Suppressed Science

To quote Physicist Niels Bohr: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature". He was trying to say that consensus mainstream science, which forms alot of our world-views and belief systems regarding our reality, will always fail to explain the data when it tries to objectify the subjective using intellectual terminology.

Western Science thrives on the idea that the human intellect has some sort of great clue on how to properly control their inside and outside environment (mind and matter). The fact is, that humans use their intellect to go against the natural flow of life and nature. Those who question this, are shunned and told off and "insane" and un-scientific. Money is a huge factor in mainstream science. The more money that is involved, the less creativity and real progressive ideas are brought forth. Western science, along with Western religion, will always suppress those who oppose a safe and objective understanding of reality. But the fact remains, that science is FAR from what is just accepted in the consensus mainstream. There is a huge underground of scientists who are truly open-minded to the data, but skeptical of the answers. This threatens herd-based belief systems, because it causes individuals to truly think outside social norms regarding views of reality.

Science should not not be known by its by work in social "progress", medical progress and technological advantage; it should be represented by people who will not suppress the data as it comes in by replacing it with simple terminology that appeases those who will believe anything.

Suppressed Science is not true science.

"Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors."