“Peer review” censorship exemplifies the neophobia in the world of science which serves to protect the status quo rather than improve knowledge by weeding out dubious epistemologies and results, as it is meant to. This supposed mechanism of “quality control” has resulted not only in the dismissal of much important and credible research, but it has also let fraudulent research –and lots of it! — be published at the same time. Papers that appear to support fashionable ideas or entrenched dogmas are likely to fare well, even if they are badly flawed — or outright rubbish!
The following excerpt is from the opening chapters of “Aion” by the great Carl G. Jung. It is recommended reading for anyone who has not spent considerable time studying the shadow and doing shadow work – particularly young adults on the far-left politically correct (PC) “social justice warrior” end of the spectrum (and for the far right, for that matter) who believe vehemently that anyone with a different point of view to theirs is a “fascist,” “oppressor,” or “homophobe,” etc. (depending on context, but ultimately morally wrong and reprehensible) – and thus lash out accordingly.
Scattered attention on the internet does not conduce to contemplation and the formation of deeper meaning, or broader understanding through dot connecting, a.k.a. context building. The ultimate example, of course, is aimless scrolling through social media feeds, “witnessing” lots of information while learning virtually nothing from it. We pay for our distractibility and mindless data trawling with measurable cognitive deficits.
Of course, the cover story is that “religious extremists [are or might be] using an inappropriate curriculum” and “that there may be someone filling their child’s mind with poison,” (oh, the irony) but the real issue is that most of our home-schooled population is off the books; there are anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 kids – the government simply can’t know because parents do not have to inform their local council whether they are home schooling or not. This is called exercising freedom of choice and the right to privacy. I applaud the parents who do so.
Doesn’t science state that paranormal occurrences are impossible? Philosophically, the world of science can no longer maintain that position—not if it wants to appeal to today’s evidence. Evidentially speaking, many so-called paranormal phenomena have been irrefutably scientifically proved (see TGI 1). The body of mainstream science has a history of becoming quite hysterical in the face of information seemingly competing for its “target demographic,” or even just information that doesn’t conform to the dominant paradigm in operation at the time. As such, it is organized science that has often proved and continues to prove to be the biggest adversary to impartial discussion and consideration of novel data—an alien concept to many people due to the way science, particularly in the mainstream, has been mythologized as a totally dispassionate and objective enterprise that only cares for so-called truth (though the anthropogenic “global warming” scandal no doubt helped undermine that myth!).