Connect with us

General

The Perversion Of Wikipedia: Skepticism As A Tool For The Censorship Of New Ideas

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, a supposed resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, is violating its own policies and non-profit status by favoring donors' worldview through exerting undue editorial influence.

  • Reflect On:

    If we can't trust Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, does that mean we can't trust anything we hear and read about?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Those of us who make a habit of challenging our current worldviews in order to uncover deeper truths and expand our understanding of reality, will have probably come to realize by now that much of the ‘skepticism’ out there that is supposedly founded in ‘science’ is nothing more than the preservation of the mainstream perception that is constantly being promoted by our hidden authorities and their minions.

advertisement - learn more

It is likely that every one of us has encountered frustration in dealing with the ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ type of skeptic among family and friends. Some hold it as a badge of honor that they refuse to be ‘fooled’ by suggestions that the world is not exactly as it seems, or that there is anything substantial going on behind the scenes, as long as the mainstream media continues to ridicule it and use labels like ‘unproven pseudo-science’ or ‘debunked conspiracy theory.’

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

Now, this is not to dispute that some skepticism is healthy. Not at all. One should not believe everything one hears indiscriminately, and all claims should be evaluated based evidence, coherence, logic, and common sense. When skepticism is in balance with an open mind, it helps us develop discernment, and enables us to build and expand a coherent worldview that begins to incorporate and make sense of more and more of the subtle mysteries the universe has to offer.

However, an extreme brand of skepticism that is not open to possibility until it becomes self-evident is damaging to human inquiry and the flourishing of new ideas. Joe Martino and I discussed this skepticism in our latest episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, and went on to examine how this philosophical position is at the heart of the censorship efforts of mainstream media and the now co-opted social media giants, indiscriminately labeling ideas and analyses of world events outside of the mainstream perception as ‘fake news’ and characterizing it as ‘dangerous’ and something the public must be protected from.

Below is a clip from that episode exploring how dogmatic skepticism is holding us back. Become a member on CETV to watch the full episode of The Collective Evolution Show.

advertisement - learn more

In the full episode, we go on to discuss specifically how Wikipedia has become one of the latest information sources to fall under the control of the mainstream authority. We talk about how instead of being ‘the people’s encyclopedia’ and being open to all ideas, it has adopted the very strict skepticism of the mainstream. Among other things, it systematically denigrates those scientists, researchers and medical professionals that promote alternative modalities to Western medicine.

Scientific Materialism

Some will say ‘I’m a scientist. And therefore I’m a skeptic.’ In some ways, this makes sense–a real scientist does not come to any conclusions unless the evidence in their experiments bears them out. However, it often represents someone who is not open to possibility, and will not seriously consider anything that is not proven and established, meaning what they have ‘seen’ with their own eyes.

When this type of person says (usually informally) that they are a ‘scientist,’ what they really mean is that they ascribe to scientific materialism, a philosophical position founded on the belief that only the material world, the world perceived by our senses, is what is real. We don’t even need to get into the fact that quantum physics has long demonstrated that this position is no longer tenable in the real world, and that non-material forces are exerting influence on the world all the time.

In a banned TedX talk entitled ‘The Science Delusion,’ biologist Rupert Sheldrake performs a brilliant dissection of scientific materialism and all the questionable assumptions it is founded on, and is clear to distinguish between real ‘science,’ which is exploration and experimentation designed to expand knowledge, and the philosophical dogma of scientific materialism which, in mainstream discourse, is considered ‘science.’ No wonder it was banned. Watch this one, it is well worth your time.

Now it must be said, anybody refuting scientific materialism is pulling the rug out from most of the skepticism used by mainstream forces to control the narrative. And so, as you might expect, whenever the mainstream media has the opportunity to comment on who Rupert Sheldrake is or the value of his work, they are not likely to be very complimentary.

Wikipedia On Sheldrake

In an article entitled ‘Wikipedia’s Assault on Scientific Progress: The Case of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake,’ Gary Null makes a very persuasive case not only that Wikipedia attempts to marginalize Rupert Sheldrake as a ‘pseudoscientist,’ but they exhibit a draconian control over the editorial content of Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page, quite against their own stated policies.

Sheldrake’s original Wikipedia biography, created in October 2002, was limited to two sentences and a link to his personal website: “Rupert Sheldrake (1942-) is a British biologist and author of several books. In his 1981 book A New Science of Life he put forward the hypothesis of formative causation which basically suggests that memory is inherent in nature.”

That’s it! Today, his biography has grown to 9 major headings and 12 subheadings. Instead of identifying him as a biologist — only noting this title in the past-tense — the article falsely identifies Sheldrake as a “parapsychologist” in the lead paragraph. Although he conducts experiments in telepathy, he approaches the topic from a biological viewpoint, in keeping with his scientific training. Reviewing the many thousands of edits made to his biography during the past 16 years is a lesson in how brutal and vicious the Wiki wars spawned by Skeptics can become.

Sheldrake’s Wikipedia “Talk” page begins with the warnings:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don’t take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.

The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.

Here we observe Wikipedia’s own Committee showcasing flagrant bias in identifying Sheldrake’s scientific research as “pseudoscience.”

Wikipedia’s Violation Of Its Non-Profit Status

The concept of Wikipedia, the people’s encyclopedia, a resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, where respect for opposing points of view was maintained, is what made Wikipedia popular and trusted to begin with. However, the potential profits that would be possible from this trust and Wikipedia’s popularity seems to have become too tempting for its owners and of course Big Business to resist.

This letter written to the IRS by Neal S. Greenfield, lawyer for Dr. Gary Null, in which he explicitly details the ways in which Wikipedia has blatantly violated their 501 (c)(3) non-profit status, as well as their own stated values and objectives, will certainly help you to see Wikipedia in a different way than what it pretends to be.

Of note in the summary on page 1 is the contention that ‘Wikipedia has selectively permitted pay-to-play editing and institutional conflicts of interest, particularly where generous donors are concerned.’ It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. We are coming to realize that our entire economic and political systems are founded on the corrupt influence of the powerful and wealthy. The maintenance of their power is founded on keeping people ignorant, which is the brute impact of scientific materialism and the skepticism that follows from it.

The Takeaway

Every day there seems to be new information out about another previously trusted source of information that has shown itself to be unworthy of trust. But rather than rue the destruction of the naive innocence of humanity, we should bless these revelations as stepping-stones to achieving a higher discernment. Certainly, the majority of humanity, when released from these corrupting influences, will be able to be trusted to act in a way that is ultimately for the benefit of all. This higher discernment will allow us as a collective to separate the wheat from the chaff, and create a world where truth, transparency and the open exchange of ideas will be supported.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Fact Checkers & Big Tech Censorship Are Tearing Apart Society

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 1 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Journalist Laurie Clarke published an article in the British Medical Journal examining hundreds of millions of pieces of content that Facebook has removed in an attempt to stop ‘covid misinformation.’ As a result of censorship, we are seeing a breakdown of important dialogue. Here is our deeper written analysis of her piece.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

The Quantum Eraser Experiment: What Happens In The Present Can Change The Past

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read
Image: Shutterstock

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    At the quantum scale, what we do in the present can impact what happens in the past. This is shown through what's known as the quantum delayed choice choice, or quantum eraser experiment.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are factors associated with consciousness directly intertwined with physical material matter at the quantum scale? What does this mean when it comes to our physical material world in relation to our thoughts, perceptions, feelings and emotions?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

One of the founding fathers of quantum theory, Max Planck, who is often credited with originating quantum theory – a feat that won him the Physics Nobel Prize in 1918 – once stated: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as exiting, postulates consciousness.”

Fast forward to today and there are a number of experiments in multiple fields showing that Planck was right. Consciousness is fundamental and it is directly intertwined with what we call physical material matter. You cannot explain consciousness in terms of the existing fundamentals like space, time, mass, and charge. As a result, the logical thing to do is postulate whether consciousness itself is something fundamental to the existence of reality.

A classic experiment used to examine the role of consciousness and its relationship to matter is the quantum double slit experiment. In this experiment, tiny bits of matter (photons, electrons, or any atomic-sized object) are shot toward a screen that has two slits in it. When there is no measuring device placed at the screen, the tiny bits of matter act as a “wave” and creates an “interference” pattern on the other side where a wall is placed to catch the pattern. Because there was no measuring or observation device used to see what slit the matter went through, we cannot know what path it took. When the pattern on the wall is examined to see what path it took, it represents a wave of possibilities, meaning the matter (particle) went through both slits, and one slit, and interfered with itself, which should be physically impossible. Welcome to the wacky world of quantum physics – anything and everything is possible.

The kicker is, when an observation device is set up to observe what slit the particles go through, the particle then only goes through one, thus collapsing the wave pattern and forming a pattern that is representative of the particle only going through one slit. In other words, the behaviour of the matter changes when we decide to measure  or observe it, the particles act as they are aware they are being watched. 50 percent of the time the particle will go through one slit, and the other 50 percent of the time it will go through the other and form a two slit pattern, just as if they were balls lobbed through one slit or the other.

Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it…We compel (the electron) to assume a definite position…We ourselves produce the results of the measurement. (M. Mermin, Boojums All the Way Through: Communicating Science ina Prosaic Age (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990, referenced by Dr. Dean Radin, From A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays explaining how this experiment has been used multiple times to explore the role of consciousness in shaping the nature of physical reality

If this isn’t already mind-altering enough for you, one physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, pondered what would happen if we don’t interfere with the photons on their way through the slits? What would happen if we didn’t set up a measuring device to observe what slit the matter went through, and instead, what if behind the back wall there were detectors? One detector is focused on each slit, and just before the particle lands on the screen after it has passed through the slit device, the detectors are pulled away. When no one could detect which slit the photon had gone through, there was a wave pattern, but when the detectors were in place, there was no wave pattern. Similar to observing the particles before they went through the slit. No observation produced an interference pattern, and observation formed a one line, one slit pattern.

If they collapse to a state of particles from a wave at the moment of detection, after they have gone past the slit device, this means that even though they went through the slit unobserved and should produce a wave (interference) pattern, the very act of observing, still, instantly transforms them into particles and collapses the wave function.

This begs the question, how could these detectors interfere with something that had already happened? It would mean that what happened in the present changed the past. The very act of detecting the particles after they go through the slit determines how they went through the slit, either as a wave or as particles. How is this possible?

Like the quantum double slit experiment, the delayed choice/quantum eraser has been demonstrated and repeated multiple times. For example, physicists at the Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, and the findings were recently published in the journal Nature Physics.

In 2007 (Science 315, 966, 2007), scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus and showed that their actions could retroactively change something that had already happened.

“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” (source)

To make the experiment easier to understand, Wheeler used a cosmic scale explanation. Imagine a star emitting a photon billions of years ago, heading in the direction of planet Earth. In between, there is a galaxy. As a result of what’s known as “gravitational lensing,” the light will have to bend around the galaxy in order to reach Earth, so it has to take one of two paths, going left or going right. Billions of years later, if one decides to set up an apparatus to “catch” the photon, the resulting pattern would be an interference pattern, as explained above in the double slit experiment. This demonstrates that the photon took one way, and it took the other way. A “wave” of possibilities, but the way it took has not been defined.

One could also choose to “peek” at the incoming photon, setting up a telescope on each side of the galaxy to determine which side the photon passed to reach Earth. The very act of measuring or “watching” which way the photon comes in means it can only come in from one side. The pattern will no longer be an interference pattern representing multiple possibilities, but a single clump pattern showing “one” way.

What does this mean? It means how we choose to measure “now” affects what direction the photon took billions of years ago. Our choice in the present moment affected what had already happened in the past.

Below is a great video of Wheeler explaining.

My mind is blown just writing this article, I can’t stop thinking about it and what it could possibly mean, and how factors associated with consciousness are, in more ways than one, intertwined with what we perceive to be our physical reality. I recently published an article regarding consciousness and how it might be fundamental to the creation of our physical material world. You can read that here if interested.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla

Why does all of this matter? Because it’s one of multiple experiments showing a strong connection between consciousness and physical matter. What does this mean at the classic physics scale? What does it mean with regards to the way we think, feel, perceive? What does it mean when we are talking about solutions to problems we are facing on our planet? If human consciousness could be so fundamental with regards to the ‘creation of our reality’, why aren’t we talking about it more? What impact would changing the way we look at our world have on the human experience? What would happen if we started to see things in a different light?

We tend to believe in our culture that we are beings where everything in our world is happening to us, as opposed to us being intimately connected to everything in our world. How might that knowing change the nature of our choices?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

Dr Byram Bridle Speaks For 100 Colleagues Afraid To Share Science About COVID Vaccine Concerns

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 2 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr Byram Bridle and two other physicians spoke at a news conference on Parliament Hill about their experience being censored or harassed as a result of sharing their medical opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Reflect On:

    Do we as citizens truly want our scientists and physicians to be silenced and censored?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Why are scientists and experts in this field scared to share concerning science regarding COVID vaccines? Just ask Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed, in-depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines. The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns.

Bridle has stated about the Alliance,

In fact the reason that we (Canadian COVID Care Alliance) exist is sad. We exist because we’re like minded in the sense that we all want to be able to speak openly and freely about the scientist and medicine underpinning COVID-19, and we don’t feel safe to do it  anywhere else other than within our own private group, where we feel safe.

Below is our detailed report on the news conference held on Parliament Hill on June 17th, 2021. It was organized by Canadian MP Derek Sloan who has received hundreds of concerned communications from Canadian citizens about the censorship of scientists. Bridle and two other physicians spoke at the conference.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

The more important questions to ask are: who is deciding what’s misleading? Who decides what’s false?

Some of the most renowned scientists and expert in this field have been subjected to this “fact-checking,” and they’ve been outspoken about how much of this fact-checking is flat out censorship. You decide.

To note: HealthFeedback.org, a fact checker, has attempted to refute some of Bridle’s claims. You can read more about them here.

 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!