• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Rupert Sheldrake's THE SCIENCE DELUSION

Migrated topic.
I just don't think you can realistically tease the two apart like that. It sounds nice in the mind, but in the world its just not distinct. Without people, there is no science.. They are seamlessly intertwined, not separate. That distinction is just a construct imposed by the mind.

These are big assumptions that a large number of scientists just assume to be correct on the basis of science. Just because its a Belief and they're ignorant of the holes in the floor, as HF said, does not make it unrelated to science. These 10 points are part of a paradigm, or thought pattern that pervades much of the scientific community... How then could those assumptions realistically be viewed as being unrelated to science as it exists in the world today? They not only have a big impact on how scientific work has and will unfold, but on how it is interpreted and trickled into mass consciousness. So basically how people view and think about reality.

Also, im not sure if we mean the same thing when we say 'science' here lol. Like i said i don't mean the scientific method or the ideal state of science
 
I think the whole thing is also idealized to some degree. Obviousily it has proven useful but useful does not mean it can explain everything..or ever will..or that bias is impossible..the method itself may be subject to its own boundries ultimatly..I think in a way it reflects a part of the wiring of rational mind, as if the scientific method is a mirror of that level of processing..and in that way it is definatly valid..but possibly limited nonetheless.

It origionates and ends within the confines of human consciousness. Human consciousness as we most often experience it is a system with limits..as science itself has pretty much proven with the dicoverty of things like the EM spectrum etc)..so it seems not too off to me to assume that the same sort of logic can apply to systems of objective observation and data collecting.
 
I think people should read the book, if only so that we can discuss the actual points he makes... rather than just treat this like an abstract attack on scientific dogmatism.
Click to expand...
I know, I know. I'm sorry for weighing in so heavily on this discussion when I haven't even read the book we're discussing.

Regarding the assumptions of scientists...
Ideally, scientists make certain assumptions knowingly. There is nothing wrong with knowingly making assumptions in order to see what comes of them. Most [older] scientists whom I have confronted about matters of epistemology admit that models are only useful insofar as they can be used to make predictions, and that the true nature of reality is distinct from the models that we use to represent and explain it. Scientists SHOULD recognize that "the map is not the territory". That being said, I agree that many scientists are not aware of the assumptions they make, mainly because these assumptions are informally handed down and taught without being directly addressed. On the other hand, every tenured physics professor that I know has at least a few philosophy books on his/her bookshelf on conscious, subjective/objective experience, etc. Perhaps respect and appreciation of the basic philosophical assumptions behind science comes with age and experience.

Anyways, no more from me until I've read something by Sheldrake.
 
^ Well you quoted my post mid-sentence and out of context, so now it looks bad and does not get across the same message the original sentence did lol. My post was directed at Inmotion and how he said these 10 assumptions many scientists make are unrelated to science itself.

I never actually said that scientists who make assumptions always do so ignorantly. That would be ridiculous, obviously, so there is no disagreement there.
 
I am sorry. I tried to pick out the section that I thought embodied a point you were trying to make and it seems I really didn't know the context of your claim. Sorry again. :oops:
 
I read Ruperts' first two books, back in the 90's and enjoyed them both immensely. The 7 experiments and also the trialogues were great too.

yeah, I know the banning was not a stunt--I went to the ted website and they have a brief explanation or excuse for why the talk was removed, and then, being radically open, ted opened it up for conversation. http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_tedx_talk.html

The conversation that ensued is full of misinformed attacks. Claims like "Sheldrake has not designed any repeatable experiments and thus he is a psuedoscientist".

The reasons ted gives for banning the talk:
1. Philosophy. Is the basis of his argument sound -- does science really operate the way Sheldrake suggests it does? Are his conclusions drawn from factual premises?

2. Factual error. (As an example, Sheldrake says that governments do not fund research into complementary medicine. Here are the US figures on NIH investment in complementary and alternative medicine 2009-2010: Complementary and Alternative Medicine Funding by NIH Institute/Center )
Click to expand...

To me, these did not seem like very solid points. Point one seems...numinous and uninformed. Point two seems... absurd. Like a minor over-statement is being blown out of proportion.

8. Are minds confined to brains?

Neurotransmitters are found in more places then just the brain....90% or serotonin is found in the intestine. And what about the heart? I'm thinking electromagnetic fields here. What if there were a toroidal energy field surrounding the human body? Man, that sounds like new age, reiki, qi-gong, psuedo-science. Ok fine, maybe there is an energetic field around each of us. Hey, what if part of our mind is located within this field, yet outside of our physical bodies? I can't say much about where mind is (but i suspect it is everywhere, and that's my answer to number 4) but I can say that I've yet to see any study that convinced me that mind is somehow confined to brains.

So yeah, idk if I'll ever bother to read the new book. Kinda preaching to the choir at this point. I guess if you want ammo to use in arguements with reductionist/materialists then the book will be great, but I'd rather argue less with people and their dogmas, not more. Sheldrakes book from 99, about the dogs who sense when you are coming home, I'll read that one next. My cats have always done this and it would be cool to read studies that confirm it.
 
Right on Doodazzle. That's the spirit.

Once you finish the book on psychic dogs, you may as well go ahead and plow into this new one. It is an interesting read aside from the debate fodder material. Heheheheh.

I was going to link to that TED thread, but I didn't want to start off by rehashing what has been going on there. I figured our Nexians might have a fresher perspective. But since you did, here is another TED link to an open conversation where Sheldrake himself speaks his mind on this Open for discussion: Graham Hancock, Rupert Sheldrake, TEDxWhitechapel | TED Blog

If you are reading this right now... go to http://new.livestream.com/newparadigm/newparadigmevent/videos/16098635 to watch the livestream of the Ex TEDx West Hollywood now New Paradigm event or whatever. It may be a bit airy fairy progressive, but it is an entire event that TED has decided to "censor" and has a number of great speakers lined up.

Craig Weiler is speaking now.
 
It seems to me like a critical error that is made in these types of debates is the purpose people try to assign to science and the scientific method.

A scientist is not trying to qualify the "why?" questions, but rather trying to quantify the "what"s.

Many of us extract or have extracted alkaloids from various plant sources. None of us ask why the solubility properties of these alkaloids are the way they are, but most of accept them as being more or less fixed properties. If this were not the case and the properties of these compounds were in constant flux, then repeating the same methods time after time would be a crapshoot rather than one with predictable results, right?
 
camel said:
It seems to me like a critical error that is made in these types of debates is the purpose people try to assign to science and the scientific method.

A scientist is not trying to qualify the "why?" questions, but rather trying to quantify the "what"s.

Many of us extract or have extracted alkaloids from various plant sources. None of us ask why the solubility properties of these alkaloids are the way they are, but most of accept them as being more or less fixed properties. If this were not the case and the properties of these compounds were in constant flux, then repeating the same methods time after time would be a crapshoot rather than one with predictable results, right?
Click to expand...

I kinda think that's the crux of Ruperts' work. Morphic resonance, in this model, accounts for the habits of nature...

It's a neat model, you might find it interesting. BTW, I do not believe that Sheldrake ever once attacked or otherwise denigrated the scientific method.
 
Doodazzle said:
I kinda think that's the crux of Ruperts' work. Morphic resonance, in this model, accounts for the habits of nature...

It's a neat model, you might find it interesting. BTW, I do not believe that Sheldrake ever once attacked or otherwise denigrated the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I will certainly have to give it a read.

I am by no means an absolutist when it comes to science, but I definitely have a tendency to err on the side of things that are observable and provable. This being said I also realize that sometimes looks can be deceiving and the answers to the tough questions will remain difficult and perhaps unknowable (at least until something comes around that changes that).

One theorem I love to refer back to is Thomas Bayes' theorem which essentially says: "In the presence of new information/knowledge you must change your expectations of the outcome". After all, the world was flat until this was proven not to be the case, just as the Earth was the center of the universe until that was debunked as well.

Being skeptical is healthy, and in many respects, a fundamental tenet of science.
 
camel said:
One theorem I love to refer back to is Thomas Bayes' theorem which essentially says: "In the presence of new information/knowledge you must change your expectations of the outcome". After all, the world was flat until this was proven not to be the case, just as the Earth was the center of the universe until that was debunked as well.

Being skeptical is healthy, and in many respects, a fundamental tenet of science.
Click to expand...

Here here.

All the more reason to at least listen to the points Sheldrake brings up.

I find his skepticism to be a refreshing return to the kind of fundamental, healthy science you speak of... and his suppression may very well be the kind of knee-jerk reactionary response that a somewhat ossified scientific community delivers unconsciously.

After all, it is his premise that these beliefs underscore the thinking of said community... and as beliefs, are often unquestioned or unrecognized. This has nothing to do with Science (with a capital S), but rather the thinking of most scientists. No one does real science with these dogmas, because they seem too obvious to them to even ever question.

Only good can come of questioning. People should lay down their sharpened pencils and poison grease board sharpies and ask themselves if they ever did bother to question any of these things. In fact, they should go further and read Sheldrake's book, and not simply to poke holes or find fault... but to ascertain if there really might be tangible progress to be made if we can summon up the courage to lay aside the defense of sacred elephants that might not be so sacred after all.

Just a thought.
 
I should mention that the former TEDx West Hollywood conference "Brother, Can You Spare A Paradigm?" is still available to watch on the link above even though the livestream is obviously well over.

It is a good mix of stuff that falls somewhat outside of the accepted parameters of science. Whether or not you are truly interested in such topics or not, there is a lot of cool stuff and I would say 80% of what was said would be right at home on TED. Of course, the parts that caused it to be censored are generally the most interesting bits.

😉

Graham Hancock's banned talk was played, and Rupert Sheldrake gave a shortened talk about his book. There are talks on Psi, Non-local Intelligence, Energetic Healing and much more.

Skeptic or not, I think most people will find something worth watching. The talks are short, and you can always skip ahead.

(In fact, you probably have to as the audio was out for the firs the 4 1/2 minutes, and it doesn't really get going until after the woman sings the F*ck Song)


Edit: Here is the link so you don't have to bother looking for it
 
Oh joy, this again.

Science is not a belief system, it is acquired knowledge through experimentation. Beliefs need not require evidence at all.

The fact he even uses the word 'dogma' to describe it is merely a cheap ball throw to be caught by anyone who wants to think this way, as many still still do. Those who actually understand the issue won't even be there to argue the case against this trite.

I consider myself more scientific than spiritual and it is because of that I will admit I cannot claim anything with absolute certainty. Yet somehow, like every sane person, I don't find it to be a problem. Why must someone always come along (with something to sell) which says that SCIENCE (yes all science, just all of it, end of) says X absolutely or Y without leaving any remaining chances or variables. That is not science, that most certainly IS dogma, and no scientist worth his salt should have such an attitude.

Towards the end he then adds the hackneyed 'mind outside our body argument'. The whole thing felt just like reading some equally fruitless topics on the nexus.
 
no one ever said science is a belief system...

"Why must someone always come along (with something to sell) which says that SCIENCE (yes all science, just all of it, end of) says X absolutely or Y without leaving any remaining chances or variables. "

I admit its not his best video, but you are completely misunderstanding what sheldrake is saying and missing the point entirely orion

It sounds like your entire post is just venting anger and lashing out in defense of science, when really sheldrake isn't attacking science, or saying that science says X absolutely, or any of that...he's outlining the standard paradigm or set of beliefs/assumptions that many PEOPLE (including many scientists) hold and think are shown to be true via science, and showing those beliefs don't stand on as solid a foundation as most assume by going over the actual evidence for them in his book
 
Orion said:
Oh joy, this again.

Science is not a belief system, it is acquired knowledge through experimentation. Beliefs need not require evidence at all.

The fact he even uses the word 'dogma' to describe it is merely a cheap ball throw to be caught by anyone who wants to think this way, as many still still do. Those who actually understand the issue won't even be there to argue the case against this trite.

I consider myself more scientific than spiritual and it is because of that I will admit I cannot claim anything with absolute certainty. Yet somehow, like every sane person, I don't find it to be a problem. Why must someone always come along (with something to sell) which says that SCIENCE (yes all science, just all of it, end of) says X absolutely or Y without leaving any remaining chances or variables. That is not science, that most certainly IS dogma, and no scientist worth his salt should have such an attitude.

Towards the end he then adds the hackneyed 'mind outside our body argument'. The whole thing felt just like reading some equally fruitless topics on the nexus.
Click to expand...
I agree that science is not a belief system, but the fact is that some scientists (many? most?) do have beliefs about the nature of reality that are influenced by their scientific pursuits.

I’m about to over-generalize, and what I’m going to say about scientists is also true of most non-scientists too, so be prepared:

Many scientists are materialists. They believe that there is a physical, tangible reality that exists outside of and independent of consciousness.

Scientists err when they forget that materialism is a belief system. They think that physical laws established over centuries of hard scientific work somehow strengthen the case for materialism, when in fact they do not.

They conflate scientific proof with proof of their belief in materialism. They also seem to think that science can be used to disprove non-materialistic paradigms. It cannot.

The physical laws and collective scientific knowledge yield a model of “something”. Materialists call that something the “independent physical universe”. Non-materialists may call it “consciousness” or “God” or who knows what else.

We don’t know, and can’t know, and certainly can't prove via science (or DMT!), what that “something” is.
 
universecannon said:
no one ever said science is a belief system...
Click to expand...

Rupert Sheldrake said:
Dogma, Dogma, Dogma
Click to expand...

universecannon said:
It sounds like your entire post is just venting anger and lashing out in defense of science, when really sheldrake isn't attacking science, or saying that science says X absolutely, or any of that...he's outlining the standard paradigm or set of beliefs/assumptions that many PEOPLE (including many scientists) hold and think are shown to be true via science, and showing those beliefs don't stand on as solid a foundation as most assume by going over the actual evidence for them in his book
Click to expand...

I don't get angry over trivial issues like this, though I must admit typing doesn't reflect that very well at all, in fact I've been notorious for this in the past, so fair enough.

I'm still not quite sure after watching again if he is directing attention to those people who say science is out of line for claiming bla bla as there is not enough solid basis (for anything though really, we might as well just shoot ourselves instead of trying to come up with SOLID answers?), OR if he is saying it, perhaps it's the way he delivers it here, I can't quite tell. Perhaps it's also because the talk is peppered with bollox, like the bit about biological forms likened crystals not having a habit until crystallized for the very first time? How could you possibly claim such a thing, of course it will always crystallize that way again, it's the same chemical, how could you possibly prove a link to crystals 'all over the world'. I guess you would have do dig morphic resonance to see it that way. I'm not angry as I said before, but I will now use capitals, please note my flippancy: that is some PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LOAD OF GASH there matey.

Rupert Sheldrake said:
...the ten dogmas which are the default worldview of most educated people allover the world...
Click to expand...

You see what I'm trying to say ? I'm not quite sure he himself is painting a realistic picture, and like I said ANY scientist worth his salt would not be so rigid as this guy seems to imply.

Gibran I agree with everything you just said :p

Maybe this is just because I reject less than many seem to think someone who believes what I believe ought to reject. To put it another way, I most certainly do not believe there is not more than that which has been discovered and I do not want to be so rigid as to use any of these ten scientific dogma(s?) as an absolute truth. I hope there are for more people like this than Rupert Sheldrake seems to think at least.
 
Have you spent much time in academia? I'm immersed in it atm, and honestly it is blatantly obvious to everyone within it that the majority of the people more or less do adhere to most if not all of those 10 points. Obviously there are always exceptions, and some are more open minded/less dogmatic in their thinking than others. Also IME there are a decent amount of people who put on a facade of conformity due to pressure from peers/fear of violating the status quo and only talk about some of their more 'fringey' views and experiences behind closed doors...This is another unfortunate consequence of the rigid paradigm thats emerged

You can dismiss it all as pseudoscience without even looking into it if you want, thats fine and even expected these days when it comes to any information that stands at odds with the conventional paradigm..just realize that dismissing something as pseudoscientific bullshit without even looking into- much less understanding- the scientific evidence/case presented is about as 'unscientific' a thought process as it gets...His books like morphic resonance etc are all based on solid scientific studies and present a well formed theory imo. The crystals thing isn't just something he picked up out of thin air. Theres been hundreds studies done at this point on all sorts of strange phenomena

Do i 'believe' it? No. I try not to think of things in terms of belief, since something like weighing probabilities is more fun. I do think the information is very interesting though and merits further investigation and less uninformed flak. Imo something along the lines of quantum entanglement/non-locality could possibly provide a kind of explanation for all of this inexplicable stuff eventually
 
Gibran...
I think you just managed to eloquently and deftly, sum up, the entirety of consensus reality for me.
Nice one :thumb_up:
 
So I've totally edited this post to provoke you as little as possible...

universecannon said:
You can dismiss it all as pseudoscience without even looking into it if you want
Click to expand...

Ok, from your post as a whole, now it's you who sounds really heated up, I think we should both stop countering each other and establish what we are actually saying in the simplest terms.

When I said pseudoscience I was talking about the statement on crystals. How on earth can one possibly hope prove a statement such as this? Please show me, I am open to it. Yes I have looked, you cheeky young chappy you.

I wasn't saying people don't talk a certain way. And no I am not entrenched in academia, I don't need to be to say what I am. I'm not making claims on 'that level'. It seems you and I have a very different experience of other peoples general attitude towards this sort of thing, and I will respect that, but let's keep this sweet, I'm not trying you counter your points. Besides the crystal thing, that's bollocks until someone proves it :)
 
Back
Top Bottom