" has a particular meaning: while life agency, value, and doing presumably have physical explanations in any specific organism, " the evolutionary emergence of these cannot be derived from or reduced to physics alone."

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 26, 2012

    THE QUESTION ON THIS THREAD: Are mainstream scientists taking unfair criticism?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jun 25, 2012

    The question remains: "Does consciousness exist outside of the realm of the material world of time and space, and "quanta?" If so, how?

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 15, 2012

    There it is! That response is the perfect example of the typical arrogance of folks who claim to be bonafide scientists! Thanks for the great example!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jun 14, 2012

    Of course the sciences get bashed by those that misunderstand the scientific method, or have not continued to follow a scientific field in an academic way. It is fair to say that most people only get a watered-down version of applied science, including medical advances, from the media. And this problem will only get worse since we are in and anti science era in this country. We constantly hearing that high school scores in science and mathematics continue to decline in America. So, it is common to mistrust what we do not understand.
    We must also remember that science is very new to the study of consciousness It was, up until twenty or so years ago, a subject that was left to philosophers, but the neurosciences are now a rapidly growing field.

    re: "Yet this type of science cannot be explored through the "material world" so to speak because it involves phenomena that take place out of space=time, namely in the realm of consciousness."

    Does consciousness exist outside of the realm of the material world of time and space, and "quanta?" What we know is that we are here in a now that is connected to a measurable material world. Our physical brains produce mind and consciousness, which produces our sense of self and our experiences, whether that is illusion, delusion, or a perception of reality.
    What else is there but philosophy and belief that science can probe beyond wave and particles, and that a brain can comprehend?
    This is why we need the sciences to understand and explain the physical aspects of our existence. It is after all our ability to understand the theory of quantum mechanics that governs the behavior of integrated circuits which are an essential component of the device you are reading this on.
    Thank science for the fact that one need not understand how computers function to use one.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 14, 2012

    Hey Charliet,
    I think that, in some cases, criticism of some scientists is justified, but I don't believe we can lump all scientists together, either.

    What is offensive to me is that folks with credentials in the sciences often use those as the justification for their defining for the rest of us what is "real" or the "truth" when, in fact, sciences are about hypotheses of how things work and the structures of our realities.

    In scientific communities, I see stalwart denial of evidence if it threatents to challenge standardized assumptions in various fields. There is hubristic denial of the existence of things, such as UFO's, telepathy, clairvoyance, NDE's, OOBE's, because scientific disciplines have not arrived at methodologies for replicating, verifying, measuring, and validating these things. For these reasons, criticism of scientists is righteous. Most don't go out on a limb to try to develop approaches for investigating these sorts of phenomena, but we are seeing some brave few who will and do, and this is hopeful.

    For too many centuries, society has blindly followed scientists very much in the same way that people followed church edicts about realities. If there is a paradigm shift occurring, it is because people are challenging the assumptions about our reality. In essence, this cannot be done without challenging the scientists who claim to be the pillars of truth in reality. Reality is a lot more fluid and mysterious than previously suspected or described via simplistic mechanistic models, so many "old school" thinkers, across disciplilnes, not just the sciences, need to reconfigure and recalibrate as new information surfaces. If they don't, let them defend their own stagnation in the face of change.

  • charliet Jun 14, 2012

    I believe that the scientists are being lumped in with the skeptics and so they should. Consciousness, spirit, life beyond life cannot be measured or examined by conventional methods and in lies the problem.

    Scientists are not new to the fact that not all things conform to conventional ways and devise new methods to study their subject. When it comes to things that are beyond matter etc such as spirit, they pull back, they cannot control it, it appears to have its own mind if you will, so it is shut down and shuffled off.

    Some scientists have opened their minds, delved into the subject and experienced the phenomena, they see the patterns, knowledge and unbelievable wisdom that comes with accepting that it is real, it all exists and we are part of it.

    Scientists and skeptics have to come to the realization that just because "you can't put it in a jar, it doesn't exist", it does exist. There are way to many people of all walks of life, including the skeptics, who have those "unexplainable" moments, when something that cannot happen, happens, intuition, coincidence, label it as you will, it is real and exists.

Stay in touch with IONS