Scientists. Scientists?

"There are really two layers of skepticism. The first layer is people tend to be skeptical of things that they haven't been taught, so they want to be skeptical of any intervention or any topic that they haven't been taught in a formal academic setting, but a NEXT level of of skepticism is to be skeptical of also what you think that you know. That is very powerful and the full circle, complete skepticism is that we have to universally apply it 360 to our life. " Quoted from video: https://youtu.be/NsbiB-Ipc3E?si=ZHAF_i7fwCFI3wjV ​ I've had the "luck" to speak with two or three scientists about topics that they would immediately categorize under the "spiritual tag" , and unfortunately, the word "spiritual" seems like a fireball to these scientists. When they hear it, it's as if a fireball has been thrown into their hands, and they can't wait to throw it away immediately, as if it would burn them terribly if they hold onto it any longer. This is how I felt during these conversations. This reaction is completely opposite to what I have expected from a scientist. In my mind, an ideal scientist should possess burning curiosity and be open-minded— the latter quality is just as important as a rigorous scientific attitude that any qualitifed scientist should have. However, I've only seen the rigorous (yet not always scientific) attitude in these scientists and not the open-mindedness which seems to be a common phenomenon among many scientists. This is surprising to me. I have collected so many different lines of evidence supporting the things that I've talked about with those scientists. And yet, how dismissive they are that they even just refuse to have a look at the evidence that I've just put right under their nose. They seem to be more interested in holding their current beliefs than having an actual scientific investigation into whatever evidence there is that goes against their beliefs. These evidence are actually overwhelming. They are not only convincing, they are overwhelming. I have the confidence, I can tell you I have 100% confidence. However materialistic they are, if they really try to be open-minded for just once, and just let go, forget about that unscientific dismissive attitude that they've been holding towards these topics, if they just try to investigate, dive into the rabbit hole just for once, they would come out completely changed, in shock, beyond their wildest dreams. That's what I actually expected every time before I started a conversation with a "scientific" person, that's the result that I expected before my introduction to these evidence, but because they are so dismissive, so stubborn, and I hate to say, so close-minded, they don't even raise their eyelids towards these lines of evidence, and there seems to be no way for me to convince them to even just have a look at it without being dismissive or holding any prejudice (in other words, just being a true scientist). All I was saying was have an actual look at it before you make any conclusions. That's all I could say to them. I can't make them do it. They have to make their own decision, but they seem to have made their decision before even finishing reading my sentences. I once intended to become a scientist myself, driven purely by the pursuit of truth, which is exactly the core job of a scientist. Yet, it seems that many scientists are more interested in keeping their jobs than doing their jobs, which is disheartening. This is one reason I'm glad that I have veered off that path. I understand that discussing the so-called "spiritual" topics can jeopardize a scientist's career, which is unfortunate and somewhat beyond their control. However, I have also encountered brave and brilliant scientists who have not just openly discussed "spiritual" topics in a scientifically rigorous way, but have taken that into their core researching jobs for all their life. However, their decades-long research and results are often dismissed by many other so-called mainstream scientists. I do feel upset, but I don't get broken-hearted because the stream of science always goes upwards, albeit slowly at times because of many "scientists". The stream goes forward every day, every year, every decade. I've heard a notable scientist say that sometimes you literally have to wait for the current generation of scientists to die before some very new ideas can be taken seriously in the science world. This sentence, which I’ve heard from more than one scientist, is disturbing but has been proven true repeatedly in history. New ideas often faced terrible attacks from contemporary scientists, only to be accepted after they had passed away. ​Why? Because these ideas were so completely new, so beyond what the contemporary scientific methods were even able to explore or so entirety out of the contemporary scientific paradigm, that they appeared "unscientific" and were dismissed entirely by many scientists, without serious, scientific, and most importantly, open-minded investigation. And the same thing is happening today. We don't always learn from our history. In fact, we often do not learn from our history. But the stream only goes forward, regardless. Remember. The stream only goes forward. You can choose either to slow down it down and even prevent it from going forward, or help accelerate its unstoppable progress. "People who are intellectual and cannot part with their intellect, or people who cannot believe anything without couching it in a coherent conceptual narrative, people like me, in other words, what they have to do is to be consequent. If you decide to follow your intellect, then follow your intellect all the way without prejudice. Don't follow your intellect until halfway and then take a turn based purely on prejudice or unexamined assumptions, because that's just stupid, and you don't have to be stupid. So if you really want to be intellectual and you are a materialist because you think the intellect points in that direction, then pursue your intellect more consequently, then you will see that it will move you away from materialism very quickly, because materialism is just internally inconsistent, incoherent and empirically untenable. " - - Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, PhD, computer scientist. Quoted from video: https://youtu.be/e1Lkg9wgIeM?si=LTOGEdfrgI-D5pO2 ​ True spirituality is anything but anti-science, yet anti-spirituality is indeed anti-science. Spiritualism is anything but anti-science, yet scientism is nothing but anti-science. Being a scientist is not supposed to be anti-science, but many scientists are actually holding a stubborn anti-science attitude. Worst part of it all is that they get mad when you point it out, rather than really having a scientific self-reflection and an actual scientific investigation towards things that they so easily dismiss. This dismissive attitude is scary, especially when a scientist holds it, as it doesn't only not help advance the progress of science, it slows down or even hinders it, which is completely the opposite of what a scientist's job is. In fact, many scientists are more interested in keeping their job, rather than doing their job. Maybe I've just been idealizing the role "scientist" way too far. ​Written after watching this interview with researcher Dr. Ed Kelly ​https://youtu.be/922fcZaWGw4?si=pVhj0g8Tfy1nnyb_ If you are ready to completely let go of any dismissive attitude and any prejudice, to have your mind opened: just look at this, and not just "have a look" if you really want to draw some conclusion. To draw a conclusion, you need to investigate, research, deeply, humbly, and above all, with an open mind: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfD_5FBuYJHr5R4s80tNazaUlQpqnUjUl&si=HLmrkDlEpTt337j- #spirituality (edited)