95 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

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

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

[Rlyeh]

Another disgruntled scientist who isn't happy where evidence is taking science.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 04 December 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

Another disgruntled scientist who isn't happy where evidence is taking science.

Hahaha it would seem to be the other way around.

[Leave Britney alone!]

Quote

Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system.

This was a quote from the article. So true, so true.

This is against scientism and for science.

Edited by I believe you, 04 December 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Seeker79]

I believe you, on 04 December 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

This was a quote from the article. So true, so true.

This is against scientism and for science.

Dr. Sheldrake has a true passion for science.

Edited by Seeker79, 04 December 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[Arbenol68]

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

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. For example the idea that science has lost it's sense of wonder because it feels it knows everything is, I believe, completely wrong. The was also the weakest argument in James Le Fanu's book "Why Us" which tried to claim something similar.

I think what they sometimes miss is that science has to be dogmatic to a point. It has rules, and materialism is one of them. If it didn't, it would devalue the impact of other scientific findings. Any badly researched pseudo science could claim validity without the standards by which to judge. He argues that this dogma represses the imagination and retards genuine progress. To an extent, I'd agree. But for every genius that thought outside the box and turned out to be right (like Alfred Wegener), there are hundreds of lunatics who's mad ideas were quietly dispatched. Without certain rules, all hypotheses could be sen as equally valid. We need some way of sorting the good from the crap.

However, I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book and seeing what evidence he can bring to it.

[Darkwind]

Well said A..68. Science has a criteria it must follow otherwise you might as will throw it out the window and go back to mice generating from straw. You can call it dogma, but I call it scientific method.  I have a lot of strange ideas, but I'm not going to put  them my science file, until they can be scrutinized with scientific method.

Edited by Darkwind, 04 December 2012 - 08:15 PM.

[Leave Britney alone!]

I think some are confusing the original premise. It is not the scientifc method being compared to dogma. It is materialism that is being compared to dogma.

Edited by I believe you, 04 December 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Arbenol68]

I believe you, on 04 December 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

I think some are confusing the original premise. It is not the scientifc method being compared to dogma. It is materialism that is being compared to dogma.

I don't think there's any confusion. Materialism is the keystone of the scientific method.

[Leave Britney alone!]

Arbenol68, on 04 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

I don't think there's any confusion. Materialism is the keystone of the scientific method.

There is further confusion because materialism is not the keystone of the scientific method, observation is aka empiricism. Both are limited in scope and it serves science well because it only accepts certain information that is observable and repeatable.

Everything that is not observable or repeatable then falls outside the purview of science, it doesn't fall outside of existence.

This is the probem with materialist, and as their name connotates they base their view on materialism, the belief that only what is made up of matter is real. So everything else is said to be "fake" just because it falls outside the narrow, strict range that makes science itself a success. Note materialism is not science and materialist are not scientist per se.

Science is just a method. Materialism is a view that degrades other views that do not fall in line, other ways of looking at the world, that are just as valid and in any case must coexist with science, to believe for example one should be able to go in and change laws and force others to stop this practice or adopt this belief in the name of science is not science, that is a materialist dream.

Now I am not taking the side of Discovery Institute so don't get me wrong. I recognize science has a fracture. When neuroscience begins to show connections that fall outside the range of reductive materialism, then it is clear that the materialist view which has dominated science is not always going to reign. It must be altered slightly to adjust for a new world and change is the only constant.

Noam Chomsky made the point that matter itself might one day be defined differently so science cannot be based on materialism forever.

summary: science will catch up and be able to explain everything one day, right now it can only explain certain things, what it cannot explain falls outside of science not reality

Edited by I believe you, 04 December 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[Seeker79]

Arbenol68, on 04 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

I don't think there's any confusion. Materialism is the keystone of the scientific method.

Oh no it's not!  Materialism is a philosophy. The scientific method is wonderful method of inquiry.

Wow! I did not expect that comeing from you.

Edited by Seeker79, 04 December 2012 - 09:50 PM.

[Arbenol68]

Seeker79, on 04 December 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Oh no it's not!  Materialism is a philosophy. The scientific method is wonderful method of inquiry.

Oh yes it is!!! (sorry, couldn't resist that)

What I mean is that materialism is a philosophy that underpins science. Anything that falls outside of this is generally discarded from scientific enquiry - unless it's effects can be expected to be observable and measurable.

[Seeker79]

Arbenol68, on 04 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Oh yes it is!!! (sorry, couldn't resist that)

What I mean is that materialism is a philosophy that underpins science. Anything that falls outside of this is generally discarded from scientific enquiry - unless it's effects can be expected to be observable and measurable.

Hence dr. Sheldrakes work. Not that I'm not skeptical sometimes.... But there is this element of ridicule. Somone who is interested in science should not tolerate the burying of minds. In the margins all things should be considered equal.

Oh.. I knew you would like that... Oh no it's  not!!!

By the way im so glad there is someone that will actually read.

Edited by Seeker79, 04 December 2012 - 10:28 PM.

[Arbenol68]

Seeker79, on 04 December 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

By the way im so glad there is someone that will actually read.

I'll let you know what I think when I've finished it.

[AquilaChrysaetos]

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.