Scientists, Skeptics, and Religious Fundamentalists - Is There Any Difference? - 11/1/05

Harvard Scientist "Researches" Alien Abductions

I was listening to part of a radio show yesterday. It was Dr. Dan Gottlieb's excellent Voices in the Family show on Philadelphia's WHYY 91 FM. His show topic was a bit unusual for him, but then, it was Halloween. He was having people talk about both sides of the alien abduction equation. I only heard the part where a Harvard scientist was talking about how there has never been any evidence, not one iota, that aliens exist or that alien abductions are happening. I didn't get a chance to hear the next guest, who apparently held a different viewpoint.

I loved the crazy scientist chick who asserted that alien abductions have never, ever happened. Like the worst, most clichéd scientist type, her arrogance preceded her into the room, it was so oversized. Clearly, there was nothing that she didn't know, and she needn't be bothered with viewpoints, experiences, or research which contradicted hers. As many scientists in the mainstream unfortunately do, she simply disregarded any data which refuted her hypothesis when she wrote her latest book "disproving" alien abduction.

That research technique certainly makes things a lot easier, doesn't it? Simply ignore anything that might contradict your working theory and then claim "I am a scientist!" whenever anyone tries to point out how incredibly biased and ignorant your alleged "research" actually is. It was pretty hilarious.

Religious Fanatics and Scientists

I was reminded of the religious right in this country. Fundamentalists are taught the "one percent" rule. Perhaps you are already familiar with it. Basically, it goes like this. Fundamentalist religion teaches people to disregard 99 percent of knowledge and concentrate only on the "important" one percent. So this means they don't have to learn about anything that is outside that narrow view, which in many cases will involve strict literal Bible interpretation. Although this view can also be maintained without the Bible being the center of someone's life. You can still follow this same one percent principle and adopt this "ostrich burying its head in the sand" approach to any religion, or any belief, for that matter. But it's usually a form of artificially imposed ignorance that people assume in their efforts to be a good, compliant religious person.

This is also what today's mainstream scientists are often doing. They follow the one percent rule, then they claim that they are somehow this unbiased arbiter of truth, which is completely bogus. We're conditioned to hold scientists up as these voices of rationality and bearers of ultimate intelligence. If scientists tell us something isn't real, then it mustn't be. Or if, as in the case of this particular woman, a scientist insists in a bullying and arrogant way that nothing beyond her currently held view exists or has legitimacy, then, well, we should all just sit back and remain silent, not questioning this astonishingly ignorant assertion, because, Gee, she works at Harvard.

I don't think so.

I would have loved to have heard the second half of the show when the person with the alternate view was coming on to talk about the scientific evidence that has been amassed which suggests alien abductions are real. There is so MUCH of it. And there is NO WAY that that Harvard researcher, even if she were the recipient of a billion dollars in research grants and had 50 years to perform extensive research, could successfully disprove the legitimacy of all of the evidence that has been accumulated all over the world. Such a thing is beyond the scope of one person. And yet, she honestly expected people to believe her.

It must be so relaxing to be a Harvard scientist. Apparently, all you do is teach students once in a while and sit around and write the occasional book on a topic you are already completely biased about. And writing the book is really easy because you just conveniently ignore, edit, or attack any evidence which threatens the foundation of your theory.

Living in the One Percent World

It must be a nice life, to live in a one percent world and disregard the 99% that's out there. I don't know about you, but most people I know live in a complex, highly-nuanced world, where paradox is real, and what is "proven" one day is "disproved" the next because there is so much conflicting evidence out there. So most folks are left on their own to navigate through the maze and maintain a skeptical, discerning view until something emerges as real and legitimate to their ever-evolving view of reality.

The true definition of a skeptic, you know, isn't someone who disbelieves in anything. The word “skeptic” comes from the Greek “skeptikos.” Early Greeks like Pyrrho of Elis and the great philosopher Sophocles defined a skeptic as a thoughtful person, one who is yet undecided as to what is true, an inquirer after facts or reasons.

You can be a skeptic and a mystic. I've always been both. Mystics are on a quest to find the ultimate answers to life, the universe, and everything. They don’t necessarily adhere to the dogma of a particular religious faith. Many of them bring a spirit of inquiry and an insatiable curiosity to mystical exploration.

It’s important to maintain a skeptical attitude while examining the amazing things that can happen to you when you follow a mystical path. Otherwise, you can fall into any number of traps, including adopting delusional belief systems, joining a cult, or becoming enslaved to a guru who may or may not have your best interests at heart.

The True Definition of Being a Skeptic

Pyrhho of Elis lived around 275 BC, and he is widely credited with “founding” skepticism as a school of thought. In its early form, the philosophy of the skeptics involved suspending judgment about a particular subject once they decided to explore it. This allowed them to begin a process of examination which involved establishing consistency of appearances (comparing several items to each other.) Then the skeptics would measure the subject against truths that had already been established from past experience, carefully basing their conclusions on these cross-comparisons. But the key take off point before the skeptics would study any subject was suspending any personal opinion to attain a clear, unbiased view.

Unfortunately, today’s definition of a skeptic has come to mean someone who has an antagonistic view toward people, practices, or schools of thought that simply displease him. A lot of skeptics like to say, “I don’t believe in anything unless it’s been proven through scientific research.” “Great!” I respond. “Go look at the body of research that various universities, laboratories, and military teams have already gathered.” There is so much of it, and it's inconceivable to me how silly fools like this "serious researcher" from Harvard could ignore it all and then expect others to swallow her hogwash. She was like a bossy seventh grader used to getting her own way, a complete know-it-all type, who nevertheless proves her ignorance through the very manner in which she speaks. She was, shall we say, a piece of work!

Real Scientists Are Open-Minded

I've known many scientists who weren't arrogant and ignorant like this Harvard woman. I was privileged to be given a tour of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Lab some years ago when I lived in Princeton and wanted to learn more about their extensive years of research into psychokinesis (affecting objects with the mind) and remote viewing. The guys there were so sweet and so tuned in. They had a genuine spirit of passion and inquiry about what they were doing, yet they still followed the scientific method and prefaced everything with "We don't know for sure." These are the types of researchers who advance humanity's body of knowledge, not set it in reverse.

Biased, arrogant, and sloppy researchers like this woman from Harvard don't even deserve to be on the radio. We need to be hearing from legitimate voices within the scientific community who have bothered to spend some time learning about the subjects they are supposed to be studying. This woman was cheating on the test, and she failed.

She could have saved face and presented herself as a more legitimate researcher if she had spent two minutes summarizing some of the anomalous evidence that has been gathered which would suggest that alien abductions might be real. Then she could have gone on to refute that evidence, if she wished. But she was a fundamentalist masquerading as a scientist, as so many of the more vocal and public science types are.

The important thing for YOU to realize is that there are thousands of scientists working quietly in the background researching metaphysics, mysticism, spirituality and prayer, and even alien abductions, and their work is often marginalized and hidden away. But the work is happening. Some of it will get coopted by the government, as happened at Princeton. That is a little scary, I'll tell you. The government was sniffing around after me once I paid my little visit to Princeton's Engineering lab and talked about my work as a psychic. But in the end, even those dark forces can't hijack the accumulated wisdom of so many individuals working hard to bring forward information that is essential to our growth as spiritual beings and our evolution as self-aware creatures.

It will happen. It is happening.

So I find it's best to just giggle at characters like this Harvard woman. She was like a badly-written character in a movie, unbelievable, and poorly acted. Real researchers aren't predictable cardboard cutouts shouting the same nonsense over and over again. "Pay no attention to inconvenient evidence that contradicts your working theory! Ignore it!" That was her viewpoint.

Whatever happened to the scientific method, hon? Remember that one? You might have learned about it, oh, in sixth grade biology class. Remember? Don't base your research on pre-drawn conclusions, working only to prove that presumption. If evidence arises to the contrary, you need to take that into account.

But then, there's always the paper shredder, isn't it? It's so much easier to toss out anything that contradicts your point of view. It makes for a much tidier desktop.

Some of us prefer our desks untidy, multi-layered and complex. After all, life is untidy, multi-layered and complex.

And I know I wouldn't have it any other way.