## Grand Suppression: How Cognitive Bias and Institutional Rigidity Orchestrate the Demise of Revolution in Physics **Version:** 1.0 **Date**: August 24, 2025 [Rowan Brad Quni](mailto:[email protected]), [QNFO](https://qnfo.org/) ORCID: [0009-0002-4317-5604](https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4317-5604) DOI: [10.5281/zenodo.16936405](http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16936405) Science, frequently portrayed as a dispassionate, objective quest for truth, often masks a far more tumultuous and profoundly human reality. As Thomas S. Kuhn meticulously articulated in *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* (1962), scientific progress rarely adheres to such a pristine narrative. Instead, it unfolds in extended epochs of *normal science*, defined by dominant **paradigms**—encompassing theories, methodologies, and shared beliefs that dictate the legitimate questions researchers pursue and the acceptable forms their answers may take. Within these periods, intellectual comfort prevails, fostering cumulative knowledge within established boundaries. Yet, this very comfort, deeply rooted in fundamental cognitive biases and reinforced by rigid institutional structures, subtly transmutes the pursuit of truth into an act of self-preservation, frequently at the expense of genuine insight and the radical scientific revolution it ostensibly champions. This inherent resistance seldom originates from overt malice. Rather, it arises from an intricate interplay of innate **cognitive biases**, formidable institutional pressures, and pervasive sociological dynamics. These forces, whether consciously or unconsciously, consistently privilege the stability of an established order over the profound, and often existentially disquieting, implications of new empirical and theoretical insights, leading to patterns of **paradigm maintenance** that, from a critical vantage, impede fundamental advancement. ### The Paradigm’s Unseen Hand: Psychology and Institutional Control in Scientific Progress The historical trajectory of 20th and 21st-century fundamental physics vividly illustrates this phenomenon. Confronted by unsettling empirical findings and profound anomalies that directly challenge prevailing paradigms, the scientific community often defaults to a defensive posture. Instead of embracing the intellectual discomfort crucial for deeper understanding, it deploys a series of tactical dismissals and conceptual reinterpretations. These maneuvers, frequently presented as rigorously objective, are revealed upon closer scrutiny to be sophisticated mechanisms for **paradigm protection**, often exacted at significant intellectual cost. #### Tactical Dismissals and the Defense of the Status Quo New, disruptive ideas, particularly those threatening the core tenets of an established paradigm, invariably face potent, often dismissive, intellectual criticism. Such criticisms, while appearing as legitimate scientific challenges, simultaneously function as effective gatekeeping strategies: ##### 1. The Metaphysical Quarantine: Identity Preservation and Ambiguity Aversion Ontological inquiries in physics—questions concerning the fundamental *being* of particles, the *essence* of spacetime, or the true nature of reality beyond mere mathematical description—are systematically dismissed as *metaphysics*. This designation, though ostensibly neutral, operates as a powerful psychological coping mechanism and a crucial means of preserving professional identity (Knorr-Cetina, 1981). Physicists, whose intellectual capital and professional identity are deeply invested in a paradigm prioritizing precise mathematical description (often interpreted instrumentally rather than realistically), experience significant **cognitive dissonance** when confronting profound philosophical ambiguity or acknowledging the interpretive limitations of their foundational framework. Strategically reclassifying these fundamental questions as non-scientific or *mere philosophy* resolves this dissonance, thereby insulating their intellectual self-concept and alleviating the psychological burden of uncertainty inherent in exploring truly uncharted intellectual territory. This constitutes a form of **defensive self-delusion**: the pervasive, often unexamined, metaphysical assumptions inherent to the favored paradigm are seamlessly integrated into the very fabric of *physics*, while legitimate philosophical inquiries into alternatives are denigrated as extraneous to scientific endeavor. This selective application of scrutiny shrewdly protects the comfortable internal consistency of the paradigm, reinforcing existing beliefs through motivated reasoning. ##### 2. The Excommunication via Pseudoscience: In-Group Primacy, Reputational Loss Aversion, and Tribal Echo Chambers The label *pseudoscience* is wielded as intellectual *heresy*—not merely identifying error, but targeting claims deemed fundamentally corrosive to the established intellectual community’s methodology and shared belief system (Park, 2000). This practice powerfully reflects **in-group primacy**, which prioritizes the community’s cohesion, perceived superiority, and professional integrity over radical epistemic openness. Even entertaining a *pseudoscientific* idea risks professional reputation and carries the stigma of association, fueled by a powerful **fear of reputational loss**—a well-documented motivator in academic settings (Bourdieu, 2004). History, however, offers a stinging indictment: numerous ideas initially dismissed as *pseudoscientific*—such as the once-ridiculed concepts of continental drift (Wegener, early 20th century) or the cosmic microwave background radiation (initially considered mere antenna noise, Penzias & Wilson, 1964)—have later yielded revolutionary insights. This dismissal often stems from profound **loss aversion**: a deep reluctance to abandon the existing paradigm’s immense explanatory power, professional capital, and entrenched institutional structures, even when confronted with emerging, paradigm-shifting evidence (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The ultimate result is an effective **tribal echo chamber**, where dissenting voices are systematically silenced, marginalized, or ignored, leading to a self-reinforcing, potentially self-blinding, consensus (Sunstein, 2001). This phenomenon often precedes *Nobel Disease*, where past success or institutional prestige creates a bulwark against genuine challenge (Abel, 2011). ##### 3. The Labyrinth of Empirical Verification and Peer Review: Sunk Cost, The “Not-Invented-Here” Syndrome, and Institutional Myopia Empirical verification and peer review, while ostensibly lauded as cornerstones of scientific integrity, frequently function in practice to defend established paradigms. Funding for experiments challenging fundamental assumptions is exceptionally difficult to secure, largely due to an entrenched **sunk cost fallacy** (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). Institutions, major granting agencies, and senior researchers are deeply invested—financially, intellectually, and professionally—in current research trajectories. Consequently, genuinely disruptive ideas are often perceived as diverting resources from established pathways, allowing past commitments to dictate future possibilities. This institutional inertia is further exacerbated by the **“Not-Invented-Here” syndrome**, where theories or methodologies originating outside established academic powerhouses or favored research groups frequently encounter immediate skepticism, often dismissed for a perceived lack of “pedigree” (Katz & Allen, 1988). Peer review then operates as a powerful filtering mechanism, heavily influenced by **confirmation bias** and **anchoring bias** (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Reviewers, consciously or unconsciously, anchor their evaluations to established theoretical frameworks, interpreting ambiguous data or novel proposals primarily through the restrictive lens of their ingrained beliefs. This process actively incentivizes incremental, *safe* research that reinforces the existing paradigm, fostering **institutional myopia** where immediate, calculable *success* within predefined metrics overshadows the radical, revolutionary potential of genuine paradigm shift. As famously observed by Richard Feynman in his *Cargo Cult Science* address (1974), the *forms* of scientific inquiry can eclipse its core spirit of open-minded skepticism, leading to the perverse “publish or perish” culture prioritizing quantity and conformity over deep conceptual exploration. ##### 4. The Totalitarian Embrace of Community Consensus: Groupthink, Authority Bias, and the Asch Effect Scientific consensus, while powerful and often epistemically valuable, can, when rigidified into dogma, become an intellectual straitjacket. This rigidity is exacerbated by pervasive **groupthink** (Janis, 1972) and the powerful influence of **social proof** (Cialdini, 1984), especially in highly competitive academic environments. Here, early-career researchers are particularly vulnerable to the **Asch Effect** (Asch, 1956), conforming to group opinion despite private doubts, and **authority bias** (Milgram, 1963), deferring to established experts’ views. They are strongly incentivized to align their research agendas and publicly articulated opinions with the perceived majority for career progression, funding acquisition, and professional acceptance. Kuhn’s model of *normal science* clearly illustrates how initial deviations from consensus are often dismissed as individual failures of understanding or methodology, rather than recognized as potentially systemic anomalies for the paradigm itself. This frequently leads to the premature dismissal of revolutionary ideas, simply because they lack immediate community acceptance. Consequently, the scientific endeavor shifts from an unfettered quest for independent truth to a rigid validation contest, where intellectual conformity—reinforced by social penalties such as career stagnation or publishing difficulties—becomes paramount. This mechanism ensures that ideas which deviate significantly become subject to **selective exposure and selective attention** by the community (Knobloch-Westerwick, 2015), effectively rendering them invisible. ### Microcausality: A Baroque Masterpiece of Cognitive Protection and Epistemic Avoidance The experimental validation of **Bell’s inequalities** (Bell, 1964) stands as a landmark in the history of science, profoundly challenging deeply held classical intuitions. Extensive corroboration has decisively invalidated **local realism**—the classical worldview positing both objective, pre-existing properties of reality (realism) and causal influences strictly mediated by proximity and bounded by light-speed propagation (locality). This empirical anomaly was more than a mere puzzle; it constituted a fundamental crisis for foundational intuition, necessitating a radical re-evaluation of locality, causality, and the very nature of physical reality itself (Fine, 1982). From a critical Kuhnian perspective, this profound anomaly should have triggered a full-blown scientific revolution—a fundamental dismantling and reconstruction of physical ontology. Instead, the scientific community, deeply invested in the conceptual infrastructure of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and Special Relativity, largely orchestrated a strategic intellectual maneuver predicated on **definitional refinement** and conceptual compartmentalization. While the broad philosophical concept of *local realism* was formally abandoned, a distinct, highly technical construct—**microcausality** within QFT—was rigorously preserved (Stapp, 1979; Haag, 1992). Microcausality mandates that operators corresponding to measurements at spacelike-separated points must commute. This condition rigorously guarantees that faster-than-light *signaling*—the deliberate, controlled, *exploitable* transfer of information—is fundamentally impossible, thereby impeccably upholding the sacrosanct principle of relativistic causality. #### The “Lipstick on a Pig” Framing: Conceptual Preservation through Redefinition This strategic move is routinely promulgated as the elegant and rationally compelling resolution: the Standard Model, robustly affirmed as a *local theory* by its adherence to microcausality, flawlessly accounts for the empirically observed *non-local correlations* of entanglement. The phenomenon, famously dubbed *spooky action at a distance* by Einstein (Einstein, Podolsky, & Rosen, 1935), has its ontological implications carefully circumscribed and conceptually neutralized. While the instantaneous nature of these correlations is accepted as anomalous, their crucial inability to transmit controlled information decisively preserves the principle of fundamental *locality*. To critically illustrate this reconciliation: Quantum entanglement, an empirically verified and profoundly unsettling phenomenon—manifesting as instantaneous, non-signaling co-determination of properties across vast distances—represents the unvarnished *pig*. It is a raw, intuitively repugnant anomaly that adamantly resists straightforward integration into any genuinely classical or strictly local worldview. The meticulously defined adherence to microcausality then functions as the *lipstick*: a robust, technically unimpeachable definition. Though indispensable for formal relativistic consistency and the calculational successes of QFT, it enables the broader theoretical framework to retain its *local* designation. This effectively re-labels an ontological departure as a technical subtlety, creating a **re-framing effect** that assuages cognitive dissonance (Schönborn, 2018). #### Cognitive Biases in Action: Semantic Maneuvers for Paradigmatic Stability This strategically executed semantic maneuver fundamentally sidesteps a deeper philosophical and physical confrontation with a universe where distant, spacelike-separated events exhibit an immediate, albeit uncontrollable, conceptual interdependence that strains against any simple definition of local causality. It implicitly redefines *locality* from an *ontological* statement about the fundamental nature of causal influence to an *epistemological* statement about signal transmission (Norsen, 2007), thereby ensuring formal mathematical consistency with the prevailing dogma at the potential, grave expense of confronting revolutionary ontological implications. It is, unequivocally, a modern, highly refined **epicycle** (Penrose, 2004); an ingenious conceptual adjustment—fueled, sustained, and rationalized by a panoply of cognitive biases—designed to maintain the perceived structural integrity and elegance of a cherished model without necessitating a revolutionary deconstruction of its fundamental architecture or core postulates. The **illusory truth effect** (Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppino, 1977) also subtly but powerfully asserts its influence: the repeated, authoritative assertion that “the Standard Model is local because of microcausality,” despite the profound underlying conceptual tension, eventually imbues this technically true, yet intuitively misleading, statement with an unquestionable aura of fundamental truth within the scientific discourse. This contributes to a pervasive **cognitive closure** on fundamental issues (Kruglanski, 1989), leading to a *false consensus effect* regarding the settled nature of locality (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). ### The Broader Legacy: Intellectual Myopia, Moral Hazards, and the Crippling of Curiosity This pervasive strategy of conceptual preservation, driven as much by formidable cognitive and psychological mechanisms as by intellectual consistency, carries profound and potentially calamitous implications for the unfettered pursuit of knowledge, for the integrity of scientific inquiry, and for the very evolution of scientific understanding: #### 1. Philosophical Blindness and the Fetishization of Formalism: Stunting Ontological Inquiry By systematically narrowing definitions and ritualistically compartmentalizing challenging phenomena, physics inadvertently constructs conceptual barriers that preclude the arduous, yet ultimately essential, **System 2 cognitive effort** (Kahneman, 2011)—deliberate, analytical thought—required for a truly fundamental re-evaluation of reality itself. If profound questions of ontological reality are systematically exiled to the *metaphysics* gulag, physicists are actively discouraged from engaging in the difficult, often existentially uncomfortable, System 2 contemplation necessary for groundbreaking conceptual leaps. The discipline becomes philosophically myopic, allowing mathematical formalism and predictive power (the triumphs of System 1 heuristic thinking—fast, intuitive, emotional) to overshadow and indeed *define* ontological truth. This isn’t mere conservatism; it’s **intellectual cowardice**, fearing the uncomfortable unknown more than valuing radical truth, reflecting a pervasive **desire for certainty** (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). This contributes to the **paradox of expertise**, where deep specialization paradoxically makes one more resistant to paradigm shifts (Sokal, 1996). The acceptance of instrumentalism over realism for quantum mechanics, in this light, can be seen as a widespread surrender of ontological inquiry. #### 2. The Forfeiture of Unification and a Perpetually Fragmented Reality: The Impact of Narrow Framing Current interpretations of non-locality, instead of resolving its conceptual challenges, significantly hinder the development of unifying theories like quantum gravity (Smolin, 2006). This impediment arises from an overreliance on existing theoretical tools and conceptual categories, which creates a **narrow frame** for understanding fundamental reality, thereby obstructing broader solutions. This embodies **functional fixedness** with established paradigms (Duncker, 1945). If genuine non-locality, in a deeply ontological sense, is relegated to a carefully circumscribed domain of *non-signaling correlations*, then theories that might naturally integrate and *link* such non-locality as a truly fundamental element may never fully blossom within the reigning intellectual climate. The **confirmation trap**, continually seeking evidence that confirms the adapted *local* narrative, effectively prevents the emergence of truly integrative insights, condemning physics to a perpetually fragmented, less elegant understanding of the universe. #### 3. The Apotheosis of Calculational Fetishism and the Death of *Why?*: The Epistemic Hazard When profound conceptual anomalies are addressed primarily through definitional acrobatics and piecemeal solutions, it inevitably entrenches a *shut up and calculate* ethos (Mermin, 2004) within the scientific community. This is exacerbated by the **availability heuristic** (favoring readily accessible calculational methods) and the manipulation of **reward systems** (academic prestige, grant funding) which heavily prioritize predictive success over deep conceptual understanding (Kuhn, 1962; Sokal & Bricmont, 1998). While undeniably effective for making precise predictions and driving technological advancement, this pragmatic approach systemically marginalizes the indispensable roles of philosophical insight, rigorous conceptual clarity, and relentless foundational questioning in propelling genuinely revolutionary theoretical breakthroughs. The emphasis tragically shifts from profoundly *understanding* the ultimate implications of mathematical formalisms to merely *applying* them effectively, prioritizing predictive utility and career advancement above ontological veracity. This is an **epistemic hazard**, substituting the shadow of calculation for the substance of truth. #### 4. Erosion of Intellectual Humility and the Institutionalization of Arrogance: Group Delusion A tenacious, often fiercely tribal, resistance to radical paradigm shifts, buttressed by profound **overconfidence bias** in the current paradigm’s explanatory power (Dunning-Kruger Effect, Kruger & Dunning, 1999), inevitably cultivates an institutional arrogance that is deeply antithetical to authentic inquiry. This rigidity is met with a potent **backfire effect** (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010) when challenged: confronting existing beliefs with contradictory evidence often strengthens, rather than weakens, those beliefs, leading to even greater defensiveness and a collective sense of being under siege. This insidious process culminates in a form of **group delusion**, where the discomfort of questioning the sacred is systematically purged. The comfort derived from complex, yet familiar, theoretical frameworks becomes prioritized over the profound unease—and ultimately transformative potential—of truly embracing anomalies. Such intellectual rigidity can irrevocably poison the wellsprings from which genuinely humble, epoch-making inquiry flows. This illustrates **P.B. Medawar’s assertion** that *science is the art of the soluble* (1967), focusing on what can be solved within the paradigm rather than what needs to be fundamentally questioned. #### 5. The Perpetuation and Deferral of Scientific Revolutions: A High Moral Hazard and Betrayal of Enlightenment Ultimately, this pattern of conceptual redefinition—driven by deeply ingrained **status quo bias** (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988), rampant **loss aversion**, and a pervasive **normalcy bias** (where the failure of the existing paradigm to truly account for anomalies is normalized because “it’s always been this way”)—risks postponing, perhaps indefinitely, a necessary **scientific revolution**. As Kuhn chillingly observed, *normal science* inevitably accumulates anomalies that prove utterly recalcitrant to full assimilation. By diligently patching over conceptual fissures—like the profound, intuitive chasm between classical locality and the quantum correlations definitively confirmed by Bell’s theorem—the prevailing system inadvertently prevents itself from reaching a decisive *crisis state* where the dominant paradigm becomes unequivocally untenable. This deferment thus impedes the emergence of a genuinely new, more coherent, and conceptually honest understanding of the cosmos, forcing the universe’s grand narrative into increasingly strained, semantically constructed, and psychologically reinforced boxes. This constitutes not merely an academic inefficiency, but a profound **moral hazard**—a betrayal of the very enlightenment principles that claim to drive scientific progress, effectively stifling human curiosity in its deepest forms. This echoes Popper’s concerns (1962) about scientific theories becoming dogmatic and resistant to falsification through *ad hoc* modifications. ### Concluding Indictment: The Choice Between Comfort and Truth The scientific community’s profound, complex, and often fraught engagement with fundamental challenges, exquisitely exemplified by the nuanced interpretation of Bell’s theorem and the tenacious institutional embrace of microcausality, transcends a purely logical or technical debate. It unveils the powerful, often unacknowledged, and deeply problematic interplay between startling empirical discovery and the resilient, profoundly self-protective structure of established paradigms, a structure critically shaped and relentlessly sustained by deep-seated human psychology and a potent array of cognitive biases. While the rigorous application of microcausality unquestionably secures mathematical rigor and relativistic consistency within Quantum Field Theory, its strategic adoption as the primary guardian of *locality* subsequent to the empirical refutation of *local realism* signifies a sophisticated, yet fundamentally defensive and ultimately anti-revolutionary, intellectual strategy. From a comprehensive Kuhnian and socio-cognitive perspective, this maneuver, though pragmatically successful in maintaining the operational coherence of the current paradigm, begs a vital, indeed existential, question: Does this elaborate conceptual maneuvering genuinely resolve the deep philosophical, intuitive, and ultimately *human* unease of quantum non-locality? Or does it merely constitute a meticulously crafted *lipstick* applied to an underlying conceptual *pig*—a fundamental disfigurement of our understanding—thereby actively postponing, if not outright preventing, the genuine paradigm shift required for a deeper, more comprehensive, and ontologically satisfying understanding of the universe? The stakes, for both future scientific discovery and for the very intellectual integrity of humanity’s audacious inquiry into existence, remain profoundly and alarmingly high. --- **References** * Abel, U. (2011). The Nobel Disease. *Journal of Scientific Exploration*, 25(4), 773-781. * Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 35(1), 124-140. * Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. *Psychological Monographs: General and Applied*, 70(9), 1-70. * Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. *Physics Physique Fizika*, 1(3), 195-200. * Bourdieu, P. (2004). *Science of Science and Reflexivity*. University of Chicago Press. * Cialdini, R. B. (1984). *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion*. William Morrow. * Duncker, K. (1945). *On problem-solving*. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113. * Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? *Physical Review*, 47(10), 777-780. * Feynman, R. P. (1974). Cargo Cult Science. *Engineering and Science*, 37(7), 10-13. * Fine, A. (1982). Hidden variables, joint probability, and the Bell inequalities. *Physical Review Letters*, 48(5), 291-295. * Haag, R. (1992). *Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras*. Springer-Verlag. * Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 16(1), 107-112. * Janis, I. L. (1972). *Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes*. Houghton Mifflin. * Kahneman, D. (2011). *Thinking, Fast and Slow*. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. * Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. *Econometrica*, 47(2), 263-291. * Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1988). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. *R&D Management*, 18(1), 7-20. * Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). *The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science*. Pergamon Press. * Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). *Choice and Processing of Information: Selective Exposure to Communication*. Routledge. * Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 77(6), 1121-1134. * Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). *Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases*. Plenum Press. * Kuhn, T. S. (1962). *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*. University of Chicago Press. * Medawar, P. B. (1967). *The Art of the Soluble*. Methuen. * Mermin, N. D. (2004). From Copenhagan to Quantum Information: What is Quantum Mechanics Trying to Tell Us? *American Journal of Physics*, 72(10), 1289-1292. * Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. *Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology*, 67(4), 371-378. * Norsen, T. (2007). Bell's theorem and the causal implications of quantum mechanics. *Foundations of Physics*, 37(9), 1263-1281. * Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. *Political Behavior*, 32(2), 303-330. * Park, R. L. (2000). *Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud*. Oxford University Press. * Penrose, R. (2004). *The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe*. Alfred A. Knopf. * Penzias, A. A., & Wilson, R. W. (1965). A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s. *The Astrophysical Journal*, 142, 419-421. * Popper, K. R. (1962). *Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge*. Basic Books. * Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, 13(3), 279-301. * Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. *Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*, 1(1), 7-59. * Schönborn, S. (2018). *Framing effects in science communication*. Routledge. * Smolin, L. (2006). *The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next*. Houghton Mifflin. * Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. *Social Text*, 46/47, 217-252. * Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1998). *Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science*. Picador. * Stapp, H. P. (1979). Bell's theorem and the world process. *Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)*, 54(2), 317-325. * Sunstein, C. R. (2001). *Republic.com*. Princeton University Press. * Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. *Science*, 185(4157), 1124-1131. * Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in the need for cognitive closure. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 67(6), 1049-1062. * Wegener, A. (1915). *Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane* (The Origin of Continents and Oceans). Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.