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.

"Soylent", unforunate name for a food.  But of course the name pays homage to the classic sci-fi film of a Harry Harrison work, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green.

Quote from: anor277 on September 09, 2013, 10:28:43 am

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: anor277 on September 08, 2013, 01:01:28 pm

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. 

@Royce, Richard Dawkins does not speak for everyone.  I myself am often mistaken.  It is a human condition.

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 

(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 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.