Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

[merged] Militant atheism under fire +


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#31    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:14 PM

View PostCopasetic, on 10 May 2013 - 12:07 AM, said:

No one is stopping you, Sheldrake or others. You're free to do, investigate or publish as you wish. TED is a private organization: who they allow to speak or not to speak is up to them. If they decide they want to use only speakers which will discuss things based on research that meets criteria they set forth, then that is their prerogative.

Don't like it?

Don't listen to TED.

Want to be a presenter at TED?

Then present by TED's rules.

Its really that simple. I'm not sure why you're having a difficult time understanding this.

Exactly.  I wonder if there would likewise be protestations if someone was not allowed to present at a church, or was allowed to present at a church who would normally put the video of such talks on the web but they then take it down because what the speaker discussed is not congruent with what that church teaches.  For some reason, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that or cry 'censorship' against that church, so I don't know what the diff is when we then talk about TED.  TED being a private institution, and not a government one, deflates all on it's own the 'censorship' charge.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#32    darkmoonlady

darkmoonlady

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Medford Oregon

  • Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'-Shawshank Redemption/Life is a buffet and most poor suckers are starving to death-Auntie Mame

Posted 10 May 2013 - 06:13 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 09 May 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Autism is an epidemic, encouraging people to not look for causes is irresponsible.



Enough said?




Because its impossible right?



Hhmmmmmmm




But of course.  ;)
Autism is not an epidemic, the ability to determine what is in fact autism from other things has gotten better. In the past any developmental issue was slapped the the "r" word and that was it. Because of a greater understanding of the brain and of the technology to see how brains work we now know there are a wider array of different forms of autism that we cannot just push under a single heading of "slow" as in the past. That differential accounts for the supposed increase in numbers.

“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance …or change... logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the worlds vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious maniac, it’s ALL on purpose” – Stephen King, The Stand

#33    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

View PostCopasetic, on 10 May 2013 - 12:07 AM, said:



No one is stopping you, Sheldrake or others. You're free to do, investigate or publish as you wish. TED is a private organization: who they allow to speak or not to speak is up to them. If they decide they want to use only speakers which will discuss things based on research that meets criteria they set forth, then that is their prerogative.

Don't like it?

Don't listen to TED.

Want to be a presenter at TED?

Then present by TED's rules.

Its really that simple. I'm not sure why you're having a difficult time understanding this.
I'm not haveing a difficult time understanding anything, I already mentioned that they are a private organization and can do as they please, I'm simply pointing out their nature and enjoying the lively discussion here and other places about it. That's it. I enjoy debating on forums otherwise I wouldn't do it ;).

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#34    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:54 PM

View Postdarkmoonlady, on 10 May 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:


Autism is not an epidemic, the ability to determine what is in fact autism from other things has gotten better. In the past any developmental issue was slapped the the "r" word and that was it. Because of a greater understanding of the brain and of the technology to see how brains work we now know there are a wider array of different forms of autism that we cannot just push under a single heading of "slow" as in the past. That differential accounts for the supposed increase in numbers.
Possibly, but I have bee working with children for pretty much all of my life, and just yesterday I had three spectrum kids in one of my classes. I have seen a huge increase in the number of kids with spectrum issues, allergies, and coordination problems, but that's just my observation. I'm not the only one has noticed this. I could accept these increases to better diagnosis ( or even over diagnoses), but It does seem to be an ever growing problem.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#35    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:00 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 May 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:



Exactly.  I wonder if there would likewise be protestations if someone was not allowed to present at a church, or was allowed to present at a church who would normally put the video of such talks on the web but they then take it down because what the speaker discussed is not congruent with what that church teaches.  For some reason, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that or cry 'censorship' against that church, so I don't know what the diff is when we then talk about TED.  TED being a private institution, and not a government one, deflates all on it's own the 'censorship' charge.
No argument here. censorship is censorship wether despite being a private organization. It just demonstrates the intolerance and closed mind that exists in certain scientific communities.

By the way sheldrake receivd a standing ovation for giving the very same talk in front of a skeptics society audience.

The talk/lecture is on the problems in science and not a particular scientific subject. It's about the 10 dogmas or assumption that are made by scientists.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#36    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 24,798 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "If one is to be thought acceptable and agreeable in society, one must submit to being taught the same lessons over and over again." --Hammer

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:09 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 10 May 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

Possibly, but I have bee working with children for pretty much all of my life, and just yesterday I had three spectrum kids in one of my classes. I have seen a huge increase in the number of kids with spectrum issues, allergies, and coordination problems, but that's just my observation. I'm not the only one has noticed this. I could accept these increases to better diagnosis ( or even over diagnoses), but It does seem to be an ever growing problem.

IMO an excellent resource to site or consult  for Autism for parents and professional's or you(as opposed to personal opinions and observations) is the DSM-IV, soon to be updated to the DSM-V  which has been changed in the area of Autism.


http://www.dsm5.org/...ders - DSM5.pdf


#37    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,254 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:57 AM

What Sheldrake proposes would be a major paradigm shift for science. These never occur smoothly or painlessly (see the history of Plate Tectonic theory). But they can never occur without good evidence. As I see it, Sheldrake has lots of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence - but that's about it. In his book "The Science Delusion" he ends every chapter with suggestions for what further research could be done.

If I met him, I would ask him one question: Why don't you take your own advice?

He seems to spend all his time on the lecture circuit and promoting his books. He calls himself a scientist - well, do some science then. Conduct the research he suggests in his own book, get it peer reviewed and published. Or, does he prefer the tactic of pursuing a paradigm change by public relations and propaganda than by evidence?


#38    sutemi

sutemi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rugby UK

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:31 AM

For me what Seeker’s post refers to, is that TED filmed these talks first and then under pressure from a few people with drew them which is a kind of forced ‘suppression’ of new ideas which is a shame but sadly almost always happens. I can understand in part, the negativity towards the often entertaining journalist Graham Hancock but Prof Sheldrake is not a journalist he is a Biologist of some standing. Let’s not forget he is a real scientist – [M.A. (natural sciences), Clare College, Cambridge -Frank Knox fellow (philosophy and history of science), Harvard University - Ph.D. (biochemistry), University of Cambridge.
He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology. As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.
While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots. He then worked on the physiology of tropical crops in Hyderabad, India, as Principal Plant Physiologist at ICRISAT, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics from 1975 to 1985. As Principal Plant Physiologist at ICRISAT in Hyderabad, India, Sheldrake worked on the legume crops Chickpea and Pigeonpea, on which he published 17 papers as well as a monograph on the Anatomy of the Pigeonpea.
He helped develop new cropping systems, some of which have been widely adopted in both India and China.]
All new theories take time to break through old idea. Should we censor Isaac Newton’s works because he was into also into Alchemy and Magic?  No, it was his wanting to understand everything that brought Newton to his theories. Prof Sheldrake’s has potential, his work on dogs knowing when their owners come home is a phenomena that most dog owners agree with ask any of your friends who have dogs, I have and 100% said their dog/s had this ability, one is an ex-army dog trainer now working with dogs for Epileptics, the Blind, Search and rescue, the Police and the Army, another friend breeds show dogs, they all agree. Also some other ‘brave’ scientists agree with Sheldrake's ideas, such as David Bohm and the idea that ’fields may influence cells’ has received cautious support from biologists Janis Roze and Sue Ann Miller. Anyway like any good scientist Prof Sheldrake is still collecting data so time will tell, I am reminded of the great Prof R Feynman who when lecturing first used  ‘Feynman Diagrams’, it was not well received, Neils Bohr actually walking out of one of his presentations when  he used  his diagrams. Prof Peter Higgs has had to wait 50 yrs and many Billions $ to build the LHC to help have his theory accepted so we shouldn’t judge Prof Sheldrake’s work too soon.
I wish him and all other scientists working at the ‘edge’ of science well, we need them to be able to move forward in science.

Edited by sutemi, 11 May 2013 - 07:36 AM.


#39    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:14 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 11 May 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

What Sheldrake proposes would be a major paradigm shift for science. These never occur smoothly or painlessly (see the history of Plate Tectonic theory). But they can never occur without good evidence. As I see it, Sheldrake has lots of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence - but that's about it. In his book "The Science Delusion" he ends every chapter with suggestions for what further research could be done.

If I met him, I would ask him one question: Why don't you take your own advice?

He seems to spend all his time on the lecture circuit and promoting his books. He calls himself a scientist - well, do some science then. Conduct the research he suggests in his own book, get it peer reviewed and published. Or, does he prefer the tactic of pursuing a paradigm change by public relations and propaganda than by evidence?
Despite his books, You mean like his papers in:
The journal for scientific exploration  and The Journal Of conciousness study's.

All notable scientists write books about their work and give talks, everyone from hawking, green, susskind. Infact if they are not writting and apearing in public , you probably would never hear about them.


"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#40    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:21 AM

View Postsutemi, on 11 May 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

For me what Seeker’s post refers to, is that TED filmed these talks first and then under pressure from a few people with drew them which is a kind of forced ‘suppression’ of new ideas which is a shame but sadly almost always happens. I can understand in part, the negativity towards the often entertaining journalist Graham Hancock but Prof Sheldrake is not a journalist he is a Biologist of some standing. Let’s not forget he is a real scientist – [M.A. (natural sciences), Clare College, Cambridge -Frank Knox fellow (philosophy and history of science), Harvard University - Ph.D. (biochemistry), University of Cambridge.
He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology. As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.
While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots. He then worked on the physiology of tropical crops in Hyderabad, India, as Principal Plant Physiologist at ICRISAT, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics from 1975 to 1985. As Principal Plant Physiologist at ICRISAT in Hyderabad, India, Sheldrake worked on the legume crops Chickpea and Pigeonpea, on which he published 17 papers as well as a monograph on the Anatomy of the Pigeonpea.
He helped develop new cropping systems, some of which have been widely adopted in both India and China.]
All new theories take time to break through old idea. Should we censor Isaac Newton’s works because he was into also into Alchemy and Magic?  No, it was his wanting to understand everything that brought Newton to his theories. Prof Sheldrake’s has potential, his work on dogs knowing when their owners come home is a phenomena that most dog owners agree with ask any of your friends who have dogs, I have and 100% said their dog/s had this ability, one is an ex-army dog trainer now working with dogs for Epileptics, the Blind, Search and rescue, the Police and the Army, another friend breeds show dogs, they all agree. Also some other ‘brave’ scientists agree with Sheldrake's ideas, such as David Bohm and the idea that ’fields may influence cells’ has received cautious support from biologists Janis Roze and Sue Ann Miller. Anyway like any good scientist Prof Sheldrake is still collecting data so time will tell, I am reminded of the great Prof R Feynman who when lecturing first used  ‘Feynman Diagrams’, it was not well received, Neils Bohr actually walking out of one of his presentations when  he used  his diagrams. Prof Peter Higgs has had to wait 50 yrs and many Billions $ to build the LHC to help have his theory accepted so we shouldn’t judge Prof Sheldrake’s work too soon.
I wish him and all other scientists working at the ‘edge’ of science well, we need them to be able to move forward in science.
Indeed. Sheldrake quit obviously has had a successful scientific career. The smear campaign mounted against him is grievous.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#41    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,254 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:33 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 11 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Despite his books, You mean like his papers in:
The journal for scientific exploration  and The Journal Of conciousness study's.

All notable scientists write books about their work and give talks, everyone from hawking, green, susskind. Infact if they are not writting and apearing in public , you probably would never hear about them.

Absolutely. And I wouldn't begrudge him the right to do this. But the issue, as I see it, is that he is the one that is not happy with the status quo. He wants science to change the way it views new ideas - and he's got a few of those. So, his tactic is to speak publicly and write books. That's all well and good, and probably quite effective. But it smacks of 'style over substance'.

What I like about Sheldrake's writing is that he does not just pull new theories out of his backside and expect everyone to embrace them on the flimsiest of evidence (like AA 'theorists'). He proposes real work that can be done to test them. Although he rails against materialism, much of what he writes about (eg, morphic resonance) will have measurable effects in the material world. He writes anecdotes about Indian gurus who can survive without food, and how learning skills become easier through the effects of theses fields. Then he recommends further research to be done whilst going on tour to tell people about this. Maybe he should just get on with the work himself. If morphic fields are real, then they should be measurable and evident to all observers.

It's hardly surprising that the scientific world has a certain intolerance for his anecdotes and lack of hard evidence. He could do something about it - or he could just carry on doing what he is doing now.


#42    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 7,636 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:24 AM

Seeker

I have a bone to pick with you. Last month, you had another thread about this very controversy, right here on UM's S&S subforum:

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=246026

In that thread, not only was it clear from the outset that the supposedly "censored" videos were being distributed on the TED blog, but those same videos were available right here at UM, through links in your OP.

I don't think that deep-sixing that previous thread was entirely above board. All of us who contributed to that earlier thread have seen our contributions shuffled back a few pages in the lsitings. If moving something from one part of a site to another is "censorship," then tell you what, Seeker. I feel censored. By you.

The way I see it is this. You didn't like what some others and I had to say, so you buried our posts, waited a decent interval, and then resumed your thread as if we had never contributed. I wouldn't call that censorhip, exactly, but I wouldn't call it open and honest, either.

Posted Image

#43    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,388 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:57 PM

I see little difference between militant atheism and militant theism.  They're both equally obnoxious.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#44    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:04 PM

View Posteight bits, on 11 May 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Seeker

I have a bone to pick with you. Last month, you had another thread about this very controversy, right here on UM's S&S subforum:

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=246026

In that thread, not only was it clear from the outset that the supposedly "censored" videos were being distributed on the TED blog, but those same videos were available right here at UM, through links in your OP.

I don't think that deep-sixing that previous thread was entirely above board. All of us who contributed to that earlier thread have seen our contributions shuffled back a few pages in the lsitings. If moving something from one part of a site to another is "censorship," then tell you what, Seeker. I feel censored. By you.

The way I see it is this. You didn't like what some others and I had to say, so you buried our posts, waited a decent interval, and then resumed your thread as if we had never contributed. I wouldn't call that censorhip, exactly, but I wouldn't call it open and honest, either.
I apologize eight bits. I assure you my lack of participation after that earlier thread has nothing to do with what was being said, and more simply a lak of attention on my part. Like 10,000 other things in my life if it's not right in front of my face it's history. In complete sincirety I probably just got off onto something else. If something looses my attention for whatever reason it just goes. I get updates from sheldrake, so when this popped up again I thought it might make for some good discussion. I'll petition a mod to merge the threads. My apologies.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#45    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:39 PM

View PostArbenol68, on 11 May 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:



Absolutely. And I wouldn't begrudge him the right to do this. But the issue, as I see it, is that he is the one that is not happy with the status quo. He wants science to change the way it views new ideas - and he's got a few of those. So, his tactic is to speak publicly and write books. That's all well and good, and probably quite effective. But it smacks of 'style over substance'.

What I like about Sheldrake's writing is that he does not just pull new theories out of his backside and expect everyone to embrace them on the flimsiest of evidence (like AA 'theorists'). He proposes real work that can be done to test them. Although he rails against materialism, much of what he writes about (eg, morphic resonance) will have measurable effects in the material world. He writes anecdotes about Indian gurus who can survive without food, and how learning skillsbecome easier through the effects of theses fields. Then he recommends further research to be done whilst going on tour to tell people about this. Maybe he should just get on with the work himself. If morphic fields are real, then they should be measurable and evident to all observers.

It's hardly surprising that the scientific world has a certain intolerance for his anecdotes and lack of hard evidence. He could do something about it - or he could just carry on doing what he is doing now.
In all honesty, eventhough I really like the guy, I have felt a little bit the same way. I enjoy his ideas on morphic fields and such ( ironically my iPhone keeps trying to change it to moronic fields), but I dont really believe them yet. Some of his science work is tantalizing, but I'm more interested in his efforts and run ins with the established guru ship and dogmas. I think he is much more effective in this arena. His publishers have set him up as the other voice counter to Dawkins and it exposes him and other militant atheists true bias and faith in their particular philosophy as well as the surpression of open discourse that challenges their particular assumptions. Sheldrake will be the first to tell you that he is still attempting to gather data. He has some great experiments in the works, but his greatest achievement is his successful challenge and social experiment revolving around the unscientific and vocal militant materialists.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users