Rupert Sheldrake

  • 109 Replies
  • 47090 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« on: July 14, 2013, 07:53:42 pm »
Have anyone in here read his books? I would love to hear your opinions on his quite controversial ideas :D

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2013, 04:10:33 pm »
I've encountered his perspective and research at various points in my personal education. Morphogenetic universe, nes pas?
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2013, 07:29:26 pm »
Yeah,something like that I think.He is kind of a hippie scientist I guess,and in his book "the science delusion" he questions some of the reductionist dogma that many people see as absolute truth.I am not a scientist in any sense,so I am on the sideline here:)
One example is that he says that the whole concept of "natural laws" is an anthropocentric notion inherited from the creators of modern science,men like Descartes and Newton who believed in a clockmaker-type god.Sheldrake argues that when we look at nature we don`t find "laws",but what we find is habits.These habits are "remembered" somehow through what he calls morphogenetic fields.
He also has some interesting views on telepathy among animals,and his experiments show results above chance.One example is when monkeys learn something new which is practical and useful,somehow other monkeys far far away also start doing the same. He did an experiments with dogs called "why do dogs know when their owner come home?"
He poses some funny questions to materialists too: Is the mechanistic worldview a testable scientific theory,or a metaphor?
                                                                                   If it is a metaphor,why is the machine metaphor better in every respect than
                                                                                   the organism metaphor? If it is a scientific theory,how could it be tested or
                                                                                   refuted?
                                                                                   Do you think that you yourself are nothing but a complex machine?
                                                                                   Have you been programmed to believe in materialism?
"The mechanistic theory is based on the metaphor of the machine.But it is only a metaphor.Living organisms provide better metaphors
  for organised systems at all levels of complexity,including molecules,plants and societies of animals,all of which are organised in a 
  series of inclusive levels,at which the whole at each level is more than the sum of its parts,which are themselves wholes at a lower
  level.Even the most ardent defenders of the mechanistic theory smuggle purposive organising principles into living organisms in the
  form of selfish genes or genetic programs.In the light of the Big Bang theory,the entire universe is more like a growing,developing
  organism than a machine slowly running out of steam"

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2013, 04:03:25 am »
As per my understanding his data is questionable.

Which is not to say that he's a fraud, only that you can look at data for things like "Dogs Knowing Owners are coming home." and interpret it as proof of Psi or proof of nothing.


Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2013, 07:08:36 am »
Well of course it is questionable,everything is :) His point,the way I understand it anyway,is only that if these phenomenon occur,why
can`t we just research them properly and try and figure out what it is.Of course there are tons of pseudo psychics and what not out there.He merely points out that there are areas worth looking into properly,so we can get the topic out of the way and move on.
The problem is that materialist scientists won`t even look in his direction,of obvious reasons of course.Their whole body of knowledge and
work depends on these phenomena being false.If it is proven that they actually do occur in some way or another,the materialist house of cards will come crashing down to the ground.So they say its all a grand delusion.
The wisest thing to do here should be to get everyone in on this,do proper research and REALLY find out why these phenomena occur,so we can move on to something else,either with new knowledge in hand or a nail in the "psychic" coffin once and for all.
Something that will never happen by the way:)  There is sadly no way that the scientific priesthood of materialism will ever agree to spend time on researching something that would destroy their system of belief. They have too much to lose in pursuing this kind of fringe science.
Personally I don`t believe in anything that is not proven,but he does have a good case for further investigation into these phenomenon.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2013, 03:51:45 am »
What's the best evidence for the paranormal?

My understanding is its the Krippner dream telepathy experiments, or am I wrong about that?

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2013, 05:45:28 pm »
I have no idea if there even is any "proof" of the paranormal yet.Haven`t heard about this experiment you mention,but I will read about it.

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2013, 04:10:32 am »
There's a reason modern scientists don't take paranormal stuff seriously. It's not because they just unanimously hate paranormal ideology....it's because it's paranormal. It is, essentially by definition, inexplicable by science and/or reason. Otherwise it would just be science. I'm not trying to perpetuate the image of "science is better than religion" or whatever, I'm just saying, there is a reason behind this mentality.

All that being said, I do think Sheldrake is right on one aspect (to be clear, my only exposure to him is a TED presentation -- the one where he's barefoot on a fake platform of grass). He mentions, in some fashion, that modern scientists tend to think of modern scientific theories as being "scripture" (I'm using that analogy independently, I don't think he used it himself). I do believe that there's value in questioning even the most seemingly basic of popular concepts. This is, after all, the foundation of skepticism, which may be the philosophy I adhere to most dearly. As Bakker himself says, certainty is bullshit. Nothing is certain. Even the sky being blue...well, hey, the sky isn't really blue -- color is just something our ape-brains create in order to categorize the interactions of light upon matter. I mean, the Western analogy for obvious shit is, in itself, open to interpretation. That should tell you something.

But, when we've had decades -- millennia really -- without any meaningful evidence of telepathy, souls, ghosts, etc...well, there's a reason to assume it doesn't exist. For science to work, we have to accept certain basic principles. If we allow every free-radical inclusion, then we're not going to get anywhere. And, perhaps most importantly, the scientific method works. This is why we have modern medicine. This is why I'm able to write this post here and now.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 04:12:56 am by Francis Buck »

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2013, 07:13:32 am »
Well,that is kind of what he is trying to point out in his book,that maybe we can understand what telepathy is,by doing proper reasearch/experiments,which he has done.All he is saying is, that when his experiments with animals and humans show results above chance,we should at least look into it more seriously.
I totally agree with you that the scientific method works,and we all enjoy the fruits of their labor.What he is doing in this book is to use this method on science itself,by taking 10 of the most popular "dogmas" in materialist science up for questioning.He is himself a modern scientist(google him) so there should be nothing wrong with his academic credentials.
I am a skeptic like yourself,so when anyone is certain about anything my claws come out:). It is certainly much more satisfactory for humans to be certain about what reality is,but when certainty in all honesty does not exist,it is getting us nowhere to portray something as certain.
Telepathy is just one small aspect in the book,so maybe you should read it if it is in your field of interest to question everything.If not,then don`t read it:)

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2013, 01:51:05 pm »
I'm pretty familiar with the jist of his works, having watched many interviews with him and also having a broad bulk of his material referenced by others in his 'para-academic' community. To be quite honest, before Royce's prompting I can remember only reading Sheldrake's book jacket's and they weren't enticing.

However, in one sweeping generalizing, I hazard that his basic hypothesis should be engaged.

It is, essentially by definition, inexplicable by science and/or reason. Otherwise it would just be science. I'm not trying to perpetuate the image of "science is better than religion" or whatever, I'm just saying, there is a reason behind this mentality.

...

But, when we've had decades -- millennia really -- without any meaningful evidence of telepathy, souls, ghosts, etc...well, there's a reason to assume it doesn't exist. For science to work, we have to accept certain basic principles. If we allow every free-radical inclusion, then we're not going to get anywhere. And, perhaps most importantly, the scientific method works. This is why we have modern medicine. This is why I'm able to write this post here and now.

I think, "science" then should pay for a couple months worth of research and solve the contention.

I'm all for the burden of proof being on scientists who engage in hypotheses. However, that is why the scientific methodology is so successful; individual researchers then work to prove, for all intensive purposes, the exact opposite of what they actually have faith in seeing.

For instance, I'm of the opinion that many of those instances might simply be dysfunction or degeneration of the brain - but then that's just me and that's just one of many possible contentions I might voice about the 'paranormal.'

Aside FB, yours is almost word for word the linguistic arguments used by philosophic academia in teaching and "investigating" the paranormal, which basically argue to not concern ourselves with such 'paraphenomenon.'
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

anor277

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2013, 09:05:35 am »
......................
I think, "science" then should pay for a couple months worth of research and solve the contention.

I'm all for the burden of proof being on scientists who engage in hypotheses. However, that is why the scientific methodology is so successful; individual researchers then work to prove, for all intensive purposes, the exact opposite of what they actually have faith in seeing.

....................

Why on Earth would you think this?  There is a limited pot of money available for scientists, and grant money is keenly and hotly contested (ironically those who complain most about the competition are those who never applied for the grants in the first place).  Sheldrake is certainly capable of applying for grants from the normal sources.  He has to prepare a body of work and an experimental programme that justify the funding for such experiments.  This is no trivial task; ask any scientist who has ever prepared a grant application.  There are also private institutions who would fund this sort of research. 

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2013, 12:45:12 pm »


......................
I think, "science" then should pay for a couple months worth of research and solve the contention.

I'm all for the burden of proof being on scientists who engage in hypotheses. However, that is why the scientific methodology is so successful; individual researchers then work to prove, for all intensive purposes, the exact opposite of what they actually have faith in seeing.

....................

Why on Earth would you think this?  There is a limited pot of money available for scientists, and grant money is keenly and hotly contested (ironically those who complain most about the competition are those who never applied for the grants in the first place).  Sheldrake is certainly capable of applying for grants from the normal sources.  He has to prepare a body of work and an experimental programme that justify the funding for such experiments.  This is no trivial task; ask any scientist who has ever prepared a grant application.  There are also private institutions who would fund this sort of research. 

I think you're asking for justification for my first sentence, specifically. Good to read you again, by the way, anor.

I'm not even there yet and I've had opportunity to realize acutely how the game is played, before I even began an academic career.

There's the ethical (read: institutional) bottleneck on research that makes what you are highlighting manifest in the first place. Employment is a better predictor for ability to practice science than is academic merit. So regardless that Sheldrake may or may not be a quality scientist, he probably doesn't even get a chance to apply for grants without working first to attach himself more permanently to an existing institution (schools, hospitals, government, ngo). He is tolerated by the status quo for his academic achievements and is allowed to influence the world in word, be it book or lecture, mostly on the peoples dollar.

Personally, I'm just looking at the various behaviorial manifestations that arise from the currently available information explaining these paraphenomenon (and I use the word mostly as a title for this conversation as only their absence from proper scientific study makes them 'para' in any sort of way).

People choose to believe and act out very prevalent and possibly useless behaviors based on incomplete information. Some of that becomes pain to others around them or injury to themselves.

The existing scientific power structures choose not to have a say because they profit, definitely from control of the research but also from the toleration of those incomplete worldviews and those who embody them.
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

anor277

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2013, 07:07:55 pm »
@Madness, thanx for the welcome back.

While I note that you acknowledge that the person who makes the claim should provide the evidence, at the same time I think it is a bit rich to expect scientists to investigate what are largely preposterous claims.  The option is open to Sheldrake to assemble such a convincing body of evidence that would convincingly show that paranormal events do in fact occur.  Would he meet with criticism at the outset?  Of course, he would; and if he engaged with the criticism (i.e. performed his experiments a bit differently; eliminated this or that variable) his evidence would be a lot stronger (this is the point of peer-review and criticism: to make a stronger and more convincing case).  I submit that Sheldrake has not done this, and at present there is such poor and equivocal evidence for a paranormal event that anyone could reasonably dismiss such a claim.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2013, 07:24:52 pm »
Certain phenomenon act differently once observed. Maybe not doing the experiment is a form of doing it... Not having proof doesn't always make you wrong  8)

(he says, tongue in cheek)
One of the other conditions of possibility.

anor277

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2013, 05:50:10 am »
Certain phenomenon act differently once observed. Maybe not doing the experiment is a form of doing it... Not having proof doesn't always make you wrong  8)

(he says, tongue in cheek)

I hope you are tongue in cheek.  You seem to be saying that NO convincing evidence can ever be found for 'paranormal' phenomena, and any attempt to disprove a paranormal phenomenon may be disregarded.  And by the way, no scientist can proffer 'proof'; the scientist deals with evidence.