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

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. :rolleyes:

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :rolleyes:

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#section_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

  1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
  2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
  3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
  4. 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. :w00t: Now come on that is some funny ****.

Edited by Copasetic
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

  1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
  2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
  3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
  4. 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. :w00t: 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: BTW, I wasn't trying to goat you into debate. Bahhhhh. :w00t: Now come on that is some funny ****.

It's goad, not goat lol

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 . :P

Edited by Beckys_Mom
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.. :P

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Oh, I know. I am male after all. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I know. I am male after all. :(

I'll take your word for it, I wont ask you to prove it lol :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take your word for it, I wont ask you to prove it lol :D

Oh.... I can... If you really want me to ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Yep, I guess that "grammer" says it all....

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

No I called him a crank--as described by his actions and behaviors regarding any criticism of his "ideas". See above where I posted the description of a crank. Are you going to argue he doesn't ignore legitimate criticisms of his "work"? If show please provide evidence for your claim. Are you going to argue he doesn't grossly overestimate his understanding of biology? Again please provide evidence to support this if you believe it to be true.

You have missed to point of the entire thread in pure arrogance.

I didn't miss the point of your thread. You want to QQ with Sheldrake about the "big bad evil establishment of science" and how it doesn't take kindly to some individuals. I get it. Its not PC, its not fair and gosh darn there are some ideas you agree with that real scientists dismiss! Oh noes!

Unfortunately science is cutthroat method. Ideas that don't or can't support themselves don't last long. Ideas that have no evidence, ideas that cannot be falsified, ideas that fly contrary to theory supported by evidence get tossed, none to kindly, to the trash heap of history. This is what makes science go forward (contrary to the general atmosphere here that it remains static). Don't like it? Maybe science isn't for you then.

Have you read his book on morphic fields? or did you just look up the rubuttles that fit your standard view?

Yes, I have. That rebuttal was written to a creationist/ID writer who used to write articles here. Had you clicked the link and read the thread you would have seen that. Some of Sheldrake's ideas are popular with the IDists/creationists (evidence A: the original article my reply was too) because they too are cranks who, for ideological reasons wish reject modern science. Probably a good rule of thumb---When the creationists like your stuff, you better look again at the kind of "science" you are doing.

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.

Well, we'll just sit around with our *******s pinched in angst in the mean time.....

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.

I never said he wasn't intelligent, or funny, or anything else other than a crank (again see description above). I'm sure he is a great guy. I've met some great guys who were creationists too--Doesn't mean they can tell their science from a donkey.

It's goad, not goat lol

I am just kidding with you both . :P

I know, I meant to put "goat" in quotes. It was a poke at the usage of "goat" there, hence the bahhhhhh :P I mean "goating" someone to debate--If that doesn't need a comedic pointing out, I don't know what does :w00t:

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Yep, its just all posturing. Sounds like its time for a good ol-fashion e-peen contest. How much do you bench? How fast do you drive your car? How many women have you slept with?!? Want to arm wrestle? Spitting contest? Want to count chest hairs? :-*:sm;)

Edited by Copasetic
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I meant to put "goat" in quotes. It was a poke at the usage of "goat" there, hence the bahhhhhh :P I mean "goating" someone to debate--If that doesn't need a comedic pointing out, I don't know what does :w00t:

Of course you did, I believe you.....................thousands wouldn't lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I disagree that just because there are arrogant scientists that it is 'institutionalized'; scientists actually are the ones who usually berate other scientists specifically because some get too arrogant and do not properly couch the tentativeness of their conclusions (remember 'cold fusion'?).

I don't see much supporting the dogma claim either, the notion that you can never be absolutely certain of scientific conclusions is pretty much built into the process and the philosophy of science. Nor do I see an issue with methodological naturalism/materialism in the scientific method. Not only has this approach provided undeniable and tangible results, but the long scientific investigation into 'supernatural' claims has not really come up with anything persuasive. I agree that there are some things like gods that are going to be pretty much impenetrable to scientific inquiry, they are superpowered and can presumably conceal any direct evidence of their existence if they like. But I don't see why ghosts for instance can't be studied scientifically, they are not typically envisioned as being all-powerful entities. They have been studied actually, and those studies have come up with nothing convincing. Doesn't mean they don't exist, but I think it's fair to note that the results of those studies are perfectly consistent with the possibility that ghosts do not exist at all, even though that's not a 'scientific conclusion'.

If Sheldrake or anyone wants to complain that science is somehow limited by restricting itself to 'materialism', there is nothing preventing him or anyone from expanding their approach outside of just materialism and showing how it is an improvement over the current scientific methodology. His whining about 'dogma' just seems like a cop-out to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I guess that "grammer" says it all....

No I called him a crank--as described by his actions and behaviors regarding any criticism of his "ideas". See above where I posted the description of a crank. Are you going to argue he doesn't ignore legitimate criticisms of his "work"? If show please provide evidence for your claim. Are you going to argue he doesn't grossly overestimate his understanding of biology? Again please provide evidence to support this if you believe it to be true.

I didn't miss the point of your thread. You want to QQ with Sheldrake about the "big bad evil establishment of science" and how it doesn't take kindly to some individuals. I get it. Its not PC, its not fair and gosh darn there are some ideas you agree with that real scientists dismiss! Oh noes!

Unfortunately science is cutthroat method. Ideas that don't or can't support themselves don't last long. Ideas that have no evidence, ideas that cannot be falsified, ideas that fly contrary to theory supported by evidence get tossed, none to kindly, to the trash heap of history. This is what makes science go forward (contrary to the general atmosphere here that it remains static). Don't like it? Maybe science isn't for you then.

Yes, I have. That rebuttal was written to a creationist/ID writer who used to write articles here. Had you clicked the link and read the thread you would have seen that. Some of Sheldrake's ideas are popular with the IDists/creationists (evidence A: the original article my reply was too) because they too are cranks who, for ideological reasons wish reject modern science. Probably a good rule of thumb---When the creationists like your stuff, you better look again at the kind of "science" you are doing.

Well, we'll just sit around with our *******s pinched in angst in the mean time.....

I never said he wasn't intelligent, or funny, or anything else other than a crank (again see description above). I'm sure he is a great guy. I've met some great guys who were creationists too--Doesn't mean they can tell their science from a donkey.

I know, I meant to put "goat" in quotes. It was a poke at the usage of "goat" there, hence the bahhhhhh :P I mean "goating" someone to debate--If that doesn't need a comedic pointing out, I don't know what does :w00t:

He has phd in biochemistry, I'm sure Cambridge just hands those out. :D

Please... Scientists are subject to to the same things that all humans are. They are not saints in lab coats. Politics, dogmas, and group dynamics emerge in scientific institutions just like anywhere else. It dosnt mean they are big and bad, but they are not immune either.

What's on Page 158 line 25?

"When the creationists like your stuff, you better look again at the kind of "science" you are doing."

:D :D :D This is completely rediculouse, and unscientific. Again you are only proving the point.

You spit out labels all you want... Non of it is logical.

Cutthroat!?!? You are kidding? This implys severe competition. This does not bring about truth only those who are more successful at arguing. Truth and politics don't mix well. Science is not supposed to be "cutthroat" it is supposed to be thorough.

I realize that you want to argue about biology to find away to discredit one set of ideas by pointing out flaws in another, but this is just silly. Sheldrake's recognition of the developed dogma and philisophical assumptions that drive them has nothing to do with whatever his technical expertise are.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sheldrake or anyone wants to complain that science is somehow limited by restricting itself to 'materialism', there is nothing preventing him or anyone from expanding their approach outside of just materialism and showing how it is an improvement over the current scientific methodology. His whining about 'dogma' just seems like a cop-out to me.

That's exactly what he is doing. However, research requires money and people. If a grad student knows he will be ridiculed or will not have a job by perusing a certain line of inquiry, why would he/she choose to Persue it.

Case in point.

The man that first purposed/worked on 10 dimensions & 1 time dimension in string theory was practically ostrisized for stepping away from the standard thinking at the time. He could not get grade students to help him and was ridiculed. He was evenchually vindicated.

Also imagine if people in the science community have the attitude of our friend copasetic. Constantly picking out flaws of others and applying to to their credibility, then openly ridiculing them and putting them into undesirable category's. --"crank"--- "pseudo scientist"--- even using things that are the equivalent to laughing in someone's face "bah hahahahaha"

This is the very essence of clickish behavior, that has and will hold future scientific innovations back, new ideas from emerging, and funding from being allocated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please... Scientists are subject to to the same things that all humans are. They are not saints in lab coats. Politics, dogmas, and group dynamics emerge in scientific institutions just like anywhere else. It dosnt mean they are big and bad, but they are not immune either.

Yes exactly Seeker dude, exactly. That also means they are subject to pseudoscience, bias etc. Including Sheldrake! One of those awkward moments when you've realized how silly you've been. o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what he is doing. However, research requires money and people. If a grad student knows he will be ridiculed or will not have a job by perusing a certain line of inquiry, why would he/she choose to Persue it.

Case in point.

The man that first purposed/worked on 10 dimensions & 1 time dimension in string theory was practically ostrisized for stepping away from the standard thinking at the time. He could not get grade students to help him and was ridiculed. He was evenchually vindicated.

Also imagine if people in the science community have the attitude of our friend copasetic. Constantly picking out flaws of others and applying to to their credibility, then openly ridiculing them and putting them into undesirable category's. --"crank"--- "pseudo scientist"--- even using things that are the equivalent to laughing in someone's face "bah hahahahaha"

This is the very essence of clickish behavior, that has and will hold future scientific innovations back, new ideas from emerging, and funding from being allocated.

Serious question time. What graduate degrees do you have? Have you ever done graduate research? These type of claims seem to get thrown out a lot, but from someone who's been in and around academia a long time--I see little of it. Whereas someone like you, with little contact with academia (or so we'll assume), describes it as if its an everyday thing....

And no you got that last part wrong. the "bahhhhh" wasn't laughing, it was the sound of the goat--You know that goat I made to debate you, remember that time? That time I goated you!?!?!

Yes, yes I know those big bad scientists call pseudoscience....pseudoscience. How terrible of them. Dirty name callers. Get yer pitchforks, well show them /shakesfist!!!

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what he is doing. However, research requires money and people. If a grad student knows he will be ridiculed or will not have a job by perusing a certain line of inquiry, why would he/she choose to Persue it.

I want to point something else out. You say that as if its an incredibly hard thing to do. Again, your naivety about academia is hanging out in the open (maybe you like to leave those parts hang out to, just like the other ones you wanted to show BM--BTW do you have your chest hair count in yet?)

If you have some sound (or even sometimes not so sound) science to do, hypotheses, experiments, etc its easy as warm apple pie to get grants. No seriously, have you any idea how easy it is to get grants for studies (insert ridiculous research here <--I'm a link in case your not savvy enough to notice)?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes exactly Seeker dude, exactly. That also means they are subject to pseudoscience, bias etc. Including Sheldrake! One of those awkward moments when you've realized how silly you've been. o.O

Sure sheldrake is not immune either, as I think I have mentioned it is him raising the question. Regardless of his science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure sheldrake is not immune either, as I think I have mentioned it is him raising the question. Regardless of his science.

What about you, are you immune?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question time. What graduate degrees do you have? Have you ever done graduate research? These type of claims seem to get thrown out a lot, but from someone who's been in and around academia a long time--I see little of it. Whereas someone like you, with little contact with academia (or so we'll assume), describes it as if its an everyday thing....

And no you got that last part wrong. the "bahhhhh" wasn't laughing, it was the sound of the goat--You know that goat I made to debate you, remember that time? That time I goated you!?!?!

Yes, yes I know those big bad scientists call pseudoscience....pseudoscience. How terrible of them. Dirty name callers. Get yer pitchforks, well show them /shakesfist!!!

I have a degrees is economics and finance. When I was in college a dozen years ago, I was a tutor. I passed on grad school to open my own business. I might go back. Just for fun.

I have done real industry research. Mostly regressions and patterns in mutual fund manager/asset manager behavior during different markets and different standardized psychological profiles.

A goat noise? Ok that's funny, but I have seen you do many times to others.

It is dirty copa.

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.