The Dumbass Haunted World – When Propaganda Masquerades as Science

sacredsigilservitorBecause last week’s reblogging of Robert Anton Wilson’s rather harsh critique of Carl Sagan resulted in a rather spirited dialogue on my Facebook page (friend me), I did something weird. I decided to take some of my fans advice and actually read a bit of Sagan’s work, which I admitted in the post that I’d never truly done. Sadly, since I spend half my life working a soulless day job, I don’t normally have much time to commit to researching things I intentionally avoid for impromptu rants. But I quite quickly found a PDF of the Demon Haunted World, which is the book several people over the years have told me I absolutely need to read, because it WILL convince me I’m not psychic or something. Ugh, I don’t know what to tell you. I got through eight chapters or so and found myself utterly perplexed and a bit disgusted.

First off, what’s compelling from a psychological perspective is that part of the reason that post resonated with peeps had to do with a lot of them growing up a huge fan of both R.A.W. and Sagan. How could one not like the other or vice versa? In reading the Demon Haunted World, this rift is pretty glaringly obvious. Sagan might have done some amazing shit is his day, but that book is fucking terrible. It’s anti-UFO propaganda, pure and simple. I mean, that’s what it is. Completely devoid of any sort of concrete facts or critical thinking, dead set on pegging all sorts of wide ranging phenomenon to the distinct mental realm of: things Joe Sixpack doesn’t have to think about. And that gets pretty meta because the title of the book involves the catch phrase: “Science as a Candle in the Dark.” Yet it’s entire purpose is to keep the hoi polloi completely in the dark regarding the potentiality of their own inner microverses. Probably so demons can feed off their suffering and malaise or something. You’re guess is good as mine on that front but if it did serve that purpose you’ve got to admit it’d be pretty genius comedy with the title and all.

Moving on. It’s impossible to look into UFO phenomenon extensively and not come to the conclusion that something supremely freaking weird is going down. There are just so many odd and varied aspects to it all. Let’s go the Occam’s razor route per Sagan’s advice (and lord, soooooooo many people have tried to argue the inverse with me over the years and made zero sense in the process, I had no idea this concept either started with him or at least reached a large audience through him, sad). I can offer a comprehensive explanation of crop circles, UFO’s, remote viewing, supposed alien contact experiences, cattle mutilations, out of body experiences, psychedelic life transformations and what not in one pretty simple sentence: Consciousness can do a lot of excessively strange shit that we can’t currently explain because we haven’t bothered to study it. It takes Sagan eight freaking chapters to quite poorly convince us of the inverse i.e. that all of these phenomenon aren’t things that need to be understood, because they don’t fit into our current materialistic model of reality. The one thing I have to give good ol’ Hot Carl credit for is pointing out how complicated this shit is, which is sort of why it’s such a deranged argument.

For those not in the know, what you’re running into with alien contactee phenomenon is that it seems directly tied to UFO anomalies in some fashion. So it’s simultaneously an internal and external thing which Sagan intentionally ignores. The implication is that there are forms of conscious intelligence out there that rather than advancing well past us from a materialistic technological perspective, have progressed aeons ahead of us spiritually. Rather than building super weapons that can create mega space wars or take down planets or whatever, they figured out how to master the life death process, separate their souls from their bodies, re-incarnate at will, etc. I’d be compelled to say these things probably created us in the first place which puts them in the realm of what we would call gods or demons rather than extraterrestrials. Sagan readily acknowledges this but then quite manipulatively follows with barbs like this:

“The form of the supposed aliens is marked by the failure of the imagination and a preoccupation with human concerns. Not a single being presented in all these accounts is as astonishing as a cockatoo would be if you had never before beheld a bird.”

I guess he just conveniently forgot about the part where they penetrate your soul with their telepathic eyes and bombard you with ribaldry beyond your wildest imagination. He claims to have read Streiber and Mack after all. Now, growing up in western society the idea of spiritually ascendant beings completely conflicts with everything we’re raised to believe. I understand this better than anyone. After experimenting with things like psychedelic drugs and astral projection, I was pretty much in completely denial about the supposed “reality” of the things I’d encountered for years. One day I just snapped, but that’s another story. Sagan is using his intelligence and writing skills to spread ignorance, solely because his ego can’t deal with the quite logical idea that maybe our minds are capable of way more than we give them credit for and there is in fact something to this implication of spirit science lurking behind all this UFO weirdness. How in the fuck would we know? We don’t study this shit. That’s always been my angle. Because of religion’s collusion with the military/police state, we’ve been prevented from exploring this avenue of inquiry in any logical manner as things like DMT are the most logical means and they’re illegal. Sagan is merely a puppet of that religious collusion between those forces of repression and that’s where I get confused with his existence. I’m not sure if this slander writing is a witting or unwitting thing in his world. I can’t actually tell whether he believes his own schtick here. I think the dude very well could have been far more of a cold hearted propaganda writer than a scientist when you get down to it. He did have military ties and some pretty hefty corporate backing in Parade magazine, which certainly raises eyebrows.

Since I’m mentioning the influence of religion on the state, I should probably point out that playing into the sexual repression that religion has imposed upon humanity is one of Carl’s Jr.’s greatest tools in bashing UFO people. He comes back to it over and over, here’s one sample:

“A larger but similar being, evidently some kind of physician, takes over. What follows is even more terrifying.

Your body is probed with instruments and machines, especially your sexual parts. If you’re a man, they may take sperm samples; if you’re a woman, they may remove ova or foetuses, or implant semen. They may force you to have sex.”

He later refers to them as “alien sexual abusers” among other emotionally inciting lingo. It’s his favorite trick. Yes, that is in fact a prototypical alien abduction recounting. The implication is obvious and it’s how this phenomenon has been discounted in most people’s minds for years because we’re so sexually screwed up as a culture.  Let’s just put this to bed once and for all. If there was a higher form of life, say, existing in such a vastly different world to us that it would seem alien, why wouldn’t they be involved in our sex lives? That they wouldn’t be doesn’t make any logical sense. Here’s a picture of my dog:

IMG_20131221_170656

Adorable right? You know why he’s that adorable? Because we’ve been involved with the sex lives of pugs for thousands of years now. Of course from an Occult perspective you’d conclude that this is metaphorical, and that’s why this insistence that the universe can be understood solely by replicating patterns of shared perception while ignoring internal reality blinds one from rather obvious conclusions. You can be a genius scientist and have that sex/genetics aspect of the phenomenon somehow not add up to you when it’s the most rational thing ever. It’s astounding that people can be this dense, but ultimately, it goes hand in hand with what we know about psychology. If people have a very deeply held belief, supplying them with evidence that conflicts with this deeply held belief actually strengthens it. You need to see this stuff for yourself by venturing inward or you’ll never understand. Under a pseudonym Sagan even talks about being unable to comprehend art until he started getting high, and if you can’t understand art, you’re never going to get spirituality. Which is where the preternatural denseness of Sagan is mind blowing. He spends a lot of time attributing alien abduction to sleep paralysis but never makes any mention as to why science shouldn’t be studying sleep paralysis. Here’s a clue, sleep paralysis is actually the first step in an ancient spiritual technique called astral projection, which can be easily replicated in a laboratory setting but isn’t due to the biases religious repression has imposed on modern science. Fuck, I did it using these tapes. Sexual invasive encounters with odd spiritual beings? Yep, wrote about it here, and because of that I can say that if Sagan tried it, he certainly wouldn’t be singing this conservative tune.

Sadly, as much as I respect his pot advocacy, it’s impossible for me not to hold a little bit of hostility to the guy after reading what I did of the book. He talks extensively about the danger of witch hunts and then basically wages one against the late psychiatrist John E. Mack which is just fucking pathetic. Let me remind you that Sagan is an astronomer who has never worked directly with alien contactees and is arguing against the research a Harvard psychiatrist actually managed to conduct on the topic. If his witch hunt was logical I could deal with it, but it doesn’t actually add up:

“John Mack is a Harvard University psychiatrist whom I’ve known for many years. ‘Is there anything to this UFO business?’ he asked me long ago. ‘Not much,’ I replied. ‘Except of course on the psychiatric side.’ He looked into it, interviewed abductees, and was converted. He now accepts the accounts of abductees at face value.”

So you told the guy he should be researching a topic and then when he did, you proceed to slander the fuck out of him publicly because you didn’t like his findings. Yeah, that’s scientific and/or rational. Guess what, Sagan later repeatedly conflicts this claim of John Mack taking these accounts at face value with quotes from the man himself that he included on purpose:

“I don’t know why there’s such a zeal to find a conventional physical explanation. I don’t know why people have such trouble simply accepting the fact that something unusual is going on here . . . We’ve lost all that ability to know a world beyond the physical.”

And again:

“When abductees call their experience ‘dreams’, which they often do, close questioning can elicit that this may be a euphemism to cover what they are sure cannot be that, namely an event from which there was no awakening that occurred in another dimension.”

Those are John Mack quotes that he intentionally includes in the book where he’s arguing the point that Mack believes he’s studying flesh and blood aliens. If you’ll recall, Mack was put on academic probation at Harvard for insinuating that his research is suggestive of revising science to include inner experiences. If he would have concluded that it was just another mental illness they would have been cool with it, but that’s going too far. That’s how much of a bias there is against this stuff. Leary and co. got kicked out of Harvard for insinuating similar shit if you’ll recall. I repeatedly heard Dr. Mack state that if he knew the insane amount of negative energy that would have been directed towards him because of his research, he never would have conducted it in the first place. Fine work with that Sagan devotees. You’ve effectively made it impossible to study a growing and largely misunderstood avenue of human psychology to preserve your flat earth society. Fine work indeed.

All in all, I’ve got to give Robert Anton Wilson credit once again (his birthday’s coming up on Saturday which is always a good time to read some R.A.W. by the way and also birthday shout outs are in order my brother who’s birthday he shares, will make it up to Deadmonton again here soon). In reading some Sagan I found his critique of Hot Carl to be entirely on point, at least in the case of this particular book. The guy goes on and on convincing the reader that he’s an expert in a bunch of areas where he possesses exactly zero expertise. The implication is that he’s studied them so you don’t have to. It’s a shameless tactic that priests use all the freaking time. Trust me, I’m a scientist, not a propaganda writer. Trust me, I’m your preacher. Who cares if I know what I’m talking about or not. Take it on faith.

You know what else? He never even addresses any of the ancient alien conundrums. Just doesn’t bring it up at all and insinuates that all UFO sightings started in the 1940s, which is demonstrably nonsense. When he tries to debunk crop circles he actually trots out Doug and Dave, which is nuts. So, a guy who spread the phrase: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is somehow oblivious to the fact that the idea of two old dudes making all the crop circles in UK over a 15 year period is a pretty goddamn extraordinary claim. Oh, and one that requires no proof because you desperately want to believe in it so bad. We’ll just ignore the fact that their alibis didn’t check out and they were proven to be fraud’s not the crop circles they claimed to make. Moreover, Sagan believes in aliens, he just thinks that UFO sightings, inner alien contact experiences, shamanic initiation rites, and crop circles have absolutely nothing to do with them and he knows, because he’s an expert remember. Yep, you contact purely physical aliens which probably exist and have nothing to do with any of that stuff by shooting radio signals into space. That’s what he thought and it got massive funding with very little resistance. Oh hey, let me get on my radio telescope and get to the bottom of how that’s been going? Wait, we barely even use the radio much as a means of communication just a few decades later. Obviously a species far in advance of us would communicate through interstellar space in this manner. Obviously.

One last point, some people take an affront to Carl Sagan as an affront to science in general. All I’m saying is that rather than giving the transformative godhead experience to the public which would seemingly be fairly easy to accomplish if we put any effort into it, modern science is quite literally building murderous robots and wealth gouging algorithms instead. Just your friendly neighborhood Occultist reminding you that maybe, just maybe there’s something supremely fucked about that. Most of my heroes don’t appear on no stamps.

@Thad_McKraken

(magick updates continually running on the Facebooks, friend me)

, , , , , , , , ,

  • doodahman

    Gee, another media darling turns out to be a hot air pontificator? Do tell. People don’t get to be tv celebrities because they have an insight on truth. It’s because they have an appeal, on an non intellectual basis, to sufficient numbers to produce an audience that can generate revenues. And that’s why Cosmos is being redone by the new science face, Degrasse Tyson or whatever. Don’t let the bastards get you down.

    • kowalityjesus

      I had the impulse to hate on Neil DeGrassTyson when he became popular, as I objektively do with nearly every popular phenomenon, figuring he was full of hot air and/or famous because he’s like the only black scientist.

      I was wrong, he’s fuckin awesome.

      Sagan, however, has an inherently despicable element of character, which I think is related to an arrogance stemming from ignorant over-reliance on “rationality.” Does Tyson have the same element? Yes but in a much more elegant (less pompous) manner, imho.

      • Matt Staggs

        I like Tyson, but I would prefer that he stick to pontificating on matters that relate to his considerable education and expertise.

  • Damian Caligula

    Hot Carl haha. The scientifically inclined are gonna get their panties in a wad with this article. Post more. Keep pissing them off, they deserve it for taking themselves too seriously.

  • astrofrog

    Aaaand of chorus of outraged reactions from Disinfo’s skeptic community in 3, 2, 1….

    • echar

      Aaaaaand enabling supportive comments from Disinfo’s “open minded” community in…

    • Ken_A1

      Yeah, it’s just like [group of people that holds a certain point of view] to argue in favor of [that point of view], isn’t it?

      • astrofrog

        I don’t mind anyone arguing in favour of their point of view. It’s when their definition of ‘argument’ comes down to smug, bullying ignorance, as is typically the case with the skeptic movement, that there’s a problem.

        • Ken_A1

          That’s part and parcel of any nerdy subculture, including the ones represented here at Disinfo. There are plenty of snide and smug remarks to go around, including right here in this thread. So I’m not saying you’re wrong about the way the skeptical community positions itself with its rhetoric, but much of what makes me uncomfortable about that rhetoric is the fact that these ideologies are nearly as opposed to one another as people think.

  • https://soundcloud.com/molite Molite

    “One day I just snapped, but that’s another story”
    lets hear it

  • Tuna Ghost

    In reading some Sagan I found his critique of Hot Carl to be entirely on point, at least in the case of this particular book.

    I’m sure it’s not a case of confirmation bias that after being called out as a hack for bitterly insulting a writer you hadn’t even read, you read a little bit and discovered “oh I was right all along! Thank the lord for that, otherwise I would’ve looked like a real asshole”

    • echar

      looked?

  • http://2012diaries.blogspot.com/ tristan eldritch

    I’ve never had strong feelings about Sagan in one direction or another. Television personalities like Sagan and Degrasse Tyson shouldn’t be taken seriously as philosophers – either by their supporters or detractors.

  • Juan

    Great piece, Thad, and mad props for actually reading Sagan’s screed.
    You should find this interesting. It seems there are actually legit scientists taking this stuff very seriously. Fascinating stuff!

    http://www.whatifitreallyworks.com/2012/07/24/dean-radin-and-tom-campbell/

  • HCE

    Science has all the answers, the official version is the truth. Do not question, do not doubt. Nothing to see here, move along.

    I’m really impressed by how Science and it’s True Believers have explained *everything* or damn near, in a Universe we are only aware of by a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

    Unless skepticism is all-inclusive and unrelenting it’s merely prejudice in disguise.

    • Andrew

      Yes. People should be just as skeptical of what they find within themselves as of what authorities tell them.

    • echar

      Something about being open minded, and trying not to enable others to encourage illusions. (midparagraph) why should I bother? Blah blah blah… dude does drugs blah balh blah he fucks his wife blah blah blah he has a cool dog blah blah blah he likes music blah blah blah check out his journal and try not to tell me that’s not bs blah blah.

      • PrimateZero

        Friend him on Facebook blah blah blah…skeptical inquiry dismantles his favorite belief systems blah blah blah….

    • Krusty

      Very well said. The new religion is that they pretend don’t have a religion. But the definition needs a bit of updating as the new gods of ‘science’ (though one should wonder how a method of inquiry can be given such a high philosophical bias when it can only measure what it can measure). It wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t so ridiculously proud of their new paradigm, anything that is not within their purview is not only wrong but should be censored (eg. TED). I keep thinking i will be smelling the pages of a large book burning any day now as the speech is remarkably similar to those who have committed such atrocities. Don’t think so? Look at NPR last week, an interview with someone who is discussing the possibility (no claims are made) that reincarnation is a worthy study and the new religion went to town, hundreds of comments minutes after posting on how no one should consider such a subject worthy. I have become most skeptical of skeptics, bias is bias whether a person applies to a skin tone, sexual orientation or seeming esoteric phenomena.

    • kowalityjesus

      I would rationally like to believe that skepticism is an absolute good, but it seems there are enough sheerly irrational phenomena that exist so there will always need some need for humble compromise.

      I would like to think of ‘the rational’ as espoused by science using an analogy to music intonation theory. If you take 7 perfectly-tuned octaves and 12 perfectly-tuned 5ths, there is a minute discrepancy between the two notes at the extremities (even though they are the exact same ‘button’ on a keyboard). [pic] This small discrepancy (called the ‘Pythagorean comma’) means that you have to come up with all sorts of fancy tuning systems in order to sound ‘in tune’ on a keyboard in all keys, and will never be able to have a rigid tuning that is ‘completely right’ (“just”) at all times. Analogously, I don’t think there is a monolithic scientific explanation that is equally explanatory for all phenomena. There may be ones that get VERY close but we should not arrogantly declare that there absolutely must be one when the best we can do is a scattering of very good explanations.

  • emperorreagan

    It generally pays to be skeptical of anyone who paints a broad narrative – in particular because the nature of such things means the people writing them are usually relying on dated, secondary sources outside of their areas of expertise. The cohesion of the narrative will, at very least, encourage the omission of information that does not support said narrative (where the lag and nature of secondary sources selected doesn’t already taint the information).

  • Rob Myers

    Should be in all caps.

  • Rus Archer

    it’s true
    nobody has attempted scientific investigation of consciousness
    do they have google in seattle?

  • gustave courbet

    Max Planck observed “Science advances one funeral at a time.” What he meant was that people usually cling to their limited ideologies until death sweeps them away, allowing a new generation of less calcified thinkers to take up the pursuit of truth sans the assumptions of their forbearers.

  • Rhoid Rager

    I’ve been meaning to introduce the Disinfo community to a more in-depth look at the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. Here are a few quote drops from Wikiquote to whet your appetites:

    “First-world science is one science among many; by claiming to be more it ceases to be an instrument of research and turns into a (political) pressure group.”

    “Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is
    more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its
    law-and-order alternatives.”

    “Rationalism… is a secularized form of the belief in the power of the word of God.”

    “Experience arises together with theoretical assumptions not
    before them, and an experience without theory is just as
    incomprehensible as is (allegedly) a theory without experience.”

    “Science is not sacrosanct. The mere fact that it exists, is admired, has
    results is not sufficient for making it a measure of excellence. Modern
    science arose from global objections against earlier views and
    rationalism itself, the idea that there are general rules and standards
    for conducting our affairs, affairs of knowledge included, arose from
    global objections to common sense.”

    “The sciences of today are business enterprises run on business
    principles. Research in large institutes is not guided by Truth and
    Reason but by the most rewarding fashion, and the great minds of today
    increasingly turn to where the money is.”

    “I want to defend society and its inhabitants from all ideologies,
    science included. All ideologies must be seen in perspective. One must
    not take them too seriously. One must read them like fairy-tales which
    have lots of interesting things to say but which also contain wicked
    lies, or like ethical prescriptions which may be useful rules of thumb
    but which are deadly when followed to the letter.”

    “The progress of science, of good science, depends on novel ideas and on
    intellectual freedom: science has very often been advanced by outsiders
    (remember that Bohr and Einstein regarded themselves as outsiders).”

    “Today science prevails not because of its comparative merits, but
    because the show has been rigged in its favour… It reigns supreme
    because some past successes have led to institutional measures
    (education; role of experts; role of power groups such as the AMA) that
    prevent a comeback of the rivals.”

    “The validity of usefulness, adequacy of popular standards can be tested only by research that violates them.”

    “By now many intellectuals regard theoretical or ‘objective’ knowledge as
    the only knowledge worth considering. Popper himself encourages the
    belief by his slander of relativism. Now this conceit would have
    substance if scientists and philosophers looking for universal and
    objective morality had succeeded in finding the former and persuaded,
    rather than forced, dissenting cultures to adopt the latter. This is not
    the case.”

    • echar

      Please do… I feel that encouraging open minded skepticism is a boon.

      • Rhoid Rager

        Cool. I’m in the middle of translating a novel at the moment. Once that’s done I’ll get to writing a Disinfo article. I’m also planning on starting on a manuscript for a book I’ve been researching for the past 6 years or so. It was originally gonna be for academia, but I realized just how wrong that audience would be given the subject matter.

        • echar

          Pace yourself, man! :P

          • Rhoid Rager

            Problem is i paced myself too much over the past 2 years or so! It’s catch-up time.

          • echar

            A sense of urgency then? I figured it was something like that. I am curious about your book. What’s the topic, or is that secret?

          • Rhoid Rager

            Urgency if only measured against my non-urgency of the recent past. ;P My book will be an attempt to present a new perspective on social reality i developed (induced) while working on my PhD in International Relations for the past 6 years. It’s a metaphysical approach to social reality, which is to say, it overturns basic social assumptions (such as the utility-maximizing, atomized individual) to posit a broader, more encompassing (at the species level) ontological basis of social analysis. That’s the academic jargon that I’m working to write in a more clear-cut way for popular readers. It’s not that complex of an idea so i have to work on stating it in a more approachable way. But the importance of writing it to a broader audience is to, in part, wrest people from the grip of entrenched ideological indoctrination, and to shift the approach of how various problems our species now faces might be considered. I won’t be offering specific prescriptions, but more encouraging the development of possibilities through shifting our view of our world and ourselves. Sorry to be so vague; it’s quite a sizable thesis and very difficult to sum up clearly in such a brief blurb (until a publisher mangles it on the back cover).

          • echar

            Keep it up. If you find yourself getting burned, play some video games. It usually works for me. maybe hop between a few projects. Not that you need advice, it just felt right to say.

            Your book sounds interesting.

          • Rhoid Rager

            Thanks. Advice always appreciated. Don’t have a game console–wife has forbidden it for the sake of the children. lol.

          • echar

            Play on the computer, dude. Use a different part of your brain. Play some mah-jongg, or some other cpu light game if you are without the processing power.

            Maybe use some Binaural beats.

            http://www.reverbnation.com/psychesonics

          • Rhoid Rager

            Nice. Thanks for the link.

          • echar

            There’s exercise too. You probably know all this. You are welcome. Those are some beats. I have a light and sound brainwave entrainment machine. It’s interesting to use.

        • Cortacespedes

          Taking pre-orders?

          Wicked good quotes btw.

          • Rhoid Rager

            Thanks.
            I’ll let you know when I’m nearing completion. Probably in 6-8 months or so. ;)

        • Juan

          I’ve done a bit of translation work over the years, though what I mostly do is interpretation. Curious, what is the source language and what is the target language of your translation?

          • Rhoid Rager

            Source language is Japanese. Target is English.

            I’ve been studying Japanese for about 15 years. I live in Japan right now.

            You interpret Spanish to English and vice versa? What sector has the largest demand?

          • Juan

            Impressive, and I am more than a bit envious:) I would love to be fluent and literate in an Asian language, oh well . . .
            Yeah, I work as a Spanish language interpreter for the criminal courts in SoCal. Though, it is something I am still trying to get out of.
            I am not really sure what sector would have the largest demand. The demand in the punishment industry, where I work, is huge. Though things have slackened some due to increased border fortification, lots of deportations and a shitty economy.
            I imagine that the health sector would also have quite a demand for interpreters.

  • echar
    • Cortacespedes

      Dude!!!!! I was SO thinking that exactly!!!!!!!!

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    I’ve always been confused about the “occam’s razor” claim for justification of a belief. Can’t you never get simpler than “god did it” therefore satisfying the razor? It always seems to be more of “i’m an authority figure, listen to me” kind of argument than anything.

    • kowalityjesus

      yes, “God works in mysterious ways” is kind of the ultimate ‘why’. But it doesn’t always make it simpler. For example, “God placed dinosaur bones there to test our faith in His word” has a number of very complicating implications. lol

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        i get that, maybe it was a bad example, but it was more a targeted statement for those who would typically use occam’s razor, who undoubtedly would have a more simplistic version of god in their mind.

  • Rhoid Rager

    You can find me on Academia dot edu (although I’m not in academia anymore) under my name–Adam Goodwin. I have some papers there you can take a look at. I’ll be drawing material for my book from the arguments in them, and trying my best to expand it significantly. I won’t be updating my progress on my book regularly, but if you want to contact me through Disqus or by e-mail, feel free to do so.
    Thanks for your interest.

  • goatonastick

    Sounds like a tantrum because someone doesn’t want to have their magical view of the world shattered by cold, harsh reality.

21
More in Aliens, Braggity-Blunderbuss, Carl Sagan, Metaphysics, Rationality, Robert Anton Wilson, Science, Skepticism, the occult
Public Misperceptions & ESP – Psychical Research Under the Microscope

Anew article in the Guardian highlights a study conducted by the University of Melbourne  (Click Here for the article) looking at people's ability to cognate observations that occur below their...

Close