"The Science Delusion"

  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    May 11, 2013 8:30 PM GMT
    "The science delusion": the idea that science already knows how the world works. But in reality, we do not.... and it is giving way to philosophical materialism (the idea that the universe is built on material, negating the spiritual basis of existence).




    Disclaimer: Rupert Sheldrake's ideas do not necessarily reflect those of the OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 1:32 AM GMT
    Science and religion have the same problem. It's the word "constant."

    It means that something never changes. It's "constant."

    The difference is that the scientific community will embrace a differing hypothesis and support studies to figure out whether or not the "constant" is factually correct.

    Religion will just condemn you to hell for differing, or even kill you.
  • He_Man

    Posts: 906

    May 12, 2013 1:40 AM GMT
    heyom said"The science delusion": the idea that science already knows how the world works. But in reality, we do not.... and it is giving way to philosophical materialism (the idea that the universe is built on material, negating the spiritual basis of existence).
    ``

    Disclaimer: Rupert Sheldrake's ideas do not necessarily reflect those of the OP.




    "...the idea that science already knows how the world works..."

    If you honestly believe this is how scientists think, then you clearly don't spend enough time around them.

    philosophy-of.jpg?w=627


    religion-and-science.jpg

  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    May 12, 2013 2:15 AM GMT
    He_Man said
    heyom said"The science delusion": the idea that science already knows how the world works. But in reality, we do not.... and it is giving way to philosophical materialism (the idea that the universe is built on material, negating the spiritual basis of existence).
    ``

    Disclaimer: Rupert Sheldrake's ideas do not necessarily reflect those of the OP.




    "...the idea that science already knows how the world works..."

    If you honestly believe this is how scientists think, then you clearly don't spend enough time around them.




    Ehm, I work for a biosciences department. I am very well aware of this. I think you did not read my post: "the science delusion" is the idea that science already knows how the world works. This is usually how science is portrayed by non-scientists. I never claimed that scientists themselves think this way. That does not mean there are people who do not, and they are usually themselves, not scientists.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 2:25 AM GMT
    I'm a faculty member too and the very first assignment i give uni students is to research on the nature of science as a way of knowing. It clears up misconceptions about science.

    We also compare it with other ways of knowing such as philosophy, religion, and culture.

    Then I let them decide whether religion and science can be reconciled.


    Cool thing is, most of them say it can't icon_biggrin.gif
  • paulken

    Posts: 24

    May 12, 2013 2:34 AM GMT
    He didnt say the theories are wrong , just they are perceived as fact before established as so.
  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    May 12, 2013 2:46 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidScience and religion have the same problem. It's the word "constant."

    It means that something never changes. It's "constant."

    The difference is that the scientific community will embrace a differing hypothesis and support studies to figure out whether or not the "constant" is factually correct.

    Religion will just condemn you to hell for differing, or even kill you.


    That is a contradictory statement. If science is not willing to test whether its constants are in fact constant, that means it is not willing to embrace the hypothesis whether or not they are constant.

    What Sheldon is talking about are dogmas within science: one being the tendency within the sciences to attribute differences in measurement to "error" and to take this as dogma. How do we know the actual value does not factually change with each measurement? How do we not know that the time-space continuum is in a constant random flux, if we already assume that time-space bends and is relative? how could the idea that constants do not constantly change, not be compatible with a changeable time-space continuum? It would certainly explain why a machine that is precisely calibrated to perform a certain task, tends to never perform it exactly, but deviates from its task, in a statistically measurable and mathematically describable, but not predictable (because it is random), distribution. That is a fundamental paradigm shift from the view that the constants do not change, but that our measurement is imprecise. Another is to attribute certain phenomena which are not understandable through current scientific theory, such as telepathy or pre-cognition, which has been suggested to occur in many psychological and animal behavioural tests, to being random statistical error. Both of these assume a certain structure of the universe, and its fluctuation as an "error" in the system. But is it really error? Is perhaps the universe in fact, programmed to be constantly statistically fluctuating? And is the mind really tied to material substance? Or is it independent from material substance? Sort of in the manner that the consciousness of a person does not change, whereas the molecules in his body are constantly changing. Is the mind then, created by the neurons? Or is it what is causing the neurons to react? The latter would be equally suitable for explaining the phenomena of telepathy and pre-cognition, which are currently considered a "statistical error of perception" in the same manner our fluctuating measurements are considered thus. Not to mention the latter would be in line with the general theory of the existence of the soul, or spirit, and makes it easy to understand why consciousness in a single being does not "leave" when the molecules that make up our bodies are lost.

    To put it bluntly, when you breathe out, you are exchanging molecules with the air, and those enter into your brain and into your neurons, so your brain exchanges molecules with the air all the time, yet your sense of identity remains with you, and does not "exchange consciousness" with the air around you along with the molecules. This makes it theoretically plausible and logically deductible that the consciousness/mind is not tied to the body, allowing for the existence of something like a soul/spirit which infuses and steers the mechanical body and is what is conscious of it. However, since science can only measure molecules empirically, not the soul/spirit/mind/consciousness, it requires leaving behind the dogma that the universe operates solely mechanistically, and opens up the possibility of non-material spirit to exist and infuse it, from a very logical standpoint, and not since it is not measurable, not subject to scientific enquiry (since that requires material and measurement), but subject to logical enquiry about the nature of the spirit/soul/consciousness/mind as an entity independent from material and measurable existence.

    Anyways, that's how I deduce it logically from the nature of how the material universe operates, that it allows for the existence of spirit and shared consciousness (like when people can "feel" how a loved one feels, even when they are miles apart, something which many people report having) rather than basing it on an error of perception, but that this could simply be how reality operates, and it is perfectly logical, IF you would not consider these things an "error", but as a natural part of how the universe works.

    Anyways, his point is: if we define certain things as axioms (such as that the speed of light is assumed to be constant even though our measurements change, and we then assume our measurements are in random error, and then calibrate it as such), we step into dogma, we step into a defined belief about the universe, and that should be, strictly speaking, not the case. It is more practical, certainly (since it makes our calculations about the universe more "neat" and "fitting" and "orderly"). But by doing so, are we not imposing an expectation on the nature of things that might be wrong?

    It's a very interesting philosophical question, mostly about, how do we define how things operate based on how we measure it? It seems clear from this talk, that the WAY we measure things, influences HOW we see the universe, and that is the fundamental aspect of science that should be kept in mind, in order not to avoid dogmatic sticking to certain axioms that we may be making up ourselves.

    Excelsior
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 2:52 AM GMT
    heyom said
    paulflexes saidScience and religion have the same problem. It's the word "constant."

    It means that something never changes. It's "constant."

    The difference is that the scientific community will embrace a differing hypothesis and support studies to figure out whether or not the "constant" is factually correct.

    Religion will just condemn you to hell for differing, or even kill you.


    That is a contradictory statement. If science is not willing to test whether its constants are in fact constant, that means it is not willing to embrace the hypothesis whether or not they are constant.
    At least it won't kill you for creating the hypothesis; and will likely embrace the hypothesis if you can introduce enough evidence to support it.
  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    May 12, 2013 2:56 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    heyom said
    paulflexes saidScience and religion have the same problem. It's the word "constant."

    It means that something never changes. It's "constant."

    The difference is that the scientific community will embrace a differing hypothesis and support studies to figure out whether or not the "constant" is factually correct.

    Religion will just condemn you to hell for differing, or even kill you.


    That is a contradictory statement. If science is not willing to test whether its constants are in fact constant, that means it is not willing to embrace the hypothesis whether or not they are constant.
    At least it won't kill you for creating the hypothesis; and will likely embrace the hypothesis if you can introduce enough evidence to support it.


    O dear lord, you are really hammering in the belief that religion always condemns you to hell and kills you eh? it seems that is the only reason you are replying to the post. Anyways, I won't bother convincing you that that is an overarching statement: you should travel a bit and talk to more religious people, I am sure you will find plenty who will not kill someone for believing something different than you icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 3:27 AM GMT
    heyom said
    paulflexes said
    heyom said
    paulflexes saidScience and religion have the same problem. It's the word "constant."

    It means that something never changes. It's "constant."

    The difference is that the scientific community will embrace a differing hypothesis and support studies to figure out whether or not the "constant" is factually correct.

    Religion will just condemn you to hell for differing, or even kill you.


    That is a contradictory statement. If science is not willing to test whether its constants are in fact constant, that means it is not willing to embrace the hypothesis whether or not they are constant.
    At least it won't kill you for creating the hypothesis; and will likely embrace the hypothesis if you can introduce enough evidence to support it.


    O dear lord, you are really hammering in the belief that religion always condemns you to hell and kills you eh? it seems that is the only reason you are replying to the post. Anyways, I won't bother convincing you that that is an overarching statement: you should travel a bit and talk to more religious people, I am sure you will find plenty who will not kill someone for believing something different than you icon_smile.gif
    It's not the religious followers I was referring to - It's the religious leaders.

    And likewise, the scientific leaders...ya know, the snobby overgrown kids who think they're right about everything until proven wrong. At least they'll admit it and adapt when they're proven wrong. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 3:30 AM GMT
    Science is like religion: most scientists conveniently ignore theoretical inconsistency and selectively interpret empirical evidence, exactly like most christians conveniently ignore theological inconsistency and selectively interpret the scripture. The worst of them prevaricate merely for fame and fortune (e.g stem cell scandal on Nature v.s the Book of Mormon)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 3:48 AM GMT
    I happen to be a "believer" in the use of science as a means of understanding the world, and I find it more reliable than other means, like those chryan1989 mentioned -- philosophy, religion, and culture.

    But science is not infallible, and many scientists do suffer from a common hubris that Rupert Sheldrake is getting at in the video. In particular, scientists tend to divide their beliefs into those that are still being tested -- the "theory" of evolution, for example -- and those that we know for sure -- the "law" of gravity is one.

    The problem is, we don't know anything for sure. Everything we think we know about science is a theory. We can base our scientific knowledge only upon the observations we have seen so far. We have not, however, seen all the possible observations. This is an inherent problem in deducing laws from observations. We can approximate a law from observations, but we cannot know for certain unless we have seen every observation.

    Today, an apple will fall from a tree and reach the Earth in a predictable manner. But if Sheldrake is right, today's law of gravity may not predict the apple's behavior so accurately tomorrow. He is not saying the law of gravity is wrong, per se -- just that it may not be as constant as we think.

    Because we are mere observers and not creators, the laws of science are unknowable to us. In that respect, science is very much like religion.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    May 12, 2013 3:49 AM GMT
    cchx0000 saidScience is like religion: most scientists conveniently ignore theoretical inconsistency and selectively interpret empirical evidence, exactly like most christians conveniently ignore theological inconsistency and selectively interpret the scripture.


    Best post on the thread.

    People have confused in flux scientific theories with facts. Well, not people, just atheists.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 4:01 AM GMT
    heyom said
    paulflexes saidScience and religion have the same problem. It's the word "constant."

    It means that something never changes. It's "constant."

    The difference is that the scientific community will embrace a differing hypothesis and support studies to figure out whether or not the "constant" is factually correct.

    Religion will just condemn you to hell for differing, or even kill you.


    That is a contradictory statement. If science is not willing to test whether its constants are in fact constant, that means it is not willing to embrace the hypothesis whether or not they are constant.

    What Sheldon is talking about are dogmas within science: one being the tendency within the sciences to attribute differences in measurement to "error" and to take this as dogma. How do we know the actual value does not factually change with each measurement? How do we not know that the time-space continuum is in a constant random flux, if we already assume that time-space bends and is relative? how could the idea that constants do not constantly change, not be compatible with a changeable time-space continuum? It would certainly explain why a machine that is precisely calibrated to perform a certain task, tends to never perform it exactly, but deviates from its task, in a statistically measurable and mathematically describable, but not predictable (because it is random), distribution. That is a fundamental paradigm shift from the view that the constants do not change, but that our measurement is imprecise. Another is to attribute certain phenomena which are not understandable through current scientific theory, such as telepathy or pre-cognition, which has been suggested to occur in many psychological and animal behavioural tests, to being random statistical error. Both of these assume a certain structure of the universe, and its fluctuation as an "error" in the system. But is it really error? Is perhaps the universe in fact, programmed to be constantly statistically fluctuating? And is the mind really tied to material substance? Or is it independent from material substance? Sort of in the manner that the consciousness of a person does not change, whereas the molecules in his body are constantly changing. Is the mind then, created by the neurons? Or is it what is causing the neurons to react? The latter would be equally suitable for explaining the phenomena of telepathy and pre-cognition, which are currently considered a "statistical error of perception" in the same manner our fluctuating measurements are considered thus. Not to mention the latter would be in line with the general theory of the existence of the soul, or spirit, and makes it easy to understand why consciousness in a single being does not "leave" when the molecules that make up our bodies are lost.

    To put it bluntly, when you breathe out, you are exchanging molecules with the air, and those enter into your brain and into your neurons, so your brain exchanges molecules with the air all the time, yet your sense of identity remains with you, and does not "exchange consciousness" with the air around you along with the molecules. This makes it theoretically plausible and logically deductible that the consciousness/mind is not tied to the body, allowing for the existence of something like a soul/spirit which infuses and steers the mechanical body and is what is conscious of it. However, since science can only measure molecules empirically, not the soul/spirit/mind/consciousness, it requires leaving behind the dogma that the universe operates solely mechanistically, and opens up the possibility of non-material spirit to exist and infuse it, from a very logical standpoint, and not since it is not measurable, not subject to scientific enquiry (since that requires material and measurement), but subject to logical enquiry about the nature of the spirit/soul/consciousness/mind as an entity independent from material and measurable existence.

    Anyways, that's how I deduce it logically from the nature of how the material universe operates, that it allows for the existence of spirit and shared consciousness (like when people can "feel" how a loved one feels, even when they are miles apart, something which many people report having) rather than basing it on an error of perception, but that this could simply be how reality operates, and it is perfectly logical, IF you would not consider these things an "error", but as a natural part of how the universe works.

    Anyways, his point is: if we define certain things as axioms (such as that the speed of light is assumed to be constant even though our measurements change, and we then assume our measurements are in random error, and then calibrate it as such), we step into dogma, we step into a defined belief about the universe, and that should be, strictly speaking, not the case. It is more practical, certainly (since it makes our calculations about the universe more "neat" and "fitting" and "orderly"). But by doing so, are we not imposing an expectation on the nature of things that might be wrong?

    It's a very interesting philosophical question, mostly about, how do we define how things operate based on how we measure it? It seems clear from this talk, that the WAY we measure things, influences HOW we see the universe, and that is the fundamental aspect of science that should be kept in mind, in order not to avoid dogmatic sticking to certain axioms that we may be making up ourselves.

    Excelsior


    please marry me thanks
  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    May 12, 2013 4:07 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    heyom said
    paulflexes said
    heyom said
    paulflexes saidScience and religion have the same problem. It's the word "constant."

    It means that something never changes. It's "constant."

    The difference is that the scientific community will embrace a differing hypothesis and support studies to figure out whether or not the "constant" is factually correct.

    Religion will just condemn you to hell for differing, or even kill you.


    That is a contradictory statement. If science is not willing to test whether its constants are in fact constant, that means it is not willing to embrace the hypothesis whether or not they are constant.
    At least it won't kill you for creating the hypothesis; and will likely embrace the hypothesis if you can introduce enough evidence to support it.


    O dear lord, you are really hammering in the belief that religion always condemns you to hell and kills you eh? it seems that is the only reason you are replying to the post. Anyways, I won't bother convincing you that that is an overarching statement: you should travel a bit and talk to more religious people, I am sure you will find plenty who will not kill someone for believing something different than you icon_smile.gif
    It's not the religious followers I was referring to - It's the religious leaders.

    And likewise, the scientific leaders...ya know, the snobby overgrown kids who think they're right about everything until proven wrong. At least they'll admit it and adapt when they're proven wrong. icon_wink.gif


    you don't know how commonly any human doesn't adapt when proven wrong though icon_razz.gif ;)
  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    May 12, 2013 4:11 AM GMT
    dre4mbo1 said

    please marry me thanks


    If you don't mind moving to Hawaii icon_wink.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 12, 2013 5:01 AM GMT
    Religion uses written text from the past.

    Science uses current observations while looking ahead for more answers.

    Nuff said.

    BTW, science doesn't accept that it "already know how the world works." That's why we have new discoveries. The way we see how the world works is based on the latest information and is completely open to new evidence, hence new discoveries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 5:26 AM GMT
    All i can say to this controversial argument is-
    ESKANDALO!!!icon_eek.gif
  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    May 12, 2013 5:37 AM GMT
    coolarmydude saidReligion uses written text from the past.

    Science uses current observations while looking ahead for more answers.

    Nuff said.

    BTW, science doesn't accept that it "already know how the world works." That's why we have new discoveries. The way we see how the world works is based on the latest information and is completely open to new evidence, hence new discoveries.


    Yes, but, "religion" is not a part of this OP. Sheldrake never mentions to give up science in favour of religion. This is about scientific dogma, which is very real and existent according to him. Your post seems to state that you believe it does not. that too is personal belief, so therefore equally accpetable.

    I must say though, I notice in general that though many have given very good criticisms to dogma (which exists, according to this talk, in science, and I will agree it exists in religion), it often turns into a dichotomous talk. People come too quickly to the conclusion this is a talk of "it's either science or religion". I think the point of this OP is not "science or religion"... it's "dogma or no dogma".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 6:28 AM GMT
    “My karma ran over your dogma.”
    -- unknown
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    May 12, 2013 3:57 PM GMT
    dre4mbo1 said
    heyom said
    . . .
    Excelsior


    please marry me thanks


    I hear that! One of the longest, most interesting and intelligent posts I've read on this forum icon_razz.gif

    Rupert Sheldrake, Terence Mckenna and Ralph Abrahm are rather notorious for their Millennialist "Trialogues" from the latter part of the previous century. Several of them can be found on youtube, perhaps the most interesting being "The Evolutionary Mind." Basically I regard them as 'old hippies' (like myself) attempting to reconcile psychadelicist experience with science, including the debunking of the materialist belief system of 'scientisim'.

    Of the three, I only met Mckenna (now deceased). I spent a long weekend with him in an academic setting, ostensibly (but not exclusively) discussing Ethnobotany, specific mind altering plants (and animals) and their relationship to social and possibly human evolution.

    I regard McKenna as a sort of mad genius who had some fascinating insights as well as a lot of crazy Millennialist ideas. McKenna was most interested in the role of diet in the evolution of species and theorized that human evolution was affected by the ingestion of psychedelic fungi when we climbed down out of the arboreal canopy and began foraging on the forest floor. Specifically he believed that the ingestion of psychedelic fungi gave our foraging ancestors a survival advantage due to its ability to enhance the senses, specifically edge definition and movement detection in low doses. This would have helped our relatively clumsy primate ancestors detect and potentially avoid grass-land predators.

    It is an intriguing theory in its own right. When coupled with the cognitive dissonance that occur in higher doses, it could go a long way in explaining the rise of sentience in our species. Moreover, it suggests the evolution of human consciousness (whatever that is) is a symbiotic adaptive response to changing climates.

    McKenna posed the question: "If evolution does not include the evolution of consciousness, what the hell are we talking about?" Any discussion of what consciousness "is" aside, it is an intriguing question because it points toward the possibility that, beyond biological evolution as it is currently (materialistically) understood, there is the possibility of a different kind of evolution, the evolution of 'mind'.

    Such questions are especially relevant in an age fraught with the potential for self-executed extinction due to social and environmental degradation. At this juncture in our history, we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that our social actions have environmental consequences that put the whole evolutionary potential of the planet in jeopardy. This, so far as we know, is a completely new juncture in the history of this planet and our 'awareness' of it is critical in terms of whether we, as a species, evolve beyond crises of our own making.

    mushyshaman.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 3:59 PM GMT
    I like his way of telling/advising/suggesting everyone to be 'open-minded'
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 7:13 PM GMT
    MikeW saidI hear that! One of the longest, most interesting and intelligent posts I've read on this forum icon_razz.gif

    Rupert Sheldrake, Terence Mckenna and Ralph Abrahm are rather notorious for their Millennialist "Trialogues" from the latter part of the previous century. Several of them can be found on youtube, perhaps the most interesting being "The Evolutionary Mind." Basically I regard them as 'old hippies' (like myself) attempting to reconcile psychadelicist experience with science, including the debunking of the materialist belief system of 'scientisim'.

    Of the three, I only met Mckenna (now deceased). I spent a long weekend with him in an academic setting, ostensibly (but not exclusively) discussing Ethnobotany, specific mind altering plants (and animals) and their relationship to social and possibly human evolution.

    I regard McKenna as a sort of mad genius who had some fascinating insights as well as a lot of crazy Millennialist ideas. McKenna was most interested in the role of diet in the evolution of species and theorized that human evolution was affected by the ingestion of psychedelic fungi when we climbed down out of the arboreal canopy and began foraging on the forest floor. Specifically he believed that the ingestion of psychedelic fungi gave our foraging ancestors a survival advantage due to its ability to enhance the senses, specifically edge definition and movement detection in low doses. This would have helped our relatively clumsy primate ancestors detect and potentially avoid grass-land predators.

    It is an intriguing theory in its own right. When coupled with the cognitive dissonance that occur in higher doses, it could go a long way in explaining the rise of sentience in our species. Moreover, it suggests the evolution of human consciousness (whatever that is) is a symbiotic adaptive response to changing climates.

    McKenna posed the question: "If evolution does not include the evolution of consciousness, what the hell are we talking about?" Any discussion of what consciousness "is" aside, it is an intriguing question because it points toward the possibility that, beyond biological evolution as it is currently (materialistically) understood, there is the possibility of a different kind of evolution, the evolution of 'mind'.

    Such questions are especially relevant in an age fraught with the potential for self-executed extinction due to social and environmental degradation. At this juncture in our history, we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that our social actions have environmental consequences that put the whole evolutionary potential of the planet in jeopardy. This, so far as we know, is a completely new juncture in the history of this planet and our 'awareness' of it is critical in terms of whether we, as a species, evolve beyond crises of our own making.


    +1

    Would you agree that our increasing understanding of science across the centuries is an indication of expanding consciousness? Is our consciousness evolving fast enough to avoid environmental catastrophe?

    A friend from college was a huge fan of Doctor Who. I watched one episode in order to be conversant with him, and the plot was fascinating. It was suggested that all the great thinkers in the history of the world were actually one being -- an alien whose spacecraft crash landed on this planet. In his effort to leave, he spent hundreds of years -- taking the form of Newton, Einstein, etc. -- trying to help man develop an understanding of science sufficient to repair his ship.

    Maybe we could use a little help.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    May 12, 2013 11:23 PM GMT
    What do you mean my test tube baby is actually a sock pocket???icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2013 11:29 PM GMT
    GigoloAssassin saidAll i can say to this controversial argument is-
    ESKANDALO!!!icon_eek.gif


    Yes, exactly! Medium rare. Sauce on the side. Thank you so much.