13 of 21 people found the following review helpful
Compelling reading but not without its problems...,
This review is from: Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations Behind the 2012 (Hardcover)
Whilst The Source Field Investigations is indeed a compelling read - and features many stunning revelations, it is one of these books that fundamentally undermines itself. How? Graham Hancock hints at it in his endorsement when he says "There is a tremendous amount of good science here" - the implication being that there's also a lot of not very good science here too, which unfortunately is the case. By referencing this not-very-good-science alongside the good science, Wilcock muddies the water and ends up fundamentally undermining his credibility and his whole evidence dossier on the Source Field theory. Which is a real pity as its a neat and elegant theory!
Alternative theorists / thinkers have to tread a difficult line being proponents of alternative ideas and concepts but with enough supporting facts or indicators to gives their ideas some justification. The challenge they face is that as soon as solid scientific evidence is found to discredit (or support, occasionally) an alternative theory then that idea / concept / phenomenon ceases to become alternative and becomes conventional mainstream (accepted) science-fact or proven innaccuracy.
With a diminishing pool of ideas (and a competitive alternative science marketplace), alternative theorists are forced into new areas, and it seems universally the case that their ideas become more and more radical with less and less supporting evidence. This may sell books to the faithful fan-base of fantacists, but to the rest of us - Alternative Science just looks a little nuts...
Wilcock is well into this zone, and the sheer lack of concrete evidence, peer reviewable / re-creatable science is just painful at times, and you cry out "Why David, Why?! By citing this you've just made yourself look silly and now I have to wonder whether everything else you've just told me is also complete nonsense!" Of course the most incredible scientific "discoveries" are all conventiently seized upon by the covert worldwide intelligence police of the global power elite, and then stowed away never to see the light of day again - leaving us with only tantalising glimpses. Hmm, for this kind of scientific policing to be possible they'd certainly need time-travel capability - but then if they did - why would they leave us any tantalising glimpses at all? You can see how so many Alternative Theorists get their nickers in a twist.
And this is a great pity as alternative views, ideas and interpretations have a really important role to play in keeping institutionalised mainstream science on its toes.
Wilcock has written a fascinating and enjoyable book, but there's just too much nonsense and unverifiable science for it to be taken seriously as a scientific investigation.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Aug 2012 16:03:58 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Aug 2012 16:10:24 BDT
A. Barber says:
Thank you ljgw69 Who ever you are!
Graham Hancock does not hint that there is a lot of not verry good science at all..... and anyone who is drawn to the book and reads it will obviously see this.What he does say is that skeptics will react to such unorthdox notions with savage attacks, so i guess you won't be possative to ushering in any new age! with the latent powers that lay dormant within all of us. enjoy your continuing sleep and enjoy the Verifiable science as it unfolds before your eyes over the coming years good luck. ps please do not lable people who are open minded fantacistcs,in instiutionalised mainstream science there are many people who know how flored the institutionalised system is but are fearful to say so because it could be a bad career move at best. Just because the mainstream have in many cases outlawd a lot of what russian science has shown does not make it wrong.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2013 07:41:29 GMT
Robert Corrie says:
There is a tremendous amount of good science here" - the implication being that there's also a lot of not very good science here too///
That's an interesting logical leap!
Posted on 13 Mar 2013 15:36:24 GMT
Gavin Phillips says:
Peer reviewed by scientists in the employ of mainstream science and locked into materialistic science. How do you measure consciousness?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›