How do you think the April 2nd protest might affect this situation? Where does that leave this controversy, and where do you see this going?
CW: The anniversary protest coming up April 2nd is unprecedented in human history as far as I know. It is a public protest whose sole goal is to force the advancement of science against the will of mainstream scientific institutions. It is non ideological and non religious in nature. This is basically a call to follow the evidence. It is just one more step in what appears to be a long road.
I suspect that we'll see the social change in the sciences at about the pace that we see other social changes, such as women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, etc. That is to say, it will be a fight. What's stopping more research and funding and mainstream acceptance now, is basically fear.
Skeptics are very quick to attack when their position is threatened and they are quick to use authority and bullying to get their way. At some point, though, the public perception will change enough that scientists and graduate students will lose their fear of speaking out and start challenging the status quo publicly. Then it's basically over. The skeptics will still whine and complain, but they will get all the sympathy of White Supremacists claiming to be misunderstood. The truth has a way of getting out.
My personal goal is more long term. At some point, perhaps we can start addressing the lost minority. There are millions of people who are very psychic who are now suppressed and marginalized based on a characteristic they were born with and have no control over. There are a whole list of issues they are dealing with right now because they have to hide who they are in order to be accepted.
MAB: Essentially, you've described a war between top-down, arrogant, paternalistic, vertical hierarchy and bottom-up, horizontally-based cooperative crowdsourcing that forces change upwards from "we, the people."
I really liked how you explained the issue in your book:
On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its mechanics. On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe. In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought. You generally won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better than most people realize. Mainstream science does not acknowledge this, which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.You've done a great job of breaking new ground in your book. I found it a compelling read...I stayed up pretty late a couple of nights because I wanted to read "just one more page," it was so fascinating! And the larger story is really just beginning.
Thanks for visiting with us, Craig. Is there anything else you want to mention before we complete the interview?
CW: Yes. First of all, thank you so much for this interview! I'm very grateful for the opportunity that you and OpEdNews have given me to share this information. I think that this is a controversy with far reaching ramifications.
I would like to share something personal. I started learning about parapsychology several years ago because I am psychic myself, although not professionally. I wanted to see if there really was scientific evidence for psychic ability; I was curious. I did not go into this expecting to find an extremely biased ideologue skeptic culture hell bent on suppressing anything and everything they disagreed with. I discovered that quite by accident.
They are a loud, vocal and determined minority, but when you understand how they operate and what they do to get their way, it is relatively easy to counter them. The most important thing I have learned about them is that they don't know very much and very few can effectively argue for their position. They are all hot air. That is their great weakness.
That's why neither TED, nor Jerry Coyne nor any other skeptic ever took up Sheldrake or Hancock on their challenges to debate. They couldn't win. In fact, they would certainly have been exposed as relatively ignorant. The Texans have a saying for that: "All hat and no cattle."
The photo of Taylor and Larry Dossey was added after publication.
RESOURCES:
Watch Rupert Sheldrake's TED-censored talk: click here
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
9
7
5
