For a long time the standing scientific paradigm has declared that the scientist is completely separate from the science.   As an impartial and independent observer, the scientist measures ‘what’s true’ and based on the results, is able to declare the true nature of our world.

The pioneers of quantum mechanics began to undermine this paradigm early last century through their investigation of the wave-like nature of reality at a quantum particle level.  Their investigations suggested that reality relies on an observer to trigger a collapse from an uncertain state of multiple possibilities (probabilities) into a finite state that we observe as ‘real’ or ‘true’.  In quantum theory, different observers may see different versions of the ‘truth’ depending upon their knowledge of the system.  Metaphysical theories take this one step further and suggest that the intent of the observer, ie what the observer intends to see by prior choice (conscious or subconscious), will influence what’s seen.

And now the global climate change debate has shone a bright light on the old scientific paradigm, highlighting its unreliability.  A quick Google and you can find scientists claiming to have evidence both for and against the human influences on climate change.  The strong push to prevent further human damage to our climate seems to have been undermined by revelations that much of the science is apparently ‘biased’ one way or the other.  So here is the impact of the observer creating the ‘truth’, right on centre stage.  Perhaps this is the tipping point for our mainstream scientists, inviting them to move on from the old paradigm?

While the degree of human influence on climate change remains uncertain for many people, the degree of human influence on the science is hard to ignore.