By Annalisa Ventola, Public Parapsychology, annalisa@publicparapsychology.org

It is with profound sadness and deep respect that we mark the passing of Dr. C. M. Chantal Toporow, who left this world on August 18, 2025, at the age of 68. Throughout her professional life, Chantal interwove various scientific interests and passions, bridging the rigor of aerospace engineering and anomalies research, along with a commitment to ecological stewardship and the arts. In doing so, she embodied the kind of scientific synthesis that the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) has long aspired to nurture.

Education and Technical Career

Chantal earned the degrees of B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. from UCLA’s Materials Science and Engineering Department, after which she embarked on a distinguished technical and academic path. She managed materials technology and development programs for space programs and served on the faculty in engineering and environmental courses at institutions including UCLA, California State University (Long Beach and Northridge), Loyola Marymount University, Santa Monica College, and the Otis Parsons School of Art & Design. 

Her engineering career included significant roles in the aerospace sector, notably at Northrop Grumman, where she contributed to the development of advanced satellite technologies, space-based solar power systems, and other mission-critical systems. She also served as Chair of the Los Angeles Chapter of the IEEE Society for the Social Implications of Technology and Chair of the Education Committee for the IEEE Los Angeles Council.

Among her technical articles, she contributed to “Results from an International Measurement Round Robin of III–V Triple-Junction Solar Cells Under Air Mass Zero,” part of an interlaboratory effort to benchmark high-efficiency solar cells under standardized conditions (Jenkins et al., 2006). Earlier in her career, she coauthored works on radiation damage (Srour et al., 1998), space annealing, and degradation mechanisms in amorphous-silicon solar cells and related device structures (Huang et al., 1997).  

During this time, her ecological concerns also became evident. In her engineering lectures and public talks, she frequently advocated for an “ecological engineering” paradigm—one that integrated technology with ecosystem thinking, incorporating biomimicry, cradle-to-grave lifecycle assessment, and ethical constraints on resource usage. In her essay Values-LED Technologies (1991), she argued for a decision-making framework in engineering that takes into account societal values, environmental ethics, and long-term stewardship - not just immediate technical payoffs. In that work, she urged her colleagues to ask: Should this be done? And can the consequences be managed? 

Toward a Science of the Subjective

A turning point in Chantal’s intellectual life occurred in 1989, when she organized an IEEE conference titled "A Delicate Balance: Technics, Culture, and Consequences." There she invited Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) director Robert G. Jahn to present his laboratory’s controversial data on human–machine interactions. The encounter catalyzed her long engagement with what Jahn and Brenda Dunne termed the science of the subjective - an approach to consciousness research that honors both objective measurement and first-person experience (Jahn & Dunne, 1997).

Chantal saw in Jahn’s directive the “marching orders” he sometimes invoked, to “create a complementarity by nurturing the Science of the Subjective so that both objective and subjective perspective work alongside each other in such a way that it is acknowledging and utilizing the innate consciousness strategies of association and assimilation to achieve a unity of self and not-self, in its search for a participatory role in the mechanics of creation” (TheSSEChannel, 2019). Her own work and teaching strove to instantiate that ideal: expanding edge science methods to include first-person, intersubjective, and anomalous data streams.

Her presentations over the last decade reflect this synthesis, including “Developing a Science of the Subjective” (2023) and “Is Our Consciousness a Holographic Construct of Parallel Multiverses?” (2019). She also explored a Goethean scientific method -  a phenomenological approach that seeks to understand phenomena through a process of deep, participatory observation, moving beyond simple cause-and-effect (2016). As she published on her website (Chantalique, n.d.): 

Science, at present, is overwhelmingly driven by objective methodologies, causing a sort of myopia when looking at "inexplicable/anomalous/paranormal" events. I'm guided by Goethe’s more subjective scientific methods, though pushed aside by the dominant Newtonian objective science, these are equally enduring and valid as we move forward in balancing our subjective and objective views of the world around us. Only through this amalgamation of apparently anomalous events, random, yet, synchronous, with those which are the standard “predictable and the repeatable”, can we begin to fully develop our understanding of the inherent nature of the inter-connectivity of knowledge. 

Her hope, often voiced in SSE committee discussions and public lectures, was that a mature science of the subjective would help normalize inquiry into anomalous cognition, psi, subtle energies, and related phenomena - not relegated to the fringes, but as endogenous to human consciousness and nature. In that sense, her life’s work was a step toward a more integrative science of mind, matter, and meaning:

To reach this goal, we must do more than "observe" as is so common in the objective science paradigm, we need to "experience" and put ourselves within the experiment itself. By being a rigorous student of various anomalous modalities, including out-of-body experiences, dowsing, remote viewing, introspective counseling, communication with the deceased, telekinesis, etc., one can truly begin to open up to new realities unattainable in the four dimensions and five sense perceptions. (Chantalique, n.d.)

Ecological Leadership

Parallel to her engineering and consciousness work, Chantal demonstrated an enduring commitment to ecological stewardship. Living in Southern California, she cultivated a biodynamic orchard and research garden encompassing more than 300 species of fruit, including 28 varieties of figs and numerous rare heritage cultivars.

For 24 years, she served on the Board of Directors of the California Rare Fruit Growers, Inc., promoting preservation of genetic diversity and education in sustainable horticulture. She also served on the Board of the Felix Gillet Institute, dedicated to rediscovering and propagating fruit and nut varieties introduced during California’s Gold Rush that have since proven resilient to drought and pests (Toporow, 2018).

Her biodynamic commitment was evident: she attended Ecological Farming Conferences, became a lifetime member of the Biodynamic Farming Association, and studied the core curriculum of biodynamics. In her later teaching, particularly as an instructor at the Rhine Education Center, she explored how the energetic and spiritual dimensions of nature might be allies in cultivating more resilient ecosystems—and how human consciousness is embedded in a living Earth.

For Chantal, ecological stewardship and consciousness research were inseparable. She often remarked that the Earth itself participates in consciousness and that to heal the planet, we must first notice it. Her later lectures - such as Increasing the Beauty and Bounty of Your Farm and Garden with the Help of Nature Spirits (2024) - extended this idea toward practical co-creativity with natural intelligence.

Service to the SSE Community

Perhaps one of her most visible contributions to the edge sciences was her long-standing service to the Society for Scientific Exploration. Over the years, she served on the SSE Scholarship Committee, was elected to the SSE Council, and eventually became the SSE Education Chair. In that capacity, she brought enormous enthusiasm to SSE’s educational mission, helping to organize Aspiring Explorers meetings and encouraging younger researchers to cross disciplinary boundaries, advocating for the integration of edge sciences into broader curricular and institutional contexts.

In 2016, she was a co-Program Chair of the combined conferences of the SSE and the Parapsychological Association. She also served on the SSE Program Committee in the years 2009, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023, and led the organization of conference panels and educational forums. Her manner in service was hands-on and with great energy. 

She also hosted a science salon in her Redondo Beach home – an SSE regional group – cultivating interdisciplinary discussions around mind-matter interactions, nurturing scientific exploration of anomalous phenomena, and promoting investigation of subtle energies in the experience of consciousness, bioenergetics, and human potential. Through these salons, she fostered spaces where seasoned and emerging researchers could engage in conversations beyond the formal constraints of conferences.

A Legacy

Chantal’s legacy is multifaceted. To some, she will be remembered as a formidable engineer who lent credibility to frontier research; to others, she will be cherished as a gardener, biodynamic steward, and an Earth lover; to many, she will be regarded as an advocate who sought to bring subjective and objective inquiry into mutual respect.

Because so much of her work lay at liminal interstices - of consciousness and matter, of science and spirituality, of objective and subjective methods, of technology and ecology - her influence was not always visible. However, to the students and researchers whom she advised, encouraged, nudged, and inspired, as well as the communities that she served, she was a star that always shone brightly.

For the SSE and JSE, her passing is a reminder of why these institutions exist: to give refuge and support to scientific questions that do not fit comfortably elsewhere. Dr. C.M. Chantal Toporow exemplified the Society’s founding aspirations by exploring approaches that challenge the boundaries of conventional science, without abandoning the scientific method or the Self.

Her gardens will continue to bear fruit, her colleagues and protégés will continue to explore, and the archive of her talks, articles, and salons will remain a seedbed for future scientists and scholars. We mourn her absence, but we also celebrate her life - its reach, its boldness, and its hope that we might cultivate a more capacious science. May she rest in clarity, and may her vision continue to guide generations of boundary-pushing explorers.

References

Chantalique. (n.d.). Science salon. https://www.chantalique.com/science-salon.html

Huang, J. R., Lee, Y., Toporow, C. M., Vendura, G. J., Jackson, T. N., & Wronski, C. R. (1997). Improved thermal control for a-Si:H photovoltaic cells fabricated on polymeric substrates. Conference Record of the Twenty-Sixth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) (pp. 699–702). https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.1997.654185

Jahn, R. G. & Dunne, B. J. (1997). Science of the subjective. Journal of Scientific Exploration 11(2), 201–224.

Jenkins, P. P., Scheiman, D., Goodbody, C., Baur, C., Sharps, P., Imaizumi, M., Yoo, H., Sahlstrom, T., Walters, R. J., Lorentzen, J., Nocerino, J., Khan, O., Cravens, R., Valles, J., Toporow, C. M., Gómez, T., Pazos Bazán, L., & Bailey, S. G. (2006). Results from an international measurement round robin of III–V triple-junction solar cells under air mass zero. In IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (Vol. 2, pp. 1968–1970). IEEE.

Society for Scientific Exploration. (2024, December). Meet C. M. Chantal Toporow, Ph.D., Education Chair & International Liaison. The Explorer. https://scientificexploration.org/Explorer-Dec-2024

Srour, J. R., Vendura, G. J., Lo, D. H., Toporow, C. M. C., Dooley, M., Nakano, R. P., & King, E. E. (1998). Damage mechanisms in radiation-tolerant amorphous silicon solar cells. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 45(6), 2624–2631. https://doi.org/10.1109/23.736506

TheSSEChannel. (2019, October 29). Toward a science of the subjective [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCDKGxe88LI

Toporow, C. M. (1991). Values-LED technologies. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS ’91). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.1991.700371

Toporow, C. M. (2016). Phenomenology of the encounter: Working with destiny using the Goethe scientific observation method [Conference presentation]. Anthroposophical Society, Medical Section, The Goetheanum, Dornach, Switzerland.

Toporow, C. M. (2018). Accessing drought-resistant fruit trees from California’s 1800 Gold Rush [Conference presentation]. 4th International Vavilov Conference, St. Petersburg Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia.

Toporow, C. M. (2019). Is our consciousness a holographic construct of parallel multiverses? [Poster presentation]. The Science of Consciousness, Interlaken, Switzerland, June 25–28, 2019.

Toporow, C. M. (2023). Developing a science of the subjective [Conference presentation]. 41st Annual Society for Scientific Exploration Conference, Bloomington, IL.

Toporow, C. M. (2024). Increasing the beauty and bounty of your farm and garden with the help of nature spirits [Conference presentation]. 44th Annual Eco-Farm Ecological Farming Conference, Asilomar, CA.

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