Wired’s recent piece (https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-launches-grokipedia-wikipedia-competitor/) criticized Elon Musk’s newly launched Grokipedia for promoting what the magazine characterized as “far‑right” talking points, and that critique itself made use of left‑wing language and framings to mark those claimed offenses. Noting the substance of Wired’s objections is essential: the article flagged apparent questions of provenance, sourcing, and rhetorical slant in a newly public knowledge product, and those are legitimate journalistic concerns. At the same time, the piece’s reliance on ideologically-loaded language and viewpoints complicates the claim that it is a neutral adjudicator of bias.

The important nuance is this: when a mainstream outlet uses clearly left‑leaning rhetorical frames to condemn a platform for amplifying far‑right arguments, the meta‑effect can be paradoxical. Some readers will hear the critique as necessary correction. Others will hear it as confirmation that legacy media are themselves political actors using their own ideological toolkit to police epistemic boundaries. That reaction does not automatically vindicate the newcomer, but it does mean the conversation about bias becomes about contests of authority rather than about shared standards for truth and provenance.

This dispute exposes a deeper structural problem in how public knowledge is governed. Concentrated cultural authority—whether exercised by veteran magazines, volunteer encyclopedias, or powerful algorithmic platforms—creates incentives to defend institutional standing and to deploy partisan language as a form of reputational control. New entrants that position themselves as correctives will be judged not only on accuracy but also on whether they threaten existing cultural capital, and critics who use partisan frames risk converting factual critique into identity signaling.

The remedy must be institutional and procedural rather than merely rhetorical. All large reference projects should publish clear, machine‑readable provenance: who authored an entry, what sources were used, which parts were AI‑generated, and what the revision history looks like. Independent audits, conducted by transparent third parties insulated from partisan influence, should assess factual accuracy, source attribution, and framing patterns and should publish their methods and data. Technical interoperability and common export formats should allow scholars and civic researchers to compare entries across platforms so neutrality emerges from systematic comparison rather than editorial fiat. Public investment in media literacy should give readers practical tools to distinguish factual error from ideological framing and to interrogate provenance without defaulting to tribal defense.

For established outlets such as Wired the challenge is to continue rigorous scrutiny while making their evaluative criteria explicit and minimizing partisan rhetorical flourishes that convert critique into cultural signaling. For challengers such as Grokipedia the obligation is radical transparency: label algorithmic content clearly, publish full source lists, expose revision histories, and invite external review. For civic institutions the work is to fund and steward interoperability standards, independent audits, and public education so that the shape of truth is decided by testable standards and open comparison rather than by competing political vocabularies.

Wired’s article raised necessary questions. But equally necessary is recognizing that rebuttals framed in an opposing ideological register do not, by themselves, produce neutral knowledge. The lasting solution is to build systems and practices that make contested claims traceable, auditable, and comparable. Only then can we move past cycles in which every corrective reads as an attack and every challenger reads as a partisan project, and toward an epistemic commons that tolerates contestation while remaining accountable to shared standards of evidence and provenance.

Astrology captivates millions, yet when it comes to rigorous testing, even the most intuitively appealing claims deserve a clear-eyed appraisal. A recent Clearer Thinking analysis¹ —involving 308 online volunteers, 12 sun-sign categories, and 37 life-outcome measures—reports essentially zero predictive power for sun-sign astrology. That headline is hard to argue with, but a closer look at their methods reveals opportunities for more balanced, informative studies.

• Sampling and Scope. The study’s convenience sample of self-selected adults skews demographics and limits generalizability. Likewise, reducing astrology to sun-sign dummies overlooks richer natal-chart variables (planetary positions, aspects) that some practitioners argue carry most interpretive weight. A null result for one slice of astrology does not rule out subtle effects elsewhere.
• Outcome Choices and Statistical Power Testing. 37 disparate outcomes—from income to mental health—dilutes focus and strains statistical power. Without a priori hypotheses linking specific birth-date features to particular life domains, many real but small effects could slip under the radar. A formal power analysis, or narrowing to theoretically grounded outcomes, would sharpen the inquiry.
• Multiple Comparisons and Model Transparency. Running dozens of regressions without correcting for family-wise error inflates false-positive risk and undermines confidence in both hits and misses. The use of ridge regression is promising, but the study’s omission of tuning details and covariate controls (age, gender, seasonality) leaves open questions about under- or over-regularization.
• Beyond Sun Signs: Toward Rigorous Astrology Research. A more balanced research agenda would preregister a limited set of outcomes, power studies to detect small effects, and include richer astrological variables. Controlling for demographic and temporal confounders—plus proper multiple-testing adjustments—would transform astrology’s examination from scattershot to scientifically robust.

Astrology tests will always provoke debate. By tightening sampling, clarifying hypotheses, and committing to transparent analytics, we can move beyond simple debunking toward research that genuinely probes whether—and under what conditions—astrology might offer any predictive insight. That kind of rigor serves both skeptics and curious seekers alike.

¹ Clearer Thinking Team (2024, Jan. 10). Can astrological sun signs (or zodiac signs) predict facts about people's lives? We tested it. https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/we-tested-the-predictive-power-of-astrology-here-are-the-results

Call for applications:

Book & Multimedia Review Editor,

Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE)

JSE seeks a new editor for its “Book & Multimedia Reviews” section to begin 2026. This is the quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of the SSE. Since 1987, the JSE has published original research, conceptual works, and commentaries on topics of interest that cover a wide spectrum, ranging from apparent anomalies in well-established disciplines to rogue phenomena that seem to belong to no established discipline, as well as philosophical issues about the connections among disciplines.

This volunteer role identifies suitable books across various topics in frontier science, pairs these with qualified reviewers, and follows-up with the reviewers to ensure timely commentaries ready for publication. In exchange, the Book & Multimedia Reviews Editor has the opportunity for:

• Enhanced Subject Expertise: you gain regular exposure to new and influential scholarly books deepens your understanding of emerging ideas, theories, and debates in your field.
• Intellectual Networking: you build relationships with authors, publishers, and fellow academics, creating opportunities for collaboration, future projects, or invitations to scholarly events.
• Contribution to Academic Discourse: you help to shape conversations in frontier science by curating reviews that amplify significant works and offer critical insights.
• Editorial Skill Development: you work with reviewers to refine submissions hones your editorial judgment, writing precision, and ability to assess scholarly quality.

Desired Qualifications

Academic Background

·        Graduate degree in a relevant field is preferred

·        Experience with academic research and literature

Expertise in the Field

·        Knowledge of JSE’s subject areas

·        Ability to recognize important trends and contributions

Writing and Editorial Skills

·        Experience writing academic reviews or articles

·        Ability to help reviewers write clear and balanced reviews

Publishing Knowledge

·        Understanding of citation and academic publishing norms and ethics

Professional Communication

·        Able to build a network of contacts with publishers, authors, and reviewers

Organization and Time Management

·        Able to manage correspondence across multiple reviews and meet deadlines

·        Keeps editorial work on track and well-coordinated

Timeline

To start with the 2026 publishing year.  Review of applications will begin this September 25^th and continue until the position is filled.

Applications

To apply, send a copy of your CV along with a letter of interest addressing your qualifications to:

Mark Urban-Lurain, Ph.D.

Secretary, Society for Scientific Exploration

secretary@scientificexploration.org

From John Kruth of the Rhine Research Center:

The Conference Issue for 2024 has been released for the Journal of Parapsychology. It includes the abstracts from the 2024 conferences of the Parapsychological Association, Society for Psychical Research, Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE Abstracts from 2024 are also available here), and International Remote Viewing Association. This is the second issue that provides a view of the work across the field, and we plan to continue this publication each year with your continued cooperation and interest.

This issue is open access and available on the Parapsychology Press website.

This issue is only offered in electronic format, and it is provided as a service to the field. I hope you enjoy the conference issue and find some interesting topics from those meetings you were not able to attend. 

Discovering a Life’s Purpose

By Marsha Sims

Have you ever asked yourself what your life’s purpose truly is? For many years, I pondered that question—especially because I’ve always had a multidisciplinary background and a passion for living fully across different realms: science, music, and spirituality. It was only recently, after appearing on David Lorimer’s podcast Imaginal Inspirations, that I arrived at a clear and deeply satisfying realization: my purpose is to bridge spirituality, science, and music.

One of the most pivotal phases in shaping this path was my decade (1991–2001) as Executive Editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), while my husband, Bernard Haisch, served as Editor-in-Chief. This time immersed us in the writings of the leading minds in frontier science and consciousness research: Peter Sturrock, Russell Targ, Hal Puthoff, Dean Radin, Ian Stevenson, Bruce Greyson, Brenda Dunne and Bob Jahn, Rupert Sheldrake, and Jacques Vallée, among many others. These extraordinary thinkers deepened my curiosity and laid the foundation for what became a lifelong journey of intellectual and spiritual integration.

The JSE and the Society for Scientific Exploration provided a welcoming, open-minded environment for these bold conversations. My own orientation was forever shaped by the quote Bernie crafted during his tenure, which continues to guide our work today: “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”

As a husband-and-wife team for 38 years, Bernie and I have dedicated ourselves to this integrative exploration. Bernie, a PhD astrophysicist, authored The God Theory, The Purpose-Guided Universe, and Proof of God (with Ptolemy Tompkins). Together, we also composed over a hundred original songs and performed in community operettas. I hold a Master of Music, teach piano and voice, and continue to perform opera in the San Francisco Bay Area. Music, for me, is a sacred language that speaks to the soul and links us to something transcendent.

When Bernie’s Parkinson’s disease made it difficult for him to continue writing, I stepped in as co-author for what would become our final collaborative work, The Miracle of Our Universe: A New View of Consciousness, God, Science and Reality (2023). Bernie had gathered extensive notes over time, and I helped shape them into a coherent manuscript—while adding new ideas of my own. It was a profound act of love and shared vision.

In the book, we propose that our universe is a kind of virtual simulation, “thought into existence” by a universal Consciousness—what many would call God. Everything we perceive as physical is, in fact, consciousness in action. Through free will and interaction, this divine consciousness experiences and evolves itself.

Might there be a God and a heaven of some sort?

Are near-death experiences real?

What is the zero-point field?

Is there an afterlife—and what might it be like?

These are the questions we explore in our work and in conversations that continue to resonate through public dialogues. I’ve now appeared on 27 podcasts, including my inspiring interview with David Lorimer, who asked deeply reflective questions that helped crystallize my personal journey. That dialogue gave me space to articulate my deepest spiritual experiences—including a near-death experience, an awakening of the heart, and transcendent moments of group consciousness while singing and teaching music.

I invite you to listen to the conversation on Imaginal Inspirations and to explore our book and website:

• The Miracle of Our Universe — [available via Amazon and major booksellers]: http://www.themiracleofouruniverse.com

• Podcast episode:https://redcircle.com/shows/imaginal-inspirations/ep/139a5d2f-935c-4d2f-89ad-08484bf827ce

A Parallel Path of Purpose

By David Lorimer

It was a pleasure to host Marsha on Imaginal Inspirations. Her reflections reminded me of a complementary journey I’ve walked for decades, one also centered on meaning, awakening, and purpose.

For over ten years, I led a major educational initiative for youth, originally called Learning for Life and later Inspiring Purpose, reaching over 375,000 young people in the UK and beyond. The goal was to foster reflection on personal values and life purpose. This passion also informed my 2021 book, A Quest for Wisdom: Inspiring Purpose on the Path of Life—a collection of 25 essays on consciousness, ethics, and spiritual development.

My own life pivoted early. After graduating in languages and philosophy from St. Andrews and working in the City of London as a merchant banker, I pressed the “eject” button and devoted myself to education and inner inquiry. A year of reading and reflection led me to Cambridge and then to eight years of teaching, largely at Winchester College.

Since 1986, I’ve worked with the Scientific and Medical Network (SMN), where I serve as Program Director and Editor of Paradigm Explorer. The Network was founded in 1973 by visionary thinkers—many of whom had mystical experiences that convinced them of dimensions beyond materialism. Our mission remains clear: to affirm the spiritual essence of humanity as compatible with enlightened science. https://scientificandmedical.net

Our key initiative related to the science of consciousness is the "Galileo Commission," which I am Co-Chair with Prof Marjorie Woollacott – see https://galileocommission.org, where you can also sign up as a professional affiliate, joining over 600 fellow scientists and academics who are committed to:

“Expanding Minds, Connecting Hearts.”

Our goal, like that of the SSE and JSE, is to provide a platform for voices that stretch our understanding of life, death, and everything in between. In times of fragmentation and materialist dogma, we need these bridges—between spirit and science, tradition and innovation, intellect and heart.

Closing Reflection

As our lives unfold across different domains—whether through editorial work, music, teaching, or global dialogue—what we discover is this: the journey of purpose is also the journey of consciousness. To question answers is to keep that journey alive. We invite JSE readers to continue asking the deeper questions, and to trust that the search itself is part of the answer.

We received this information from Stefan Amberg of the International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition that may be of interest to SSE members.

The International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition is an educational astronomy competition open to students from around the world. In three rounds, students use their problem-solving skills and expand their knowledge through diverse astronomy and astrophysics problems. Since its launch in 2019, IAAC has reached over 28,000 students and involved 1,400 educators from more than 120 countries.

This year's prizes include telescopes signed by the astronaut Frank De Winne and Nobel Prize laureates François Englert, Michel Mayor, Gerard 't Hooft and Didier Queloz.

The submission deadline for this year's Qualification Round is Friday, 4 July 2025. Resources such as problem sets, flyers, and posters can be accessed on our website: https://iaac.space. We'd greatly appreciate it if you could share this opportunity with interested students and educators to encourage participation.

If you have any questions or need additional information, reach out to us at outreach@iaac.space.

Best regards,
Stefan Amberg

__________________________________
Outreach Coordinator
E-Mail: outreach@iaac.space
Phone: +49-177-6762399 (Germany)
Address: Pstf 110105 / 69071 Heidelberg / DE

International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iaac.space/
Instagram: instagram.com/iaac.space
Website: www.iaac.spac

Exclusive SSE Live Event:  July 16, 2025

Álex Escolà-Gascón, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Quantitative Methods and Statistics, Comillas,
Pontifical University, erected by the Holy See, Vatican City State

Join us for a captivating talk exploring the latest research on demonic (or diabolical) possession by an actual Vatican-affiliated scientist. This is a sinister topic where consciousness studies and cultural anthropology intersect with the unexplained. Are diabolical possessions real, or do they stem from altered brain states, deep-seated beliefs, or something beyond science?

Learn more and register

The evolving field of scientific exploration—and notably those areas dealing with anomalistics—demands precision in both data and discourse. Within the flood of new methodologies, cross-disciplinary inquiries, and speculative theories, a subtle but significant distinction often goes underexamined: the difference between evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis and evidence that provides support for it. This post urges our scholarly community to critically reflect on this distinction, for it holds implications not only for interpretation but also for how we communicate credibility, causality, and uncertainty.

To say that data are consistent with a hypothesis is to note that the findings do not contradict the hypothesis. However, this does not necessarily mean they support it. For example, if a participant in a near-death experience study reports seeing a light or encountering deceased relatives, such data may be consistent with the hypothesis of consciousness existing independently of the brain. But the same data could also be consistent with neurological or psychological models involving cortical disinhibition, memory recall, or cultural expectation. Thus, "consistency" often refers to a compatibility across multiple, competing interpretations.

In contrast, to assert that data constitute evidence for a hypothesis implies a higher standard: that the data increase the likelihood of the hypothesis being true relative to its alternatives. This evidentiary role requires not only compatibility but also differential diagnosticity—the capacity to rule out, or at least diminish the plausibility of, competing explanations. Without such discriminative power, "evidence for" becomes a rhetorical overreach, blurring the boundaries between speculation and substantiation.

Why does this matter? In domains where mainstream science remains skeptical—such as new physics, parapsychology, consciousness studies, energy healing, survival research, or ufology—credibility hinges not just on data collection, but on how claims are framed. Inflating the strength of a finding through careless language risks reinforcing the very marginalization such research seeks to overcome. If the scientific community perceives exploratory claims as overstated or epistemically lax, opportunities for serious engagement shrink accordingly.

Moreover, this distinction bears on peer review, funding, and replication efforts. Mischaracterizing consistent data as evidentiary can mislead subsequent investigators, misallocate scarce resources, and corrode the public's trust in scientific discourse. In an era of increasing scrutiny—both institutional and societal—we must strive for conceptual rigor alongside methodological innovation.

The call, then, is not for rhetorical self-censorship, but for epistemic humility. Acknowledging that data are consistent with a hypothesis is a meaningful contribution—especially in under-theorized or highly contentious areas. But we should resist the temptation to overstate what such data entail. Instead, we might emphasize the convergence of multiple lines of evidence, the narrowing of explanatory gaps, or the cumulative weight of anomalies as a plausibility enhancer, rather than as a proof.

Let us reaffirm the value of careful inference in frontier science. As researchers into the unknown, our responsibility is not merely to persuade, but to clarify the terms by which persuasive claims may one day be made.

Get updates on all the SSE news. 

Read Now

In recent months, a quiet but profound shift has occurred in the landscape of frontier science. With the passing of personalities like Charles Tart, Bill Bengston, David Moncrief, Damien Broderick, and Steven J. Lynn, we have lost not just individuals, but entire intellectual ecosystems—constellations of inquiry, courage, and care that once helped illuminate the edges of what science dared to ask. Their deaths are more than personal or disciplinary losses; they are existential reminders of a truth both tender and terrifying... that our time to make a difference is not only finite but actively running out.

These were thinkers who stood not at the center of their fields, but defiantly at the edges—precisely where revolutions often begin. Charles Tart gave us a language for states of consciousness that science still struggles to measure. Bill Bengston, through both curiosity and controversy, chased the mystery of healing across experimental thresholds. David Moncrief, often behind the scenes, held together fragile interdisciplinary bridges. Damien Broderick fused science fiction and science fact, stretching the limits of epistemic imagination. And Steven J. Lynn brought rigorous empirical clarity to domains—hypnosis, dissociation, suggestion—that others dismissed or distorted.

To be a pioneer in these fields isn't just to research what's marginal; it's to live with marginalization. These men did so with remarkable persistence. They withstood ridicule, isolation, institutional indifference. And they did it not for prestige, but because they believed that somewhere, beneath the anomalies, the anecdotes, and the absurdities, something essential about the human condition was waiting to be understood. That commitment—to look deeper, ask harder, and stay longer in the discomfort of uncertainty—is the kind of intellectual courage we often forget to honor until it's too late.

Now it's too late for them...but not for us.

Their passing invites a reckoning, not only with grief, but with our own relationship to time, purpose, and proximity. We tend to imagine that the great projects of our lives—our collaborations, our writings, our paradigm shifts—will have room to grow at their own pace. We fool ourselves into believing there will always be another grant cycle, another conference, another long lunch with a mentor. And then, suddenly, the email arrives, or the news filters in through the grapevine, and we’re left with an unfinished draft, a list of unasked questions, or a heart still waiting to say "thank you."

The lesson isn't just that life is short, but that its most important opportunities are perishable. Ideas are a relational phenomenon; they need exchanges, counterpoints, and embodied presence to thrive. So too with our professional lives. How many times have we deferred a collaboration because we were “too busy”? How often have we stayed silent in a meeting, waiting for someone braver to speak first? How long have we waited to begin the project that we secretly hope will outlive us?

There's no more time for waiting. These passings remind us that the frontier isn't a place, it’s a people. And that frontier is vanishing, one wise and weathered voice at a time.

Let's not mourn them merely with tributes, but with action. Pick up the phone. Send the draft. Reach out to the colleague you admire but have never emailed. Finish the chapter you keep rewriting in your mind. Begin the experiment you’re afraid won’t work. Say what you really mean in your next article. Ask questions that scare you. Push back when it matters. Mentor someone who doesn’t remind you of yourself. Recommit to your highest curiosity, even when it's unfashionable, even when it seems futile.

Above all, cherish the people doing this work with you—those still breathing, still wondering, still struggling to find language for the unspeakable. None of us are guaranteed a long arc. But we can choose, now, to bend the arc we have toward meaning.

There's still a frontier. But it's smaller than we thought. And our names are already being whispered across it.