Wiðercora wrote:

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.

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.

I wouldn't say that all science relies on experimentation. For example consider astrophysics; through observation and modeling we can generate theories which generate predictions which can be tested by making further observations. Not that by 'modeling' in this case, we aren't directly experimenting with stars, but buggering about with colliding atoms and mathematical models.

As for history; we can only draw firm conclusions based on valid and reliable evidence. Like science, the conclusions that are drawn are always provisional; new evidence may turn up in future to overturn the current accepted conclusion.

Don't know what woo is.

you don't know what science or scientific method is either and your response is puerile - either give people who actually do know the subject some respect OR respectfully - get lost as you are wasting everyone's time...
In fact....I'll just ask to have the thread moved to pseudoscience where it belongs since you desire to continue demonstrate intransigence instead of intelligent dialogue.
As someone else says - it's more illuminating about you than any smidgeon of science...and you don't come off very well.

Macdoc wrote:.....
In fact....I'll just ask to have the thread moved to pseudoscience where it belongs .....

I'd agree with that.

I'm just appalled that this was actually a Ted -- even if Tedx talk. Assuming this is real of course.

Opened my eyes a bit.

CM

As for history; we can only draw firm conclusions based on valid and reliable evidence. Like science, the conclusions that are drawn are always provisional; new evidence may turn up in future to overturn the current accepted conclusion.

you are mixing things here....history is NOT a science, it is a discipline - you may gain some knowledge of the past but anything like scientific method is not available as you note.

On the astrophysics end - it still comes down to experiment to test the thesis which is the essence of science inquiry.
One reason string theory is so frustrating.....how to test?

Hell they are still prodding Einstein.

Macdoc wrote:CM

As for history; we can only draw firm conclusions based on valid and reliable evidence. Like science, the conclusions that are drawn are always provisional; new evidence may turn up in future to overturn the current accepted conclusion.

you are mixing things here....history is NOT a science, it is a discipline - you may gain some knowledge of the past but anything like scientific method is not available as you note.

Yup, it's not a science, but in dealing with evidence and conclusions it follows a similar methodology. I was trying to make the point that (good) historians don't pull conclusions out of their ass!

Macdoc wrote:
On the astrophysics end - it still comes down to experiment to test the thesis which is the essence of science inquiry.
One reason string theory is so frustrating.....how to test?

Hell they are still prodding Einstein.

Hmmmmm... General relativity springs to mind here; the 'experiment' to provide evidence being the observation that the sun bends light from distant sources. I was trying to get down to the essence of what science does i.e. make observations and fits them into an explanatory framework which generates further predictions.

Hang on, if you want to go on to the the problem of what are legitimate ways of knowing (clearly mathematics, history and direct experience all have claims as well as science, and there are many others) this is actually a thread about epistemology, and therefore belongs in the Philosophy section. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ) On history, it is a perfectly sound way of knowing. It was Karl Popper who made the interesting point that Evolution is a historical fact not a scientific one (ditto Big Bang etc) for the reasons Widercora discusses above. To someone more influenced by Feyrabend like me we just shrug and say it's both.

If anyone can explain why it should be in pseudoscience, or what constitutes the boundary between pseudoscience and science (and hence what are the limits of methodology) they have solved the Demarcation Problem and can make a good claim for their Nobel. (Simple introduction here on wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem ). Seriously, I'd avoid the pseudoscience label. Things are good or bad science, and factually accurate or inaccurate, and you can critique them as such, but as soon as you mention pseudoscience you open a huge can of worms.

Sheldrake makes some interesting points in his book about the fact that a materialist reductionist philosophical position is conflated with a scientific position in much scientific culture. That would easily result from a conflation of methodological and ontological naturalism, which is hard to avoid. There are other philosophical and psychological traps that lead people to mix up science with a certain philosophical underpinning: one of the ones I have often pointed out is series of historical myths from the 19th century about the opposition of Science and Religion that perhaps inevitably from the 1960's onwards became increasingly true, no matter how little reality they have in terms of say 1840-1900 when many of the myths are centred. Very few people even question these things - a handful of elite scientists do, because they have tenure and the reputation and prestige time to go study ESP or philosophy of science or whatever they choose, and can simply ignore their critics. Much of what Sheldrake says has been said by others, and still is, but these are not questions of science, but of how a popular culture (the scientific community) is constructed, and its ideologies and belief systems. In short they are questions of ideology and philosophy, and his critiques are critiques of those assumptions which in turn drive which research subjects are chosen, which technologies developed, and in which areas science progresses.

Now I'm bored stupid by psychic dogs, and was not exactly enthusiastic about RS's book, and still at this time of night have not found the energy to watch the video. I will, I will...

However on Jaytee the "psychic" Dog: No one doubts that dogs can pick up to us subliminal sensory cues, and act on them, like car engines, footsteps of owner etc. My old dog Wogan certainly learned what my parents car sounded like, and ran to the window when they pulled up - I observed it hundreds of times, including some when he was wrong I guess, without ever thinking to invoke ESP. (my parents car was noisy and i could hear it too after all). However sensory cues are ruled out if you look at the paper, and as I recall Pam returned home on foot, taxi, different cars, etc, etc as instructed by the experimenters. Furthermore the issue does not involve the dog being at the window for the exact time of her arrival alone. I'm just going by memory here, but I have given you the resources to check it out in my links on previous page.

The issue is simple.

1. A dog who misses his owner will go to the window to look for them.
2. It will eventually wander off to do something else.
3. As time passes, the number and length of trips to the window will increase.

With that in mind, we now have a problem. We can try to predict said doggy behaviour, but if we randomly ask the owner to return home at certain points, well the doggies being at the window when they return must be assessed against the baseline we have invented. If we had a definitely non-psychic dog we might be able to create a baseline - but all dogs differ in personality and attitude to owner and propensity for going to the window.

So yes, Wiseman and Smith demonstrated that the longer time spent with the owner away, the more time the dog was at the window. Sheldrake points out that the dog spends more time irrespective of this in the period after the owner receives the experimenters text and begins their journey home. By any standard it's hard to design an experiment that shows anything clear, so various people have argued about this for twenty years or so now.

Hope this at least clarifies the psychic dog thing a bit. I'll watch the video later...
j x

Macdoc wrote:
you don't know what science or scientific method is either

says who? you? You have no clue what science is.

Macdoc wrote:either give people who actually do know the subject some respect OR respectfully - get lost as you are wasting everyone's time...

I respect no one here so, in short, no. Wasting time eh? How bout don't fucking write in this thread, hell, don't fucking read it. Do you need someone to hold your hand? You get lost, go cry in a corner or something.

Macdoc wrote:In fact....I'll just ask to have the thread moved to pseudoscience where it belongs since you desire to continue demonstrate intransigence instead of intelligent dialogue.

ooooh no, please don't ask to move a topic...whatever shall I do?

Macdoc wrote:As someone else says - it's more illuminating about you than any smidgeon of science...and you don't come off very well

Oh, and you think your opinion means something? Really? How does it make you feel for me to say you aren't coming off very well? Don't care? Again, would you like someone to hold your hand. Typing in a fucking forum is voluntary, you don't like it, fuck off.

Fight the good fight, Sandy.

Reeve wrote:Fight the good fight, Sandy.

quit wasting my time, forcing me to respond to you, forcing me to read your post, come on, show some respect to someone so obviously smarter than you

Wow.

Edit: Definitely going in the "post that made you LOL today" thread!!

sandinista wrote:guess he may be someone to look into. Usually when someone comes up against this kind of response on forums he/she is generally on to something. Whenever you hear "mainstream scientific community" or "pseudoscience" the subject matter generally has some aspects of validity or interest. Terms like that are akin to "conspiracy theorists", just ways for internet warriors to attempt to "write someone off" with loaded terms. Fortunately it rarely works.

Actually, this is bullshit plain and simple. How do I know it's bullshit? Oh, that's right, because biologists have had a workable theory of morphogenesis since 1952, courtesy of Alan Turing. Who not only derived partial differential equations to model the process, but demonstrated that those equations produced a range of structures observed in the real biosphere. Now it transpired that Turing was ahead of the experimental biologists on this one, because it took them time to devise appropriate empirical tests allowing them to determine if his ideas were generally applicable. But eventually, those tests were devised, and when those tests were performed, the results were conclusive: Turing got it right. Turing's ideas about morphogenesis have since been pressed into service, to elucidate such phenomena as the emergence of mimetic wing patterns in Papilio dardanus butterflies, and if need be, I can bring a nice raft of scientific papers here covering this. Indeed, various molecular biologists have alighted upon a host of candidate gene products that perform the very functions required of a Turing morphogen, namely signalling proteins belonging to the bmp, wnt and fgf families, as well as the proteins produced by the hedgehog signalling genes shh and twhh in Drosophila melanogaster, which also have an impact upon the absence of eyes in cave populations of Astyanax mexicanus. Again, I can bring relevant papers on those subjects in here, covering such matters as eye formation.

By contrast, Sheldrake has precious little to offer but assertions, and a lot of wishful thinking that his assertions somehow magically dictate to reality. Instead of facing the large body of evidence supporting the Turing mechanism, and coming up with a better idea, one that not only explains all observations covered by the Turing mechanism, but explains observations that are beyond the remit of the Turing explanation, and does so in the same precise quantitative manner, Sheldrake has basically engaged in a gigantic flounce because those biologists familiar with the Turing mechanism and its applicability, won't roll over and genuflect before his raft of assertions.

Now, I have 11 papers in my collection on morphogenesis, including Turing's own original paper, and 10 papers applying the Turing mechanism to Papilio dardanus. How many of these would you like me to bring here?

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.

Oh really? Why do I smell the imminent arrival of creationist style apologetics here?

sandinista wrote:Consciousness

Scientists have only recently acquired the means to begin investigating this phenomenon in a rigorous manner. The same pseudo-objection could be levelled at any branch of science when it was in its infancy. Oh, but wait, some of those branches of science, having progressed from infancy, have provided us with precise quantitative theories that are in agreement with experiment to 15 decimal places. Plus, I've presented papers here in the past, when dealing with the duplicitous erection of consciousness as purportedly validating a magc man, that demonstrate pretty conclusively that relevant reserarchers in the field know more about the topic, than the purveyors of apologetics would have us conclude.

sandinista wrote:animal "intelligence"

Oddly enough, primate researcher Frans de Waal has a good number of papers published in this field. Want me to bring a couple of them here?

sandinista wrote:archeological "evidence" is often based on assumptions

Really? WHAT "ASSUMPTIONS"? Please list these in detail. Only I'm smelling another familiar creationist canard here, that I've already addressed some time ago.

sandinista wrote:but called evidence. Evidence can also be read differently, or be straight up biased.

Once again, I'm smelling a familiar creationist canard I've already addressed.

sandinista wrote:The scientific method is good for a lot of inquires but not for all.

Well since two of the examples you cited above are already the subjects of in depth scientific research, I'd say your assertion here is somewhat wanting for evidential support.

So, if called upon to do so, I can provide 11 papers on Turing morphogenesis, several papers on empirical investigation of consciousness using fMRI scanning by various authors, several papers on primate intelligence by Frans de Waal, numerous papers upon the operation of signalling genes and signalling proteins in eye formation (including the master control gene Pax6), and a raft of papers covering the action of some of those genes in tooth morphogenesis, including direct experimental test of one hypothesis which involved experimentally manipulating the fate of a given tooth in an embryo. Let's see what you've got in comparison shall we?

yah...I'm a creationist.

I didn't say that. I said that the pseudo-objections you're raising possess the same character as creationist apologetics. Do learn the difference.

Calilasseia wrote:I didn't say that. I said that the pseudo-objections you're raising possess the same character as creationist apologetics. Do learn the difference.

Yah, and most of the responses here have had the same character as a fundamentalist religious person. So now I'm a creationist apologist then...good work there sherlock.

Good to see Turing's work on biomathematics credited, and delighted to see it became influential! I was aware of his work on morphogenesis in the years before he died - he had largely given up on computing as I recall as he was so fascinated by this field, but I was not aware it came to be recognised as important.

Is Sheldrake's Morphic Filed meant to be the morphogenetic field then? I had thought they were different things, but I have never read Sheldrake's book on the topic, indeed have avoided it as I'm not in a position to critique it as I don't know enough about mainstream ontogeny post Haeckel!

Sandanista: I don't think anyone could accuse my posts on Sheldrake of being of a "fundamentalist" type. Mind you I still have to watch the video, but dog wise I hope I have at least clarified he is certainly no further off than his critics, at least potentially.

j x

sandinista wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:I didn't say that. I said that the pseudo-objections you're raising possess the same character as creationist apologetics. Do learn the difference.

Yah, and most of the responses here have had the same character as a fundamentalist religious person. So now I'm a creationist apologist then...good work there sherlock.

So, you have no answers to the actual science I'm able to present here, and why that science tosses Sheldrake's assertions into the bin?

Oh, and if you bother to check, you'll find that quite a few of the assertions you've erected (without a shred of evidential support, despite being asked to provide it) about the operation of science are precisely the assertions contained within several creationist canards I've dealt with in the past. But please, don't let elementary facts such as this get in the way of your one-line dismissals, or snide use of smileys to hide behind your complete absence of any substantive answers.

jerome wrote:Sandanista: I don't think anyone could accuse my posts on Sheldrake of being of a "fundamentalist" type.

I didn't say everyone had that fundamentalist slant. Indeed, you are an exception.

It's weird how often I feel like I've returned to primary school when I read sandinista's posts.

"I'm a dick? No! YOU'RE a dick."

Yeah - he's floundering in deep water and can't swim....maybe he should stick to the politics forum where any one opinion on anything seems to carry equal weight of nought.