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 2
Big Bad Voodoo

The Science Delusion

28 posts in this topic

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speedlight drop from 1928 to 1945? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....and unfortunately the worldview aspect has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very lifeblood of scientific endeavour.

Aye. There's no room for dogma in science.

In before "he's selling his book" and "it's no belief system".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye. There's no room for dogma in science.

In before "he's selling his book" and "it's no belief system".

Rupert Sheldrake is amazing scientists. He wrote several "best buys". I think he is VERY well situated already. I used to discuss about his idea here on UM. Telepatic pets theory.

He discover that auxin is produced by dying plant cells. Sheldrake research telepathy between animals and humans. He wrote book „Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home.“ He also wrote book „The Sense of Being Stared At“ about psychic staring effect in which he describe experiment where he concluded that people have weak sense of being stared at. Both subjects interesting. Sheldrake proposed theory called „Morphic field“ for which there are many critics but also scientists who see Sheldrake idea logic. For example Physicist David Bohm said that Morphic resonance fits with his concept of quantum implicate order.

Sheldrake claim that there is a field which effect structure and pattern of activity. Morphic field can influence cells. Memories are passed from one generation to another. Even explain evolution with it. Cosmos super computer.

Sheldrake link Morphic field with Vedas Akashic records. (from akasha, the Sanskrit word for 'sky' 'space' or 'aether') Its library of knowledge supposedly encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the astral plane. Library of memories and experiences of human minds.

Anyway I dont know about this speed of light drop...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the vid, but I have no opinion as to the authenticities of his claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from a guy who puts forth his magical morphic resonance hypothesis, he's a bit of a hypocrite.

I didn't watch all of his accusations against science but those I did were wrong. Consciousness can't arise from matter because other things (like planets) aren't conscious?! By that reasoning cars aren't made of matter either.

Edited by Rlyeh
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we will have to wait Sepulchrave to show up about that speed of light thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheldrake link Morphic field with Vedas Akashic records. (from akasha, the Sanskrit word for 'sky' 'space' or 'aether') Its library of knowledge supposedly encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the astral plane. Library of memories and experiences of human minds.

Then no wonder he is attacking science, it doesn't support his superstitious beliefs.

Unsurprisingly Rupert Sheldrake is also a supporter of the Electric Universe theory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then no wonder he is attacking science, it doesn't support his superstitious beliefs.

Unsurprisingly Rupert Sheldrake is also a supporter of the Electric Universe theory.

So? Newton belived in God. Does that make Theory of Gravity isnt true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? Newton belived in God. Does that make Theory of Gravity isnt true?

There is a difference between believing and trying to make science accommodate your religious beliefs.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then no wonder he is attacking science, it doesn't support his superstitious beliefs.

Unsurprisingly Rupert Sheldrake is also a supporter of the Electric Universe theory.

So he's wrong because his arguments supports a "superstitious belief", a belief scientific community doesn't adhere with as a consensus? From the video:

"....and unfortunately the worldview aspect has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very lifeblood of scientific endeavour."

Do you see how that relates to what you say here?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he's wrong because his arguments supports a "superstitious belief", a belief scientific community doesn't adhere with as a consensus? From the video:

"....and unfortunately the worldview aspect has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very lifeblood of scientific endeavour."

Do you see how that relates to what you say here?

He doesnt and probably never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? Newton belived in God. Does that make Theory of Gravity isnt true?

You'd be amazed the things Newton believed.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I will never understand about these periodic attacks on "science" is that "science" is just accumulated knowledge. If one disagrees with some of the items in its accumulation, then do so; the edifice will remain. If what you contribute adds to it, it will thank you.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science does not purport to "know everything". However, in science, one is not to be lead by ones beliefs...but rather by the evidence available. Now, Dr. Sheldrake may or may not be 'barking up the right/wrong tree'. It will be the evidence that determines such questions.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we will have to wait Sepulchrave to show up about that speed of light thing.

Sorry, I have never heard of it.

If I had to guess, I would say it was due to the standards of what comprised a ``precision measurement'' changing in 1928 and again in 1945.

The error bars in lots of measurements are from the instrumental error - it is quite possible (although not often explicitly acknowledged) that there might be a large systemic error just based on the way the experiment is conducted.

Remember that the fields of quantum electrodynamics and general relativity were being very actively developed during those years, so it is plausible (in my opinion, anyway) that in 1945 a large systemic error was discovered with the way the speed of light had been previously measured, so a new experimental technique was devised to correct for that error.

I don't know for sure though; it is hard to find documentation on relatively boring things like metrology from that long ago.

---------

I don't have a huge problem with most of Sheldrake's ``dogmas''. I will actually go as far as to agree that they are ``dogmas'', and limit the scope of science.

However I think they are often more reasonable than the alternative... ditch too many of them and you start to go down his silly ``morphic resonance'' path (a giraffe fetus can tap into some universal memory field to figure out how to grow into something as complicated as a giraffe, but individual photons can't remember which slit they passed through? And a new crystal gets easier to grow because of the ``collective memory'' of that crystal, not because of the ``collective experience'' of the scientists and engineers? But it is still very hard to make large high quality diamonds by artificial methods?), where ``everything connects to everything''.

These ``dogmas'' are limiting, but at least they provide a clear path to learning more about a subject.

I do agree with his proposal to make raw metrology data public, though.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be amazed the things Newton believed.

That makes his point even weaker! :tu:

But he is not aware of it since he liked your post! He didnt realize your sarcasm!

Sepul, I will post answer ASAP! Duty calls!

Edited by Big Bad Voodoo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes his point even weaker! :tu:

But he is not aware of it since he liked your post! He didnt realize your sarcasm!

I fully understood what he said, you on the other hand didn't read or comprehend my response

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=255420entry4932886

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a meta-physicist, not a scientist. I find his ideas somewhat intriguing, but you need more than just intrigue to make a scientific theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understood what he said, you on the other hand didn't read or comprehend my response

http://www.unexplain...0

Actually I was rather naive and didn't see that I was in effect attacking his point. It's just that Newton was kinda his own man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I was rather naive and didn't see that I was in effect attacking his point. It's just that Newton was kinda his own man.

As an aside, I think it is fair to bring up Newton's... eccentricities... as long as appropriate context is provided.

In my opinion, Newton was crazy.

Einstein was fairly crazy too. As was Schrodinger, and Boltzmann, and Tesla, and Feynman... Many great scientists were somewhat crazy.

However there are two important points that need to be stressed:

  1. All of these scientists kept a lid on their craziness until after their theories became accepted, and they became famous. When they started out, nobody knew who they were, and their theories were judged on their own merits. After they became famous, and people started to ask their opinions on this, that, and the other... then their craziness started to show.
  2. Just because many genius scientists were crazy doesn't mean that most crazy people are genius scientists.

Prof. Sheldrake seems to be a capable biochemist, but he has not become famous by publishing a revolutionary theory that was judged to be true on its own merits; he has become famous by writing books with attention-grabbing titles and controversial and provocative content.

I personally don't think that Prof. Sheldrake is crazy, but I do think he is following a very calculated approach to maximize his personal fame and notoriety with minimal effort. For example he has been ``working'' on Morphic Resonance since 1981 (or so), but it doesn't seem like he has done much to improve or advance the theory since then - his ``research'' seems to be limited to searching for more anecdotal evidence supporting his vague hypotheses.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sepul its har to keep up with your insights. I respect them. But on one thing I dont agree. That Einstein was crazy. Neither Tesla. Sure he have had problems with sleep, insomnia, he have had problems with head. Like when someone say one word he vizualize it. You say apple then he saw apple. But thats just say how human brain is amazing.

This was result of his father games. From young age in Smiljanovo, reginoal part of Lika, todays Croatia, he would give sons riddles. Or mind games. For example, he would have to guess what his father think off. His brain excercised what other children didnt. Einstein was dreamer. He didnt have ADHD since ADHD doesnt exist at all.

Anyway, what do you say on Sheldrake idea that physical laws also goes trough evolution?

Also I think that in his book about Telepatic pets provide good evidence. Also he provide evidence that person can feel someone stare and about telepathy.

Imho, telepathy is already prooven! Just scientists wont admit it for unknown reasons to me!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Einstein and Tesla were pretty crazy.

Most great men are,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, what do you say on Sheldrake idea that physical laws also goes trough evolution?

It is not a bad idea, and quite a few reputable scientists are investigating this.

Sheldrake explains the situation in a very juvenile way. It is quite well understood how many observable properties are very sensitive to the "universal constants". The energy levels of atoms are very dependent on the "fine structure constant", for example.

Research by some astronomers may suggest that the fine structure constant has slowly changed over the years (sorry but I don't have a good Internet connection so I can't give you all the appropriate links, but if I recall correctly Wikipedia has a comprehensive article on the subject), so the theory has traction.

Sheldrake's suggestion that the speed of light spontaneously changed by one part in ten thousand and then changed back in a period of 15 years is simply ludicrous. Such a large change would have dramatic and visible consequences, even in ordinary chemical reactions.

2 people like this

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.