The Critique of Modern Science

Overview

The Pax Judaica framework includes a sweeping critique of modern science, arguing that scientific research is deliberately directed toward materialist goals while suppressing inquiry into consciousness, spirituality, and ancient civilizations. The framework suggests that institutions like CERN serve purposes beyond particle physics, and that credentialism, bureaucracy, and specialization prevent genuine discovery.

This article examines these claims alongside legitimate critiques of the scientific establishment.

Legitimate Critiques of Science

Setting aside conspiracy framing, real problems exist in scientific institutions:

The Replication Crisis

Documented:2

• Many published studies fail to replicate
• Psychology: 36-50% replication rate in major studies
• Medicine: Similar problems in preclinical research3
• Causes: publication bias, p-hacking, underpowered studies

This is a real crisis acknowledged by scientists themselves.

Funding Distortions

Documented issues:4

Specialization Problems

Documented:6

• Scientists increasingly work in narrow silos
• Cross-disciplinary work is undervalued
• Broad thinkers are rare in academia
• Integration of knowledge is difficult

Credentialism

Documented:7

• Academic job market requires specific credentials
• Outsiders face barriers to publication/recognition
• Peer review can enforce orthodoxy
• "Publish or perish" culture distorts incentives

Evaluating Specific Claims

"Billions on Particle Physics"

What's documented:8

• CERN's annual budget: ~$1.2 billion
• US physics funding: ~$15 billion total (all areas)
• Compared to: Global military spending (~$2 trillion), healthcare (~$9 trillion)

Context:

• Particle physics is a small fraction of science funding
• Basic research has historically produced unexpected benefits (transistor, MRI, GPS)9
• Funding choices are debatable but not obviously irrational

"Nothing on Consciousness"

What's documented:10

• Consciousness research does exist (neuroscience departments, philosophy)
• Allen Institute, Templeton Foundation fund consciousness research
• The "hard problem" is widely discussed11
• Funding is indeed smaller than physics

Why?

• Consciousness is harder to operationalize/measure
• What would research on consciousness "look like"?
• Not clear what "studying consciousness" would produce
• Philosophical vs. empirical questions blur

"No Great Discoveries in 50-70 Years"

Counterexamples:12

The claim is demonstrably false if we count these as "great."

Ancient Civilizations Ignored?

What's documented:13

• Göbekli Tepe is actively being excavated
• Archaeology departments exist worldwide
• Ancient civilizations are studied extensively

What may be true:

• Funding is limited compared to some other fields
• Unconventional theories get less attention
• Mainstream archaeology rejects some alternative claims14

The CERN Question

What CERN Actually Does

Large Hadron Collider:8

• Accelerates particles to near light speed
• Collides them to study fundamental physics
• Discovered Higgs boson (2012)15
• Studies matter/antimatter, dark matter candidates
• Basic research, no direct commercial application

The "Interdimensional Portal" Claim

What's claimed: CERN is trying to open portals to other dimensions

What's documented:

• CERN scientists study theoretical "extra dimensions" (string theory)16
• These are mathematical constructs, not physical portals
• No evidence of success in "opening portals"
• Elaborate security theater would be pointless for this

The claim conflates:

• Mathematical dimensions (theoretical constructs)
• Physical dimensions (space you could travel to)
• Sci-fi concepts (portals, demon realms)

Why Does CERN Exist?

Mainstream view:

• Understanding fundamental physics
• Prestige/competition between nations
• Training ground for scientists
• Technology spinoffs (WWW invented at CERN)17

Framework view:

• Occult purposes
• Dimensional manipulation
• Secret society agenda

The Kuhn Paradox

What Kuhn Actually Argued

Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions":1

Normal science operates within paradigms

Anomalies accumulate

Crisis leads to paradigm shift

New paradigm becomes orthodoxy

Key point: Paradigm shifts are messy and take time.

The Einstein Counterexample

The framework asks: If paradigm shifts are slow, why was Einstein immediately famous?

Historical reality:18

• Einstein's papers initially got little attention (1905)
• Relativity was controversial for years
• Eddington's 1919 eclipse observation helped validate
• Full acceptance took decades

Einstein wasn't "immediately world famous"—the story is more complex.

Does Rapid Acceptance Prove Conspiracy?

Alternative explanations:

• Some ideas are so clearly useful they spread fast
• Timing and proof matter
• Social networks in science accelerate spread
• Media attention varies

The logic fails: If acceptance is slow → suppression. If acceptance is fast → promotion by conspiracy. Both outcomes "prove" the theory.

The "What Science Doesn't Study" List

Consciousness

• Actually studied in: Neuroscience, philosophy of mind, cognitive science, psychology10
• Funding: Lower than physics but not zero
• Challenge: Hard to operationalize; "hard problem" may be philosophical11

Imagination/Intuition

• Actually studied in: Cognitive psychology, creativity research19
• Challenge: Definitions vary; measurement is difficult

Ghosts/Spirits

• Why not mainstream: No reproducible evidence
• Challenge: What would "studying" this look like? Parapsychology exists but doesn't replicate20

Religious Truth

• Actually studied in: Religious studies, theology, philosophy
• Why not "science": Science studies empirical claims; "truth" is philosophical

Telepathy

• History: Extensively tested in parapsychology20
• Results: No reproducible positive results
• Challenge: Negative results led to funding decline

Animal/Plant Intelligence

• Actually studied in: Ethology, cognitive ecology, plant neurobiology21
• Recent growth: Significant increase in animal cognition research

Ancient Civilizations

• Actually studied in: Archaeology, anthropology, history
• Göbekli Tepe: Active excavation site; widely published13

The Materialism Claim

The Framework's Argument

Science promotes materialism because secret societies want to deny spiritual reality.

Alternative Explanations

Why science is methodologically materialist:22

Operational: Material things are measurable; spiritual claims aren't

Historical: Material methods produced results

Pragmatic: Scientists study what they can study

Philosophical: Naturalism is assumed (but could be wrong)

This doesn't require conspiracy—just the logic of empirical methods.

Can Science Study Non-Material Things?

The hard question:

• If something has no measurable effects, how would science detect it?
• If it has measurable effects, those effects become the subject of study
• The immaterial is defined partly by being outside empirical reach

Discussion Questions

What legitimate critiques of scientific institutions exist separate from conspiracy?

How do we decide which research to fund?

Does methodological materialism bias science against spiritual claims?

What would studying consciousness "properly" look like?

Further Reading

• The Science Critique
• British Enlightenment Philosophy
• Silicon Valley & The Tech Oligarchs
• Transhumanism & The Two-Tier Future

This article examines the framework's critique of modern science. Some critiques (replication crisis, funding distortions, credentialism) are legitimate; claims about CERN portals and deliberate suppression of spiritual research lack evidence.