top of page

    1. What are your background and credentials? What makes you qualified to teach this subject?

    Given that we are currently living in what’s being called the “Information Age,” I see institutionalized credentials to be losing their currency day by day. This is especially true when we examine just how low the standards of academia have fallen in so short a span of time.

    However, I can still understand the reasons one might ask me about them. I received university degrees in biology and sociology in 2015. During this time and for about a year following, I was directly involved in research projects mostly involving plant-fungi symbiosis with a bent towards agricultural sustainability and ecological restoration (the legitimate kinds, not the technocratic approaches so often touted by the parasite classes of the multinational "think tank" groups such as the WEF et al.)

    In addition to all of this, I would be happy to answer any further questions prospective clients might have, and/or provide a detailed CV upon request.



    2. As an alternative take on biology, does this mean Lifeology is informed by a religious perspective?


    One of the things that I see as most antagonistic to the gaining of knowledge is dogma in any form, be it from the hardcore atheists, to the hardcore “religionists.” I believe Truth is a concept that must be discerned by each individual, based on their own rationality, intuition, and personal experience. If that Truth is made clear through certain religious perspectives, then I would encourage that person to follow that road to see where it leads. But Lifeology is being designed with the idea that it meant to show students to doors that they can decide to walk through or not. Many of these doors may have mystical/spiritual implications. But as a teacher I will never tell my students what they ought to believe.


    So, in short, no, this program is not informed by a religious perspective, but I wholly welcome spiritual interpretations of the world.

    3. My son/daughter is middle-school aged or below, would they still benefit from your program?


    This depends very much on the student in question and must be decided on a case-to-case basis. I have experienced teaching middle school and even earlier ages as a schoolteacher here in Thailand and have found that children at these ages are FAR more capable than many give them credit for in terms of being able to grasp certain subjects. Do note that I am designing this content to be for those who are older (teenage to adult years), so if you would like to go through these lessons with someone younger, you may have to accept that they likely won’t grasp everything.

    Alternatively, I would encourage parents who are interested in teaching this content to younger learners to enroll and go through the lessons themselves. In that way, you can create lessons tailored to the abilities of your son/daughter.


    As a final point, sometimes exposure to concepts beyond one’s reach helps to pull them forward intellectually. And even if they don’t have a full grasp on things right away, there is the potential for planting seeds in the subconscious that can germinate at a later time into something far more fruitful than we can imagine now. As a parent-child team though, you must be the final arbiters on such a question.


    4. What will enrollment in the program get me?


    At the current time, Lifeology is in its development stages, and I am looking for a few more clients to come on as beta testers. This will mean that signing up will get you a weekly or biweekly (whichever works best for you) hour long session in which we will meet live through video chat. During these meetings I will go through the curriculum, attempting to cover one topic per meeting. During these sessions I encourage my beta students to ask questions to help clarify the lessons, as this can both lead to interesting conversations, as well as provide feedback to me about which details I should make clearer for future students.


    After the development and beta testing is complete, I will take the lessons I’ve developed through the beta tests and record them so that anyone can access them and go through them at their own pace. Although not all the modules will be available for viewing right away, as it takes time to record and edit them, once you are enrolled in the course, you will have access forever to all modules as they are released. My aim will be to release at least one module per week during this stage. Over time as well, certain modules may be recrafted and updated as needed. As I will forever be a student of these subjects myself, new information is always coming to my attention. Sometimes I may feel it to be necessary to update modules in light of this.


    In addition, I will offer premium packages where I can teach live one on one or small group sessions, so that I can facilitate questions as they arise and provide a more personalized experience.


    5. Does Lifeology offer any official accreditation, university credits, etc.?


    At this time, Lifeology is separate from any institutional credential system. To maintain the freedom to cover topics in a way free from institutionalized dogma, I have determined this to be for the best, at least for now. However, the content covered here will provide students with the starting information necessary to pass other examinations that could earn them this type of accreditation.

    7. I am interested in enrolling, but I am not a homeschooling parent or student. Will Lifeology still benefit me?

    Of course. Although I crafted this program with homeschoolers in mind, there is no reason it should be limited to people in that world. Anyone who is interested in the topics herein should find these lessons interesting and informative. After all, if nothing is stopping you from learning science on your own, what should stop you from enrolling here?

    8. Does Lifeology endorse any specific scientific paradigms as the "correct" ones?

    Lifeology's aim is not to provide biased support one way or another for any specific perspective within the world of scientific debate. Rather, it is to support the development of the critical reasoning faculties of each student so they may be best equipped to make up their own minds once educated. To do otherwise I feel violates the basic tenets of what intellectual investigation stands for. Although it's impossible to be completely without bias, my job as an educator is to introduce students to ideas and theories as objectively as possible while simultaneously providing as many strengths and weaknesses as I'm aware of. This means steel-manning opposing sides of a debate as much as I can, rather than attempting to influence students towards any particular conclusion. 

    A major criticism against mainstream academia (perhaps rightly so) is that they often make condescending, knee-jerk dismissals of counter-theories that rub up against their own without objectively judging them on their merits. However, this does not mean every single point that what we might call "Science Inc." makes is to be thrown out merely by association. We should be mindful that, from a historical standpoint, many of the revolutions in scientific history were in response to the stifling of thought brought about by the power structures of their respective ages. There are a great many positions that mainstream science defends that at this current time I view as perfectly valid. In short, we must be careful to not throw the baby out with the bath water on this issue.

    While I do have the aforementioned gripe against "Science Inc.", I've witnessed the same sort of ideological stagnancy creep its way into the alternative research movement as well. To the point where it's all too common now that certain paradigms become just as dogmatic and tribal as those held by the mainstream. In many personal observations I've witnessed that folks won't even listen to two words said by anyone who doesn't support "Stance X." We cannot risk becoming like this if we are to remain scientifically grounded. We must be willing to always maintain the “child mind,” and to humble ourselves with the constant reminder that no matter how much we learn, it's impossible to know everything and it's highly likely we've missed something along the way. We should accept the possibility that certain in vogue ideas amongst the alternative research community may not actually be supported by a preponderance of evidence, and that certain mainstream academic options may indeed be more robust after 
    a final analysis of available data. If we fail in this calling, we are simply replacing one dogma with another, and we do ourselves, each other, and of course the future generations of humanity a major disservice.


    Finally, in the near future I plan to update my blog page on this site with a more in depth statement on various controversial "hot topics" so as to clarify more specific positions I do have, so that parents and students have a bit more transparency and understanding into where I'm coming from. Stay tuned.

    So to summarize: No, I strive to keep whatever biases I have to myself and present ideas as objectively as I can. I am not here to preach any particular position, but rather to teach students how to consider ideas and evidence using their own faculties.

    bottom of page