Thomas Campbell's credentials?

[MonaLon]

So I've seen a lot of people on this forum linking others to seminars held by this Thomas Campbell person. I decided to check him out, and I read Part 1 of his My Big TOE book. He sounds like a pretty cool guy, especially since he hung out with Mr. Monroe.

The issue I'm having though is I don't know how legitimate his credentials are. For example, I went to the Bethany College site (where he graduated) and he's not even listed as notable alumni. I plan on e-mailing the institution soon, to see if I can get some answers. But all I'm saying is the only thing we have is his word, unless if I'm missing something.

[Astralzombie]

You're missing quite a bit actually. He is a nuclear physicist and has worked on many advanced programs with the US military. He is also an electrical engineer. His credentials are far better than many of the more popular authorities on the subject though he does not like to bring it p that often. I may be mistaken but I also believe he holds a degree in computer programming.

In short, he is one of the most educated projectes out there but that should not amount to squat because academics does not equal skill in this art.

[MonaLon]

I know that he claims he's a nuclear physicist and that he's been a part of NASA and all. Even so (and I know I sound skeptical but that's how I am  ), I haven't seen any proof of his credentials. I mean, I could claim that I'm an expert in physics and that I've worked for NASA too, but I'm not even a college student.

Also, you may be correct that academics does not equal skill when astral projection is involved, but Campbell makes a lot of claims about how "scientific" his theories are. And when someone starts claiming that their work is science, then he or she should have evidence to back that claim up.

[Volgerle]

Campbell makes a lot of claims about how "scientific" his theories are. And when someone starts claiming that their work is science, then he or she should have evidence to back that claim up.

You mean evidence about his credentials or evidence about his theories? I agree with the second demand, not necessarily with the first.

There is a saying that 'science is a verb, not a noun', that means it is in the 'doing' and a process. Doing means making experiments which are reproducible (and falsifiable). For me it does not say that you need an 'official' academic scientist because only they are "allowed" to do this. If you can do the process .. you do science. It's that simple.

Science should also always be about the knowledge to be gained (in the process), not about persons who try this and their 'background'. This means if you want to criticise their theories then why not do the closest thing: check their work - not them. I don't know why titles are so important. And academic schooling can often be (due to in-the-box close-minded thinking) even detrimental to real scientific discovery. Often it's just about career and ego. But it's contents that count!

Remember, in the course of history it was many laymen and scientific outsiders (renegades who actually were disregarded or even ridiculed and persecuted by the 'establishment') who brought humanity progress. It almost never came out of the midst of establised mainstream science. TC himself says that he is 'fringe' scientist.

Moreover he is a consciousness researcher and not a typical scientist, and more of qualitative than quantitative nature. Like mystics are in a way scientists too: it's "esoteric" or "occult" or "mystical" Science. Science is not only orthodox Western science. Science is about gaining knowledge - whichever way.

The mystics and meditators' way of gaining knowledge (which IS reproducible to some degree by applying methods and noting down and comparing results) is just more direct as they use their own consciousness - what else? Science of consciousnes is always subjective and never objective. This of course contradicts the very tenets of mainstream orthodox science. That's a problem for many who think in the old ways. However, I believe it is rather the problem of science, not Tom's.  

Personally I find it not important if he is a Dr. or Prof. ... or not. His findings, his work at the TMI, his 'Digital Physics' theory, and some of his inspirational talks are important for me. He is not the only "Digital Physics" proponent btw, so he did not 'invent' it.

I am in no way uncritical of him and do not take his theory entirely for granted. I don't defend him here because I'm "a fan" - I'm not. I don't hang on his every word and take it all at face value. I don't agree to everything and every bit he says. However: I find value in a lot of it.

It's just about the parts that 'make sense' to me like other 'teachers' as well (he's more a teacher for me than a scientist anyway). And that's also  like the Buddha said of his own teachings: Take what makes sense to you and leave the rest if it doesn't help. TC is a mystic for me too, he also refers a lot to Eastern teachings and compares it to his theory, he's mystic and philospher more than a scientist and physicist.

I think I remember he was reported as being listed on some NASA sites so he does not lie about his job there. What would be his gain? It does not make sense. He certainly is a physicist who worked for NASA, it is only logical to assume this even if you do not get 'proof'.

Just my two cents.

PS:

I remember a thread by the same name on the MBT board (although I am no longer active on this board as it simply bored me). You can read on from here:

http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7729#p65708

The moderator Ted there says that he indeed seems to have 'only' a physics Masters degree but certainly worked for NASA. I did not read the entire thread, maybe you will find more. You can also register on this board and write a pm to TC himself, he normally answers very quickly.

[MonaLon]

Thanks for your opinion, Volgerle. I know of a couple of scientists who were taught through "orthodox" methods, and they've contributed heavily to the pursuit of knowledge. I understand what you mean though, since an academic certificate does not guarantee that the person knows what they're talking about. But it's usually a good indicator if someone understands established theories; for example, if you have a degree in physics, then it's generally assumed that you know what a vector quantity is.

I've been reading some of Mr. Campbell's work, and some of his physics doesn't seem to correlate with mainstream physics. I'm not saying that the mainstream is right. But to be honest, I would trust a law that has been tested hundreds of times over by various different people, over one guy telling me that his point of view is correct. I'm just very skeptical. And even though our opinions may differ, I respect your point of view.

[Lionheart]

I am in no way uncritical of him and do not take his theory entirely for granted. I don't defend him here because I'm "a fan" - I'm not. I don't hang on his every word and take it all at face value. I don't agree to everything and every bit he says. However: I find value in a lot of it.

I don't necessarily agree with "everything" that is said as well. But I have proven to myself (as he always states to do) many of the things he speaks about to be the truth.

I give his video link to many new members here because he speaks about every aspect of the NPR, from Fear scenarios to technique (Binaural Beats/Meditation etc.) to expectations, evidence and proof, tools/aides (like drugs etc.) and also he goes into a lot of the "nuts and bolts" of what is happening and why. He speaks on podiums in front of large groups and more importantly he does this for FREE. You can find any of his video on Youtube and he will "personally" answer questions you have via email. That in my books tells me that this great man understands the importance of educating people on the NPR.

I also use his video a starter for new members because I believe that if you can't sit through a hour and half video to learn about AP, then you weren't really that interested in the first place.

[Lionheart]

I've been reading some of Mr. Campbell's work, and some of his physics doesn't seem to correlate with mainstream physics. I'm not saying that the mainstream is right. But to be honest, I would trust a law that has been tested hundreds of times over by various different people, over one guy telling me that his point of view is correct. I'm just very skeptical. And even though our opinions may differ, I respect your point of view.

The one thing you should get and in my view one of the most important things said, is that he tells you not to believe him, but to PROVE IT TO YOURSELF! 

[deepspace]

I know that he claims he's a nuclear physicist and that he's been a part of NASA and all. Even so (and I know I sound skeptical but that's how I am  ), I haven't seen any proof of his credentials. I mean, I could claim that I'm an expert in physics and that I've worked for NASA too, but I'm not even a college student.

Also, you may be correct that academics does not equal skill when astral projection is involved, but Campbell makes a lot of claims about how "scientific" his theories are. And when someone starts claiming that their work is science, then he or she should have evidence to back that claim up.

I really like a lot of what he says and quote him often, but also have a problem regarding his claims of his theories being "scientific". Personally, I think he should leave science out of the discussion as it does not apply here IMO.

The scientific method is good for building a model of how the physical world operates, but at this time is not able to build a model of the "larger reality" as Tom Campbell describes it. If you want to claim something is scientific, you should follow the protocol established by scientists which is peer-reviewed studies, testable hypotheses, repeatable results, etc. etc. Tom refuses to do this, citing the bias and other issues in the scientific community. He's right about some of those issues. Unfortunately, there is a lot of bias in the science community about research in this area, but that's not a problem with the scientific method, just the humans that are called scientists. The method itself is sound, the people who practice it sometimes have problems.

Even though there are still things I don't agree with him on, there's a lot more that I do agree with him on. Every time I listen to Tom Campbell, he explains 2 or 3 more concepts that I have recently concluded myself. There's no one else I can say that about.

But I can often recognize the value in what people say or what I read without regard to who or what the source is. There are people with great "credentials" who are just full of excrement if you ask me. So as far as credentials go, to me these are meaningless. The universe doesn't recognize credentials, only truth. I believe we all have the ability to recognize the truth, but people should stop trying to prove things. Like Lionheart says, don't take anyone's word, go find out for yourself.

[TylerSnotgern]

Campbell sets my teeth on edge when he isn't boring me to death-tears. 

[Xanth]

Campbell sets my teeth on edge when he isn't boring me to death-tears. 

To each their own.
I find everything he has to say completely fascinating and could listen to his lectures all day long.

[Astralzombie]

In this day and age, it doesn't take long to have any false representations that someone has made about themselves exposed. Campbell has some really interesting theories and you can believe that people are constantly bombarding the materialist scientists with requests about their opinions of Campbell's work.

If he was lying about any of his credentials, it would be more than reasonable to assume that someone would have exposed it by now if for no other reason than to end the requests. The easiest way to make a theory go away is to prove that the originator lied about himself.

If you can't kill the message, killing the messenger is the next best thing and so far, no one has.

[Szaxx]

Credentials are marks on a piece of paper. They mean nothing.
This guy is one of them representing all of us.
Why in hells name does a piece of paper matter anyway.
I have 11 letters after my name but never use them...
There's no point unless your head is up there in the brown stuff.
Pick on Randi
We'll all back you on this guys inclement and asinine attitude that dictates a prowess of objective nonconformity.
And I didn't sat any naughty words
My bad.

[TylerSnotgern]

Campbell's credentials are a non-issue. His This forum, however, is pure unadulterated Hogwarts. The fact this thread still exists condemns it. {EDIT: Mistyped}

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-theories/6717-curious-about-the-credentials-thomas-warren-campbell-author-my-big-toe.html

Another viewpoint...

http://www.skeptiko.com/forum/threads/simulations-back-up-universe-is-a-hologram-theory-physicists-say.344/

[Xanth]

That's not the my big toe forum.

Go here: www.my-big-toe.com