Categories:
Student Resources
  STRZELECKI
    Character
    Emigration
    EqualityOfAll
    Humanitarian
    MultiThemed
    PenPortraits
  KOSCIUSZKO
    Character
    EqualityOfAll
    Inspires Irish
    OldTKSavesVillage
    PenPortrait
Other Articles
Search 

Szukanie Rozszerzone
Strzelecki Competition:

Archives:

Advertisment:

 
24 czerwca 2005
"What the bleep do we know"
Andrzej Kozek

"What the Bleep Do We Know!?" is a commercial type movie produced by a para-scientific organization 'The Institute of Noetic Sciences and Captured Light Industries' (IONS). Their mission statement is:

'Exploring the frontiers of consciousness to advance individual, social, and global transformation.'

and in Overview we read:

'We are a nonprofit membership organization located in Northern California that conducts and sponsors leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness—including perceptions, beliefs, attention, intention, and intuition. The institute explores phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models, while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor.'

Well, when you look closer, the non-profit statement is becoming more specific. Membership in IONS is at US$55 annual fee, they organize seminars (for a fee, of course), selling publications (for a fee, of course), organize workshops - you guess, for a fee, naturally.

And when you alraedy become a member you are being offered the following options:

'Our new Monthly Giving Program makes it easy to be an ongoing IONS member through electronic funds transfer. Those who wish to support the institute through greater financial commitments can invest in IONS' future to help expand our work and programs.'

So, this 'non-profit' organization produced a commercial for which, however, you have to pay a regular fee. The movie is packed with 'scientists', who are introduced in a glory of their voluminous 'scientific' achievements and fame of their academic titles. All of these aims, of course, to impress viewers. The 'researchers' represent a number of exotic branches of sciences, of which Quantum Mechanics plays a prominent role.

The real standard of these researchers presented in the commercial can be found only by tracking down their activity and research publications.

Unfortunately, nowadays, as a result of commercialisation of Academia, we are facing the whole spectrum of academic degrees. On top of this, people are changing their orientation over time and sometimes abandon their original standards for the sake of popular fame or an increased income.

Unfortunately, I must say, the Academia does not have built in regulations allowing to recall its titles, like Church or even a military do in the case of misconduct. Nowadays, even a degree from a reputable institution is not any more guarantee of a reliable standard. So, be very careful, as academic degrees are exloited to the limits in "What the bleep" to impress viewers and attract potential clients to the para-business.

Like in medical sciences, if such a research attempting to explore the frontiers of consciousness intends to be committed to scientific rigor it must be investigated with an objective statistical scrutiny. I am a professional statistician and, dispite searching the best available in my profession data bases, I did not find any serious statistical research confirming these type para-results.

There exists, however a heap of enthusiastic para-scientific publications related or produced by The Institute of Noetic Sciences. There exists also in the literature a heap of evidence showing that also research conducted by professionals can be biased, if desire of discovering or belief in the expected result of experiment dominate over the professional scrutiny and methodology.

So, eventually, the researchers presented in the movie happen to be para-researchers and represent now para-science, not a hard and verifiable science.

William Tiller, Ph.D. in Engineering Physics, some time ago specialized in Physics of freezing process, now he runs a 'William Tiller Foundation for New Science' and writes books on Subtle Energies, Intentionality & consciousness.

John Hagelin, Ph.D. has done some research in Quantum Physics, now he is a President of 'Science and Technology of the Global Country of World Peace'. Dr. Hagelin continues to build up the “US Peace Government,” a complementary government dedicated to preventing problems and promoting peace.

Ramtha is a mystic and hierophant supposedly channeling through J.Z. Knight. She runs, for good money, eight days workshops at the 'Ramtha's School of Enlightement'. And so on, and so on, you can run through a long list of featured in "What the bleep" 'top World scientists'.

The plot of the movie tries to mimick the 'Alice in a Wonderland' story. The main heroin of the movie, Amanda is leading viewers through verious episodes which are supposed to mimick 'rabbit holes'. One of them is what they label a 'Polish wedding'. It also remains in relation to a real Polish wedding like para-science to science. Each episode points to some mysteries on the boundary of consciousness and gives some para-scientific, para-Quantum Mechanic or mystic explanation. The film was boring to me, despite quite expensive visual and acoustic effects.

Of course, you can't learn much from this movie. You can't rely on any statement in it. It goes through rambling over para-scientific dogmas wired with real scientific discoveries and promoting New Age - type models for religion and God, the Ultimate Observer.

Komentarze czytelników: 4
Puls Polonii nie odpowiada za treść komentarzy nadesłanych przez czytelników!
29/06/2005
Queries (Selma)
 
30/06/2005
What the bleep (Andrzej Kozek)
 
03/07/2005
Dokładniejsze sprawdzenie wiarogodności filmu (Andrzej Kozek)
Dear Selma,

Bernie Hobbs from The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science,
checks out the science behind the film's claims.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/bleep/default.htm
 
03/07/2005
Thank you (Selma)
Hello

Thank you for replying and understanding that I am inquisitive. Your answer was beneficial and I will certainly look up the sources you suggested.

I would just like to add that I only mention the sciences in my article once. I never attempt to discuss them, as I am not a scientist.
Although I wrote a positive review I never claimed that the theories presented were fact.
I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding on these two points.

Best Wishes,
Selma