- Dec 10, 2003
- 23,896
- 9,864
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Clearly you're taking Sheldrake on blind faith and not responding to the substance of any responses, so I'm putting you on ignore.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
An argument that starts I found this data but he found this data etc doesn’t really have a conclusion, it’s just a comparison of different things
There’s a bit more to it. He also has a PhD in Biochemistry and an MA in Natural Sciences, both from Cambridge, the parapsychology (and the philosophy and history of science) came later. I’m not sure how reliable the general regard of any community towards someone who challenges their beliefs is.
You really, really want to believe don't you Tom.
Try freeing up your inner sceptic. While there may be merit in challenging beliefs it doesn't make him right and the onus is on him to prove his case. So far he ain't cutting it.
OB
Clearly you're taking Sheldrake on blind faith and not responding to the substance of any responses, so I'm putting you on ignore.
The rational approach to the Sheldrakes of the world is not to necessarily disbelieve but to suspend belief until you have reasonable evidence. Even with reasonable evidence be prepared to change your mind.I'm certainly curious about it. The difficulty is finding the time to read all of the conflicting info. It's not important to me in terms of belief if that's what you mean - I didn't pursue any education in the sciences beyond school, so most of what I see, hear or find out is 2nd hand, e.g. my grandad was a chemist, working in oil research (mostly on spitfire fuel), who then studied theology at Oxford and went on to become a Baptist minister. He gave me some limited insight into how personalities within science (as within any field) can determine how different theories are weighted. Speaking with friends who did study science, I've been struck by how their world view has been shaped, and narrowed in some respects, by this education. For me, it'a mainly about curiosity and general interest.
The rational approach to the Sheldrakes of the world is not to necessarily disbelieve but to suspend belief until you have reasonable evidence. Even with reasonable evidence be prepared to change your mind.
Extraordinary claims (like this) demand extraordinary evidence. It also pays to assume that the rest of the scientific community is at least as credible in their opposition. Don't romanticise the gallant challenger.
OB
Well yes, I don't have a particular view on this, just asking questions. I read the science delusion (and the god delusion) a few years back and revisited the first recently. There are people on this site with a lot of different backgrounds, that was the reason for posting my question here. It's not a statement of my beliefs.
Forget the Science Delusion and go back to reread the God Delusion.
(but I'm an atheist so I would say that wouldn't I?)
It's after midnight on Monday morning here so I'm going to toddle off to bed and leave you with your dilemma. If you sort it out drop a post in here and I'll check in the morning.
OB
There have also been variations in the measured height of Mount Everest, including some in recent years.
If we take Sheldrake's 'argument' at face value, we would have to assume that the mountain is actually growing and shrinking, rather than this being a measurement issue, exacerbated by the difficulties of the measurement, and the different (and potentially unknown) errors introduced by different methods (GPS versus trigonometry).
There are some assumptions underlying the question; firstly, whatever you think of Sheldrake’s ideas, he is an accomplished academic, so I am assuming that he hasn’t simply invented his sources. That doesn’t mean that he is right in whatever he asserts by any means, but it does mean that there is more to what he is saying than some simple error over data or understanding of measurements.
Lots of smart people make simple errors, especially when they opine on subjects where they are not experts, or publish in the popular press, where there is no peer review to correct them.
I think it’s a safe assumption that with his level of academic training he applies some level of rigour and so doesn’t just scribble out whatever happens to pass through his mind and then publish it. Whether or not he is right is a different matter.
Could you explain how those ideas can be specifically applied to Sheldrake and his published work?
There are plenty of people who have good educations but still completely forget about rigour and seemingly any sort of scientific validity. In my personal opinion, Dr. Georgia Purdom is a good example of that.
It means that we can't just take their work at face value. Which we shouldn't do for ANY person, scientist or not.
Yes, I wouldn’t disagree with that. Sheldrake might not be right, or may be partially right and so on. I won’t get any final verdict on that in an internet post I know but I’m fishing for different views on the OP from people working in the same field (broadly speaking)
Sheldrake responds that skeptics dampen the morphic field, whereas believers enhance it. Of Wiseman, he remarked: "Perhaps his negative expectations consciously or unconsciously influenced the way he looked at the subjects."
I looked up critiques of Sheldrake's work. What I have found looks exactly like classical pseudoscience. The evidence for 'morphic resonance' does not appear to be repeatable by objective experiment.
Here's a quote indirectly and directly from Sheldrake.
This in itself does not fill me full of confidence that this morphic field exists. Objective experiments testing the claims that only turn up positive if they are done by 'believers' even more so.
I looked up critiques of Sheldrake's work. What I have found looks exactly like classical pseudoscience. The evidence for 'morphic resonance' does not appear to be repeatable by objective experiment.
Here's a quote indirectly and directly from Sheldrake.
This in itself does not fill me full of confidence that this morphic field exists. Objective experiments testing the claims that only turn up positive if they are done by 'believers' even more so.
Btw is that Richard Wiseman who is quoted?
Yes in terms of his general work I doubt if there are existing ways of proving it by objective, observable methods. After all he challenges the validity of some of those methods. I realise that casts doubt from the point of view of scientific inquiry as it currently operates. I’m more interested in the general implications of his ideas than whether or not they are demonstrably true or false, but for the purposes of this post I was mostly interested in counter arguments about his questioning of the ‘absolute truth’ of constants in physics
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?