PROMETHEUS UNBOUND SERIES
FOLLOW THE SCIENCE...?
How About We Lead It!
By Russ von Ohlhausen
Condensed from MidHeaven Magazine
ALL HAIL, FOLLOWERS OF SCIENCE
“Just Follow the Science”…what a punchy little slogan, I hear it a lot these days. I’d love to use it myself more often, and I used to do so without really thinking about it. In fact, I do still refer people to trust the science from time-to-time – but now with a list of qualifiers attached, in order to clarify what I personally mean. Recently, there has been an ambiguous trend towards ‘following the science’ in the public arena and on social media. On most issues, it doesn’t really matter what camp you put yourself in, there is some kind of scientific exploration to support or to oppose your view. One level of science will rise, while another type of science falls, and people will remember what they wish, and cherry-pick their way through their favorite science-like factoids. Understanding what science actually is, what it once was, and what it needs to become, is a crucial clarifying phase in personal and social evolution. Most people don’t realize that collective evolutionary step yet. In this piece, we will broadly discuss astrology within the context of modern contemporary mainstream research, and we will ponder how this separation or schism of science might come to an end, as we re-invigor a new cycle of spiritual science…
Infinite Universal Possibilities…. but not Astrological?
Scientists attest that we live in a Universe of infinite complexity, possibility and potential – but not one where the planetary fields could possibly affect human behaviours. According to ‘scientists’, either astrologically functioning universes are not part of the equations of infinite multiversal possibilities (which seems mathematically paradoxical) – or – we live in one of the branches of the multiverse where planetary field energies and particle interactions play no part in the cycles and behaviours of humanity (which also seems statistically implausible). From what we know about the nature of reality, I find both arguments against astrology to be rather problematic. It also defies what all cultures, that have come before us, have handed down as higher knowledge for thousands of years. In fact, I would suggest that the fundamental matrix pattern which acts as a binding force between all things, can be described by both astrological and mathematical symbolic vocabulary – and always has been. At this time, our culture just refuses to accept that they are possibly just dialects of the same cosmic language.
A Fickle Sickle of Truth
So why not thoroughly question those who’ve been granted positions of academic authority and superiority, who say that this is so or that is not? And why take their word for it? As astrologers, we know innately to question the so-called science. We would not be ‘astrologers’ if we had not first questioned things which we were taught in school through ‘science’. Being an astrological-scientist is an oxymoron to most mainstream scientists (even to many astrologers), but that is what we have always been, as both mage and mathematician. When science was in the realm of natural philosophy, astrology was at the core of all knowledge and thought. Maybe in separating more and more wheat from the finer and finer chaff, we somehow lost connection with the parts that contained the most nourishment when properly combined.
If we are truly in an infinite multiverse, then why is it NOT possible to have a galactic center, which energetically binds solar and planetary nuclei, that correspond and resonate with ever smaller fractals of itself? The nucleus of an atom, of a cell, of a particle, of a planet, or a star, ultimately they are fields affecting other fields, including our intimate reality and our behaviours. ‘Science’ says it is not possible… but we know it is. As we awaken from an Age old ego story and from our own deception, how can we continue to deny the undeniable? In this search for ultimate truth, we must face the fact the ancients are right; we are integrally entwined with the patterns of energy around us. We know these patterns and these energies that create this macro-micro bridge as the Zodiac….
‘SCIENCE’ SHOULD BE LEFT TO SCIENTISTS
Science: a branch of systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, showing the operation of general fundamental laws (taken from an online dictionary). This definition of ‘science’ is as good as any other general definition of science…if you are a muggle! This is basically what science has been distilled down to – observable information regarding the material world. Well, I cannot observe all the things you observe and vice versa; most don’t actually get to directly observe anything science has done. The translations of one’s observations is also subject to some bias, even when being described mathematically. And, what about the unobservable, non-tangible aspects of reality? What about consciousness? What about spirituality? What about life-force?And for we metaphysicians, what about astrology?
That which we currently call ‘science’ could be likened to an unthinking materially-focused information-bot tramping through our collective knowledge base or a corporeal virus infecting the physical senses of it’s spiritual host entity. It has grown more infectious for the last few centuries, as it concentrated on naming, classifying, industrializing and synthesizing the physical properties of the material world. In one sense, science is just doing what it has been designed to do, and it is beginning to act upon and evaluate itself. Science has recently begun to openly re-question the validity, the bias, and the limitations of science and scientific inquiry, as we discover that the boundaries between domains are not as well-defined as material science would like to believe.
Science: The Art of Separation
Before I dissect a concept, I like to process the history of its meaning by looking into it etymologically. I have already touched on a generally acceptable definition of the word ‘science’ but now let’s take a look at its roots, where the word comes from. Since the 1400’s, colloquial ‘science’ has essentially been considered a ‘body of experiential knowledge’; and around the 1670’s, (when Pluto was in Cancer, approximately the same time as a major split with astrology in Europe) science has been concerned with “non-art studies”. With that, a distinct line was drawn that few serious material scientists would dare publicly cross, including the likes of Isaac Newton despite his decades of work in alchemy & metaphysics.
Science, through one aspect of its many connotative meanings, implies a type of certainty through agreement of acquired knowledge. The word derives from 12th century Latin, scientia or sciens, meaning “knowledge, knowing or expertness”. It is etymologically related to the verb scire – “to know”, “to distinguish” or “separate one thing from another”, and also scindere – “to cut or divide”. The PIE (Proto-Indo-European) root *skei, meaning “to cut, split, or to cleave”. This is also the root of the word schism.
Science Has Become The Schism
Science, as it is now, should be left to the scientists; in fact, leading edge scientific discovery is out of reach for most people, as well as the higher mathematics required to properly translate and communicate that information directly from the edge. But just because the prevailing mathematical dialect of the multitude of physical sciences requires strict adherence and repetition (much like any other religion) it does not mean higher knowledge is unattainable. The ancient cultures attained the relevant higher knowledge by just using their bodies and minds – the power of thought communicated that information through symbols.
I personally feel we must re-embrace this way of direct experience and exploration of the cosmos through a deeper richer understanding of the meta-sciences. Reality, by most accounts is beyond the material, it is that which lies after the separation, the schism created by science’s excommunication of the spiritual. Orgianly well-intended though increasingly misguided, science has lost its way, even going so far as to declare that there is no spirit, no soul, no quintessence the intangible substance that first gives rise to existence.
STOP LYING TO OURSELVES
I would like to point out the obvious – present-day ‘science’ is fundamentally flawed, plain and simple. (I thumb my nose at you, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil deGras Tyson and other ‘bishops of science’ for laughing off astrology; it simply shows the narrow bandwidth of your intellect.) Despite what one may think about academic rigor and the scientific method, the contemporary ‘institution of science’ is egoically flawed and counterfactual at the foundational level. When you build your house of knowledge on sand, it will eventually erode and crumble. I could drag this assertion and argument into the current arena of manipulated materialistic agendas but there are plenty of earth-loving spiritual evangelizers already on that soapbox. Instead, I present a little science from scientists to show how unscientific science actually is.
A Scientific Inquiry into the Scientificness of Science
In a 2005 published paper entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, by John Ioannidis, physician-scientist and professor at Stanford University, it was shown that just short of one-third of ALL published research is wrong, even with the current system working optimally (as of 2020, this paper was the most accessed article in the Public Library of Science). The paper also showed that factoring in projects that have a higher ratio of false hypothesis to true hypothesis in a given area being tested, projects that are under-funded or under-powered (which a substantial percentage are), and if the researchers have a personal or monetary incentive towards bias the situation is exponentially worse. In 2011, this lead researchers to take a look at past landmark areas of research in order to estimate the severity of the problem with The Reproducibility Project.
The (Ir)Reproducibility Crisis
It is quite apparent, even to most scientists, that the overall research methods of science are not as sound as they may seem. The Reproducibility Project, chose to reproduce 100 research projects in the field of psychology. Only 36% of the studies were able to be repeated with a significant p-value (the measure of the probability that an observed difference could have occurred just by random chance). Of those thirty-six studies, the statistical evidence to support their conclusions were only 50% as strong or clear as they had been in the original study.
The project then reproduced 53 ‘major landmark studies’ in the area of cancer research. Working closely with the original research authors, they were only able to reproduce 6 studies with any p-value significance. (Now 47 of those ‘landmark cancer studies’ are considered not relevant, yet since the professional journals do not publish replicated studies and rarely publish negative results, the misinformation remains as truth to the public.) The project then gave twenty-nine different research groups identical data for analysis and interpretation of results. Using the same information, some of the research teams found there were no significant results, while others found that the results concluded were three times the amount of what was mathematically expected.
Researchers have to make a lot of decisions about data analysis which can directly sway the p-value. The manipulation of variables in order to get a more significant result, is known as p-hacking . This is not always done deliberately, yet there is intense competition and pressure to get a paper published and to get one’s research funded. Scientific careers hinge on it and most research is not published unless it has outstanding significance.Intentional or unintentional, p-hacking is common; it’s just human nature to guide an endeavour towards a desired result. And, whether that result actually establishes an accurate piece of information or a fundamental truth, only a more holistic picture will reveal.
THE UNDIVIDED WHOLE
Looking at the entire body of scientific research, we know it is statistically implausible for 100% of research findings to be accurate. Even with the most sophisticated methods, latest devices and tools, the highest standards of practice, and rigorous peer review, published research is still more often incorrect rather than correct; it is just the statistical fact. It is the hubris of our generations to think otherwise. At the moment, it simply lacks the knowledge of higher consciousness and ignores the evidence that all things are fundamentally connected. Could the planetary energies or even the prevailing thoughts of the scientist of the time in which research is done effect results? I do suggest that the metaphysics behind it all does play a part individually and generationally. (I suggest that you look into the astrological basis for the bio-chemical work of astrological scientist Lili Kolisko, in order to better understand these micro-macro effects upon ‘scientific research’ as a whole system, also how science and inquiry are affected by cycles of time.)
It’s Leading Us Somewhere
Some of you might be thinking that I am really hard on ‘science’ or even that I have become some anti-science anarchist – not at all. I feel strongly that the current work of contemporary science is the next level of spiritual work which has not been fully or properly interpreted in the context of an evolving consciousness. It is still the work of ‘spirit’, even if it is being done by mostly atheistic non-religious anti-spiritual types. Science is playing a part in our spiritual journey. We each have our own level of experiential knowledge and personal experience that guides our choices. For many, astrology is that personal science which informs choice. There is nothing scientific which is not spiritual and nothing spiritual that is not also science. So sure, while answering the hard questions of our time, keep following the science, at least what you think of as science, and see where that takes you…each decision and direction is part of our collective path but let’s remember to make it a compassionate one for all parts of ourself along the way to wherever we are headed…
