Scientific Bias and the Call to Post-Materialism

Posted by admin at 2:05 AM on Jan 10, 2016


If as a human race we wish to evolve our understanding of reality to its highest potential we must at minimum be willing to invite criticism of the current state of science, its limitations, and the underlying faith-based assumptions rigidly adhered to that bar serious inquiry into phenomena that doesn’t fit its preconceived construct. We must take a hard look at our worldview and the scientific community that promotes this view, and encourage its evolution from its current materialism bias to a post-materialism model.

Science, a once-paralyzed minority of yesterday’s evangelical world, has long last come to the pinnacle of its predecessor. Scientists, now modern day vicars of faith, don fact as surrogates for dogma in their indoctrination of the ever impressionable public mind. As if clergy of old, their methods of derivation remain sacrosanct outside of scientific circles, impervious to the same investigation they readily apply elsewhere. To question the possible defects of the system that produces the central truths by which we live is to question reality itself, for how well our world view has been prescribed by scholastic teachings of scientific convention. All of our lives we have been taught that the world is a predictable place, and where it is not, thereby a lack of information, and not science, exists. We have been told to hold our tongue and quietly shave with Occam’s Razor when faced with the complexities of the unknown. But, let us exhibit caution before we obediently lock ourselves in the edifice of science, for a house of verity built on a foundation of error is sure to fall. Truths, despite adherence to the rules from which they are erected, become little more than falsehoods under incomplete laws of construct. In short, scientific axioms are “the continuous evolution of beliefs of truth as understood at a point in time given the limited available evidence” and not the immutable doctrine of truth we have been made to believe.

The invalidity of scientific theory as a truism can be aptly introduced through Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (similar to the liar paradox), which states that at a minimum for theories that include a small portion of number theory, “a complete and consistent finite list of axioms can never be created.” Therefore, “in order to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to use some other more powerful system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T’s consistency has already been established without using S.” Enter Science, where S=Science and T=Truth, we find that the theory and associated laws of science are built on the truths that science itself produced, hence science is not an axiomatic system that can prove its own consistency.

Science, as we know it, is based on induction, the “process of estimating the validity of observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class.” Simply put, this inductive methodology works by searching out things and making conclusions about those things. Now, if induction is based on the observation of things, then scientists can only conclude on the things they find, and not on the things that they do not find, correct? Like in the raven’s paradox, we cannot conclude on the non-existence of a white raven without ruling out every raven in existence as black, including those from the past and future. Science, by default, can prove the existence of things, but it cannot ever prove the non-existence of them.

So are we only talking about infinitesimal probabilities? No. In fact, briefly consider the ratio of the things that science has proven to date as compared to the infinite possibilities of things that science cannot disprove the existence of, and what might you conclude? Finite vs. infinite? Furthermore, the things that have already been proven by science, that we consider fact today, can never absolutely preclude future refutation. Sure, many of us would stand with confidence behind the things we believe to be true today, however it is impossible for any truth to safeguard itself against reversal in the future. It simply cannot be proven that any fact is absolute in nature ad infinitum.

The statistical suspicion that there are more possible truths not yet proven than there are existing scientific truths, combined with the already existing scientific truths that cannot weather themselves against possible future refutation, leads to the stark revelation that scientific fact in itself is but a small minority compared to the truths of tomorrow waiting to be discovered. We are taught never to break convention and think outside of that which science has already deemed true. “Already deemed true” occurs in the past tense, hence the shackling of ourselves to our own historical record, forever prohibited us from stepping into the present for fear that the “rules” may discontinue conformity. As well, these “already deemed truths” are the building blocks for future truths. It’s a dangerous but inevitable precedent. When the floor falls so does the ceiling.

Ronald Giere, an emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota and one-time President of the Philosophy of Science Association, explains in his book Explaining Science, “if [Newton’s laws of motion and the various force laws one finds in the standard texts] are understood as statements making claims directly about the world, all the laws of motion and force laws one finds written down are known to be false — a discomforting fact to say the least.” This is summarized in his book Scientific Perspectivism where he argues that scientific methods are like colors that only capture narrow aspects of reality, not as they exist independently unto themselves, but rather as seen from a distinctive human perspective. Sometimes, these aspects of reality are even purposely narrowed in the interests of money, politics and the conformism to, and pressures of, academia. As documented, when half of all published research (like in the biotechnology field) cannot be replicated, and when research investments demand “positive” results, driving down “negative” findings from 30% to 14% since 1990, and when peer reviewers (like in the medical field) fail to, or are incentivized to, overlook mistakes in submitted research papers, it’s time to acknowledge that as much as science changes the world, it must also change itself.

The biggest bias in the scientific community is probably that of “scientific materialism”, whereby the scientific community defines “reality” using rules based on underlying assumptions that are biased and exclusionary. It is best described by the Open Science group in their Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science, which I will paraphrase here. It entails a scientific worldview that presupposes reality must adhere to classical physics (materialism). In other words, it dogmatically presumes “matter” is the only reality and that mind is a product of the brain despite a lack of empirical evidence of how the brain could generate the mind. This is then used as an underlying assumption for scientific study (and sometimes the refusal to study, such as in the case of non-physical phenomena) upon which “truths” are built. This ideology is as faith-based as religion and has resulted in the neglect of the subjective dimension of the human experience, even in light of discoveries that have turned the classical sciences on its head, most notably Quantum Mechanics, more popularly known as Quantum Physics. French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat explains in Discover Magazine, that “Quantum Mechanics introduced [a] point of view, which consists essentially that the aim of science is not to describe ultimate reality as it really is, rather, it is to make account of reality as it appears to us, accounting for the limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities.”

Even so, in cases where there have been breakthroughs in broadening our understanding of reality beyond materialism, such as with the discovery of quantum physics, materialism still reigns as the underlying assumptions when studying the mind and conscious experience. This is despite the fact that quantum physics has shown that mind is primary to, and inseparable from, the manifestation of the physical (see dual slit experiment), and that the basic components of the physical, such as particles, electrons, and quarks, can no longer be considered self-existent. Materialist viewpoints, such as the idea that things have definite properties even when no one is there to measure them, are now known falsities, at least in terms of the fundamental components that make up our everyday physical objects. It even goes deeper than this. The leading theories of quantum physics in fact require additional dimensions to exist beyond our 4D awareness (height, width, depth and time) to maintain their mathematical consistency (string theory, many-worlds interpretation, boson, etc.), and have shown conclusively that our physical reality is not indeed physical, but rather a higher dimensional light-energy that is slowed down to a 4D version so as to be perceptible to the human senses, and that this 4D matter is created by our own observance (implying consciousness) .

As demonstrated through Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (wave-particle duality) 4D matter maintains a dual-state where it is simultaneously physical as well as the higher vibrational pure light-energy. Every time a photon of light is measured to test its physicality as a particle, other aspects of the photon become less physicalized and more wave-like, fluctuating between the 4D version and its higher dimensional source-state. If our observance creates the 4D version of reality from the higher dimensional source-state then we have the capability to create a 5D version of reality. This extra dimension from 4D to 5D is the non-linearity of space-time, and we are already beginning to create it as shown by experiments that break the bounds of space (Quantum Entanglement) and time (Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment) as we understand them. Quantum physics has led the greatest minds in science to concede the limitations of materialism-based science. Albert Einstein captured this sentiment when he stated, “The more I learn of physics, the more I am drawn to metaphysics.”

As the Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science illustrates, metaphysical studies into psi phenomena have shown that thoughts and emotions can affect physiological systems, two examples being psychotherapy and placebo. Likewise, the mind has capabilities extending beyond known space-time to influence physical objects and other human beings in nonlocal ways that are well documented and shown to be unmediated (not linked to any known energetic signal), unmitigated (non-degrading with increasing distance), and immediate. These events are documented as occurring beyond the range of statistical random chance and cannot be explained with materialism. Another variation of psi phenomenon is with near-death experiences (NDE’s) in which the electrical activity of the brain has ceased and out-of-body perceptions are documented to coincide with reality. Yet another documented psi phenomena refused by the larger scientific community is mediumship, in which the mind of an individual communicates with the deceased or non-physical entities and obtains, at times, highly accurate information unexplainable by materialism. This type of phenomena may simply be a 5D version of the higher dimensional light-energy that is slowed down to a lower vibrational state, except rather than being slowed down to a 4D physicalized state it is one step higher, experienced as the 5D version that includes the extra dimension of the non-linearity of space-time. We cannot know for sure until science opens its doors to the study of non-physical phenomena. Trying to understand this in the framework of our materialism-based science is like trying to understand a 3D wall with the rules of a 2D line.

We need now to answer the call for a post-materialist science. We are in need of models that embrace the unknown, or the higher vibrational nature of energy manifest, as part of their architecture, where, according to physicist Fred Alan Wolfe, “things that aren’t play a role in the world of everything that is”. Realities ‘experienced’, such as paranormal events, which do not appear to fit our scientific world-view may not in fact be ‘unreal’, but moreover ‘more real’. They are quite possibly the inroads from a lower-level reality to that of a higher-level, much in the same way that a television transmission (ultimate truth) can only be understood in black and white (lower level truth) without the color television set (higher level truth) that can translate the full signal. Let us no longer assume the black and white of materialism as the basis for describing a world waiting for us to wake up to its color-version.

As the Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science elucidates, “rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.” The doorway beckoning us to explore the unknown is not only being barred shut, we continue to be herded through the old doors of classical science in our education systems as its doctrine persists at predicating our interpretations of the world on the half-truth foundation of materialism. Until we fully explore the world from inside of the mind that creates the world, we will likely never fully understand it.

As unconventional as it seems, the scientific models of tomorrow must challenge scientific doctrine and implore heterodoxies – they must reject conformism and invite dissent, and eliminate boundaries, not solicit them. It must recognize and acknowledge its own limitations, that it is merely a lens of truth, not truth itself. It must acknowledge the physical and non-physical alike, for we live in a world that is in full of unknowns waiting to be discovered once we expand our self-imposed scientific limitations. We are asking the scientific community to adapt beyond its dogma and lead its own evolution or risk subjecting itself to its self-imposed obsolescence. It’s time we look beyond the outmoded bias of scientific materialism and enter the post-materialist phase of merging the studies of physics and consciousness as a catalyst to evolve the human species to our highest potential. Science now has a window of opportunity to evolve the world perception of reality from one of separation to one of interconnectedness, and the implications of this may not only save science, it may save the world.