The Science Delusion

And as for Scientists being the last word, Just look to the past and see how often "Science" was wrong. From Galileo, Newton to the first ones to bring up Quantum Mechanics, Even Einstein was thought to be a crackpot at first but the majority of Scientists but only for a short time in his case. I could go on and on with this such as the Earth is flat, but I think there is enough to make an open-minded person think.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Wolfie0827 or is it something else?

I'm going to vote "something else", and that something else would be "they've always done that trick with the grubs since we really started observing them". Oh, and "you use tools yourself and are fairly closely related".

Then why was this trait not noted until recently with all the centuries of study, YES Centuries, yet it wasn't noted until within the last ten years, there are even study that from the Fifties which state Chimps DO NOT USE TOOLs except to throw things, yet again within the past ten years, they have been observed going through sticks to find the right one to use for digging up roots, This is scientific, I'll admit circumstantial, evidence, yet it is ignored by Science, because it doesn't "Fit" with their mechanical view of the world.

Of course remaining open-minded, this could also point to the fact that all or most animals are still evolving and getting more intelligent too.

Or it could mean they are around us more as we encroach upon their territory and are observing us using tools and are starting to imitate tool usage.

Without further study we will never know, and it's only the ones thinking out of the box and usually called crackpots or pseudo-scientists that are willing to do the studies.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Wolfie0827

Sorry, but the speed of light various from measurement to measurement but is averaged to what we call the constant, ask any physics grad student, if they paid attention they can tell you this.

The measurements vary from measurement to measurement, because any measurement is subject to limits of accuracy and precision. Any science student can tell you that, generally in high school, if they paid any attention.

But a lot of the variance is outside of the tolerances of the equipment, which means either the equipment is majorly malfunctioning and the measurements should be thrown out, OR the speed of light is not constant but fluctuates around a certain point.

I would go with simpler explanation on this and figure that the speed fluctuates, rather than most of the equipment is faulty.

If we go the other route and think high grade scientific electronics that are manufactured to a much higher standard than consumer grade electronics, it would mean most consumer grade electronics would barely function, and yet my TV, radio, Computer, DVD player, Flashlight, and cell phone, function in the intended way 90% of the time or better.

God forbid we take a rational approach and simply say that perhaps the "supernatural" is not so supernatural, but merely a natural that we don't understand.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
And as for Scientists being the last word, Just look to the past and see how often "Science" was wrong. From Galileo, Newton to the first ones to bring up Quantum Mechanics, Even Einstein was thought to be a crackpot at first but the majority of Scientists but only for a short time in his case. I could go on and on with this such as the Earth is flat, but I think there is enough to make an open-minded person think.

Science isn't about a proclaimed truth. The fact that it self-corrects as our understanding grows is what makes it science.

If you look around though, the examples of science working in a demonstrable way vs metaphysics should end the debate - I don't see any metaphysical light bulbs, or metaphysical motors, or metaphysical computers, for example. When I look for the volume of a cylinder, I can come up with the exact number every time. If I look for a ghost or an alien, not so much.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
Then why was this trait not noted until recently with all the centuries of study, YES Centuries, yet it wasn't noted until within the last ten years, there are even study that from the Fifties which state Chimps DO NOT USE TOOLs except to throw things, yet again within the past ten years, they have been observed going through sticks to find the right one to use for digging up roots, This is scientific, I'll admit circumstantial, evidence, yet it is ignored by Science, because it doesn't "Fit" with their mechanical view of the world.

24 years...

44 years...

Of course remaining open-minded, this could also point to the fact that all or most animals are still evolving and getting more intelligent too.

Or it could mean they are around us more as we encroach upon their territory and are observing us using tools and are starting to imitate tool usage.

Or it could mean that anthropologists are finally starting to pay attention to the use of tools per se rather than ignoring it as instinctual.

Without further study we will never know, and it's only the ones thinking out of the box and usually called crackpots or pseudo-scientists that are willing to do the studies.

If they do the studies in the correct manner, then they will be falsifiable, replicable, and without bias from either the the observer or animal end. Of course, if they do it the 'Russian way', or the way such research seems to be done in "alternative science" circles, it won't be.

Like I say, it ought to be the sort of thing you could disprove with a metastudy. Get after it!

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
But a lot of the variance is outside of the tolerances of the equipment, which means either the equipment is majorly malfunctioning and the measurements should be thrown out, OR the speed of light is not constant but fluctuates around a certain point.

It shouldn't, and I'd be interested to see the legitimate study that shows that it does.

Speed of light measurements done by, say, 'educate yourself' would not be among those.

reply to post by Bedlam

Not going to do your work for you, since you seem to not believe anything I show, so I will just give you the instructions on how to get the data yourself, Write to at least ten Universities and ask to see their latest measurements on the speed of light, make sure you ask for the raw data and not the published work. That should give you some insight, and while your at it ask for the tolerances of the equipment they use, You seem like you know enough to see if there are any discrepancies outside the range of tolerance.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
And as for Scientists being the last word, Just look to the past and see how often "Science" was wrong.

Indeed. Look to the past. After Newton, scientists were much less wrong about science than nearly everybody else was about everything else.

From Galileo, Newton to the first ones to bring up Quantum Mechanics, Even Einstein was thought to be a crackpot at first but the majority of Scientists but only for a short time in his case. I could go on and on with this such as the Earth is flat, but I think there is enough to make an open-minded person think.

Stop this. Neither Galileo, Newton or Einstein was ever thought to be a "crackpot". A scientific crackpot is somebody who is most likely mentally ill, and nearly always profoundly ignorant and misunderstanding the existing science of the time.

By contrast, Newton had stupendous technical and mathematical skill and comprehensive understanding for his age---and was recognized so even by his rivals----(Newton had problems because he was an asshole, not because he was wrong). Einstein by age 25 was already fully immersed and confident in the latest physics of his day and the outstanding problems with profound physical understanding.

Scientists can tell the difference between a crackpot and somebody who proposes something radical.

Somebody who proposes something radical could well be wrong (in fact nearly all scientific radical theories turn out to be wrong) but it is probably wrong for an interesting reason or just doesn't happen though is theoretically interesting and sound.

A crackpot proposes things which are usually nonsensical, non-quantitative and non-predictive, internally inconsistent, and nearly always ignorant of and unable to explain the array of experimental phenomena currently known. The difference between a crackpot and a beginning student is that the student learns from the professor and recognizes the mistakes when pointed out to him---the crackpot starts aggressive paranoid ravings and accuses others of being closed-minded when it is he (there are almost no female scientific crackpots) who is seriously closed-minded to recognizing actual science and his mistakes.

Check this out:

www.skepticalinvestigations.org...

reply to post by Wolfie0827

He was a Cambridge professor, And he does still work for them, They fund most of his work, Read the article, Second, check the Cambridge website and look up faculty you will find him listed. This in my opinion makes all the rest of your argument mute.

How convenient that would be, but the rest of my post contained arguments that had nothing to do with Sheldrake.

Rupert Sheldrake is not a Cambridge professor, neither was he ever one. Here is a biography from his own web site. It does not state that he was ever a professor at Cambridge or anywhere else. As anyone who has been to university knows, a professor is a very special animal.

Anyway, this is trivial. The real meat of my post was the response to your scientific claims. You cannot and have not refuted any of my statements. Your assertion that the speed of light varies in vacuo gives the lie to any claim that you ever studied physics, as do several of your other remarks. Be that as it may, you must either provide serious scientific evidence for your claims, or withdraw them and acknowledge that you are wrong.

The same goes for the habitually discourteous poster who seems to think that UFOskeptic, Sheldrake.org and a slew of YouTube videos are valid sources of scientific support.

reply to post by Astyanax

"Mind Firmly Closed" suits you perfectly. At least you're aware of it.. And it's funny how the basis of your arguments are nothing but a bunch of fallacies.. Maybe I'll list some for you, and you'll stop using nonsense as arguments..

Ad Hominem
Person A makes claim X. (like UFOskeptic)
Person B makes an attack on person A. (implied attack, which is appeal to ridicule)
Therefore A's claim is false.

Appeal to ridicule
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented.
Therefore claim C is false.

Appeal to authority
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. (where person A is any so-called scientific source that does qualify your biased preconceptions)
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

Poisoning the well
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. (Like X was not a Cambridge professor, or me being a 'discourteous poster')
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Appeal to majority
Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). (replace people with so-called 'respectable scientists')
Therefore X is true.

I can list a few more, but, your irrationality and bias is transparent. And yet you claim to be rational.. Which is ironically evidence for the exact same article and source you're bashing (ie UFOskeptic)... Need I quote it again?

It is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world, which is amenable to evidence one way or the other (this is the hallmark of a scientific hypothesis -- that evidence is relevant for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or paradigm, about how things "must" be, which is impervious to evidence (this is the hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis -- that evidence is not relevant for its truth). My colleague believed in materialism not as a scientific hypothesis which, qua scientific hypothesis might be false, but rather as dogma and ideology which "must" be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term "fundamaterialist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence.

With respect to (a) materialism held as an empirical hypothesis about the world, the evidence against it is overwhelming. With respect to (b) materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. A complicating factor is that the fundamaterialist typically holds the metabelief that his belief in materialism is not ideological, but empirical. That is, he misclassifies himself under (a), while his behavior clearly falls under (b). The debunker and skeptic believes that he is being "scientific" in ignoring and rejecting the evidence against materialism.

You're the living example of this... And this, combined with your fallacy list, is just a way to avoid the actual material and information.. And because you don't want to face it, you make up a bunch of reasons around it as to why it's not credible, by attacking the source, the ones presenting the information etc.. Until you're actually willing to discuss the actual data and information itself, discussing with you is futile, because you will retain your biased ingrained preconceptions.

But, let me ask you something anyway. What kind or amount of evidence will convince you that there is such a thing as NDE or ESP or similar phenomena? What kind or amount of evidence will convince you that there is more than just materialism?

reply to post by vasaga

A moderator will decide whether a post entirely devoted to my logical failures and character defects is off topic for this thread. As far as I am concerned, it is mere redundant proof of the habitual discourtesy referred to earlier. When you have learned to be civil, we may perhaps have a conversation.

A look at papers section of his website will give affiliation to University of Cambridge's Biochemistry Department away

He worked at Cambridge. The only argument is whether he teached or not(professor).

J. Exp. Bot. (1968) 19 (4): 681-689. doi: 10.1093/jxb/19.4.681

Some Constituents of Xylem Sap and their Possible Relationship to Xylem Differentiation

A. R. SHELDRAKE and D. H. NORTHCOTE

Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge

jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/681.abstract

-----------

Nature 250, 381 - 385 (02 August 1974); doi:10.1038/250381a0

The ageing, growth and death of cells

A. R. Sheldrake

Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK*

*Present address: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 1–11–256, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016, A.P., India.

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v250/n5465/abs/250381a0.html

reply to post by Astyanax

There is nothing 'uncivil' about my reply. If you're referring to my comment of you regarding 'mind firmly closed', that's exactly what's under your name, so it's just a restatement of your own position. Aside from that, how is showing your fallacies in your arguments not being civil? Explain that to me? Wording out what you are doing, and referring it to what the scientific community also does, is not uncivil. Your inability to process your cognitive dissonance is not my responsibility, nor the mods, but your own.

I find it actually remarkable, that you try to spin the pointing out of your logical failures, to somehow be off-topic. Pointing out logical failures are key parts of discussions. Without that, there's no discussion/debate, and anything being expressed would be nothing more than emotional ranting. If there's anything close to "denying ignorance", it's pointing out flaws in arguments. And it baffles my mind, that doing this is somehow being 'uncivil', while at the same time you having the courtesy to call me a 'habitually discourteous poster' for no shown reason, is somehow being civil.

Scientists are bad philosophers, and sadly, that's reflected in a lot of people who swear by it like it's another cult. Science as a method is great, but in practice, it's still carried out by humans, and there will be flaws in it. To deny this is nothing other than blind dogma. Or is saying this also somehow 'uncivil'?? And oh, thanks for completely ignoring the questions I asked you.

Originally posted by xecoybh
A look at papers section of his website will give affiliation to University of Cambridge's Biochemistry Department away

He worked at Cambridge. The only argument is whether he teached or not(professor).

J. Exp. Bot. (1968) 19 (4): 681-689. doi: 10.1093/jxb/19.4.681

Some Constituents of Xylem Sap and their Possible Relationship to Xylem Differentiation

A. R. SHELDRAKE and D. H. NORTHCOTE

Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge

jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/681.abstract

-----------

Nature 250, 381 - 385 (02 August 1974); doi:10.1038/250381a0

The ageing, growth and death of cells

A. R. Sheldrake

Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK*

*Present address: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 1–11–256, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016, A.P., India.

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v250/n5465/abs/250381a0.html

edit on 17-4-2012 by xecoybh because: (no reason given)

My point's exactly, this is a recognized Scientist, respected in his field, and as for the Speed of light, Astyanax, I did address this issue, you just refused to do the work because in your mind it is wrong, and any information stating otherwise will be ignored, if you wish to prove me wrong, Write to a few Universities as I suggeted since you won't take my word for it ans ASK for the raw data. 1, I'm not going to do all the work for you because you have all ready shown you believe nothing I say or any sources I bring to the table and 2, the only way your going to believe it is if you do the work, but I am willing to help some, I will write the letters for you since I have some experience in getting wanted information from universities that is not generally available to the public. Just pick 10 or so and let me know then I'll write a template in OpenOffice for you to use to mail to the Universities. Otherwise why don't you just take your closed mind to another thread.

reply to post by Wolfie0827

Authorship of a scientific paper does not make one a professor. More to the point, though, take a look at the dates on those papers. I don't deny that Sheldrake was once a legitimate scientist. However, it is nearly forty years since he abandoned science for woo.

You and your ill-spoken friend accuse me of having a closed mind. Perhaps the boot is on the other foot. Julian Barbour, one of the most open-minded theoretical physicists of our time (he has spent most of his life in pursuit of a theory in which neither time nor space have any existence) wrote recently,

The aim of science is to find rational and economic explanations of observed phenomena, not to prejudge the issue. Each hypothetical scheme has to be judged on its merits. There should be a clear statement of the phenomena that are to be explained, the conceptual entities that are to be employed and the mechanism that is to yield the explanation. Source

When you insist on a supernatural deterministic role for consciousness in material interactions, are you not prejudging the issue? Have you considered the other hypothetical schemes advanced to explain quantum paradoxes on their merits? Could you explain why you favour a supernatural explanation over such alternatives as decoherence, many-worlds, many-minds, narratives that regard (correctly, in my view) the experimental apparatus or even the whole universe as elements of the quantum state that collapses on measurement, and propositions such as Barbour's which do away with quantum uncertainty altogether? Have you even considered all these explanations?

What phenomena are you actually trying to explain – nonlocality, the observer effect or something else altogether? Aren't you just trying to prove that wishes come true?

And above all, where is your explanatory mechanism? Where is your proposed mechanism by means of which consciousness manipulates brute reality with invisible tongs? Where is the term for 'mind' in your modification of the Schrödinger wave equation?

To be open-minded means to consider all explanations, not to insist on one and call others narrow-minded or irrational for refusing to agree with you.

Perhaps you will say that all my objections are part of what you have chosen to call the Science Delusion. Very well. Abandon the delusion altogether – after all, if you throw out the ornaments of science you may as well throw out the furniture. Are you up for that? Can you argue for your Science Delusion without using science? I don't believe you can.

But let's see you try.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Wolfie0827

 

When you insist on a supernatural deterministic role for consciousness in material interactions, are you not prejudging the issue? Have you considered the other hypothetical schemes advanced to explain quantum paradoxes on their merits? Could you explain why you favour a supernatural explanation over such alternatives as decoherence, many-worlds, many-minds, narratives that regard (correctly, in my view) the experimental apparatus or even the whole universe as elements of the quantum state that collapses on measurement, and propositions such as Barbour's which do away with quantum uncertainty altogether? Have you even considered all these explanations?

edit on 18/4/12 by Astyanax because: of some extra characters.

No one is claiming this is supernatural, but then most that we take for granted today, such as cars, planes, etc. would have been considered supernatural in the past. but that is beside the point, the discussion is on the mind and how it functions, not on the supernatural. Your just trying to turn the discussion in a direction you can then ridicule.

reply to post by Wolfie0827

This will be my last post on the thread.

No one is claiming this is supernatural, but then most that we take for granted today, such as cars, planes, etc. would have been considered supernatural in the past. but that is beside the point, the discussion is on the mind and how it functions, not on the supernatural. Your just trying to turn the discussion in a direction you can then ridicule.

Read what I have written so far with an open mind and you will find not one word ridiculing you. The closest I got to ridicule was writing that Rupert Sheldrake 'abandoned science for woo'. I am simply telling you that you are wrong; that isn't ridicule, it's friendly advice.

You say you make no supernatural claims, yet you are proposing that mind exists as an independent and immaterial, therefore supernatural, reality.

Sheldrake believes that memories are not stored in the brain but somewhere outside of it; the brain recalls them... like a television that tunes into transmitted signals and decodes them as memories.

I understand that no trace of this 'morphic field' has ever been found, neither is its existence required to explain any physical phenomenon. It is a supernatural concept.

If the discussion is about mind and how it functions, perhaps you should begin by defining what you mean by 'mind'. I wish you joy of the task; philosophers have cudgelled their brains over it for centuries. The important distinction, though, is whether you see mind as emergent from matter or existing independent of it. If you see it as emergent, then clearly there is no need for all this debate; but if you see it as independent, then you are proposing a supernatural model, however you may protest the contrary.

Since we're going in that 'mind' direction...

The most relevant parts:




Full:

Google Video Link