The Ten Dogmas Of Modern Science

Filed under: Articles, Books, News


  1. […] hier het hele bericht. Share this:FacebookTwitterE-mailVind ik leuk:LikeBe the first to like […]

  2. Dane says:

    Mr Sheldrake

    My own work has been dedicated to the physical basis of consciousness. “How can light stand still” is the “physics” question I pursued since 1974. My goal was to provide an objective explanation based on that concept. I can now do that.

    Scientific Objectivism has always been the problem for most people because they don’t realize where it came from.

    Essentially the proponents of “natural science” had a meeting with the Church authorities and got an agreement that they could do research so long as they left the “invisible” to the church. Western science was forbidden to treat the invisible as a topic of research so “Objectivism” was born.

    I put an article on my site addressing that point of view in 2002.

    …”An article by Travis Norsen, published June 2001 on the web by, titled Mathematics vs. Matter: The Philosophic Roots of the Rejection of Physical Causation in 20th Century Physics does a nice job describing the why and how of Science’s current philosophical quandary.”


  3. Les says:

    I have great knews for you my friend. These 2 scientist have a message for the world! They have restored my faith in science! Have a look at Bruce and Tom~

  4. Blair T. Longley says:


    I agreed with the comment made by Dane, above, about the history of how science originally made a sort of social contract with established religion.

    Thus, objectivism, and many of the other false fundamental dichotomy dogmas that our currently established “science” are based upon, tended to go to the wrong pole to assert a spurious unity.

    For example, when it became possible to make urea in a test tube, the false notion that therefore nothing was alive was advance, rather than the truer notion that everything is alive.

    Social control questions were mainly the issues behind why such dogmas existed!

    1. Sam says:

      Why are assumptions always made? You have just stated that dichotomy is the problem, and yet you have then claimed that everything is alive.
      You are weaving a net, to say that something is alive or that it is not alive is to miss the point. The definition of alive is abitrary.

  5. Leticia Valdez says:

    This conservative scientific belief is being exploited and fed by corporations and on their behalf by governments, educational institutions and of course, by the scientist as as an ‘ordinary’ human just like anyone else, rather than the person with the power to dismiss god.

    Our corporate world is governed by Mammon and its well dressed representatives. To Mammon, scientist are barely more than workers, rather than the great minds to shape our world, they believe to be. Scientific initiatives for the better of mankind are finally always manipulated to profit Mammon and its elite.

    I wish that ‘science’ will break its chains and open up to a more rewarding reality.

  6. Abbass says:

    I’ve been saying much the same as this for years. The word science is little more than a mantra to Atheism and many people who use it seem oblivious to the actual scientific process. I’ve always thought the observed reversed nature of Entropy was the best evidence for inteligent design. What is driving so many things away from the natural entropic effects towards more organisation and evolution?

  7. Beno Candelón says:

    I just want to compliment you on your insights and encourage you with your work. It is self-evident to me you are on to something huge. Cudos!

  8. Koen says:

    Wanted, dead or alive: the truth. There are multiple definitions of ‘alive’. The question is: is life also expressed in terms of something we don’t know yet? Something much more refined than atoms? Is empty space filled with aether, and can aether also express complexity and life? That’s the question. Btw, official relativity theory is WRONG (study Dayton Miller), and so is the non-determinism of QM. Something very refined, we are not supposed to understand by officialdom.

  9. dfnj says:

    Reality is always much stranger than anything we can ever imagine. Our big bang may be the result of a star collapsing to black hole in another dimension. All thought, all understanding, is bounded by the limitations of language. God is just a word. Time is just a word. God and time are words that only exist in our use of language. All objectivity is subjectivity determined. There are no objects. There are no words. Everything is connected to everything else. All of existence is one giant wave of energy with a frequency of one in relationship to nothing.

    No one ever dies because no one is actually alive. Death is a delusion because it is a delusion to think you are “alive”. We are not who we think we are. No one person invents or owns having sex. No one person invents or owns having a sense of humor. Each of us is part of something larger. Everything that makes us human does not die with us. All that makes us human survives in other people after we die. Our human spirit is eternal and lives on in the others that follow. Our sense of appreciation in fine things lives on in others. Our spirit of love, caring, and reverence lives on in other people.

    What matters in a multiverse reality comes down to a choice. We either choose that our life is sacred and meaningful. Or we choose our life, and everyone else’s, is mundane and meaningless. Try to imagine a World where each person in it is treated like a priceless piece of fine art. Our imagination is our most powerful magic.

  10. Wayne Pacific says:

    I can’t imagine a universe that has a physical end to it, or a beginning or end time. This expansion which people seem to have evidence for, is probably just in our part of the universe. It may be collapsing elsewhere.
    I sense that the universe is infinite and has always existed. What else could it be? Relax enjoy it.

    By the way, if it is infinite, then there is no center, except each of us is the center of our own universe.

  11. Serge says:

    “Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century, when science and technology seem to be at the peak of their power, when their influence has spread all over the world and when their triumph seems indisputable, unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within.”

    The triumph is in the eye of the beholder. If you’d read the popular press of the 1920’s, you would see a very different set of expectations. Flying cars, man on other planets, life lasting for hundreds of years. Practical stuff. Fast forward to 2012.

    What do you see in 2012? Mind boggling questions: are wormholes leaking energy? Is our Universe one of many? Is there dark matter (which by the way is very similar philosophically to the concept of aether from the 19th century)? How to explain consciousness?

    The difference between 1920’s and 2012 is simple: the science, as it is, has peaked. It has now reached the level of decadence, where real practical questions are not even asked at all. The self-congratulatory atmosphere trumps any real questioning of the basics. Why question the basics when they are proven beyond the shadow of the doubt?

  12. baglady says:

    God had to die so that the scientific dictatorship a la Huxley and Bertrand Russell could come in. That’s what we are under now.

  13. Steve says:


    Exactly! I could not have said it better myself.

  14. Sergey says:

    “They argue that minds cannot be reduced to physics because physics presupposes the minds of physicists.” – I would have written: the minds of physicists determine physics. In the sense that reality is as we are ready and willing to see. Yes, the man builds a matrix.
    Due to stupidity of humans basic science – is in crisis. It stuck. But that is what will lead to the revolution.

  15. admin says:

    I prefer evolution 😉 Revolution is nothing but rotation around a motionless circle, this is why after all revolutions the things sooner or later return to the same 😉

  16. Sam says:

    Only the effects of “objects” can be witnessed ( If you disagree, try to imagine an object that has no effects, and tell me how you could test for its existence ). So how could an experiment prove the existence of an object without an assumption? The assumption being that xyz effect would only be manifest if-and-only-if abc object exists.

    But clearly the definition of exist is arbitrary since no one has ever seen an existent thing. I’m not really sure what it means