Sign in to follow this  
panpareil

The Dogmas Of Science

Recommended Posts

I came across a video of Rupert Sheldrake putting forward the notion that science is now a belief system that inhibits the free rational inquiry that it was once based upon.

Dr Sheldrake lists 10 fallacious assumptions that bar science from progressing.

  1. Nature is mechanical or machine like
  2. All matter is unconscious
  3. The laws or constants of nature are fixed
  4. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same
  5. Nature is purposeless
  6. Biological heredity is material
  7. Memories are stored inside your brain
  8. Your mind is inside your head
  9. Psychic phenomena like telepathy is not possible
  10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works

To my point of view we stand in a similar position to that we once stood in the 19th century when scientists thought they had discovered all the rules of science. That is until they faced the inadequacy of classical physics in explaining black body radiation without breaking or bending their rigid rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fawzo   

I've loved all Rupert's videos I have watched to date. I post them frequently in an Atheist Facebook group called Challenging Christianity. You know he has to be considered one of the crazies though by the scientific community at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across a video of Rupert Sheldrake putting forward the notion that science is now a belief system that inhibits the free rational inquiry that it was once based upon.

Dr Sheldrake lists 10 fallacious assumptions that bar science from progressing.

  1. Nature is mechanical or machine like
  2. All matter is unconscious
  3. The laws or constants of nature are fixed
  4. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same
  5. Nature is purposeless
  6. Biological heredity is material
  7. Memories are stored inside your brain
  8. Your mind is inside your head
  9. Psychic phenomena like telepathy is not possible
  10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works

To my point of view we stand in a similar position to that we once stood in the 19th century when scientists thought they had discovered all the rules of science. That is until they faced the inadequacy of classical physics in explaining black body radiation without breaking or bending their rigid rules.

Say's him. Dr. Sheldrake does not speak for "Science." Neither does he get to define "Science."

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire his candor. It always amazes me how scientists act morally superior to religionists as they pat themselves on the back for being so open to intellectual freedom and yet let one person point out that the emperor has no clothes and all of a sudden the vitriol and character assassinations rain down with a zeal that would make the Spanish inquisitors proud.

There are new frontiers in science that are not being explored to their full potential for fear of upsetting the apple cart of current scientific presuppositions and those who see it as their job to protect them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any time any one says there "can't be" or "isn't" one thing or another is merely stating their opinion, based on the information they've had the opportunity to discover. I've come across very open and closed minded 'scientists' in my life. "Scientific Facts" are what they/we know today, it can and does change in a heartbeat based on new discoveries. The Hadron Collider at CERN, for instance, has opened many a closed door based on out dated thinking. As we progress, both in technology and in human knowledge, the world will change many times over the next millennium.....and the next....and the....

I once had a discussion with one of our engineers at Sony R&D, Palo Alto (now So. San Jose) about the possibility of the Adam and Eve story.....a week later he comes up to me with a clip board with a dozen or so pages of mathematical equations and scribblings on it...."7 women and 12 males is the least common denominator for the 6 billion (1981) people today, without the gruesome results of inbreeding!" I had to take his word for it as anything beyond basic algebra and geometry is not only Greek, but mind bending, to me. The only reason I still believe his calculation today is because it has been collaborated by a documentary on human evolution I watched some years after that encounter on which an anthropologist stated similar numbers (8 women and 14 men).

While many people in fact believe the Creation story account in Genesis, I believe something completely different about Humanity, however also believe that Eden may indeed be a real location.

As far as Sheldrake goes, I've seen many of his videos and agree with others here that he does put forth some compelling evidence as to the dogmatic approach much of science takes today. But isn't that true of any belief people have? And for his list of 10 things Science should reconsider....Amen and pass the katsup.....I'm fairly certain that at least part of that list will be proven correct....exactly when? 10, 100, 1000 years from now?, but it all goes back to what we know today.

Blessings of Peace,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fawzo   

Any time any one says there "can't be" or "isn't" one thing or another is merely stating their opinion, based on the information they've had the opportunity to discover. I've come across very open and closed minded 'scientists' in my life. "Scientific Facts" are what they/we know today, it can and does change in a heartbeat based on new discoveries. The Hadron Collider at CERN, for instance, has opened many a closed door based on out dated thinking. As we progress, both in technology and in human knowledge, the world will change many times over the next millennium.....and the next....and the....

I once had a discussion with one of our engineers at Sony R&D, Palo Alto (now So. San Jose) about the possibility of the Adam and Eve story.....a week later he comes up to me with a clip board with a dozen or so pages of mathematical equations and scribblings on it...."7 women and 12 males is the least common denominator for the 6 billion (1981) people today, without the gruesome results of inbreeding!" I had to take his word for it as anything beyond basic algebra and geometry is not only Greek, but mind bending, to me. The only reason I still believe his calculation today is because it has been collaborated by a documentary on human evolution I watched some years after that encounter on which an anthropologist stated similar numbers (8 women and 14 men).

While many people in fact believe the Creation story account in Genesis, I believe something completely different about Humanity, however also believe that Eden may indeed be a real location.

As far as Sheldrake goes, I've seen many of his videos and agree with others here that he does put forth some compelling evidence as to the dogmatic approach much of science takes today. But isn't that true of any belief people have? And for his list of 10 things Science should reconsider....Amen and pass the katsup.....I'm fairly certain that at least part of that list will be proven correct....exactly when? 10, 100, 1000 years from now?, but it all goes back to what we know today.

Blessings of Peace,

Atwater Vitki all those folks like your engineer friend who use statistics such as the one you mentioned to try to show the statistical improbability of humans surviving from just Adam and Eve or the 8 folks still living after the Noah Flood events aren't using their heads. Every mammal and species on our planet evolved and exists from such small groups. I can't believe anyone who believes in evolution would even give such an argument an iota of credibility :)

Edited by Fawzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire his candor. It always amazes me how scientists act morally superior to religionists as they pat themselves on the back for being so open to intellectual freedom and yet let one person point out that the emperor has no clothes and all of a sudden the vitriol and character assassinations rain down with a zeal that would make the Spanish inquisitors proud.

There are new frontiers in science that are not being explored to their full potential for fear of upsetting the apple cart of current scientific presuppositions and those who see it as their job to protect them...

This brings back memories. Years back I joined a Yahoo 'skeptics' group. The subject of Therapeutic Touch came up. I said I was a practitioner. The rudeness and abuse that followed was shocking, both for quantity and quality. Nobody in the group, except for me had trained in Therapeutic Touch, or had a session, or knew somebody who had -- but they KNEW.

When "facts" didn't disuade me, the abuse followed. So much for reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This brings back memories. Years back I joined a Yahoo 'skeptics' group. The subject of Therapeutic Touch came up. I said I was a practitioner. The rudeness and abuse that followed was shocking, both for quantity and quality. Nobody in the group, except for me had trained in Therapeutic Touch, or had a session, or knew somebody who had -- but they KNEW.

When "facts" didn't disuade me, the abuse followed. So much for reason.

Dr Eric Pearl's book The Reconnection (ISBN # 1-56170-819-4) was one of the first-hand introductions Kay and I had to "reiki" and/or "Therapeutic Touch" and while we are complete amateurs in this realm, we can both testify to some fairly amazing events and results. Actually, the incredibly crude feedback we received from a forum we were both involved with (2001-2003) caused Kay to never again enter a forum.

We found the same thing, those who had ZERO knowledge of or absolutely no experience with it were the worst, most abusive critics. Interesting world is it not?

May your Journey be Peaceful and ever Advancing!

Blessings of Peace,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've loved all Rupert's videos I have watched to date. I post them frequently in an Atheist Facebook group called Challenging Christianity. You know he has to be considered one of the crazies though by the scientific community at large.

He maybe regarded as a crazy, but I really admire the man, and there is a lot of truth to his views. Often people were burnt at the stake for holding to specific ideas, ideals and beliefs--and then later were canonized. Science is very dogmatic and often rather fickle. Then again science may be great as well as technology--but spiritually I feel we are moving backwards. That is the price we are paying-certainly did not come not cheap.

blessings and peace,

Suzanne

Edited by Zequatanil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Eric Pearl's book The Reconnection (ISBN # 1-56170-819-4) was one of the first-hand introductions Kay and I had to "reiki" and/or "Therapeutic Touch" and while we are complete amateurs in this realm, we can both testify to some fairly amazing events and results. Actually, the incredibly crude feedback we received from a forum we were both involved with (2001-2003) caused Kay to never again enter a forum.

We found the same thing, those who had ZERO knowledge of or absolutely no experience with it were the worst, most abusive critics. Interesting world is it not?

May your Journey be Peaceful and ever Advancing!

Blessings of Peace,

That's it exactly. The people who knew the least had the worst venom. Rather like the people who know nothing about your spiritual path -- except for what it MUST be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bro. Hex   

I don't see science as dogmatic... at all.

Science... legitimate science... is evidence-based, and always open to revision if and when new evidence arises.

Evidence itself, of course must be objective evidence, and not mere opinions or "feelings" (no mater how many people espouse such).

While I do acknowledge that "pure objectivity" is difficult (if not impossible) to achieve, as long as one is following scientific methodology,

as rigorously as possible, one will attain the nearest approximation to objectivity that is possible within the human condition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see science as dogmatic... at all.

Science... legitimate science... is evidence-based, and always open to revision if and when new evidence arises.

Evidence itself, of course must be objective evidence, and not mere opinions or "feelings" (no mater how many people espouse such).

While I do acknowledge that "pure objectivity" is difficult (if not impossible) to achieve, as long as one is following scientific methodology,

as rigorously as possible, one will attain the nearest approximation to objectivity that is possible within the human condition

That is the problem, isn't it? The people who worship at the altar of Science are not thinking like scientists. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mererdog   

This brings back memories. Years back I joined a Yahoo 'skeptics' group. The subject of Therapeutic Touch came up. I said I was a practitioner. The rudeness and abuse that followed was shocking, both for quantity and quality. Nobody in the group, except for me had trained in Therapeutic Touch, or had a session, or knew somebody who had -- but they KNEW.

When "facts" didn't disuade me, the abuse followed. So much for reason.

A slightly more scientific skepticism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one of the studies they threw into my face. In their hands, this flawed study is a weapon. One either submits or takes serious abuse.

This is not "scientific skepticism." Only hostility. Rather mean spirited hostility at that. It began with their asking me if I was familiar with the study. Yes, I was -- and I was not persuaded. From their reaction, you would think I had walked into their mass and spat on the Host. This is not science.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this