Western Association for Biofeedback and Neuroscience — Spring 2017 30 non grata. Sterman also publicly savaged Adam Crane, developer of the first com- puterized four-channel Alpha synchrony trainer. Just what was wrong with alpha train- ing? It was those spooky altered states that people got into, of course. The academic mind could not abide the talk of transper- sonal phenomena and of sudden, radical transformative experience. And yet these were certainly real enough. Once again, our thinking about how nature behaves needed to be enlarged. We also had our different sects in the field, each of which had its own specific truth claims and did not consort well with the others. When Bessel van der Kolk first showed up at an ISNR meeting, he was shocked. “There isn’t even a field here yet, so what are people fighting about?” Peo- ple were brandishing their certainties like the large phalluses of the Greek theatre. In a field to which the essential unitary quality of our regulatory regime ought to be most apparent, we were witness to an almost pathological Balkanization. There is at least one difference between the two magisteria of religion and science (in the terminology of the late Stephen Jay Gould) that bears mentioning at this point. Men of faith can be insufferably sanctimonious, we all know, but under- neath all of that fervent conviction lies the awareness that one remains in the realm of faith. Not so the scientist. As Neil De- Grasse Tyson informs us, “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” On that basis, a scientist can be even more stubbornly im- movable than a man of faith because he is convinced of his theories to the point of absolute certainty. This can lead to an equally insufferable intellectual arrogance that brooks no contradiction. Note that Tyson is talking about sci- ence as a body of knowledge, as truth, rather than as a process for getting there. In this view, then, the truth claims of both magisteria are absolute. In the case of science, there must also be a fool-proof process for getting to the truth. Repro- ducibility is generally agreed to be the condition to be met by an aspiring em- pirical fact. “It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same con- ditions always produce the same result.” But what if they don’t? By now we have hard evidence from quantum mechanics that the same conditions do not always produce the same result. Our rule must be modified, as Richard Feynman has done: “It is necessary for the existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some pre-conceived conditions.” In the case of quantum me- chanics, for example, we must be content with reproducibility at another level. The history of our field has been one of a gradual shedding of certainties over the years. In every case, the claimed ver- ities outlived their vanishing evidentiary support—if indeed such support ever existed. The beliefs had taken on a life of their own. In the words of Max Planck: “Important theories, marked for death by the discovery of contradictory evidence, seldom die before their authors.” We must have patience. “Science advances one fu- neral at a time.” I recall a conversation with biofeed- back therapist Jack Sandweiss many years ago in which he represented the position that the fact of our having this conver- sation at that moment was in principle