“…The body is a biological computer, it has the ability to think for itself. It is not just reacting to data in the way it is programmed to react to data. It has the ability to think for itself, certainly up to a point…And the key level of the conspiracy is to make us believe that we are the computer and thereby forget that we are that which works through the computer i.e. CONSCIOUSNESS.” David Icke Live in Melbourne 2016 1:05:13
At the MGT Institute for Consciousness we teach Consciousness Exploration, which amounts to self-exploration.
Learn to manage consciousness
Becoming fully conscious of being consciousness means to discover who or what you really are. Then it becomes possible to learn to manage consciousness, which is senior to the logical mind and involves the heart or intuition.
Consciousness requires knowledge of and further exploration of inner as well as outer space. See mgtconcepts.com
Caspar de Nada von Bigera

Traditionally–going back to the classics of Ancient Greece–the classification was based on the subject of study such as zoology, psychology, physics, chemistry etc.
In this century most studies are multi-disciplinary and a new system of classification of sciences is very necessary. The first thing one should take into account now is not the subject but the scientist, the mind of the scientist is the primary concern.
These scientific minds are attached to bodies that drive cars etc. and need money, these bodies carry IDs and are subject to governments and other pressure groups.
Most scientific endeavors are multi-disciplinary, therefore the key classification of science now becomes:
A) Public Science
this is what is done and published by independent individuals, scientists at universities and is published in books that can be found in the public domain, moderately financed. It is what one sees in such magazins as New Scientist, Scientific American etc.
B) Private Science
this is the advanced science and research known and done by scientists of the military, governmental, ‘national security’ guarded establishments and/or contractors, it is highly protected and secret and there are no known limits to funding.
One could also say there are free scientists and ‘captive’ scientists. Some scientists are free in the start of their careers and cease to be so. Victor Schauberger, who was forced to work for the Nazis was a typical example. There are also scientists who self-determinedly choose to work for governments, some captive scientists are posing as free scientists, just as is the case with their journalistic colleagues. And there are fortunately still a few advanced scientists, usually not main stream, who made it anyway into the public domain.
But keep the above separation in science in mind, it is symptomatic of the contemporary competitive culture on Earth.
de Nada

Science is the consideration and action of forming conceptual systems of comprehension of different aspects of reality. Sciences are systematic conceptualizations. If we manage to put together such a framework for the vastness of what can be grouped under the heading of spirituality, we have a science.
A scientific dream project would be the following (rough sketch only)

• Collect all data ever written or spoken or demonstrated on the subject of consciousness, the mind and spirit. Certainly including religion and not limited of course to psychology or para-psychology either.
• Categorize these data in various ways and determine the frequencies of the keywords and concepts. List these in order of frequency.
• The first level of categorization would be for example verified facts, theories or models, religious beliefs, anecdotal evidences, descriptions of phenomena, structural data, definitions.
• Then sift out contradictory data, omitted definitions and/or invalid conclusions or  investigate further.
• Find the common denominators and list the points on which they all agree.
• Determine which of the theories or which consistent model provides the greatest amount of integration of data and evidence.
• Or find the common denominators, sort out the contradictions and construct a new theory that accommodates all of the facts and observations and unifies all other data collected above.
• Publish the result

NB: A subproject that might even have to preceed the above, would be to develop an ISO type standardized terminology and other standards in the field of consciousness, mind and spirit.
Another science project that ought to be done
Investigate the psychological makeup of scientists in relation to their theories. Find out if there is a correlation between personality characteristics and test scores and the type of theories they support. If the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics is correct there should be. Incidentally the same could be done for politicians, in relation to their politics.

In this article I will argue that it is urgently necessary to discard the phrase in the title. When we speak of the scientific method in this day and age, we mean the following:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge and obtaining the necessary permissions and financial support for the whole setup. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidencesubject to specific principles of reasoning.
The first italicized part of the above definition is usually omitted, but is the actual context of modern scientific inquiry. This means that to evaluate scientific results means that the policies of sources of university funding, corporate funding, government funding as well as specific research project funding have to be taken into account.
Another even more important aspect becomes visible once we examine the key concepts which are the empirical and the measurable. In other words objective. If empirical and measurable are defined within the context of the human senses and the conceived three dimensional reality, science could never advance beyond these artificial limits.
Since the emergence of quantum physics we know that the results of ‘empirical’ observation and experimentation can only be interpreted in the context of the observer, which introduces a certain subjectivity. It has even become scientifically questionable to assume the very existence of an objective universe.
A generalization of the scientific method therefore would have to include evidence in a broader category. Consciousness for example is something that cannot be proven to exist in the former scientific sense. This is based on the fact that consciousness itself is part of the proof.
Let us assume the following definition of science:”Science is the consideration and action of forming conceptual systems of comprehension of different aspects of reality. Sciences are systematic conceptualizations.”
Taking off from this definition of science any reality could be the subject of scientific inquiry. Therefore I propose to include anything that can be experienced as reality to be a valid domain of inquiry and therefore evidence that can be experienced and shared should be taken into account.
So let us stop using the extremely provincial phrase, “The Scientific Method” realizing it is just A scientific method and instead opt for many scientific methods. This would do more justice to the very definition of science itself which means – etymologically- just knowing.
Therefore what is known as official science can now officially be suspected of being, slanted by the context of financial interests as well as the self-imposed limitation of only accepting evidence from a viewpoint that does not even include consciousness itself.
As has been said many times ‘Context is the key’.

Science is the consideration and action of forming conceptual systems of comprehension of different aspects of reality. Sciences are systematic conceptualizations.
de Nada

There may be several types of knowledge, but there are only two important ones.
What is given out under the heading of science or given out by schoolteachers or in textbooks is generally considered knowledge.
What comes out of books such as the bible or out of ‘channelers’ or mediums is another matter. Some call this beliefs, speculation or nonsense, depending on the point of view of the speakers.
When you wake up in the morning, remembering your dream, you know something as well. In other words knowledge does not equal knowledge.
We can distinguish knowledge derived from what you can see or hear from knowledge of for example what you remember or know from previous lifetimes or of things you feel that you just ‘know’.
Scientists usually disregard or categorically exclude the latter from the realm of knowledge and classify it as fantasy or worse.
However if we distinguish mind from matter and the spirit from the flesh, it well behooves us to distinguish sense knowledge from inner knowledge!
Therefore there are two main types of knowledge:
1) Knowledge derived from the senses, observation, experimentation.
2) Knowledge from within, intuition, revelation, (divine) inspiration.
Thus we can say there is inner knowledge and outer knowledge. The main error and problem of many scientists has been not to balance these two types of knowledge.
The great philosopher of all times said:
“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”     Immanuel Kant
He was wrong!
de Nada