Why Are Mainstream Scientists Afraid Of Fringe Ideas?

[Rilles]

Hes a kook! This is pseudo-babbling nonsense. Not surprising from a guy reading Deepak Chopra, completely irrational, youre not connected to reality!

 

A smorgasbord of things that most ”mainstream” scientists say when they hear of new fringe ideas. But why? Whats so ”stupid” about new ideas? and why always the ad hominems?

Edited October 31, 2018 by Rilles

[SgtPepper]

because it pulls the ground that they've been building their whole lives, right from underneath them. 

Also mostly because a lot of this spiritual stuff can only be proven subjectively, it is difficult to find a measuring tool that can point to consciousness since everything is made of consciousness including the tool, also lack of resources devoted to scientifically proving these phenomenons.

They just mad.

[Rilles]

28 minutes ago, SgtPepper said:

because it pulls the ground that they've been building their whole lives, right from underneath them. 

Also mostly because a lot of this spiritual stuff can only be proven subjectively, it is difficult to find a measuring tool that can point to consciousness since everything is made of consciousness including the tool, also lack of resources devoted to scientifically proving these phenomenons.

They just mad.

So its just fear, Ive accepted that there are things that we havent disovered yet or understood fully but my ground has not collapsed. Maybe it will though, in the future, but isnt collapsing reality-ideas the whole purpose of doing science? throughout history our revolutions have always been the ones that turn our worlds upside down. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Rilles

[Rilles]

This is where I think mainstream science goes awry, being so openminded that your reality starts melting... thats where the real discoveries lie. 

[Rilles]

3 minutes ago, Outer said:

They aren't.

Okay. 

[aurum]

@Rilles

Many reasons.

Some may be honestly open minded and searching for truth, but they just haven’t yet had any sort of spiritual experience. 

Others are too invested in their current belief system because it practically supports them. If you’re a famous scientist with a successful career, you’re probably not looking to burn that to the ground. Which is possible for political reasons.

It’s easier for us to say that scientists should just be open minded, but we were blessed to grow up in the age of the internet. I’d argue the internet, and social media in particular, has been the biggest catalyst for the mass awakening going on right now.

[SgtPepper]

49 minutes ago, Rilles said:

So its just fear, Ive accepted that there are things that we havent disovered yet or understood fully but my ground has not collapsed. Maybe it will though, in the future, but isnt collapsing reality-ideas the whole purpose of doing science? throughout history our revolutions have always been the ones that turn our worlds upside down. 

Definitely. I love science and am going into the science/research field myself.

The reason new scientific ideas will produce "groundbreaking" experience is because people rely on their ideas/beliefs/paradigms construct how they see reality. So when someone new comes in, the ground breaks a bit because new ideas now need to be merged into previously held ideas that have not been disproven so far.

but psychedelics or deep meditative states with high alert and awareness can make all Ideas about the world are straight up laughable when acknowledging how truly mysterious, complex, and deep the world is, leaving you in complete silence. 

[Leo Gura]

The strength and weakness of science is that it's conservative. For science to be able to claim a monopoly on the "truth" is must create a boundary between itself and falsehood. Then this boundary must be maintained by upholding rigorous standards for "proof". This is its strength and weakness. It's precisely because science tries to be so rigorous that it ends up excluding all truths which science hasn't yet figured out how to rigorously prove.

Proof is always a smaller subset of truth, as Kurt Godel proved! There are many thinga which are true which are impossible to prove. Like existence, for example! Try to prove that the world exists. You can't!

This is basically the same problem as with anti-virus software. In trying so hard to defend your PC it ends up denying many legit software and websites from working.

The irony is that a poorly tuned anti-virus software ends up becoming the worst software on your PC.

A prime example of how evil and deception happens in the name of good.

[Rilles]

The irony is you cant monopolize truth because you cant know everything that is going in the universe. What if some extraterrestrial species have already figured out how to use telepathy and levitation, then science will have to take back all its derision. It just makes me kind of sad, there are alot of science books I want to read but I have to do alot of research on the authors first since I dont know their level of dogma/openmindedness and I dont want to waste my time. 

[Hellspeed]

The Fear is to disclose the truth so they conceptualized it. Because the system does not want you yo know, with the excuse that reality only works in a certain manner. 

[Forestluv]

@Rilles To a logical scientist, both pre-rational and post-rational ideas will appear as irrational.

[Arthur]

20 hours ago, Rilles said:

Why Are Scientists Afraid Of Fringe Ideas?

 

Well, not all of them