The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake

Review by Mary Midgely

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: The Science Delusion

#101  Postby Rumraket » Feb 26, 2013 5:24 pm

laklak wrote:The dogs used to sit at the door about 10 minutes before Mrs. Lak got home from work. Her schedule was pretty random, she could arrive back anytime within about a 3 or 4 hour period, but they always knew exactly when to go sit at the door. Spooky, I couldn't find anything at all that would alert them to her impending arrival. Then we got a new truck. They didn't sit at the door for at least a week, they were completely surprised when she walked in. Then they started sitting at the door again. So, either they're psychically attuned to the truck, or their hearing is far superior to mine and it took them a while to recognize the new sound.

I bought a new pair of shoes and noticed my mother's dog would bark when I came to visit(before it realised it was me knocking on the door), which it never did before. It's been about 2 weeks now and it also took it no more than 4 days to recognise the different sound of my new shoes.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#102  Postby kennyc » Feb 26, 2013 5:37 pm

What? It couldn't tell by your knock? and what? You should buy your mother a doorbell to avoid all that knocking! Sheesh!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#103  Postby Macdoc » Feb 26, 2013 6:11 pm

Sandinista

You are posting in science forum and getting responses from people some of whom are working scientists.
You either accept scientific method or move on to the pseudoscience.
Your choice but don't expect kid glove treatment in this section -you posed this as an interesting item and were informed in no uncertain terms it's not of interest or value to the science community for good reason.

Instead of listening - you reject what you are informed of without reason but with a knee jerk suspicion.

Scientist poke and prod by nature and test rigorously....that's what experiment and peer review is about. The author has been found wanting by the community. Why are you defending him???

YOU have to make a choice about which world view you want. One ruled by evidence - the other by wishful thinking.
You are in the evidential section....do you want to discuss science or woo?? Your call. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17714
Age: 76
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#104  Postby kennyc » Feb 26, 2013 6:17 pm

I agree with the Nuclear option. :D
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#105  Postby laklak » Feb 26, 2013 6:18 pm

That's "nuukaler".
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 70
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#106  Postby Blackadder » Feb 26, 2013 6:34 pm

My cat is psychic. He knows when I am hungry and get out of my chair because he's waiting by the refrigerator before I have even left the front room. How woosome is that?

Then again, I have for some time suspected that my cat is a member of an alien race with telepathic powers and he is using me as an experimental subject for his planet's equivalent of a doctoral thesis.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3845
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#107  Postby sandinista » Feb 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Macdoc wrote:Sandinista

You are posting in science forum and getting responses from people some of whom are working scientists.


so? Some may be some may not be. It's an internet forum, I wouldn't believe someone if they told me they were.

Macdoc wrote:You either accept scientific method or move on to the pseudoscience.


or get burned at the stake?

Macdoc wrote:Your choice but don't expect kid glove treatment in this section -you posed this as an interesting item and were informed in no uncertain terms it's not of interest or value to the science community for good reason.


haha, that's such BS. "Kid glove treatment"? Are you joking? On a forum...ooohhh.... :roll: I was informed of some people's opinions, and that is all. Which is what I wanted in the first place, some opinions.

Macdoc wrote:Instead of listening - you reject what you are informed of without reason but with a knee jerk suspicion.


Because I have no reason. I haven't read the guys books, all I had to go on was the video. I also suspect most, if not all the posters here, have not read any of his books, except perhaps jereme who had the only relevant posts in this thread.

Macdoc wrote:YOU have to make a choice about which world view you want. One ruled by evidence - the other by wishful thinking.


Are you kidding? It's the new science religion eh? :roll: fuckin hell. Either wit us or gainst us. It's not that black and white.

Macdoc wrote:You are in the evidential section....do you want to discuss science or woo?? Your call.


Don't know what woo is. :coffee:
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
User avatar
sandinista
 
Posts: 1289
Age: 50

Country: canaduh
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#108  Postby kennyc » Feb 26, 2013 6:40 pm

"Curiouser and curiouser" -- Alice.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#109  Postby Nostalgia » Feb 26, 2013 6:43 pm

sandinista wrote:It's not that black and white.


Actually it is. Evidence based inquiry is pretty darn black and white.
We are alive, so the universe must be said to be alive. We are its consciousness as well as our own. We rise out of the cosmos and see its mesh of patterns, and it strikes us as beautiful. And that feeling is the most important thing in all the universe.
User avatar
Nostalgia
 
Posts: 9266
Age: 38
Male

Country: Earth
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#110  Postby sandinista » Feb 26, 2013 6:48 pm

"And the answer lies Between the good and bad" -- Dio

MacIver wrote:Actually it is. Evidence based inquiry is pretty darn black and white.


for some things yes. For others, not so much. Consciousness, animal "intelligence", archeological "evidence" is often based on assumptions but called evidence. Evidence can also be read differently, or be straight up biased. The scientific method is good for a lot of inquires but not for all.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
User avatar
sandinista
 
Posts: 1289
Age: 50

Country: canaduh
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#111  Postby campermon » Feb 26, 2013 6:49 pm

Yes. Exactly what I was going to say.

:popcorn:

edit - that was @maciver
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#112  Postby campermon » Feb 26, 2013 6:51 pm

sandinista wrote:"And the answer lies Between the good and bad" -- Dio

MacIver wrote:Actually it is. Evidence based inquiry is pretty darn black and white.


for some things yes. For others, not so much. Consciousness, animal "intelligence", archeological "evidence" is often based on assumptions but called evidence. Evidence can also be read differently, or be straight up biased. The scientific method is good for a lot of inquires but not for all.


:nono:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#113  Postby kennyc » Feb 26, 2013 7:01 pm

sandinista wrote:"And the answer lies Between the good and bad" -- Dio

MacIver wrote:Actually it is. Evidence based inquiry is pretty darn black and white.


for some things yes. For others, not so much. Consciousness, animal "intelligence", archeological "evidence" is often based on assumptions but called evidence. Evidence can also be read differently, or be straight up biased. The scientific method is good for a lot of inquires but not for all.



OMG another CONSCIOUSNESS THREAD!!!!

:shock:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#114  Postby campermon » Feb 26, 2013 7:06 pm

kennyc wrote:
sandinista wrote:"And the answer lies Between the good and bad" -- Dio

MacIver wrote:Actually it is. Evidence based inquiry is pretty darn black and white.


for some things yes. For others, not so much. Consciousness, animal "intelligence", archeological "evidence" is often based on assumptions but called evidence. Evidence can also be read differently, or be straight up biased. The scientific method is good for a lot of inquires but not for all.



OMG another CONSCIOUSNESS THREAD!!!!

:shock:


Philosowibble or pseudoscience?

:ask:


:grin:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#115  Postby Wiðercora » Feb 26, 2013 7:09 pm

campermon wrote:
sandinista wrote:"And the answer lies Between the good and bad" -- Dio

MacIver wrote:Actually it is. Evidence based inquiry is pretty darn black and white.


for some things yes. For others, not so much. Consciousness, animal "intelligence", archeological "evidence" is often based on assumptions but called evidence. Evidence can also be read differently, or be straight up biased. The scientific method is good for a lot of inquires but not for all.


:nono:


Surely he's right on this point. Science relies on experimentation and repetition whilst controlling for variables. Try to use science to investigate, say, the collapse of the Roman Empire. How? You can't go back in time and change things, one variable at a time. Of course, you can use science to help gather the facts - I'm not disputing that.
If the unemployed learned to be better managers they would be visibly better off, and I fancy it would not be long before the dole was docked correspondingly.
-- George Orwell


Infrequently updated photo blog.
User avatar
Wiðercora
 
Name: Call me 'Betty'.
Posts: 7079
Age: 34
Male

Country: The Grim North.
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#116  Postby campermon » Feb 26, 2013 7:10 pm

be back to answer that in a bit. ;)
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#117  Postby Nostalgia » Feb 26, 2013 7:14 pm

sandinista wrote:"And the answer lies Between the good and bad" -- Dio

MacIver wrote:Actually it is. Evidence based inquiry is pretty darn black and white.


for some things yes. For others, not so much. Consciousness, animal "intelligence", archeological "evidence" is often based on assumptions but called evidence. Evidence can also be read differently, or be straight up biased. The scientific method is good for a lot of inquires but not for all.


First off, there's a difference between evidence and proof.

Secondly, the things you list are a question of degrees, not absolutes.
We are alive, so the universe must be said to be alive. We are its consciousness as well as our own. We rise out of the cosmos and see its mesh of patterns, and it strikes us as beautiful. And that feeling is the most important thing in all the universe.
User avatar
Nostalgia
 
Posts: 9266
Age: 38
Male

Country: Earth
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#118  Postby Nostalgia » Feb 26, 2013 7:17 pm

I wouldn't call "history" or "archaeology" sciences as such. I'd call them academic disciplines or pursuits with, as you've said Wiðercora, elements of science involved.
We are alive, so the universe must be said to be alive. We are its consciousness as well as our own. We rise out of the cosmos and see its mesh of patterns, and it strikes us as beautiful. And that feeling is the most important thing in all the universe.
User avatar
Nostalgia
 
Posts: 9266
Age: 38
Male

Country: Earth
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#119  Postby Rumraket » Feb 26, 2013 7:35 pm

sandinista wrote:"And the answer lies Between the good and bad" -- Dio

MacIver wrote:Actually it is. Evidence based inquiry is pretty darn black and white.


for some things yes. For others, not so much. Consciousness, animal "intelligence", archeological "evidence" is often based on assumptions but called evidence. Evidence can also be read differently, or be straight up biased. The scientific method is good for a lot of inquires but not for all.

The "alternatives" to science don't work at all. We have atleast 3000 years worth of evidence for this.

Really, at this stage one wonder why you people still bother entertaining the idea of the supernatural, the soul and other sorts of immaterial woo. What have these ideas explained so far? For how many observed phenomena have SUPERNATURE, the Occult, souls, demons, ghosts and what have you, actually turned out to be the real explanation? Care to go down the list?

Any kind of weather phenomena, whether rain, drought, wind, storms, lightning, clouds etc. ? How do they work, what is their cause, their constituents, their nature? Nope, none, all natural, all physical.

How about diseases? Plagues, infections, seizures? Fever halluscinations? What is fever actually? Hmm, bacteria, viruses, developmental issues, mutations causing cancers, bad diets, blood clots etc. etc. All natural, all physical. You've got nothing here either.

Where do all the species come from? Oh shit, evolution baby! What are living organisms made of? How do they work? Why does the sun burn? The eye work?

Where does the sun come from, how old is it? The earth itself, the moon, the stars, mountains, oceans, deserts, every fucking thing you see around you? The day and night cycle? Why does it get dark at night? Where does the sun go? Where do these things come from? Why is the sky blue and the grass green? Why does the sky get red at sunset? What is light?

Millions upon millions of entities, processes, events and phenomena. All natural, all physical. Still nothing supernatural. Nothing.

At this stage we've been through thousands of years of investigations of nature and millions of phenomena and entities, still no evidence of the supernatural, still only "mundane" materialistic explanations. Physics, for the n'th millionth time.

To any rational thinking person, a pattern should emerge in their mind here. Why keep entertaining this constantly losing, constantly proven false idea that the supernatural is behind something yet not explained? What is it that KEEPS you idiots coming back to that stupid idea? You've got NOTHING in support of it but elaborate verbal and rethorical devices.

Every fucking time something new happens, upon closer inspection, it's just more physics and more chemistry. Why do you STILL believe in this ancient nonsense? How many countless of millions of arguments from ignorance must be continously destroyed for you to just fucking let it go? It's RIDICULOUS.

Yes, I'm sure you think I'm that arrogant, know-it-all empiricist who thinks he knows everything and claims to know that there's no supernatural things and no gods and no ghosts and bla bla bla. Except I don't claim to know this, but I simply get the pattern. There's no longer any use in keeping up this nonsensical hope that science will discover a life after you die. The score is millions to 0, litterally.

Nature >1000000
Supernature 0. Zero. Squat, nil, NUL, intet, vakum. It has explained NOTHING so far.

And nature just keeps scoring all the time.

All you've got is mere concievable possibility. But why actually believe it, why expect it, why waste time on it after at least 3 fucking millenia of failures? It's fucking DENIAL, it's all it is.
Last edited by Rumraket on Feb 26, 2013 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: The Science Delusion

#120  Postby Reeve » Feb 26, 2013 7:44 pm

sand-in-ista [sandy-in-istanbul] Show IPA
noun, plural sandinisti.
1.
Someone who wears a che guevara t shirt and has a poster of Karl Marx, sticking his tongue out, in his/her bedroom.
2.
a person who persistently attempts, and fails, at using the Socratic Method in rhetoric, debate, argument etc.

Origin: 2012-13, possibly on an Internet bulletin board or a social network


:ask:
Cito wrote:Reeve is a daily reality for girls. I don't know what this implies.

archibald wrote:I don't take Reeve seriously. I don't think he takes himself seriously.
User avatar
Reeve
 
Posts: 2969
Age: 30
Male

 
Birthday
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron