Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
White Crane Feather

Dogmatic Science

96 posts in this topic

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/dr-rupert-sheldrake/why-bad-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Hahaha it would seem to be the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.