David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

The strong point for me about the man is that he supplies references in a very methodological almost scientific manner. So basically almost everything he says is checkable.

I can't avoid the obvious dig at David's "pseudo-science". In this day and age of the internet , you can, I'm sure find sources that will support any contention that you may propose. The problem is finding those that have been independently verified and undergone rigorous peer review. As I scientist and engineer myself, I understand all too well the biases inherent in this process, but like democracy in spite of all it's shortcomings, it's still the best system we've found.

Actually I don't think we can find evidence for just ANY statement. If it seems like that perhaps we need to dig deeper. Just because a website says something is true does not mean it is. The internet is filled with half truths and hearsay.

Like you I am also a scientist. And the philosophy of science and scientific method is one of my pet hobbies. So I hope I have some ability to discern between truth and fiction.

I agree that strictly scientifically speaking David's work isn't on all levels scientifically proven. It's why I said "Almost scientific". But he's making a strong effort in that direction. Which is why I believe it is good. Or as good as it gets without going into the community process.

All that aside, the real problem that I have with David's attempts to "prove" his points, is that, to me at least, they are all really unprovable by design of the Logos. There will always be legitimate reasons to cast doubt on any of the proofs, thus leaving room for doubt to anyone who wishes to doubt.

Science has this problem as well. The whole creationism debate at this point proves that people are free to disbelieve hard science. We do not have to worry about imposing on other peoples free will by desiring to make a hard case for some scientific or pseudo scientific statements.

If you don't wish to doubt, then why spend the time trying to verify it? Just accept it and move on. More likely than not, you'll find yourself somewhere in between, believing some of his assertions and doubting others. So either way don't you ultimately find the answer inside yourself as to which resonates with you, and what you will take to heart?

I appreciate the idea that our inner light will guide us. But have you been to any new age fairs lately? The amount of garbage people are willing to believe is astonishing.

If you remember this lady Blossom Goodchild who predicted aliens would do a mass landing august last year? I think the woman believed it. I think she really channeled the information. And I did not believe it for a second because it did not fit most any other source of information out there. Including my own.

Did it resonate? I think the sheer amount of her followers proves that it did. Heck it even resonated with me.. Apart from the fact that I knew it would not be true. And I could state the reasons why it would not be true. I paradoxically found that I WANTED it to be true. So it resonated a lot.

The point is that resonance is not good enough. If we were able to just sense the answers to our questions we would not have developed science, philosophy and math. This intuition is part of the puzzle, but never the full answer.

Save yourself the time of trying to verify or validate David's proofs, very few of them will hold up to modern scientific scrutiny. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, just that without becoming an expert in the various fields, you'll never be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Ultimately, I don't expect to find proof of any of my foundational spiritual beliefs, but I also don't found any of them on transitory phenomena either.

I believe in the principle "homo universalis". I'm addicted to learning stuff. So even if Davids work would turn out to be false. I'd have spent my time enjoying myself. I'll learn, I'll verify I'll keep looking for more knowledge. It's what I've done ever since I could read. And if you ask my parents who played the endless "Why" games with me. I did that forever.

So if verifying something requires me to become an expert in the field. Then I'll gladly do that. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying the level of "professor" But a discerning mind who uses a lot of sources reads a lot of opinions uses some common sense and who tries to poke holes in his own theories can usually find answers. As they say: good enough for government work.

You and I both know that being a scientist is mainly about the ability to think critically. You have to have the mindset. The knowledge is secondary. If you know everything that the greatest scientist in the world knows. But don't think like a scientist then you're not a scientist. If you know nothing but think like a scientist. Then you'll be able to know when you don't have enough information to make a judgement and you'll know when you do.

Sorry, for getting on my soapbox, I'll step down now.

Please get on it again soon Everyone is entitled to your opinion !