http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/

including why string theory is not a theory, just a theory that there might be a theory, yet has become a “religious” belief in current “science”, so you won’t get funding unless you agree with it etc.

https://awareness-based-clearing.com/2017/why-science-is-a-religion-and-spirituality-needs-experiencing

Some discussion points on the current polarization between science and spirituality, and how to transcend it . . .

This article is highly inaccurate.

Karl Popper did, indeed recognize that verifications do not decide the truth or falsity of a proposition. Popper refuted the
claim that there was a process of “inductive logic” occurring. Popper’s position was that “induction is not logic” because
pure induction can give you the wrong answer. We do, indeed, make inductive inferences, but these inferences yield testable
hypotheses, that are then sorted out through falsification. We need only a single counter example to disprove a proposition.

Popper was also rebelling against the claims that there is “no metaphysics in science” that came from the logical positivist camp.
Popper pointed out that there are metaphysical notions, such as “causality” that we cannot prove, but if they were not true would
be disproven immediately. The notions of objectifiability

This is particularly true of the simplest of such descriptions, which are “laws”. Such laws are codifications and simplifications of a large
enough suite of observations that we would be able to see where the law would fail, if real phenomena behaved differently.

Science gives us “theories” which are structures that organize and explain our laws, and generate testable (i.e. falsifiable) hypotheses.
A good theory carries us beyond what we already knew, into a world of new testable hypotheses an new phenomena.

The author apparently comes from the medical profession where the phenomena are weak and the financial incentives for selling drugs lead
to the hacking of statistical p-values.

As the author moves away from his area of expertise into particle physics, he fails to recognize that the physics community has a vastly higher
standard of statistical significance than those in his medical studies. Yes, we accept that quarks are real because the physics community published
peer reviewed results that can be studied by third parties. He would have us believe that we must take “spiritual theory” as being on the
same level. Yet, where are the “spiritual theories” that fit Karl Poppers’ criterion of falsifiablity? Nowhere to be found.

The author also incorrectly claims that “consciousness affects reality” and makes the bold (and patently false) statement that “accepted scientific theory”
supports this false claim. His discussion descends into the rabbit hole of Deepak Chopra-esque assertions which are all false, regarding the
effect of “consciousness” and the experimenter’s mental state in doing experiments. He even invokes Rupert Sheldrake’s bullshit “morphic
field” hypotheses. No, just because some things appear spooking in quantum mechanics does not give you a free pass to believe every bit of newage codswallup that
comes down the pike.

The author then gives as examples of the long ago discredited “Kirlian photography” which is all about electrical charges and the dampness of the surfaces
being photographed. http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html

He also mentions Lyall Watson, known for his “Supernature” which is the source of many old saws of pseudoscience.

Of course, Chris cannot help but end with the appeal to a “conspiracy theory” claiming that all of this stuff is suppressed. It’s not suppressed. It hasn’t become
mainstream because these items simply don’t work.

-John

Good point . . . when processing MF’s, in general one needs to disconnect from some less ideal ones, and also connect to more-ideal ones (such as ones which accept a wider range of options).

Yes, indeed.
Once getting interested in things beyond the horizon of the mf`s one is part of, one has to find a balance between what one still wants to be part of, what one wants to get into, and what one is able to change in said fields.

As an example what science once meant, and that was just research from the effect side, and what it is today.
Science was based on observing what is there to be seen, and that undenyably was that what was going on.
Not so today. Today big companies want to sell masses of what they can produce cheap for a price as high as possible. So you as a scientist have the job to find something which sells. And that is what you learn to find out when you get educated in university.

Just as in the example what the meaning of science was and now is, you will also find this in all other concepts like religion,spirituality,economy,intelligence, culture,technology, resources,etc, etc,etc.

It is possible to determine instantly what one is into, It is the lifestyle oneself and others have. The lifestyle REFLECTS IN the meanings a society has for said concepts and even what life, observation,love,etc is.