Image by Maab Hasan from Pixabay
Is Science Outdated?
Standards (as they are currently understood) are appropriate for the material domain but are inadequate when it comes to quantum, synchronistic, paranormal, and alien phenomena because of their quasi-material nature.
Standards that skeptics abide by arose during the 1700-1800s when physics was solely about the macroscopic mechanical universe, where matter did its thing regardless of who observed it or who performed the experiment, or where it’s performed. It was truly objective, material, deterministic, 5-sense oriented. In other words, science pretty much mastered the art of predicting material processes that followed mechanical laws.
But that sphere is just a subset of actual reality. It’s their fallacy to say that everything outside their domain can be explained by what’s within the domain.
The scientific method is correct. It’s just that orthodox science has strayed from that principle. It’s supposed to be: you observe something you can’t explain or aren’t sure about, and you come up with a possible explanation, then you formulate a hypothesis from that to test, and after testing you come to a conclusion of whether your hypothesis was right, or what more you can deduce from the experiment.
Instead, what happens in universities now is that if you observe something the consensus can’t explain, it’s an error that must be dismissed. If you push for it anyway, you might lose your funding or not get hired anymore because you’re clearly not objective and rational since everyone else doesn’t believe it. Hence the experimentation is prevented. Facts are ignored or skewed to fit the theory. The typical reaction is, “Yes that’s what his experiment shows, but clearly he must be overlooking something as it’s simply not possible.”
Only the little things that change the paradigm in little ways (like a new type of battery technology that uses unexpected equations that people hadn’t foreseen) is okay. But anything major like proving consciousness, the soul, afterlife, aliens, ghosts, free energy, antigravity, etc. is too far out and only a few pet projects by tolerant universities ever even go there. Of course the non-public black ops science isn’t burdened by this sheep mentality, hence why they have sci-fi technologies. They care about results, not reputations.
So I’m in favor of proof and scientific method, but only if applied honestly and correctly without selective ignorance, and also with understanding of what proof actually is. Current assumption is that proof is something that can convince anyone, be shown to anyone, and be replicated by anyone. That’s true for material phenomena because aggregate matter is dead and doesn’t react to the “who”.
But starting with the advent of quantum physics, scientists realized they couldn’t predict anymore what a particle would do because it would behave according to nonphysical factors at small scales (little did they know this weirdness also manifested on the large scale, but they couldn’t see the forest for the trees as it was all bunk to them). These quantum factors they simply called “random” instead of investigating what was behind them (metaphysical factors). That’s amazing isn’t it; you can’t explain something so you just call it “random” and leave it at that. How is that any different from religious people saying “God works in mysterious ways”? You realize then, that academia is really just another religion. Hence it has earned the pejorative term scientism instead of science by those who realize this scam.
So when it comes to such paranormal phenomena, “proof” isn’t as cold, hard, and universal as it was before. Now it’s more personal proof, limited group proof perhaps, but not necessarily universal proof anyone can obtain, as some people aren’t cut out spiritually or psychologically for attuning themselves to that sector of reality where these paranormal phenomena exist.
https://montalk.net/about/143/e-mail-qa