The Science Delusion (By Rupert Sheldrake)

[Thought2Much]

What use is it? To explore the qualities of human beings, as a search for that big word, truth. 

 

The truth is out there.  Who knows what we will discovery.  The spirit of investigation and discovery itself is sufficient.

 

I gave up caring about "big word truth" when I left Christianity, and I find the term meaningless. Things are either factual or not. "Truth" doesn't matter to me at all. Feel free to pursue it (whatever the hell it is) if you wish, but please refrain from calling those who don't pursue it as being dogmatic or narrow minded until you're able to provide reproducible evidence for your claims.

[skepticalme]

 

 

 

 

"regular science would have uncovered it by now" - rather naive, in my view.

 

If it were so obvious that this were a real phenomenon, then someone (like actual scientists) would have picked up on the patterns surrounding it long ago, and decided that there was something that may be worth investigating. If this is, as you say, something that happens all the time, it should be able to be studied, and parameters discovered, measurements taken, etc. If it's impossible to define or measure, then it's a belief that it exists, not a fact. Did you never wonder why lay people can be so convinced that psychic abilities exist, yet so very few scientists of any kind believe this to be so?

 

What this had to do with the Higgs boson is that even if I don't believe that such a thing should exist, if I ran the experiments that they performed using the Large Hadron Collider using the same methods, I would still get the evidence that shows it exists. According to the quote from Sheldrake, if someone involved in the experiment follows the methods as prescribed by him, but they don't get the right results, then that means that someone may have had bad mojo and ruined the experiment. It's not science if someone's belief that a thing exists can affect the outcome.

 

It is worth investigating and Rupert Sheldrake is doing it, regardless of opposition and narrow minded dogmatic science.

 

Perhaps things exist in the universe that are not able to be reproduced at will in a lab.

 

If that was the case, and that is granting alot, of what use is it?  Are you going to buy a psychic computer that works one out of a thousand times you turn it on?  That being said, things that can't be reproduced in a lab experiment where there influence is maximized, are indistinguishable from things that only happen in the imagination.

 

What use is it? To explore the qualities of human beings, as a search for that big word, truth. 

 

The truth is out there.  Who knows what we will discovery.  The spirit of investigation and discovery itself is sufficient.

 

Spoken like someone ignorant of experiments already performed.  You know that to investigate 'Near Death Experiences' doctors place playing cards face up on top of cabinets and lighting.  Upon hearing an account of NDE where people describe things said and details of the room, doctors ask what card did you see while floating above your body.  Most people respond, "What card?"  A clear indication that the NDE happened entirely in there imagination.  If they had actually left their body and witnessed real events, they would have seen it.

[Deva]

 

What use is it? To explore the qualities of human beings, as a search for that big word, truth. 

 

The truth is out there.  Who knows what we will discovery.  The spirit of investigation and discovery itself is sufficient.

 

I gave up caring about "big word truth" when I left Christianity, and I find the term meaningless. Things are either factual or not. "Truth" doesn't matter to me at all. Feel free to pursue it (whatever the hell it is) if you wish, but please refrain from calling those who don't pursue it as being dogmatic or narrow minded until you're able to provide reproducible evidence for your claims.

 

 

No, I am not just going to shut up. I will continue to  feel free to call something narrow and dogmatic when something appears to me that it is that way. Sheldrake has it right, all the way.

 

"Things are either factual or not" in what sense?

 

A vast number of things happen which are not reproducible. That does not mean they don't exist. It is complete nonsense, and the trait of a narrow minded view to just dismiss it out of hand.

[Deva]

Skepticalme: I have already asked, I believe, for "the alleged experiments already performed." Other than Sheldrake, who is doing them? Names and writings. Let's have it. Otherwise, don't accuse people of ignorance.

[florduh]

Experiments that conclude there is no evidence for ESP are summarily dismissed by paranormal buffs. The true believer will have none of it, so I feel it's not worth battling over experiments where each side says the other's methodology is flawed. Bottom line is we will believe what we believe regardless.

 

http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/blackmore_critique.htm

[Thought2Much]

No, I am not just going to shut up. I will continue to  feel free to call something narrow and dogmatic when something appears to me that it is that way. Sheldrake has it right, all the way

 

Fine. And if the things that people believe don't have any evidence to support them, then I will call it woo. Because that's what fuzzy beliefs without evidence are.

 

By the way, the last thing that Sheldrake would ever want would be to actually be proven right, because then he loses his status as a pariah against the establishment, and that would totally ruin his schtick. The happiest day of his life was probably when his TEDx talk was banned, because that got him tons of fans who would otherwise have never heard of him, and the type of people who distrust mainstream anything suddenly thought of him as this brave warrior taking on Big Science.

 

"Things are either factual or not" in what sense?

 

Quasars exist, and they have been observed and measured in various ways. When you look at the data later, it's still there. When you point the telescope back at the quasar, you can still see it. Dinosaurs existed, and they have been measured and documented in various ways. Humans take in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, which has been measured over and over again. Psychic phenomena have never been reliably measured, and, according to you, can't be. So, what's the point? If you can't measure these things repeatedly or reproduce the tests, how can you ever know that Sheldrake has proved what he's talking about?

[RogueScholar]

 

 

"regular science would have uncovered it by now" - rather naive, in my view.

 

If it were so obvious that this were a real phenomenon, then someone (like actual scientists) would have picked up on the patterns surrounding it long ago, and decided that there was something that may be worth investigating. If this is, as you say, something that happens all the time, it should be able to be studied, and parameters discovered, measurements taken, etc. If it's impossible to define or measure, then it's a belief that it exists, not a fact. Did you never wonder why lay people can be so convinced that psychic abilities exist, yet so very few scientists of any kind believe this to be so?

 

What this had to do with the Higgs boson is that even if I don't believe that such a thing should exist, if I ran the experiments that they performed using the Large Hadron Collider using the same methods, I would still get the evidence that shows it exists. According to the quote from Sheldrake, if someone involved in the experiment follows the methods as prescribed by him, but they don't get the right results, then that means that someone may have had bad mojo and ruined the experiment. It's not science if someone's belief that a thing exists can affect the outcome.

 

It is worth investigating and Rupert Sheldrake is doing it, regardless of opposition and narrow minded dogmatic science.

 

Perhaps things exist in the universe that are not able to be reproduced at will in a lab.

 

 

The Higgs Boson was predicted to be a highly unlikely event and would only occur exceptionally rarely even with around 600 million protons colliding per second. This means we cannot produce the Higgs at will, yet we are finally nearly at a point were the existence of the Higgs will be officially verified.  We cannot say the same with paranormal claims. You are looking at something like  1 event in 10 billion or so events. This is exceptionally rare and certainly not at will.  Yet as of this year, it looks like we have finally found it. Just stop and wrap your head around this: We have found something so rare that it only occurs one time out of every 10 billion collisions at the highest energies with the most advanced machine this world has ever known. This is mind blowing and powerful to really appreciate.

 

Then, we look at all the pseudoscience. I think Feynman put it best when he stated something on the lines of the following: It's much more likely that the "paranormal" is the result of the known irrationality of the human brain than the unknown rationality of something truly paranormal. I think the original quote was regarding UFO's, but my interpretation should do for this thread.

 

With that said, things most certainly exist that we have yet to find such as dark energy and dark matter, yet we are still able to detect their presence through indirect effects. The same cannot be said for all this paranormal stuff.

[skepticalme]

Skepticalme: I have already asked, I believe, for "the alleged experiments already performed." Other than Sheldrake, who is doing them? Names and writings. Let's have it. Otherwise, don't accuse people of ignorance.

For starters:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

[Deva]

Interesting how people here who haven't read of Sheldrake's experiments say there isn't any proof. There is proof - its just not the kind of proof you like. There is a lot going on in the universe and in human consciousness that isn't subject to the kind of repeatable experiments that would satisfy you folks.

 

These experiences are real. Just because you don't like it and it doesn't fit in with your nihilistic, materialistic view of life doesn't mean these experiences don't exist and are not real - Sheldrake has documented them..

 

And again, just because it can't be re-created at will in a lab doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Deva]

 

What use is it? To explore the qualities of human beings, as a search for that big word, truth. 

 

The truth is out there.  Who knows what we will discovery.  The spirit of investigation and discovery itself is sufficient.

 

I gave up caring about "big word truth" when I left Christianity, and I find the term meaningless. Things are either factual or not. "Truth" doesn't matter to me at all. Feel free to pursue it (whatever the hell it is) if you wish, but please refrain from calling those who don't pursue it as being dogmatic or narrow minded until you're able to provide reproducible evidence for your claims.

 

I see I must now substitute the word "truth" with the word "facts".    Its nonsense to insist on "reproducible evidence" for every phenomenon in human existence. Telepathy may very well only happen under specific conditions, and it seems to happen best with people who know each other well. 

 

Why can't you just admit that it may not be possible to design an experiment for some phenomenon?

[Deva]

 

 

However, I can agree that they are not readily subject to experimentation.

 

Why? If these things happen and these phenomena exist, why can't they be measured or studied like anything else? If it only happens when no one is actually looking directly at it, then how can you be so sure it exists, and why do believers in these phenomena get upset when anyone requesting proof for them doesn't like the answer, "Well, you can't just measure it and prove that it exists! You're just a yucky materialist if you can't believe in something without proof!"

 

Exactly, If anything came of these studies there would be more interest and research into them.  As such, the only people still working in them are the 'true believers' who hold onto the last bastions of hope that the universe contains magic.  Like I said before, if affirmative results were real, something could be made with them.  How many technologies can you go to the store and buy that work on psychic phenomina?

 

 

"If anything came of these studies there would be more interest and research into them." - Well, scientists must get funding and have the backing of the scientific establishment before experiments can be conducted. And also, why can't you read what has been done and use your own judgment based on the evidence?

 

We are not discussing magic here, as far as I know. We are discussing the potential and nature of human consciousness.  And  personally I don't  give a hoot if it has a practical application. I want to find out if these phenomenon are real.  That would increase our understanding of nature and human consciousness.

[Deva]

Experiments that conclude there is no evidence for ESP are summarily dismissed by paranormal buffs. The true believer will have none of it, so I feel it's not worth battling over experiments where each side says the other's methodology is flawed. Bottom line is we will believe what we believe regardless.

 

http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/blackmore_critique.htm

You are right.  I have come to my own beliefs or conclusions regarding this subject. As I am sure you have as well- but you probably don't like to think of it as a "belief".

[Deva]

 

Skepticalme: I have already asked, I believe, for "the alleged experiments already performed." Other than Sheldrake, who is doing them? Names and writings. Let's have it. Otherwise, don't accuse people of ignorance.

For starters:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

 

Thanks for the link.  I will look into this, but you can be assured it will take more than a Wikipedia page that seems to be disputed. I will do my own research, which will take some time and you may be sure I will look at it carefully. I understand this is a government project, right? That may make it difficult to get to the real facts.

[Thought2Much]

Its nonsense to insist on "reproducible evidence" for every phenomenon in human existence.

 

Why? If a thing happens in one brain that affects another somewhere else, then there is some sort of exchange of photons or some other form of matter or energy. If it actually happens, this can be measured. However, to assume that even if telepathy were to be discovered that it would somehow invalidate all of the "dogmas" of mainstream science is absurd, and shows just how self-important Sheldrake believes himself to be.

 

And again, I will ask, if you insist that a phenomenon doesn't produce reproducible evidence of itself, then how do you confirm you have found it? If you can't perform consistent tests to confirm that the phenomenon has x properties that manifests itself under y conditions, then how do you declare success? If what you're looking for can't be measured, then how do you know you've found it, and how do you inform others that you have done so?

 

That's actually the brilliance of Sheldrake's approach. You can keep searching for forever without finding anything, and twenty years from now he'll still be saying, "We're almost there. We're this close to finding something huge that will rock the entire scientific world and upending all of its dogmatic approaches to science. With just a little more time, and if we can just convince a few of the narrow-minded materialistic mainstream scientists to open their minds and do these experiments, then we will see what's really behind it all and discover the truth. Buy my new book that tells you how much closer we are now than we were a few years ago when I sold you my last book."

[TrueFreedom]

I find the Stargate Project success claims fascinating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Claims_of_successful_remote_viewing

[florduh]

 

Experiments that conclude there is no evidence for ESP are summarily dismissed by paranormal buffs. The true believer will have none of it, so I feel it's not worth battling over experiments where each side says the other's methodology is flawed. Bottom line is we will believe what we believe regardless.

 

http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/blackmore_critique.htm

You are right.  I have come to my own beliefs or conclusions regarding this subject. As I am sure you have as well- but you probably don't like to think of it as a "belief".

 

I am included in the term "we." My belief is based on a different kind of evidence, that's all.

 

As with some others who have stated so, I would be thrilled to find that we have untapped capabilities and senses beyond the five known ones. I searched for such things for many years, and fooled myself a few times along the way. I go back to the days of Targ and Puthoff. I've met Hans Holzer. I have been to seances and Spiritualist camps. I read everything by and about Rhine since 1966. I was a Rosicrucian. And there's more. I'm confident that I have looked into it rather thoroughly.

 

Then I studied the unfolding experiments by neuropsychologists who explained and even reproduced the weird phenomena, and my hobby of magic led me to psychic entertainment where I met the people, some nationally known, whom most Americans consider to be true psychics. I did the psychic scam myself for a while. I was quite disappointed to have to concluded the evidence before me indicated there was really nothing to all this hokum. It must have been the way Houdini felt after trying so hard to contact his deceased mother through the famous mediums of his day only to discover their trickery. Reality is a bitch!

 

So one may say that experience has also brought me to my beliefs. 

[florduh]

I think Susan Blackmore, respected researcher in her own right, wrote a pretty good piece about Sheldrake: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/morphic-paranormal-science-sheldrake

 

Aside: Why isn't he wearing shoes?

[SciWalker]

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.

 

 

You seem to be saying that Pauling was out on his own in his claims about Vitamin C. But he wasn't. Just watch this --

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/86440--every-cancer-can-be-cured-in-weeks-explains-dr-leonard-coldwell

-- especially the part round about the middle.

I am not especially interested in getting into the details of what this individual says; I am posting only to show my disdain for the modern fetish for slamming those who dispute orthodoxy on the basis that peer-reviewed research supposedly tells us this, that and the other, when in fact it does nothing of the kind. It's not only you who will (very possibly) suffer as a result of this attitude, it's society generally. You've been bought.

[RogueScholar]

Never said Pauling was on his own, but he never did relent and interestingly (and anecdotally, n=1 ) his wide actually died of cancer in spite of their massive Vitamin C diet. This is not to minimize the great impact he had on science only to point out that science must be robust and skeptical. For well established ideas to change the evidence must be overwhelming. This is in stark contrast to pseudoscience.

 

A good read about Linus Pauling and about understanding scienc in general.

 

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/colds.html

[SciWalker]

science must be robust and skeptical. For well established ideas to change the evidence must be overwhelming. This is in stark contrast to pseudoscience.

 

 

What you call well-established is merely what others call well-funded. Well-published. Well-promoted. Personally, my area of scepticism lis chiefly with all things hyped. Incidentally, the concept of 'pseudoscience' (whatever that is supposed to mean) has been well and truly hyped in recent years -- and usually it's those who bandy the term around who are the ones pretending to be (= pseudo-) scientists, when in fact they are just people who have read a bit of the kind of stuff that funding agencies like them to read: pop science.

[Deva]

I find the Stargate Project success claims fascinating.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Claims_of_successful_remote_viewing

I have had little time to read about Stargate, but even the initial Wikipedia article I read said there was some success.

 

It is interesting, isn't it? Which is really my whole point.

[Deva]

I think Susan Blackmore, respected researcher in her own right, wrote a pretty good piece about Sheldrake: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/morphic-paranormal-science-sheldrake

 

Aside: Why isn't he wearing shoes?

She is mainly addressing Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance - which I am not doing. I don't know enough about it.

 

I only know that the late physicist David Bohm thought it was interesting and did not dismiss it out of hand like this Blackmore person. She is plainly biased -- from the very first sentence.

 

Aside: I have no idea.

[Deva]

 

 

Experiments that conclude there is no evidence for ESP are summarily dismissed by paranormal buffs. The true believer will have none of it, so I feel it's not worth battling over experiments where each side says the other's methodology is flawed. Bottom line is we will believe what we believe regardless.

 

http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/blackmore_critique.htm

You are right.  I have come to my own beliefs or conclusions regarding this subject. As I am sure you have as well- but you probably don't like to think of it as a "belief".

 

I am included in the term "we." My belief is based on a different kind of evidence, that's all.

 

As with some others who have stated so, I would be thrilled to find that we have untapped capabilities and senses beyond the five known ones. I searched for such things for many years, and fooled myself a few times along the way. I go back to the days of Targ and Puthoff. I've met Hans Holzer. I have been to seances and Spiritualist camps. I read everything by and about Rhine since 1966. I was a Rosicrucian. And there's more. I'm confident that I have looked into it rather thoroughly.

 

Then I studied the unfolding experiments by neuropsychologists who explained and even reproduced the weird phenomena, and my hobby of magic led me to psychic entertainment where I met the people, some nationally known, whom most Americans consider to be true psychics. I did the psychic scam myself for a while. I was quite disappointed to have to concluded the evidence before me indicated there was really nothing to all this hokum. It must have been the way Houdini felt after trying so hard to contact his deceased mother through the famous mediums of his day only to discover their trickery. Reality is a bitch!

 

So one may say that experience has also brought me to my beliefs. 

 

So I have your credentials.  I could trot some out myself to back up my knowledge of the occult and paranormal - but I never tried to scam people.  I am not addressing mediums or seances here. I am talking about Sheldrake's video and how science is biased against study of areas such as telepathy.

[Thought2Much]

 

 

 

Experiments that conclude there is no evidence for ESP are summarily dismissed by paranormal buffs. The true believer will have none of it, so I feel it's not worth battling over experiments where each side says the other's methodology is flawed. Bottom line is we will believe what we believe regardless.

 

http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/blackmore_critique.htm

You are right.  I have come to my own beliefs or conclusions regarding this subject. As I am sure you have as well- but you probably don't like to think of it as a "belief".

 

I am included in the term "we." My belief is based on a different kind of evidence, that's all.

 

As with some others who have stated so, I would be thrilled to find that we have untapped capabilities and senses beyond the five known ones. I searched for such things for many years, and fooled myself a few times along the way. I go back to the days of Targ and Puthoff. I've met Hans Holzer. I have been to seances and Spiritualist camps. I read everything by and about Rhine since 1966. I was a Rosicrucian. And there's more. I'm confident that I have looked into it rather thoroughly.

 

Then I studied the unfolding experiments by neuropsychologists who explained and even reproduced the weird phenomena, and my hobby of magic led me to psychic entertainment where I met the people, some nationally known, whom most Americans consider to be true psychics. I did the psychic scam myself for a while. I was quite disappointed to have to concluded the evidence before me indicated there was really nothing to all this hokum. It must have been the way Houdini felt after trying so hard to contact his deceased mother through the famous mediums of his day only to discover their trickery. Reality is a bitch!

 

So one may say that experience has also brought me to my beliefs. 

 

So I have your credentials.  I could trot some out myself to back up my knowledge of the occult and paranormal - but I never tried to scam people.  I am not addressing mediums or seances here. I am talking about Sheldrake's video and how science is biased against study of areas such as telepathy.

 

 

Please make up your mind. Is the problem that science doesn't want to study telepathy, or that it can't reliably be reproduced in a lab for scientists to study? If it can't be reproduced to be studied, why are you upset with scientists who don't want to study it? Why should they take the time to do so if they can't come up with consistent results anyway?

[Deva]

 

 

 

 

Experiments that conclude there is no evidence for ESP are summarily dismissed by paranormal buffs. The true believer will have none of it, so I feel it's not worth battling over experiments where each side says the other's methodology is flawed. Bottom line is we will believe what we believe regardless.

 

http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/blackmore_critique.htm

You are right.  I have come to my own beliefs or conclusions regarding this subject. As I am sure you have as well- but you probably don't like to think of it as a "belief".

 

I am included in the term "we." My belief is based on a different kind of evidence, that's all.

 

As with some others who have stated so, I would be thrilled to find that we have untapped capabilities and senses beyond the five known ones. I searched for such things for many years, and fooled myself a few times along the way. I go back to the days of Targ and Puthoff. I've met Hans Holzer. I have been to seances and Spiritualist camps. I read everything by and about Rhine since 1966. I was a Rosicrucian. And there's more. I'm confident that I have looked into it rather thoroughly.

 

Then I studied the unfolding experiments by neuropsychologists who explained and even reproduced the weird phenomena, and my hobby of magic led me to psychic entertainment where I met the people, some nationally known, whom most Americans consider to be true psychics. I did the psychic scam myself for a while. I was quite disappointed to have to concluded the evidence before me indicated there was really nothing to all this hokum. It must have been the way Houdini felt after trying so hard to contact his deceased mother through the famous mediums of his day only to discover their trickery. Reality is a bitch!

 

So one may say that experience has also brought me to my beliefs. 

 

So I have your credentials.  I could trot some out myself to back up my knowledge of the occult and paranormal - but I never tried to scam people.  I am not addressing mediums or seances here. I am talking about Sheldrake's video and how science is biased against study of areas such as telepathy.

 

 

Please make up your mind. Is the problem that science doesn't want to study telepathy, or that it can't reliably be reproduced in a lab for scientists to study? If it can't be reproduced to be studied, why are you upset with scientists who don't want to study it? Why should they take the time to do so if they can't come up with consistent results anyway?

 

So you are very consistent in your black and white thinking.  I am not opposed to scientific study. Why shouldn't they try to conduct experiments? Who knows what they could come up with if there was not this bias toward materialism? I am upset with the scientific establishment that won't give an even-handed approach to looking at these types of experiments such as Sheldrake is doing.

 

I don't need "make up my mind" or to be consistent - consistency is a small, closed- minded approach. It MAY not be reproducible. Why can't they at least try?  I am saying let's try.  That's all.  Look at the possibilities. Look at what results have been achieved from Sheldrake's experiments and others.  I have heard a lot about "no proof" but there IS proof.  You just don't want to see it. Yours, and the scientific establishments'

is a close-minded dogmatic and very consistent approach.