The Science Delusion

[Monk (in hiding)]

Downloading now......

[Agartha]

Posting to watch another day.......

[Rockhopper]

Rupert Sheldrake eh!

Most of Sheldrake's ideas are clearly pseudoscientific nonsense. Morphic resonance is extremely vague and ill-defined, and can only really be described as whatever Sheldrake says it is. Crucially, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not testable (although some have tried).
His latest book, "The Science Delusion" is an anti-scientific rant, in which he applies postmodernist hyperscepticism to science, accusing scientists of adhering to "scientific dogmata", such as the constancy of the speed of light. Ironically, Sheldrake fails to apply any sort of scepticism to his own ideas, which he promotes uncritically, despite there being no evidence for them.

More:

[list="line-height: 19.2000007629395px; margin-top: 0.3em; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 3.2em; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; list-style-image: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"]
[*]Sheldrake claims to have authored "more than 80 articles in peer-reviewed journals" [3]. However, excluding articles in pseudojournals that clearly weren't peer reviewed, the true number is actually less that half this number (helpfully they're on his website so you can count 'em) - he hasn't published any peer reviewed research since the mid-1980s.
[/list]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/201...121227.php
British biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, is the author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books and is best known for his groundbreaking theory of morphic resonance. In this program we discuss Rupert’s latest book "The Science Delusion." He begins with an overview of the ten dogmas of science ... These powerful assumptions, have led science down the wrong path according to Rupert. He explains how originally the scientific field held a kind of Cartesian dualistic view of spirit and matter, which eventually was replaced solely by matter. The scientific view that matter is "dead" and has no soul or spirit is dangerous, argues Sheldrake. Later, we talk about the Large Hadron Collider, the most expensive scientific project in the history of mankind. Rupert explains that the results in the search for the "Higgs field" and the so called "God particle" might very well be influenced by the intention of the scientists performing the experiment, also known as the observer’s effect. Lastly, Sheldrake tells us about the biotech bubble and shares his opinion on what alternative fields of science he would like to see funded.

http://heterodoxology.com/2012/12/29/sci...-part-one/
According to Sheldrake, the ten dogmas of science hold that:
1.Everything is mechanical; only mechanistic explanations will do.
2.Matter is unconscious / inanimate.
3.The matter and energy of the universe is constant, and has remained constant since the Big Bang.
4.The laws of nature are fixed.
5.Nature is without inherent purpose, and evolution has no goal.
6.Biological inheritance is a purely material process.
7.Minds are located within heads, and are nothing but the activities of brains.
8.Memories are stored in the brain, and are wiped out at death.
9.Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
10.Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works.

Institutional Science, Pseudoskeptikal bias, and Modern Atheism, which together form a worldview of Fundamental Materialism, constitutes a developing religion.

[Rockhopper]

Or better still This site.

What does Sheldrake mean by “bad science”?  He means materialisticscience:

"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system. But the “scientific worldview,” based on the materialist philosophy, is enormously prestigious because science has been so successful. . .
Science has been successful because it has been open to new discoveries. By contrast, committed materialists have made science into a kind of religion. They believe that there is no reality but material or physical reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Nature is mechanical. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds, and hence in human heads."

There’s that perennial equation of science with religion. (Don’t these people know that when they make this comparison to debase science, they’re implicitly debasing religion as well?)  But we don’t, of course, have faith that there is no reality but material reality: that attitude is simply a good working assumption, and, as Laplace affirmed, we haven’t seen the need to assume otherwise.  And if there were evidence for “nonmaterial” phenomena, like ESP or telekinesis, I’d be glad to consider it.  In contrast, the Pope won’t consider embracing Islam.

It sums his rants up superbly. He's a pseudoCreationist! Go read his books VM/Omega, they are filled with so much God bullshit, you'll drown in it.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Science doesn't accept any theories that go against its dogma. By dogma, i mean the tenets of fundamental materialism, i.e. the notion that the universe is strictly physical. To put this in an even more specific framework, the dogmatic ideology, as i see it, is a relatively recent development. It developed and grew in the wake of Darwin in the first part of the 20th century, and has only become vocal and militant during the last half century or so.

Any theoretical models that have ultimately been rebuked may have been adhered to out of other biases or simple memetic inertia, but they were not dogma. The study of the metaphysical world will require radical modifications to the scientific method and probably an entirely new mathematical paradigm. This will require openmindedness, cooperation, and a great deal of interest by many qualified researchers, which is currently not present in the scientific community for the reasons i addressed above.

[Rockhopper]

Sheldrake has had 40+ years to prove his hypotheses and still nothing yet. I wonder why?

If you read my other post here about Scientific Method and how it works. First question; is it falsifiable? If so, it could be correct, if it can't be falsified then it ain't likely to be true.

Second question; can other people with that expertise test it by experiment and get the same result? If not, then it's likely to be not true.

Thirdly; does it pass the common sense test? If not then it's not likely to be true.

Example; hypothesis - the Moon is made of Cheese. Is it falsifiable? Yes, we know the moon ain't cheese by measuring the mass of it.

Experimental tests; Probes sent there confirmed that it is not cheese, thus debunking the hypothesis.

Common Sense; That tells us that it's not cheese because cheese is made from milk and it would take a astronomical number of cows to produce the milk.

VM/Omega can't you express your views without endless copy/pastes? Especially from sites that attract odd people. Form your own conclusions from what you read mate and don't continuously repeat the words of others. That is just bombing the thread and doesn't generate a debate on the issue.

Getting back to Sheldrake, he has never published a paper in any peer-reviewed publication. I wonder why that is? Could it be that he is talking farm fertiliser? 

He is a deeply religious High Anglican and realises that many Brits are not so religious so he tempers his remarks along that line to sell his books.


Tim.

[Mordae]

TBH Tim, he has a point. In traditional science, everything needs to be quantified or measured, if it is impossible to do so, then it appears to be shoved into the realms of pseudoscience (sidenote...does that make quantum mechanic and theoretical physics along the same lines?).

It's just a different version of Hempel's Raven Paradox.

[Rockhopper]

Not really Mordles. Science works on verifiable evidence. If it can't be verified then it is put aside until such evidence comes to light. Quantum Mechanics is a hypothesis still but it's not put in the pseudoscience box yet.

Sheldrake never has been able to prove what he says and no other scientist who has tried to prove it failed to do so. Secondly; why has he not published his hypothesis in recognised Scientific Magazines where it can be properly scrutinised? What is he trying to hide? He's deeply religious and lives in a country that is secular. He knows that to say what he really wants to say would not go down well in the general population. He's another man who is trying to link god to his hypothesis.

Since he postulated his hypothesis in 1980 he has never been able to back it up. He's had plenty of time to show how he can prove it but never has, that's the common sense principle Mordles.

There is no "Traditional Science" either, all scientists use the Scientific Method to test new hypotheses based on the teachings of ancient Greek philosophy and logic. Nor is science good or bad, it just is, that's all. Whether it is used for good or bad things is not the fault of the Scientific method. It is those who use it.

And spare me that "Grand Conspiracy" crap. That defies common sense too. It would involve hundreds or thousands of scientists from all over the world all sworn to secrecy. That's crap mate.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Things are not what they seem...

[Monk (in hiding)]

Lack of understanding to the concept, damage to their vmPFC perhaps?

[Monk (in hiding)]

Wholeness and the Implicate Order

David Bohm...

[Stargate]

Not really Mordles. Science works on verifiable evidence. If it can't be verified then it is put aside until such evidence comes to light. Quantum Mechanics is a hypothesis still but it's not put in the pseudoscience box yet.

Sheldrake never has been able to prove what he says and no other scientist who has tried to prove it failed to do so. Secondly; why has he not published his hypothesis in recognised Scientific Magazines where it can be properly scrutinised? What is he trying to hide? He's deeply religious and lives in a country that is secular. He knows that to say what he really wants to say would not go down well in the general population. He's another man who is trying to link god to his hypothesis.

Since he postulated his hypothesis in 1980 he has never been able to back it up. He's had plenty of time to show how he can prove it but never has, that's the common sense principle Mordles.

There is no "Traditional Science" either, all scientists use the Scientific Method to test new hypotheses based on the teachings of ancient Greek philosophy and logic. Nor is science good or bad, it just is, that's all. Whether it is used for good or bad things is not the fault of the Scientific method. It is those who use it.

And spare me that "Grand Conspiracy" crap. That defies common sense too. It would involve hundreds or thousands of scientists from all over the world all sworn to secrecy. That's crap mate.

Tim.

Tim, I think your last statement does not have to mean because thousands of scientists come up with the same results necessarily means they are right. I think it depends on the model they use, if they use one and the same model, the derivatives will most likely be the same. Take the idea the so called god particle, thousand of scientist embrace, an invisable idea with no provable realistic understanding of the phenomenon they call Higgs Boson means there is a conspiracy. What it could mean is that they are all wrong or right from using the same data. My point is, thousand can be wrong where only one is right.

[Rockhopper]

The Higgs Boson was postulated way back by Higgs. No-one had ever found one but mathematically it had to be there. 

It wasn't until the CERN reactor was built that it was found and proven to be so. 

As far as Sheldrake is concerned, no-one has ever been able to back what he says and he won't explain how he came to the conclusion. He won't share the experiments he performed (if any) so others can do the same as he did and get the same result. That is how it's done Star.

Sheldrake has never published any scientific paper on his hypothesis ever and expects sensible people to just believe him. That is not how it works.
Use Occam's Razor where the simplest answer is usually the right one. In Sheldrake's case that says he's talking bull.

If there is anything wrong by how scientists test and experiment it will soon come to light and be corrected. Nothing is cast in stone and theories change as more info comes out. 

Tim.

[Sponsored content]