Jump to content

The Science Delusion (By Rupert Sheldrake)


SciWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rupert Sheldrake doing a presentation of his book, The Science Delusion ('Science Set Free' in the US):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE&feature=player_embedded .

Note, especially, what he says about 'the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science [metrology]' regarding the fundamental constants, starting half-way through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogma 8 "Your mind is inside your head" Well of course it is! Phineas Gage anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is a moron.  The Big Bang and evolution 'dogmas' he stated were strawmen of the actual theories.  For the 'dogmas' "your mind is in your head", "your memories are in your head" and "psychic phenomina aren't real"; thousands have studies and experiments have been done demonstrating those!  You hit someone over the head hard enough you damage the brain and they lose there memories.  You cut out someones brain they become a vegitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love Rupert.  I think its great that this TED talk was banned, therefore sort of proving his point.  Why shouldn't all these ideas mentioned in the talk be questioned??  Is the evidence so overwhelming that these dogmas cannot even be doubted or discussed?  I don't think so.

 

As a skeptic, I see no reason to think that science possesses complete truth.  That is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love Rupert.  I think its great that this TED talk was banned, therefore sort of proving his point.  Why shouldn't all these ideas mentioned in the talk be questioned??  Is the evidence so overwhelming that these dogmas cannot even be doubted or discussed?  I don't think so.

 

As a skeptic, I see no reason to think that science possesses complete truth.  That is absurd.

Who claims science has the complete truth?  Thats a false dichototmy; if you don't kow everything, you must know nothing.  Facts are not dogma, and yes, the evidence is overwelming.  In science you let facts and evidence lead you to a conclusion.  Rupert has conclusions he wants to be true but the facts and evidence don't support those so he distorts, cherry picks, builds strawmen and otherwise babbles on about nonsense which is only metaphorically related to the thing he's talking about.  The one who is actully surrounded by dillusion and dogma is him.  He wants to live in a world of Woo but unfortunately reality doesn't agree with him, so he makes up a new reality that allows for it.  It's just religion with a bunch of New-age bullshit.  You can listen to any Christian apologist and hear the same talking points word for word.  Same shit in a newer box.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skepticalme: Needless to say, I disagree. Rupert is willing to investigate phenomenon that no other scientist will touch. I applaud him for that.  I agree 100% that the materialist positions that he sets forth in the video are totally dogma.  No question about it.  No one really knows how consciousness works.  Scientists start with guesses and just see if the "facts" happen to conform or not.

 

I don't think I am overstating or making a "false dichotomy" when certain positions are just summarily dismissed instead of being investigated.  The idea, for example, that consciousness is limited to the brain is accepted as a dogma in science.  I would go so far as to say that is one claim is the "complete truth" as far as mainstream science is concerned, because any other hypothesis is not acceptable- much less to work out an experiment, assuming an experiment could be created to do so..

 

The main dogma is that science actually can solve all the problems of human life.

 

Far from being a "moron" by the way, Sheldrake has very impressive credentials. 

 

Also, just because a person is not a materialist does not automatically make them a Christian apologist or a New Ager - these comparisons are totally false.

 

I really don't care, I have read some of Sheldrake's work.  I fully expect to be shouted down, dismissed, etc... by many who have NOT read any of Sheldrake's books, listened his talks with an open mind, or are in any way familiar with his work.

 

Having said all this, SciWalker, what is your objection to what Sheldrake is saying? Could you lay it out in a bit more detail, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Your right, nobody researches consciousness.  Except for the thousands of doctors, universities, corporations and foundations that research NEUROLOGY as well PSYCOLOGY and PSYCIATRY.  Three entire fields of science dedicated to the study of consciousness!  True we don't know everything about it, but that does not mean we know nothing about it.  It is the same argument creationist make except you are inserting duelism instead of god.  We don't know everything about gravity either but it doesn't stop us from putting things in orbit.  That is pretty solid evidence that what we do know is pretty spot on.  No future discoveries is going to alter the basics we've already got down.  Likewise, we know enough about consciousness that we can make drugs, devices, surgeries and treatments that alter it.  You can put someone in an fMRI and watch a though form, a memory being recalled, a sense stimulated.


See above.  It has ALREADY BEEN Investigated.  Someone who is dismissing what those investigations found, like Rupert, is actually the one holding on to dogma.  What experiments has he done or proposed?  What data does he have?  But it seems he already has the conclusion, he's just delivering it in question form.  The sad thing is, all the strawmen you and Rupert put forth about actual science, Rupert is the one actually doing those.

 


Who is saying that?  Science seeks knowledge, what does that have to do with the problems of human life?  No amount of knowledge is going to make people stop being assholes and get along.  Another ACTUAL dogma is believing that this is what science seeks or promises. Knowledge is agnostic.  You can save them or kill them with it.

 

 

I'm not impressed.  Having degrees just means they showed up to class and turned there homework in on time.  His degrees are in biochemistry and cell biology.  If I had questions about plant cells, photosynthesis and mitosis I would listen to him.  Doesn't mean he has a clue on anything outside of that.  You may as well be asking a socialogist to perform brain surgery.

 

 


I think I've already explained this but all the things you and he are saying about science not investigated, cherry picking data and excepting dogma, he is actually the one doing those.  You and I are actually opposed to the same things, you're just attributing them to the wrong people.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A few things to consider:

 

1) Science is not about making definitive statements; science is about accepting and rejecting hypotheses

 

2) The process is probabilistic in nature

 

3) It is not dogmatic and in fact mandates that current consensus must always be subject to scrutiny and may change in the face of compelling evidence

 

Putting this together, I will take the consciousness issue as an example.  As stated above, science is about accepting or rejecting hypotheses. The way science works, is we have to start somewhere. This starting point is a hypothesis or even a theory that is well established and accepted. This "status quo" is often what we call a null hypothesis.  For example, we could say that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon. Now, we may have an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps an alternative may be something like consciousness is supernatural.

 

Now that we have two hypotheses, we go through the process of accepting and rejecting with the understanding that in order to accept the alternative, the weight of the evidence supporting the alternative must be overwhelming.  However, the null hypothesis is not dogma, but we cannot reject the null until the evidence supporting the alternative is significant, testable, reproducible and consensus among the scientific community occurs.

 

This process is often vigorous and demands highly accurate and precise predictions.  Even well established theories such as general relativity are not immune as we continue to develop new tests to see if the predictions of this theory hold up.  This is the problem with people who simply circumvent the scientific method and automatically assume their alternative hypothesis should be given the same consideration as the current null. That is not how science works and the onus is on the alternative to produce evidence that is so overwhelming that the null must be rejected. Again, this is not dogma but rather a consistent method for ensuring a high level of confidence that new ideas are able to withstand intense scrutiny and make reliable predictions.

 

In other words, if there is no reliable, testable and predictive evidence, we must reject any and all alternatives until the weight of the evidence is overwhelming. This applies to situations where you cannot make a good experiment or you do not have a robust qualitative and quantitative foundation supporting your alternative. Perhaps it may be a viable alternative at a later time, bug again, we must reject the alternative in these situations.

 

 

I can apply this to the YouTube video.  For example, he discusses dogma four or where science says the total amount of matter and energy are the same. I point to my discussion above. I am not sure he is really appreciating the scientific method for what it is. Yes, the current status quo revolves around the concept of conservation of energy.  However, this is not dogma and if he can present an alternative that makes better predictions than currently accepted ideas, then we would reject the idea of energy conservation. 

 

Finally, this process is often long and complicated. I have been working on a very straight foreword clinical study revolving around emergency airway devices with fairly straight foreword methods and the process has taken over a year and will likely take several more months before I can even approach a peer reviewed journal about publication, and then it will probably be many more months after that to actually see it published if the journal agrees to actually publish. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skepticalme: In attempting to respond to your above post, I inadvertently deleted the parts you quoted from my post. My apologies, it was entirely unintentional.

 

 

Your right, nobody researches consciousness.  Except for the thousands of doctors, universities, corporations and foundations that research NEUROLOGY as well PSYCOLOGY and PSYCIATRY.  Three entire fields of science dedicated to the study of consciousness!  True we don't know everything about it, but that does not mean we know nothing about it.  It is the same argument creationist make except you are inserting duelism instead of god.  We don't know everything about gravity either but it doesn't stop us from putting things in orbit.  That is pretty solid evidence that what we do know is pretty spot on.  No future discoveries is going to alter the basics we've already got down.  Likewise, we know enough about consciousness that we can make drugs, devices, surgeries and treatments that alter it.  You can put someone in an fMRI and watch a though form, a memory being recalled, a sense stimulated.

 

I can see by all your all-caps writing that I must have struck a nerve -   Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurology.  These all approach the mind from a strictly materialist point of view with the possible exception of some areas of psychology.  After all, there is also parapsychology which has investigated some of the areas that Rupert is addressing. I am discussing experiments in telepathy such as Rupert has done.  You have evidently read none of his work.Your statement "no future discoveries is going to alter the basics" shows how overly confident you are. As Rupert says, how do we know that the so-called scientific laws never change? This sort of thing was what some people were saying in the 19th century before Einstein.  Yes, of course drugs alter consciousness to an extent but we still don't know what it is.

 

By the way, what makes you think its a choice between materialism and dualism? Perhaps there is another explanation. I am not a dualist.

 


See above.  It has ALREADY BEEN Investigated.  Someone who is dismissing what those investigations found, like Rupert, is actually the one holding on to dogma.  What experiments has he done or proposed?  What data does he have?  But it seems he already has the conclusion, he's just delivering it in question form.  The sad thing is, all the strawmen you and Rupert put forth about actual science, Rupert is the one actually doing those.

 

There is a mountain of evidence that consciousness is not limited to the body. There have been a few investigators, but not many.  To ask the questions you do, only shows that you have not read about any of Rupert's experiments, yet you feel yourself qualified to dismiss all of them.  I have no idea what you mean about "strawmen".  Rupert has studied actual experiences people have with telepathy and they are quite persuasive. There is certainly evidence that this happens among humans and animals.

 


Who is saying that?  Science seeks knowledge, what does that have to do with the problems of human life?  No amount of knowledge is going to make people stop being assholes and get along.  Another ACTUAL dogma is believing that this is what science seeks or promises. Knowledge is agnostic.  You can save them or kill them with it.

 

Knowledge is agnostic? What does that mean? In science today, you can't get funding if you aren't working toward some end - usually some human problem with a practical application. Isn't that right?  Are you saying science is just looking for truth with a capital T - something true for all time? There is no such thing as complete objective searching for truth with a capital "T".  I say that materialists who adhere to science as some kind of savior or flawless process are as mistaken as any dogmatic religious person.

 

 

I'm not impressed.  Having degrees just means they showed up to class and turned there homework in on time.  His degrees are in biochemistry and cell biology.  If I had questions about plant cells, photosynthesis and mitosis I would listen to him.  Doesn't mean he has a clue on anything outside of that.  You may as well be asking a socialogist to perform brain surgery.

 

Isn't that a bit of an extreme comparison - Sheldrake works in biology and so its completely relevant to living things and their interactions. Sociology has nothing to do whatsoever with brain surgery. Really a nonsensical and desperate comparison.  To graduate with a PhD from Cambridge with top honors and become a member of the Royal Society - not credentials enough for you.

 


I think I've already explained this but all the things you and he are saying about science not investigated, cherry picking data and excepting dogma, he is actually the one doing those.  You and I are actually opposed to the same things, you're just attributing them to the wrong people.

 

I was addressing  SciWalker. I already know very well what your position is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not qualified to offer an informed comment on the science aspects of this thread, but there is something I’ve noticed about cliques’. These groups include people who are both highly educated as well as the academically challenged.

 

It would seem the only qualification to be a member of a clique is the willingness to exclude anyone and everyone who doesn’t fit the criteria of that particular group. Among those who have achieved the highest levels of academic achievement there is both stated and unstated rules of acceptance. It seems to me to be a member of a secular scholarly clique mandates at least a graduate level degree in some meaningful discipline and the member must also be an atheist in order to pass the litmus test. These people privately consider themselves elitist but political correctness requires them to deny their acknowledged elitist status to the public at large.

 

Not to be outdone the non-elitists moderately educated also form cliques’. The only thing that changes is the rules for admittance. Belief in God is a must in this group as well as membership in some fundamentalist Christian Church. These folks tend to be self righteous snobs, but their snobbery is often directed at them pointy headed smart ass elitists who don’t fear God and think they know everything.

 

It seems to me that both groups have some things in common. Both appear to be closed minded because they are convinced they are right and everybody else, who maysee things differently from them, is wrong. They both also tend to be exclusive. They want nothing to do with anyone who disagrees with them or projects different ideas and beliefs. And they both tend to project extremist views. I honestly can find little difference in the attitudes projected by either a militant elitists or a militant religious fundamentalists.  I tend to avoid both of them because they are generally unpleasant people to be around.

 

I will add this observation too. If a poster uses all caps and then highlights the text too that is usually intended to project shouting, and probably screaming. Adding darkened highlights projects anger if not rage. Whatever the intent of the poster the result usually comes across as something akin to a child throwing a temper tantrum. The inevitable result of that is the creditability of the poster is put in jeopardy and the points they were intending to make are lost. In other words real communication and the exchange of ideas ceases and nothing of substance is accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Having said all this, SciWalker, what is your objection to what Sheldrake is saying?

 

None whatsoever. That's why I posted the vid. As far as I'm concerned, those who try to tell us that science is anything more than one instrument of many that feed our way of drawing balanced conclusions are deluding themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deva, I will breifly explain why his views are largely dismissed.  I'll start with the low hanging fruit.  HIs argument against the Big Bang is that "The quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant, except in the instant where everything came from nothing".  The actual theory does not say that.  He's arguing against a bogus version of the theory.  That's what a 'strawman' is.  A 'strawman argument' is when you tear down a dumbed down/inacurate version of something, instead of addressing the actual theory.  The laymen interpretation of Big Bang is that every sprang forth from nothing in an instant without cause.  Now, I don't want to turn this one thing into a college level lecture on Big Bang theory that would take up the entire page an probably sail over most peoples heads, but the fact that he is arguing against the lay persons idea of Big Bang instead of the actual theory tells VOLUMES about his understanding of the actual theory.  That is a huge 'tell' that his understanding is no greater than a lay person's.  HIs credentials on cell biology are just as far removed from this topic as the socialology-surgical comparison I made earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 HIs argument against the Big Bang is that "The quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant, except in the instant where everything came from nothing".  The actual theory does not say that

 

 

 

This, itself, dear contributor, is a straw man. You have been hoisted by your own petard. He never says that this is his argument against the big bang, only that it's a prevailing dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 HIs argument against the Big Bang is that "The quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant, except in the instant where everything came from nothing".  The actual theory does not say that

 

 

 

This, itself, dear contributor, is a straw man. You have been hoisted by your own petard. He never says that this is his argument against the big bang, only that it's a prevailing dogma.

 

His 'dogma's' are directed at the scientific community.  Why would he address the lay persons interpretation of Big Bang?  He wasn't talking about common misconceptions of scientific theories.  No, he believes that is what the theory states.  3:20-3:35 in the video is where he states this.

 

Also, he mentions that the laws of physics are fixed constants.  The actual Big Bang theory states that the four fundamental forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity) were once unified early in the universes history before branching off.  Also, very early on, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, we don't know why.  The real theory, not the one he's arguing, acknowledeges that the laws of physics have changed but have sense stabilized and have remained unchanged since we first measured them.  Again, he is arguing from a lay person's interpretation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 HIs argument against the Big Bang is that "The quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant, except in the instant where everything came from nothing".  The actual theory does not say that

 

 

 

This, itself, dear contributor, is a straw man. You have been hoisted by your own petard. He never says that this is his argument against the big bang, only that it's a prevailing dogma.

 

His 'dogma's' are directed at the scientific community.  Why would he address the lay persons interpretation of Big Bang?  He wasn't talking about common misconceptions of scientific theories.  No, he believes that is what the theory states.  3:20-3:35 in the video is where he states this.

 

Also, he mentions that the laws of physics are fixed constants.  The actual Big Bang theory states that the four fundamental forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity) were once unified early in the universes history before branching off.  Also, very early on, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, we don't know why.  The real theory, not the one he's arguing, acknowledeges that the laws of physics have changed but have sense stabilized and have remained unchanged since we first measured them.  Again, he is arguing from a lay person's interpretation. 

 

Disagree that his speech in the video is directed specifically at the scientific community.  It could be taken that way, I admit, by some sensitive people who subscribe to a purely materialistic philosophy. In fact, he is discussing the commonly held views of laymen in this society.  That is why he isn't bothering to go into great detail about the Big Bang. It's not really a speech about the Big Bang theory. He's not really making any kind of argument concerning it, other than saying - basically why can't it be questioned? View the first couple of minutes of the video again.

 

All he wants to do is question the commonly held dogmas of science in society. One of them is that the laws of nature remain constant.  In this video he is plainly dealing with the layman's understanding.  He isn't addressing a group of scientists and his book doesn't do that either (which I am reading too, by the way).

 

Why can't whole areas of life experience not be investigated? Why can't we have more experiments on telepathy, when there are suggestive results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 HIs argument against the Big Bang is that "The quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant, except in the instant where everything came from nothing".  The actual theory does not say that

 

 

 

This, itself, dear contributor, is a straw man. You have been hoisted by your own petard. He never says that this is his argument against the big bang, only that it's a prevailing dogma.

 

His 'dogma's' are directed at the scientific community.  Why would he address the lay persons interpretation of Big Bang?  He wasn't talking about common misconceptions of scientific theories.  No, he believes that is what the theory states.  3:20-3:35 in the video is where he states this.

 

Also, he mentions that the laws of physics are fixed constants.  The actual Big Bang theory states that the four fundamental forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity) were once unified early in the universes history before branching off.  Also, very early on, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, we don't know why.  The real theory, not the one he's arguing, acknowledeges that the laws of physics have changed but have sense stabilized and have remained unchanged since we first measured them.  Again, he is arguing from a lay person's interpretation. 

 

Disagree that his speech in the video is directed specifically at the scientific community.  It could be taken that way, I admit, by some sensitive people who subscribe to a purely materialistic philosophy. In fact, he is discussing the commonly held views of laymen in this society.  That is why he isn't bothering to go into great detail about the Big Bang. It's not really a speech about the Big Bang theory. He's not really making any kind of argument concerning it, other than saying - basically why can't it be questioned? View the first couple of minutes of the video again.

 

All he wants to do is question the commonly held dogmas of science in society. One of them is that the laws of nature remain constant.  In this video he is plainly dealing with the layman's understanding.  He isn't addressing a group of scientists and his book doesn't do that either (which I am reading too, by the way).

 

Why can't whole areas of life experience not be investigated? Why can't we have more experiments on telepathy, when there are suggestive results?

 

 

There have been many experiments and for decades James Randy offered a $1,000,000 prize to anybody who could demonstrate "paranormal" abilities. Of course, this had to be done under a controlled setting.

 

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Disagree that his speech in the video is directed specifically at the scientific community.  It could be taken that way, I admit, by some sensitive people who subscribe to a purely materialistic philosophy.

 

Is that an Ad Hom attack against me?  Science works regardless of your philosophy, but science leads to materialism only because that is where the evidence points.  At the end of the day science is what works.  Notice how we are communicating through computers connected to the internet.  That is science, you can make something with it.  We aren't communicating through psychic powers.  That is why research into things like that is scoufed at and funded by individuals/organizations with a fetish for such things.  Nothing with substance is ever made with them.  It's the free market at work.  If your ideas lead to something more people invest and work on them.

 

I agree the scientific community is not the intended audience of the speech; but he is telling lay people that these are 'dogma's' fostered within science, which isn't true. 

 

In fact, he is discussing the commonly held views of laymen in this society.  That is why he isn't bothering to go into great detail about the Big Bang. It's not really a speech about the Big Bang theory. He's not really making any kind of argument concerning it, other than saying - basically why can't it be questioned? View the first couple of minutes of the video again.

 

He is discussing those views because he shares them.  Like I said, his points on the Big Bang were just the low hanging fruit.  I'm not going to write a book on a forum page going point for point on everything.  What specifically is he questioning about the Big Bang that the scientific community doesn't question?  There is an organization called CERN who built a $9 BILLION dollar machine called the LHC, employing 10,000 scientist and engineers for over 100 countries, to test questions about the Big Bang. 

 

All he wants to do is question the commonly held dogmas of science in society. One of them is that the laws of nature remain constant.  In this video he is plainly dealing with the layman's understanding.  He isn't addressing a group of scientists and his book doesn't do that either (which I am reading too, by the way).

 

As I said before, his audience isn't scientist.  He is misrepresenting science to laypeople. 

 

Why can't whole areas of life experience not be investigated? Why can't we have more experiments on telepathy, when there are suggestive results?

 

They've been done to death.  The CIA did a huge long term study into this hoping to discover a new way to spy.  Even with nearly endless goverment money to throw at it at the heigth of the Cold War, they turned up nothing.  Turns out there are only suggestive results when they are being misrepresented.  As RougeScholar said, there is a free million dollars to be had if anything can be demonstrated in a proper experiment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree that experimental evidence is not there and/or that they have been extensively investigated.  You would realize that if you read some of Sheldrake's experiments. 

 

I am not skilled in formal debate - and I am not a scientist.  I only know that I have read Sheldrake's books and I think he is exploring some areas of the "paranormal" that most scientists reject outright. These are areas that are not explored or investigated extensively. They are rejected and ignored.  He IS doing the investigations and has come up with some very suggestive results. I suggest reading any of his books. I also admit that some areas, such as reincarnation, it is very difficult to see how one could construct an experiment.  But that doesn't mean there isn't evidence that is very suggestive.

 

As far as the ad hom accusation goes - it really wasn't, but you are a materialist, aren't you? 

 

And If you call someone like Sheldrake, with all his educational and scientific achievements a "moron," you sort of open the door for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having scientific credentials does not make a bug nutty idea right. One of the greatest chemists this world has ever known, Linus Pauling contributed greatly to the field and even won two Nobel prizes for his work in chemistry and for his work on world peace. Unfortunately, he went bug nutty in his later life and went on to believe high doses of vitamin C could cure a variety of issues including cancer. In spite of controlled studies that did not support his assumptions, he experienced such confirmation bias that he would never admit that his ideas were wrong.

 

For the scientific method to work, the default position must be the null hypothesis and any alternative must be supported by a large amount of evidence. As I've stated earlier, this is simply not the case with all things "paranormal."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Rupert is willing to investigate phenomenon that no other scientist will touch.

 

To be fair, it seems other scientists have investigated but came to another conclusion that he still can't accept. No, he's not a moron, but he is certainly on the fringe. There are many fringe areas that some just won't let go of even after decades of serious scientific investigation that produced nothing to corroborate the assertions. After thorough testing over time, most scientists accept the results and move on. Some apparently can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Rupert is willing to investigate phenomenon that no other scientist will touch.

 

To be fair, it seems other scientists have investigated but came to another conclusion that he still can't accept. No, he's not a moron, but he is certainly on the fringe. There are many fringe areas that some just won't let go of even after decades of serious scientific investigation that produced nothing to corroborate the assertions. After thorough testing over time, most scientists accept the results and move on. Some apparently can't.

 

What other scientists have done it?

 

And thank you for agreeing he is not a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

What other scientists have done it?

 

And thank you for agreeing he is not a moron.

 

I'd have to look up the individual scientists who have experimented with the individual claims put forth. Remember when so-called remote viewing was all the rage? The government even fell for it and spent millions on trying to make it work but ultimately abandoned the project. Rather recently in the long history of investigation of weird claims is this : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103161531.htm  

 

Of course Sheldrake's not a moron, and neither are Deepak Chopra, Kent Hovind and Alex Jones. They're just people who support  unproven claims that run counter to mainstream conclusions supported by substantial and ongoing evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What other scientists have done it?

 

And thank you for agreeing he is not a moron.

 

I'd have to look up the individual scientists who have experimented with the individual claims put forth. Remember when so-called remote viewing was all the rage? The government even fell for it and spent millions on trying to make it work but ultimately abandoned the project. Rather recently in the long history of investigation of weird claims is this : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103161531.htm  

 

Of course Sheldrake's not a moron, and neither are Deepak Chopra, Kent Hovind and Alex Jones. They're just people who support  unproven claims that run counter to mainstream conclusions supported by substantial and ongoing evidence.

 

No, I really don't know of any scientists doing experiments like Sheldrake.  I also know of the work of the late Ian Stephenson. However, I don't know of any others.  If you can give me some names, I would read their work as well. I am not sure remote viewing is exactly the same as the kind of telepathy investigated by Sheldrake.  I am very interested in all real investigations of the paranormal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Rupert Sheldrake doing a presentation of his book, The Science Delusion ('Science Set Free' in the US):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE&feature=player_embedded .

 

Note, especially, what he says about 'the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science [metrology]' regarding the fundamental constants, starting half-way through.

 

I agree with the general ideas of what he is saying. If science is not continuously investigated for error when possible contradictions seem to appear. If not then the result is not very good science. I personally think much of science is goofed up and many theories today will be overturned within the next 50 years.  I think many of the "constants" in science do vary, but most within just a narrow range. And maybe some progressively change over time.

 

I dissagree with maybe his strongest ideas which I think are that the mind extends beyond the body and that materialism is somehow not the whole answer. Granted compared to religion, science is one of the crown jewels, but unfortunately the systems of science today, some of which he briefly mentioned, have led to most of today's major theories being goofed up in major ways, in my opinion, with few very sound theories like evolution and plate techtonics that continue to make theoretical improvements.

 

My prime "goofed-up" theory examples are: Quantum Theory, the BB model, and the standard model of Particle Theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.