"The Next Scientific Revolution," with Marilyn Schlitz

http://www.noetic.org/SIA/ShiftInActionLP_W7B.htm
In this one-minute video, Dr. Schlitz explores the possibility that we are now going through the next scientific revolution, one every bit as profound as those created by Copernicus, Darwin, and Einstein.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• science
• Einstein
• Darwin
• Copernicus
• noetic
• Schlitz
• IONS
• spirituality
• inspiration

[wholescience]

Are we moving towards a more holistic, whole science as we now include consciousness in our study of the world?

[lickmynose]

Science is an injunction that does not provide evidence of all possibilities. Science is a limited injunction dealing with positivistic evidence. Science is incredibly valuable, it keeps us grounded, but not the end all.

[Silentsam7532]

@dreadedqb Science and religion were always at odds. Why else woudl the bible have a story of "doubting Thomas" included to warn against those who require proof.

Its well known and documented that the church was against Galileo for his theories about the Earth orbiting the sun. It took a long time for the church to admit that it was true, that the Earth is not at the center of the universe and that we do indeed orbit the sun. Well before Thomas Huxley.

[HeadSHOT604]

We need another scientific revolution >.>

[ralphrose1]

love this

[dreadedqb]

She said copernicus was revolutionary

He wasnt

Science and religion didnt really experience much friction until Thomas Huxley's time

Shes just repeating what ppl say

[DescartesPupil]

Noetic theory is a type of philosophy. Noetic science seems to be a bit of an oxymoron.

That said, I applaud efforts to experiment in this area. We should all remain skeptical of calling it a revolution in science though until some finding is submitted to a scientific journal and is reproducible by other scientists. Until then any hypotheses are just that.

[enlightened58]

When science marries the right side of the brain with the left we will see huge leaps in conscience understanding of the infinite possiblities of the mind and energy. To research and view from only the logical side of the brain and discard the out there creative side of the brain is to work with only half your potential.

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) The major problem is the issue pertaining to the lack of peer-review. Randi has been known to consult scientists and staticians on occasion when setting up the claim challenges, but has never submitted any of the preliminary tests for peer-review. If he wrote up the entirety of the past 25 years worth of experiments he's done, that would provide the file drawer effect to make even the best proponent studies statistically significant by chance, eliminating the need for further research.

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) Also, claimants know they are being tested by a skeptical organization, so they could be subconsciously be influenced to perform at chance levels. The same could be happening with the psi-proponent research. Anyway, I've given quite a few sources in both series covering the problem in greater detail and one of my latest videos proposes a solution to deal with the problem.