Science in Crisis

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
– Leo Tolstoy

“The time will come when diligent research over long periods will bring to light things that now lie hidden. …There will come a time when our descendants will be amazed that we did not know things that are so plain to them. …Our universe is a sorry little affair unless it has in it something for every age to investigate . …Nature does not reveal her mysteries once and for all.”
—Seneca, Natural Questions Book 7, circa first century AD

The history of science has been characterized by periods of incremental discoveries and advances, punctuated by radical paradigm shifts. The incremental work adds leaves to the tree of knowledge; the paradigm shifts chop off whole branches. Not surprisingly, paradigm shifts typically come from rogue investigators, not from mainstream scientists in a given field. Those working diligently on the leaves are not going to chop off their own branch, nor do they want it to be chopped off.

Today, there are many emerging paradigm shifts butting up against mainstream models, and the new models are all being ignored by mainstream science. Modern technology is enabling discoveries at a much faster rate than the scientific establishment can digest them. One of the most important and well-developed new paradigms is the Electric Universe (EU) Model, which totally transforms our understanding of the cosmos.

In this article, Climate Variation & its Cosmic Origins, I provide an introduction to the EU model, and I put forward my own new-paradigm model of climate variation. I anticipate that many visitors to this page will want to reject the model, as it debunks the myth of carbon causation. That urge to reject is the same thing mainstream scientists experience, when their branch is threatened. If you are open-minded enough to give the model a fair hearing, I salute you.

There is one particular assumption that pervades all of mainstream science – the materialist assumption: there can be no God; there is no non-physical dimension; there is only the world of physics – and consciousness is merely a by-product of electrical brain activity. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the best-known defender of this assumption.

Mystics and religious people have their own reasons for rejecting the materialist assumption, but what is of interest here are the many rogue researchers who have carried out well-controlled experiments that demonstrate the reality of a non-physical dimension, that show consciousness exists outside the domain of physics as we know it. See for example Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin.

In this article, A field model of mind, I begin with the assumption that the human mind is non-physical, and I tease out the logical implications of that one assumption. This process led to the construction of a detailed model of consciousness, of how the mind works, and how it interacts with the brain and with the physical world. The model is of course speculative, but the conclusion seems inescapable – (if we assume our minds are non-physical) – that consciousness is involved in the process of evolution, and that life itself is a manifestation of consciousness.

In The Reenchantment of the World, Morris Berman tells a profound and wide-ranging story about the spiritual dimension of Western culture, its history, and its relationship to the scientific community. Not an easy book to read, but if you can make it through, you’ll find the journey rewarding.

child porn betting child porn betting child porn betting child porn betting child porn betting fuck google fuck google fuck google fuck google