95 replies to this topic

[FurthurBB]

Seeker79, on 04 December 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

I had the opertunity to sit and talk with Dr, sheldrake along with some others on this subject.

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=religion

This article is serious flawed and disappointing.  It just goes to show you that even a scientist with 40 years of experience can and does get things wrong and can let their own bias influence their judgement.

[Rlyeh]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 05 December 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

People always talk about the battle of "Science vs. Religion."

There is no "Science vs. Religion." There is only "Science vs Science," and "Religion vs Religion."

This article only seems to help validate my point.

More accurately it is Scientist vs Science, or Opinion vs Science.

Edited by Rlyeh, 05 December 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[The world needs you]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 05 December 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

People always talk about the battle of "Science vs. Religion."

There is no "Science vs. Religion." There is only "Science vs Science," and "Religion vs Religion."

This article only seems to help validate my point.

Rlyeh, on 05 December 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

More accurately it is Scientist vs Science, or Opinion vs Science.

Are your comments toward Dr. Sheldrake? Is he the "Scientist" you refer to?

Because that is not what Aquila was talking about. In either case elaborate because your comment makes no sense in relation to theirs as  if you didn't truly grasp what they meant.

[Rlyeh]

I believe you, on 05 December 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Are your comments toward Dr. Sheldrake? Is he the "Scientist" you refer to?

No, I'm talking about a scientist that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Really do you need to ask asinine questions?

Quote

Because that is not what Aquila was talking about. In either case elaborate because your comment makes no sense in relation to theirs as  if you didn't truly grasp what they meant.

The context of the thread is where Sheldrake thinks science should be going, vs where it is really going.

I gather english isn't your first language?

[The world needs you]

Rlyeh, on 05 December 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

No, I'm talking about a scientist that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Really do you need to ask asinine questions?

The context of the thread is where Sheldrake thinks science should be going, vs where it is really going.

I gather english isn't your first language?

Well at least you understand the context of this thread but that is still not the context of Aquila's post. There is a difference.

Aquila was speaking of the false dichotomy that states there is a war between science and religion. There is no such war in my view.

So your comments made no sense in relation to their comments, even if you quoted them, so I was like ughh, but now I understand that you are just commenting on the main topic, are unable to differentiate the subtle difference in other points that might be introduced, so OK then.

[Rlyeh]

I believe you, on 05 December 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Aquila was speaking of the false dichotomy that states there is a war between science and religion. There is no such war in my view.

Did you read the rest of his post? He went on to say the article supports his idea of Science vs Science. That is what I was addressing.

[The world needs you]

Rlyeh, on 05 December 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Did you read the rest of his post? He went on to say the article supports his idea of Science vs Science. That is what I was addressing.

Which I doubt you understand, again.

Science vs science in this context is a) science as a method of inquiry vs b) science which steps beyond it's mission and becomes a competing system, which says if you believe in religion then you can't believe in science (false dichotomy), when those who claim science should stamp out religious belief, when those who use science as a weapon...then it is no longer science.

So in this context science vs science has nothing to do with this thread per se (which you are commenting on) but has to do with science as a discipline vs science as a belief system.

For me science informs greatly but I can still believe in spirituality, even if science informs me it is just my mind and cultural beliefs, I can still enjoy both.

It is not necessary for you to comment if you do not want, keeping it on the main topic is fine since this context is a bit more advanced than just picking sides and claiming the other side is wrong. To me the only wrong is those who believe that science and spirituality are not compatible.

Some would think that a) religious person saying if you believe in evolution you are not really of the truth faith, are lacking, or are being tricked by satan, and b) a person who believes in science claiming if you believe in God or practice magical thinking then your scientific views are lacking or corrupted, maybe they will say you are confused...

the main point here is some would think that type A and B are opposites but in fact that is a false dichotomoy, they are the same, two sides of the same coin, they are the type who do not understand there is no war between science and spirituality because they speak to different realms.

Edited by I believe you, 05 December 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Rlyeh]

I believe you, on 05 December 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Which I doubt you understand, again.

I understood what he said perfectly, however it seems your comprehension skills could do with improvement. I can't wait that long so I'll try to explain it for you;
Aquila said the article supported his claim of Science vs Science, I pointed out it was a scientist's opinion vs science.

Do you have difficulty grasping this?

Edit: I couldn't care less what science means to you, utterly irrelevant.
Sheldrake speaks his objections with science just as it is quite clear you have problems with your reading skills.

Edited by Rlyeh, 05 December 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[Seeker79]

FurthurBB, on 05 December 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

This article is serious flawed and disappointing.  It just goes to show you that even a scientist with 40 years of experience can and does get things wrong and can let their own bias influence their judgement.

It was a blog that the huffington post decided to publish. As such blogs tend to have a more personal slant than a normal article. How is it flawed? Do you actually have an argument that is more informed than an Oxford educated scientist? or is just against your own personal philosophy?

Edited by Seeker79, 05 December 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[The world needs you]

Rlyeh, on 05 December 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

I understood what he said perfectly, however it seems your comprehension skills could do with improvement. I can't wait that long so I'll try to explain it for you;
Aquila said the article supported his claim of Science vs Science, I pointed out it was a scientist's opinion vs science.

Do you have difficulty grasping this?

Edit: I couldn't care less what science means to you, utterly irrelevant.
Sheldrake speaks his objections with science just as it is quite clear you have problems with your reading skills.

I don't find it very likely that you understood.

Some utilize the tactic of switching points, going from one to the other, moving the goalposts, so when in post 18 I specifically asked what you were commenting on, if it was about Dr. Sheldrake, because I knew you were not understanding or commenting on what Aquila posted even if you quoted them because they were not talking about Dr. Sheldrake, you were.

I even said that you did not understand what Aquila posted in post 18. In response to that in post 19 you specofically commented on that part of my quote, and your response to what you believed Aquila was talking about, well this was your guess: "The context of the thread is where Sheldrake thinks science should be going, vs where it is really going."

No, he was not talking about that. It is fairly transparent what transpired to me and your view is simply wrong in this matter. But you are allowed to retract, ammend, pretend, or whatever other tactic you choose to keep trying to move the point around, to never get pegged down, but in this case the point was clearly reeled back in: you did not demonstrate initial understanding of Aquila's point.

I still doubt you do because as you stated in post 23 that you could care less what science means to me when I was explaining to you, not what science meant to me as you stated, no, I was explaining what science vs science means, period. Care not, learn not.

Edited by I believe you, 06 December 2012 - 04:20 PM.

[Rlyeh]

I believe you, on 06 December 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Some utilize the tactic of switching points, going from one to the other, moving the goalposts, so when in post 18 I specifically asked what you were commenting on, if it was about Dr. Sheldrake, because I knew you were not understanding or commenting on what Aquila posted even if you quoted them because they were not talking about Dr. Sheldrake, you were.

Ok, I get it. You are daft. Aquila stated the article supported his statement of Science vs Science. Did you even read the article? I get the feeling you didn't.

(hint: Dr. Sheldrake is the scientist in the article, however it doesn't just apply to him but others scientists who disagree with the path science is being taken)

Now based on some arbitrary reasoning, you tried to spin "science vs science" as meaning science vs some belief in science. Perhaps you didn't like me pointing out it was an opinion of a scientist, the "opinion vs science" remark.

But the fact remains you're trying to redefine words and meanings here in order cater to your view of science.
Deja vu?

Edited by Rlyeh, 06 December 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[The world needs you]

Back on topic of the article itself which is more interesting: If known matter is just 4%, and that is all hard science today understands, then science will eventually broaden it's expanse to investigate the other 96%. We are entering the age of post-materialism. Sheldrake understands this.

Some might believe his approach is one of simply of siding with dualism to not only oppose but to demand that it has equal footing with materialism, and that is not his approach.

As he explained it himself materialism now closes the door to many questions. He just wants to leave the door open. This is exciting stuff.

[Cybele]

I looked at the phrase "bad science" in the title and assumed this article would be about poorly designed studies or researchers fabricating or falsifying data due to vested interests or the desire to publish significant results. What I discovered was an article not talking about "bad" science, but rather comparing contradictory philosophical viewpoints and claiming that scientists should consider interpreting their data in terms of spiritual perspectives (or at least not rule them out).

Despite the brilliant technical achievements of neuroscience, like brain scanning, there is still no proof that consciousness is merely brain activity.

This sort of rationalization reminds me of some anthropological readings I had back in college. Among the Azande people of Central Africa, witchcraft is believed to be at the source of everything bad that ever happens. If a barn collapses and the physical cause of this is shown to be wood damage caused by termites, well, what caused the termites to invade that particular barn at that particular time in the first place? Witchcraft, of course.

People often start from preconceived beliefs and assumptions and then interpret new evidence in light of this. In the above example, termites can be discovered within the wood of the collapsed barn, we can observe how termites destroy wood, and we can even perform experiments whereby we place termites on wood in controlled environments and observe the damage they cause. Yet still this belief system would say "Yes, but this is only the physical cause. It may have been a witch whose evil magics caused the termites to come to my barn and destroy it". The same can be said of people who claim "Experimentally stimulating the brain and causing changes in consciousness does not prove that electrochemical activity in the brain is the ultimate source of mind. There may still be a spiritual cause of mind beyond the physical".

Science can only illuminate physical processes. It can tell us that the termites destroyed the barn and how they did so. It cannot confirm or deny personal or religious beliefs in the supernatural, which are more often than not untestable and unfalsifiable. It is not the responsibility of scientists to entertain such beliefs.

Edited by Cybele, 06 December 2012 - 06:54 PM.

[Cybele]

I believe you, on 06 December 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Back on topic of the article itself which is more interesting: If known matter is just 4%, and that is all hard science today understands, then science will eventually broaden it's expanse to investigate the other 96%. We are entering the age of post-materialism. Sheldrake understands this.

Or it just means the space-age is in its infancy and we need better technology and time to discover more about the universe. This observation has nothing to do with the validity of materialism or any other philosophy.

I do, however, think that the study of the material world has advanced human society and understanding, in a few hundred years, far more than religion ever did over thousands of years.

[Cybele]

Arbenol68, on 04 December 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

I've just started reading "The Science Delusion". No opinion on it, yet.

However, I will say I feel that Sheldrake appears to be bringing a few of his own biases into it.

Of course he is. Just look at excerpts from his Wikipedia page:

Sheldrake's work has little support in the mainstream scientific community. Members of the scientific community consider Sheldrake's claims to be currently unfalsifiable and therefore outside the scope of scientific experiment. The "morphic field" concept is believed by many to fall into the realm of pseudoscience.

Sheldrake's ideas have often met with a hostile reception from some scientists, including accusations that he is engaged in pseudoscience,^[8][30][31] and at least two respected scientists who have sought to discuss his work, thoroughgoing metaphysical naturalists Lewis Wolpert and Richard Dawkins, reportedly refused to even examine his evidence—a fact cited as illustrating the dogmatic nature of mainstream science alluded to in Sheldrake's book The Science Delusion.^[59]

http://en.wikipedia....upert_Sheldrake

Most people, including scientists, are biased in their beliefs. The scientific value of evidence, not the personal beliefs of its producers, should be what matters. If a hypothesis isn't falsifiable, as many spiritual and religious beliefs aren't, then it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Scientists have reasons for rejecting ideas like Sheldrakes' which have nothing to do with a lack of philosophical open-mindedness.