pantheory

Psychology, sociology and a number of other sciences can be called soft sciences. Results of experiments and interpretations are often debatable. Unfortunately the same kinds of problems and misinterpretations, but to a lesser extent, can also happen in hard sciences such as particle physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, as well as nearly all theory-based research and studies. Experiments and observations can be part of biased studies producing wrong conclusions backed by wrongly structured statistics. Science is a methodology directed towards our best efforts to find objective answers, but sometimes it goes awry. IMO in the long run science advances much more than it makes mistakes, maybe three steps forward and one step backwards concerning theory -- on a long term basis.

Pretty cool pictures. 48 unique species in these connected Mexican caves. amazing!

This may be Sheldrake's perception as to the principles of science but none in reality are consensus principles amongst scientists in these fields. I'll go aver the list one by one. 1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers. In science actions of nature can be mechanical, chemical, electrical, energy radiating such as electricity, light and other EM radiation, gravity waves, etc., Living organisms are mechanical, chemical, electrical, energy consuming, energy producing, self-replicating, having electro-chemical memory capabilities. This is a general view but not necessarily a consensus view. 2.a All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Yes, this is generally the consensus view but could be disputed with different definitions of "inner life." 2.b Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains. This is not a consensus view. There is much debate in science concerning the meaning of plant, animal, and human consciousness. 3.a The total amount of matter and energy is always the same. This principle is called the conservation of mass-energy which is a consensus view in physics. 3 b (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared). The Big Bang is presently the cosmoloogical consensus view but new evidence could quickly change the theory as it did when accommodating new hypothesis such as Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. The idea of "suddenly appeared" is not a consensus part of the Big Bang model. There are many different views and versions concerning a beginning, and maybe 5% of practitioners do not believe in the Big Bang model at all. 4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever. Although many such as myself believe this principle is generally valid, many or most Big Bang cosmologists believe the laws of nature have changed over time, so this is certainly not a consensus belief or assertion. 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction. Yes, this is generally the prevailing consensus view but evolution does have a direction. The direction is toward the survival of the fittest and the most prolific breeders. 6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures. Yes, this is the general consensus view but maybe not worded in the best way. A better wording might be: Biological inheritance is carried by genetic cells, related chemistry involving genes, DNA, RNA, epi-genetic chemistry, gene foldings and switching, and in other material. structures. 7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain. Of course animal and human brains form a perspective of reality which is only a small portion of the emissions being radiated. So this statement is generally the consensus view in science IMO. 8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death. The wording is not very good. Memories are stored in animals and men as electo-chemical traces in nerve cells which dissipate as these cells die. 9) Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory. The consensus view in science of telepathy is that it is imaginary and not real. 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. The consensus view of medicine is not the above. Medicine instead is the science and practice of the diagnosis, multi-faceted treatments, surgical excising,and inclusions, drug treatments, and prevention of diseases.

Shelldrake is English. The state religion of England is the Anglican church. It was likely the religion of his youth. For some people studying science, like those studying religion, the short-comings of such teachings are more obvious than to others. While being educated in science, it seems that he first turned away from the Christianity of his youth, and then away from Christianity as a whole, calling himself an atheist. But in time he also found problems with science theory. IMO science theory is riddled with BS. Science theory is often just the best guess concerning how things work and can change as new observations and discoveries become available. Of course it is certainly far better than any and all supernatural religions which are 100% BS. According to the subject link, Sheldrake slowly became disenchanted with at least some science theory. I came to a somewhat similar conclusion long ago but it did not turn me toward religion, instead I looked for better theories which necessitated a lifelong study of science on my part. Sheldrake is well-spoken and IMO and good spokesman against the BS that can be found in science, but not for the validity of his own or any other religion.

Sheldrake said: "Yes, I believe in God. I am a practicing Christian, specifically an Anglican (in the US, an Episcopalian). I went through a long atheist phase, and began to question the materialist orthodoxy of science while I was still an atheist." (Jul 14, 2014)

I think he rightfully points out some problems with the scientific conclusions of some people including scientists. Unfortunately his obviously wrong conclusions are based upon his religious thinking,

parenthesis added It could be an amazing discovery or it simply could be that there was no Big Bang in the first place. It also could be that dark matter does not exist at all as my own studies, research and related publishings have concluded long ago.

I sometimes have to force myself to make the time to learn how to use more of the apps available on my cell, at least the ones that have a practical application other than social media and games.

Yes, some science fiction gets it close to right sometimes. "2001" was a great, realistic movie, but its depictions of future space travel and craft didn't present a different picture than what was expected at the time IMO. "Back to the Future" was a lot of fun and had some predictions that came true, but seemed reasonable to me at the time, not the hover-board one, though. I didn't see the movie "Idiocracy," but from what I have read of it, it only seems to have had a hint of validity IMO. Although there is a little more anti-science today amongst a few, I don't think commercialism cuts any more mustard now than it ever did. What do you think?

Yup, I think all of us spaceheads would love to see transporters come someday but I think their realization would be even more fantastic (coming from the word fantacy) than warp drive.

Hopefully not predicted by another catholic priest like the Big Bang model. If so this "relatively-soon" prediction might have as much merit as the second coming of Christ. But if this prediction has any merit at all then maybe the space craft's windows, camera covers, etc., might by made of transparent aluminum

Interesting study but the data could be misleading. For instance they are talking about the biomass of plants and animals. A single cow or steer roughly weighs 10 times more than a human, but there are roughly only 1/5 the cattle than humans. But there combined weight (mass) is roughly 70% greater than humanity. The same thing for plants. A full-grown tree can average roughly a ton for the smaller ones, and average up to 50 tons for the largest single trees. But even these great masses might be outweighed by all the phytoplankton (microscopic plants) of the oceans, so plants definitely dominate our world by their mass and by their numbers. Of course human population control and its promotion, to whatever extent it exists, slows down the man-made erosion of the natural balance of nature.

Wow, they said they are about the size of coasters, about 4" x 4" by 1" wide, pretty small. I expect the U.S. government will at least warn the company for these unauthorized satellite placements, fine them, or maybe shut down their operations for their violations of permission. Cool name though for these tiny satellites, Spacebees. NASA is planing for a "swarm" of similarly small, very high flying satellites or spacecraft in the coming years. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/small_spacecraft/feature/NASA_Selects_University_Partners_for_Small_Spacecraft_Collaboration

Yes, we see these kinds of asteroids come "close" to the Earth every few years but rarely as close as this one which passed 118,000 miles from the Earth, about half the distance from here to the moon. Sooner or later a big one could have a direct hit with Earth if we don't, at that time, have the ability to divert it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroid_close_approaches_to_Earth

Pretty cool. Didn't know there have been so many successful experimental treatments like this and the beginnings of clinical trials. It seems fairly certain that bacteriophages will become an important part of our arsenal of anti-bacterial treatments in the foreseeable future https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00945087 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5471325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3400130/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4695 What happens when chosen viruses (phages, and some bacteria) interact with specific cancer cells? Based upon our immune system, "It turns out that many of the mechanisms that cancer cells use to escape growth limits also defeat (their) defenses to limit viral growth. Cancer cells are thus often especially susceptible to infection and killing by viruses. This observation - now well over a hundred years old - gave rise to the field of oncolytic viral therapy" treatments. The future of this medical treatment to become part of our arsenal of medical treatments for cancers also seems certain in the foreseeable future. https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-a-virus-bacterium-etc-interacts-with-a-cancer-cell