Mr.Samsa wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I am quite happy with the notion of science being a delusion, so long as everything is a delusion. The science delusion, unlike other delusions, is useful and practical. It saves lives, it makes life more enjoyable. Who the fuck cares if it real or not? Seriously, it is a non-question.

I think you might be taking the title a little bit too literally there. Sheldrake isn't arguing that science itself is a delusion (he is, underneath it all, a scientist himself) but rather he's arguing that many people's understanding and practice of science relies on a delusion, and this erroneous belief leads to poor conclusions.

I don't think Shelldrake is a scientist, he is indulging in some sort of 'sciency" metaphysics, and worse, pushing an ideology--- a semi-mysticism.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I don't think Shelldrake is a scientist, he is indulging in some sort of 'sciency" metaphysics, and worse, pushing an ideology--- a semi-mysticism.

He got the PhD (in biochemistry), and was a scientist in the late 60s and the 70s. Then he dropped all that for his morphic resonance nonsense, parapsychology research and basically self promotion. Using his past time as a scientist as an appeal to authority for his subsequent pseudo-scientific claims.

ADParker wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I don't think Shelldrake is a scientist, he is indulging in some sort of 'sciency" metaphysics, and worse, pushing an ideology--- a semi-mysticism.

He got the PhD (in biochemistry), and was a scientist in the late 60s and the 70s. Then he dropped all that for his morphic resonance nonsense, parapsychology research and basically self promotion. Using his past time as a scientist as an appeal to authority for his subsequent pseudo-scientific claims.

Yes, he's the worst kind of pseudo-scientist. One who knows how to do science properly, but doesn't bother.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I am quite happy with the notion of science being a delusion, so long as everything is a delusion. The science delusion, unlike other delusions, is useful and practical. It saves lives, it makes life more enjoyable. Who the fuck cares if it real or not? Seriously, it is a non-question.

I think you might be taking the title a little bit too literally there. Sheldrake isn't arguing that science itself is a delusion (he is, underneath it all, a scientist himself) but rather he's arguing that many people's understanding and practice of science relies on a delusion, and this erroneous belief leads to poor conclusions.

I don't think Shelldrake is a scientist, he is indulging in some sort of 'sciency" metaphysics, and worse, pushing an ideology--- a semi-mysticism.

He is a scientist, by all reasonable definitions that don't fall into the trap of "no true Scotsman". It's just that he's a scientist with some kooky ideas.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I am quite happy with the notion of science being a delusion, so long as everything is a delusion. The science delusion, unlike other delusions, is useful and practical. It saves lives, it makes life more enjoyable. Who the fuck cares if it real or not? Seriously, it is a non-question.

I think you might be taking the title a little bit too literally there. Sheldrake isn't arguing that science itself is a delusion (he is, underneath it all, a scientist himself) but rather he's arguing that many people's understanding and practice of science relies on a delusion, and this erroneous belief leads to poor conclusions.

I don't think Shelldrake is a scientist, he is indulging in some sort of 'sciency" metaphysics, and worse, pushing an ideology--- a semi-mysticism.

He is a scientist, by all reasonable definitions that don't fall into the trap of "no true Scotsman". It's just that he's a scientist with some kooky ideas.

Nah, he is not. He if no longer respects the process or methodology of science, then he is no longer a scientist. A bunch of letters does not make a scientist. He is trying to shoehorn his kookie ideas into the science box. That is not science. It is pseudo-science.

Wearing a lab coat occasionally doesn't turn your unsupported assertions into scientific theories.

Instead of moaning that people prefer an existing, evidentially supported hypothesis over and above his unsupported assertions, Sheldrake should follow Stanley Prusiner's example, get off his arse, and do the work required to convert his unsupported assertions into evidentially supported hypotheses. When he does this, he can call himself a scientist.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Nah, he is not. He if no longer respects the process or methodology of science, then he is no longer a scientist. A bunch of letters does not make a scientist. He is trying to shoehorn his kookie ideas into the science box. That is not science. It is pseudo-science.

I don't think there's any requirement of being a scientist that stipulates the person "respects" the process or methodology of science. When he does his scientific research he follows scientific methodology (in some cases better than in others) and on the side he also argues for changes that he think will benefit science. These ideas are sometimes uncontroversial and pretty mainstream already and at other times they are a little bit insane.

But none of that suddenly strips him of his profession, title, education, and background. If a scientist publishes pseudoscience then they don't just stop being a "scientist", they just become a very shitty scientist.

Calilasseia wrote:Wearing a lab coat occasionally doesn't turn your unsupported assertions into scientific theories.

I don't think anyone would argue that it does.

Calilasseia wrote:Instead of moaning that people prefer an existing, evidentially supported hypothesis over and above his unsupported assertions, Sheldrake should follow Stanley Prusiner's example, get off his arse, and do the work required to convert his unsupported assertions into evidentially supported hypotheses.

I think you've missed the point of his arguments, which is that the methodology is flawed in such a way that the process of science cannot currently answer the questions he thinks need answering. There is no way to scientifically test whether science is working, that makes no sense and it is absurd to demand that Sheldrake uses science to support his claim that the current practice of science is flawed.

That doesn't mean his arguments have any validity at all but rather that there are meaningful ways of assessing the validity of them and silly ways of trying to assess the validity of them, and we should probably avoid the silly ways for now.

Calilasseia wrote:When he does this, he can call himself a scientist.

Not at all, he is undeniably a scientist now regardless of what he does.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Nah, he is not. He if no longer respects the process or methodology of science, then he is no longer a scientist. A bunch of letters does not make a scientist. He is trying to shoehorn his kookie ideas into the science box. That is not science. It is pseudo-science.

I don't think there's any requirement of being a scientist that stipulates the person "respects" the process or methodology of science. When he does his scientific research he follows scientific methodology (in some cases better than in others) and on the side he also argues for changes that he think will benefit science. These ideas are sometimes uncontroversial and pretty mainstream already and at other times they are a little bit insane.

But none of that suddenly strips him of his profession, title, education, and background. If a scientist publishes pseudoscience then they don't just stop being a "scientist", they just become a very shitty scientist.

Calilasseia wrote:Wearing a lab coat occasionally doesn't turn your unsupported assertions into scientific theories.

I don't think anyone would argue that it does.

Calilasseia wrote:Instead of moaning that people prefer an existing, evidentially supported hypothesis over and above his unsupported assertions, Sheldrake should follow Stanley Prusiner's example, get off his arse, and do the work required to convert his unsupported assertions into evidentially supported hypotheses.

I think you've missed the point of his arguments, which is that the methodology is flawed in such a way that the process of science cannot currently answer the questions he thinks need answering. There is no way to scientifically test whether science is working, that makes no sense and it is absurd to demand that Sheldrake uses science to support his claim that the current practice of science is flawed.

That doesn't mean his arguments have any validity at all but rather that there are meaningful ways of assessing the validity of them and silly ways of trying to assess the validity of them, and we should probably avoid the silly ways for now.

Calilasseia wrote:When he does this, he can call himself a scientist.

Not at all, he is undeniably a scientist now regardless of what he does.

I was not suggesting we pull his PhD, nor that he be banned or shunned for bringing up kookie ideas. He is trying to tamper with what science is. In doing so he not only harms his own scientific reputation, but misleads others about what science is and how it should work.

Funny how this "flawed" scientific method worked so well at providing evidence for Turing's hypothesis, isn't it? Funny how it's also provided us with dozens of candidate morphogens compatible with the Turing model, as in the proteins coded for by those gene families I cited earlier, along with data from the manipulation of the signalling pathways those genes operate within, and the experimental demonstration of reliable and repeatable changes in the development process arising from those signalling pathways. In the meantime, what does Sheldrake have in support of his "morphic fields" assertion? Sweet bugger all. So the idea that science can't answer some of the questions he's asking, is complete hooey in the case of morphogenesis, because the relevant questions were asked about this process before Sheldrake was born, and a working model devised that has since been supported by large numbers of empirical tests.

I'm tempted to suggest, in the manner of PZ Myers, that Sheldrake was working with balloon animals instead of the real thing.

Plus, if he erects an untestable assertion, it's not the fault of the scientific method that it's untestable. Supernaturalists have been deploying this tactic deliberately for centuries, to try and protect their asserted magic men from scrutiny. If Sheldrake wants to be taken seriously, as I said before, he should get off his arse, and do what Stanley Prusiner did when he erected a controversial hypothesis. Prusiner didn't sit around whingeing because other scientists wanted evidence, he got off his arse and found the evidence, which is why he's now admiring a nice shiny gold medal from those Swedish persons on his mantelpiece.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
I was not suggesting we pull his PhD, nor that he be banned or shunned for bringing up kookie ideas. He is trying to tamper with what science is. In doing so he not only harms his own scientific reputation, but misleads others about what science is and how it should work.

And I can agree with some of that but the point is that he's still a scientist even if all of the above is true.

Calilasseia wrote:Funny how this "flawed" scientific method worked so well at providing evidence for Turing's hypothesis, isn't it? Funny how it's also provided us with dozens of candidate morphogens compatible with the Turing model, as in the proteins coded for by those gene families I cited earlier, along with data from the manipulation of the signalling pathways those genes operate within, and the experimental demonstration of reliable and repeatable changes in the development process arising from those signalling pathways.

It's not really "funny" at all, as that's to be expected. Something being "flawed' (if true) doesn't mean nothing valid can ever come of it. Sheldrake is arguing that it is flawed in a very specific way which relates to very specific questions. Why exactly did you think it would affect work relating to the Turing model or anything like that?

Calilasseia wrote:In the meantime, what does Sheldrake have in support of his "morphic fields" assertion? Sweet bugger all. So the idea that science can't answer some of the questions he's asking, is complete hooey in the case of morphogenesis, because the relevant questions were asked about this process before Sheldrake was born, and a working model devised that has since been supported by large numbers of empirical tests.

But of course he has nothing because, if he was right, there couldn't possibly exist any scientific evidence for his claims because science is currently incapable of accounting for what he's describing.

You must see the circular flaw you keep running into here, right? Sheldrake is saying X is true but science can't see that it's true because it is flawed. You are saying that if X is true then where is his scientific evidence. Sheldrake is saying that X is true but science can't see that it's true because it is flawed. You are saying...

There are ways to argue that Sheldrake is wrong (obviously) but telling him to gather scientific evidence, of which he agrees cannot support his claims, is insane.

Calilasseia wrote:I'm tempted to suggest, in the manner of PZ Myers, that Sheldrake was working with balloon animals instead of the real thing.

I don't understand the relevance.

Calilasseia wrote:Plus, if he erects an untestable assertion, it's not the fault of the scientific method that it's untestable.

Maybe so but we'd need to demonstrate that. We can't show that he's wrong simply by asking him to gather evidence from a methodology that he has deemed to currently be unsuitable. If the fault lies with his position, and not the current state of science, then we should show that.

Calilasseia wrote:Supernaturalists have been deploying this tactic deliberately for centuries, to try and protect their asserted magic men from scrutiny.

Perhaps but that's not relevant here as Sheldrake is doing the opposite, he's trying to set it up so that science can actually test the claims he's making.

Calilasseia wrote:If Sheldrake wants to be taken seriously, as I said before, he should get off his arse, and do what Stanley Prusiner did when he erected a controversial hypothesis. Prusiner didn't sit around whingeing because other scientists wanted evidence, he got off his arse and found the evidence, which is why he's now admiring a nice shiny gold medal from those Swedish persons on his mantelpiece.

That's lovely but it's not relevant here given that Prusiner thought that his questions could be adequately answered with the current scientific methodology, whereas Sheldrake doesn't.

And to be clear here, whilst Sheldrake is arguing for a fairly radical reform, the idea that science should be questioned and has been forced to change in the past isn't at all controversial. There have been multiple occasions in the history of science where the methodology, or general atmosphere, of science has proved to be inadequate for answering particular questions and it has been changed. Nobody at the time argued that "if science was flawed then you need to present your scientific evidence of it being flawed" because that's a silly argument and simply shows that the person has failed to grasp the claim being made.

Sheldrake has presented some extreme views on what he thinks need to be changed and why he thinks it, and it would be interesting to see some arguments against them (because even stupid ideas can have great worthwhile rebuttals).

Mr.Samsa wrote:(...even stupid ideas can have great worthwhile rebuttals).

The quantity of rebuttals to stupid ideas, however the supposed capacity to rebut nonsense is considered valuable (i.e., 'worthwhile'), runs a distant, distant second to the quantity of utter triviality stated shamelessly, secure in the ignorance that nonsense has no more rebuttal than triviality has proof. The sin vergüenzas of teh inturnetz will praise your tolerant campaign to keep Sheldrake's nonsense on the tips of unsuspecting tongues, the better for RatSkeppers to educate them with 'great worthwhile rebuttals'. That's because learning how to claim to debunk pure nonsense is such a great way to learn how to think -- compared, say, even to learning pre-calculus mathematics.

Sheldrake's ideas are not stupid. They're cynically marketed to what Sheldrake knows to be a broad audience of really stupid people, as a way for Sheldrake to make a living. Early childhood education is one obvious key to reducing the number of irredeemably stupid people. Toddlers are not yet ready for convoluted rebuttals, and stupid parents don't care much about ECE.

I have no idea what you're trying to say and I suspect you don't either.

Mr.Samsa wrote:I have no idea what you're trying to say and I suspect you don't either.

Ah, what you're noticing there is that, as of this writing, my post has gotten two 'likes'. Well done there, Mr.Samsa. Perhaps the problem you're detecting is that my idea is just not stupid enough for you to tackle debunking it.

You've asserted that Sheldrake's ideas are worth keeping visible, an empty assertion that is not supported by your other empty assertion that elegantly debunking stupid ideas is good for its own sake. I'm just expressing contempt for your unsupported assertions, contempt I am not surprised you have pretended not to detect.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I have no idea what you're trying to say and I suspect you don't either.

Ah, what you're noticing there is that, as of this writing, my post has gotten two 'likes'. Well done there, Mr.Samsa. Perhaps the problem you're detecting is that my idea is just not stupid enough for you to tackle debunking it.

So you say, without rhyme nor reason.

Cito di Pense wrote:You've asserted that Sheldrake's ideas are worth keeping visible,

And if I ask you to quote me saying anything even resembling that, would you find me a quote or will you go on another postmodernist rant about how truth is relative or something?

I'll save the time - I don't remember saying anything like that but if I have at some point then I had an aneurysm as that's an odd claim to make. Why would his ideas be worth keeping visible?

Cito di Pense wrote:an empty assertion that is not supported by your other empty assertion that elegantly debunking stupid ideas is good for its own sake.

I haven't claimed that either. I simply said that I personally would find it interesting to see some rebuttals to his points because even stupid ideas can produce great rebuttals. At no point have I claimed that debunking stupid ideas is good for its own sake.

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just expressing contempt for your unsupported assertions, contempt I am not surprised you have pretended not to detect.

And this is where the confusion from your writing comes from. The "unsupported assertions" that you're responding to haven't been made by me and you're attacking things I haven't said nor implied. Instead you present your own unsupported assertions about arguments you wish other people had made and accuse others of "pretending" not to understand you (which is ridiculous).

I think some people seem to have too much time to waste.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I think some people seem to have too much time to waste.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You've asserted that Sheldrake's ideas are worth keeping visible,

And if I ask you to quote me saying anything even resembling that, would you find me a quote or will you go on another postmodernist rant about how truth is relative or something?

Mr.Samsa wrote:It's just that he's a scientist with some kooky ideas.

That might be right? I mean, aren't you the guy with the philosophical position that we can't rule out the supernatural?

Your history in these sorts of topics is that of not ruling anything out. When you call ideas 'kooky', it's not as if you're dismissing them summarily. You know you can't get much mileage here by explicitly stating that you don't want these ideas dismissed because there might be something to them. So, off to the negative dialectic with you, sir.

Of course, one question remaining to be answered, is why Sheldrake wanted scientists to take his assertions seriously, if he purportedly knew that his assertions were untestable in the first place. In which case, his whinge about the scientific method makes even less sense.

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, one question remaining to be answered, is why Sheldrake wanted scientists to take his assertions seriously, if he purportedly knew that his assertions were untestable in the first place. In which case, his whinge about the scientific method makes even less sense.

Well, it looks as if you've decided that Sheldrake really-o, truly-o wanted scientists to take his ideas seriously, and that might be the case, because he might just be one of those folks who, like Mr.Samsa, can't bear to throw something away. Hoarding and fetish is not an uncommon human behaviour, and it doesn't just affect people who fill their house from top to bottom with old newspapers or keep a letter written by an old flame.