What Does Science Not Study?
A Snapshot of Scientific Funding & the Nature of Paradigm Shifts
A narrative gaining popularity in the West suggests that we’ve supplanted religion with science and we’ve swapped the Bible for a beaker. If science has become the ultimate truth, we can learn a lot about our world by looking at what science doesn’t study. Although science has transformed the modern world, blind spots abound that obfuscate psychospiritual investigations and inhibit paradigm shifts.
What Does Science Not Study?
I’ve been watching plenty of professor Jiang Xueqin’s Predictive History lectures lately. He’s become a YouTube sensation and a darling of the internet over the last year. Agree with him or not, he’s brought some intriguing ideas to the forefront. Professor Jiang posits that science doesn’t study the following areas of inquiry:
Consciousness
Imagination/Intuition
The Immaterial/Spirit (i.e. ghosts)
Religious Truth
Kindness, Happiness, Love
Telepathy, Connection, Community
Intelligence of Animals and Plants
Ancient Architecture and Civilizations (Goebekli Tepe for example, which may refute traditional paradigms including evolution)
I add two more:
Psychedelics
Sound, Frequency, and Vibration
Is professor Jiang right? Why does science pour billions of dollars into some fields while alienating other areas of inquiry that have a direct effect on consciousness, human life and meaning?
To help answer this question, let’s first look at scientific funding data.
Snapshot of Scientific Funding
This article relies heavily on AI provided data, so let’s hope it’s accurate and not hallucinating. I’d rather get an impacted wisdom tooth pulled than spend a month of Sundays pouring over government budgets and documents. I have a fair amount of confidence in AI in this case, as it’s drawing from raw data and hopefully doesn’t leave much room for interpretation or bias.
If a research audit interests you, I suggest checking out the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding: FY1996-FY2026 Request which shows FY2024 and FY2025 funding around $48+ billion, with a significant year over year reduction of 42% for FY2026. Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2025 also provides a solid reference.
The Google AI overview provided the following:
Based on data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and federal agency budget proposals for FY2024–2025, U.S. research funding is heavily concentrated in biomedical sciences, defense, and engineering. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS/NIH) and the Department of Defense (DOD) are the primary drivers of this funding.
Here are the top 10 fields of scientific research by funding in the U.S.:
Life Sciences / Biomedical Research ($52B+): This field receives the highest share of funding, driven by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) focusing on health-related studies, including cancer research and Alzheimer’s.
Engineering ($10B–$15B+): Covering aerospace, electrical, and mechanical fields, this sector is heavily funded by the DOD, NSF, and Department of Energy (DOE).
Physical Sciences ($2.5B–$7B+): Includes physics and chemistry, largely supported by the DOE for research into materials science and energy.
Computer and Information Sciences ($3B–$4B+): This field has seen massive growth, focusing on artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and data science, supported by NSF and DOD.
Geosciences, Atmospheric, and Ocean Sciences ($3.5B+): Funded by NOAA, NASA, and NSF, this research focuses on climate, environmental changes, and natural resources.
Agricultural Sciences ($3.5B+): Funded via the USDA to enhance food security, sustainable development, and crop production.
Social Sciences (Non-Psychology) ($3B+): Includes economics, sociology, and political science, supported by the NSF and various federal departments.
Psychology and Cognitive Sciences ($2B+): Focused on behavioral health and human cognition.
Environmental Science and Ecology: Growing funding area focusing on biodiversity loss and global heating, often overlapping with the geosciences.
Materials Science and Nanotechnology: A key area for the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), with over $1B in targeted funding.
Key Funding Dynamics
HHS/NIH: In 2024–2025, HHS remains the largest funder, with an estimated $51.3 billion for R&D.
DOD: Focuses heavily on defense technology, with R&D obligations exceeding $90 billion.
Non-Federal Sources: Private industry heavily funds pharmaceuticals and computer electronics, often focusing on experimental development (67% of total U.S. R&D).
I turned to Grok and asked for further funding data. Grok provided the following:
US research funding comes from multiple sources: federal government (largest for basic research), businesses (dominant overall R&D), universities, nonprofits, and states. Total US R&D (across all fields/areas) was approximately $940 billion in 2023 (latest full estimate), with federal funding around $170–190 billion annually in recent years (varying by fiscal year and source).
For federal obligations specifically (a common benchmark for “research funding” in the US):
In FY 2023, total federal R&D obligations were about $186–192 billion (estimates vary slightly by source/report, e.g., NSF reports ~$186.4 billion for R&D, with research portions lower).
Of this, obligations for research (basic + applied, excluding development) were around $102 billion across all fields of science & engineering (S&E).
Major field breakdowns (federal obligations for research in FY 2023, from NSF NCSES data):
Life sciences: ~$44 billion (largest share, ~43%, mostly HHS/NIH-driven biomedical/health).
Engineering: ~$16 billion.
Physical sciences: ~$13 billion.
Psychology: ~$5 billion.
Other fields (e.g., computer sciences/math, geosciences, social sciences): smaller portions.
(End of AI provided data)
Key Scientific Funding Takeaways
Reviewing this data, a few, key things stick out.
U.S. research funding is heavily concentrated in biomedical sciences and defense.
The DoD is a primary driver funding computer and information sciences fueling massive growth in AI, cybersecurity, and data science.
The Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), receives over $1B in targeted funding.
Private industry heavily funds pharmaceuticals and computer electronics, often focusing on experimental development.
If you’ve read any of my pieces on AI and/or transhumanism, the funding numbers above come across as unsettling at best. Also, I never heard of the National Nanotechnology Initiative which sounds ominous. Finally, Big Pharma funding being one of the fattest pigs at the funding trough doesn’t come as a surprise, and helps to explain why other areas of inquiry get ignored.
Leftover Funding Scraps for Psychospiritual Inquiry
I turned to Grok one more time to provide funding data for psychospiritual research. For the 8 areas of psychospiritual inquiry above (minus psychedelics & sound, frequency and vibration) Grok says:
Some fall under mainstream scientific or humanities fields (e.g., aspects of consciousness in neuroscience, animal/plant intelligence in biology/cognition, or ancient civilizations in archaeology), while others (e.g., ghosts, telepathy, or immaterial spirits) are fringe, paranormal, or parapsychological topics that receive virtually no sustained US federal funding today. Total federal R&D obligations are around $186–195 billion annually in recent years (e.g., FY 2023–2024), but only a tiny fraction supports these specific areas.
Here is Grok’s breakdown by area based on recent data and approximate federal funding:
Consciousness: Some neuroscience/cognitive research touches on consciousness (e.g., via NSF’s Cognitive Neuroscience program or NIH grants). Workshops and pilot efforts exist to align it with mainstream funding, but dedicated funding is limited and challenging. Estimates suggest low millions annually at most (often peripheral to broader brain/cognition studies, e.g., part of ~$10+ billion in NIH neuroscience overall, but consciousness-specific is far smaller).
Imagination/Intuition: This overlaps with cognitive psychology or creativity research (e.g., NSF behavioral sciences). Funding is indirect and modest, likely in the low millions or less as a dedicated focus.
The Immaterial/Spirit (ghosts): No significant current federal funding. Historical programs (e.g., 1970s–1990s Stargate Project on psychic phenomena, ~$20 million total over 20+ years) ended decades ago. Modern paranormal/ghost research is not federally supported.
Religious Truth/Religion/Spirituality: Some peripheral funding exists via NIH/NSF for religion-spirituality-health links (e.g., positive effects on well-being), totaling tens of millions historically but declining. Much comes from private sources (e.g., Templeton Foundation). Federal investment is modest and often not central.
Kindness, Happiness, Love (positive emotions/prosocial behavior): This aligns with positive psychology, social/behavioral sciences, or mental health. Part of broader ~$4–5 billion annual federal psychological research (mostly NIH). Specific subtopics like happiness/kindness receive low millions annually at best.
Telepathy, Connection, Community: Telepathy/parapsychology has no current federal funding (past programs like Stargate ended in the 1990s). “Connection/community” might overlap with social psychology or NSF-funded behavioral work, but telepathy claims receive none.
Intelligence of Animals and Plants: Animal cognition/intelligence is funded via NSF (e.g., behavioral/cognitive sciences) and NIH (animal models), though recent NIH shifts prioritize human-based methods over animal-only studies. Plant intelligence (e.g., plant cognition/behavior) is niche and receives very limited funding (low millions or less). Overall animal cognition is part of larger biology/psychology pots.
Ancient Architecture and Civilizations: This is well-supported via NSF Archaeology Program (senior/doctoral awards, ~$ several million annually) and NEH (humanities grants, e.g., $37–75 million rounds for projects including archaeology/cultural heritage). Broader archaeology receives tens of millions yearly.
Of course, we’re all wondering about psychedelic research. Grok says:
Public commitments and awards suggest psychedelic research is in the low tens of millions per year across agencies (e.g., $10–20+ million in notable recent appropriations and grants), focused on mental health, addiction, pain, and military/Veteran applications. This is a significant increase from near-zero pre-2021 levels but still a small fraction of broader biomedical research funding.
Another neglected field of scientific inquiry is sound, frequency, and vibration. According to Grok, sound, frequency and vibration are, “not tracked as a single, dedicated category or line item in federal budgets. Instead, it falls under broader fields like physics, engineering (e.g., mechanical, aerospace, electrical), materials science, biomedical engineering, and applied defense research.”
However, some agencies do provide funding in these areas of research.
According to Grok, the National Science Foundation, “awards and grants for topics like acoustic signal processing in plants, vibroacoustics for brain imaging/diagnosis, surface acoustic waves in sensors, and quantum microphones for phonons (sound quanta). Individual grants are typically in the $500,000–$2 million range over several years…” I’ve never heard of these research areas before and they all sound fascinating. Yet they receive paltry funding.
The Department of Defense (DoD) studies sound, frequency and vibration but only allocates a small amount of funding to it according to Grok. Some of those funds go to studying “directed energy applications” which I’d rather not contemplate the use of.
The most intriguing is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Grok states, “NIH Funds biomedical applications, such as vibroacoustic therapy (low-frequency vibration for health effects), ultrasound (high-frequency sound waves) for imaging/therapy, or vibration in voice/laryngeal research. Grants appear sporadically (e.g., for low-frequency effects on heart rate or neural mechanisms), often in the hundreds of thousands to low millions per award.”
Grok notes that allotted funds for sound, frequency and vibration receive even less funding than psychedelics.
Combined Annual Federal Funding Estimate for Psychospiritual Research
Psychospiritual areas of scientific inquiry receive in the range of tens to low hundreds of millions. Fringe and paranormal areas account for $0 in federal support.
Grok says that a “realistic combined estimate” for the first 8 areas of psychospiritual inquiry account for:
Roughly $50–150 million annually, depending on how broadly you count overlaps (e.g., cognition-related consciousness, prosocial behavior, or animal intelligence). This is a small fraction of overall federal research (~0.03–0.08% of total R&D obligations).
Grok also adds:
Most funding for fringe or spiritual/paranormal aspects (e.g., ghosts, telepathy, religious truth as “truth” rather than cultural study) comes from private foundations (e.g., Templeton for spirituality/consciousness), nonprofits, or self-funded work—not the federal government.
Psychospiritual science funding receives ~0.03–0.08% of total R&D obligations, and it appears that professor Jiang is right.
What do the measly scraps offered to psychospiritual inquiry say about science, culture and our society?
What Science Says About Society & Why Science Hasn’t Improved
Today, following the money shows us what we value most and least. A famous Joseph Campbell quote comes to mind, taken from his 1988 work The Power of Myth.
It takes me back to a time when these spiritual principles informed the society. You can tell what’s informing a society by what the tallest building is. When you approach a medieval town, the cathedral is the tallest thing in the place. When you approach an eighteenth-century town, it is the political palace that’s the tallest thing in the place. And when you approach a modern city, the tallest places are the office buildings, the centers of economic life.
Professor Jiang asks why particle physics and CERN receive massive funding. I wonder too, because, as far as I can tell, particle physics has zero impact on my life. Science promotes a particular paradigm about the world at the sake of everything else, and that paradigm appears to be rational materialism. Why?
I don’t know. However, despite spending close to $1 trillion annually on science, when was the last great scientific breakthrough? Jiang says we haven’t had a breakthrough in 50-70 years. I guess you could say landing on the moon. Did the moon landing have a direct impact on your life?
The self-reinforcing status quo causes problems. Professor Jiang points out 3 key flaws of modern science that slow discovery and explain the lack of improvements and breakthroughs:
Specialization and Compartmentalization
Science makes focusing on one specific problem and a narrow area of inquiry obligatory. Being a generalist is frowned upon. Without being able to think about science with a broad perspective, making new discoveries becomes difficult.
Bureaucracy (Funding)
Science suffers under a strict bureaucracy. Scientists spend most of their time seeking and applying for funding, rather than actually investigating the problems of the universe.
Credentialism
If you don’t have a certain PhD or work at a major research university, you’re not allowed to talk about science. Sasha and Ann Shulgin are an outstanding exception to credentialism. Citizen scientists, like guys working in their garage or young African men, who purportedly have invented water powered cars and free energy devices, get ignored or worse.
For these 3 reasons, Jiang contends that science is hard to do and discovering the truth is even harder. Furthermore, he believes this is the point. Jiang believes the intention of science is to prevent people from discovering the truth of the world.
The truths of the world that lead to paradigm shifts, come few and far between.
Why Science Struggles with Creativity and Paradigm Shifts
Jiang points to science philosopher Thomas Kuhn who wrote the influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In the book, Kuhn says the very long time required for paradigm shifts to take place is natural.
Scientific revolutions don’t happen overnight and the time required depends on a variety of factors: the field, nature of the evidence, status quo resistance, generational changes in the scientific community, and supporting technological or observational advances.
Kuhn didn’t view these shifts as gradual. He viewed them as episodic. A lengthy period of “normal science” continues under a dominant paradigm. During this period, anomalies and unexplained data accumulate, leading to a crisis. The crisis manifests a revolutionary replacement by a new paradigm.
Kuhn stressed that acceptance of the novel paradigm often requires the senior generation of scientists to either retire or die, allowing younger researchers freedom to embrace the new framework.
Historical examples demonstrate that implementation of scientific paradigm shifts (widespread adoption across the scientific community, integration into education/textbooks, and resolution of major debates) usually unfolds over decades and often takes a century or more.
As Max Planck said:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents…but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Planck serves as a fine example. Although his ideas around quantum mechanics emerged in the early 20th century, we still haven’t integrated them into modern science. However, we’ve reached the century mark now, and this provides good news for the acceptance of quantum ideas into the status quo. Heliocentrism also took about 1 to 1.5 centuries from its ideation to broad, scientific consensus.
Science Isn’t Cancelled
This isn’t an attack on science or an attempt to cancel science by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, I love science. As I’ve mentioned before, my initial academic path was an attempt to become a marine biologist. I hammered science in high school, which included working on human cadavers and a summer job working as a lab assistant for my biology teacher. For countless years I’ve been saying, “show me the proof, show me the evidence,” something which Scully from The X-Files instilled in me.
This is a philosophical critique of the incentives, funding structures and intellectual boundaries that manage scientific inquiry. Moreover, rejecting scientific achievement negates hyperhumanism.
Rather, this functions as a critical thinking exercise that asks a vital question:
What’s the difference between human understanding and technological progress and how could science evolve if it addressed not just how the world works, but what it means to be human?
Afterword
In the near future, the impact of scientific funding will come more into focus regarding current events. I don’t want to spoil what I’ll be working on, as it pertains to scientific funding. However, if you’re a clever person, which I know everyone in my audience is, you see this drama playing out daily in the news.