The End of the Scientific Method
The Scientific Method has been the gold standard for research for over a hundred years. The idea is to carefully design your experiment to eliminate as many variables as possible. Then when you make changes in the things you know; you can end up with predictable and repeatable results.
This system works amazingly well for all sorts of grade school and high school experiments. It even works pretty well with many cooking recipes. But as the experiments become more complicated, even the scientists had to modify their methods in order to verify their research.
What they learned to do early on was repeat the same experiment over and over and then discard the results that didn’t fit with the others. They could claim the discarded data was corrupted, was recorded improperly or any number of other things. But in the meantime, they could still claim they adhered to the Scientific Method and their results are reliable.
Too Many Unknowns….
In more complex experiments there are more variables and more unknowns, so it becomes a challenge to decide which data to discard. The scientist decides what data to throw away based upon his experience and his preconceptions. So, the experiment can turn into nothing more than a validation of the scientist’s prejudices and expectations.
When Maxwell developed his equations that explain electricity; they were too complex to be solved by the mathematics of the day, so Dr. Oliver Heaviside (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside ) edited the equations and discarded all the data that he felt was superfluous. His editing removed all the scalar components of western electrical theory and by doing so suppressed research into this critically important area for over 100 years.
In Soviet and Russian schools, they teach the unedited versions of Maxwell’s equations and have for over 50 years. Consequently, when we wish to learn more about scalar energy and effects, we have to study the Russian work, because Western theories are out of date and inadequate.
This is one example of where editing data that doesn’t fit interferes with progress. There are many others…..
Real World vs. Laboratory
The Scientific Method falls apart in real world applications, complex situations and in areas with very subtle effects. That is when society tells us that some work is more art than science. People with experience make the best wines, not by the ones with the most scientific expertise. There is an art to making fine wine. The best cheese is made the same way. Even something as relatively simple as growing healthy and nutritious food, is best done by people who have experience in it, as opposed to those that are educated about it.
The food prepared at the chain restaurants has had the recipes carefully tested and refined over and over again. Each detail is spelled out so that the food is always the same. Where they succeed in consistency they fail in quality. The food nearly always achieves the same minimum standard, but never surpasses it.
Science produces consistent meritocracy.
Over and over again we see people that know all ABOUT something, but don’t know anything. I don’t care how many books you read on a certain subject until you actually do it, all you have is knowledge about how it done.
Western farming has moved to a commodity model. The commodity model uses the Scientific Method to treat production like a factory. Inputs and animal feeds are carefully designed and tested, and the resulting commodity meets the same minimum standard.
Family farms and dairies in the United States are vanishing and the owners are confused as to why. The answer is deceptively simple. People buy and enjoy food. People that grow food have plenty of customers. However; growers that produce commodities sell to corporations. A commodity is not the same as food.
The Scientific Model tells us that is we do the same thing in the same way we will get the same results. When you are looking for mediocre but repeatable results, this method excels. But when you are looking for outstanding and extraordinary, then you are looking for where there is more artistry than science. You are looking for someone that KNOWS how to do something as opposed to someone that knows about.
Knowing About vs. Knowing
The recent college graduate knows about his chosen field. The veteran in that area, KNOWS it. Who would you rather have as your surgeon; the man who KNOWS or the one that knows about?
The idea of some work being an art, is a simple dodge to cover for the fact that there are simply too many variables and unknowns. It means it takes experience to weigh all the data. The fact is, we have outgrown the Scientific Model. It was a great tool for many years but is completely inadequate for what we need today.
When quantum physicists at the Weizmann Institute (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm) discovered the observer is part of the experiment and the expectations of the observer affect the results, the entire premise for the scientific method went out the window for everything but the simplest of experiments.
Weizmann Killed the Scientific Method
When the thoughts of the participants become part of the experiment, there is no longer any way to hold that variable constant. The expectations of the observers are part of the results, that means the results no longer fit into the outdated Scientific Model.
When it comes to scientific testing in general and subtle energy work in particular, the Scientific Model is dead. Lab results are flawed leaving only experiential results. That means the anecdotal results that so-called scientists have tossed aside as irrelevant become the only real way to evaluate experiments.
In the future, the real progress in science will necessarily have to be done in the field with real life situations and real life people.
Your radionic work doesn’t fit the old model of the Scientific Method. You build your results on your intentions. So if some so-called scientist decides our work is fake science and his is the real stuff, he just showed you his ignorance.
The Science is Old
Over 100 years ago Einstein taught us that light and mass and energy are all but the same. Eighty years ago we learned that light can be both a wave and particle and 20 years ago we found out that the thoughts of the experimenter affect the results of the experiment. If anyone, especially a so-called scientist hasn’t wrestled with those discoveries, then it is he who is practicing fake-science.
When the experimenter is culling his data of the information that doesn’t fit his theories, he is practicing fake-science.
I have never met anyone in the radionics industry that has pretended to understand everything about our work. But our results speak for themselves. Year after year we coincidental results in soils and crops where weeds and insects are suppressed. We see herds and flocks of animals that all experience the mysterious placebo effect and miraculously recover their health. How ridiculous does that sound?
Laboratory trials? Who Cares?
Do I have laboratory trials of treatment and control? No, I have some field trials and decades of anecdotal evidence. But since radionics is not a sponsored science here in the United States, the practitioners I know don’t have the time or patience to prove to anyone but their clients that our technology works.
When we have results (data) that doesn’t fit our preconceptions, we cannot discard it, we have to stop and understand why and then make corrections. The farmer with the aphid problem in his soybean field doesn’t care if Iowa State University understands and approves of radionic control of the pest. He just requires the problem be solved.
That is the difference between the academic and the practitioner. The academic has the luxury of pontificating all about some subject or another, the practitioner does not.
Believe What You See
Last week I had an individual tell me about my fake science. What got to me more than anything else, is he has seen my results and lived with the benefits of them, but his scientific superstitions wouldn’t let him believe what he saw with his own eyes.
Dr. Dan Skow taught us to ‘see what we are looking at’. Don’t let what you think you know interfere with what you know you see. Anyone that has used their instrument for more than a week, you have seen their own radionic miracle. If you accept what you see, your work will continue to become more effective. But if you deny it, then you might as sell your instrument now to someone gullible enough to believe what his eyes show him.