Science Delusion, Rupert @ Groningen University April 2012

[Phorce]

The Science Delusion
Rupert at Groningen University, Holland, April 20, 2012
Lecture on The Science Delusion and response by Prof Jan-Willem Romaijn

Lecture and Response Duration 1hr 40mins

http://www.sheldrake.org/B&R/audiostrea ... ningen.mp3

http://www.sheldrake.org/

Talk about cutting to the chase. This guy does not mince his words and I just love him for really demanding that we fight for a true spirit of inquiry rather the the sham science that is ... well, Sheldrake says it better than I can in his talk.

[Sparky]

Review by Robert McLuhan:

A key idea for Sheldrake is the existence of information fields that act as a kind of universal memory. Once a form or activity has come into being it provides the blueprint for other similar effects, which may then multiply with ease. The classic example is the formation of crystals, for which Sheldrake has elsewhere provided evidence, but in principle he thinks it can apply to anything, from the development of organisms to the acquisition of new skills.

This seems to imply that the Big Bangers, being the majority of "Dark crystal" believers, have quite an advantage.

[Michael V]

I only managed the to last just past 30 minutes. His observation of the lack of pluralism in science seems to have entirely missed the point. Superstition is rooted in the notion of the existence of unfathomable magic. His shallow pseudo-intellectual view is revealed around 16 minutes when he cretinously equates a mechanistic view of the universe as a "machine metaphor". That he has clearly studied, and presumably understood, complex philosophical theories does nothing in my opinion to diminish his status as a small minded fool. Like all those that share superstitious belief, it reveals an unwillingness to accept the insignificance of humans and more specifically the insignificance of the individual self. Superstition of this order is just cold comfort for fools.

Forgive the paraphrasing, but:

"The idea that electrons and atoms are simply matter without consciousness or souls is a huge assumption.....and it doesn't help us"
"It does not help us". No, he is quite right, it does not help us. You may if you wish "jump the materialistic ship" in search of "help", and this may perhaps lead to personal contentment, but personal or philosophical "help" in far from point.

"What if the Sun is conscious?". Well that's fine, let's leave a small window of scepticism open to such a possibility, because yes, the Sun's lack of consciousness cannot be proved. "It produces a very boring view of nature...that doesn't correspond with the direct experience of being outdoors...I really have a feeling that we live in a living world". So, "nature" and the universe are expected to be entertaining and not "boring", and "I really have a feeling". Oh, well then, universe stand to attention, a human "really has a feeling", please comply immediately.

These are the pointless ramblings of someone with a small and pathetic philosophy. This thread has no place in the Future of "Science". This is the antithesis of logical, objective and critical thinking.

Michael

[Aristarchus]

Like all those that share superstitious belief, it reveals an unwillingness to accept the insignificance of humans and more specifically the insignificance of the individual self. Superstition of this order is just cold comfort for fools.

I like the cold, and I consider myself a Gnostic. BTW, what epistemological method did you use that allowed you to conclude humans are insignificant? Those are just concepts that you created as a point of reference. As I see it, humans are neither significant nor insignificant, but the individual has it within him/her to transform himself/herself. Science in the same way is always conceptual. Each age, culture, and/or civilization discovers a science that comports with its particular weltanschauung.

"Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. ... Fellow creators, Zarathustra seeks, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrants: what are herds and shepherds and corpses to him?" ~ Nietzsche Thus spoke Zarathustra

[Michael V]

Aristarchus,

...what epistemological method did you use that allowed you to conclude humans are insignificant?

"epistemological method"? Do you really think that such a simple analysis requires a deeply rigorous method? You may choose whether the universe exists as a actual reality or is just created as a side-effect of human consciousness. If you choose the latter then "epistemological method" are only meaningless words with no importance or genuine use.

Humans exist on one planet around one star. There are a hundred billion stars in the galaxy and way more than a hundred billion galaxies.....as far as the vastness of the universe is concerned humans are no more significant than dinosaurs or dodos and somehow the universe has managed to bravely stagger on without either. I would suggest that the universe of stars and galaxies would likely continue to exist even if the great and all powerful humans were to cease to exist. Of course, you may draw Earth, and in particular humans, at the centre of the universe if it comforts you to do so, just so long as you are aware of your self-designed ridiculous delusion.

Early on in his "inane spiel" Sheldrake talks about "many belief systems" and "the incredible success of materialism". Either he is attempting to fool his audience or he is woefully short of objective insight; probably the latter. There are in fact only 2 belief systems: superstition and not superstition. His delusion is to believe that there is any significant difference between any spiritual, mystical or deity based belief system.

With all that said, I think he might better of described his approach as "The Superstition Delusion".

Michael

[Aristarchus]

Do you really think that such a simple analysis requires a deeply rigorous method?

It is not required, but after centuries of using such methods in various philosophies, I would state that it's demanded.

There are a hundred billion stars in the galaxy and way more than a hundred billion galaxies

Thanks. I didn't even consider that factoid. Wow. That is quite a few. Huh. Hey, maybe the universe is just a Jackson Pollock painting produced my NASA.

as far as the vastness of the universe is concerned humans are no more significant than dinosaurs or dodos

Maybe those amimals should have done more in the excercise of meditation. I also understand that dinosaurs and dodos did not produce many scientists, let alone poets and artists. Of course, now were back to not measuring through pure conjecture of what constitutes a conceptual idea such as significant and insignificant.

and somehow the universe has managed to bravely stagger on without either.

Man, you're good. You know the general disposition of the universe. I always thought that was a brave face when I gazed up at the stars. Wait. Hold the phone. I'm a part of that universe. I don't need to look only upwards, but I have the capacity to look inward. Epiphany, anyone?

Early on in his "inane spiel" Sheldrake talks about "many belief systems" and "the incredible success of materialism".

Well, he has a point. Positivism in the 19th & early 20th century did much to forward empirical observation, but has now been embraced with the overintellectualization of the theorietical and quantitative - and that's why we're in the cosmology in crisis as we are today, and, thus, the Electric Universe model does not obtain a fair hearing.

The same thing happened leading up to the Hellenic period in Ancient Greece. The Ionians were very empricial in their scientific approach, but as the culture of the Hellenic period descended into its civilization stage, it brought forth the schools of Socrates and Plato where everything was questioned, and Plato assumed that mathematics could unveil the truths hidden in Nature.

It is not an either/or proposition, because the two approaches need to be balanced. Unfortunately, this balance is never achieved in the civilization stage proceeding a High Culture period, because the civilization stage has now lost contact with Nature and thus cannot experience it, but only observe and extract from it. However, this does not prove successful, because, as it stands now, we can only observe 5% of the universe, and only truly rectify 1% of what we observe in it.

In order to have such a discussion, one has to listen to more than 30-minutes of something before coming to a conclusion.

[Phorce]

It is not an either/or proposition

Exactly. Even if Sheldrake is seen as plain damn wrong then his theory/outlook/research should be supported and included because that is what makes the richness of science. There is no single "right" theory or science. That is known as Relativism or The Plurality of Worlds (I capitalise here simply to emphasise that these are well known and well defined viewpoints). This seems to be something that a lot of people have a problem with. In fact I had to re-educate myself to be able to include other theories as valid, and by the way that includes The Big Bang and Gravity based Cosmology ( I still find myself raging against their theories sometimes but I guess I'm human ).

In order to have such a discussion, one has to listen to more than 30-minutes of something ...

Yes, indeed, but sometimes it can be difficult to include another viewpoint. This is especially true when there has been an enormous unfairness in the way the history of Science has been presented, at least to my eye's and ears. For example Sheldrake cites Georges Lemaitre. I never knew he was the originator of Big Bang theory and has called it ""the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" as well as referring to the event as being in the form of a primeval atom - The Primeval Atom Hypothesis. Sheldrake rightly points out the soul based "animus mundi" origin of Lemaitre's Science. He was a Catholic and a Priest, and yet there he is in 1933 standing beside Einstein after he was applauded by him ...

"After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." (source).



Staunch defenders of mainstream theories fail to simply be honest about the history of science, if they are even aware of the full history. Big Bang theory does have Religious overtones as is clearly shown by Lemaître's association with it, yet mainstream defenders staunchly promote their "non-religous" science. But my point here is not to show that "science is really religious" or something like this, its much more to do with the messiness of life, human fallibility and the enormous richness of life that does get mixed up in so many ways, including getting mixed up into mainstream scientific theories that are, absurdly, seen to be clinically isolated from life. This is one of the points that Feyerabend makes in his book Farewell to Reason, I just put it in my own words here.

Another good example. Sheldrake points out that (quote from the recording) ...

"...the scientific revolution, particularly the machine theory of life was first conceived by René Descartes in a trance like state on November the 10th, 1619. He believed this vision was revealed to him by the angel of truth, so the mechanistic world view was originally channelled ..." [this is Sheldrake making a joke here, but not without reason].

Here again we have this absurd clinical division being made between lauded modern theories and supposedly outmoded superstitions. Again Feyerabend points this out in Farewell to Reason. The absurdity of supposedly having a totally objective viewpoint unaffected by the the massive richness and complication of life.

As I've said elsewhere we all need to calm down and learn to accept other theories. Relativism is a two way street which includes accepting theories supposedly "opposed" to Electric Universe theory. By the way this is a difficulty I still have myself. Finding myself staunchly supporting what I believe to be the "right" theory - as I do with some of Sheldrakes research - without accepting the "opposing" theories. It seems to be possible to do exactly the same thing as the staunch defenders of "mainstream" science do. I actually do find it difficult to practice what I preach.

[Michael V]

There is no single "right" theory or science.

umm......

[Sparky]

Phorce wrote:

-the messiness of life, human fallibility and the enormous richness of life that does get mixed up in so many ways, including getting mixed up into mainstream scientific theories that are, absurdly, seen to be clinically isolated from life.

Michael wrote,

umm

, in response to

There is no single "right" theory or science.

TRY as I might, I can not seem to comprehend correctly the messiness of current science, nor the superstition contained within. I admire you both for your ability to reason, even though there is disagreement. My abilities, as paltry as they were, are failing quickly. I really have no confidence in myself to sort through the data and reach a good conclusion.

What upsets me is that I see people who have the mental abilities to do so, but who allow their superstitious based ideologies to prejudice their reasoning. And I have not the ability to present a strong argument, especially contemporaneously.

I have learned to think differently at this site, with the assistance of several members. Thank you.

[StevenJay]

I have learned to think differently at this site, with the assistance of several members. Thank you.

I second that, Sparky! It's one of the things I value most about this site. It's not about agreeing with everything, or even anything; it's about being prompted/reminded to think/live outside of the box. . . continuously!

[Michael V]

Sparky, StevenJay,

There is no single "right" theory or science.

Mr. Sheldrake might have said that it is worth considering the incredibly small possibility that aliens, either native or from some other distant location, live inside the Sun. If so I would of thought it a remote possibility, but highly unlikely and not worth pursuing any further unless some other supporting evidence becomes available. However, remote but unlikely, or even implausible possibility, is not Mr. Sheldrake's line of reasoning. His line of reasoning (and I use the word reasoning in the vaguest possible sense) is that he would like to feel good and warm and cuddly about the world and the universe, without the being bothered by logical reality. Fine, if it makes him happy, let him get on with it, but do not suggest that it is an alternative line of investigation.

There is no single "right" theory or science.

"no single right theory or science", umm....there is only one universe and it can only operate in the way that it does. It is not a matter of opinion or a point of view, and certainly not a personal spiritual journey. Science is not about being happy or feeling good or being wiser, it is about knowing the truth, whatever that may be.

My cryptic response to this serendipitous yet ironic statement was also because I am privileged to know different. Although I stand by the reasoning of my previous theorising, I am can say with unmatched confidence that those earlier attempts fell short in certain respects. The real answer is simple and elegant and, just as the truth should be, understandable. All that has been missing was a sufficient volume of data and a logical and objective systems analysis....both of which we now have.

Michael

[D_Archer]

I agree with Michael.

There is truth and we need to seek it out.

You can hold different thoughts along the way but the right answer is the only answer, the answer is truth.

Regards,
Daniel

ps. There was a community interview with Rupert on Grahamhancock.com
pss. http://www.grahamhancock.com/interviews/RupertSheldrake.php

[Sparky]

Michael,

The real answer is simple and elegant and, just as the truth should be, understandable.

Okay, hit me with it. If I can understand it, anyone can....

(and I use the word reasoning in the vaguest possible sense)

[Phorce]

I agree with Michael.

There is truth and we need to seek it out.

You can hold different thoughts along the way but the right answer is the only answer, the answer is truth.

Regards,
Daniel

ps. There was a community interview with Rupert on Grahamhancock.com
pss. http://www.grahamhancock.com/interviews/RupertSheldrake.php

Actually according to the philosophical tradition that Feyerabend follows (as an alternative to Popper'ism) there is no single Truth (capital T). This is called Relativism. Once grasped the reason is simple enough to grasp (although I've had the help of Feyerabends book Farewell to Reason). Science comes from humans. There is nothing outside of that. Claiming to be able to define universal abstract truths denies that Science is part of society and comes out of many traditions. The single "The Truth" is an abstract concept and there are many logical reasons for this being so. Feyerabend uses many real world examples in his book to show how this.

Sparky, StevenJay,

There is no single "right" theory or science.

"no single right theory or science", umm....there is only one universe and it can only operate in the way that it does. It is not a matter of opinion or a point of view, and certainly not a personal spiritual journey. Science is not about being happy or feeling good or being wiser, it is about knowing the truth, whatever that may be.

But not at any cost surely ? This pursuit of having to know the absolute truth when it comes to revealing the supposed principles of the way nature works (that supposedly we will then be able to hold as true across the entire universe) has caused a LOT of trouble as Feyerabend and others have pointed out. The destructive consequence of 500 years of reductive science is so often skipped over and ignored, to the detriment of the Science. Scientists should be in the service of humanity - people - and we should not be in the service of Science. This assumption that The Science KNOWS the absolute truths has so often been forced upon people. In fact it was Popper who actually promoted forcible (and violent) interventions into societies that deny these supposed proven truths. That was what he said in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Science needs to be more honest about it's history and more relativistic in it's approach. This forceful promotion of absolute universally applicable principles has got dangerously close to a Religion - in fact many say there is actually no difference any more.

My cryptic response to this serendipitous yet ironic statement was also because I am privileged to know different.

To know different yes. If you mean what I think you mean I think you are referring to the privileged elite of Science who believe that they have access to privileged knowledge not accessible to the common man. Farewell to Reason quotes many passages from the original Greek philosophers that show how scornful they are of the common man and yet it it the common man who holds all the practical knowledge that drives our world. Bread making, ship building, child rearing, music making and so on. But some parts of Science have become almost completely abstracted from the everyday world and much of Science has suffered from this. Such observations as these are not an "attack" on Science but usually come from honest people who want to improve Science and make it useful to society.

[Julian Braggins]

I am a little saddened by some of the rather off hand condemnation of Rupert Sheldrakes ideas.
Have you read any of his books? He does back up his ideas with experiment, one involving more people than any other at the time and results 40,000 to 1 against chance.

You have heard of entanglement of course, which could be a mechanism involved, explaining the reaction of a mother rabbit to the killing of her kits in a submarine the other side of the world. An early attempt by the Russians to communicate to submerged subs.

Targ and Putoff's remote viewing in a US Gov. programme, successful on many experiments but not continued because it needs special operatives, rather like the dowsing for mines in Viet Nam war, successful but not teachable to all.

Then there was the treatment of Lethwaite by the Royal Society in the late 70's I think, when they didn't think there was anything to investigate when he held a 50 kilo gyroscope at arms length and asked how could this be, and then they did not record the minutes of the lecture, the first time in their history.
You may know that Lethwaite went on to invent a reactionless self contained drive from investigating gyroscopes, which does seem to bend a law a little.

Then there is the LENR in sprouting seeds transmutating elements, proved by meticulous experiments over 40 years by a leading French biologist.

Things are not all that cut and dried, as Crookes and Lodge found out when investigating paranormal events, but they weren't listened to either.

By putting in your own search terms, you may learn something more along the way.