95 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

Beckys_Mom, on 11 December 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Oh you both are guilty of that  lol ..But it is harmless, in a fun way

Oh, I know. I am male after all.

[Beckys_Mom]

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Oh, I know. I am male after all.

I'll take your word for it, I wont ask you to prove it  lol

[Seeker79]

Beckys_Mom, on 11 December 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I'll take your word for it, I wont ask you to prove it  lol

Oh.... I can... If you really want me to

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Oh no!!!! You did not go to grammer copa.... That says it all right there dosnt it? Classic....

Yep, I guess that "grammer" says it all....

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

To Somone who considers himself a scientist, calling him a pseudoscientist is indeed a personal attack ment to discredit him.

No I called him a crank--as described by his actions and behaviors regarding any criticism of his "ideas". See above where I posted the description of a crank. Are you going to argue he doesn't ignore legitimate criticisms of his "work"? If show please provide evidence for your claim. Are you going to argue he doesn't grossly overestimate his understanding of biology? Again please provide evidence to support this if you believe it to be true.

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

You have missed to point of the entire thread in pure arrogance.

I didn't miss the point of your thread. You want to QQ with Sheldrake about the "big bad evil establishment of science" and how it doesn't take kindly to some individuals. I get it. Its not PC, its not fair and gosh darn there are some ideas you agree with that real scientists dismiss! Oh noes!

Unfortunately science is cutthroat method. Ideas that don't or can't support themselves don't last long. Ideas that have no evidence, ideas that cannot be falsified, ideas that fly contrary to theory supported by evidence get tossed, none to kindly, to the trash heap of history. This is what makes science go forward (contrary to the general atmosphere here that it remains static). Don't like it? Maybe science isn't for you then.

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Have you read his book on morphic fields? or did you just look up the rubuttles that fit your standard view?

Yes, I have. That rebuttal was written to a creationist/ID writer who used to write articles here. Had you clicked the link and read the thread you would have seen that. Some of Sheldrake's ideas are popular with the IDists/creationists (evidence A: the original article my reply was too) because they too are cranks who, for ideological reasons wish reject modern science. Probably a good rule of thumb---When the creationists like your stuff, you better look again at the kind of "science" you are doing.

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I havnt shrunk from anything, I'll be more than happy to offer my opinion after I have read the book and understand exactly what he is proposing. I can tell you already from what I do understand that I have problems with it. But hey... We will see I have a few more reads before I get to that one.

Well, we'll just sit around with our *******s pinched in angst in the mean time.....

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Sheldrake is an honest funny highly intelligent man, but before you think I'm gaga over him, you should know I'm really intersted in his insights into how the established institution is being held back. His other ideas like all others i take with a grain of salt. The funny thing is that so does he.

I never said he wasn't intelligent, or funny, or anything else other than a crank (again see description above). I'm sure he is a great guy. I've met some great guys who were creationists too--Doesn't mean they can tell their science from a donkey.

Beckys_Mom, on 11 December 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

It's goad, not goat lol

I am just kidding with you both .

I know, I meant to put "goat" in quotes. It was a poke at the usage of "goat" there, hence the bahhhhhh   I mean "goating" someone to debate--If that doesn't need a comedic pointing out, I don't know what does

Edited by Copasetic, 11 December 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Copa is a blast. A great resource for evolution, but the rest of it is all all posturing. Fun times

Yep, its just all posturing. Sounds like its time for a good ol-fashion e-peen contest. How much do you bench? How fast do you drive your car? How many women have you slept with?!? Want to arm wrestle? Spitting contest? Want to count chest hairs?

Edited by Copasetic, 11 December 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Copasetic, on 11 December 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

I know, I meant to put "goat" in quotes. It was a poke at the usage of "goat" there, hence the bahhhhhh   I mean "goating" someone to debate--If that doesn't need a comedic pointing out, I don't know what does

Of course you did, I believe you.....................thousands wouldn't  lol

[Liquid Gardens]

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

I find morphogenic fields an interesting out of the box proposition. That's about it. Where I agree with him at is this institutonalized arrogance and dogma.

I disagree that just because there are arrogant scientists that it is 'institutionalized'; scientists actually are the ones who usually berate other scientists specifically because some get too arrogant and do not properly couch the tentativeness of their conclusions (remember 'cold fusion'?).  

I don't see much supporting the dogma claim either, the notion that you can never be absolutely certain of scientific conclusions is pretty much built into the process and the philosophy of science.  Nor do I see an issue with methodological naturalism/materialism in the scientific method.  Not only has this approach provided undeniable and tangible results, but the long scientific investigation into 'supernatural' claims has not really come up with anything persuasive.  I agree that there are some things like gods that are going to be pretty much impenetrable to scientific inquiry, they are superpowered and can presumably conceal any direct evidence of their existence if they like.  But I don't see why ghosts for instance can't be studied scientifically, they are not typically envisioned as being all-powerful entities.  They have been studied actually, and those studies have come up with nothing convincing.  Doesn't mean they don't exist, but I think it's fair to note that the results of those studies are perfectly consistent with the possibility that ghosts do not exist at all, even though that's not a 'scientific conclusion'.  

If Sheldrake or anyone wants to complain that science is somehow limited by restricting itself to 'materialism', there is nothing preventing him or anyone from expanding their approach outside of just materialism and showing how it is an improvement over the current scientific methodology.  His whining about 'dogma' just seems like a cop-out to me.

[Seeker79]

Copasetic, on 11 December 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Yep, I guess that "grammer" says it all....



No I called him a crank--as described by his actions and behaviors regarding any criticism of his "ideas". See above where I posted the description of a crank. Are you going to argue he doesn't ignore legitimate criticisms of his "work"? If show please provide evidence for your claim. Are you going to argue he doesn't grossly overestimate his understanding of biology? Again please provide evidence to support this if you believe it to be true.



I didn't miss the point of your thread. You want to QQ with Sheldrake about the "big bad evil establishment of science" and how it doesn't take kindly to some individuals. I get it. Its not PC, its not fair and gosh darn there are some ideas you agree with that real scientists dismiss! Oh noes!

Unfortunately science is cutthroat method. Ideas that don't or can't support themselves don't last long. Ideas that have no evidence, ideas that cannot be falsified, ideas that fly contrary to theory supported by evidence get tossed, none to kindly, to the trash heap of history. This is what makes science go forward (contrary to the general atmosphere here that it remains static). Don't like it? Maybe science isn't for you then.



Yes, I have. That rebuttal was written to a creationist/ID writer who used to write articles here. Had you clicked the link and read the thread you would have seen that. Some of Sheldrake's ideas are popular with the IDists/creationists (evidence A: the original article my reply was too) because they too are cranks who, for ideological reasons wish reject modern science. Probably a good rule of thumb---When the creationists like your stuff, you better look again at the kind of "science" you are doing.



Well, we'll just sit around with our *******s pinched in angst in the mean time.....



I never said he wasn't intelligent, or funny, or anything else other than a crank (again see description above). I'm sure he is a great guy. I've met some great guys who were creationists too--Doesn't mean they can tell their science from a donkey.



I know, I meant to put "goat" in quotes. It was a poke at the usage of "goat" there, hence the bahhhhhh   I mean "goating" someone to debate--If that doesn't need a comedic pointing out, I don't know what does

He has phd in biochemistry, I'm sure Cambridge just hands those out.

Please... Scientists  are subject to to the same things that all humans are. They are not saints in lab coats. Politics, dogmas, and group dynamics emerge in scientific institutions just like anywhere else. It dosnt mean they are big and bad, but they are not immune either.

What's on Page 158 line 25?

"When the creationists like your stuff, you better look again at the kind of "science" you are doing."

This is completely rediculouse, and unscientific. Again you are only proving the point.

You spit out labels all you want... Non of it is logical.

Cutthroat!?!? You are kidding? This implys severe competition. This does not bring about truth only those who are more successful at arguing. Truth and politics don't mix well. Science is not supposed to be "cutthroat" it is supposed to be thorough.

I realize that you want to argue about biology to find away to discredit one set of ideas by pointing out flaws in another, but this is just silly. Sheldrake's recognition of the developed dogma and philisophical assumptions that drive them has nothing to do with whatever his technical expertise are.

Edited by Seeker79, 12 December 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Seeker79]

Liquid Gardens, on 12 December 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

If Sheldrake or anyone wants to complain that science is somehow limited by restricting itself to 'materialism', there is nothing preventing him or anyone from expanding their approach outside of just materialism and showing how it is an improvement over the current scientific methodology.  His whining about 'dogma' just seems like a cop-out to me.

That's exactly what he is doing. However, research requires money and people. If a grad student knows he will be ridiculed or will not have a job by perusing a certain line of inquiry, why would he/she choose to Persue it.

Case in point.

The man that first purposed/worked on 10 dimensions & 1 time dimension in string theory was practically ostrisized for stepping away from the standard thinking at the time. He could not get grade students to help him and was ridiculed. He was evenchually vindicated.

Also imagine if people in the science community  have the attitude of our friend copasetic. Constantly picking out flaws of others and applying to to their credibility, then openly ridiculing them and putting them into undesirable category's. --"crank"--- "pseudo scientist"--- even using things that are the equivalent to laughing in someone's face "bah hahahahaha"

This is the very essence of clickish behavior, that has and will hold future scientific innovations back, new ideas from emerging, and funding from being allocated.

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 12 December 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Please... Scientists  are subject to to the same things that all humans are. They are not saints in lab coats. Politics, dogmas, and group dynamics emerge in scientific institutions just like anywhere else. It dosnt mean they are big and bad, but they are not immune either.

Yes exactly Seeker dude, exactly. That also means they are subject to pseudoscience, bias etc. Including Sheldrake! One of those awkward moments when you've realized how silly you've been. o.O

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 12 December 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

That's exactly what he is doing. However, research requires money and people. If a grad student knows he will be ridiculed or will not have a job by perusing a certain line of inquiry, why would he/she choose to Persue it.

Case in point.

The man that first purposed/worked on 10 dimensions & 1 time dimension in string theory was practically ostrisized for stepping away from the standard thinking at the time. He could not get grade students to help him and was ridiculed. He was evenchually vindicated.

Also imagine if people in the science community  have the attitude of our friend copasetic. Constantly picking out flaws of others and applying to to their credibility, then openly ridiculing them and putting them into undesirable category's. --"crank"--- "pseudo scientist"--- even using things that are the equivalent to laughing in someone's face "bah hahahahaha"

This is the very essence of clickish behavior, that has and will hold future scientific innovations back, new ideas from emerging, and funding from being allocated.

Serious question time. What graduate degrees do you have? Have you ever done graduate research? These type of claims seem to get thrown out a lot, but from someone who's been in and around academia a long time--I see little of it. Whereas someone like you, with little contact with academia (or so we'll assume), describes it as if its an everyday thing....

And no you got that last part wrong. the "bahhhhh" wasn't laughing, it was the sound of the goat--You know that goat I made to debate you, remember that time? That time I goated you!?!?!

Yes, yes I know those big bad scientists call pseudoscience....pseudoscience. How terrible of them. Dirty name callers. Get yer pitchforks, well show them /shakesfist!!!

Edited by Copasetic, 12 December 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 12 December 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

That's exactly what he is doing. However, research requires money and people. If a grad student knows he will be ridiculed or will not have a job by perusing a certain line of inquiry, why would he/she choose to Persue it.

I want to point something else out. You say that as if its an incredibly hard thing to do. Again, your naivety about academia is hanging out in the open (maybe you like to leave those parts hang out to, just like the other ones you wanted to show BM--BTW do you have your chest hair count in yet?)

If you have some sound (or even sometimes not so sound) science to do, hypotheses, experiments, etc its easy as warm apple pie to get grants. No seriously, have you any idea how easy it is to get grants for studies (insert ridiculous research here <--I'm a link in case your not savvy enough to notice)?

Edited by Copasetic, 12 December 2012 - 07:58 PM.

[Seeker79]

Copasetic, on 12 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Yes exactly Seeker dude, exactly. That also means they are subject to pseudoscience, bias etc. Including Sheldrake! One of those awkward moments when you've realized how silly you've been. o.O

Sure sheldrake is not immune either, as I think I have mentioned it is him raising the question. Regardless of his science.

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 12 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Sure sheldrake is not immune either, as I think I have mentioned it is him raising the question. Regardless of his science.

What about you, are you immune?

[Seeker79]

Copasetic, on 12 December 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Serious question time. What graduate degrees do you have? Have you ever done graduate research? These type of claims seem to get thrown out a lot, but from someone who's been in and around academia a long time--I see little of it. Whereas someone like you, with little contact with academia (or so we'll assume), describes it as if its an everyday thing....

And no you got that last part wrong. the "bahhhhh" wasn't laughing, it was the sound of the goat--You know that goat I made to debate you, remember that time? That time I goated you!?!?!

Yes, yes I know those big bad scientists call pseudoscience....pseudoscience. How terrible of them. Dirty name callers. Get yer pitchforks, well show them /shakesfist!!!

I have a degrees is economics and finance. When I was in college a dozen years ago, I was a tutor. I passed on grad school to open my own business. I might go back. Just for fun.

I have done real industry research. Mostly regressions and patterns in mutual fund manager/asset manager behavior during different markets and different standardized psychological profiles.

A goat noise? Ok that's funny, but I have seen you do many times to others.

It is dirty copa.