This is the essence
of all of the grandiose claims by religious or mystic types: that
they (and you too, if you pay enough!) can influence reality simply
by thinking about it.
What is truly
bombastic is when such fantasy is proclaimed as “science”.
The latest version
of this is the so-called observer- experiment interaction, where
somehow the outcome of a precise experiment can be changed merely by
someone (or something) observing it.
Here is an example:
and also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
The experimenters
claim that they placed a sensitive electron detector near to the
passage of a flow of electrons and that when the detector was
activated, the flow of the electrons changed its behaviour. They
claim that this detector cannot influence the flow, yet it does.
How about a much
simpler theory: IT DOES affect the flow when switched on.
I bring this up
because it is an example of magical thinking in science – well,
pseudo-science actually. This is NOT science because it is
attempting to prove a faulty premise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am not a
“skeptic”. I am not doing this to “debunk” anyone: I am only
after the truth.
There are some
things that are definitely real, yet they don't have any “scientific
explanation”.
The big thing to
look for is the origins of the ideas. I recently discovered that the
“Big bang” theory came from a Catholic Priest! Apparently he was
looking for a way to reconcile his religious ideas with scientific
thinking. No wonder the idea always stunk to me: where is the
supporting evidence? There is NONE. The theory was NOT derived from
evidence of any kind, nor did it derive from a previous theory with
weaker evidence, it was just pulled out of thin air!
The point is that if
any human could really affect reality directly they would be
something more like a god: but not only that, the strong suspicion
that such a thing was really possible would mean societies,
governments, corporations and individuals would immediately start
work on duplicating this power for themselves: a magical arms
race. The fact that there is no power that can really do this is
proven by the total lack of any evidence to support it.
I suspect that most,
if not all of - the stories disguised as “science” that try to
convince us that things such as “observer – experiment effects”
are true are actually lies to confuse and cloud the picture of what
is really going on.
It gets fools hard
at work searching for this phenomenon so that they may waste years
and millions looking for it.
It also allows those
who have more “mundane” technologies to conceal them by claiming
that such phenomena are caused by much more spectacular sources, thus
keeping their technological advantage. - and that may be the real
game: keeping the “secret weapons” secret while trying to get
everyone else wandering around in the dark looking for magical
sources for the results of far more real weapons and processes.
Is there a
deliberate planned dumbing down of our science? That is a hard
question to answer. I can point to some clear indicators that suggest
that progress has been crippled by bureaucracy and the needs of
people to collect a wage and hold a position, but that is not to say
any of that was planned.
Consider the
progress of a young University student: first, to get into University
level physics, he or she must have already absorbed the official
models and methods of science and been able to regurgitate them on
demand. Then to reach further up the ladder to masters degree and
beyond to become a professor, he must not only have the official
views down but be able to make new and slight variations on it BUT
nothing that challenges the views of his seniors or their fellows as
this would be heresy. All papers must be submitted to peer review
for approval and if that committee of “peers” is already
decided that your idea CANNOT be true, tough luck: no funding, no
commercial contracts, no degree, no job, nothing. Just take a look
at what happened to Pons and Fleischmann when they tried to get
official science to look at an effect that was outside of the narrow
norm. I won't go into the details of it here - they were careful
researchers and had no interest in deception, but that didn't count
for much.
This system ensures
that any idea which does not conform will not get support - and if
the idea threatens any of the existing corporate bodies, it will
either get absorbed or squashed: no water powered cars or
never-run-flat batteries will get funding from the big boys. Don't
get the idea the patent system will help here either: anything of
significance will either get co-opted by the military industrial
complex or you won't get a patent in the first place – or both.
It seems more likely
that the social systems we have constructed cannot cope with too much
progress and tend to stop all scientific and technological progress
once they are established.
This is not all bad
mind you, and we should note that we have recently been through a
very anomalous event where the progress of microelectronics has sped
forward – but this is now probably not going to continue at the
same rate as before because of physical limits being reached.
The suspicion is
that we are looking at a sort of progression of social units: when
young and flexible, they will try anything but as they grow older
and bigger they also become more conservative in their outlook until
the structure becomes burdened by bureaucracy and fixed ideology.
The next step would then be the collapse of the rigid structure when
faced with unavoidable truths that prove the ideology false . .
except that when we look at religion in the modern world it seems to
mutate and adjust when new facts appear rather than collapsing
outright. It took centuries for the Catholic Church to admit
Copernicus was right and even now, they still exist.
Thus I must conclude
that the only way forward for those of us who want a better world and
a better world-view is to do it ourselves and not even bother trying
to convince the fixed minds of new ideas - make them, use them and
show people that they are real and workable.
If you dare.
I previously posted Rupert Sheldrake's Dogmas of Modern Science:
Make no mistake, dogmas are not a good sign.
No comments:
Post a Comment