PDA

View Full Version : Science is really a religion



Bill Ryan
19th February 2011, 13:05
-----

The title is provocative (deliberately so!), but was stimulated by a Personal Message I received which asked:


I was wondering whether you could comment on why mainstream scientists hold such dogmatic and obviously fallacious views on reality?

Here's my best answer. I thought it deserved a thread of its own. :)

It's because science is actually a religion. It's really a kind of belief system in which the 'priests' present evidence to support their faith... and the 'heretics' are criticized, condemned, or ostracized.

The 'priests' believe they're being rational, but actually (with few exceptions) they are not: their beliefs are very much emotionally based.

When funding, status, corporate retainers and peer acceptance are blended into the mix, real rationality has little chance to challenge the emotional comfort zones which are co-created.

Kerry Cassidy and I had the privilege of meeting a world-class physicist a few months ago, and we were able to ask him some questions about topics that in his world would have been fringe (or over the fringe!).

His reaction was instructive. He became defensive, uncomfortable, and walked out of the meeting abruptly. We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.

The real reality is that this world-class scientist (and he really was in the Stephen Hawking class) was probably not good enough to have been recruited into black projects.

In black budget science - heavily ironically - there is real open-mindedness among truly brilliant people whose names we may never know. Closed-minded attitudes are not useful when back-engineering ET propulsion systems.

One has to be smarter than that - and they are. Most top-level academics in the public domain never made the cut.

Abhaya
19th February 2011, 13:14
Great post!

bodixa
19th February 2011, 13:15
-----

We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.


I highly recommend Rowan Williams' 'Silence and Honeycakes'.

John Sentamu is worth a listen too. He's done some pretty radical things through the vehicle of the CofE - a little like your nun friend.

Just trying to balance the analogy.

Perhaps the question might be "In what ways is science like religion?" We would notice some similarities and some differences. Both serve different purposes and yet the same purpose - to give humankind a greater sense of control over its existence perhaps?

Just some scrambled thoughts.

Thanx.

Setras
19th February 2011, 13:20
To most physicists energy is their god.......

Two men are standing on a cliff overlooking a vast plain....One is a scientist the other a native tribesman. An earthquake occurs, the tribesman knows his god exists as he shook the ground, the scientist whose ultimate god is the energy (which is indestructable) knows his god exists after he has looked at his seismograph.

The only diffence between them is their relationship to god...... the tribemans lives with him in his heart every day, the scientist spends his day trying to quantify god.....

One has all the proof he needs, the other he needs all the proof.

bluestflame
19th February 2011, 13:26
rigid inflexibility is fast becoming obsolete

K626
19th February 2011, 13:28
-----

The title is provocative (deliberately so!), but was stimulated by a Personal Message I received which asked:


I was wondering whether you could comment on why mainstream scientists hold such dogmatic and obviously fallacious views on reality?

Here's my best answer. I thought it deserved a thread of its own. :)

It's because science is actually a religion. It's really a kind of belief system in which the 'priests' present evidence to support their faith... and the 'heretics' are criticized, condemned, or ostracized.

The 'priests' believe they're being rational, but actually (with few exceptions) they are not: their beliefs are very much emotionally based.

When funding, status, corporate retainers and peer acceptance are blended into the mix, real rationality has little chance to challenge the emotional comfort zones which are co-created.

Kerry Cassidy and I had the privilege of meeting a world-class physicist a few months ago, and we were able to ask him some questions about topics that in his world would have been fringe (or over the fringe!).

His reaction was instructive. He became defensive, uncomfortable, and walked out of the meeting abruptly. We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.

The real reality is that this world-class scientist (and he really was in the Stephen Hawking class) was probably not good enough to have been recruited into black projects.

In black budget science - heavily ironically - there is real open-mindedness among truly brilliant people whose names we may never know. Closed-minded attitudes are not useful when back-engineering ET propulsion systems.

One has to be smarter than that - and they are. Most top-level academics in the public domain never made the cut.


My thoughts are very similar to yours on this Bill.

Infact I have gamed out/debated (sometimes on scientific forums) these very notions. Ideas don't come from science or the process of science, they are only DISTILLED by science and ideas will continue to come because chance is outside of science or infact any kind of postulated rigour.

For me a lot of science is tied up by the elites/big pharma and so on and slandted towards profit and control and much less these days towards ventures to do with the benefit of mankind (an observation that holds up every time when you look at funding data). Often big moments are kept quiet and discoveries shelved as there isn't an apparent quick profit path and the concrete thinking is further stultified.

I think of science in other terms, for me it is closer to the art of observation and the filtering of chance. There is a expectancy that is perpetuated by the high priests and this ideation is only repeated by the lower orders tinkering away in labs. The training for science is also at fault because for me, a scientist primarily needs to be a creative thinker rather than a performer of repetitive tests and formulaic paradigms. As Einstein said, "One day there will be little differance between science an poetry" .

In the world of quantum mechanincs and those who delve in that ambitotic pool we are already there. And it is acknowledged that the observer has a non-linear influence on the experiment (neutrino tracks being altered depending on which scientist is doing the experiment being the obvious example).

The gaze of man, properly self-actualised and still is the most magically powerful thing and one day it will be this that builds the new world, the power and ideation of the gaze and its ability to manifest and to see within the contortion fields of chance. In my opinion more artists and philosophers need to be recruited and encouraged to delve in science.

After all what is science but the manipulation of the building blocks of life?


cheers

Klabs.

elysian
19th February 2011, 13:41
Good point Bill!

I believe that if you look the mainstream science, then yes it is a lot like religion. It is close minded and does not allow for much thinking outside of the box. It is like cussing.
"Science" though, as a descriptive word, is a word I believe should be regarded as fluent and constantly evolving.

king anthony
19th February 2011, 13:41
The title is true.

If I may comment in brief; the human need to be a part of something appears to be a need for most - even those who feel they have no need belong become part of that need.

Science is part of the fragmented truth, as with traditional religions and other beliefs systems. The 'knowledge' (for example from the ancients), has been scattered by both design and by chance.

To simplify, there is the 'mystical' (thought, overall) and there is the practical (science); and each has been fragmented further. Many find comfort with 'the familiar' and are limited by the level of ability to 'overcome and adapt' - although all may have the potential.

'What one seeks binds them, and what one obtains imprisons them'. Is this not the case with the above story? For those who can, 'overcome and adapt', think outside the box; while the rest govern each other within the system - and leave when threatened.

It is too bad the meeting had ended, as it may have been interesting if it continued; however, maybe it is better that it did happen.

BMJ
19th February 2011, 13:55
Very interesting I never thought of it that way but it is very true.

When I asked my GP why don't you do something about the flouride in our water via whatever professional association your affliated with he just sat there in silence. So I moved onto my next question and asked him what I can do to reduce the flouride in my system he said "drink less water". I was gob smacked, but with Bill's post in mind it all makes clear sense now. My GP didn't want to buck the system, opps sorry the religion.

Alex Laker
19th February 2011, 13:58
For me, the biggest contradiction in modern society is to say that science should be inherently at odds with religion, and then declare yourself an atheist. For atheism is the most destructive dogma imaginable. Atheism should be inherently at odds with science, even though its origins lie exactly there. The fact that science has been constantly disassociated from the church throughout history even though many of the greatest scientists who ever lived were very spiritual human beings indeed, is nonsense. Yet, many people will align themselves to exclusively to either the scientific method, or a religion and all its scripture.

However, if one does not want to take the traditionally 'religious' path, then you are left with a world of logic and brutal empiricalisation, which the majority of society will not take the time to go through and understand. So, the majority of an atheist society align themselves blindly to science, and therein seek all the answers.

But, those answers will never come because the scientific method which is employed ruthlessly in modern times in order to explain and quantify everything is inherently incompatible with the other side of human nature - the spiritual side, which is brushed aside by most scientists as wishy washy unquantifiable (but frightening) nonsense. In this sense, I believe science is a religion, because it has the ability to breed a blind faith amongst a population, who rely on a group of 'divine' scientists to give them all the answers.

Science will only ever be at its most useful to society if it agnosticises itself (because science is gnostic, in that it pretends the possibility of ultimate knowledge) and reverses centuries of divide with spirituality.

Regards,
Araxes

Gardener
19th February 2011, 14:04
Fragmented is key. Seperation of knowledge into compartments. Each with their own 'high priest'. I am reminded of the old saying, the higher up the ladder in the subject the 'priests' get, they... "know more and more about less and less" and thus they are compartmentalised. Its worked so far why change it. There is a palpable aggression when a 'priest' is challenged outside his subject area by something which may, on closer inspection, be inextricably linked.
g

Steven
19th February 2011, 14:08
Exactly Bill,

When some WHO professionals push the urgent need of mass vaccination,
when fluoride is presented as a solution legally put into public water system,
when misconception are presented like realities,
when half truth are presented as ultimate knowledge,
when we build nanochips but still use explosion engine,
when innovation and creativity are suppressed,
when technology serves the fictional law of profit,
when scientist ignores their courageous counterparts,
when global problems are fabricated to serve a few,
when they build their temple to worship science, http://ca.io9.com/#!5049671/call-to-worship-at-the-temple-of-science (http://ca.io9.com/#%215049671/call-to-worship-at-the-temple-of-science)
they have much in common with what they like to turn into ridicule; religion.

They have their priest, cult, dogma, belief system, specialized language, oppression/suppression of those who dare question their assumption. It is simply another dogmatic religion which preaches with proselytism.

Namaste, Steven

Midnight Rambler
19th February 2011, 14:10
Was it Jordan Maxwell that said that the top of the universities are controlled by Jesuits? And they make sure that some topics don't get funding or people are being silenced.

Certain topics are off limits, like the way the pyramids were built.

Lancelot
19th February 2011, 14:13
I agree Bill, Science is like a religion and scientists suffer from the same closed mindedness as many representatives of religion.
Mainstrem scientists are reluctant to challenge what has always been taught and this is the debilitating factor to science progressing any faster than at a snails pace. I mean you don't often see professors coming out and saying 'Theres a good chance that what i have been teaching all my students for the past 20 years is most likely wrong! ' It is also true that science holds the beleif that if you can see and measure it then it doesn't exist, whilst this is obviously a restricted viewpoint when it comes to things like superconductors. What is refreshing is open minded new age scientists having the belief (and audacity!) to challenge conventional science views and bring forward this understanding. What is key to this in my opinion is the balancing of the logical left brain with the intuititive right.

ExHaLaTiON
19th February 2011, 14:13
Dont let the box confine you, open up your mind to infinity.

I concur with your post Bill.

bodixa
19th February 2011, 14:16
When an injured child receives a prosthetic limb
When the sight of someone in a remote part of Africa is restored
When geneticists develop new strains of grain that are more robust in a changing environment stricken by famine
When you see your unborn child's heart beating on an ultrasound scan
When medicines give HOPE and a cure to children born to HIV+ mothers
When sanitation and clean water become available to communities left behind by war, greed and abuse.
When children in a remote school can learn to read and write and share by using the internet to communicate with children in other schools in the world.


Then science, faith and humanity work together.



It's not all doom and gloom.

Billy
19th February 2011, 15:08
I agree Science is self made belief system, At the same time many scientists are Islamic, Christian or Hebrew Etc, Athiestism is also self made belief system. My theory is that one day soon science will discover that ALL things in creation are made of Light, then science and spirit will be as one. I look foreward to that day

000
19th February 2011, 15:44
I am in full agreement with Bill's excellent post. White science (as opposed to Black science) is ripe with dogma. I am positive that it has been let to continue this way because if White science came up with the same technologies (perhaps even better ones) as Black science has currently got, the Military-Industrial Complex would be at a serious disadvantage where their control paradigm is concerned.

It really is quite ironic that Black science is very much more open minded and White science is tightly strapped to a bed of dogma.

Adaiahsshadow
19th February 2011, 15:54
I agree with you for the most part on this one Bill, however I was wondering how you would classify noetic science? Such as the Noetic Science Institute studies that was created by Edgar Mitchell. Or what is being studied at IONS/INACS?

Steven
19th February 2011, 16:36
Ah! I enjoyed your post. It is right that I presented only one aspect of science. But since the thread was about it's analogy with religion :)


...When geneticists develop new strains of grain that are more robust in a changing environment stricken by famine...

I bet we could argue on this one. Is it preventing famine or creating it?

Namaste, Steven

bluestflame
19th February 2011, 16:38
yes , cultivated dependance ( pardon the pun) on crops that bear infertile seeds that cannot be replanted

bodixa
19th February 2011, 16:45
Ah! I enjoyed your post. It is right that I presented only one aspect of science. But since the thread was about it's analogy with religion :)


...When geneticists develop new strains of grain that are more robust in a changing environment stricken by famine...

I bet we could argue on this one. Is it preventing famine or creating it?

Namaste, Steven

Please feel free.

There are African geneticists who do this for a job for the benefit of their own people. Highly qualified research professionals who know what they are talking about. Career scientists who are motivated in most cases by a responsibility to humanity and to improving things for others.

Go research it properly, by all means, but please don't throw any half cooked internet scaremongering at me at the end of it. I mean that in the nicest possible way. :)

¤=[Post Update]=¤


yes , cultivated dependance ( pardon the pun) on crops that bear infertile seeds that cannot be replanted

No - not that. Something else.

:)

greybeard
19th February 2011, 16:51
Sometimes scientists step out of the box
Henry P Stapp wrote
MINDFUL UNIVERSE Quantom Mechanics and the Participating Observer
Which is just about simple enough for some one of my limited ability.
and of course my favorite Nassim Haramien
David Sereda also.

Chris

HaveBlue
19th February 2011, 16:52
I could not agree more Bill with your 1st post on this thread. Black budget scientists do not 'compete' for funding that is in short supply in the white world in the same way and do not want to be viewed as psyc patients rather than 'real' scientists.
When it becomes a matter of what is acceptable to mention then yes, it has become very much a religion.
Also the arrogance and professional jelousy is rife where in the black world everything is so compartmentalised that this must be rare by it's very design.

SKAWF
19th February 2011, 16:52
absolutely it is.

i was having a conversation with someone a few months back.
i nearly punched him.

HE doesnt believe in the non physical.................
he reads books by scientists, and that sort of thing.
and wont accept to exist, anything that can't be proven.

how does one prove the existance of the non physical?,
he believes we are just organic units. he doesnt believe in the soul.
doesnt accept energy, or energetic constructs,
ALL of the old world sciences are nonsense to him.
i can only back up the non physical, by naming examples of it, and its use
none of which he accepts the existance of.
i had to sit in front of this guy, and take everything he said on board,
and give it my considered reponse, while when I was speaking,
he would be shaking his head and grinning like what i was saying was rubbish.
as a test i asked him to tell me what i'd just said, and he couldnt.
he wasnt even listening to what i was saying (spark point for me)
i felt............... white hot.
i will always listen to other people, and consider what they say.
is it too much to ask for the same in return?
yet this ignorant little know it all scientist dismisses my very existance as a nonsense.
he doesnt have the ability to venture outside of his thinking,
if it can be proven by science, he will believe in it, to the exclusion of all other things.
which would suggest (as he's not the one experimenting) that his knowledge comes from someone else
if thats not a religion i dont know what is.well, theres nothing for the soul in it.
some people are like stars that radiate out energy, others exist within a rigid framework of beliefs.

to each his own
steve

Omni
19th February 2011, 16:54
-----

The title is provocative (deliberately so!), but was stimulated by a Personal Message I received which asked:


I was wondering whether you could comment on why mainstream scientists hold such dogmatic and obviously fallacious views on reality?

Here's my best answer. I thought it deserved a thread of its own. :)

It's because science is actually a religion. It's really a kind of belief system in which the 'priests' present evidence to support their faith... and the 'heretics' are criticized, condemned, or ostracized.

The 'priests' believe they're being rational, but actually (with few exceptions) they are not: their beliefs are very much emotionally based.

When funding, status, corporate retainers and peer acceptance are blended into the mix, real rationality has little chance to challenge the emotional comfort zones which are co-created.

Kerry Cassidy and I had the privilege of meeting a world-class physicist a few months ago, and we were able to ask him some questions about topics that in his world would have been fringe (or over the fringe!).

His reaction was instructive. He became defensive, uncomfortable, and walked out of the meeting abruptly. We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.

The real reality is that this world-class scientist (and he really was in the Stephen Hawking class) was probably not good enough to have been recruited into black projects.

In black budget science - heavily ironically - there is real open-mindedness among truly brilliant people whose names we may never know. Closed-minded attitudes are not useful when back-engineering ET propulsion systems.

One has to be smarter than that - and they are. Most top-level academics in the public domain never made the cut.

Great post. I have been told by extraterrestrials that eventually science merges with spiritual/religious beliefs. They have told me the scientific discovery of the soul, will be a big step for mankind. But not as big as the disclosure of extraterrestrial races far more advanced than us.

Like anything on this rock, it has been infiltrated by dark forces, or at the very least human ignorance and flaws. It's a shame scientists do not hold open minds at times. Science IMO is pivotal in keeping an open mind. How else would we discover new things...

Odah
19th February 2011, 17:08
Yes science is a religion. It is being used to slow down progress and it doesn't develop things that won't get funded and be profitable for someone.

I wonder if standard practice is for the the powers that be to approach gifted minds and give them the choice.. " you are special you can either work on theories. which will eventually put man in space. Or you can join us and forward our progress for traveling in space." of course this would be done without the person remembering it.

This way you leave one institution that plods along and slows the progress of man . that has been given dogams so it won't even bother with other theories that might pick up the pace.

Otho
19th February 2011, 17:24
Here's a great quote form Wilbert Smith, the Canadian scientist, UFO researcher and whistle blower (Colonel Phillip Corso called him a genius and said "the government really treated him badly")

"Anyone who is at all familiar with modern physics is, no doubt, appalled at its complexity, confused by the many correction and perturbation factors, and amazed at the many weird theories propounded in all sincerity to explain observations in terms of "established principles". Anomalies are the rule rather than the exception, and the amount of data which just won't fit is colossal. All in all it is fairly obvious that this view of the Universe is bogging down and we are in reality conjuring up a mathematical monstrosity and raising it to Deity status. It is truly the modern Golden Calf."

Carmody
19th February 2011, 17:40
I have a hopefully useful rant that I made in the 'pyramid building solved' thread..where I went at it a bit. I had spent years trying to find some of the action moments in history, to find where this had all 'gone down' as they say. The actual pivotal turning points.

The divide seemingly came when the Renaissance man was designed out of the system. It may have had to do with the point that society and its complexities were evolving and growing, and the only way to keep a lid on too many cross-linked and complex beings (who were starting to jump out of the tanks of fish from overcrowding and expanded vision).... was for 'them' to do what they seemingly did.

mondaze
19th February 2011, 17:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEaM4ytrkbE
i tend to agree with phoebe...

Alien Ramone
19th February 2011, 17:44
Here is what I recently posted on a on social networking/polling website called SodaHead to the topic, "Faith Is Not A Virtue; Faith Is Gullibility! -- The Atheist Experience"

"I think more along the line of probabilities and possibilities and have noticed that many who push religion or science as the "be all and end all", often take ideas as gospel. Those who promote current theories or laws in science can be just as dogmatic as those who promote a specific religion, even though science has needed to continuously correct itself through history. I think religion and science both have something to offer. Those who promote science who push the idea that the Law of Conservation of Energy is immutable and that there is no possiblitily of other planes of existence or the possibility of a spiritual component connected to what we call the "physical", may find in the future that scientific ideas need to be adjusted again."

Carmody
19th February 2011, 17:44
Pyramid rant:

The error, it seems, happened when Lorentz made Maxwell's equations symmetrical, in order to remove some seemingly un-needed extremely minor bits that were impossible to mathematically work on, at the time. This was Maxwell's original '20 equations in 20 unknowns', in quaternion notation. First, Oliver Heaviside 'simplified' the works so that engineers could use the works to predict motor design, etc. Then Lorentz came along. Within Maxwell's original works was the incredibly minor field integrations that had the asymmetrical aspects intact. Those are the signature of the uni-directionality of time and all flow systems in the integration of the quanta. Finding the mistake in the fundamentals is/was not easy. If you look at the timeline, this seems to be the spot where the necessary descriptive mathematics was lost. Now, what form of the electomagnetic math descriptors do you think that Max Planck, Niels Bohr, etc, and Einstein used - to get to their most famous efforts?

"The four modern Maxwell's equations can be found individually throughout his 1861 paper, derived theoretically using a molecular vortex model of Michael Faraday's "lines of force" and in conjunction with the experimental result of Weber and Kohlrausch. But it wasn't until 1884 that Oliver Heaviside,[21] concurrently with similar work by Willard Gibbs and Heinrich Hertz,[22] grouped the four together into a distinct set. This group of four equations was known variously as the Hertz-Heaviside equations and the Maxwell-Hertz equations,[21] and are sometimes still known as the Maxwell–Heaviside equations.[23]"


"Heaviside worked to eliminate the potentials (electric potential and magnetic potential) that Maxwell had used as the central concepts in his equations;[21] this effort was somewhat controversial,[25] though it was understood by 1884 that the potentials must propagate at the speed of light like the fields, unlike the concept of instantaneous action-at-a-distance like the then conception of gravitational potential.[22] Modern analysis of, for example, radio antennas, makes full use of Maxwell's vector and scalar potentials to separate the variables, a common technique used in formulating the solutions of differential equations. However the potentials can be introduced by algebraic manipulation of the four fundamental equations."

So Maxwell did it right.... and then it was cut down by speculators, after his death. people who did not have his depth of vision, or his capacity. Oliver Heaviside was no slouch, but most people think in terms of throwing a ball as being the motive force of the ball's motion ----in effect, literally, negating, for the most part, the integration of the ball and the person throwing it, from the backdrop. Which is how they ended up with gravity as a 'pull'. The loss of the complex field descriptors for a vortex point being manipulated and involved in large area electric and magnetic potentials outside of the 'source point', those were lost in the conversion or simplification of the math.

Faraday ended up with a vortex model, due to his experiments with electricity and magnetism, involving fluids, like mercury. His analysis was fundamentally correct. So the original works were derived via observation and eventual mathematical treatment of the hypothesis derived from observation of the complex MHD* (Complex LCR and magnetic/electric effects in molecular systems -individual molecule to molecule) level or plasma level electrical and magnetic systems.

*MagnetoHydroDynamic ie ....quanta to quanta complex vector aspects of molecule to molecule integration, under complex loading and polarization and polarizing field effects..all dynamically.

So, if you look at that line that the odd scientifically minded person sometimes comes across in their travels....the one where they say that Einstein's theories of gravitation fail to hold the planets in place..UNTIL one switches to gravity as a push, ie potentials in external field integration with the observed motion of the given single point of analysis (planets and the sun). THEN gravity works. But one must add in the external field integration with the situation** and the external fields being the source point, not the planets and the sun as being the source point. That is what Maxwell's original works had in their 'potentials' and Faraday's observation of vortex action in molecular level slurries while under the influence of an externally applied field and resultant flow within that free-molecule slurry. In the free molecule slurry, the mercury.... the vector shifts or angular "potential" vector shifts in 4d could freely happen in each quanta-to-quanta interaction within the mercury used in his experiments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**This still fails to some degree as the math is based on the fluid vector quanta-potential-field aspects being thrown away, meaning they are using Maxwell's works as shortened by Heaviside and Lorentz. The proper math is complex and includes calculations out to infinity as 'quanta to quanta' levels analysis, individually. so you can see how complex it get. rightly so, as one is attempting to create the mathematical equivalent or descriptor for individual and co-joined infinity. I hesitate to be so harsh, but in their efforts to simplify the situation, these men removed the bits needed for humankind to reach a mathematical descriptor of infinity. This is typical and connected directly to the limited reach of man. Now, in viewing the mirror of human existence we are at 'right now', we find this prior situation enacted....to be our downfall. Another huge side subject is that the Barvairan Illuminati arrived on the scene about the same time as Maxwell's original works...and the 'German School of Thought' regarding instructional methodologies that became rote learning and dogmatic fundamentals posing as science... arrived into academia and the highest levels of research facilities and organizations.

The highest ramparts of scientific academia ended up being, from this current point of analysis, completely rife with Freemasons. Einstein warned (in)directly about this, on at least one occasion, speaking on the stranglehold by the highest levels of academia on the theoretical sciences-by key men highly placed. Due to the way that Maxwell's original equations were modified and the evidential trail of it's happenstance (one year after his sudden and 'youngish' [48 years, IIRC] death from stomach cancer), it becomes a potential question of whether it was purposeful murder and manipulation.... or was it accidental fortune?

The deal, today, or rather up to about 5 years back... is that an original copy of Maxwell's works/treatsie, all 20 equations in 20 unknowns..a copy of that book, until a few years ago..was NOT even remotely available and the few ever seen were whispered about as being sold for averages starting at $5kUS. And the people holding the copies of that work believed in it's value so much....that not one of them ever re-printed or published the works. Now that the secret of these lost aspects has been brought to light (by people like Tom Bearden) , the original works are now available as PDF on the net, given to us by some thoughtful soul.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, post Maxwell's observations and incredibly complex math... Heaviside, Bohr, Planck, etc. came around... and they used the incorrect or modified math that had already arrived on the scene,and this ended up sabotaging their efforts in clarification of quanta. The modifications for the original and correct math had already been 'proven' in motor design, etc..... which had to do with the actions of bonded solids or solidus state molecular co-joining.

The observation of Problems....was brushed off as measurement error..as the resultant math from Einstein and that whole area of scientists (and their works) was 'good enough' to fit to what they were doing with it. In the end....dogmatic mankind, even in science..ended up tossing away the true explanation.

The key point is that the immense and co-joined outlier static or potential fields that Maxwell originally used had asymmetrical aspects to them. ie, they had the exact required mathematical fundamentals to describe the unidirectional aspects of complex field integration at the quanta level and to describe spooky action at a distance. It was all there. The whole thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This takes you right to the doorstep of Gabriel Kron at GE, and Walter Gerlach, and the works of Joseph P. Farrell.. on the Nazi bell, and all the over-unity, black ops, time travel, dimensional shift and travel, all the other stuff. They went toward the original Maxwell's equations in the mechanical analysis of the fluids or plasma. And they were, as we are seeing now, incredibly successful. The people who refused to look at the system as being anything other than a complex analysis of the mechanics of fluids..those people, in their wartime, private, corporate and black ops efforts..those people were entirely successful in manipulating matter, space, time, and dimensions.

We.....being outside of that....on the other hand.... we received a non-functional Red Herring.

And anyone pursuing the truth of that in the real world, ie making such devices to do the same as those projects, usually ends up dead or torn down, at best.

RedeZra
19th February 2011, 17:58
the Creation is a handiwork of the Creator

the scope of science is the Creation whereas the goal of sages is the Creator


the universe is ever-changing

why not seek That

which changes not

Mu2143
19th February 2011, 18:20
That's Correct that science is a religion(Mind control), because we blindly follow it without checking it first! Also the system make it hard for us to check it in the first place, but because of the internet its falling apart.

Alll Hu-mans are Demonicly Posessed and when a person belief what its has observed as true when its not true it kicks in and give the person this strange feeling that he did the right thing when it is the wrong thing.
I recently saw this type of action on TV. When I turned on the TV for no reason whats so ever(just a feeling) just to see this in action which pissed me off, at first. There was a program on about saving pets that have been abused or not have been taken care of.

In this case the pet was a cat that has been without food for some time and his/her weight was about 1.5 kg.
Instead of giving the cat nutritional food it gives it a heavy dose of antibiotics which made it stop breathing (This is example of trained expert!!) make sure to keep them away from you when you almost dead =) when trying to help you further in to your grave with a smile on there face!!!! anyway

Some how the medic gave the cat something else and it started breathing again.!!! and the police officer was the one who responded; "see they know what there where doing!!" when I saw his facial expression I recognize this when the demon kicks in to give this person this feeling of doing good. (and the wicked will do more wickedly).

When you start understanding how reality really works you can see why the things are this way, the way it is!! (remember your in a body and your brain is a computer only to be controlled by another trans-dimensional demonic spirit).

And your question is what has that to do with science is a Religion!! Everything ,because that's how people start following others blindly because of that false feeling of good created by the demon.... (This is designed this way to control us).
demon = a spirit that has been traumatised

Carmody
19th February 2011, 18:38
the Creation is a handiwork of the Creator

the scope of science is the Creation whereas the goal of sages is the Creator


the universe is ever-changing

why not seek That

which changes not

This one's thoughts on the matter:

I am a stalwart supporter of things like free energy and the emergence of these sciences into the public plane and mind..but...I am also in the camp of at least some minimal dimensional and spiritual knowledge.

I am also acutely aware of the humongous dangers of all of these sciences... and that mankind, in its current state of 'mass awareness' has just about as much ability to handle this as an angry hamster/lemming flock with individual shotguns. Football and beer, anyone?


All this science is coming out, regardless. The complementary spiritual knowledge is also appearing concurrently. This is not unexpected.

An attempt at balance?

From my observation....we are entering or stepping strongly into the 'skate or die' moment in this version of beings incarnating on this planet/space.

Since it is all the same in the end.. science and religion converging into a more humane and evolved more singular point of understanding--- is entirely inevitable.

The data, knowledge, the responsibilities and repercussions of one must be come the complement in the other.

Clarity has a chance of coming when one considers that even the names of each become misnomers and are inaccurate and incomplete....for the truth that each attempts to convey.

The positive point is that we can get there if we use logic, combined with compassion and reason --In our mundane 3D affairs ...and in our 'esoteric' spiritual affairs.

Our egos are in the process of being squeezed to the max. Individually and collectively.

Unification of the mind -individually and collectively, it appears to be.

The history of this incarnation design (human body/avatar system) shows that this is the point, the wings of which change is rung in on ----and through.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's just my experience in the watching of the self and this whole thing. We are attempting a shift, one without war and destruction, for that too .....is an outdated model.

Since we are reactive with our ego still intact.... the threat of it appears on the horizon. It looms large. Not unexpected. Nay, part of the package.

See it for what it is --- and do your best, is all.

That is what this one is trying to do.

John White
19th February 2011, 19:03
Both Science and Religion, being patterns of perception, suffer abuse from the same source:

Imbalanced Ego, pretending to the qualities of purity while bending highest values to the service of false self

Steven
19th February 2011, 19:07
...There are African geneticists who do this for a job for the benefit of their own people. Highly qualified research professionals who know what they are talking about. Career scientists who are motivated in most cases by a responsibility to humanity and to improving things for others.

Go research it properly, by all means, but please don't throw any half cooked internet scaremongering at me at the end of it. I mean that in the nicest possible way...

I invite you to do the same. Here is a woman who research this topic for more than a decade. The result is a documentary called: "The world according to Monsanto"

http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/world-according-monsanto

Have an appreciation of it and tell me what you think about genetically modified food and seeds.

Also, Vandana Shiva is getting increasingly popular among scientist who research and exposed the great danger of modified genetic.
Here is here presentation: "The future of Food and Seed"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3833110324043445440#

Or a research conducted by russian scientists which shows that after a few generations, genetically modified food caused sterility.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20908.cfm

It is not scaremongering, it is being aware of who really profits from GMF. I'm not throwing them at you, but presenting them, you're free to look at it and reflect it in your ideas.

Namaste, Steven

bodixa
19th February 2011, 19:25
Am not disputing any of that, Steven, but it's just that I know that there are instances where it is genuinely used for the good and the seed that is developed is sustainable.

Sort of wish I hadn't used that as an example now.
I knew it would be a hot potato.
You get the gist though.
Science isn't a Religion, it has people and insecurity in amongst it's echelons and as a result resembles the way religious people behave, and for similar reasons.
Mr Ryan sent us off on a debate... bloomin psychology grads sent to torment us...

:)

RedeZra
19th February 2011, 19:28
I am a stalwart supporter of things like free energy and the emergence of these sciences into the public plane and mind..but...I am also in the camp of at least some minimal dimensional and spiritual knowledge.



As it is science is state-sponsored suppression of souls as it caters just to the matter-mind matrix

Sure we got tech toys but it is awkward for the soul


What we need is a new state

A state which will not subdue science to serve it's selfish interest of preservation

A state which does not feed us lies and deceit about ourselves and the world around us

write4change
19th February 2011, 19:34
I have loved the stories of illustration on this thread as well as the ones that tell you a different science path than known. Anything that changes the world view significantly is suppressed

The role of women in the world has been one long fight for 1000s of years. There has been a lot of research in the last 40 years about the nature of sexuality in many ways--physical, emotional, mental, and psychological and a lot of the information is repressed by the now common idea that university research can be bought and now everything is proprietary and either not available to the public or only a price.

A universal example of how this plays out is Graham Hancock's research which dots all the i and crosses all the t with scientific methods but connects the dots based on what he sees rather than was has been extrapolated before him. Scientific research say man made a cosmic leap when he began eating hallucinogenic plants. They needed some explanation. Then you look at the cross cultural evidence of the hallucination being universal. And why? But none of the scientists given credit for this research will use hallucinogenic plants on themselves. They have no need as they tell Hancock.

Hancock does the plants and he comes to a different understanding from experience as to what they may really indicate. But he cannot really study it because even though there is absolutely no evidence, but evidence that states explicitly that doing this is not addictive. Extrapolation says otherwise.

As long as women were not admitted to medical schools, they could not get to ask questions nor have their questions recognized. Once they got on the bottom floors of medicine even through nursing they realized there was major problems with the way it was practiced particularly on women.

For example, many women have had a cold hard tecnaculum ( a type of fork to pull folds around an let the doctor look more) inserted and come off the table in pain. To which most doctors called a hysterical reaction. Because they had extrapolated that women had no nerves in the vaginal canal and could feel nothing because if they did it would make natural delivery almost impossible. Thus, for sure, there could be no such thing as a vaginal orgasm etc.

It took a woman doctor at Stanford much time and much research to get credibility. When she did she published her findings that as pregnancy progressed one of the things that happened was that hormones were secreted that cause these nerve to regress or withdraw. After weaning, and another hormonal change, they grew back to their locations. Her work was proven valid and it is accepted but still not really out there in the public field. Probably because there would be so many less profitable hysterectomies after women had their share of children because most are never told how this will affect their sex drives. Instead they are told their sex drive is all in their head. There is very little connection of doctors to the concept that the body is connected heart, mind, body, and soul.

After her publications, Stanford tried to remove her in spite of tenure etc. It was a big scandal not on the public radar. She won but the cost of so many big male doctors looking both stupid and foolish made her an outlander in the medical field forever.

Another example can be experienced in the Meryl Steep movie Dark Matter which is about the multiple murders caused by a Nobel prize winner repressing student researchers from varying off of his established research by often denying their dissertations or writing coded letters to employers making their employment impossible.

Like we had a brief decade of sexual freedom from the pill without aids, there was a brief period of meritocracy in our universities which really scared the controlling families because their progeny were shown up to be intellectual midgets and physical wimps.

Heartsong
19th February 2011, 19:45
" If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.2 "[I]


" Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.4 "



[I]"When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles--and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God.5


2. `Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1922. 2nd edition 1982, p. 181.

4. 'Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks (London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 143.

s3nru
19th February 2011, 19:47
I consider many aspects of the scientific process to be useful, but scientism/positivism can lead to dogmatism very quickly.

Chicodoodoo
19th February 2011, 19:51
Science is not really a religion. But when science is practiced by humans, it can easily become one. Our emotions, which are both enlightening and debilitating, make it so. Balance is the key.

Steven
19th February 2011, 20:02
Am not disputing that, Steven, but there are instances where it is genuinely used for the good and the seed that is developed is sustainable.
I have extended family members who work in this area.
Sort of wish I hadn't used that as an example now.
I knew it would be a hot potato.
You get the gist though.
Science isn't a Religion, it has people and insecurity in amongst it's echelons and as a result resembles the way religious people behave, and for similar reasons.
Mr Teacher Ryan sent us off on a debate... bloomin psychology grads sent to torment us...

:)

Yes, I hear your point and agree to a degree. But please, do so present me some examples where GMF has been genuinely "used for the good and the seed that is developed is sustainable."

I have never met one single example. First and foremost, GMF and seed are now in the hand of one single mega-corporation; Monsanto. How can this be good for the people?

Educate me, I'm hard to convince :)

Namaste, Steven

Lazlo
19th February 2011, 20:45
-----

The title is provocative (deliberately so!), but was stimulated by a Personal Message I received which asked:


I was wondering whether you could comment on why mainstream scientists hold such dogmatic and obviously fallacious views on reality?

Here's my best answer. I thought it deserved a thread of its own. :)

It's because science is actually a religion. It's really a kind of belief system in which the 'priests' present evidence to support their faith... and the 'heretics' are criticized, condemned, or ostracized.

The 'priests' believe they're being rational, but actually (with few exceptions) they are not: their beliefs are very much emotionally based.

When funding, status, corporate retainers and peer acceptance are blended into the mix, real rationality has little chance to challenge the emotional comfort zones which are co-created.

Kerry Cassidy and I had the privilege of meeting a world-class physicist a few months ago, and we were able to ask him some questions about topics that in his world would have been fringe (or over the fringe!).

His reaction was instructive. He became defensive, uncomfortable, and walked out of the meeting abruptly. We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.

The real reality is that this world-class scientist (and he really was in the Stephen Hawking class) was probably not good enough to have been recruited into black projects.

In black budget science - heavily ironically - there is real open-mindedness among truly brilliant people whose names we may never know. Closed-minded attitudes are not useful when back-engineering ET propulsion systems.

One has to be smarter than that - and they are. Most top-level academics in the public domain never made the cut.

I will not disagree that science and religion share many common themes.

But perhaps your read of the interview and the response by the physicist was colored by your own convictions?

It is possible that the physicist was concerned with being misquoted or having his responses taken out of context. One of my advisors was a well respected anthropologist, and agreed to do an interview for a history channel documentary. He thought the show would be presenting evidence for an extinct branch of the hominid family tree, gigantopithecus. When the show aired, it was a bigfoot documentary and his interview was edited to appear as if he was providing definitive evidence for the existence of bigfoot. In discussing this with him, he explained that not only would he never do another video interview again, but that he was sorry that he did not take the advice of his colleagues who had tried to warn him off in the first place.

Further, I take exception to your characterization that most top level academics never made the cut. Many academics refuse to work for the government out of personal conviction.

My father-in-law, now retired, was dean of a very prominant university. He earned his PHD in Latin American History and served in the peace corps in Columbia. He was recruited by the CIA, but declined the offer based upon his religious beliefs and the advice of his father, who was himself the president of a major research inistitution. His father was an intelligence officer in WWII and later served on the educational advisory board for two presidents before excusing himself, and strongly urged my father-in-law not to pursue a career with the government.

How many top level academics do you know personally?

Bill Ryan
19th February 2011, 23:15
I will not disagree that science and religion share many common themes.

But perhaps your read of the interview and the response by the physicist was colored by your own convictions?

It is possible that the physicist was concerned with being misquoted or having his responses taken out of context. One of my advisors was a well respected anthropologist, and agreed to do an interview for a history channel documentary. He thought the show would be presenting evidence for an extinct branch of the hominid family tree, gigantopithecus. When the show aired, it was a bigfoot documentary and his interview was edited to appear as if he was providing definitive evidence for the existence of bigfoot. In discussing this with him, he explained that not only would he never do another video interviewe again, but that he was sorry that he did not take the advice of his colleagues who had tried to warn him off in the first place.

Further, I take exception to your characterization that most top level academics never made the cut. Many academics refuse to work for the government out of personal conviction.

My father-in-law, now retired, was dean of a very prominant university. He earned his PHD in Latin American History and served in the peace corps in Columbia. He was recruited by the CIA, but declined the offer based upon his religious beliefs and the advice of his father, who was himself the president of a major research inistitution. His father was an intelligence officer in WWII and later served on the educational advisory board for two presidents before excusing himself, and strongly urged my father-in-law not to pursue a career with the government.

How many top level academics do you know personally?

Dear Friend,

I appreciated your response. I accept every point you make.

I was trying to be provocative, though (as I did say) - it's an important topic. If it triggers new thought and a little intelligent debate, then it may have been valuable.

My own post contained quite a few caricatures. I do promise you that I didn't intend to slight any good people.

The general points - not referring to any individuals - I would still contend are valid and compelling.

Chicodoodoo
19th February 2011, 23:47
There has been a lot of research in the last 40 years about the nature of sexuality in many ways--physical, emotional, mental, and psychological and a lot of the information is repressed by the now common idea that university research can be bought and now everything is proprietary and either not available to the public or only a price.

Wow - thank you for that whole post! Once again, I'm seeing balance as the key. Both genders have value to contribute, and when we celebrate the contributions both men and women can make, we all benefit!

Those hormonal nerve changes in women are incredible. I didn't know any of that. It confirms for me how ignorant we are, and why we are that way, and how we can avoid being that way. Great stuff! I am humbled by your post.

VajraYaya
20th February 2011, 00:01
Bullseye Bill..

Excellent post. I have said for years to people that science today is like the Catholic church of the 14th century.

I have seen more science done by tinkerers in garages, basements and tiny little labs than in billion dollar facilities.

One of the things that hold science back, in addition to money, [science paid for by corporate interests] are underdeveloped egos of academics. There is no way that an eminent Doctor so and so, will ever acknowledge anything that threatens to nullify the tiny little theory that he has built his whole life on, and therefore his self image and prestige. In fact he will do ANYTHING to prevent that.

Look at the reception Barry Marshall and Robin Warren received when they discovered Helicobacter Pylori caused gastric ulcers. James Clerk Maxwell’s original electromagnetic theory was eviscerated by those who didn’t like its implications. Dirac was ridiculed by Heisenberg and his friends. Gaston Naessens and his brilliant science of Somatidian Orthobiology has never been taken seriously by anybody. The list is endless.

The holy scripture of “per review” is useless if you have no peers. Who can possibly peer review Somatidian Orthobiology if those “peers” are not capable or willing to understand the work, or more importantly, are afraid of what it might mean to their own self importance.

Some will argue that there has been little innovation in the last 50 years. Most of what is called “cutting edge’ are just refinements and adjustments to already existing technology. Ie, just making transistors smaller or putting more bells on the Victorian era technology that is the internal combustion engine.

Years ago I worked in scientific research. After a time an engineer and I suspected something was amiss so we sat down and did all the math to evaluate the single concept that this company was based on. The eminent doctor’s theory was wrong. So the entire company was built to sell a product and a service that could never work because the premise was deeply flawed. So all the data we collected in tests never provided the kind of results that were promised, it never would. So all the data that was used to sell equipment was manufactured, Totally fabricated. Not a bit of actual data we collected was ever used. I refused to lie and fake data but there were others, afraid of the wrath of doctor so and so, or afraid of getting fired that were happy to oblige. As long as there are cowards there will be fraudulent science.

I came across the work of this man recently. Dr. John Ioannidis has spent a career researching, well, research. Below is a link to an excellent article titled Lies, Damned Lies and Medical Science. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

Also a link to his paper “Why most published Research Findings are False”
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Both excellent reads.

Thanks Bill

vibrations
20th February 2011, 00:20
The problem normally comes with “great” names that are able to insult and piss off anyone who does not support their theory. After a while you can see that the question is in insecurity of the scientist that maybe he is wrong, that his fame would not be eternal, that money flow will dry up, that promised political position will not be reachable etc.
A Scientist with capital S is an open-minded spirit which knows that what we see today may be history tomorrow, because some new data will come up and the parameters will change.

The only constant in the Universe is that nothing is constant. This should lead the scientific world as I see it.

The people in black-opps know that they can never become famous (and this is one of the reasons they are there, coz they don't want to be famous) and this is also an opportunity to prove their ideas.
It's like everywhere, there are white souls, black souls and all shades of grey souls.

I personally had endless encounters with "experts" and a lot of them hate me. And I was just asking inconvenient questions. Sinner me.

bodixa
20th February 2011, 00:31
'Science is really a religion.'

as opposed to a ...................?

Religion is really a science.

But the evidence is a bit dodgy and inconclusive.


Science asks how things work or not.

Religion asks why things work or not.

Science is temporal.

Religion is Existential.

Science requires faith and hypotheses.

Religion requires faith and hypotheses.

Religion has set the narrative that science has followed... Where do we come from? Why do we have to die? What lies at the edge of the world? Where is God?


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jl4lsaoqUU0/TBmzCNlPtpI/AAAAAAAAAcc/McGns5A2gYw/s1600/touchingthevoid4601.jpg

VajraYaya
20th February 2011, 00:33
Ah! I enjoyed your post. It is right that I presented only one aspect of science. But since the thread was about it's analogy with religion :)


...When geneticists develop new strains of grain that are more robust in a changing environment stricken by famine...

I bet we could argue on this one. Is it preventing famine or creating it?

Namaste, Steven

Please feel free.

There are African geneticists who do this for a job for the benefit of their own people. Highly qualified research professionals who know what they are talking about. Career scientists who are motivated in most cases by a responsibility to humanity and to improving things for others.

Go research it properly, by all means, but please don't throw any half cooked internet scaremongering at me at the end of it. I mean that in the nicest possible way. :)

¤=[Post Update]=¤


yes , cultivated dependance ( pardon the pun) on crops that bear infertile seeds that cannot be replanted

No - not that. Something else.

:)

If what you are referring to are people hybridizing wheat, by breeding one strain with another to create a drought tolerant variety, that is fine and has been going on for centuries. But if they are taking a gene out of an insect and randomly shooting it into the genome of wheat, that is just pure junk science and will lead to nothing but problems are we are learning now.

bodixa
20th February 2011, 00:45
If what you are referring to are people hybridizing wheat, by breeding one strain with another to create a drought tolerant variety, that is fine and has been going on for centuries. But if they are taking a gene out of an insect and randomly shooting it into the genome of wheat, that is just pure junk science and will lead to nothing but problems are we are learning now.

Yes - the drought tolerant and flood tolerant varieties...

I'm not here to defend genetic engineering or anything, it was just a line to make a point about 'good' genetics. Good science. Balance things out... that's all.

:)

Chicodoodoo
20th February 2011, 00:46
Years ago I worked in scientific research. After a time an engineer and I suspected something was amiss so we sat down and did all the math to evaluate the single concept that this company was based on. The eminent doctor’s theory was wrong. So the entire company was built to sell a product and a service that could never work because the premise was deeply flawed. So all the data we collected in tests never provided the kind of results that were promised, it never would. So all the data that was used to sell equipment was manufactured, Totally fabricated. Not a bit of actual data we collected was ever used. I refused to lie and fake data but there were others, afraid of the wrath of doctor so and so, or afraid of getting fired that were happy to oblige. As long as there are cowards there will be fraudulent science.

I have the impression that the basis for our entire society is of the same model. I think that may be why we are all here.

kenkyushiryo
20th February 2011, 01:05
here is a quote on a thread i started, from giovonni, which might be relevant to this topic.
the link follows through to a chapter in a book called REASON IN REVOLT:


kenkyushiryo you might enjoy this...

In recent years, the limitations of mathematical models to express the real workings of nature have been the subject of intense discussion. Differential equations, for example, represent reality as a continuum, in which changes in time and place occur smoothly and uninterruptedly. There is no room here for sudden breaks and qualitative changes. Yet these actually take place in nature...the attempt to establish the beginning of the universe and "time" will turn out to be a wild goose chase. There is no limit to the material universe, and all efforts to impose one will inevitably fail.

Does Mathematics Reflect Reality?
http://www.marxist.com/science-old/mathematicsreflectreality.html


im in agreement with much of what is in this chapter. ive yet to read the rest of the book.

it goes in to some detail in to how scientific concensus derived leads to dogma which can shape the history of the world, and the belief systems put in place to box us in to this reality.

Lazlo
20th February 2011, 01:32
I will not disagree that science and religion share many common themes.

But perhaps your read of the interview and the response by the physicist was colored by your own convictions?

It is possible that the physicist was concerned with being misquoted or having his responses taken out of context. One of my advisors was a well respected anthropologist, and agreed to do an interview for a history channel documentary. He thought the show would be presenting evidence for an extinct branch of the hominid family tree, gigantopithecus. When the show aired, it was a bigfoot documentary and his interview was edited to appear as if he was providing definitive evidence for the existence of bigfoot. In discussing this with him, he explained that not only would he never do another video interviewe again, but that he was sorry that he did not take the advice of his colleagues who had tried to warn him off in the first place.

Further, I take exception to your characterization that most top level academics never made the cut. Many academics refuse to work for the government out of personal conviction.

My father-in-law, now retired, was dean of a very prominant university. He earned his PHD in Latin American History and served in the peace corps in Columbia. He was recruited by the CIA, but declined the offer based upon his religious beliefs and the advice of his father, who was himself the president of a major research inistitution. His father was an intelligence officer in WWII and later served on the educational advisory board for two presidents before excusing himself, and strongly urged my father-in-law not to pursue a career with the government.

How many top level academics do you know personally?

Dear Friend,

I appreciated your response. I accept every point you make.

I was trying to be provocative, though (as I did say) - it's an important topic. If it triggers new thought and a little intelligent debate, then it may have been valuable.

My own post contained quite a few caricatures. I do promise you that I didn't intend to slight any good people.

The general points - not referring to any individuals - I would still contend are valid and compelling.

Thank you for this Bill. The thanks button just didn't seem sufficient. I have a really good story about a brilliant scientist who did go to work for the other side. I'll share it sometime when it seems like the right place in the right thread.:p

Carmody
20th February 2011, 01:52
'there are no straight lines in nature' is one quote.

HaveBlue
20th February 2011, 03:34
The religion called scientology is one example. The E meter is a 'scientific' instrument. Used in a way that sparkes much debate but still the E meter itself is what it is. and it is not quackery. The reader's opinion on the what the readings say is something else.

But scientists are also humans and they have weird ideas about weird things too. So do I. they are not gods and they are not a united team of folks in some club.
The question is asked 'what is science' as often as we say 'but is it art' when someone claims something as art.
This topic is endless and not likely to conclude to anything but differing opinions- as is everything else.

HaveBlue
20th February 2011, 03:37
'there are no straight lines in nature' is one quote.

I wonder about this every time I see a spider decend from a branch whilst playing out web when there is no wind. Looks mighty like a pretty straight line to me!

T Smith
20th February 2011, 04:15
I have for some time understood that science is nothing but the prevailing religion du jour. It is a faith based system. I am quite fond of science, and am quite an aficionado, so I'm by no means bashing it; I just understand it for what it is. The more of a science geek you are, the more you understand just how similar science and religion/philosophy are, etc. I would say the scientist who is an atheist is truly conflicted, and neurotic -- if they truly grasp "the science."

Science has also been fully co-opted by the power-structure, such that the very pious (and naive) scientist who does not fully understand his place soon comes to the epiphany, much as his spiritual brethren in the clergy had before him, that certain scientific discoveries are 'off-limits" to the pursuit of knowledge. It's really the same narrative played over and over.

Very curious to know, Bill, who the Steven Hawkiing-class scientist was who walked out on you and Kerry! I have an idea... but can only guess...

Ultima Thule
20th February 2011, 07:30
Second that - science has been compartmentalized into a religion. The whole idea of focusing on an area of science or medicine for example is IMO in contradiction with the nature. Too many times people have vague symptoms that don´t exactly fit into any distinct diagnosis or area of expertise -> off to psychiatric evaluation they go...

I´ve been studying and teaching chinese medicine for ten years, which is a blink of an eye, but I´m on the way to understanding that all you really have to do to get a glimpse of the human health is look into the nature and universe, the same laws abide. Some times I have encountered a situation where a client has up to several exceedingly rare genetic disorders where medical science sees no connection what so ever. Chinese medicine looking at the whole landscape of intestinal functions, sees there absolute reason and definite probability and at the same time medical science sees impossible odds and extreme improbability/bad luck.

Imo: if one gets to see this in micro-scale of bodily functions, it CAN NOT be anything else in any scale imaginable, so the day science once again is no longer religion, is the day when it actually adopts some things from nonscientific(even religious?) ideologies of today? That would really bring equilibrium.

Whitehaze
20th February 2011, 19:25
Great post Bill. I have seen many scientists who box themselves in with this belief system, locking themselves down in a way. However I did have the rare chance to speak to a physicist Carl Paulson who is the State Section Director of MUFON in Gainesville Florida. We had a lengthy discussion about one of my UFO sightings, and he was very fascinated with it. I asked him why how he came to be so interested in ufology and his answer stunned me. He replied that he was interested in whether these craft were inetergalactic, interstellar or interdemensional. WoW! This was a scientist who clearly thought outside the box. Then we spent about a half hour or so theorizing about the propulsion sytems of these craft. He gave his thoughts on magnetic drive systems and zero point energy, yes I understood a little but clearly over my head. lol

There are the rare few who think well beyond the borders of the box, we need more like that and we might get 'somewhere'.

Feren
21st February 2011, 00:42
Thank you for this interesting thread, Bill. I would recommend to all you who are interested Friedrich Nietzsche's books, specially "Human, all too human", "The Gay Science" and "The genealogy of morality" which are very useful if one wishes to understand from a historical/philosophical point of view, how Science, morality nad religion share a single system of values. The priesthood, as Bill points out, is the representation of that system of values.
I'd like to say that the commonly used concept of "system of beliefs" or "belief system" is a rather traditional concept that refers to "the set of judgements that one take to be true". It is wide spread among american pragmatism whose highest masters are Charles Peirce, William James and John Dewey among many many others. The problem which i see in this concept is that it may only refer to rationality or to "judgement", but not to emotions, as if there were no "systems of emotions" working at the same time that belief systems. "Emotions" and "thoughts" are not that far from each other.

Chicodoodoo
21st February 2011, 00:53
I'd like to say that the commonly used concept of "system of beliefs" or "belief system" is a rather traditional concept that refers to "the set of judgements that one take to be true".

That was kind of my point when I said science is not a religion, until humans get a hold of it. Science is a pretty well defined methodology, unlike religion. But when you mix a defined methodology with emotional humans, science can quickly turn into religion.

Feren
21st February 2011, 01:02
I'd like to say that the commonly used concept of "system of beliefs" or "belief system" is a rather traditional concept that refers to "the set of judgements that one take to be true".

That was kind of my point when I said science is not a religion, until humans get a hold of it. Science is a pretty well defined methodology, unlike religion. But when you mix a defined methodology with emotional humans, science can quickly turn into religion.

Science, a new science, one that is not a religion, should have a new system of values, not only a new belief system. Though "science" as a concept refers to non-religious knowledge, "science" as a human practice tends to enforce the same religious feelings, such as that of a clear and objective separation between emotions and thought, or even that of an objective, neutral and universal conception of "truth".

Chicodoodoo
21st February 2011, 22:45
Science, a new science, one that is not a religion, should have a new system of values, not only a new belief system. Though "science" as a concept refers to non-religious knowledge, "science" as a human practice tends to enforce the same religious feelings, such as that of a clear and objective separation between emotions and thought, or even that of an objective, neutral and universal conception of "truth".

I always saw "science as a concept" as a methodology to pursue objective truth. Your view is different, so I'm curious if you could elaborate. What is the belief system of science? What new values does science need? Do religions separate emotions and thought (I thought their primary problem was that they don't)? I realize that we are limited to a subjective approach to truth, but does that mean there is no objective truth?

str8thinker
24th February 2011, 00:04
Great thread. Thanks to Bill who started it and everyone else who contributed. Mine is small - I enjoyed reading Carmody's post #32 and would just like to mention that the origin of his quote is Wikipedia's page on Maxwell's equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations).

Also, thanks giovonni and kenkyushiryo for the link to Does Mathematics Reflect Reality? (http://www.marxist.com/science-old/mathematicsreflectreality.html). Although I do not consider myself a Marxist, I found it interesting to read the online version of the book Reason In Revolt (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.htm), from which this chapter was taken.

joamarks
28th February 2011, 09:34
science is a system. (if you believe in it as a religion or not, its not relevant, if you don't understand it's purpose)

science these days has taken over the FUNCTION of religion (not to seek or guard the truth :rolleyes: )

it's taken over the FUNCTION to keep people narrow minded and dependable

the people who fight (not listening, walking away or even start a war for it) for their personal truth are vulnerable
because they identify completely (with hart and mind) with a 1 or 3 dimensional projection of reality

so you have to be very careful with these discussions and respect the "ignorance is a bliss" state of these people. (like the friends youtube clip shown here)

Peace of Mind
28th February 2011, 17:09
When I finally realized how scientists determined what was beyond our atmosphere I knew that science was more belief than fact. It’s very hard for me to have meaningful talks about space when our top scholars on the subject use guesses to determine what really is out there, not to mention how much these people can be trusted. You can’t possibly have accurate facts about what you know (out there)…when most of the data comes thru a telescope lens.

*“Is that dot of light a star? Wait! It’s flickering…so it must be moving. Wait another minute! I think it’s wobbling! There must be planets circling that dot of light. Get the calculator, Bob…we will figure out EXACTLY what it is right now”*….lol.

We hardly know about our own planet…or how to take care of it and its inhabitants. How can I put much stock in to a private industry, much less science that has been formed to confuse and support wicked ways.

If we know they are contemplating re-writing the His-story, math and physics books…how can we talk facts about anything that involves these possibly flawed laws of nature? I think for us to really move forward, we need to cleanse our minds of much of the crap that has been forced fed to us thru these controlled learning institutions. They only teach/inspire you to learn how to maintain their evil systems.

I strongly think the UFO phenomenon is drummed up by the controllers. I can see them doing all the abductions and blaming them on ET so they can get away with violating people. I also believe the orbs people see are holograms used to further persuade man into believing in the unproven...what else are these orbs doing?
I could be wrong, but there really isn’t any actual proof, either way…now is there?

Peace

Meesh
28th February 2011, 20:41
Originally Posted by write4change
There has been a lot of research in the last 40 years about the nature of sexuality in many ways--physical, emotional, mental, and psychological and a lot of the information is repressed by the now common idea that university research can be bought and now everything is proprietary and either not available to the public or only a price.


I can confirm that this is often the case in psychology. If your findings go against the "status quo" they may not be published. Culture and the biases that go with it determine what is studied, how it is studied, and the conclusions that are drawn from studies.

Feren
1st March 2011, 19:50
I always saw "science as a concept" as a methodology to pursue objective truth. Your view is different, so I'm curious if you could elaborate. What is the belief system of science? What new values does science need? Do religions separate emotions and thought (I thought their primary problem was that they don't)? I realize that we are limited to a subjective approach to truth, but does that mean there is no objective truth?

Chicodoodoo: Sorry i didn't see your post before. When I say science has a belief system, which in my opinion is the same than that of religion, i mean that science, as well as any other discipline claiming to know something about the world, is founded on certain basic beliefs, such as a) the principle of non-contradiction (one thing can't hold contradictory atributes, for example, that i can not be here and there at the same time; b) the idea that there are "natural laws" that are unchangeable and universal (i.e. causality); c) the idea that things have an ultimate origin that is "more than natural" (for example, the idea that since everything is caused by something else, the beginig of the universe must be something that is not caused by anything, such as God or the ping-pong ball that big-banged; d) the idea that there is an "objective" point of view, above all others, that is closer to "truth". This last one comes to mean that there is only one truth.

As you might be able to see, all these principles are part of what I would call the traditional system of values, that involves science, morality and religion as we know them.

I agree with you that science might well be considered a methodology; i think that's what science should be, but it is not what scientists and philosopher of science have claimed: they have gone much further than that, they have claimed that theirs is the only true way to real knowledge. It is curious that though scientists were persecuted by people and institutions that claimed to own the one and only truth, they ended up doing the same thing. It is perhaps because humanity is narcotized (is it the right word for being under the effect of a drug?) by the pursue of truth. In the name of truth, as well as in the name of God, they have claimed the right to rule and kill.

In my opinion, the first step to free science from these authoritarian beliefs is to reformulate the traditional concepts of "truth", "objectivity", "natural law", "universality" (and some others, I guess), which are the primary clims of traditional science. These reformulations have been done by many philosophers and scientists, but "Science" has not paid much attention to them: traditional scientist believe in these principles just the same way christians believe in God and his commandments.

There might be an "objective truth", I can't argue against that possibility, but before being able to know it and "own it", we would have to know every single subjective perspective. But it is just not possible from the human point of view to have this absolute approach to reality. Thus, I think no one is justified in thinking they have an objective point of view, because they just don't. Objectivity, as I understand it, would mean to know all the causes and effects of an event, but, since everything correlates to everything, the quantity of causes and effects is as large as the amount of things in the world.

Chicodoodoo
1st March 2011, 22:21
When I say science has a belief system, which in my opinion is the same than that of religion, i mean that science, as well as any other discipline claiming to know something about the world, is founded on certain basic beliefs

Thank you, Feren. I really appreciate your efforts here.

It's true that science relies on premises from other disciplines (like philosophy), and sometimes we forget that. Everything is indeed a convoluted web of interdependency.

I take the view that there is objectivity, meaning only one truth, but that we are trapped in a subjective mind and can never obtain objectivity. At best, our subjectivity can only approach objectivity, never reaching it, like a curve with an asymptote.

I am sure that science as a methodology does not claim it is the only true way to knowledge. Humans do that. Humans are after all a chemical brew where narcotics play a central role. That makes us rather volatile, to be sure. So it is no surprise that traditional scientists and traditional religious preachers have so much in common. They are both beakers containing the same chemical brew.

It would seem that we have very similar viewpoints, even though we argue opposite sides of the equation. As one beaker to another, I have to say to you, Feren, with my best British accent, "Good show, ole boy!"

buckminster fuller
1st March 2011, 22:59
Funny, we're having a discussion very close to those considerations in this thread : http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15414-Tension-in-the-air-good-and-not-good.

GlassSteagallfan
1st March 2011, 23:47
Not intended to change the subject, but how about 'Economy as Physical Science'

http://www.larouchepac.com/files/pdf/lpacnews-april4.pdf

Feren
2nd March 2011, 03:01
Funny, we're having a discussion very close to those considerations in this thread : http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15414-Tension-in-the-air-good-and-not-good.

Yes, it is very interesting. Lots of energy flowing in this forum. I really love it. It's like a good sign that we are, as a community, a living organism and not just a "machine".


[It would seem that we have very similar viewpoints, even though we argue opposite sides of the equation

In a certain way, we are on the same side of the equation: we both believe that things could be goddamn different: that tyrany in knowledge and in goverment might be supressed. Imagine this: everybody sharing waht they know and everybody willing to learn about everyone else, no matter how opposite their views might seem. For me, that's a superior goal: a free, solidary, open-minded scientific community where free individuals listen to each other's point of view and learn from them.

Since I'm aware of these problems I haven't found anybody who does not have something to teach me.

Dale
2nd March 2011, 03:35
A very interesting thread!

Coming from a position within academia, there are a good few scientists, scholars, and researchers who are genuinely interested in pursuing matters deemed "paranormal" by the general public. Typically, only two things stop these scientists from pursing their interests - reputation and funding.

For an established scientist to decide to move from studying abscisic acid levels in plants to researching the rationale of near death experiences results firstly in a severely damaged reputation among his colleagues and friends. Secondly, such a scientist would find that he has no research money to support the life he currently has, likely losing his comfortable position teaching biochemistry at the University, as well.

Scientists and researchers rationalize that by stepping out of line with the conventional, Cartesian paradigm of modern science, they risk losing everything they have worked a lifetime to establish. Most figure it is generally fruitless to pursue anything outside of the standard paradigm, usually following any of such interests outside of work and in private.

And those that show little interest in anything outside of the standard paradigm, well, they're left unbothered.

Maybe I'm an optimist, or a dreamer, but I feel there's a growing change crescendoing. I don't think that much research into unconventional matters of science was performed half a century ago. It may be slow moving, but there is momentum gaining for those of us with interests outside of the standard paradigm!

Icecold
2nd March 2011, 03:49
Bill started this thread.

I argued this point for years and years. At university I wrote paper after paper arguing that science is a religion and its tenets are basically faith based.

Theory is faith.

Carmody
2nd March 2011, 04:03
Bill started this thread.

I argued this point for years and years. At university I wrote paper after paper arguing that science is a religion and its tenets are basically faith based.

Theory is faith.

My favorite follow up to that one is that "The only thing, the only fact we know is that: there are no facts --and all is theory."

Paradox. :p

So, even in the deepest bowels of public science and physics...the ideas behind 'consensus reality' come banging on the door so hard ...that it begins to crack and break down. As it has done to our best, the renaissance men of the given times. You know, the ones whoa have been ostracized by the ignorant and the fearful, those stuck in ego, unknowingly.

Besides the organized force that is running amok in the dark corners, the force that is against the evolution and elevation of man.

Finally ...it begins to clear.

TraineeHuman
2nd March 2011, 04:05
Most scientists (and even many academics) believe that the scientific method is infallible. Note the word “believe”. That means it really can be called a religion. Why? Because the scientific method is based on a number of false assumptions. Let me list just three. (I could keep going for pages, but..)

1. It assumes total consistency. In other words that A is and means exactly and very precisely the same thing in one situation as it does in another, where A is anything you like. But in fact, the meaning of almost everything varies slightly or even hugely from one situation to another. (Think of yourself, say, at home versus at work, and so on.) Actually, nature shows lots of inconsistency all the time – as chaos theory and catastrophe theory have demonstrated. Consider, say, a river that eventually reaches the sea south of where it began. That river will twist and turn in all sorts of directions, and in many cases will even flow north or close to north (totally “inconsistently” with its main direction) along the way. Nature is like that, and people are too.

2. The “subjects” of any experiment are totally controllable and manipulable by the experimenter. For the purposes of the experiment (any experiment), they behave as if they are totally inert, totally passive, totally objects without any choice other than predetermined in a mechanistic way. In other words, the scientific method is only fully accurate when what it studies is virtually dead. Start taking any signs of life into account, and pretty soon the experimental method simply can’t cope.

3. It assumes that anything that’s not totally scientific is “meaningless”. I suggest, on the contrary, that that view of life and the universe is in many ways close to meaningless.

Feren
2nd March 2011, 04:18
Bill started this thread.

I argued this point for years and years. At university I wrote paper after paper arguing that science is a religion and its tenets are basically faith based.

Theory is faith.

The first evidence that one finds of theory being faith is the origin of the word "theory": it comes from "theos" which in ancient greek means "god". A "theoros" was someone sent from one city to another as an embassador or to consult an oracle. Theoros were chosen on the basis of the belief that they were in a certain way in contact with the gods. The theoros know about "what happens above". Today, many scientists and theoreticians believe they are in contact with the above. Just that the "above" they conceive is no more than an authoritarian point of view.

johnf
2nd March 2011, 05:15
Interesting observation, (probable bias because of familial ties). My father (PHD in Aeronautical engineering) was listening to my brother, (PHD in Chemistry) talk about how controlling
and irritable this one colleague (Very accomplished in his field) of his was. And my Father said, do you find when people are really good at one particular thing, that they are extremely
hard on those who are less proficient than they are. My brother agreed and they both nodded knowingly. I felt like I was witnessing a kind of secret brotherhood in action, lol.

Chicodoodoo
2nd March 2011, 05:46
Most scientists (and even many academics) believe that the scientific method is infallible. Note the word “believe”. That means it really can be called a religion. Why? Because the scientific method is based on a number of false assumptions. Let me list just three.

Good scientific method can correct false assumptions. Indeed, it is obligated to do so. I would argue that the false assumptions are derived from the human element. Expecting consistency, manipulating subjects, and assigning meaning are human characteristics. Current scientific method carries the biases of its designers and practitioners, especially when those biases are not specifically prohibited. Humans determine the rules of the game, and as the game changes, the rules may need to be changed for the game to make sense. That is where I see the advantage of science. It is less static than religion, i.e. more willing to change.

Sowelu
2nd March 2011, 06:02
Yep! and in the same way religion stole its foundation from the ancient beliefs and corrupted it,
science stole its foundation from practices such as alchemy and ancient astrology and threw in a bucket of lies and tore out the underlying philosophies (the truth)...
You might be interested in Nassim's work. He does more physics than science but he's quick to point out some of the obvious wrongs in modern beliefs.
http://theresonanceproject.org/blog/

johnf
2nd March 2011, 06:04
Humans are creatures of belief, all educational structures and scientific communities are controlled by what they accepted in the past.
The worst element in all this is the publish or die element. Fifty years ago I think it was easier to get approval for funding which was primarily truth based, but even by then much of it was kicked to the side if it didn't fir with certain agendas.
The scientific method is limited by our measuring system, at one point it has become they had to admit that the act of observing changes the outcome.
Maybe some will say this is science, but I think this is faith. There is no outside ,objective world, it is something that we are creating, and monitoring through subjective processes.
Thing is accepting that premise has turned my whole life around ,changed my values almost over night. So though I was basically raised on the scientific method, I only see it as a limited tool
that can interact with my belief and other tools I use to dissolve my beliefs and open up more ability to observe and conclude with less prejudice.

Chicodoodoo
2nd March 2011, 19:32
Humans are creatures of belief, all educational structures and scientific communities are controlled by what they accepted in the past.

My point exactly. Humans are by design subjective.

The worst element in all this is money. People do things for money that they ordinarily would not do. Money corrupts nearly everything. If we made our decisions based on what's best for the common good, everything would change dramatically.

The scientific method is indeed a limited tool. What tool isn't? Even our minds are limited tools. Especially mine.

Romanna
3rd March 2011, 05:49
In the 80s I was part of a group who got together for dinner every Sunday--there were 3 mathematicians and a psychologist and their wives. I was the outsider. My friend was married to one of the mathematicians and one of the others was the chairman of the department. In one of their discussions he was complaining because the faculty voted on new faculty. He complained because they would always vote against anyone who seemed smarter or more progressive than they. So, it is not just science but all so-called intellectual pursuits. People become invested in their world view and vote against anyone who threatens it. It is particularly egregious with science because the whole scientific method is supposed to be that of open and curious inquiry.

TraineeHuman
3rd March 2011, 14:15
Most scientists (and even many academics) believe that the scientific method is infallible. Note the word “believe”. That means it really can be called a religion. Why? Because the scientific method is based on a number of false assumptions. Let me list just three.

Good scientific method can correct false assumptions. Indeed, it is obligated to do so. I would argue that the false assumptions are derived from the human element.

No, not at all, I'm afraid. The three false assumptions I mentioned (among many false assumptions I could list) that the scientific method presupposes have nothing to do with human weakness. They are presupposed whenever the scientific method is used. So that means it's impossible for the scientific method to correct them. They are completely at a meta-level to that method. Actually, they are less affected by human weaknesses or foibles or limitations than anything else in the universe. That’s the whole point. Science seeks to be founded on supposedly the most “neutral” and “objective” basis possible.

For instance: the first false assumption I mentioned was what is sometimes known as Aristotle’s first (and most basic) “law of logic”, that X is identical with X.
I explained why this “law” is frequently false, once one looks at what it really means (in any possible universe, actually). The fact that it's false isn't exactly a secret in the world of philosophical logic.

Because the scientific method presupposes various principles which happen to be false, that doesn’t mean science isn’t useful. It’s just somewhat limited, and can’t ever give us a complete picture of reality. As you say, it's a type of "game". I didn’t say science is useless, by any means. I also didn’t have any sort of comparison between science and “religion” in mind. Of course there should be no conflict between science and genuine, liberating religion. Indeed, many have noted there is considerable similarity in some ways between the methods of Buddhist practice and those of science.

The only way human weakness comes in at all, as far as I can see, is this. If humanity used better principles of logic and better principles of analysis, our science would be superior to what it is today. But our science would still remain limited in certain ways, and remain so for ever.

Carmody
3rd March 2011, 15:09
the arrow of life is in need of constant correction in it's flight. eyes on the road and hands upon the wheel.

Science looks backward for it's view, and has an enormously difficult time to take on the new, if it does not agree with the old. Science (as done by humans) builds arrows of advancement that are bereft of the capacity for correction. This, due to a rigidity that is specifically designed to only look in the rear view mirror for fitting a given potential future.

As Max Planck said, 'science advances, funeral by funeral'.

TraineeHuman
4th March 2011, 02:48
Science (plus brilliant creative, intuitive insight) has brought us many positive things. E.g., the internet. Even TV can, or could, be used very positively. Because of that positivity, some people have felt that science can be applied constructively to reduce all our problems. If not today, then in the future.

One example of an individual who strongly held and argued for that view was a man named Armstrong. I’m sorry to say he was once Chairman of the Philosophy Department here in Sydney, at our oldest university. However, in the world of philosophy this whole issue has already been carefully discussed and resolved some time ago. I remember seeing a comment about Armstrong in the late seventies, in what was one of the most highly respected and widely read philosophical journals at that time. I was surprised to see the comment in print in that journal saying (as far as I remember) something along the lines that Prof. Armstrong’s views were by then regarded by many as something of a joke. (You don't usually see comments like that in a philosophy journal.)

The reason for the “joke” comment was that in the world of philosophy the idea (Armstrong’s position) that the scientific method doesn’t have built-in, permanent limits had by then been discussed in great detail. Philosophy is primarily concerned with finding conceptual explanations for everything. But the Armstrongian view leads to the claim that no explanation exists for all sorts of things, including anything artistic or esthetic or spiritual or intuitive or emotional. No explanation, that is, beyond physics and chemistry and biology. So, romantic love is reduced to literal chemistry. The rest is considered to be an illusion and pure nonsense, i.e. ultimately just a neurotic fantasy. In the world of philosophy, those approaches which aren’t of the “only that which is scientific really exists at all” kind do have very interesting explanations of such things as feelings and values and so on. They are also preferable for all sorts of other reasons.

Neal
4th March 2011, 03:14
Science is most certainly a religion, seeing that it was intended to be counterpoint to the organized religions. If you are not a religious person, chances are you will fit in with the "science" crowd. There we go again - the old two party system of divide and conquer. Either you believe in God (religion) or you do not (science).

Both have their dogma. Both keep the truth from the masses. Both are a means to control dissent by forcing creative thinkers to adhere to current beliefs. No matter what you believe (especially if it's the truth), you simply *cannot* admit to it if you desire to graduate in some manner. Becoming a priest would require you to keep in line with the message of the Church, just as if you believe the Egyptian pyramids were produced from nothingness by a single thought, you could never mention that in attempting to get your PhD... You would commit career suicide!

Being involved in the field of Science myself, I have never believed that most scientists (I'm sure some do, but not most), such as those of the medical profession, actually conducted the Scientific Method. This has been obvious to me and continues each and every day. I have read *countless* pharmaceutical studies and have torn them apart due to their contrived conclusions, hidden data, and blatant lying about previous study results and conclusions simply to ensure that the predetermined result is created as an afterthought.

Instead of making the data we collect via the Scientific Method adhere to their beliefs making up their entire career, the scientists should be asking, "Why did the data produces the results that it did?" That question would greatly help out Humanity.

Chicodoodoo
4th March 2011, 03:37
The three false assumptions I mentioned (among many false assumptions I could list) that the scientific method presupposes have nothing to do with human weakness. They are presupposed whenever the scientific method is used. So that means it's impossible for the scientific method to correct them.

Let's back up just a little. I wasn't talking about human weaknesses, but human characteristics, meaning our basic subjectivity. That is the human element I was speaking of. That X is identical to X is a function of human subjectivity. It holds true far past the limits of human perception, but if pushed far enough, we may eventually reach a point where X is nearly the same as X, but not identical to X. Does that mean science was a religion all along? I say no. The scientific method would certainly allow us to go back and re-examine our basic assumptions if necessary. What is presupposed is our subjectivity, which is by no means off-limits. To then conclude that X = X is false is disingenuous. By stating X is not identical to X, I would argue that you are making the same mistake that you accuse Aristotle of, only to a much more severe degree.

So what is presumed in science is actually human subjectivity. That is precisely why science seeks to be founded on the most neutral and objective basis possible.

Chicodoodoo
4th March 2011, 03:45
However, in the world of philosophy this whole issue has already been carefully discussed and resolved some time ago.

You mean like "X is identical to X" had already been carefully discussed and resolved some time ago by Aristotle? You would be wise not to brush off Professor Armstrong so casually.

Chicodoodoo
4th March 2011, 04:02
Either you believe in God (religion) or you do not (science).

How do you account for the other two possibilities: those that believe in both, and those that believe in neither? I assure you, those people exist.

Of course the scientific method is easily corrupted when the value of money outweighs the value of truth. Values depend on the subject, meaning the scientist at work. His motivation determines whether the scientific method is correctly applied or not. Is he interested in doing science and searching for truth, or is he interested in a big paycheck? Religious practitioners also have motivational considerations: is it going to be true spiritual growth, or emotional satisfaction? In both cases, it is the human element that makes the difference. That's why science and religion appear to be the same, when they actually are not.

crownme
4th March 2011, 04:27
ellu

throwing my thought into this then :)

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")

mesa finds it verry funny that the verry thing you all use you call religion. computer.

so you just belive there is a computer? its not there? you just belive a car is there ? its just faith?

the verry thing that gives you all the oppirtunity to evolve and explore. that is a religion ?

not that i can see some of the aspects of some, that a theory in science is something you actually belive in before you do the science and tests it multiple times. eitch a scientist does.
he thinks up a theory or goes by it with math, or many other options.

but does that make it a religion ? something we in the end can toutch, use in physical life and not spiritual ?

are humans aware of the word they use?

science is something that actually supports and are verry real, not something to belive in. denial mby. the verry denial that you use hospitals when your sick. denial of using science when u watch tv, use computer and so on. the paths are .

A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

now albert paved the way in sciencns opening up so many roads for humans to come. to let others discover whats alreddy is. to finally bring you a "finished product" you can yuse in the third dimension.

now for my question. are you all telling me that this is a religion? to search, to try, to theorize, to break the bounds that are on this plane? something you can toutch & use ? this is just faith ?

namaste

Neal
4th March 2011, 04:29
How do you account for the other two possibilities: those that believe in both, and those that believe in neither? I assure you, those people exist.

I was referring to the two extremes of the overall spectrum. You can be 100% science & 0% religion or the opposite. However, we can even expand it beyond your example of the proposed two more possibilities and argue that there is an infinite breakdown of varying percentages of belief within each group. Just as there are "moderate Republicans" and "moderate Democrats".

My belief is that it is a two-party system of religion/science. Whether you choose to believe partly in one and partly in the other doesn't make you identify with a specific group. However, I firmly believe that it is just another was to cause strife and division among the people.

I just wish we would strive for the truth, that's all. I hope people don't focus on "us or them", which is at the heart of most every label that is put onto someone or something on this planet. Instead, I just want to know the truth in the world.


Of course the scientific method is easily corrupted when the value of money outweighs the value of truth. Values depend on the subject, meaning the scientist at work. His motivation determines whether the scientific method is correctly applied or not. Is he interested in doing science and searching for truth, or is he interested in a big paycheck? Religious practitioners also have motivational considerations: is it going to be true spiritual growth, or emotional satisfaction? In both cases, it is the human element that makes the difference. That's why science and religion appear to be the same, when they actually are not.

I wonder what percentage of scientists are able to self-fund or receive funding from sources that do not have a specific result attached to the money. I was merely arguing that I often notice the people providing the funds are the one's demanding the answers. This might often lead to the scientist (despite their personal values or interests) accepting the funding to conduct the study for a desired result in order to advance in their chosen field rather than toughing it out for a relatively longer time on their own.

I believe in this day and age, money trumps truth and I find this disheartening. This needs to change - truth-seeking must be paramount.

As the truth is stifled in both science and religion, I see them as using the same methods to the same ends under a different name. In my mind, science = religion.

slipknotted
4th March 2011, 05:01
i would of loved to be a fly on the wall and seen your's and kerry's expression when he walked out of the room ! ha ha

Chicodoodoo
4th March 2011, 05:02
As the truth is stifled in both science and religion, I see them as using the same methods to the same ends under a different name. In my mind, science = religion.

Yes, truth is often stifled in science, and almost always stifled in religion. In both cases, it is human emotion that is responsible, so you might say the same "methods" are occurring. But you cannot conclude that science = religion. Unless, of course, you want to.

Hey, emotions can sure come in handy!

Tangri
4th March 2011, 05:49
I think we need a definition before debate.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4] An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
Several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science
The formal sciences are the branches of knowledge that are concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, computer science, information theory, systems theory, decision theory, statistics, and some aspects of linguistics.
Formal sciences began before the formulation of scientific method
Applied science is the application of scientific knowledge transferred into a physical environment. Examples include testing a theoretical model through the use of formal science or solving a practical problem through the use of natural science.
Applied science can be like biological science and physical science.

Religion adore God's power(punishment-rewarding) and try to mimic his/her punishment-rewardings

Scientists adore God's power(knowledge) and try to learn, apply his/her knowledge .
Both group always have extremists who sell their soul to wrong customer,/ retailer .
Love and Peace

Chicodoodoo
4th March 2011, 06:18
Science looks backward for it's view, and has an enormously difficult time to take on the new, if it does not agree with the old. Science (as done by humans) builds arrows of advancement that are bereft of the capacity for correction. This, due to a rigidity that is specifically designed to only look in the rear view mirror for fitting a given potential future.

As Max Planck said, 'science advances, funeral by funeral'.

Who comes up with this stuff? Science only looks backwards for its view? Has an enormously difficult time to take on the new? No capacity for correction? That sounds exactly like religion to me, and exactly the opposite of science.

Max Planck means that hypotheses that can be falsified just once are tossed aside and buried. Science celebrates its failures as well as its successes.

Sure, there's a lot of so-called science going on that is bogus because of improper influences, like money. But that doesn't mean the scientific method is flawed. It means the human practitioners are flawed.

Neal
4th March 2011, 15:51
Sure, there's a lot of so-called science going on that is bogus because of improper influences, like money. But that doesn't mean the scientific method is flawed. It means the human practitioners are flawed.

I agree that the Scientific Method isn't flawed. It is an objective method of conducting scientific experiments pursuant to an unanswered hypothesis followed by analysis and interpretation of the results to form an unbiased answer to the raised question.

Regarding flaws; 99% of computer errors result from user error... I think that applies here as well. The user is ultimately where the introduction of corruption or bias (and there are so many various forms of bias that can happen!!) is introduced to the detriment of the Scientific Method.

I think we need some clarification, whether we are talking about "Science!" or "science". If we are speaking about true "science" where we strive to find the truth, then no, idealistically "science" would not be a religion. My personal belief is that "Science!" (faked/altered results, incorrect conclusions drawn from the data, bought-and-paid-for results, etc.) is a type of religion.

Therefore, the problem is money & the potential for corruption and/or bias. "science" =/= religion if the truth is the desired result.

Coincidentally, NaturalNews.com put up an article today about this very topic entitled, Is modern medicine more science or religion? (http://www.naturalnews.com/031589_modern_medicine_scientism.html). Of course, this only focuses on modern medicine as science or religion, but I thought it was an interesting link, nonetheless.

Chicodoodoo
4th March 2011, 18:47
I agree that the Scientific Method isn't flawed. It is an objective method of conducting scientific experiments pursuant to an unanswered hypothesis followed by analysis and interpretation of the results to form an unbiased answer to the raised question.

I'm not saying the scientific method is flawless. There may always be some flaws in it, but it does have the capacity to self-correct.

Regarding flaws, I think it is more accurate to say that most flaws are a result of the interaction between users and designer/builders. Good design helps prevent user error. Both parties have responsibilities for producing error.

I like your clarification of "Science!" versus "science". Given your definitions, I would agree that "Science!" is a type of religion.

RedeZra
4th March 2011, 20:56
As Max Planck said, 'science advances, funeral by funeral'.


I think Max meant that science advances with each new generation of scientists ; )



Science is a work in progress pushing the boundaries of understanding and perhaps in time it will shake hands with Spirit

agentofchange
4th March 2011, 21:44
-----

The title is provocative (deliberately so!), but was stimulated by a Personal Message I received which asked:


I was wondering whether you could comment on why mainstream scientists hold such dogmatic and obviously fallacious views on reality?

Here's my best answer. I thought it deserved a thread of its own. :)

It's because science is actually a religion. It's really a kind of belief system in which the 'priests' present evidence to support their faith... and the 'heretics' are criticized, condemned, or ostracized.

The 'priests' believe they're being rational, but actually (with few exceptions) they are not: their beliefs are very much emotionally based.

When funding, status, corporate retainers and peer acceptance are blended into the mix, real rationality has little chance to challenge the emotional comfort zones which are co-created.

Kerry Cassidy and I had the privilege of meeting a world-class physicist a few months ago, and we were able to ask him some questions about topics that in his world would have been fringe (or over the fringe!).

His reaction was instructive. He became defensive, uncomfortable, and walked out of the meeting abruptly. We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.

The real reality is that this world-class scientist (and he really was in the Stephen Hawking class) was probably not good enough to have been recruited into black projects.

In black budget science - heavily ironically - there is real open-mindedness among truly brilliant people whose names we may never know. Closed-minded attitudes are not useful when back-engineering ET propulsion systems.

One has to be smarter than that - and they are. Most top-level academics in the public domain never made the cut.

It is not just science that is really a religion, any subject that anyone has a closed mind and dogmatic view point on becomes a religion to defend. This is nothing to do with the subject matter but to do with the fear they have of opening up their minds and consciousness to.
They must defend at all costs of losing their axis of reality which they have made up in their own minds.

" It's really a kind of belief system in which the 'priests' present evidence to support their faith... and the 'heretics' are criticized, condemned, or ostracized.

The 'priests' believe they're being rational, but actually (with few exceptions) they are not: their beliefs are very much emotionally based."

You are right here that the priests" present evidence to support their faith etc and you have done exactly the same on things that are a religion to you and that you have invested emotion in - notwithstanding that this is internal and never shown to the outside world. I speak here of your religion of rational, logical thinking which will never allow into that world channelling from higher dimensions. As with the scientists, fear of losing control and opening upto the unknown are demons that need sorting out.

Many people have been affected here on Avalon by the despot attitude towards the Charles material again the Priest spoke and would not be crossed for fear of being shown the truth.

How long can the scientists hold up their false equations and ideas - only as long as there are still those who have not yet awakened their own power, intuition and discerning minds and can still be fooled. How long will you uphold your own false equations and ideas without the slightest discussion, debate or sharing of minds and hearts?

your quote "His reaction was instructive. He became defensive, uncomfortable, and walked out of the meeting abruptly" but in the case on Avalon you dont walk out of the meeting, you suspend and sack others. 3 weeks ago I channelled information on you and the Charles material, knowing nothing of your forum, since I was suspended after a few posts and certainly knew nothing about how it was run, this can be found at my posts on Camelot and proved to be very accurate on things which have become provable so far and may indeed all be perfectly true!

Carmody
8th April 2011, 14:45
As Max Planck said, 'science advances, funeral by funeral'.


I think Max meant that science advances with each new generation of scientists ; )



Science is a work in progress pushing the boundaries of understanding and perhaps in time it will shake hands with Spirit

Max literally meant that the old paradigm and old understandings were not released to the trash or dustbin as they desperately needed to be...until the old men of the earlier years released their hold and unending grip on the world of science and physics by actually being dropped into their graves. He meant that old men who refused to understand the new and the different were the culprits that were damaging and holding back the advancement of mankind. Yes, this is exactly what he meant and he explained it that way.

http://partialobjects.com/2011/04/is-science-just-a-matter-of-faith/

Is Science Just a Matter of Faith?


quotes:

Quantum mechanical quotes
By jao

From the revamped This Quantum World site, an all but sobering quotes collection:

* Quantum mechanics is magic. Daniel Greenberger.
* Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. Niels Bohr.
* Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Niels Bohr.
* If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. John Wheeler.
* It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman.
* If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. Albert Einstein.
* I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. Erwin Schrödinger.
* Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. Roger Penrose.

http://phys.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/quantum-mechanical-quotes/

We speak on the idea that every person born has within them all the information required to understand the truth of what is in the world.

However we also need to understand that the capacity to fool the self via the body's desires and basest drives (that form our physical pathway in the mind for ...and they drive/form/shape the thought process--it is absolutely critical to understand this point!!!) is also a powerful rope to hang one's logic by the neck until dead....that particular mechanism lies within us individually as well..as the body is the doorway by which we see into this space and interact with it..and thus the seed of our own destruction of truths is part of the self in every aspect.

To clarify, the murmuring in the mind that become consciously worded thoughts, those component arise unconsciously out of their emotional and baser origins and channels of the mind. this means that no thought can form.... that is untainted or unshaped by the base drive system. The body, emotions and basest drives... forms the basis of your logical components and thought patterns, etc. Seriously. No joke. Your ass literally owns your mind, until you being to address this internal point through internal self discovery.

This eventually becomes, through understanding...that the coin of truth or self-lies is complete and in our given hands --at any given moment. Scientists and physicists can get lost in the dogma of the unrealization of these points as assuredly as anyone else. Their problem is they have obscured those base points with reams of paperwork and formulas to the point that most of them cannot see this singular and prime basic fundamental any more.

This 'basic/prime/only' which should have been squarely in their sights for every minute of every day. Otherwise, they would go off course into dogmatic fields of illusion--- and never know it. Kinda like what science has done on many fronts today....

One aspect is that the clarity of the moment of now or... 'self' honesty and clear vision can save one from the foibles of fate and the self's interference. Ie, the point of being here in the first place. Which is becoming more and more clear to more people each day. Thankfully.

What has gone on is that the complexity of science has been used to control mankind. Again. As religion. As another face of religion. I do believe that religion has done much for man at the same time it has been a powerful curse. Same for science, in many cases.

it also seems that the kind of person who, in the old days, would have been the most rabid of the religiously converted (one of those clerically oriented nightmare machines) and capable of quoting the intricacies of religious law/text/lore and deep into the system of such things as they existed in earlier years..that personality has transferred it's incapacity to look into the soul of man..into the world of science and physics. No difference.

For that component of man exists in the same ratios as it ever has (population percentage wise)...and those people had to go SOMEWHERE for their personality quirks and considerations (involvements and connections, etc) to connect and be part of the mass of mankind. It didn't just shift out of existence, no. Those religious frothing nut-bars had to go somewhere.

Well, some of them went into science and brought their dogmatic insanity with them. It's not like science can suddenly be populated with specific psychologically wired and balanced beings who did not exist at all.....in the prior flow of man. Think about it. Which is why science is chock full of some incredibly dangerous aspects of dogmatism.

The big problem is that those who wish to keep mankind under control make sure that engineering is conflated with scientific theory.

Very few people understand that in the true world of science and physics..that 'all is theory' and that there are no facts, save one.

And that one fact is: There are no facts. nothing has ever been 'proven'. This is due to everything falling back on earlier suppositions and theories of the baser components of those 'facts' that some like to tout about. When you get to the bottom most layers you find total unreality with regard to what we think we know.


All we know is based upon ephemeral things we cannot fully explain, and that all is theory which is generally workable in most cases, and nothing more. Period. Nothing more.

Anything else is the wishful thinking and fears, the dogmatism in mankind that desires the safety of mother, comfort, and knowing. Comforts for the self. that's it. seriously. Most scientists do not seriously understand, like the vast majority of humans... that their very system of existence, the spiritual doorway of the body is fooling them into taking comfort of the body over the truth of not knowing. It obscures from this thing they were told in their first years of schooling in physics and science... the fact and point of "all" (meaning quantum and atomic, temporal, gravitational, and dimensional basics) being based on things we cannot prove and do not know. That "all" is supposition and unprovable on the basest level.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How bad is it?

Yesterday, literally.. I had a conversation with a man who was working on the basest components of superconductivity research. right at the beginning. A physicist. I was in store and it was full of books. I grabbed a specific book off the shelves when I saw it....as I walked toward him.

It was a book on Buddhism and the teaching of a particular gentleman from India. I showed him the book and he called it satanism and demon-spawn. The work of the devil.

I kid you not.

This sort of thing is commonplace, and also, as a base emotional structure... be virulently sputtered from the mouths of some scientists and physicists in the form of extreme militant and near violent sociopathic atheism. Besides all the uninformed engineers that protect their emotional base (unknowingly) by doing the exact same. Doomed to think the universe is explained so they can unknowingly go on at their base psychological level....comfortably sucking on their mother's teat. Their fears exist and dominate, unknown and unrealized ...in the depths of the self---just like everyone else.

phillipbbg
8th April 2011, 15:49
Something that comes to mind is this little know scientific observation...

When scientists observe particles as particles, they find them understandably
, to be particles. But when observing the same particles as "Waves", they find them to be waves,
the implication being that matter is defined by conscious perspective rather than being fixed or finite.

The Physist David Bohm, one of Einsteins prodigies, delved more deeply into this mystery;
In his plasma experiments at the Berkley Radiation Lab, Bohm found that individual electrons act
as part of an interconnected whole.
In plasma, a gas is composed of electrons and positive ions in high concentration, electrons
more or less assume the nature of a self-regulating organism, as if they were inherently intelligent.
Bohm found, to his amasement, that the subatomic sea he created was conscious.
By extention, the vast subatomic reality that is material creation may also be said to be conscious.

Bohm revealed, that the subatomic quanta is conscious, which means that ; EVERYTHING IS CONSCIOUS,
even inanimate objects and seemingly empty space, the very definition, if one were possible, of mystical or spiritual reality.

Or to put it in a non scientific was "ONENESS"

Carmody
8th April 2011, 16:24
Something that comes to mind is this little know scientific observation...

When scientists observe particles as particles, they find them understandably
, to be particles. But when observing the same particles as "Waves", they find them to be waves,
the implication being that matter is defined by conscious perspective rather than being fixed or finite.

The Physist David Bohm, one of Einsteins prodigies, delved more deeply into this mystery;
In his plasma experiments at the Berkley Radiation Lab, Bohm found that individual electrons act
as part of an interconnected whole.
In plasma, a gas is composed of electrons and positive ions in high concentration, electrons
more or less assume the nature of a self-regulating organism, as if they were inherently intelligent.
Bohm found, to his amasement, that the subatomic sea he created was conscious.
By extention, the vast subatomic reality that is material creation may also be said to be conscious.

Bohm revealed, that the subatomic quanta is conscious, which means that ; EVERYTHING IS CONSCIOUS,
even inanimate objects and seemingly empty space, the very definition, if one were possible, of mystical or spiritual reality.

Or to put it in a non scientific was "ONENESS"

Go look at Dan Burisch's drawings for the stargates and/or looking glass, on the eagles dare website.

Both involve rotating electrostatically and electromagnetically manipulated "gaseous injection plasma function"...... in order to open doorways to dimension(s) and timelines/locations.

look at the thread on "spirals everywhere" (started by loki) , page two, on how I explain that particles are made up of two different two-dimensional waveforms/planes that integrate and create a schism or vector result (positive or negative result) between their meeting point. This becomes the duality or wave particle within the scope of their intersect. Fibbonaci, etc.

Thus the tuned interacting dual spinning coils, etc..that form the basis of the gaseous or plasma manipulation of the stargate or looking glass. It zeros out the spinning vectors in a tuned fashion that creates the static aspect of a doorway. Anti gravity works the same way. Maxwell said, in his original works (the unedited version) that this system of electromagnetic soup or particles is resonant, elastic and asymmetrical. those three points have been edited out of electromagnetic theory. Very important.

Understanding this means you can resonantly and electrostatically/electromagnetically... (xyz controlled-and in coupled resonance) spin reality open into a dimensional and transmutating--- doorway.

However, you get both sides of the coin.

All the kinds of things that speak on timelines, spirits, and what Dolores Cannon and Micheal Newton, etc..all speak on..those things land squarely onto the same table, side by side with the manipulation of time, space, matter, energy, etc. Joined at the hip.

You get the entire thing at once. It moves you toward this world:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17872-The-question-of-Lithium

Patrikas
8th April 2011, 17:04
A personal definition .......Good science with good intent is a way of understanding divine creation that we have perhaps been led away from and wish to reconnect and return to
Bad science, .......is a way to manipulate divine creation with negative agandas...for a time ........stay well