Purchase a signed copy in the store!

By: Jay Dyer

The Reign of Scientism

I recently watched a BBC documentary titled “The Atom: The Illusion of Reality.” In Part 3, the host delves into the last few decades of quantum physics and makes some interesting admissions relevant to subject matter I discuss. The most significant section of the documentary deals with quantum electro dynamics and Dirac’s discovery of the equation that demonstrates anti-matter, and Feynman’s further contribution to this idea. QED posits that space is not a vacuum, but instead exhibits a never-ending cycle of energy that flows in and out of existence, that is borrowed from the future. While that is a complex idea, the main thrust of this essay is not to speculate on that question.
What I want to focus on are the presuppositions of the scientists involved in the documentary, as well as a telling example in the figure of Lisa Randall, how this relates to philosophy of science, and in turn how this is directly connected to pseudoscience that is propagated by the usual establishment suspects, to the detriment of all. After explaining the usage of the particle accelerator in measuring electrons, the host states about the Stanford linear accelerator:
“When the physicists [measured electrons in the accelerator] they got their first confirmation there might be a deeper set of rules underpinning the particle zoo. What they discovered from the way the electrons scattered and from their extremely high energy, was conclusive proof that protons have internal structure. In other words, protons were made of more elementary particles. Here were Gell-Man’s quarks….For decades people were confident that the components of the atomic nucleus – protons and neutrons were absolutely fundamental. And now for the first time there was evidence of something deeper. The quark is a tricky and elusive beast. There are six kinds of quarks: up, down, strange, charmed, top and bottom. Also, quarks never exist in isolation with other quarks. This makes them impossible to see directly. We can only infer their presence. Despite these caveats, quarks brought some semblance of order to the particle zoo. In recent years its allowed us to concoct a simple, yet powerful description of how the universe is built up. Basically everything in the universe is made of atoms and is built of quarks and electrons. That’s it.”
The ironies in this statement will not be lost on regular readers. For several years now I have written against scientism and analyzed presuppositions and worldviews. What most specialists and scientists in their respective fields fail to understand due to their specialization is the nature of worldviews and how they work. I don’t mean to devolve into psychologism, but I mean instead actual epistemology and metaphysics. Those trained in sound philosophy can easily see what’s at work here, as we unpack this astounding claim, and suffice to say this host and the documentary summarize the standard, mainline approach to these questions you would encounter (as I did) in mainline academia and universities.
Let’s analyze – the first problem with this statement is the question of the scientific method itself. Almost the entire academic world has, for centuries, been under the delusion that the “scientific method” is the best and only reliable means for arriving at an approximation of the natural world. Religion, speculation, emotions, etc., are all lumped into a similar dustbin, giving us no useful data relevant to science. Science, the argument goes, relies on some amorphous form of “reason” (though none of these pragmatists have any idea what exactly reason itself is), that provides us with calculable, generally mathematical results.
These results of the experiments thus confirm or refute any given theory, by some probabilistic approximation. Empirical science can never give absolute certainty, as that is something impossible. Instead, positivistic science and empirical research can give us the highest likely scenario about a given phenomenon, so long as the data lines up with the theory. In the words of one of the scientists in the documentary, “Shut up and calculate.” Allusion is generally made to some assumed belief of the ancient world, such as that Aristotle erroneously thought x, y, z. Thus, they gloriously proclaim, the empirical scientific method is the only reliable source of knowledge about the external world, and computers and iPods prove this to be so. The assumption there being that the Dark Ages was one of rampant superstition, while the scientific revolution brought man out of his self-imposed bondage, and into the light of reason, as Kant famously said.

Such is the mythology surrounding scientism, and its incorrect narrative of how history has progressed and how the scientific method is the only reliable, all-encompassing Rosetta Stone of gnosis. In reality, the global standardized university system is an epistemic cartel dogmatically committed to enforcing naïve empiricism and reductionist materialism, as well as centuries old, outdated “mass consumption” physics. Granted, not every “scientist” is party to this conspiracy, but without a doubt, no one graduates to international prominence without passing the qualifications of the Royal Society’s Holy Office of scientific inquisition. Nikola Tesla and his classified and confiscated work is a perfect example of this international materialist/monetarist control – but more on that later.

Let’s consider the scientific method itself further. The method states that a theory is posited, evidence is then gathered through rigorous experimentation, empirical data is collected and examined and then found to either confirm or deny the thesis. Supposedly, this entire process is “rational,” and the corroboration of the “brute facts” with the theory thus advances knowledge, leading to some amorphous human progress.
The aggregate work of all these scientists over time is stashed away in some science vault, and in due time, “we” will discover all the secrets of nature and likely achieve some form of rational utopia. This is the popular gospel message of the grand future “science” will provide, based on the earlier mentioned mythology of scientism about history as a perpetual struggle of noble, rational individuals against the superstitious religious institutions. A good example of this mythological narrative of scientism is Lisa Randall’s recent book, Knocking on Heaven’s Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and Modern World.
Randall writes in typical scientistic representation: “…Science doesn’t address all moral issues (though it doesn’t disown them as is sometimes alleged). Nor does science ask about the reasons for the universe’s behavior or inquire into the morality of human affairs. Though logical thinking certainly helps in dealing with the modern world and some scientists today do search for physiological bases for moral actions, science’s purpose, broadly speaking, is not to resolve the status of humans’ moral standing.
The dividing line isn’t always precise, and theologians can sometimes ask scientific questions while scientists might get their initial ideas or directions from a worldview that inspires them—sometimes even a religious one. Moreover because science is done by human beings, intermediate stages during which scientists are formulating their theories will frequently involve unscientific human instincts such as faith in the existence of answers or emotions about particular beliefs. And needless to say, this works the other way around too: theologians can be guided by observations and a scientific understanding of the world.
But these sometimes blurry divisions don’t eliminate the distinctions and ultimate goals. Science aims for a predictive physical picture that can explain how things work. The methods and goals of science and religion are intrinsically different, while science addressed physical reality, and religion addressing psychological or social human desires or needs.” (Randall, pg. 45)
While I recognize that both quotes are pop science, they still serve as great examples to be dissected. One has to wonder if Randall or the BBC host have ever taken a basic logic class, which is astounding given the level of mathematical education they have. Logic is directly based on mathematics, and the bait and switch approach of Randall’s own claims are blatant. Let’s unpack this statement along with the BBC documentary host’s as well. I recognize that both the documentary and Randall’s book are not seeking to answer all complex issues, but regardless, they are both representative examples of the constant mantras we hear from the purveyors of scientism. What are the assumptions, presuppositions, red herrings and contradictions involved in the above claims?

The Religion of Scientism
A. Science is a unified, central body or committee of enlightened, rational authoritative collective that inhabits the hallowed halls of academia, all reporting the neutral facts of empirical experience to come to objective conclusions, who then present them matter-of-factly to peers and the public. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists are individual humans with desires and worldviews and opinions like the rest of us—and some of them have an agenda. Simply donning a lab coat does not erase someone’s presuppositions and desires anymore than me donning an NBA jersey makes me a professional basketball player. Certainly scientists should strive for objectivity and humans can, in a relative sense, be objective. Our worldviews can match up to reality and give us real, objective proof of how the world works—real science. But just because mass media presents to the public some “scientific study,” no one should accept that this is somehow immune to being propaganda simply because it has the title “science.” One need only recall how often the media lies about everything else. Science is not immune to this manipulation and use.
Yet so many operate under the assumption that funding and desired results somehow doesn’t determine the results of what studies get funded and are done! This is not to say all studies are funded for a specific purpose, but nowadays, almost everyone is familiar with the practice of certain megacorporations funding studies to achieve profitable results. Notable, famous examples of this include the pharmaceutical and GMO food industries. Failing to recognize this fact is simply not living in the real world, opting instead for the fantasy land of imagined objectivity for one special field, “science,” as if science were magically immune to the rest of human weakness. Randall seems to admit this in her paragraph, yet the majority of the so-called educated populace operates on a daily basis as if this isn’t the case, with system-approved expert “scientists” daily proclaiming all kinds of contradictory nonsense based on amorphous “studies.” This is not to say that there are no legitimate studies or accurate predictions, which would be absurd. Rather, the need is to identify the faulty presuppositions scientism makes in assuming things that are manifestly false.
B. The above paragraphs presuppose this collective body of scientists, like the mystical body of the church, is something anyone may “participate” in by initiation into “science.” Countless fedora’d neckbeards, university students and World of Warcraft hobgoblins that infest reddit and 4chan are under the delusion they are vital organisms in this Mystical Body of Science. The demented and designed chaos of the New Atheists is engineered to inducting and indoctrinating the next generation into the “greatness of the cosmos,” while duping these morons into thinking they are part of a winning team, when almost none of them have participated in any actual scientific work, whatsoever.
Lacking any basic critical thinking or reasoning, the next generation of young, brainwashed academia are falling for the oldest marketing trick in the book—that of being fooled into thinking they are part of the Mystical Body of Science, part of the tribe, when there is no such thing and they are not a part of any real scientific endeavor (other than being lab rats for the NSA and Pentagon through their synthetic Internet existence). The reality is, scientists are individuals who do work in very specific fields these days—they are not a body of elites, unless one means to refer to the Royal Society and its body of Inner Party scientistic controllers.

C. The first quote states that the quark was “proven.” Randall states that science, unlike religion, operates in a realm of calculable, definable, measurable, material realities. It provides a predictable model that explains how the world works. However, she says just prior that science does not inquire into the reasons for the universe’s behavior! Yet, magically, science is at the same time now able to “prove” to us entities that are not empirical and unmeasurable, like the quark! So, science, which deals in areas that sometimes overlap into other disciplines, is still a clearly definable realm of material calculation only concerned with models of how, and not why or the reasons for things. Had Randall been reminded of the logic and philosophy classes she either forgot or never took, she would immediately see the nonsense in this claim. Who is she and her scientistic cult to proclaim that “Why?” is not a legitimate question? At what point does one ascertain the distinction between how something works and why it works? It is beyond absurd to say that science is not concerned with reasons for the universe’s behavior, when that is the whole reason science came about! These cult members simply assume there is a clear divide between how something works and the reason something works.
Scientism’s Presuppositions Dismantled
Consider some simple examples that show Randall’s false divide to be nonsense, and merely an ad hoc presupposition of her materialistic empiricism.

1. How is a chiliagon a mathematical reality, when it cannot be empirically observed in all its angles? Is it therefore irrational to believe in a chiliagon or any other mathematical entity that cannot be empirically observed? If the response is that they are “mathematically inferred,” how are quarks, that cannot be empirically seen, but only “mathematically inferred,” different from any other metaphysical claim, like God or universals, which cannot be empirically verified, but can be mathematically inferred? How is Dirac’s equation about anti-matter not also metaphysical? They obviously are not different.
2. How does logic work in the world, when logic itself is not observed, given that you presuppose logic in the scientific method? On what grounds, given you are a mathematician, do you arbitrarily say when a mathematical concept is “scientific” or “metaphysical” and unscientific?
3. Can you give an explanation for how the scientific method itself works, since all things in that method are supposed to fall under the category of rational, human models of how, and never why?
4. How do we rationally believe in the existence of the past, given that the past is impossible to observe immediately, empirically? The same applies to the self, as well as identity over time, or to the principle of induction. Now Lisa, before you say that is a question of metaphysics and not science, how do you again delineate which is which? Why is a question about the past and time suddenly not the purview of science? Is time not an integral question of physics and theoretical physics? What measurable, calculable periodic table of propositions tells you which is which?
5. There are linguistic scientists and philosophers that study language and semiotics. At what point is language and its conceptual possibilities, as well as the questions of neurolinguistics, “science,” and not metaphysics or epistemology? By your own definition of science, linguistics could only be “scientifically” studied as it relates to empirical verification, yet empirical verification immediately raises a host of epistemic questions that relate to linguistics and epistemology. Since the lines are fuzzy, could we then surmise that your whole book Warped Passages on dimensions and mathematics, is metaphysics and therefore unscientific?
6. Since Randall admits there is overlap, her definition of when something is science and not metaphysics or theology is that it is definable, calculable and predictable, dealing with material reality. The immediate problem for Randall and her ilk is that she has no scientifically verifiable means by which to demonstrate that is the dividing line! This argument is merely another variation on the central point that the scientific method cannot justify the scientific method itself. Now, before some smartass replies with the standard rebuff that the scientific method is simply not concerned with those questions, recall that this conveniently allows the scientistic acolyte to again arbitrarily decide in cafeteria fashion which questions are “science” and which are “useless, speculative metaphysics,” when they can’t even give a clear dividing line, according to their own position!
7. Predictability operates on the principle of induction, that the future will be like the past. But the principle of induction is a logical and metaphysical concept. As you can see, by simply replacing the word why here with “how,” I can still ask a metaphysical question! How does the principle of induction work? It thus becomes evident that the replacing of every “why” with a “how” is laughably incoherent and mere word games that attempts to avoid questions the scientistic cult finds repulsive (because it refutes them). In other words, the “overlap” she mentions is not just some difficulty for scientism to overcome, it is a refutation of their whole paradigm’s false divide. Many more could be listed, but these serve as simple examples to prove my point.

Concerning number 6, it should be added that the intellectually dishonest fallback position for them is pragmatism. Pragmatism, simply put, is the position that all that matters is “results.” As long as you can produce results, the ideology doesn’t matter. Following suit from Enlightenment empiricism and Kantian psychologism, pragmatism holds that the human conceptual models of the world are only mental approximations of what might be the case, but whether they match up to reality “out there” is really immaterial, so long as we can “calculate” and say more about how something occurs. In other words, it’s fine to engage in ad hoc fallacies and arbitrary claims, so long as you are under the banner of “science,” yet anytime a religious person argues fallaciously, the laws of logic are (rightly) appealed to by the scientistic cultus.
There are numerous problems with pragmatism on its own grounds, as well. You’ll note that Randall said science wasn’t interested in value judgments or moral proscriptions, just results and predictability and calculations. One of the greatest insights I learned from Dr. Greg Bahnsen was the point that any of the classical branches of philosophy also necessitate the others. So, to say something about epistemology also carries with it the necessary implications and corollary statements about metaphysics and epistemology. Though an individual may not desire there to be metaphysical implications about a statement of ethics, or for there to be epistemic consequences for a statement about metaphysics, the fact is, it is unavoidable.
To say, for example, that “The facts and results of the experiment lead to the conclusion of the thesis,” is to say much more than just that sentence. It implies the ethical notion that one should adhere to the true results of the experiment. It implies that the truth of the experiment should logically connect to the original thesis. But shoulds and oughts are the realm of ethics – the branch of philosophy not readily apparent under Lisa’s electron microscope. If there are no value judgments, then there is no force of ought behind the scientific claims. If value judgments are real and truth is real, then there is a force of power which impels me to adhere to the correct conclusions. Quite obviously, the universal application of logic presupposes Truth with a capitol T.
In other words, any time “progress” is invoked, or scientific “advance,” etc., all such terms presuppose the gradations of value on some scale that is not immediately present to the scientific theory or experiment, and these categories must hold universally. “Science’s” principles in China are the same at Stanford, right? The Nazi regime was a scientistic one which saw “progress” as mass state controlled eugencis: One man’s “advance” is another man’s nightmare. In the Soviet Union, advance was whatever Lysekoism and the Party said, not what the experiments showed. For the Lysenko State, “progress” was determined by submission to the Party dictates. I am not saying advancement and progress are relative, but that they are determined by a worldview. Outside of some worldview, generic appeals to vacuous ideas of “progress” are meaningless and end up giving way to “might makes right,” as numerous failed attempts at the purely rational, technocratic state show.

Let’s return to the first quote from the documentary for a moment. In it, the physicist host described science and physic’s great, holy grail—the smallest particle by which all of reality could be said to consist. He stated: “For decades people were confident that the components of the atomic nucleus – protons and neutrons were absolutely fundamental. And now for the first time there was evidence of something deeper….Basically everything in the universe is made of atoms and is built of quarks and electrons. That’s it.” While I recognize this is a theory, what is amusing about this is obvious philosophical problem at work here. All that has occurred is moving the problem back a step. From the time of the Pre-Socratics to now, man has sought some universal, all-encompassing objective principle by which to relate everything.
For Pre-Socratics, it was fire or atomism or up to Plato, it was ideas. One can see why man would think this—if a single principle could be found, perhaps it could be the great link that connected all things. Ironically, this is a metaphysical issue, but let’s set that aside for a moment and allow that Richard Feynman and company have discovered the next level below the particle zoo, the quark. So now that another level was discovered, how has the objective unification of all reality under an umbrella of one thing been achieved? It hasn’t. It must be assumed that the rest of reality outside the particle accelerator operates this way. It must be assumed that there is no deeper level of reality where there may exist still other particles that we have as yet no way of measuring.
Scientists readily admit the limitations of their experiments, but they have missed the philosophical point of the argument. The very thing sought for, a universal unifying principle, cannot, by definition, be found through the methods of inquiry being used. Mathematics seems to show the infinite is present at every point. If that is the case, how could a singly located set of subatomic particles be the unifying principle of all reality? Even if that weren’t the case, there is still no force of logic that requires anyone to think that the quark is the smallest building block of all reality. Granted, these scientists would reply their experiment can only give a model or approximation of reality, but this is another bait and switch. They say they are seeking a principle particle that will allow them to say all of reality is only this one thing. The view that all reality is one type of thing is called monism in philosophy. Monism has a host of philosophical difficulties that no only make it nonsensical, but completely contradictory and destructive to any knowledge or the possibility of science whatsoever.

If all reality is only one type of thing, and thus built up to higher level complexity, it follows that distinction and particularity are ultimately illusory. Materialism is the presupposed goal and telos at the same time. Only because they have the presupposition of materialism and therefore want materialism to be true, would they foolishly think that by digging one level deeper would they be able to achieve the goal of monism. If they had read their philosophy, they would know numerous philosophers have already advanced several forms of monism, all of which lead to dead ends and cancel out science and knowledge.
If all reality is only one type of thing, then it is impossible to account for distinction. How am I distinct from the microscope? From Lisa Randall? For some, flight into eastern religions which are already based around monism is a popular path. But that means the great rationalist pathway of Enlightenment empiricism is a fraud and a sham. Eastern religions are ultimately a-logical and irrational, often deriding logic and scientific method. And they are so all because of basic philosophical presuppositions of monism or dualism. It should be noted that monism and dualism are merely flip sides of the same coin and either as a foundational presupposition can transform into the other, cancelling out all rationality, devolving into incoherence.
How absurd it is for these scientists to deride philosophy, while the pinnacle of their research in quantum mechanics brings them to the very things philosophers have already dealt with for millennia. What presumption and arrogance on their part, not realizing that these ridiculous worldviews have already been tried for millennia. Quite obviously monism could never explain why one object is that object—the problem of identity over time. The BBC host even says that utilizing monism as a unifying principle cannot at present explain distinction in objects, yet offers the great future hope of all the scientistic cultus: One day we will! That sounds like a faith commitment, which is the very thing Lisa Randall said science has no concern with. I repeat: If they understood the nature of the question they were asking, and that it was philosophical, they would grasp that the very methods themselves, by their nature, cannot answer the metaphysical question they are asking, because of their presuppositions. Consider again his language again, paying attention to the materialist presuppositions at work that function to then determine what evidence and proof will even be considered or accepted: “absolutely fundamental,” “atoms and quarks. That’s it.”
I believe in one Almighty Particle.
And in holy, catholic, and apostolic scientistic empiricism.
And that’s it.
The folly of this atheistic enterprise is summed up in what Dr. Bahnsen aptly called “The Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy.” This is a response to the atheist materialist who says that he will not believe in a God, nor is it rational to do so, until there is immediate, empirical proof of such an Entity. The response is that God is not the type of being like a pack of crackers, by which one simply goes to the pantry to confirm if He’s there or not. The biblical God, by definition, is an immaterial, spiritual Being, not composed of parts and sensuous qualities. Therefore the way His existence is known or argued for is not done the same way other material objects are verified.
To demand this type of proof for an immaterial Being is like demanding the laws of logic are irrational to believe in until they are “seen.” But like a number or infinity, by definition they are not objects which are known empirically. As I asked Lisa Randall above, is it irrational to believe in a chiliagon because they cannot be immediately sensed? Of course not. Is it irrational to believe in the quark? Not according to their experiments, by which the math only infers their existence, while the quark itself is never directly observed! Is it irrational to believe in the past, since it is not immediately the object of perception? Of course not, yet most atheistic materialists believe it is only rational to believe in the past, chiliagons, etc.
It becomes clear that the entire enterprise of scientistic empiricism is thus weighted and gamed to only consider evidences and proofs that fit a predetermined category of possible existence. It is like saying, “Only material things exist, and for me to accept that an immaterial God exists, He must be material.” But if they are allowed to rig the evidence from the outset, we aren’t truly engaging in science and free inquiry, but in dogmatism and propaganda, and it is a dogmatism intent on promoting a crippling, false worldview that imprisons man (materialism). It would be like a crime lab saying, “Since only males commit crimes, we can definitively rule out any evidence against female suspects, because only males commit crimes.”

Tesla and Aether as the Solution
In contrast, consider someone who is a model scientist. Nikola Tesla did not cater to the whims of the prevailing opinions of his day. He was a man of learning who allowed truth to take him where it led. The means of his amazing discoveries were also not conventional. Tesla described painful flashes and visions by which he would see the truth of things, something utterly contrary to the dry, rote, meaningless “science” proferred in modern academia that masquerades under the empty banners of “progress” and “advancement.” Contrary to the myth of modern progress and modern scientific freedom, most of Tesla’s countless amazing discoveries were quickly confiscated by the government and classified beyond public reach. Since establishment science perpetuates the myth of its own free inquiry and adherence to intellectual honesty and “progress,” the fact that Tesla is almost never taught in university science flies in the face of their facade.
Furthermore, Tesla was unconventional in his entire approach and in what he advocated. Tesla himself discussed this fact several times, especially in regard to his views of the aether and electrodynamics, which are still classified. Many mainline “scientists” will discount all of this as mythology and nonsense, yet why is his work classified and suppressed? Why is aether never discussed, even though Einstein himself wavered back and forth on it, as well as being adhered to by most of the modern physics luminaries? I’m sure some advanced physics studies department here or there touches on the aether, but the only thing mentioned about Tesla will be some vague notion of his discovery of alternating currents.

But what were the philosophical and esoteric presuppositions of Tesla? Tesla did not believe in the materialistic reductionism of the modern so-called luminaries of science, and the many weather modification and warfare programs based around Tesla’s work demonstrate that he had clearly been on the right track. In other words, only a paradigm that was far more correct than the modern mass consumption, dead-end physics taught in establishment academia could produce the consistent, cross-discipline results Tesla achieved. One such feature that stands out is the idea of the aether, which seems to anticipate the ideas that Dirac and others would propose in regard to latent energy everywhere, including so-called “empty space.” From a philosophical perspective, aether makes perfect sense, too, as it resolves many philosophical problems, such as the existence of an ideational realm, if you will. Wolfgang Pauli had proposed similar ideas, too, it should be added, making a direct connect between the realm of psyche or mind, and the objects of the external “physical” world.

Tesla stated in a famous 1937 Columbia lecture as follows:
“During the succeeding two years [1893 and 1894] of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle
speculation and false conceptions, as that of curved space.
Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the aether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.

My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half-dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.”

Author William Lyne explains of Tesla’s statements:

“The “two great discoveries” to which Tesla referred, were:
1. The Dynamic Theory of Gravity – which assumed a field of force which accounts for the motions of bodies in space; assumption of this field of force dispenses with the concept of space curvature (a la Einstein); the aether has an indispensable function in the phenomena (of universal gravity, inertia, momentum, and movement of heavenly bodies, as well as all atomic and molecular matter); and,
2. Environmental Energy – the Discovery of a new physical Truth: there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.” (Lyne, Occult Aether Physics)

“If the term “energy” is only a convenient abstraction, then it does not exist in physical form, and really describes the potential to perform work as a by-product of matter and electromagnetic radiation in perpetual motion, some of the force of which has been diverted through a path where it performs the desired work, as it goes on its merry way through the universe. Every change of form of either matter or radiation involves the “work” which induces the change, or the “work” which is induced by the change. Without work there is no change, but all work is ultimately the product of the universe in perpetual, self-sustaining motion, as a rule and not an exception.” (Ibid.)
And,
“Where the government has stolen his papers, we must search for meaning elsewhere. In an article, “Man’s Greatest Achievement”, Tesla outlined his Dynamic Theory of Gravity in poetic form (as paraphrased by me):

There are curious parallels between what Tesla says about aether and what the recent discoveries of quantum electrodynamics demonstrates. The implications of this are tremendous. If Tesla was on the right track, then most of the modern scientistic presuppositions and work has to be tossed out as useless, like Tesla says. It means the ancient world, and thinkers like Plato, who posited aether, have much more to teach us than arrogant modernity assumes. Reportedly, according to the accelerator experiments, there is another, deeper level of reality where normal particles seem to operate in an unconventional way. Although Einstein, and a host of other modern luminaries wavered on aether, it has not been refuted or conclusively disproven. It is something suppressed.
In fact, the discovery of an energetic level of reality where the existence of energy not immediately visible and only inferred based on its signature, sounds just like the kinds of claims Tesla made. Even Lisa Randall’s Warped Passages argues that the existence of other dimensions is mathematically correct, but we must remain unsure of their existence because they have not been empirically verified. If that’s the case, then quarks also fail to live up to that requirement. And not only that, but the scientific method itself remains a mysterious tool with no justification for its own consistency or coherency. The reality is, there are far more than a few things these scientists rely on that cannot be empirically verified than just quarks or mathematics. But Tesla is not someone orthodox, because he was a fan of all kinds of esoteric ideas and runs contrary to the materialist cartel. Even though he was clearly on the right track and his discoveries are the basis of countless forms of technology that actually work in the real world, he cannot be taught in schools because he was not a scientistic dupe. Science is the search for knowledge and truth about the world. Scientism is the belief system that the scientific method is the only way of arriving at an approximation of probabilistic knowledge, and that weak form of knowledge is the only knowledge we can claim to have.
I don’t want to be misunderstood: the scientific method is a great tool for arriving at knowledge about the natural world. It does get results, but it only gets results relative to the overall accuracy of the scientist’s worldview. While it is certainly true that humans can make discoveries without all the right presuppositions, it is the job of the philosopher of science to look at the presuppositions and methods of science to see if the logic of the science being done is sound. If scientists paid more attention to philosophers, they might realize that the questions they’re beginning to come to in their quantum disciplines, namely, the search for a great unifying principle, are questions philosophers have long dealt with and experimented with.

If scientists were more open-minded about their materialist presuppositions, they might be more willing to learn from men like Nikola Tesla, whose worldview amazingly allowed him to make amazing discoveries far ahead of his time, from wireless technology to weather control. And the establishment that establishment scientists love so much ended up confiscating and suppressing Tesla’s work. All of this runs contrary to the mythology of the modern scientistic state and its “freedom.” As a great twist of irony, it is the modern scientistic state that persecutes real free thinkers, as they foam at the mouth to dogmatically enforce theories like Darwinian evolution and reductionist materialism that are philosophical nonsense and intellectual dead ends.
Quantum physics is a controversial area for scientists. They are generally aware of the unconventional (non-materialist) discoveries made in particle physics and it provokes a lot of skepticism. Skepticism is a good thing—unless of course you are skeptical of materialism or Darwinism. Regardless, QED and particle physics presents the modern scientistic cultus with a dilemma. If QED is a legitimate scientific breakthrough realm, then the past few centuries of “orthodox” materialist physics is largely useless, contradictory and outdated. And on top of that, a whole host of philosophers that critiqued scientism were also correct. In other words, it represents more than a mere scientific revolution and a new theory to replace the old. It represents a collapse of the old, Enlightenment materialist presuppositions and views of causation that have been so dominant. It also represents a collapse of the old naïve empiricist and psychologistic presuppositions that have dominated through the mainline, “orthodox” epistemic cartel of western liberalism.
The other option is for the scientistic crowd to disown quantum issues and reject them as too speculative, as many do. Yet this path means the modern scientific establishment is no better than the monolithic (false) narrative they attribute to the oppressive, superstitious hierarchy of the Middle Ages, that supposedly foisted on everyone a religion in contrast to “science.” It means the top scientists of the last hundred years have been completely wrong for promoting something useless. It means the scientific establishment is guilty of promoting a whole field, with all its particle accelerators, in a huge waste of time and energy. It means the academic establishment is also a fraud for not being able to use “reason” to figure out this discipline was a fraud. To admit either one is to admit that the philosophers have been right, and someone like Nikola Tesla is a real scientist, whose amazing, suppressed discoveries back up the metaphysics of people like myself, and defy the materialistic presuppositions of the scientistic establishment.

Subscribe to JaysAnalysis in the Purchase Membership section to access the archives of videos and interviews and lectures or purchase my books in the Shop!