Fourth Phase Of Water – Beyond Solid, Liquid, And Vapor and the challenging of scientific dogma

The Gerald Pollack’s book “Fourth phase of water – beyond solid, liquid, and vapor” comes highly-recommended from PSI reviewers. It is an award-winning book that provides evidence for a fourth phase of water. This phase occurs mainly next to water-loving (hydrophilic) surfaces. It is surprisingly extensive, projecting out from the surface by up to millions of molecular layers.

The blurb tells us: “Of significance is the observation that this fourth phase is charged; and, the water just beyond is oppositely charged, creating a battery that can produce electrical current. Light charges this battery.

Thus, water can receive and process energy drawn from the environment in much the same way as plants. Absorbed light energy can then be exploited for performing work, including electrical and mechanical work, as well as the work of proteins inside cells.”

Gerald Pollack’s philosophy is akin to that of Principia Scientific International. On his website Pollack writes:

“Philosophy of Science: The overriding philosophy of the laboratory is that science is essentially simple. Although intricacy is undeniable, the foundational principles are ultimately simple, and if a mechanism appears complicated – if you find it difficult to understand – then it is probably not because you are inept, but that the foundational “principle” on which it is based may itself not be correct. Sound mechanisms rarely rest on shaky foundations.

Our work has been oriented toward uncovering those fundamental principles. We target areas in which understanding seems too complex to be valid, and penetrate – or at least we aim to penetrate – toward the core of truth. Often the ideas that come out of these excursions are controversial, as they inevitably upset the status quo, sometimes at its very core. Hence, the reactions range from non-printable expletives at one extreme, to enthusiastic comments such as a recent one from a well-known physicist about our findings on water: “the most significant scientific discovery of this century”.

Scientific Activism: Challenging staid dogma with fresh ideas that explain more is a core element of improving a scientific enterprise that has been progressively eroding. Science has become increasingly conservative. Challengers are viewed with suspicion, the prevailing response being something like this: your idea cannot be right, for if it were, certainly someone would have thought of it earlier. This attitude has permeated the granting systems, which have become conservative – a problem now broadly recognized.

We began challenging both the NSF and the NIH grant systems in the early 2000s, to open their doors to ideas that challenge mainstream views. Initial efforts consisted of letter-writing campaigns organized to alert the granting agencies to the seriousness of the problem. Out of these campaigns came the NSF “Frontiers in Biological Research” program and an NIH workshop that eventually led to the NIH Director’s Pioneer Award. A paper describing some of the proposals is available in a paper entitled: ‘Revitalizing science in a risk-averse culture: Reflections on the syndrome and prescriptions for its cure’. Cellular and Mol. Biol. 51: 815-820, 2005.

Later, I served as an external adviser to the National Science Board (which governs NSF) in their task force on transformative science – whose recommendations led to a dramatic increase of transformative programs at NSF. The term “transformative” now runs deeply through the Foundation’s website. Similarly, with the NIH, I was the main academic speaker at 2007 workshop on “Fostering Innovation” which was attended by top NIH administrators and a panel of distinguished scientists including two Nobel Laureates. The 40-minute talk offering various remedial solutions, some radical, starts at 1:17. Again, recommendations from this workshop and others, including one on the peer-review system, began opening the NIH to be more receptive to transformative ideas.

Despite these gains, still, the problem persists. The main obstacle to the hoped-for scientific revolutions is the culture: the entrenched orthodoxies feel it is not in their best interest to entertain views that challenge their long-held beliefs. Hence, challenges are often ignored or repressed, no matter how promising they may be. If revolutions are to occur, it will be necessary to get the attention of the leaders of the prevailing scientific orthodoxies. Some mechanism needs to be put in place to make sure that occurs.”

yogaesoteric
January 30, 2022

Also available in: Français