Science & Tech Quote by Stanislav Grof

Grof draws a sharp line between science as a method and scientism as an ideology, and the insult is deliberate. “Scientism” isn’t a neutral label here; it’s a charge that certain gatekeepers use the prestige of science to police what counts as real. By calling “science in the true sense of the word” “open to unbiased investigation,” Grof is trying to reclaim the brand: the scientific ethos is curiosity plus disciplined doubt, not a preloaded conclusion about what kinds of phenomena are allowed to exist.

The subtext is a fight over borders. Grof’s career sits at the fault line between mainstream psychology and the study of altered states (psychedelic therapy, holotropic breathwork, transpersonal experiences). His work was shaped by a mid-century research environment where psychedelics briefly looked like promising clinical tools, then became politically radioactive. In that context, “unbiased investigation” reads less like a platitude and more like a protest against stigma masquerading as rigor.

Rhetorically, the sentence performs a judo move: it agrees with science’s highest ideals while implying that many self-described defenders of science have abandoned them. The phrase “any existing phenomena” is doing heavy lifting. It concedes a realist premise (there are phenomena, full stop) but refuses to let current theory dictate what should be observable, discussable, fundable. Grof is betting that today’s “impossible” experiences may be tomorrow’s data set, if institutions stop confusing epistemic humility with capitulation to woo.