Introduction
FLFE Innovations Corp, doing business as FLFE, provides a service and makes assertions that are, as of this writing, in the area of frontier science and beyond what is currently accepted by mainstream science. FLFE’s core claim is the activation of a high consciousness field in a location or around a phone or object that has many beneficial characteristics. FLFE has built upon the work of Dr. David Hawkins (author of the book Power vs. Force [1] and many others) in using Consciousness Kinesiology and the consciousness scale (Hawkins Map) that Dr. Hawkins developed. This approach has been adapted to measure the level of consciousness of the FLFE environment, individuals, groups of individuals, regions, countries, and the world.
The specific claims that FLFE makes, presented on the FLFE website and in other content (e.g., webinars), are extraordinary, from a perspective of mainstream science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as popularized by Dr. Carl Sagan [2] and expanded in Dr. Gary Schwartz’s (2022) book titled Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Science and Ethics of Truth Seeking and Truth Abuse [3].
FLFE is committed to an extraordinarily high standard of research philosophy, research design, experimental execution, and data analysis. This can be referred to as the FLFE Gold Standard of Research and can be applied to extraordinary claims for companies similar to FLFE. FLFE is committed to following this Gold Standard of Research to produce evidence on the FLFE high-consciousness field environment, advanced consciousness science, and advanced source science to the best of FLFE’s abilities and within FLFE’s financial resources. Importantly, FLFE is committed to following the evidence wherever the research leads, whether it supports the claims of FLFE or not. To do this responsibly, a core component of the FLFE Gold Standard of Research is to follow exploratory experiments with confirmatory experiments, utilizing the paradigm of “replicating and extending” prior findings, be they positive or negative.
FLFE’s Implementation of the Gold Standard of Research
01.) Expertise. The FLFE Research Team includes:
-
- Gary E Schwartz, Ph.D., Director of Research
- Paule Bellwood, Ph.D., Research Coordinator
- Jeffrey J. Stegman, B.Sc., FLFE Co-Founder
- Clayten Stedmann, FLFE Co-Founder
The Gold Standard of Research was developed with the steady and insightful guidance of Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. FLFE is grateful to Dr. Schwartz and has benefited from his years of scientific study and teaching at Harvard University, Yale University, and The University of Arizona. FLFE also brings in subject area experts and other research facilities (e.g., the Institute of Noetic Science (IONS)).
02.) Resources. FLFE is committed to a research budget that is a percentage of the FLFE revenue, with the intent for the research budget to grow as the number of FLFE subscribers grows.
03.) Time Commitment. FLFE is committed to the time required to produce extraordinary evidence.
04.) Commitment to on-going improvement. This philosophy reflects the actions of FLFE since the beginning of the FLFE service in 2013 to continuously improve the FLFE service and, therefore, the experience of people in the FLFE environment. FLFE is committed to the continuous improvement of the philosophy of the Gold Standard of Research, including the research design, experimental execution, and data analysis, and of the body of evidence.
The FLFE Gold Standard of Research
FLFE’s Gold Standard of Research includes research philosophy, research design, experimental execution, and data analysis.
Research Philosophy. The philosophy of following the evidence wherever it leads means in this context that regardless of our theories and beliefs, properly conducted experiments and the analyzed results provide direction for subsequent experiments. Dr. Schwartz calls this philosophy the Kepler Challenge, and it represents “the heart of science” as powerfully expressed by Dr. Sagan:
“When Kepler [Johann] found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions, that is the heart of science.”.
- Statistical validity. To address the challenge of the observed phenomenon not fitting into existing theories or “long-cherished beliefs”, when moving from informal observed phenomena to subsequent studies or experiments with increased sample size, controls and blinding, increased rigor of statistical analysis is needed to ensure statistical validation.
- To produce results relatively quickly with the resources available and to follow the evidence where it leads us, a phased approach of categorizing individual experiments and research progression is used. This is similar to established biomedical phased research currently in use with large companies and governments (e.g., the National Institutes of Health (NIH)). The phases progressively increase in rigor, controls and sample size. The phased research used in biomedical research has informed our research philosophy, even though FLFE Innovations is not conducting biomedical research.
FLFE Phase 1 studies
Researchers formally investigate a claim or informal observations (see Phase 0 below) using preliminary experiments with a relatively small number of data points (e.g., 10). The purpose is to examine whether the claim can be demonstrated as well as to explore the magnitude of the effects.
Phase 1 studies address the question “Is it possible?” by demonstrating that “it happens” with statistical significance.
FLFE Phase 2 studies
The claim is investigated with a larger number of datapoints (e.g., 80). The purpose is to verify its veracity under more controlled conditions, including blinding, to understand its mechanisms and properties, and to confirm the magnitude of the effects with more statistical significance.
Phase 2 studies address the question “Is it understandable?” by demonstrating how and under what conditions it happens with statistical significance and blinded conditions, if possible, for the research question.
FLFE Phase 3 studies
The claim is investigated in an experiment with a large number of datapoints (e.g. 1,000). The purpose is to confirm its veracity under controlled conditions, including blinding, to understand its mechanisms and properties, to confirm the magnitude of the effects with statistical significance, and to collect information regarding a larger population of results.
Phase 3 (and Phase 4) studies address the question “Is it believable?” by demonstrating that “it is real” for a large population.
FLFE Phase 4 studies
After a new feature is made available through the FLFE subscription service, researchers track the expression of the feature in the FLFE community population, seeking more information about the feature’s benefits, and optimal use.
The reader will recognize that many organizations or businesses, including FLFE, typically begin with an informal process – what we might call Phase 0 – where they determine, through informal experiments, testimonials, focus groups, and pilot studies, whether their claims appear to have the postulated effects for people using their services or products. Also, unlike biomedical treatments, most organizations or businesses, including FLFE, do not wait for the formal completion of Phases 1-3 before making their services or products available to the public (Phase 4).
Each of the phases can have multiple sub-phases as illustrated in our ongoing Customer Experience Survey (CES) research, e.g., Phase 1 Sub-Phases (A – G):
- Carefully examining and quantifying spontaneous testimonials.
- Constructing a preliminary survey of questions (CES) based on this information.
- Pilot testing on senior FLFE members (approximately 6).
- Revising and pilot testing on FLFE staff (approximately 30).
- Revising and pilot testing on an initial sample of FLFE customers (approximately 50).
- First large sample administration (approximately 340; no control group).
- Second large sample administration, if needed.
Research Design
The standardized FLFE research protocol for each new experiment has the principles of good experimental design that are appropriate for the Phase of the research and for the type of research that it is. For example, a Phase 2 plant growth study Experimental Plan would likely have:
- Discussion of previous observations, data analysis and/or experimental results that led to this experiment.
- Description and Goals: Description of the experiment and research goals
- Hypothesis
- Experimental methods
- Independent variables
- Dependent variables
- Controls
- Sample sizes
- Experimental area description and location. Photographs.
- Timing
- Collection of data
- Data Analysis
- Interpretations of the data
- Limitations of the study
- Directions for future research
- Experimental execution: Any deviation from the Experimental Plan would be documented and provided as an amendment.
Data Analysis
As part of the research philosophy, the data analysis would look at the data in multiple ways and report the significant results and the limitations. The analysis explains and illuminates the experimental results so that we can follow the evidence data where it leads us for reporting and for possible further research inquiries.
Looking Back
FLFE Experiments conducted prior to the application of the Gold Standard have been assessed in this structure. These experiments were categorized into the appropriate phase and analysis was added of the strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design, the experiment execution, and the data analysis. In some cases, the data were reanalyzed, and the updated results have been reported.
Challenge of Independent Confirmation of Results
In the case of FLFE, the central claim is the activation of a high consciousness field, from which the observed phenomena arise. For an independent lab to replicate the FLFE experimental results, we believe a high consciousness field would be needed to be activated by the FLFE technology. FLFE welcomes partnering with independent labs to do so.
References
[1] Hawkins, D. R. (1995). Power vs. force: The hidden determinants of human behavior. Hay House.
[2] Sagan, C. (1979). Broca’s brain: Reflections on the romance of science. Random House.
[3] Schwartz, G. E. (2022). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: The science and ethics of truth seeking and truth abuse. Waterside Productions.
