The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: Royce 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
-
I've encountered his perspective and research at various points in my personal education. Morphogenetic universe, nes pas?
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
What's the best evidence for the paranormal?
My understanding is its the Krippner dream telepathy experiments, or am I wrong about that?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:)
-
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.'
-
......................
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, "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.
-
@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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
::)
I figured that was the last thing you wanted to hear, so I said it.
-
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.
The onus is on those who have knowledge to make sense of it to those who do not. There is just no other way for that dissemination to work.
I agree with everything you write. My problem is that there are an obscene number of qualified academics who aren't practicing - Sheldrake just happens to be one of them so I feel it necessary to go to task for the practice as I'm sure to make this argument over and over throughout my life.
Given the tools (which happens to equate to funding in our civilization, which happens to reflect the bottleneck of institutional ethical approval - ethic boards could be assembled in pretty much any local harboring academics, graduates, governments, and industry, not simply those employed by institutions) could Sheldrake form and test a hypothesis that grants null?
I'd see it fail before discounting it entirely on the grounds that it might. Any other points raised simply reflect the difficulty for any practicing academic to actually get grants - much less, without describing the gauntlet of ingrained bias and criticism and prevalent circles of power in ethical bodies.
-
The other thing to consider as far as genuine telepathy research is that, even if you threw billions of dollars at it, and still found absolutely no evidence whatsoever, it would still never dispel the "rumors" and conspiratorial ideas around it, because it's already classified as something potentially inexplicable by science. If science fails to prove it, then it just means science is wrong, or that telepathy is somehow out of the bounds of scientific inquiry. The same goes for ghosts, demons, God, etc.
-
The same goes for ghosts, demons, God, etc.
One might say that any undeniable proof regarding the existence of God actually disproves its existence :), since, of course, the whole purpose is faith and with true proof there is no longer faith.
-
For those who are interested,here is a debate on the issue
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/telepathy_tape.html
-
For those who are interested,here is a debate on the issue
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/telepathy_tape.html
Oh wow thanks for that link. Nothing like a little bit of hard evidence in a discussion about science.
-
I wonder what you do with things like Krippner's dream telepathy experiments though. I mean you have curious results, at least from what I've read, that AFAIK have never been replicated.
Psi just seems like one of those things that is a gloss on the material world. There's enough stuff out there to make one curious, but never enough evidence that you'd want to bet money on it.
-
Psi just seems like one of those things that is a gloss on the material world. There's enough stuff out there to make one curious, but never enough evidence that you'd want to bet money on it.
I agree,but if you listen to the debate,you will hear that there is a lot more to it than that.This boils down to two perspectives that crashes.For a materialist there is nothing more tabu than this subject,and as Sheldrake clearly states,they won`t even look at his evidence(just as the guy he is debating is looking away when he provides his evidence at this talk).
I agree with everything you write. My problem is that there are an obscene number of qualified academics who aren't practicing - Sheldrake just happens to be one of them so I feel it necessary to go to task for the practice as I'm sure to make this argument over and over throughout my life.
What do you mean that he is not practicing? If he has collected data and conducted experiments according to the scientific method,and his results show well above chance on several occasions,wouldn`t you call that practice?
-
The other thing to consider as far as genuine telepathy research is that, even if you threw billions of dollars at it, and still found absolutely no evidence whatsoever, it would still never dispel the "rumors" and conspiratorial ideas around it, because it's already classified as something potentially inexplicable by science. If science fails to prove it, then it just means science is wrong, or that telepathy is somehow out of the bounds of scientific inquiry. The same goes for ghosts, demons, God, etc.
I'm certain we would find evidence of something...
I agree. My contention would be that it would minimize the manifestation of those false beliefs simply by being contrary data on a random number of occasions.
I agree with everything you write. My problem is that there are an obscene number of qualified academics who aren't practicing - Sheldrake just happens to be one of them so I feel it necessary to go to task for the practice as I'm sure to make this argument over and over throughout my life.
What do you mean that he is not practicing? If he has collected data and conducted experiments according to the scientific method,and his results show well above chance on several occasions,wouldn`t you call that practice?
I'm not sure he's been collecting data or conducting experiments for a number of years.
Perhaps, we might consent an aspect of science as social practice? After all, if his hypotheses aren't being replicated, it could suggest be bad science... or simply being ostracized by the community.
-
Perhaps, we might consent an aspect of science as social practice? After all, if his hypotheses aren't being replicated, it could suggest be bad science... or simply being ostracized by the community.
I think this is an important factor that most people tend to overlook. Its expensive to do research, and if you're not doing something popular, you simply can't do your experiments. No one wants to be thought of as crazy, which is why fields of study can stagnate for years without progress because people are afraid to innovate. True innovation is always dangerous.
-
I think this is an important factor that most people tend to overlook. Its expensive to do research, and if you're not doing something popular, you simply can't do your experiments. No one wants to be thought of as crazy, which is why fields of study can stagnate for years without progress because people are afraid to innovate. True innovation is always dangerous.
Well, AFAIK there are people researching Psi. There was that recent controversy on precognition that IIRC came out of Cornell.
I don't think anyone replicated the results, though there seems to be some back and forth about that.
The only Psi research I've read about - and I'm willing to read anything on the subject - that really seems solid is Krippner's dream telepathy.
I recall hearing there are something like 4 really solid cases that strongly suggest reincarnation but I don't know what these actually are.
-
The only Psi research I've read about - and I'm willing to read anything on the subject - that really seems solid is Krippner's dream telepathy.
I suggest you listen to that audiolink i posted earlier,or maybe check out this book by Sheldrake.
I'm not sure he's been collecting data or conducting experiments for a number of years
He certainly tries to state that he has done exactly that,but that is futile to argue about :),since either he is a fraud,or the implications of evidence of telepathy is a bit to much to swallow for materialists who have built up a body of work assuming telepathy is impossible.
Is it right to say that millions(maybe billions) of people who claim that they have had a paranormal experience are deluded? Can we prove that they are deluded,or are we just assuming they are?
I have personally never encountered anything paranormal,but to say that everyone who has is deluded,without proof,just doesn`t sound very scientific.
-
Is it right to say that millions(maybe billions) of people who claim that they have had a paranormal experience are deluded? Can we prove that they are deluded,or are we just assuming they are?
I have personally never encountered anything paranormal,but to say that everyone who has is deluded,without proof,just doesn`t sound very scientific.
First I'd like to just mention that the number of people isn't indicative of correctness. I will say though that something like 5% of top 'scientists", like nobel laureates, people extremely respected and at the top of their field, believe in a personal god. Not specifically one religion or the other, but a god that interacts with them. Until that % is 0, I don't think its "scientifically" sound to dismiss the idea that things exist outside of known science. Yes i know that God and psychics/paranormal activities are not entirely related, but my point remains the same. The absence of positive proof is not the same as disproof.
And to your second question: are they all deluded? I know one or two people very well that did not at all believe in any kind of paranormal anything until the encountered it on a personal basis. They don't claim to know exactly what happened or how it worked, but simply that it happened and it was real. to them. I don't believe that qualifies as delusion.
If believing in anything that isn't 100% supported by evidence based science makes you deluded.... well then 100% of everyone in all human history has been deluded. There would never be any kind of innovation in any field of study, and life as we know it would exist as is until it went extinct. The belief in somthing more is what drives the evolution of ideas.
-
Of course numbers doesn`t indicate correctness,but if something as strange as this occurs on a regular basis among humans,shouldn`t we give it some serious attention at least?
Descartes was communicating with angels,and even the big bang theory states that everything sprang out of nothing in an instant.That is like saying that you can believe in one miracle,and everything that happens after that we can explain just fine.
-
That is like saying that you can believe in one miracle,and everything that happens after that we can explain just fine.
I love this distinction. Eventually it comes down to faith, its just what one person believe over another. Very few things, if any, can be explained to its most minute detail, and at some point you just need to say "well its just that way because thats how it is". Not to say all theories on every subject are equally viable, but its something that should be remembered.
Of course numbers doesn`t indicate correctness,but if something as strange as this occurs on a regular basis among humans,shouldn`t we give it some serious attention at least?
I think that that should make it worth looking into.
Also, I understand your point completely about quantity and why its important, I just can't stand it when people blindly throw numbers at something to prove a point (which is not at all what you did, my comment was mostly just for me :P).
Completely unrelated: Royce I find it interesting that you don't add a space after any punctuation except for the apostrophe :)
-
I'll take a look at Sheldrake's data. I just wanted to point out that there are people researching Psi, and people trying to replicate those results without success.
As to whether people who have paranormal experiences are deluded...I'll admit that's a hard one when people talk about clairvoyant/precognitive dreams. Is everyone who makes such a claim a liar?
What about people who seem to have genuine trauma about an abduction event?
I don't think anecdotes, however compelling, can serve as evidence in these cases. I do think that there is a lot there that is worth studying, if only from a psychological/sociological perspective.
-
I don't think anecdotes, however compelling, can serve as evidence in these cases.
Evidence, surely not. Unlike the court of law, eye witness is the lowest form of proof. The brain is terrible at remembering things, thats just how it is.
But to say everyone that believes/experiences something like this is crazy/deluded... seems lazy. Similarly, saying they are all sane and clear headed is equally as silly. You'll get your crazies in any sample.
-
I don't think anecdotes, however compelling, can serve as evidence in these cases.
Evidence, surely not. Unlike the court of law, eye witness is the lowest form of proof. The brain is terrible at remembering things, thats just how it is.
But to say everyone that believes/experiences something like this is crazy/deluded... seems lazy. Similarly, saying they are all sane and clear headed is equally as silly. You'll get your crazies in any sample.
I agree with you there. And I'm happy to see money allocated to some of this Psi stuff given the variety of subjects the sciences cover.
Something is happening to a lot of these people. What that something is...well that still seems up for grabs. And I'd say a mundane explanation does not negate the interesting psychological/ethnographic components to all paranormal topics.
-
Something is happening to a lot of these people. What that something is...well that still seems up for grabs. And I'd say a mundane explanation does not negate the interesting psychological/ethnographic components to all paranormal topics
I agree,and if we ignore it we certainly won`t find out.Personally I think we never will figure this out collectively.I think this is a very subjective matter,and all minds out there are different.That makes it almost impossible to replicate results,since every experience is different.Anyway,it is not written anywhere neither on paper or stone that humans are supposed to understand everything,but we have to try though :D It certainly beats being lazy.
-
I don't think anecdotes, however compelling, can serve as evidence in these cases.
Evidence, surely not. Unlike the court of law, eye witness is the lowest form of proof. The brain is terrible at remembering things, thats just how it is.
But to say everyone that believes/experiences something like this is crazy/deluded... seems lazy. Similarly, saying they are all sane and clear headed is equally as silly. You'll get your crazies in any sample.
Who claims that the individual who experiences a paranormal or inexplicable event is deluded? On the basis of much evidence it is likely that each individual who makes such a claim is mistaken. Anybody can be fooled and the easiest person to fool is oneself. As I have said before, there is a limited pot of money for research, and there is much Science, often backed by sound and reproducible evidence, that will never get funding. To spend a portion of that money on paranormal programmes that are by and large preposterous,. have been repeatedly shell-holed, and are prone to exploitation by frauds and charlatans, does not make a lot of sense. And should, say Sheldrake or Schwarz, reach a dead-end and no substance is found in their claims, in 5 to 10 years another paranormal researcher will come along and the cycle will begin anew.
-
Who claims that the individual who experiences a paranormal or inexplicable event is deluded?
I think Richard Dawkins did a pretty good job globalizing the term "deluded" through his book "the god delusion".
Mainly attacking religious experience of course,but what is the difference between a personal religious experience and a so called paranormal experience? You would say they are both mistaken right?
I agree with you though,many people are mistaken,but everyone? I am not so sure
-
@Royce, Richard Dawkins does not speak for everyone. I myself am often mistaken. It is a human condition.
-
@Royce, Richard Dawkins does not speak for everyone. I myself am often mistaken. It is a human condition.
I totally agree.It is obvious that everyone makes mistakes.It means that people who suggest that telepathy is preposterous and impossible,might be mistaken.
I am sorry if a gave the impression that something that obvious needed to be clarified :)
-
@Royce, Richard Dawkins does not speak for everyone. I myself am often mistaken. It is a human condition.
I totally agree.It is obvious that everyone makes mistakes.It means that people who suggest that telepathy is preposterous and impossible,might be mistaken.
I am sorry if a gave the impression that something that obvious needed to be clarified :)
Of course, those who insist that telepathy is preposterous might be mistaken. The idea is not inherently absurd. However, in the attempt to demonstrate it, I would protest at the expenditure of any public money. It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.
-
Of course, those who insist that telepathy is preposterous might be mistaken. The idea is not inherently absurd. However, in the attempt to demonstrate it, I would protest at the expenditure of any public money. It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.
But it seems by this argument, we could eliminate a lot of stuff - such as the space program - that isn't likely to give us immediate improvement in our lives.
I'm guessing if put to public referendum people might be more interested in Psi than space, linguistics, and probably a few other areas that receive public funding.
-
It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.
According to... what?
Rarely are serendipitous discoveries ever where you expect to find them. Incremental improvements of technology can be counted on after years and years of research. Leaps forward often come from accidental discoveries in unrelated fields.
I mean no matter how much you research an oven, you'll never figure out how to build a microwave.
Some of the biggest advancements in early detection of breast cancer technology came from the incorrectly focused lens in the Hubble space telescope.
Hell, electricity was considered useless and nothing more than a child's fancy when it was first discovered.
You simply never know what is and is not useful until after the fact.
You need to dream. If you pigeon hole everything into over simplified categories like "worth it" and "not worth it", nothing exciting will ever happen.
Science is not an exact science, no matter how much you want it to be ;)
-
It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.
According to... what?
Rarely are serendipitous discoveries ever where you expect to find them. Incremental improvements of technology can be counted on after years and years of research. Leaps forward often come from accidental discoveries in unrelated fields.
I mean no matter how much you research an oven, you'll never figure out how to build a microwave.
Some of the biggest advancements in early detection of breast cancer technology came from the incorrectly focused lens in the Hubble space telescope.
Hell, electricity was considered useless and nothing more than a child's fancy when it was first discovered.
You simply never know what is and is not useful until after the fact.
You need to dream. If you pigeon hole everything into over simplified categories like "worth it" and "not worth it", nothing exciting will ever happen.
Science is not an exact science, no matter how much you want it to be ;)
Hundreds of years of psychic research: Shit all result; procession of charlatans and impostures; no application; no advancement of human knowledge; not even conclusive evidence of paranormal phenomena. 200-300 years of scientific research: Modern industrial society; life-spans beyond 30; an advanced understanding of how the universe works. And I would never prejudge a research programme simply because it was only aimed at abstract knowledge.
-
Hundreds of years of psychic research: Shit all result; no application; no advancement of human knowledge; not even conclusive evidence of paranormal phenomena. 200-300 years of scientific research: Modern industrial society; life-spans beyond 30; an advanced understanding of how the universe works
Is that a fair comparison though? If you spend 90% of your time,money and resources on one area,and 10% on another,which of those will prosper? the answer is pretty obvious.I am not at all saying we should cut in areas that are of huge importance to human well being,but certainly not all branches of scientific research work toward this goal.
Hell, electricity was considered useless and nothing more than a child's fancy when it was first discovered.
The story of Nicola Tesla popped up in my mind :D An amazing man
-
.................................
Is that a fair comparison though? If you spend 90% of your time,money and resources on one area,and 10% on another,which of those will prosper? the answer is pretty obvious.I am not at all saying we should cut in areas that are of huge importance to human well being,but certainly not all branches of scientific research work toward this goal.
..............................
I think it's a completely fair comparison. Paranormal research could develop its own priorities and applications, and attract considerable funding; well, at least it could if it convincingly demonstrated paranormal effects.
And again, if you attribute to me the priority that only utilitarian research should be funded, you are mistaken.
-
Hundreds of years of psychic research: Shit all result; procession of charlatans and impostures; no application; no advancement of human knowledge; not even conclusive evidence of paranormal phenomena. 200-300 years of scientific research: Modern industrial society; life-spans beyond 30; an advanced understanding of how the universe works. And I would never prejudge a research programme simply because it was only aimed at abstract knowledge.
Remember what I said earlier about just throwing numbers at stuff to make a point?
Hundreds of years?
I could argue that medicine has been researched for nearly 3000 years and it took a whole 2900 of those years for "modern medicine" to actually have exceptional results.
Oh or astronomy, since you specifically mentioned "how the universe works", has been around since before that even.
Sounds to me more like 1000's of years...
Therefore, by your own standard, we should at least allow for three millennium of research into each and every field before we can access whether or not it is useful or not. To me, that seems like a bit extreme, but maybe I'm just not as generous as you.
And I would never prejudge a research programme simply because it was only aimed at abstract knowledge.
Right, unless it didn't show the results you wanted.
Is that a fair comparison though? If you spend 90% of your time,money and resources on one area,and 10% on another,which of those will prosper?
I'd guess that a field that had less money and was looked down on would under preform. But thats just me.
Maybe we should be looking at research money and not something silly like time?
-
As I have said before, there is a limited pot of money for research, and there is much Science, often backed by sound and reproducible evidence, that will never get funding. To spend a portion of that money on paranormal programmes that are by and large preposterous,. have been repeatedly shell-holed, and are prone to exploitation by frauds and charlatans, does not make a lot of sense. And should, say Sheldrake or Schwarz, reach a dead-end and no substance is found in their claims, in 5 to 10 years another paranormal researcher will come along and the cycle will begin anew.
Which Schwarz?
Of course, those who insist that telepathy is preposterous might be mistaken. The idea is not inherently absurd. However, in the attempt to demonstrate it, I would protest at the expenditure of any public money. It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.
+1 the bold. But then I might also follow with something like Wilshire contended with above.
.................................
Is that a fair comparison though? If you spend 90% of your time,money and resources on one area,and 10% on another,which of those will prosper? the answer is pretty obvious.I am not at all saying we should cut in areas that are of huge importance to human well being,but certainly not all branches of scientific research work toward this goal.
..............................
I think it's a completely fair comparison. Paranormal research could develop its own priorities and applications, and attract considerable funding; well, at least it could if it convincingly demonstrated paranormal effects.
And again, if you attribute to me the priority that only utilitarian research should be funded, you are mistaken.
I think you've hit mutual exclusives, anor. Paranormal research can do little beyond theoretically advance their research without ethics approval, which results in the institutional bottleneck. It's very likely that to demonstrate paranormal phenomenon, researchers would need to do more than write a tailored proposal.
Right, unless it didn't show the results you wanted.
Actually, it's fairly standard to have to provide 'power' stats for research (at least, so my disciplines go). It's a tricksty equation for calculating how likely you are to show 'significant' (5% for Psych) results with your research. No power, no funding.
I'd guess that a field that had less money and was looked down on would under preform. But thats just me.
Maybe we should be looking at research money and not something silly like time?
Funding and availability of, no doubt. Though I think we're definitely at a disadvantage in this discussion because we can't account for military and corporate R&D, which has a fair bit of declassified paranormal results, which are interesting, to say the least. They have probably thrown the most time and money at these conceived hypotheses.
Also, unrelated but in the same vein, has anyone heard about schools selling corporations first rights to research results, in which some cases, corporations simply bury the knowledge.
It gets complicated real quick when simply shucking for smucks...
-
Hundreds of years of psychic research: Shit all result; procession of charlatans and impostures; no application; no advancement of human knowledge; not even conclusive evidence of paranormal phenomena. 200-300 years of scientific research: Modern industrial society; life-spans beyond 30; an advanced understanding of how the universe works. And I would never prejudge a research programme simply because it was only aimed at abstract knowledge.
Remember what I said earlier about just throwing numbers at stuff to make a point?
In point of fact I don't remember. And I do not need your permission to make an argument
Hundreds of years?
Prophets, soothsayers, spiritualists, diviners, and mystics have been common throughout human history. They were no more successful then than they are now.
I could argue that medicine has been researched for nearly 3000 years and it took a whole 2900 of those years for "modern medicine" to actually have exceptional results.
How much does modern medicine, as it is actually practised, owe to Hippocrates, or Galen, or even to Paracelsus? There is a Hippocratic oath, but this is an ethical consideration.
Oh or astronomy, since you specifically mentioned "how the universe works", has been around since before that even.
Sounds to me more like 1000's of years...
And when did Copernicus work? The 16th century? You're not going to understand much of astronomy with a geocentric universe.
Therefore, by your own standard, we should at least allow for three millennium of research into each and every field before we can access whether or not it is useful or not. To me, that seems like a bit extreme, but maybe I'm just not as generous as you.
By your standards actually. I made no such specification.
And I would never prejudge a research programme simply because it was only aimed at abstract knowledge.
Right, unless it didn't show the results you wanted.
Again, you are being gratuitous. I made no such specification. I do insist that if a claim is advanced, then evidence must be proferred in its support. I am perfectly justified to dismiss a claim without evidence.
Is that a fair comparison though? If you spend 90% of your time,money and resources on one area,and 10% on another,which of those will prosper?
The programme that prospers will be the one that consistently shows convincing evidence, and reliably answers questions. This programme will eventually attract the most funding.
I'd guess that a field that had less money and was looked down on would under preform. But thats just me.
Maybe we should be looking at research money and not something silly like time?
Again, a field that has no theoretical basis, no practical demonstration, negligible evidence will also under perform. But that's just me.
-
Your "nope I disagree" argument merits not even this response ;)
-
Your "nope I disagree" argument merits not even this response ;)
If you attribute to me positions which I don't hold, do you expect me to adopt me them? Please feel free to withdraw.
-
Same goes for you. It appears our little discussion is at an end, since neither party feels the other is making coherent or relevant statements.
-
It appears our little discussion is at an end, since neither party feels the other is making coherent or relevant statements.
Yeah,it seems like both parties feel they are banging their heads against a wall,and it is most likely painful for both.
-
Is the argument against Psi research that it is - according to the current paradigm - unlikely to bear fruit or is it that there is better stuff to research?
Because if it's the former - there seem to be lots of potential dead ends in research.
If it's the latter - then we shouldn't waste money on a space program.
In fact, personally I'd say there is better stuff than both Psi and Space to worry about and neither really deserves public funding at this time.
-
But I love space :(, and I've read/heard way to much Neil Degrasse Tyson to support that opinion lol. That man is quite the inspirational speaker.
But yeah, if it where my dollar, I wouldn't put it in psi research, because I personally don't think there is anything that we can find at this point in time. Maybe in the future, but probably not now.
As for what the argument was actually about, I don't really have a clue. Mostly about semantics as far as I could tell.
-
But I love space
You love the lifeless,black void? ;D
I agree with both of you,there are of course many areas that deserve funding.I don`t think that was the issue though,more if psi has anything to offer according to what results certain people claim to have(Sheldrake).
If we are going to rate every area in science,and decide which deserve funding or not,this will most likely be the longest discussion ever :)
-
If we are going to rate every area in science,and decide which deserve funding or not,this will most likely be the longest discussion ever :)
Just dump the space program, linguistics research save for that covered by military funding, and any other research that is driven more by curiosity than direct applicability.
So rank the research projects in terms of lowest immediate utility and line the worst the most "useless" at the chopping block.
-
No! Space must live! Watch this inspirational (if not somewhat biased) video about how awesome space is.
Actually, don't bother lol it won't change your mind, they just make me happy.
In all seriousness though, I think it raises some interesting points and some interesting facts that I didn't know before I watched it. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the clips.
2 short parts :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc
-
Funding and availability of, no doubt. Though I think we're definitely at a disadvantage in this discussion because we can't account for military and corporate R&D, which has a fair bit of declassified paranormal results, which are interesting, to say the least. They have probably thrown the most time and money at these conceived hypotheses.
Interesting point.Are you referring to the use of remote viewing and such in military tactics? Haven`t read much about that,feel free to elaborate if you can :)
-
Is the argument against Psi research that it is - according to the current paradigm - unlikely to bear fruit or is it that there is better stuff to research?
I made the initial contention that if there are so many people believing this "obviously" false belief, then that 'Science' should take some time and provide negative evidence. But I think anor and Wilshire went a-tangenting...
But yeah, if it where my dollar, I wouldn't put it in psi research, because I personally don't think there is anything that we can find at this point in time. Maybe in the future, but probably not now.
As for what the argument was actually about, I don't really have a clue. Mostly about semantics as far as I could tell.
To step in with raise finger and just demand correction: this conversation will always remain important to me and so I must go on.
We have... almost 7 billion brains. A much smaller number of graduating academics, interested in research (though this contention is too rife with complex antecedents at this time).
Combined with this we have "human problems," which include for my argument (feel free to list others) lack of nutrition then lack of a quality education (I would also love to have a discussion with this board as to what constitutes that in the first place).
Realistically, there are a variety of cruxes, which impede the manifestation of knowledge - for all we know, we're missing out on mind/brains that might have superseded the greats, which is likely because the random manifestation of genius seems mostly due to socioeconomic factors.
And in this context, we have our super-competitive academic institutions, where the actual manifestation of new human knowledge is constrained...
To bullet-point some food for thought:
Ethical constraint - Not supporting Neil and Mengele but the people who make up institutional ethics board can be assembled from pretty much anywhere, with equal qualifications, rather than using specifically academics employed in positions where they benefit from the presence of non-academic corporate leadership on an ethics board.
Corporate constraint - There are documented instances whereby corporations legally or monetarily veto publishable research from partnerships with educational institutions. Follow the rabbit-hole of privatization and the emergence of corporate states.
Military constraint - There seems a clear division between military and institutional research, in that, any research can 'become' military research and thus, we can never be sure what the military is researching, only that that research is likely absent from institutional research.
If we are going to rate every area in science,and decide which deserve funding or not,this will most likely be the longest discussion ever :)
Well, I'm here till I die - not that I can devote all my time to this discussion in particular but I would participate so long as it or I went on ;).
So rank the research projects in terms of lowest immediate utility and line the worst the most "useless" at the chopping block.
I think there are justifications for utility that run counter-intuitive to your assertion here. Wanna back that up with some criteria? I certainly wouldn't be so quick to dump linguistics, for instance.
Funding and availability of, no doubt. Though I think we're definitely at a disadvantage in this discussion because we can't account for military and corporate R&D, which has a fair bit of declassified paranormal results, which are interesting, to say the least. They have probably thrown the most time and money at these conceived hypotheses.
Interesting point.Are you referring to the use of remote viewing and such in military tactics? Haven`t read much about that,feel free to elaborate if you can :)
Well, freedom of information dictates a certain number of years until declassification so much of public record is as old as those making decisions thirty, fifty, seventy-five years ago could assure.
But a couple years ago when a group of roommates and I tried our hands at symposium to essay, where we'd have discussions and then write up an essay around the common ground (two of which I think are in the Writing Subforum), we decided that there is probably a 20/80 split. What with conspiracy theories and degrees of separation, the military research that we contemporarily know about, is probably about 20% of the military research being conducted.
This doesn't include, corporate subsidiaries of the military, which probably don't ever have to reveal anything.
But when I have another day and more time, I will definitely regale you with some more concrete examples. I just don't feel like digging through the library right now. Busy day and such.
-
Hmm...after reading this thread, i wonder about two things:
1) how many of you know how to work scientifically (is that a word?) aka how many of you are academics/working in scientific fields and not just readers of some academic work (or even pseudo-academic work)?
2) how many of you are just playing advocatus diaboli in here?
For my money, the most stringent and well-flowing arguments were made by anor (which is not to say that i agree with all his statments). Disclaimer: Not counting Madness here...he obviously works as an academic (i hope? at least you know how to build an argument and you have good structure in your posts). But he didn't contribute as much (post count wise) as others.
I'm not trying to be a troll here...this is truly what i was thinking about when reading this thread.
-
2) how many of you are just playing advocatus diaboli in here?
*raises hand*
Though I think it's not very helpful to critique an ongoing thread without offering some issues that you had with people's posts. It's too easy to simply dismiss you by saying you're biased against Psi...and possibly Sci. ;)
-
2) how many of you are just playing advocatus diaboli in here?
Sometimes I forget which is which, but pretty much most of the time.
As far as working scientifically.... I took some labs in college and was an intern for my prof for a summer.... which means that I haven't done anything :P
-
No! Space must live! Watch this inspirational (if not somewhat biased) video about how awesome space is.
Actually, don't bother lol it won't change your mind, they just make me happy.
In all seriousness though, I think it raises some interesting points and some interesting facts that I didn't know before I watched it. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the clips.
2 short parts :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc
Oh, I think space research is interesting (thanks for the links!), but is it really the best use of funding if we're trying to be pragmatic?
I should qualify my desire to cut linguistic funding out - linguistics related to education should be kept, but there are studies that seem to be based around satisfaction of curiosity. [Probably a host of studies we can cut in a variety of fields, not to mention we should also consider tax payer money going into public universities.]
What I'm really getting at is if the public at large is more interested in Psi than space, do government appointed experts have the right to say one is more valuable to us than the other? I suppose you can try and justify space programs by noting possibly colonization benefits?
Seems like research into urban farming, or this Soylent stuff, [or computer science], would be of more immediate use than learning about the cosmos or trying to pin down what miniscule amount of telekinetic power may exist. [In those cases experts can supersede public opinion, but deciding whether money goes to space or Psi might be better put to referendums of some sort.]
-
I agree with you there... But can you imagine, at least in America, letting the public decide what research is important and what is not? .... I shudder just thinking about it.
The Ph.D student that I worked with was having trouble getting funding for his research for the potential uses of a byproduct of biofuel production. He was researching ways to turn an otherwise largely unknown and discarded "waste" into something extremely valuable. At the same time, a TA was talking about how he got a huge grant to go trekking around Europe for months, visiting and participating in various archaeological digs. Apparently the universitie's approval board was filled with English and Anthropologist Ph.D's,
To me.... thats just insane. Why spend thousands of dollars sending some guy to vacation in Europe (sure he'll do some work, but you don't go backpacking around Europe just because of the research opportunities) rather than fund potentially groundbreaking studies into biofuel?
btw glad you liked the video's. I know the internet has turned him into a pop-science figure, and many people dismiss anything he has to say now simply because of that, but I've found that he has a lot of balanced and reasonable views on many issues (not to mention he's so passionate its hard not to get excited listening to his speeches/rants).
-
I agree with you there... But can you imagine, at least in America, letting the public decide what research is important and what is not? .... I shudder just thinking about it.
Oh, I think whatever left over funding people want to use for Psi or Space should be left to public decision. More practical considerations should have more input from experts.
To me.... thats just insane. Why spend thousands of dollars sending some guy to vacation in Europe (sure he'll do some work, but you don't go backpacking around Europe just because of the research opportunities) rather than fund potentially groundbreaking studies into biofuel?
Oh, I have a huge problem with what I see as excessive funding for the humanities. Not exactly money down the drain but sometimes you have to wonder how much time is possibly wasted in the school curriculum that could be better spent.
But that seems like a particularly egregious example.
-
Hmm...after reading this thread, i wonder about two things:
1) how many of you know how to work scientifically (is that a word?) aka how many of you are academics/working in scientific fields and not just readers of some academic work (or even pseudo-academic work)?
2) how many of you are just playing advocatus diaboli in here?
For my money, the most stringent and well-flowing arguments were made by anor (which is not to say that i agree with all his statments). Disclaimer: Not counting Madness here...he obviously works as an academic (i hope? at least you know how to build an argument and you have good structure in your posts). But he didn't contribute as much (post count wise) as others.
I'm not trying to be a troll here...this is truly what i was thinking about when reading this thread.
I am not to be taken very seriously in any way,since I don`t have the qualities you are looking for.Have not worked scientifically,nor am I an academic.Just having a conversation,that is all :) I missed the list of requirements you needed to participate.
-
I missed the list of requirements you needed to participate.
lol requirements. This is a place for doing just that, having conversations with people who have vastly different backgrounds and experiences to draw from. This is the TSA noosphere. There should be no in-group that denies the access to comments on any of these topics.
Kellais was probably just wondering if anyone actually knew what they where talking about :P
-
Kellais was probably just wondering if anyone actually knew what they where talking about :P
But coming into a discussion and randomly stating how you like one poster over the others isn't really useful to the interlocutors involved.
And I say that as someone who would not want to see public funding given to Psi studies. But then I'm wary about where tax payer money goes in a whole host of different areas.
-
sure it is, everyone likes a little ego boost. you're far to cynical.
-
sure it is, everyone likes a little ego boost. you're far to cynical.
But Kellian's post was addressed to Anor's interlocutors - I'm supposing you and Royce? Maybe me as well, though my position, I suspect, leaves me in partial contention with both sides depending on what else Anor believes in unworthy of public funding.
So saying, "Anor's arguments are better than yours, it brings all the boys to the yard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGL2rytTraA)", doesn't really offer any persuasive additions to the debate.
It doesn't help us to decide anything, unless you plan to reevaluate your entire understanding of science and research on account of some person named Kellian on the internet.
-
Kellais was probably just wondering if anyone actually knew what they where talking about
He probably was.He will let us know I guess :)
Look I started this tread out of pure curiosity.I knew perfectly well that there are people on this board with a background in academics and science.My hope was that we would have people who were arguing against Sheldrake,and someone who was sympathetic toward his views.I think I stated early on that I am in the middle here,taking no sides,though I probably was leaning more to one side as the discussion got out of hand :D
-
So saying, "Anor's arguments are better than yours, it brings all the boys to the yard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGL2rytTraA)", doesn't really offer
lmao.
I understand what you're saying, but I just don't think its worth calling out. This isn't as high brow as TPB, and I call it a win if someone who doesn't normally post decides to say something. We've got low enough participation as it is, try not to scare anyone off :P, that's all I'm saying. But maybe I'm too lenient.
-
lol...i'm sorry if i poked into a hornets nest here.
As i said, i was not trying to troll. Therefore, you read too much into it, Sci. It was not addressed to those who disargreed with anor. I just found his way of argumenting and staying "objective" the best IN MY OPINION. As someone who worked at University and in a field where concise and precise working is a must (mathematics) i just find that a lot of people are too...vague...in their construction of their points and discussions. And don't get me wrong - this is not meant as a "you guys can't" ... i know that i have too high a standard but after some years as a mathematician, i just...see...all that imprecision "ruling" our lives.
Another problem is the misrepresenting of points made by others...how many times does one poster "put words" into another posters mouth that this poster never "said" that way etc etc . It can get frustrating real fast (and somehow i guess we saw some of that in the discussion between Wilshire and anor).
Hrm...i think i come of way to snob-y...i'm sorry but i can't put it better into words (how imprecise of me, right?! ;D ) ... but english is not my mother tongue so at least i have an excuse ;) Just kidding, all languages are imprecise tools (at least compared to math).
I'll stop now before everyone hates me :-\
To sum it up : yeah, i was just wondering how many of you stand behind what they are defending/discussing...and as it seems i was right...not many (aka a lot of advocatus diaboli in here). That is not to say that the discussion can not be interesting, mind you. But i just find discussion where i get the impression that many participants play advocatus diaboli not very...satisfying. Gah...anyway...i'm talking in circles.
Suffice it to say (just to have something that is at least a bit on topic), i do think that this Mr. Sheldrake needs to proof his stuff (how did Madness put it - the onus is on him)...and not that he can come in, throw a theory in the room, and then just leave and say something like "Well, it was not disproved..." ... THAT is definitely not scientific work.
-
Sorry, wasn't trying to attack you. And I got your name wrong. Apologies :-[
I'm just thinking more and more about discourse, and how it gets cluttered. I didn't mean to say you're a bad person or anything like that, I just thought an example of the imprecision you're noting in the discussion would help.
I think demanding a high standard is not only fine but something I know I'd like to approach, but without something concrete to note it's hard to pin down what anyone means when they critique dialogue.
-
Glad its all straightens out before Madness had to swoop in an scold us all ;)
-
1) how many of you know how to work scientifically (is that a word?) aka how many of you are academics/working in scientific fields and not just readers of some academic work (or even pseudo-academic work)?
...
For my money, the most stringent and well-flowing arguments were made by anor (which is not to say that i agree with all his statments). Disclaimer: Not counting Madness here...he obviously works as an academic (i hope? at least you know how to build an argument and you have good structure in your posts). But he didn't contribute as much (post count wise) as others.
I claim my stake where and when I feel necessary.
My autobiography, however, remains, for now, shrouded in mystery ;). But to answer your question, directly, I would not qualify, at the moment, as a practicing academic. I'm still a mature undergrad.
I should qualify my desire to cut linguistic funding out - linguistics related to education should be kept, but there are studies that seem to be based around satisfaction of curiosity. [Probably a host of studies we can cut in a variety of fields, not to mention we should also consider tax payer money going into public universities.]
What I'm really getting at is if the public at large is more interested in Psi than space, do government appointed experts have the right to say one is more valuable to us than the other? I suppose you can try and justify space programs by noting possibly colonization benefits?
Seems like research into urban farming, or this Soylent stuff, [or computer science], would be of more immediate use than learning about the cosmos or trying to pin down what miniscule amount of telekinetic power may exist. [In those cases experts can supersede public opinion, but deciding whether money goes to space or Psi might be better put to referendums of some sort.]
I'm definitely interested in what qualifies as constituent criteria, which is necessary to distinguish what (individually or collectively) counts as worthy research according to our subjective subjectives.
I agree with you there... But can you imagine, at least in America, letting the public decide what research is important and what is not? .... I shudder just thinking about it.
...
To me.... thats just insane. Why spend thousands of dollars sending some guy to vacation in Europe (sure he'll do some work, but you don't go backpacking around Europe just because of the research opportunities) rather than fund potentially groundbreaking studies into biofuel?
Vested interests ;).
To me.... thats just insane. Why spend thousands of dollars sending some guy to vacation in Europe (sure he'll do some work, but you don't go backpacking around Europe just because of the research opportunities) rather than fund potentially groundbreaking studies into biofuel?
Oh, I have a huge problem with what I see as excessive funding for the humanities. Not exactly money down the drain but sometimes you have to wonder how much time is possibly wasted in the school curriculum that could be better spent.
But that seems like a particularly egregious example.
I am wondering. Specifically, what hits our bullet-points? And what are our bullet-points?
I am not to be taken very seriously in any way,since I don`t have the qualities you are looking for.Have not worked scientifically,nor am I an academic.Just having a conversation,that is all :) I missed the list of requirements you needed to participate.
I missed the list of requirements you needed to participate.
lol requirements. This is a place for doing just that, having conversations with people who have vastly different backgrounds and experiences to draw from. This is the TSA noosphere. There should be no in-group that denies the access to comments on any of these topics.
Kellais was probably just wondering if anyone actually knew what they where talking about :P
This is the TSA noosphere. Nuff said. There are no requirements or restrictions. All shall have voice on the slog. I am the rule.
It doesn't help us to decide anything, unless you plan to reevaluate your entire understanding of science and research on account of some person named Kellian on the internet.
Maybe I do...
lol...i'm sorry if i poked into a hornets nest here.
...
this is not meant as a "you guys can't" ... i know that i have too high a standard but after some years as a mathematician, i just...see...all that imprecision "ruling" our lives.
Another problem is the misrepresenting of points made by others...how many times does one poster "put words" into another posters mouth that this poster never "said" that way etc etc . It can get frustrating real fast (and somehow i guess we saw some of that in the discussion between Wilshire and anor).
Hrm...i think i come of way to snob-y...i'm sorry but i can't put it better into words (how imprecise of me, right?! ;D ) ... but english is not my mother tongue so at least i have an excuse ;) Just kidding, all languages are imprecise tools (at least compared to math).
...
Suffice it to say (just to have something that is at least a bit on topic), i do think that this Mr. Sheldrake needs to proof his stuff (how did Madness put it - the onus is on him)...and not that he can come in, throw a theory in the room, and then just leave and say something like "Well, it was not disproved..." ... THAT is definitely not scientific work.
You've done nothing wrong. I stirred the pot by suggesting that 'Science' as a whole owes a debt of knowledge to the plebletariat, the unwashed masses, including disabusing contentions, like "paranormal phenomenon." Either the phenomenon is evident to be studied or 'Science' hasn't accurately discerned what phenomenon it is they are trying to study in the first place. There are no "unstudiable" phenomenon, in my opinion.
I think demanding a high standard is not only fine but something I know I'd like to approach, but without something concrete to note it's hard to pin down what anyone means when they critique dialogue.
A noble aspiration. We are, all of us, deceived.
Glad its all straightens out before Madness had to swoop in an scold us all ;)
You know I'm lurking. Few instances so far have qualified, by my count, intervention as necessary. My hedonistic philosophies of communication will allow for a broad, if not unlimited, spectrum of perspective. The crux is to balance that with open, honest, and rigorous engagement.
-
As someone who worked at University and in a field where concise and precise working is a must (mathematics) i just find that a lot of people are too...vague...in their construction of their points and discussions. And don't get me wrong - this is not meant as a "you guys can't" ... i know that i have too high a standard but after some years as a mathematician, i just...see...all that imprecision "ruling" our lives.
When we are discussing something as vague and imprecise as paranormal phenomenon,it is difficult to be precise ;D.
Mathematics is somewhat more precise yes ;)
My autobiography, however, remains, for now, shrouded in mystery
You are a disciple of the mysterium :D
You know I'm lurking. Few instances so far have qualified, by my count, intervention as necessary. My hedonistic philosophies of communication will allow for a broad, if not unlimited, spectrum of perspective. The crux is to balance that with open, honest, and rigorous engagement.
And that is why this is such a great forum!
-
@ sci - no hard feelings ... i'm glad we could "clear the air". Funnily enough, this exactly shows what i was trying to say ;D And i agree with what you said in your last post.
@ Wilshire - ;)
@ Madness - Your posts are not very numerous but always a) very long and quote-rich ;) and b) worth reading. P.S.: No i am not trying to "suck up" to the "man in power" ;D ;) P.S.S: I'd be honored if you do ... ;)
@ Royce - Well, i guess you are partly right. It is difficult to be precise if the field itself is vague-ish...but i was also talking about the structure and clarity of ones point which can be independent (at least partly) from the topic at hand.
And lol...somewhat more precise? ... you are trying to rattle me, right? ;) ;D
And i agree with you, i'm still a newb here but i feel that this is a place where i can feel at home.
-
And lol...somewhat more precise? ... you are trying to rattle me, right?
haha ;D I was definitely joking around ;)
It is kind of funny that the teacher in the house enters a discussion to grade each participant ;D
-
I for one appreciate correction when necessary.
Let me see the Inverse Fire ;).
-
It is kind of funny that the teacher in the house enters a discussion to grade each participant ;D
lol...yeah...i'm sorry, i can't help myself ;) ;D
The inverse fire is:
1
----
fire
;D
I apologize...but that is mathematician's humor for you ;)
-
Just thought I should throw some more speculation into the mix ;D This a lecture by Michael Persinger.It is called "no more secrets" and he basically claims there is technology out there capable of making people read each others minds.He calls it "the god helmet".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9l6VPpDublg
-
I will watch it but I'm fairly familiar with Persinger's work and, worst of all, his research hasn't enjoyed much, if any, replication.
Also, the spectrum of experience is uninspiring to say the least - Dawkins, for instance, says he felt nothing more than a mild headache in Persinger's Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation helmet.
-
I will watch it but I'm fairly familiar with Persinger's work and, worst of all, his research hasn't enjoyed much, if any, replication
Yeah,I guess he faces the same problems that Sheldrake does :)
I am not sure I like the premiss of this technology either.Maybe I am a bit paranoid,but I do want my thinking to exist inside my head,and my head alone.
-
TMS...
It's only a half-step better than TDCS. Accepting that half-step is TMS can depolarize or hyperpolarize, not simply the latter (as far as I've understood the mechanisms involved.
To clarify, also, participants in Persinger's pattern of stimulation can report from God clearly while others claim Aliens, or rather, simply vague personifications in their presence.
Perhaps, he's simply highlighted an area of the brain that works to integrate multiple aspects of sensation to selectively perceive physical presences in a certain sensory peripheral...
-
Perhaps, he's simply highlighted an area of the brain that works to integrate multiple aspects of sensation to selectively perceive physical presences in a certain sensory peripheral...
Yeah,I have been wondering about that.So you are saying that there is a part of your brain that can cause the illusion of perceiving a presence of god? That would explain a lot :)
I am sorry,but I am a newbie when it comes to studying the brain :)
I do not know if you are familiar with a british illusionist called Darren Brown? He actually convinced an atheist that he was having a profound religious experience.Not sure how,but he is skillful with tricks of the mind :)
-
Perhaps, he's simply highlighted an area of the brain that works to integrate multiple aspects of sensation to selectively perceive physical presences in a certain sensory peripheral...
Yeah,I have been wondering about that.So you are saying that there is a part of your brain that can cause the illusion of perceiving a presence of god? That would explain a lot :)
Hrm. No :). Proprioception is what some psychologists refer to as a sixth sense. It reflects your ability to sense the position of your body parts relative to one another. It's further theorized that something like what I posited above exists, which might sense individuals behind you or as "in your bubble," both of which are partially researched hypotheses. I think, Persinger is likely stimulating an area of the brain that activated during that sensation.
(EDIT: Also, it's good to remember that sensation and perception aren't all or nothing. People can and do train to heighten their perception and perceive in different ways - for instance, I spent time learning to lip read.)
As I wrote, it's a gradient. Some people sense God almighty, Richard Dawkins got a headache... and most variations in between.
I do not know if you are familiar with a british illusionist called Darren Brown? He actually convinced an atheist that he was having a profound religious experience.Not sure how,but he is skillful with tricks of the mind :)
No but I'll definitely check it out.
-
As I wrote, it's a gradient. Some people sense God almighty, Richard Dawkins got a headache... and most variations in between.
Lol,I appreciate Dawkins as he has a way of clearing the path of unnecessary distractions and bogus :)
-
Lol - oh the world in which we live.
The Wikipedia Battle for Rupert Sheldrake’s Biography (http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/the-wikipedia-battle-for-rupert-sheldrakes-biography/)
-
This is sad if it is true.The information battle never really ended it seems.Maybe this guy is a "para guerilla" ;)
-
I mean,it is pretty ridiculous that the so called second sources (who supposedly rejects his theory) is just one sentence stating:This is hogwash! ;D
did you see the huge differences in his bio from june to september? Nicely edited I would say
Again,I have not studied his theories,and I am not qualified to dismiss or agree with him,but this affair smells dirty.People actually look things up on wikipedia and see the site as a highly reliable source of information.I do not think people bother to check out the sources to validate the claims of the various statements,so it then becomes a useful tool to discredit theories.
This is a bit Orwellian,and you have made me scrape the dust of my conspiracy glasses :).I have not used them for quite a while.
-
It's no conspiracy. Wikipedia is an open-source information network. It seems obvious that vested interests would corroborate together to affect the biased dissemination of information.
By the way, I always follow the citations ;). I tend to treat everything academically at this point.
And, Royce, any person, regardless of training, is qualified to critique scientific endeavors. Don't let anything convince you otherwise.
-
Yeah,not a conspiracy in that sense,but people are definitely conspiring to affect the information provided for us :).This just goes to show that you should be careful and always check the sources thoroughly,which I suspect many people do not do.
And, Royce, any person, regardless of training, is qualified to critique scientific endeavors. Don't let anything convince you otherwise.
I totally agree with that,I was just pointing out that I am not promoting his views,neither do I dismiss them :).I have read one book(the science delusion) and that was not about his morpho teories,but rather general attacks on materialist sciences,which I think we have discussed quite a bit on this tread :)
-
Anyway,guerrilla skeptics does sound more like a terror group than anything else.It sounds like they are willing to blow up arguments and nuke everything that is weird in the world :)
-
http://dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2013/10/Maverick-Biologist-Rupert-Sheldrake-Criticizes-Attacks-Guerilla-Skeptics-Wikipedi
Lol - Please, keep following the rabbit hole, if you like.
-
Lol,they actually are an intellectual terror group,executing their right to edit information without good sources to back them up :)
-
Given how often I encounter skeptic assholes, despite largely agreeing with their position, it wouldn't surprise me to see them slobbering over the chance to defame Sheldrake.
But then I also encounter believer assholes, and I think a big part of this has to do with the nature of the internet.
-
...................
But then I also encounter believer assholes, and I think a big part of this has to do with the nature of the internet.
Who likes arseholes in general? As you say, it is a question of common courtesy. The sort of person who uses the internet to make insulting or gratuitous comments is the same sort of person who would flip you the finger in a car for driving too fast/slow/on a bicycle etc. Should internet users be forced to forgo anonymity? Quite possibly not; at least I would not support such a move. On the other hand, we should all strive to converse on the internet as if we were talking personally (i.e. face to face).
-
On the other hand, we should all strive to converse on the internet as if we were talking personally (i.e. face to face).
I do, though I think kinetic communication accounts for much as well - many aspects of communication are lacking in this thought space of words.
And to be clear, my words and mannerisms seem to piss a fair number of people off in real life too ;).
-
Who likes arseholes in general? As you say, it is a question of common courtesy. The sort of person who uses the internet to make insulting or gratuitous comments is the same sort of person who would flip you the finger in a car for driving too fast/slow/on a bicycle etc. Should internet users be forced to forgo anonymity? Quite possibly not; at least I would not support such a move. On the other hand, we should all strive to converse on the internet as if we were talking personally (i.e. face to face).
I totally agree with this,though I am not sure what point you are making in regards to what we are discussing here. If you read the links madness posted a few posts back,you will see these so called "guerrilla skeptics" using wikipedia to defame him.
I think that most people look up information on wikipedia and see it as valid without checking the sources.In this case you will see the sources are not explaining anything,they are ridiculous.
When it comes to the internet,I think we all are infants.
-
You see? I am an infant when it comes to communicating in forums(the internet in general really),always forgetting to highlight quotes and so on :)
Got my first PC when I was 26 years old(8 years ago), and this is the first forum I have ever interacted on.
-
I confess that I was not reading the prior links. Mind you, I've never yet let ignorance deter me from forcefully advancing a position. As regards the wolf-pack of sceptics who are allegedly giving Rupert Sheldrake a hard time, surely the best riposte would be for him, Rupert Sheldrake, to publish a series of papers in reputable journals that would show there is something to his claims afer all? That would show them.
-
As regards the wolf-pack of sceptics who are allegedly giving Rupert Sheldrake a hard time, surely the best riposte would be for him, Rupert Sheldrake, to publish a series of papers in reputable journals that would show there is something to his claims afer all? That would show them.
The wolves need to feed,and Rupert tastes delicious :) On a more serious note,I do not think that will happen...ever. Maybe he is our times Galileo Galilei,and the scientific establishment plays the role of the catholic inquisition. As time flies by we will know whether his theories show something or nothing. Either way,I think you are using rhetoric here to turn things upside down. I can do the same. Why do they feel the need to edit his bio on wikipedia,and defame him by discarding his theories by using unreliable and ridiculous statements as sources? If he is such a fraud,why not back it up with actual sources that prove him wrong?
In a world of words,deep confusion arises all the time. To me the game of words can be exhausting,since we invent these words and give them meaning.There is the world of words and the world that just "is". However practical words are,it is impossible to use them to describe things as they are, because they were what they are long before words existed :) We label them with words,and suddenly we can decide that some words fit more than others. It is confusing, but as Alan Watts said so beautifully: "To try to understand reality using words and descriptions,is like trying to catch the wind in a box,or trying to wrap up water with paper".
-
Mind you, I've never yet let ignorance deter me from forcefully advancing a position.
Lol.
Also, I'm sure either of you remember hashing out basically these exact statements for previous pages of this thread?
-
Yeah,I do feel we are biting our own tails a bit :)
-
Ted Dace relates how morphic resonance came about from Sheldrake reading about some interesting philosophical positions regarding time & memory:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/Dace_analysis.html
The job of the brain, according to Bergson, is to calculate possible actions in response to sensory data.7Inputs are converted in the most efficient possible way to outputs. That’s all there is to it. Within those cerebral folds you will find no representations of the world, no emotions, no thoughts, no desires, no psyche. For Bergson, locating the qualities of mind in the brain amounts to a kind of neural mysticism. Is the brain so special that it can simultaneously be a part of the physical world and yet step outside it to represent it?8
Rather than constructing images of the world, says Bergson, our brains simply facilitate our perception of it. Because the brain does its job, we directly perceive what is around us. But how does Bergson grapple with memory? In this case, the images we perceive are no longer physically given. Surely here we must rely on cerebral storage of images.
Just as he maintains that we actually apprehend what is around us, Bergson argues that in memory we literally perceive the past. Far from merely representing the past, a memory is the resuscitation of a perception.9 To explain how this can be, Bergson must reinvent time itself.
A half century after Russell’s investigation, the task of synthesizing Semon and Bergson fell to a young biologist-in-training at Cambridge University, a theoretical nonconformist who took a year off from his laboratory work to study philosophy at Harvard. Unlike Russell, whose reading of Bergson was colored by professional rivalry, Rupert Sheldrake was captivated by Bergson’s radical take on time and its implications for memory. By coupling Bergson’s time-as-duration with Semon’s mnemic homophony, Sheldrake obtained the basis for a scientific theory of mind, the very thing Russell had sought with his Analysis of Mind.
Flabbergasted by Sheldrake’s audacious proposal, neuroscientist Steven Rose designed an experiment that would surely dispose of it once and for all. The experiment involved day-old chicks divided into two groups. Test chicks could peck at yellow diodes, while control chicks could peck at chrome beads. After pecking, the test chicks were injected with lithium chloride, a toxic substance that made them mildly nauseous, while control chicks were injected with a harmless saline solution. The same procedure was followed for 37 days with a new batch of chicks each day. The data indicated that successive batches of test chicks became gradually more hesitant to peck relative to control chicks. While this finding indicated that test chicks were influenced by previous test chicks, the most clear-cut result concerned control chicks that were allowed to peck at either the yellow diodes or the chrome beads three hours following their injection of saline solution. Over the course of the experiment, successive batches of control chicks became increasingly reluctant to peck at the yellow diodes, indicating that they were influenced by the cumulative experience of chicks that had pecked at the yellow diodes and then been injected with lithium chloride. After stalling for months, Rose reneged on his agreement to write up the results with Sheldrake for publication.35
-
Have you read any of his books Sci? I have read one, but have not indulged more since.
-
Have you read any of his books Sci? I have read one, but have not indulged more since.
They've been recommended to me but I've not gotten to them. I'll probably go through the evidence on his site and some point though it might be awhile.
-
More on Sheldrake's work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpudgs9ZTfg
The idea is interesting, and I'd be curious if he could carry out more experiments. Dismissing the idea out of hand seems to be nothing more than Mean Girls style antics. As Kaku said of Penrose's Orch-OR, "science isn't a popularity contest."
The only argument I could see is that some other, supposedly more important science, might not be done if money is given to Sheldrake. If this argument is coming from definitive materialists I can only laugh. Everything is meaningless, the world and our very selves are disenchanted, but nevertheless we must be true to the paradigm! ::)
As an aside, seemed to relate to two other things I read:
The Mathematical Forms being in this reality, as argued in "The Mathematical World". (http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/)
Aristotelian realism stands in a difficult relationship with naturalism, the project of showing that all of the world and human knowledge can be explained in terms of physics, biology and neuroscience. If mathematical properties are realised in the physical world and capable of being perceived, then mathematics can seem no more inexplicable than colour perception, which surely can be explained in naturalist terms. On the other hand, Aristotelians agree with Platonists that the mathematical grasp of necessities is mysterious. What is necessary is true in all possible worlds, but how can perception see into other possible worlds? The scholastics, the Aristotelian Catholic philosophers of the Middle Ages, were so impressed with the mind’s grasp of necessary truths as to conclude that the intellect was immaterial and immortal.
Feser's conception of the soul as Form of the body, as described in his discussion about the problem of intentionality. (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/stoljar-on-intentionality.html)
Now, for the Thomistic or hylemorphic dualist, the soul is to be understood, not as pure thought, but rather as the substantial form of the living human body. And qua form, it is not a complete substance in the first place, much less a material or quasi-material one. (Talk of the soul as an “immaterial substance” is thus for the Thomist at least misleading, though he does hold that the soul subsists beyond the death of the body as an incomplete substance.) Here too, though, talk of interrelated quasi-material parts, “causal pathways,” and the like is completely out of place. But for the Thomist, the Cartesian’s talk of inner “representations” is out of place too; as I have discussed elsewhere (e.g. here and here) the “representationalist” conception of the mind is an essentially modern one that the ancients and medievals generally would have rejected. As a consequence, the ancients and medievals would reject too the essentially modern way of framing the issue of intentionality that I have, for the sake of argument, been following up to now in this post.
-
Morphic Fields and the Implicate Order - A dialogue with David Bohm (http://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/A_New_Science_of_Life_Appx_B.pdf)
"David Bohm was an eminent quantum physicist. As a young man he worked closely with Albert Einstein at Princeton University. With Yakir Aharonov he discovered the Aharonov-Bohm effect. He was later Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College, London University, and was the author of several books, including Causality and Chance in Modern Physics 1 and Wholeness and the Implicate Order.2 He died in 1992. This dialogue was first published in ReVision Journal, and the editorial notes are by Renée Weber, the journal’s editor. "
-
Sheldrake interviewed by "The End of Science" author (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/07/14/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/)
At one point Sheldrake, alluding to my 1996 book The End of Science, said that his science begins where mine ends. When I asked him to elaborate he said, “We both agree that science is at present limited by assumptions that restrict enquiry, and we agree that there are major unsolved problems about consciousness, cosmology and other areas of science… I am proposing testable hypotheses that could take us forward and open up new frontiers of scientific enquiry.”
I remain a psi doubter; my doubt was reinforced by psychologist Susan Blackmore, a psi believer-turned-skeptic whom I interviewed for my 2003 book Rational Mysticism. But now and then I still doubt my doubt. In a post here two years ago, I point out that many brilliant scientists—from William James and Alan Turing to Freeman Dyson—have been open-minded about psi.
I conclude, “I’m a psi skeptic, because I think if psi was real, someone would surely have provided irrefutable proof of it by now. But how I wish that someone would find such proof!… The discovery of telepathy or telekinesis would blow centuries of accumulated scientific dogma sky high. What could be more thrilling!”
Sheldrake—I think even his most adamant critics will agree–is a fascinating scientific figure. I was thus delighted when he agreed to the following email interview.
I'm not sure why Blackmore is seen as such an authority - I recall her claiming the only choices were dualism and materialism at a conference where people were presenting on idealism & panpsychism. Made me think she had too much skin in the game when it came to holding up the establishment.