On the other hand, there are also many people on both sides who can hold their opinions or beliefs, and still retain an open mind.

Painting an entire group with one broad brush-stroke does a disservice to both them and you.

Scientists, on the contrary, believe what has been most consistently observed and adapt their understanding accordingly with each introduction of new evidence. The only reason a scientist would reject something outright is if its existence would be contradictory to observed conditions… or of course if its existence necessitates a logical fallacy (e.g. the christian god).

What if it was conceived in the real world and born in dreamland? Would it be stuck there?!?!

I’m not criticizing I just feel like I’ve hit some amazing discovery.

Ah, but the crux of the matter is “…unless it conflicted with reality.” Another words, unless it appeared to conflict with their educated (i.e., taught) understanding of how the Universe should work. This means that if evidence seems to conflict with their “reality”, there is a strong tendency to disbelieve the validity of the evidence without trying to prove or disprove it for themselves. Similarly, there is a tendency to dismiss proposed theories (again, without investigation) as an explanation if they conflict with this world view.

Nicole’s outright dismissal of their suggestion that his “imaginary” Dreamland could somehow impinge on our reality in the form of a cut is a good example. That’s a very scientific reaction. Most scientists would never even consider that, much less dare investigate such a proposal with an experiment or study. But to be a true follower of the Scientific Method, without bias, one would HAVE to test such proposals.

In this case it would be a simple matter to ask Alex to make a small cut on his leg or foot while dreaming to try to recreate the effect. Such a cut would be almost impossible to make with his pendant. Even better, they could wrap his pendant in padding to prevent it from cutting him.

Finally, let’s not forget the Observer Effect and how it applies to Quantum Mechanics. (See Schrödinger’s cat…) Logically, that means one will always influence the results of an experiment or event just from observation alone. I have to suspect that, just maybe, sometimes scientists find the evidence to support their view of how the universe works simply because they EXPECTED to find said evidence. There are reasons to believe that our thoughts & beliefs can & does impact physical reality. See the film ‘What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?’ (2004) for some examples.

Incidentally, Nikola Tesla was THE most prolific inventor in history, responsible for much of the modern technology we take for granted. He also happened to be one of the most eccentric and open-minded. In fact, he not only invented the radio but claimed he built a Teslascope which enabled him to communicate with beings on Mars. There are also claims of other far-fetch inventions (such as Free Energy) and he had an interest in the occult. Some other very significant scientists were similarly eccentric. Sir Isaac Newton practiced Alchemy and was very proud of the fact he remained a virgin his whole life. Also, there seems to be a misconception that most scientists are aethists when, in fact, a suprising number of them hold religious beliefs.

Scientists don’t have to be so close-minded as to view the world through tunnel vision. But I have to agree that it seems a lot of scientists today appear to behave that way. It’s only human to be biased. But in modern conventional science there tends to be a rigid framework of what is and is not scientifically possible. Much of this framework comes from what’s been drilled into students. Even Eintein said that “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” Also, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”