Tuesday, October 1, 2013

10 False Assumptions of Modern Science

Much of modern science remains stuck in an endless inward spiral of false paradigms. That’s why “scientific” medicine, for example, offers no real answers to the really big diseases: cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and so on.
More importantly, modern medicine will never solve these problems unless it abandons its false assumptions and embraces the “higher science” beyond reductionism and materialism.
This is the message of one of the most important books of our time: Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake.
This book, available both in hardcopy and audio formats (from Audible.com), outlines 10 new pathways to discovery that promise to allow human civilization to leap forward into a new era of understanding, achievement and the harnessing of the power of nature and the cosmos. (I own the audible.com edition and have been excitedly listening!)
” Rupert Sheldrake may be to the twenty-first century what Charles Darwin was to the nineteenth: someone who sent science spinning in wonderfully new and fertile directions.” – Larry Dossey, M.D., author of Reinventing Medicine

The ten false assumptions of modern day science

Much like myself, Sheldrake is very much “pro science.” But he is disturbed by how scientific advancement has become trapped in a cultural tar pit of delusional beliefs and false assumptions. These false assumptions, listed below, hold science back and prevent human civilization from progressing toward a more profound understanding of nature, ourselves and our universe. (And that’s the whole point of science in the first place. Not to enrich corporations but to deepen our understanding of the universe.)
The following 10 items are Sheldrake’s, but the comments for each item are my own. For the record, Sheldrake may or may not agree completely with my own explanations for each heading here, but they are written in the spirit of what I believe he is wanting to say. If you want his full explanation of these ten items, read his book.

False Assumption #1) The universe is mechanical

Modern science believes the entire universe is made of up “stuff” and nothing else. There is no consciousness, no spirit, no mind and nothing other than mechanical and chemical stuff.
This explains modern science’s obsession with finding smaller and smaller particles at CERN. Many scientists actually believe that if the smallest bits and pieces of a mechanical universe are finally identified and labeled — because labels are really, really important to the materialistic worldview — then the entire cosmos will finally be understood and the “delusion” of God / creator / architect can finally be dismissed forever (in their view). Their goal is the ultimate pessimism: to destroy any belief in a higher intelligence and to doom humans to living pointless lives that end in their total destruction at the moment of death.

False Assumption #2) All matter is unconscious

The most astonishing delusion in modern science is the fact that most modern scientists do not believe they are, themselves, conscious beings. This is also true with Stephen Hawking, whom I have written about in some detail. (See my popular mini-documentary The God Within for a full explanation.)
Modern science assumes that humans are nothing more than biological robots and that animals are not conscious either. They literally believe that consciousness is an illusory artifact of the chemical brain. Not surprisingly, they also do not believe that plants and other living systems are conscious. Even further, the idea that inanimate objects such as minerals or crystals might have some sort of consciousness is considered heresy by most modern scientists.
This denial of consciousness is an assumption, however. There is no evidence supporting the assumption. In fact, first-person evidence of the human experience appears to directly contradict the false assumption that humans are not conscious.
Story continues below…

False Assumption #3) The total amount of matter and energy is always a constant

This assumption of modern science is especially suspicious given that even conventional cosmologists readily admit that 96% of the universe has yet to be detected at all. That’s the “dark matter / dark energy” portion of the universe, and to my knowledge, neither dark matter nor dark energy have ever been directly measured or seen by human scientists.
Except for the theoretical Big Bang, there is no phenomenon by which modern scientists believe the totality of matter and energy can come into existence or exit our universe.
This assumption is especially bizarre considering the theoretical framework of the Big Bang theory, which claims all the known matter and energy in the entire cosmos spontaneously appeared without cause, all on its own, without any intention or reason. The Big Bang theory — and its accompanying theory of cosmological inflation – are, by any definition, a bizarre kind of material mysticism that goes to great lengths to deny the existence of a creator / designer / engineer / intelligent advanced civilization / etc.

False Assumption #4) The laws of nature are fixed

This, too, is an assumption that looks to have already unraveled thanks to the efforts of a few modern-day scientists themselves. As a simple example, multiple physics experiments are now being conducted all over the world — and widely replicated — which show “faster than light” teleportation of information via quantum entanglement.
As just one example of this, here’s a ScienceDaily.com article describing faster-than-light quantum teleportation spanning 143km:
(In theory, instantaneous quantum teleportation could take place over a billion kilometers. The distance makes no difference. Quantum teleportation ignores the apparent laws of physics, including the “cosmological speed limit” known as the speed of light.)
According to classic laws of nature, such quantum teleportation is impossible. In fact, all quantum computing should be impossible, and come to think of it, transistors shouldn’t function either. But they do. And they do it by breaking the classic laws of physics.
Yet the far stronger argument for challenging false assumption #4 is found in multiverse theory which states that our known cosmos is just one of an infinite — yes, infinite! — number of other universes, each with its own variation of the laws of physics. Only in a small fraction of all universes is, for example, the strength of the weak nuclear force set at precisely the right number to result in the formation of stars, planets and carbon-based life. But because there are an infinite number of universes, there are also an infinite number of universes where the laws of physics exactly equal our own… and even where “mirror” human civilizations almost perfectly reflect our own.
Look up the “anthropic principle” if you’d like to dig into this subject a little more. Or read Goldilocks Engima: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies.
I also recommend author David Deutsch.

False Assumption #5) Nature is purposeless, with no goal or direction

The Darwinian framework of biological science assumes that nature achieves highly complex biological structures, social structures, mechanical engineering and behavioral cultures simply through the process of natural selection. While natural selection is constantly taking place throughout nature, it alone is not sufficient to explain the ability of plants, animals, humans and possibly even universes to achieve remarkable end goals purely through chance and inheritance.
There appears to be a “driving creative force” behind much of what we observe in nature, including in animals and humans. This driving creative force, if you get right down to it, appears to have a connection with spirit — a non-physical “mind” which gives consciousness to physical beings of all kinds.
What we see in the natural world — in ecosystems, plants, animals and even humans — is not explainable through natural selection alone. There exists intention, consciousness and a seeming desire to achieve complex goals by taking fantastic evolutionary leaps which modern science cannot explain.
As a simple example of this, consider the fact that although many thousands of humanoid-like fossils have been unearthed in the last two centuries, there are still no fossils that record the theoretical “missing link” which is supposed to link humans to primates. Why have no such fossils been found? Almost certainly because they do not exist.

False Assumption #6) All biological inheritance is material, carried in DNA

The idea that your DNA controls your body and your life is now an ancient myth. Only in the materialistic circles of old school “science” do people still think DNA alone controls your health, your behavior and all your inherited attributes.
Today we know that there are epigenetic factors beyond DNA which strongly influence the development of biological beings. We also know that environmental factors (i.e. exposure to chemicals, heavy metals, nutrients, etc.) strongly influence either the suppression or the hyper-activation of genes. Vitamin D, for example, is one of the most powerful gene activators in human biology, turning on “healing genes” light microscopic light switches.
Furthermore, consciousness and free will overrides DNA. While you may have an inherited tendency toward a particular behavior, you can choose to override that behavior as a matter of choice. The mind trumps the mechanics, in other words, if the mind is sufficiently trained (through meditation, typically).

False Assumption #7) There is no such thing as a “mind” other than an artifact of brain function

I find it bewildering that most modern-day scientists still do not dare acknowledge the existence of the “mind” — a non-material awareness / presence / consciousness that coexists with the brain but is not derived from the mechanics and chemistry of the brain.
Comically, many scientists use their minds to attempt to disprove the existence of all minds. They would like us to believe self-awareness is an illusion or that terms like “mind” or “consciousness” are just “word tricks” used to talk about brain chemistry, not actual concepts that really exist.
But they have failed. To date, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that supports the odd notion that consciousness does not exist or that the mind is not present in a conscious being. “Science” cannot disprove these things because the tools of modern-day science are materialistic by definition and therefore incapable of proving or disproving non-material phenomena. It’s like trying to measure the speed of a moving object with a thermometer.

False Assumption #8) Memories are stored chemically in the brain and disappear at death

In summary, modern scientists believe that memories are stored chemically, using the brain as some sort of biological hard drive, and that if they could only find the location of the brain in which these chemicals are stored, they could literally “read your mind” like copying files from a thumb drive.
This assumption is wildly off the mark. I’m convinced that memories are holographically stored across not only brain matter itself, but also in a non-material spirit matrix of some sort which interacts with the physical brain.
This is why the physical location of memories in the brain can never be located by scientists. This is also why some people are shockingly found to be fully functional in our world even though they have virtually no brain matter whatsoever. For example, here’s a New Scientist story about a man who had almost no brain matter whatsoever but still possessed average IQ and was a normal part of society.
And yes, the man had memories, too. So if memories are “stored” somewhere in the brain as modern-day scientists falsely believe, then how could this man have memories if he had virtually no physical brain to begin with? How could he function at all? (And his story is just one of many…)

False Assumption #9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory

Modern-day “skeptics” go to great lengths to try to disprove anything that even smacks of “mentalism” or telepathy. But they can’t rationally refute the scientific work of people like Dean Radin, author of The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena.
Radin has, over and over again, scientifically shown strongly convincing evidence for low-level telepathy and other phenomena such as premonition. Explanations for such phenomena are entirely consistent with quantum non-localityand quantum entanglement, which Einstein called “spooky action [at a distance].”
The most likely explanation for all this is that the human brain, being a holographic, hybrid physical / non-physical computational and awareness engine of sorts, is also “entangled” with all matter in the universe at a quantum level. The brainmind, if you will, seems to be both a transmitter and receiver of quantum information that is continually and instantly rippling across the cosmos. Tuning in to that information is a lot like tuning to the correct radio station and suddenly finding the music becoming crystal clear. (David Icke uses this same analogy to explain many of his own concepts about consciousness and the nature of reality.
” Skeptics” who attempt to refute the science of the work of people like Dean Radin eventually end up declaring something like, “If that were true, we would already know it” — a classic example of failed circular reasoning bordering on self-congratulatory dogma.

False Assumption #10) Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works

On this point, much of the Natural News website is dedicated to explaining why mechanistic medicine is a failed system of medicine. Get this: most modern-day scientists do not believe that any vitamin, any mineral or any food has any biological effect whatsoever on the human body other than providing calories, sugars, proteins, fiber and fat. This wildly delusional belief is enshrined in the FDA’s regulatory framework and is practiced throughout hospitals and health clinics across the planet.
Yet it is a truly moronic belief. How can vitamin D have no effect on the human body when nearly every organ in the body has vitamin D receptors? How can minerals play no role in human health when elements like magnesium and calcium are necessary for the most fundamental chemical processes of muscle neurology?
The physical part of the human being obviously requires physical building blocks. Those building blocks are nutrients, plant-based chemicals, minerals, proteins and water. They are not statin drugs, blood pressure meds, chemotherapy and radiation. The mechanistic model of medicine is an utter failure for human civilization. It has been a huge success in generating profits for drug companies and hospitals, however, which is exactly why this failed system is so desperately defended by those who profit from it.

Get the book “Science Set Free” and learn more

In this article, I’ve only touched on some of these important concepts. To really delve into this, read Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake.
The ideas described in the book are truly revolutionary. They are also perfectly natural — and in fact, many should be obvious to any true scientist who isn’t brainwashed by academic dogma or corporate profit agendas.
Albert Einstein is famously quoted as saying, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Yet that’s what much of modern science is trying to do… let’s solve the cancer problem by finding a chemical that kills cancer! Yeah, that’ll do it!
Or let’s study the tiny particles created by an atom smasher, then we’ll know the mind of God, yeah!
But these approaches will never succeed in answering the really big questions because they are rooted in 19th-century assumptions which we now know to be false. There is more to our universe than mere materialism. There is more to human consciousness than brain chemistry. There is more to biology than genetics and natural selection.
How obvious does it have to get, folks? THERE IS MORE TO DISCOVER if we only set ourselves free from the mental shackles of dogmatic, permanently pessimistic “science” as practiced today in our westernized, materialistic culture.
Join me in spreading the word about Rupert Sheldrake. This man is a true scientist taking part in the consciousness revolution which I believe to be a necessary step to the true uplifting of human civilization.
About the Author
Mike Adams is a natural health researcher, author and award-winning journalist with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2010, Adams launched NaturalNews.TV, a natural health video site featuring videos on holistic health and green living. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He’s also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center/a>, a non-profit consumer protection group, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, martial arts and organic gardening. He’s also author a large number of health books offered by  Truth Publishing and is the creator of numerous reference website includingNaturalPedia.com and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. His websites also include the free reference sites HerbReference.com and HealingFoodReference.com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the innate healing ability of the human body. Known as the ‘Health Ranger,’ Adams’ personal health statistics and mission statements are located at www.HealthRanger.org


  1. There are quite a few problems here. Most predominant is that the author seems to think that scientists need to prove that things don't exist. They don't. Whoever assumes a thing exists bears the burden of proof. Scientists can't prove there is no giant flying spaghetti monster that is undetectable, so it must exist. That is ridiculous.
    Regarding the Big Bang Theory (BBT): BBT suggests not that all matter and energy came from nothing, rather it suggests that ALL matter and energy was condensed into a single point of infinitesimal size (a singularity) and then it expanded.
    Regarding the laws of nature: The Theory of General Relativity and the Theory of Special Relativity are not laws of nature. They are theories that are meant to DESCRIBE the laws of nature. Obviously theories are proven wrong over time. The fact that Newton's laws of gravity have been replaced doesn't mean that the natural law of gravity is not constant, it just means that Newton's account of the law of gravity was not as precise as an account of the law of gravity could be. Don't be surprised if everything that Einstein ever did is replaced by a new and better model.
    Regarding the purposelessness of nature: It is more of an assumption to say that there is a purpose than that there is no purpose. The author then claims that since no missing link has been found to link humans to primates, it must not exist while at the same time suggesting a creative force behind everything that has not never been found exists. (If the author means to refute the theory of evolution, then he had better get back to the books and scientific data/research.)
    Biological inheritance is necessarily material and carried in the DNA by definition. Biological inheritance is by definition the genes and traits that are passed down biologically from the parents.
    The "assumption" that there is no mind other than as a function of the brain is not really an assumption, but is instead the lack of an assumption. It is unnecessary to assume that there is a mind that is not an artifact of the brain, and so that assumption is not made. That assumption is not made so that cognitive science has a purpose. If science made the assumption that there was an immaterial mind, then science would stop searching for how the mind comes to be in a brain. I highly doubt that any scientist denies that he has a mind or consciousness. It is very likely that many scientists doubt that they have a mind that is somehow separate from the body.
    The fact that scientists have implanted false memories in mice gives credence to the idea that memories are stored in the brain. Also it seems like the author assumes that being stored in the brain is similar to being stored in a file cabinet, where the memories would have an exact spatial location. I don't think this is the view accepted by scientists. In my understanding memories are more like pathways through the neurons of the brain. The more frequently a pathway is used the easier it is to be recalled. The more you think about your memories the more vivid they will be. That's why we do the same math problems over and over and over, to ingrain them in our minds.
    And finally if telepathy or psychics were real I'm sure someone would have cashed in on that $100,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal/extraordinary power in a controlled laboratory environment.
    Science is only as pessimistic as the one who interprets it.

    1. You obviously missed every point he was trying to make. And to answer your last sentence, the Hawthorne Effect.

    2. If he's trying to make a point, he tried to support it with plenty of false claims and poor reasoning.

      Maybe he should try again.

    3. I could see all the false claims and poor reasoning he was making and yet at the same time I felt that I could see the point he was trying to make. In fact I was thinking "I get what you're saying but I can see people are going to pick holes in your argument".

      I think what he's trying to say is that the universe and all of its parts have consciousness and free will and that science as practised so far, while contributing a lot to understanding, has also had the effect of "putting down" the universe, putting it "in its place" so to speak.

      There is more to the world than meets the eye. There is such a thing as the spiritual side of things. Etc.

      I don't think consciousness and free will and the spirituality actually contradict the physical aspect of the universe. I think they're like... the other side of the coin. It's hard to put it into words.

      Science likes to put things in boxes, with rigid definitions. But science is starting to learn that not of reality works like this. Holograms for example. Ecosystems. Interconnectedness and non-locality. things like this.

      It's said that biologists disproved the theory of the "Elain Vital" (life force) which was considered to be like a kind of fluid which permeated living matter and made it different from dead matter and which was necessary for key properties of living matter. Well... I think the Elain Vital lives on as a poetic, metaphorical description of metabolic processes.

      The validity of reductionism depends on just what you mean by reductionism. If you zoom in on an organisms you find that close up, it is cells; zoom in on cells and you find that close up, they are molecules, and so on. This is all valid. But sometimes reductionism seems to go further than this - suggesting that the building blocks of matter are like standardised nuts and bolts, isolated from each other... that the world can be broken up into neat compartments and everything can be put in boxes.

      It's easy to pick holes in almost every detail that the author wrote. However, if you listen to the whole message (rather than zooming in on the details), focus on the big picture, you might be able to ascertain The Point that he was trying to make. Then with your higher level of scientific knowledge, you could ask yourself, with an open mind, that "*even if his arguments were flawed*, does this Point have some validity, and could I perhaps construct a better argument in favour of this Point?".

      In other words, try to empathise with what this guy is trying to say.. because I think it's worth it :-)

  2. @Anonymous

    Thank you so much, you took the words out of my mouth! I'm getting so tired of al these bogus claims on every corner of the web. It was a relieve to read your response. Clear, well structured and educative. The scientific method may not have solved or solve every problem we face yet, but it looks like our best shot to me. Anyhow, solutions to real problems never seem to come from new age (non) thinkers, alternative medicine believers and other faith heads.... They don't seem to need any evidence to back up their claims, as long as it feels good :-) Why not built an aeroplane based on the concept of "gut feeling".... Or like Michael Shermer puts it : "Do we have to be so broad minded that our brains fall out".

    Kind regards,
    Ron, from the Netherlands.

  3. And another thing, you say question everything, but have you questioned God?

  4. wtf, how did I find this utter bollocks?

  5. Crap...As usual. Someone who has only read popular science books. What the hell is a "Natural Health Researcher?" Get back to school.

  6. Everybody, don't listen to this free thinking individual, go back to following what a consensus of well educated (but not necessarily intellectual) people think, you'll do better in your structured school environments. Leave the imagination to the Einsteins of the world.

    1. spouting off misinformation and untruths does NOT make someone a "free thinker"

  7. Your claims are ridiculous. A 'spirit matrix'? Really? How unscientific can you be?

    1. Ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder. To call something ridiculous says nothing about the thing. Rather it just communicates how you feel about the thing, namely that you wish to deride it.

      I don't care if something is ridiculous or not, I only care if it's true or not.

      Plenty of true things are ridiculous. George W Bush was the President of the United States. That's ridiculous.

      What's wrong with a spirit matrix? You don't have to be so closed minded. Try to understand what they *mean* by a spirit matrix rather than being so dismissive. They're talking figuratively, but that's fine. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water if reject so dismissively the gist of what this person is saying.

    2. so what exactly is a "spirit matrix"? I know what a matrix is, it consists of rows and columns. Is it a spirit excel sheet? I feel like the word "matrix" is thrown around a lot by people who think it's some kind of homonym for alternate reality. These people don't really know what the word means.

      Also, if you are going to try to argue a point from ignorance, you ARE going to get tossed out with the bathwater. "I don't have an explanation so here's an explanation" doesn't cut it.

  8. "Their goal is the ultimate pessimism"
    Yes, cause that makes sense. Thats exactly what every scientist's goal is. I dont even feel the need to say more on that.

    More importantly, world hunger is still a thing, so we should look into that, then look into how this huge rock started spinning around that huger fireball.

    1. 1. What are YOU doing about world hunger?

      2. We are already producing enough food to feed the world. The problem is one of distribution.

  9. What is this horse shit?

    1. Just that, mate. Horse shit.

    2. Closed minded people with no respect for those who have alternative ideas. You can just say "I don't agree". You don't have to be contemptuous.

    3. you are correct, however, it IS horse shit.

  10. Conventional bigots like some over here in the comments criticized the same Newton and Einstein during their times...and now the same is happening to free thinking!

    and as for purpose...it is the sole basis of existence...i challenge anyone thinking that there is no purpose in the universe to wander aimlessly in the sahara desert or the ice poles...may be then he/she will find the purpose of purpose itself. :)

    No hard feelings for anyone...this is a free society!

    1. I do think about purpose that you can make it up yourself. Or we can all make it up collectively.

      As Bill Hicks said, We are the universe subjectively experiencing itself. Isn't that marvellous! :-) It can be up to us to choose the purpose.

      Mortgage, promotions, fucking big television... there's got to be to it than that. We can use our imagination, the purpose really is up to us.

  11. This man has questioned almost every answers that science offers for the events of the world, yet the only alternative answer he has offered is that 'he believes'. We must hold science to be wrong because this author believes so!!! Well buddy to science "I believe so" can never be an answer to anything, it has to prove the truth (and not disprove the falsehood as someone above has already pointed out). And thanks to this scientific attitude, we are what we are. or plague would still be taking care of our population problem. The fact that you know there is an entity called cancer is to the credit of science only, had it been to people like you cancer and all the other diseases of the world would still fall under only one diagnosis - the curse of god, with faith as only treatment. Its not science which is pessimistic but you are when you say by that science will never find the answers to the problems like cancer, when it has already done so much.

  12. That science has not found all the answers is used as an argument against it by the people who themselves have no answers to offer!! Science has answered a lot of questions and is trying to answer the rest and without a doubt it is our only key to understanding the universe. What are you trying to suggest instead? ....that there is no need to look for answers as faith has already answered everything?

  13. The last two posters clearly feel extremely threatened. I think that's a shame.

    For a start, they are misrepresenting the author quite severely, for example claiming that he says "he believes" and that this is reason for us to think that science is wrong.

    The author is doing a critique of science, saying that it has tried to make out that consciousness and free will don't exist, or don't matter, and that the universe is mechanical rather than holistic.

    I think the author has a reasonable case to make. He's not criticising the scientific method (formulate theories and test them experimentally). Rather, he is saying that the fallible human beings who have been practising science have a number of *prejudices* and that the science they have developed has, as a result of these prejudices, been imperfect, with the result that we have been led to believe that the universe is like cold, hard clay, or unfeeling clockwork, etc... that everything can be put in boxes, that we have no real consciousness or free will, and so on. Hopefully one day, science will show that the universe is actually a more marvellous place than that. You say the author claims on the basis of his belief. Actually the author gives a detailed critique, which I feel is wrong in several details but valid in terms of the general gist of what they are saying. Whereas you, ironically, are arguing based on your own belief, that your personal understanding of science is fact.

    1. Actually Studying science (biology Chemistry Psychology and Philosophy) I have not heard a single person say Consciousness does not exist, it is more something of at the moment consciousness is something that is incredibly hard to study and define and it is usually used to shoe horn in other beliefs that have no basis in reality (yet), I think the scientific communities 'denial' of consciousness is more accurately defined as, your made up beliefs about consciousness does not exist/are false.

    2. Nah, author isn't critiquing science. The author has invented an imaginary definition of science in his head and is critiquing his own imagination. This is no different than a creationist attacking a strawman theory of evolution that no self-respecting scientist believes in, then crying out 'you're all closed minded!'
      When you walk up to people and tell them what they believe, it's not 'closed minded' for them to say 'no, that's not actually what I believe', and moreso, you're criticizing something in your own head, not science. Author does not understand even basic science.
      Lastly, the opportunistic dualism here is straight out of bizarro world.

  14. There's a lot of people here following their indoctrination and deferring to authority who prefer not to think for themselves and feel extremely threatened when they see others thinking for themselves.

    Why not try questioning what you've learned? :-)

    1. Did you write this piece? I'm curious because you have shot down every person who has stood up in defense of science. If you did not write this piece, please be aware that this is a list article plugging the author's books. I'm all for free thinking but let's not give this guy a laurel crown just because he is trying to disprove popular opinion. He does need a concrete platform in order to preach whatever it is he's spewing, in other words he needs truth to combat the truth science "has". He is not really preaching anything new and he is making broad general statements against an established subject. Also, you kind of lose your credibility when you quote Bill Hicks as if he was preaching gospel himself. He was a great comedian and an even greater man, but something tells me he didn't want his audience to take his words as an ultimate truth.

    2. Nah. Science will get by just fine, as it's practical and useful. Even when self-important people think that by themselves they've come up with earth shaking criticisms that nobody over the past 2500 years has ever thought of before.

  15. PhD student in BiochemistryOctober 10, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    This is crap. Period. Plus delusional, mystical and subjectivist. Utter junk. :( I regret wasting my time reading it so I thought I'd make up for it by leaving a comment so that others might be spared.

    1. Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

  16. Worst article I have read in a long time. Full of conjecture and no facts.

  17. This is so ironic, attacking science for making assumptions when there is not basis for your own claims. Certainly some scientists believe in cold hard facts and seem to be so close minded and cannot think beyond that, but not all of them. This is terrible.