95 replies to this topic

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 10 December 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

In all the material I have read even in speaking with him, he does not deni good science only questions it. Simply from historical presidenc we know that most likely what we think we know  will change... Possibly drastically.Then people like yourself get crazy about it throwing out insults. Hmmmmm.... If it looks like church, and ostracizes like a priest ....it probably is dogma.

Yet again the myriad of mud slinginging and ad hominims.

Pointing out that he champions his ideas like creaitonists or homeopaths isn't an ad hom, its an observation. If you don't want him lumped in "pseudoscientific cranks", then maybe you ought to tell him the next time your talking to him to stop behaving as such.

That said, I posted a significant amount of biology which refutes "morphogenic fields" guiding organ or body development. Why don't you be the bigger man and talk science with me? Would you like to debate the Evo/Devo I posted?

Edited by Copasetic, 11 December 2012 - 06:26 AM.

[Seeker79]

Copasetic, on 11 December 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

Pointing out that he champions his ideas like creaitonists or homeopaths isn't an ad hom, its an observation. If you don't want him lumped in "pseudoscientific cranks", then maybe you ought to tell him the next time your talking to him to stop behaving as such.

That said, I posted a significant amount of biology which refutes "morphogenic fields" guiding organ or body development. Why don't you be the bigger man and talk science with me? Would you like to debate the Evo/Devo I posted?

What is there to debate?.. I don't think there is much to debate about. I never said i agree with all of sheldrakes ideas, he even points out often he will be wrong. 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. The thread is labeled dogmatic science, and you have prooven my point........ "pseudoscientific cranks" ..... Good one.   Putting people into categories to discredit them is the very essence of ad hominim. You started off right with an actual argument against his, but then you degraded... to bad.

I will have a chance to meet with him again next year.

He has debated with plenty of skeptics and scientists far above your pay grade, I'm sure he would take your advice to stop what he is doing.

Edited by Seeker79, 11 December 2012 - 11:25 AM.

[Cybele]

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

What is there to debate?.. I don't think there is much to debate about.

How about you stop resorting to tactics you accuse others of and provide some concrete evidence for the claim you make below?

Seeker79, on 10 December 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

And still others have statistical significance, bias works both ways.

I'd love to see some of this work which tries to replicate his findings, but I hope you know that "statistical significance" does not make a study valid or necessarily imply that its findings are true.

[FurthurBB]

Seeker79, on 10 December 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

Nor is being overly sensitive.

What did he get wrong?

You realize that's an illogical reason not to read something.

And still others have statistical significance, bias works both ways.

What exactly is unfalsifiable? Most of his ideas are philosophical. Materialism/physicalism is a philosophy aswell.

Your attitude is precisely what his book is about. Writing off different ideas because it dosnt fit with your philosophy is the very underpinning of dogma.

I guess being overly sensitive would not be a good debate tactic, but has nothing to do with anything that has happened here.  Actually, no it is not an illogical reason to not read something.  It is quite practical seeing as that I only have so much time and after reading that blog I have absolutely no interest and many others things that I need to read.  Materialism could be easily falsified if you found something else.  How can we falsify something that has not even been observed?  It is the same as any spiritual argument just dressed up a little differently.  Also, you seem to be the one who is letting your dogma get in the way of your understanding.  I am not invested in this subject.  I had heard some interesting things about Dr. Sheldrake and was mildly interested until I read that blog.  I already told you it had nothing to do with any philosophy, but for some reason you must believe that it does or I would be fawning all over Dr. Sheldrake's ideas.  Pretty close minded if you ask me.

[FurthurBB]

Seeker79, on 10 December 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

In all the material I have read even in speaking with him, he does not deni good science only questions it. Simply from historical presidenc we know that most likely what we think we know  will change... Possibly drastically.Then people like yourself get crazy about it throwing out insults. Hmmmmm.... If it looks like church, and ostracizes like a priest ....it probably is dogma.

Yet again the myriad of mud slinginging and ad hominims.

Would you know a real attack if you saw it?  I am starting to wonder.  Though, the church/priest comment perfectly fits the way you are acting.

[FurthurBB]

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

What is there to debate?.. I don't think there is much to debate about. I never said i agree with all of sheldrakes ideas, he even points out often he will be wrong. 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. The thread is labeled dogmatic science, and you have prooven my point........ "pseudoscientific cranks" ..... Good one.   Putting people into categories to discredit them is the very essence of ad hominim. You started off right with an actual argument against his, but then you degraded... to bad.

I will have a chance to meet with him again next year.

He has debated with plenty of skeptics and scientists far above your pay grade, I'm sure he would take your advice to stop what he is doing.

Just in case you were wondering that lat sentence is an ad hominem attack.  So you can recognize one in the future.

[Seeker79]

Cybele, on 11 December 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

How about you stop resorting to tactics you accuse others of and provide some concrete evidence for the claim you make below?



I'd love to see some of this work which tries to replicate his findings, but I hope you know that "statistical significance" does not make a study valid or necessarily imply that its findings are true.

Well I'll look up some of the peer review then ( I assure you it exists you could do it yourself after all you have access to journals that I dont)..... I know his "looking not looking" experiments have been repeated many times. Also his dog experiments. I think Dawkins was even apart of that one. Mixed results nothing conclusive if I remember correctly. There is always a lot of criticism of positive result of course.

What tactics? I have claimed dogma in science, I think it's clear that it exists. We see it in peoples attitudes right here on um everyday. Scientists are human and despite some peoples attitude of elevating some of them to something like a priesthood, they are subject to group psychology and behaviour just like anyone else.

Results of nearly all experiments are expressed in significance with margins for error.

I used to tutor statistics a dozen years ago, so I am however very aware at the ability to manipulate numbers. Hence peer review.

[Copasetic]

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

What is there to debate?.. I don't think there is much to debate about. I never said i agree with all of sheldrakes ideas, he even points out often he will be wrong. 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. The thread is labeled dogmatic science, and you have prooven my point........ "pseudoscientific cranks" ..... Good one.   Putting people into categories to discredit them is the very essence of ad hominim. You started off right with an actual argument against his, but then you degraded... to bad.

I will have a chance to meet with him again next year.

He has debated with plenty of skeptics and scientists far above your pay grade, I'm sure he would take your advice to stop what he is doing.

I'll skip past all your shiny distractions and ask that you return to my query. Can you refute what I posted before from genetics and developmental biology? Or barring that can you provide some kind of evidential framework to support how morphic fields influence biological development. Or lets be specific and go with limb development, as I already provided a basis above. I'll await your reply.

[Seeker79]

FurthurBB, on 11 December 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Just in case you were wondering that lat sentence is an ad hominem attack.  So you can recognize one in the future.

Ok there
http://en.m.wikipedi...minem#section_1

[Seeker79]

Copasetic, on 11 December 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

I'll skip past all your shiny distractions and ask that you return to my query. Can you refute what I posted before from genetics and developmental biology? Or barring that can you provide some kind of evidential framework to support how morphic fields influence biological development. Or lets be specific and go with limb development, as I already provided a basis above. I'll await your reply.

Why would I try to refute something that that I don't necesserily disagree with in a discussion that's not even about morphogenic fields? Talk about shinny distractions copa, you may want to look at what the op was about.

By the way attempting to goat me into a debate about biology so that you can once again demonstrate your VAST knowledge from text books and show me how feeble my ability to make educated decisions on the subject fits the very spirit of why I started this subject in the first place.

So once again. I don't consider morphic fields true, I don't dispute your arguments against it, I'm not in a position to refute or deni either. I have his book on morphic fields in the garage, when I get to it I might study up to check it against other biology, but at the moment it dosnt interest me that's why I havnt read it.

This is not why I started this thread, but you have demonstrated beautifully the title.

Just because I do not accept some of a person ideas or I can see something glaringly wrong with their logic or methodology dosnt mean that all of their work is bad. Many famous scientists are like this. They even disagree with each other. Even reading "science set free" ( "the science delusion" in the UK) I can see points that I do not agree with. That dosnt send me into a rant about psudoscience and quackery. There is good and bad. Points should be argued on their own merits. This is what logical discourse is about.

This the reason I asked "what is wrong with his work."  the person I was writing it to diddnt have a clue until your gallant rescue.

The point was to show their bias not to start a technical debate.

Edited by Seeker79, 11 December 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 11 December 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Why would I try to refute something that that I don't necesserily disagree with in a discussion that's not even about morphogenic fields? Talk about shinny distractions copa, you may want to look at what the op was about.

By the way attempting to goat me into a debate about biology so that you can once again demonstrate your VAST knowledge from text books and show me how feeble my ability to make educated decisions on the subject fits the very spirit of why I started this subject in the first place.

So once again. I don't consider morphic fields true, I don't dispute your arguments against it, I'm not in a position to refute or deni either. I have his book on morphic fields in the garage, when I get to it I might study up to check it against other biology, but at the moment it dosnt interest me that's why I havnt read it.

This is not why I started this thread, but you have demonstrated beautifully the title.

Just because I do not accept some of a person ideas or I can see something glaringly wrong with their logic or methodology dosnt mean that all of their work is bad. Many famous scientists are like this. They even disagree with each other. Even reading "science set free" ( "the science delusion" in the UK) I can see points that I do not agree with. That dosnt send me into a rant about psudoscience and quackery. There is good and bad. Points should be argued on their own merits. This is what logical discourse is about.

This the reason I asked "what is wrong with his work."  the person I was writing it to diddnt have a clue until your gallant rescue.

The point was to show their bias not to start a technical debate.

So you ask what is wrong with his work then, when a piece is brought up for discussion you shrink from it claiming: disinterest, its wrong, you're not educated enough about it. That about cover it?

Further; mentioning that some of his ideas are pseudoscientific gets you all QQing that someone is making an ad hom. Again it isn't an ad hom to point out psedoscience is......psedoscience (I'm a link here for your edification).

I wasn't using the term "crank" as an insult. I was using it as a description of his behavior and actions. The rather famous usenet crank criteria:

• Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
  
• Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
  
• Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
  
• Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Lastly you seem quick to accuse others of ad homs, errors and fallacy, yet you seem incapable (strangely from someone who seems to hold their powers of introspection in grandiose esteem) of turning that gaze upon your own posts--Which are wrought with them, right down to the grammar even: let alone the actual sustenance of said posts. Why don't you slow your roll for a moment and read your posts on the last 2 pages.

Edit: BTW, I wasn't trying to goat you into debate. Bahhhhh. Now come on that is some funny ****.

Edited by Copasetic, 11 December 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Seeker79]

Copasetic, on 11 December 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

So you ask what is wrong with his work then, when a piece is brought up for discussion you shrink from it claiming: disinterest, its wrong, you're not educated enough about it. That about cover it?

Further; mentioning that some of his ideas are pseudoscientific gets you all QQing that someone is making an ad hom. Again it isn't an ad hom to point out psedoscience is......psedoscience (I'm a link here for your edification).

I wasn't using the term "crank" as an insult. I was using it as a description of his behavior and actions. The rather famous usenet crank criteria:

• Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
  
• Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
  
• Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
  
• Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Lastly you seem quick to accuse others of ad homs, errors and fallacy, yet you seem incapable (strangely from someone who seems to hold their powers of introspection in grandiose esteem) of turning that gaze upon your own posts--Which are wrought with them, right down to the grammar even: let alone the actual sustenance of said posts. Why don't you slow your roll for a moment and read your posts on the last 2 pages.

Edit: BTW, I wasn't trying to goat you into debate. Bahhhhh. Now come on that is some funny ****.

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

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

You have missed to point of the entire thread in pure arrogance. Have you read his book on morphic fields? or did you just look up the rubuttles that fit your standard view?

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.

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.

Edited by Seeker79, 11 December 2012 - 08:42 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Copasetic, on 11 December 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

Edit: BTW, I wasn't trying to goat you into debate. Bahhhhh. Now come on that is some funny ****.

It's goad, not goat lol

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....

Don't you mean grammar ? If you say grammer, the only thing I can think of is an actor called Kelsey Grammer lol

I am just kidding with you both .

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 11 December 2012 - 08:56 PM.

[Seeker79]

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

It's goad, not goat lol




Don't you mean grammar ? If you say grammer, the only thing I can think of is an actor called Kelsey Grammer lol

You both are fun at times..

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

[Beckys_Mom]

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

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