Like a boss. That is all.
Actually, this is a lighter side of the look of the darker side of perception. Yea we all have perception. The trick is that each of us has perceptive abilities completely unique to us. You see things differently than I do. That's just human nature. And being unique allows each and every one of you to be special in your own way. This gives you talents. It mixes things up among us. It is quite beautiful. Yet, somehow amidst all of the intermingling talents of all of us together, there seems to be something that draws us toward one another. Like minds think alike.
But what if this goes too far? WHen do like minds that think alike start isolating themselves and chastising others? This is the darker side of human nature, and I have witnessed it throughout several thousand years. First, I will say this: No-one is against you but yourself. Your perception creates the outer reflection you choose to personify. BAM! Second, I am going to just put this right here and leave it: Science is the new religion. Spirituality is the old religion. I guess that makes religion the medieval religion. This generalization is based on the age of the concepts taught within the circles and the collective mentalities of those within who perpetuate the dogma. The real truth of the matter is that they are not separate. Rather, each of these generalizations represents an evolution of thought. And the thought purveyed is elegantly simple (unless we complicate it). We are all just trying to figure out how we came to be!
But the perception misconception is clearly evident today. People want to create sides. Barriers. The ol' I.m right and you're wrong situation. Well guess what? There are no absolute rights and wrongs. I'll say it again. There are no absolute rights and wrongs! Even the laws of physics themselves are debunked with enough evidence or changing conditions. What you think of as right and wrong is typically a reflection of your core values. The values are what drives the alignment toward or away from other schools of thought. But there are no walls as long as you are going toward something. The mental barriers are created by moving away from something. Think about where you are putting your energy when you are moving away from something. The energy is still there, isn't it? And does that deplete you or fulfill you? Now think about moving toward something, and notice how your energy changes. Is it magic? Is it science? It is both!
Here's why I am writing about this: Yesterday a friend shared a "news" article steering people away from sites the author considers to be pseudoscience. I am not arguing with the validity of any of these outlets. Rather, I'm presenting a view of the bias the author has attempted to present toward the reader. Before going too far, let's call attention to how we must coin terms and label things (and people). Yes, science is based on systems of classification. But when someone presents data that doesn't fit yours, what if you could openly acknowledge the ideas without the labels? After all isn't that the sign of true intelligence? Unfortunately, too many people choose to label and cast out. Be gone with ye pseudoscience!
The article, published in USA Today, was about "Sites to Avoid." I ask again, where are you putting your energy, and do you see yourself moving toward or away from it? Several "pseudoscience" sites were called out, as if the witch hunt was about to start (hehe my perception). Sites included Collective Evolution, Spirit Science, and Dr. Mercola to name a few. I agree that these sites may present a lot of information that is not legit. It's really up to the end user to determine themselves and do the background research. But we don't always do that. This can lead to misinformation. Personally, I like some of the sites' posts if they are presented in a positive, constructive way (yes there's a science behind uplifting people—really). But I admit, I stopped following one of them due to the underlying negativity I felt in their posts and quotes. As I said it's up to you. Someone shouldn't have to decide for you what you choose to follow. That's the bottom line.
Well, this apparently got the gears grinding in my head. Some people think that they can label and chastise others for reporting what may or may not be misinformation. Now, in this brand new moment, take your attention toward the rest of the scientific media on social networks. What are they presenting, and is it better? Is it more accurate? Or is it just as opinionated and biased? Which direction is it going—toward science or away from pseudoscience? Most importantly, is there bias present? "Science" sites like I Fucking Love Science, Quarks to Quasars, Futurism, Big Think (all sites I love to follow), and others ALL present their OPINION. That is not what science is about! So the lesson here is that whatever you choose to read, do so carefully, allowing your perception to filter out the bias and opinions that others seem to want you to think. It's just human nature to think alike in schools of thought. But that doesn't make anything right or wrong.
As a scientist, I don't give a shit if you present pseudoscience to me. I will accept all data and seek the truth. I don't even care that much if I am labelled a pseudoscientist (I did come up with Grand Slam Theory of the Omniverse, a controversial scientific proposal stepping into a new frame of reference of not yet offered by today's traditional science). But I will say this to close my rant: The only bullshit is the bias. Let the data do the talking!