Why grope in the fog at the edges of science when there is so much that is clear and solid that I haven't learned? The odds are against learning that something I've believed a long time is wrong, but it's a sure thing that my knowledge of conventional science is deeper and more solid if I challenge it from all angles.
Earlier this century, I assisted a friend in debunking NASA's claim to have landed men on the moon. As a return favor, he mentioned heliocentrism, which I had presumed to have been the hardest of empirical science.
I then purchased a copy of "Galileo Was Wrong and so was Einstein", finding it an intriguing view into the history and philosophy of science. I respect enough the work of Eratosthenes and others not to be a flat earther, but this is a different matter.
I'm not a Roman Catholic -- the above mentioned book is no longer available, so I won't recommend it. It's a three volume set, of which I possess only the first two; the latter and presumably the third are largely Roman apologetic, and presumably of little interest to either of us.
But the first volume is based largely on the testimony of astronomers and physicists, almost none of whom profess any religious affiliation. There are occasional references to the Roman prelates of Galilio's time, but there is included an almost equal amount of "popery" from the likes of Carl Sagan.
I appreciate your examination of homeopathy and of the thesis of "Virusmania". I'm attracted to alternative medicine, but had long presumed homeopathy to have been pure quackery -- until a couple of years ago. But I had also presumed water to possess the same characteristics both within and without a cell membrane. Of course, having been freed from hospital work, thanks to the mandates, there has been plenty of time to look into the work of Cowan, Humphries/Bystrianyk and others.
While I'm a wealth of ignorance in many fields of scientific endeavor, it's occasionally quite a pleasure to witness the destruction of one or another familiar idol. Of course, one can't just go bragging about such things at the corner bar.
Since you're asking for recommendations, check out Tom Campbell and his quantum physics experiments designed to test his claim that consciousness is fundamental and the physical universe is actually a virtual reality. The experiments are funded and are now being prepped. Details at CUSAC.ORG. This could turn out to be the most important development since the original double-slit experiments.
This looks like a fascinating list and I can’t wait for your analysis of these many topics! I also have a strong hobby interest in alternative science. Eric Dollard is well worth a look and James DeMeo (expert in Reich) too. I’ve Arp’s red shift book on the bookshelf so interested in what you have to say.
Could Nicolai Tesla's stolen research on energy be used to save the planet with a new and powerful energy source rather than weaponizing it, supposing the above is true?
If everybody knew what a virus was, a tiny dead particle with zero agency, then nobody would believe that they could be pathogenic. And everyone would drive Geert Van Den Bossche to the stocks as well. If everyone knew the history of germs (as they were mostly previously called) and viruses (as they have been latterly called) then it would be pitchfork time.
As you’re a skeptic I guess the above makes me mainstream. But you could have fooled me.
Your statement suggests that you are so sure of yourself Josh. Nothing that I say can change your mind by the looks of it.
But first you would have to prove that there were 100s of millions of Native Americans. But that number looks to be farcical as with that many in the Americas on the landing of Columbus the settlers from Europe (who themselves were far, far fewer than ‘hundreds of millions’) would have been absorbed or killed on arrival. Today’s America would be Native American still (one also needs to allow for the possibility that everything about American’s history is a complete lie).
So far fewer than ‘hundreds of millions’ and therefore I wonder how many did die? As I understand it (without considering it all a lie) then the North Americans before the arrival of Europeans were not farmers. So they were scattered, did not have a standing army and were ill able to resist the immigration from Europe. How many died and how did they die? First they would have died by bullet then by being pushed off their land as farmers came in. The numbers? I have no idea, I’m not North American and have not studied it but ‘hundreds of millions’ sounds like an exaggeration.
Also how is it happening now? 10s of millions of soldiers are coming across the border. Who is paying them?
I’m sure now you will repeat the lie but with sources so go ahead.
I appreciate your mention of Wilhelm Reich; I have occasionally referred to him as the original "tin foil hat" -- maybe you've read him more recently and thoroughly; is my assertion even close?
Cowan, Baily, et al are an interesting bunch. The "Virus Mania" series is worth watching; the book "Vanishing Illusions" is even better -- it's a fascinating tour through the history of microbes. Cowan's presentations are marred by his careless articulation of concepts, as if he were arguing downhill from an endowed university chair.
I'm glad you mentioned Dane Wiggington. And the book "Angels Don't Play this HAARP" by Nick Begich is a masterpiece of presentation of atmospheric, or astrophysics for a lay audience -- I, for one, know nothing of physics.
"Galileo Was Wrong", volume one, by Robert A. Sungenis and Robert J. Bennett is, like "Vanishing Illusions", a wonderful tour through the history and philosophy of cosmology -- the Copernicus/Brahe/Michelson/Einstein tour. But I can't recommend the book, largely because it's not readily available for sale or loan.
Of course, "Vanishing Illusions" and "Galileo Was Wrong" are wonderful tours through two entirely different wings in the Halls of Science -- apologies for mushy writing.
I'm curious whether you would be interested in the following kind of skepticism, which for now I'll briefly summarize with this claim:
The “more is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous. Put another way, we are trying to navigate the 21st century using a 19th century knowledge philosophy.
I first heard the term "information pollution" from a classmate at Harvard, a biology major who had the realization long before I did that it might be too much of a good thing. There are many levels on which this can be discussed. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_pollution addresses only spam and false advertising. This is too narrow. On another level, you might well argue that Big Data is seducing today's scientists to ask a certain kind of question that can be answered through data mining. Data mining is a great way to identify small, unexpected correlations, but it is unlikely to give you new insights about the big picture. On a higher level yet, you might ask whether understanding itself is overrated, and the kind of response to the world that the Daoists tell us comes from an intuitive affinity with nature might be a better way to live than analysis based on understanding.
My concern is that human beings can't successfully manage ever more, ever larger powers, delivered at an ever accelerating rate.
A 19th century knowledge philosophy assumes that more knowledge is always better. That made sense in the long era of knowledge scarcity. But we no longer live in that era.
If any of this is of interest, this article goes in to more detail.
This isn't science skepticism so much, as the scientific method obviously works. It's a kind of skepticism that is more about our relationship with science.
Yes, this is a deep question with strong arguments on both sides. Would we be better off if we didn't know how to build H-bombs? If we didn't know how to make bioweapons? The answer seems clear. OTOH, it's hard to stop people from doing experiments and even harder to stop people from thinking. So are we better off if SOME people have access to powerful technology and others don't? Here, the answer seems equally clear.
My guess is that there are already people on the planet who have access to advanced technologies, certainly cold fusion energy, certainly weather modification and directed energy weapons, possibly anti-gravity, possibly faster-than-light travel, possibly ways to harness mental energy for physical results. People are being bribed and others are being murdered to keep these technologies out of the public sphere.
The genie is out of the bottle. Is it better to keep this forbidden knowledge in as few hands as possible to avoid wild-eyed terrorists from blowing up whole cities? Or is it better to democratize the technologies, create widespread abundance and social cohesion, a sense of belonging that dissuades people from using powerful technologies for destructive ends?
Secrets leak. Sooner or later, we'll have to rely on the latter approach, IMO.
Great list! I'll be interested in them all. Two things that came to mind that could be part of your investigations are: 1) Michael Crichton's non-fiction book, Travels. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7665.Travels; and 2) Rupert Sheldrake's theory of 'morphic resonance'. Can't wait to follow where your investigations take you. Thank you for your substack!
I'm familiar with Sheldrake. I think of Morphic Resonance as a framework for understanding rather than a theory, since it's not specific enough to make quantitative predictions. I'm intrigued with the idea that the "laws" of physics may be different in different times and places. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/the-zeroth-law-of-science
I don't know the book Travels. What did you get from it?
I highly recommend Crichton's "Travels". Starts off with his medical studies at Harvard and some bizarre cases he encounters and when he gets to California he gets interested in parapsychology, mediums, seeing auras, past life regressions, alternative medicine, etc. He comes at it initially with a skeptical eye but gradually becomes more and more convinced that there's a lot more out there than what science can explain. Plus some great travel writing from his adventures in the Himalayas and SE Asia, scuba diving in the Pacific and Caribbean. One of those books you hate to finish.
Similar to Feynman's, “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character, Crichton is an explorer, looking for answers & not stymied by what he should be thinking or believing.
I see the same sort of questing mind at work in your substack. I am looking forward to finding out what you discover in the same way that I would look forward to a substack by Crichton or Feynman. In my experience, there are not a lot of people doing what you guys do.
This is a big article with some ideas that are new to me. I'll add it to my list. In the meantime, if you would write a paragraph or two summarizing what you find compelling, it would help to orient me (and others reading this page).
In short, DNA uses a special language to encode amino acids. 4 different 'letters' (ACTG) are used to build 3-letters 'words' - codons. Ribosomes map codons to specific amino acids when they build proteins.
The author argues that the way 3-letter codons map to specific amino acids could have been completely arbitrary and it was not optimized by evolution. At the same time the language/schema has a very low entropy that could not have occurred by chance.
If true, it pretty much falsifies stochastic abiogenesis and puts more weight into alternative ideas such as intelligent design, panspermia, etc. The author does not go deep into that.
Why grope in the fog at the edges of science when there is so much that is clear and solid that I haven't learned? The odds are against learning that something I've believed a long time is wrong, but it's a sure thing that my knowledge of conventional science is deeper and more solid if I challenge it from all angles.
Earlier this century, I assisted a friend in debunking NASA's claim to have landed men on the moon. As a return favor, he mentioned heliocentrism, which I had presumed to have been the hardest of empirical science.
I then purchased a copy of "Galileo Was Wrong and so was Einstein", finding it an intriguing view into the history and philosophy of science. I respect enough the work of Eratosthenes and others not to be a flat earther, but this is a different matter.
I'm not a Roman Catholic -- the above mentioned book is no longer available, so I won't recommend it. It's a three volume set, of which I possess only the first two; the latter and presumably the third are largely Roman apologetic, and presumably of little interest to either of us.
But the first volume is based largely on the testimony of astronomers and physicists, almost none of whom profess any religious affiliation. There are occasional references to the Roman prelates of Galilio's time, but there is included an almost equal amount of "popery" from the likes of Carl Sagan.
I appreciate your examination of homeopathy and of the thesis of "Virusmania". I'm attracted to alternative medicine, but had long presumed homeopathy to have been pure quackery -- until a couple of years ago. But I had also presumed water to possess the same characteristics both within and without a cell membrane. Of course, having been freed from hospital work, thanks to the mandates, there has been plenty of time to look into the work of Cowan, Humphries/Bystrianyk and others.
While I'm a wealth of ignorance in many fields of scientific endeavor, it's occasionally quite a pleasure to witness the destruction of one or another familiar idol. Of course, one can't just go bragging about such things at the corner bar.
Since you're asking for recommendations, check out Tom Campbell and his quantum physics experiments designed to test his claim that consciousness is fundamental and the physical universe is actually a virtual reality. The experiments are funded and are now being prepped. Details at CUSAC.ORG. This could turn out to be the most important development since the original double-slit experiments.
I think the proposition that we live in a simulation is a non-starter, for reasons I wrote about in April. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/proof-we-are-not-living-in-a-simulation
This looks like a fascinating list and I can’t wait for your analysis of these many topics! I also have a strong hobby interest in alternative science. Eric Dollard is well worth a look and James DeMeo (expert in Reich) too. I’ve Arp’s red shift book on the bookshelf so interested in what you have to say.
NICOLE SHANAHAN- TRUTH TO POWER ABOUT G5
https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1870913063580287169?mx=2
What in the world is to be down about what she says?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339829118_The_different_sources_of_electromagnetic_fields_Dangers_are_not_limited_to_physical_health
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375631887_Natural_Disasters_are_Not_All_Natural
Could Nicolai Tesla's stolen research on energy be used to save the planet with a new and powerful energy source rather than weaponizing it, supposing the above is true?
If everybody knew what a virus was, a tiny dead particle with zero agency, then nobody would believe that they could be pathogenic. And everyone would drive Geert Van Den Bossche to the stocks as well. If everyone knew the history of germs (as they were mostly previously called) and viruses (as they have been latterly called) then it would be pitchfork time.
As you’re a skeptic I guess the above makes me mainstream. But you could have fooled me.
Richard, in your view of disease, how do you account for the deaths of hundreds of millions of Native Americans without acknowledging viruses?
Your statement suggests that you are so sure of yourself Josh. Nothing that I say can change your mind by the looks of it.
But first you would have to prove that there were 100s of millions of Native Americans. But that number looks to be farcical as with that many in the Americas on the landing of Columbus the settlers from Europe (who themselves were far, far fewer than ‘hundreds of millions’) would have been absorbed or killed on arrival. Today’s America would be Native American still (one also needs to allow for the possibility that everything about American’s history is a complete lie).
So far fewer than ‘hundreds of millions’ and therefore I wonder how many did die? As I understand it (without considering it all a lie) then the North Americans before the arrival of Europeans were not farmers. So they were scattered, did not have a standing army and were ill able to resist the immigration from Europe. How many died and how did they die? First they would have died by bullet then by being pushed off their land as farmers came in. The numbers? I have no idea, I’m not North American and have not studied it but ‘hundreds of millions’ sounds like an exaggeration.
Also how is it happening now? 10s of millions of soldiers are coming across the border. Who is paying them?
I’m sure now you will repeat the lie but with sources so go ahead.
I appreciate your mention of Wilhelm Reich; I have occasionally referred to him as the original "tin foil hat" -- maybe you've read him more recently and thoroughly; is my assertion even close?
Cowan, Baily, et al are an interesting bunch. The "Virus Mania" series is worth watching; the book "Vanishing Illusions" is even better -- it's a fascinating tour through the history of microbes. Cowan's presentations are marred by his careless articulation of concepts, as if he were arguing downhill from an endowed university chair.
I'm glad you mentioned Dane Wiggington. And the book "Angels Don't Play this HAARP" by Nick Begich is a masterpiece of presentation of atmospheric, or astrophysics for a lay audience -- I, for one, know nothing of physics.
"Galileo Was Wrong", volume one, by Robert A. Sungenis and Robert J. Bennett is, like "Vanishing Illusions", a wonderful tour through the history and philosophy of cosmology -- the Copernicus/Brahe/Michelson/Einstein tour. But I can't recommend the book, largely because it's not readily available for sale or loan.
Of course, "Vanishing Illusions" and "Galileo Was Wrong" are wonderful tours through two entirely different wings in the Halls of Science -- apologies for mushy writing.
Interesting blog, just subscribed.
I'm curious whether you would be interested in the following kind of skepticism, which for now I'll briefly summarize with this claim:
The “more is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous. Put another way, we are trying to navigate the 21st century using a 19th century knowledge philosophy.
I first heard the term "information pollution" from a classmate at Harvard, a biology major who had the realization long before I did that it might be too much of a good thing. There are many levels on which this can be discussed. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_pollution addresses only spam and false advertising. This is too narrow. On another level, you might well argue that Big Data is seducing today's scientists to ask a certain kind of question that can be answered through data mining. Data mining is a great way to identify small, unexpected correlations, but it is unlikely to give you new insights about the big picture. On a higher level yet, you might ask whether understanding itself is overrated, and the kind of response to the world that the Daoists tell us comes from an intuitive affinity with nature might be a better way to live than analysis based on understanding.
My concern is that human beings can't successfully manage ever more, ever larger powers, delivered at an ever accelerating rate.
A 19th century knowledge philosophy assumes that more knowledge is always better. That made sense in the long era of knowledge scarcity. But we no longer live in that era.
If any of this is of interest, this article goes in to more detail.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/our-relationship-with-knowledge
This isn't science skepticism so much, as the scientific method obviously works. It's a kind of skepticism that is more about our relationship with science.
Yes, this is a deep question with strong arguments on both sides. Would we be better off if we didn't know how to build H-bombs? If we didn't know how to make bioweapons? The answer seems clear. OTOH, it's hard to stop people from doing experiments and even harder to stop people from thinking. So are we better off if SOME people have access to powerful technology and others don't? Here, the answer seems equally clear.
My guess is that there are already people on the planet who have access to advanced technologies, certainly cold fusion energy, certainly weather modification and directed energy weapons, possibly anti-gravity, possibly faster-than-light travel, possibly ways to harness mental energy for physical results. People are being bribed and others are being murdered to keep these technologies out of the public sphere.
The genie is out of the bottle. Is it better to keep this forbidden knowledge in as few hands as possible to avoid wild-eyed terrorists from blowing up whole cities? Or is it better to democratize the technologies, create widespread abundance and social cohesion, a sense of belonging that dissuades people from using powerful technologies for destructive ends?
Secrets leak. Sooner or later, we'll have to rely on the latter approach, IMO.
Great list! I'll be interested in them all. Two things that came to mind that could be part of your investigations are: 1) Michael Crichton's non-fiction book, Travels. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7665.Travels; and 2) Rupert Sheldrake's theory of 'morphic resonance'. Can't wait to follow where your investigations take you. Thank you for your substack!
I'm familiar with Sheldrake. I think of Morphic Resonance as a framework for understanding rather than a theory, since it's not specific enough to make quantitative predictions. I'm intrigued with the idea that the "laws" of physics may be different in different times and places. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/the-zeroth-law-of-science
I don't know the book Travels. What did you get from it?
I highly recommend Crichton's "Travels". Starts off with his medical studies at Harvard and some bizarre cases he encounters and when he gets to California he gets interested in parapsychology, mediums, seeing auras, past life regressions, alternative medicine, etc. He comes at it initially with a skeptical eye but gradually becomes more and more convinced that there's a lot more out there than what science can explain. Plus some great travel writing from his adventures in the Himalayas and SE Asia, scuba diving in the Pacific and Caribbean. One of those books you hate to finish.
Here's a snippet of Crichton describing his book.
http://www.vincentvacations.com/travels-of-michael-crichton
Similar to Feynman's, “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character, Crichton is an explorer, looking for answers & not stymied by what he should be thinking or believing.
I see the same sort of questing mind at work in your substack. I am looking forward to finding out what you discover in the same way that I would look forward to a substack by Crichton or Feynman. In my experience, there are not a lot of people doing what you guys do.
Happy new year, Josh! Good luck with your investigation - looking forward to your insights!
Most probably you have seen it already, but I would be very curious to hear your opinion on this evidence for intelligent design:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2021/02/24/the-peculiar-schema-of-dna-codons-second-letter/
It is an interesting point that in my opinion withstands anthropic principle arguments.
Cheers!
This is a big article with some ideas that are new to me. I'll add it to my list. In the meantime, if you would write a paragraph or two summarizing what you find compelling, it would help to orient me (and others reading this page).
In short, DNA uses a special language to encode amino acids. 4 different 'letters' (ACTG) are used to build 3-letters 'words' - codons. Ribosomes map codons to specific amino acids when they build proteins.
The author argues that the way 3-letter codons map to specific amino acids could have been completely arbitrary and it was not optimized by evolution. At the same time the language/schema has a very low entropy that could not have occurred by chance.
If true, it pretty much falsifies stochastic abiogenesis and puts more weight into alternative ideas such as intelligent design, panspermia, etc. The author does not go deep into that.