The Science Delusion. 10 dogmas of modern science

[Yetzirah]

Hi,
I dont know if this is the wrong forum but I’ll post it anyway (im new)
I came across a very interesting lecture by the english scientist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake based on a book of his that is called “The Science Delusion” in Europe and “Science Set Free” in America.
SCIENCE SET FREE - Rupert Sheldrake (Youtube - 1h20m talk)

In this book Dr. Sheldrake puts forward what he sees as 10 dogmas of modern science and puts them up to rigorous scientific testing and investigation, showing that all of them can be questioned and that none of them hold up.

The 10 assumptions / dogmas:

1. Nature is mechanical, or machine-like.
2. Matter is unconscious.
3. The laws 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 in your brain as material traces.
8. Your mind is inside your head.
9. Psychic phenomenon like telepathy are impossible.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

The book was very successful and Dr. Sheldrake was invited to a TED conference called “challenging current paradigm’s” to speak about these dogmas. TED is a sort of a conference that prides itself on inviting cutting edge speakers in the fields of science, philosophy, history etc and goes under the moniker of “Ideas worth spreading”.
After the speech had been made it was uploaded as a video on the TED website and seemed wildly popular among audiences, but later it was taken down with the motivation that an anonymous board of scientific advisors had deemed some of its points verging on “pseudo-science”. This act gave TED alot of bad publicity on on the internet because here was a scientist with a great reputation that was challengin what he alleged had became dogma in modern science that is holding it back and an anonymous board of advisors had deemed it “psuedo-scientific” (de facto heretical).
Dr. Sheldrake refuted all their complaints and one can follow the whole controversy which ended up as a tit for tat fight between radical materialists (like Richard Dawkins etc) vs non-materialists: TED’s Spectacular Fail: Ideas Worth Suppressing

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK (Youtube 18m talk)

Dr. Sheldrake’s Magnum Opus is his theory of “Morphic Resonance” but he has also been doing real research in such areas as telepathy among pets and people.
What separates Sheldrake from others who simply have wild theories is that he has excellent references and provides the data for every experiment and theory that he puts forth. Because of this, the materialistic and militant atheist camp can not simply disgard him as a “pseudo scientist”, although they try to.

He is very critical of the current “official” worldview that all things are materialistic and all living things are but biological machines, which is a worldview he sees as something that is out of date and inherited from the 1800’s that is also the root behind the current ecological crisis.

I think the book, talk and the controversies surrounding it highlights that science too has become a dogmatic ideology in which people such as Richard Dawkins, who was a professor in “science in the public awareness”, claim to speak on behalf of and with the authority of science basically “lobbies” institutions to exclude lectures, individuals and even scientific experiments that do not conform with the “dogmas” of this particular worldview.

The quantum seems to show that the basic underlying principle behind all existence is non-material and that material is secondary.
We also have the very existence of consciousness itself that has not been sufficiently explained but that materialists describe as an effect that arises because of reactions in the brain.

Sheldrake himself is nominally an anglican that has lived in the Christian Ashram of India with the Catholic monk Bede Griffith.

NOW, wouldnt it be far better to “attack” materialism and militant atheism from this kind of perspective instead of reacting to evolution with creationist theories that are scoffed at by scientists?

It seems to me that it is the quantum phenomena and the consciousness and who can best explain it with a narrative that will win the most converts.
Are catholic or other christian philosophers, scientist or theologians thinking about these matters at all?
I know the new-ager’s are constantly adapting their narratives and that the hindus and buddhists are also using these scientific developments, but I rarely see any christian apologetic that uses the quantum phenomena, the lack of explanation of conscioussness etc to open the mind to the possibility of “God” as the source of reality

Happy new year

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Hi,
I dont know if this is the wrong forum but I’ll post it anyway (im new)

This is the right forum - welcome!

That science has serious explanatory limits, and that materialism specifically results in absurdity, is nothing new.

Even taking nature to be like a machine is problematic. Machines operate consistently and accomplish what they do because their makers are intelligent; and a law is an ordinance of reason.

Regardless, even in a hyper or dogmatically materialistic science, Christianity still has the Resurrection of Christ including a new bodily existence, the Ascension and also the miracles worked by Christ and later his Apostles to deal with.

Happy new year

Thank you and you too.

 

[tonyrey]

WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

In one of my posts I recently mentioned corruption and bigotry in the Scientific Establishment - with particular reference to Nature. Your thread has renewed my interest and supported my claim that scientists are not always as objective and impartial as they make out. Congratulations and a very Happy New Year!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I doubt that latching on to the New Age movement will lend any more credibility to Christian scientists.

I’m going to bookmark this thread and come back to it, as I don’t have the time to watch the video now. But I’m very curious to see this individual promote the possibility of telepathy, as that sounds vaguely insane.

tonyrey:

In one of my posts I recently mentioned corruption and bigotry in the Scientific Establishment - with particular reference to Nature. Your thread has renewed my interest and supported my claim that scientists are not always as objective and impartial as they make out. Congratulations and a very Happy New Year!

Because one guy disagrees with scientific consensus?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi,
I dont know if this is the wrong forum but I’ll post it anyway (im new)
I came across a very interesting lecture by the english scientist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake based on a book of his that is called “The Science Delusion” in Europe and “Science Set Free” in America.
SCIENCE SET FREE - Rupert Sheldrake (Youtube - 1h20m talk)

In this book Dr. Sheldrake puts forward what he sees as 10 dogmas of modern science and puts them up to rigorous scientific testing and investigation, showing that all of them can be questioned and that none of them hold up.

The 10 assumptions / dogmas:

1. Nature is mechanical, or machine-like.
2. Matter is unconscious.
3. The laws 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 in your brain as material traces.
8. Your mind is inside your head.
9. Psychic phenomenon like telepathy are impossible.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

The book was very successful and Dr. Sheldrake was invited to a TED conference called “challenging current paradigm’s” to speak about these dogmas. TED is a sort of a conference that prides itself on inviting cutting edge speakers in the fields of science, philosophy, history etc and goes under the moniker of “Ideas worth spreading”.
After the speech had been made it was uploaded as a video on the TED website and seemed wildly popular among audiences, but later it was taken down with the motivation that an anonymous board of scientific advisors had deemed some of its points verging on “pseudo-science”. This act gave TED alot of bad publicity on on the internet because here was a scientist with a great reputation that was challengin what he alleged had became dogma in modern science that is holding it back and an anonymous board of advisors had deemed it “psuedo-scientific” (de facto heretical).
Dr. Sheldrake refuted all their complaints and one can follow the whole controversy which ended up as a tit for tat fight between radical materialists (like Richard Dawkins etc) vs non-materialists: TED’s Spectacular Fail: Ideas Worth Suppressing

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK (Youtube 18m talk)

Dr. Sheldrake’s Magnum Opus is his theory of “Morphic Resonance” but he has also been doing real research in such areas as telepathy among pets and people.
What separates Sheldrake from others who simply have wild theories is that he has excellent references and provides the data for every experiment and theory that he puts forth. Because of this, the materialistic and militant atheist camp can not simply disgard him as a “pseudo scientist”, although they try to.

He is very critical of the current “official” worldview that all things are materialistic and all living things are but biological machines, which is a worldview he sees as something that is out of date and inherited from the 1800’s that is also the root behind the current ecological crisis.

I think the book, talk and the controversies surrounding it highlights that science too has become a dogmatic ideology in which people such as Richard Dawkins, who was a professor in “science in the public awareness”, claim to speak on behalf of and with the authority of science basically “lobbies” institutions to exclude lectures, individuals and even scientific experiments that do not conform with the “dogmas” of this particular worldview.

The quantum seems to show that the basic underlying principle behind all existence is non-material and that material is secondary.
We also have the very existence of consciousness itself that has not been sufficiently explained but that materialists describe as an effect that arises because of reactions in the brain.

Sheldrake himself is nominally an anglican that has lived in the Christian Ashram of India with the Catholic monk Bede Griffith.

NOW, wouldnt it be far better to “attack” materialism and militant atheism from this kind of perspective instead of reacting to evolution with creationist theories that are scoffed at by scientists?

It seems to me that it is the quantum phenomena and the consciousness and who can best explain it with a narrative that will win the most converts.
Are catholic or other christian philosophers, scientist or theologians thinking about these matters at all?
I know the new-ager’s are constantly adapting their narratives and that the hindus and buddhists are also using these scientific developments, but I rarely see any christian apologetic that uses the quantum phenomena, the lack of explanation of conscioussness etc to open the mind to the possibility of “God” as the source of reality

Happy new year

The facade is beginning to crack. More and more people, even some scientists are beginning to admit they have long claimed too much but the Institutions - the Universities, the secular media, etc. are circuling the wagons. Another interesting book is Bankrupting Physics by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones.

Linus2nd

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The facade is beginning to crack.
Linus2nd

Heck, before you know it, we’ll be back to the Geocentric model.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

.
2. Matter is unconscious.

I’m curious, does that section of the presentation make an argument for panpsychism?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Heck, before you know it, we’ll be back to the Geocentric model.

Don’t know how to take your comment. I don’t agree with all the points in the O.P., I am just pointing out that we didn’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a great little book, From Atomos to Atom by Andrew G. Van Melen which traces the beginnings of science form the Atomists of andient Greece to Quantum Mechanics. In the process it shows that the old Greeks weren’t crack pots, and we have lost a lot by relegationg them and eveything they taught to obscurity. They gave us Thomas Aquinas after all and the moderns lump him along with their dissing of the beginnings of science in ancient Greece.

Linus2nd

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Don’t know how to take your comment. I don’t agree with all the points in the O.P., I am just pointing out that we didn’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a great little book, From Atomos to Atom by Andrew G. Van Melen which traces the beginnings of science form the Atomists of andient Greece to Quantum Mechanics. In the process it shows that the old Greeks weren’t crack pots, and we have lost a lot by relegationg them and eveything they taught to obscurity. They gave us Thomas Aquinas after all and the moderns lump him along with their dissing of the beginnings of science in ancient Greece.

Linus2nd

Interesting stuff, thanks.

 

[tonyrey]

In one of my posts I recently mentioned corruption and bigotry in the Scientific Establishment - with particular reference to Nature. Your thread has renewed my interest and supported my claim that scientists are not always as objective and impartial as they make out.

One?
The corruption of science: How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science

 

[Catolico65]

I don’t know about Dr. Sheldrake but I do know that science has become the mouthpiece for atheists who would pretend to sell pseudo science as fact. For example, Big Bang is used as a reason that we camr into existence out of nothing while conveniently omitting the fact that there is no explanation as to how all the matter of the universe was concentrated in one place nor that this would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, Hawkings mostly ignores this and the scientific method but instead claims this is a valid theory. For those scientists who realize that entropy and the Big Bang cannot be ignored so readily they have embraced string theory which is about multiple universes, something right out of Marvel comics and equally ridiculous.

Also, while it is well known fact that mutation is a degenerative process and thus cannot increase nor create complexity we have another prominent scientist in Richard Dawkins ignoring this fact mostly and failing to apply the scientific method to his claim that evolution really happened. That is not science.

Furthermore, in the same area science is trying to find a a genetic cause for all types of conditions such as homosexuality, alcoholism, murderous thoughts, etc with the goal of obsoleting right and wrong. In fact, regarding the source of homosexuality, there are so many studies “suggesting” a biological link that many in the public, even Catholics, take this as a fact without ever bothering to understand the difference between a suggested link and definitive localization of a biological source vetted by other professionals.

Therefore, we are certainly in dangerous times where the scientific industry has sold itself to special interests, including their own prejudices, in order to make a buck and spread their unscientific theories.of advancing their personal agenda. This is what happens to a society when Christian values are replaced by something more expedient to the whims of unprincipled persons.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know about Dr. Sheldrake but I do know that science has become the mouthpiece for atheists who would pretend to sell pseudo science as fact. For example, Big Bang is used as a reason that we camr into existence out of nothing while conveniently omitting the fact that there is no explanation as to how all the matter of the universe was concentrated in one place nor that this would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, Hawkings mostly ignores this and the scientific method but instead claims this is a valid theory. For those scientists who realize that entropy and the Big Bang cannot be ignored so readily they have embraced string theory which is about multiple universes, something right out of Marvel comics and equally ridiculous.

Also, while it is well known fact that mutation is a degenerative process and thus cannot increase nor create complexity we have another prominent scientist in Richard Dawkins ignoring this fact mostly and failing to apply the scientific method to his claim that evolution really happened. That is not science.

Furthermore, in the same area science is trying to find a a genetic cause for all types of conditions such as homosexuality, alcoholism, murderous thoughts, etc with the goal of obsoleting right and wrong. In fact, regarding the source of homosexuality, there are so many studies “suggesting” a biological link that many in the public, even Catholics, take this as a fact without ever bothering to understand the difference between a suggested link and definitive localization of a biological source vetted by other professionals.

Therefore, we are certainly in dangerous times where the scientific industry has sold itself to special interests, including their own prejudices, in order to make a buck and spread their unscientific theories.of advancing their personal agenda. This is what happens to a society when Christian values are replaced by something more expedient to the whims of unprincipled persons.

“By their fruits you shall know them”…

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Is there anyone on this forum that:

1. Is Catholic, and,
2. Has a 21st century understanding of science?

 

[Aloysium]

Is there anyone on this forum that:

1. Is Catholic, and,
2. Has a 21st century understanding of science?

Yes.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Yes.

Cool, I’d like to see a debate, then.

 

[Oreoracle]

The 10 assumptions / dogmas:

Challenge accepted.

1. Nature is mechanical, or machine-like.

I’m assuming you mean that nature is considered to follow a certain set of rules. This is indeed an assumption that is made in science, but it’s a necessary one in my opinion. The alternative is that the universe does not behave according to rules, which makes the world fundamentally unpredictable and unintelligible. If this assumption is wrong, you might as well give up trying to understand anything.

1. Matter is unconscious.

I guess that depends on your definition of “unconscious”, as you no doubt have a philosophical one in mind. Neurologically, it’s pretty obvious that rocks aren’t conscious, for example. Would subjecting a rock to a sedative have any noticeable effect?

1. The laws of nature are fixed.

This isn’t an assumption, it’s a tautology. Laws are unchanging by definition.

1. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same.

Conservation laws are backed up by evidence and can be demonstrated mathematically. They are not assumed, but derived.

1. Nature is purposeless.

This is not an assumption of science, because science isn’t in the business of discussing purpose. This is like criticizing math for not telling you how to paint a beautiful picture.

1. Biological heredity is material.

I can’t make heads or tails of this, frankly.

1. Memories are stored in your brain as material traces.

That depends on your definition of “memory”. If we define it to be material, it tautologically will have material consequences for its existence. If we define it in a waffly philosophical manner, then it won’t. Simple as that.

1. Your mind is inside your head.

Normally I would ask you to define “mind”, but I’ll bite. This “assumption” has served us pretty well so far. If you’ve ever been drunk or anaesthetized then you have observed first-hand the brain’s impact on the mind. There’s no reason to think the mind persists after the brain’s demise.

1. Psychic phenomenon like telepathy are impossible.

No one said it’s impossible, it just hasn’t been demonstrated. If you want a claim to be respected, produce some evidence.

1. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Two words: placebo effect.

 

[Yetzirah]

Challenge accepted.

I’m assuming you mean that nature is considered to follow a certain set of rules. This is indeed an assumption that is made in science, but it’s a necessary one in my opinion. The alternative is that the universe does not behave according to rules, which makes the world fundamentally unpredictable and unintelligible. If this assumption is wrong, you might as well give up trying to understand anything.

Dr Sheldrake provides the data in his book of the measurements of the Speed of Light throughout history and shows that it at times has varied.

*Mar. 25, 2013 — Two forthcoming European Physical Journal D papers challenge established wisdom about the nature of vacuum. In one paper, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud, located in Orsay, France and his colleagues identified a quantum level mechanism for interpreting vacuum as being filled with pairs of virtual particles with fluctuating energy values. As a result, the inherent characteristics of vacuum, like the speed of light, may not be a constant after all, but fluctuate.

… As a result, there is a theoretical possibility that the speed of light is not fixed, as conventional physics has assumed. But it could fluctuate at a level independent of the energy of each light quantum, or photon, and greater than fluctuations induced by quantum level gravity. The speed of light would be dependent on variations in the vacuum properties of space or time. The fluctuations of the photon propagation time are estimated to be on the order of 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum, which might be testable with the help of new ultra-fast lasers.Leuchs and Sanchez-Soto, on the other hand, modelled virtual charged particle pairs as electric dipoles responsible for the polarisation of the vacuum.

They found that a specific property of vacuum called the impedance, which is crucial to determining the speed of light, depends only on the sum of the square of the electric charges of particles but not on their masses. If their idea is correct, the value of the speed of light combined with the value of vacuum impedance gives an indication of the total number of charged elementary particles existing in nature. Experimental results support this hypothesis.
*
Science Daily: Speed of Light May Not Be Fixed, Scientists Suggest; Ephemeral Vacuum Particles Induce Speed-Of-Light Fluctuations

I guess that depends on your definition of “unconscious”, as you no doubt have a philosophical one in mind. Neurologically, it’s pretty obvious that rocks aren’t conscious, for example. Would subjecting a rock to a sedative have any noticeable effect?

Well, you define consciousness as somekind of a chemical reaction within the brain? Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton argues that for example form of crystals (and all other things in the universe) are determined by fields (like the gravitational field) that operates within and without the crystal across space and time.
This is why when one kind of a crystal is crystallized, the next one doesn’t take as much time to be crystalized

This isn’t an assumption, it’s a tautology. Laws are unchanging by definition.

Speed of light fluctuates.
Law is a human term. Only “civilized” human societies have “laws”, not the universe. The universe operates according to “habits” that may or may not evolve and change.

Conservation laws are backed up by evidence and can be demonstrated mathematically. They are not assumed, but derived.

fluctuation in the speed of light, since long assumed to be an ABSOLUTE “LAW”.

That depends on your definition of “memory”. If we define it to be material, it tautologically will have material consequences for its existence. If we define it in a waffly philosophical manner, then it won’t. Simple as that.

Normally I would ask you to define “mind”, but I’ll bite. This “assumption” has served us pretty well so far. If you’ve ever been drunk or anaesthetized then you have observed first-hand the brain’s impact on the mind. There’s no reason to think the mind persists after the brain’s demise.

What about people who die and come back to life? How is it that there memories are not erased, since the brain has died?

I’d argue that the human brain is a conduit for consciousness. just like an on/off switch that operates a conduit for electricity to a light.
If you hit the switch with a hammer, it doesnt mean you have destroyed the electricity.
This makes sense considering the amount of people that have had near death experiences after the body is clinically dead.

No one said it’s impossible, it just hasn’t been demonstrated. If you want a claim to be respected, produce some evidence.

Two words: placebo effect.

You should go to Rupert Sheldrake’s website, ask him to provide you for the scientific data and evidence for his research and to a rebuttal based on your own scientific data.
I merely passed on what I find to be an interesting situation where a scientist is being ridiculed by non-scientists, self-proclaimed “sceptics” who are in fact religious dogmatics

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What about people who die and come back to life? How is it that there memories are not erased, since the brain has died?

It’s going to depend on what you mean by “died.”

Clinical death refers to a condition of some one’s breathing and flow of blood being stopped. Some one in this state hasn’t necessarily experienced necrosis though it is generally expected that if nothing is is done necrosis will follow. Some one could be clinically dead for a period of time before experiencing ischemia, the condition of cells becoming injured from lack of glucose and oxygen needed for cellular metabolism. Some one can meet the conditions for clinical death and be rescued from it before the brain has died. I don’t know the exact time it would take for this to set in, and as I think that the process can take longer if the body is cooled.

Brain death is used to describe conditions ranging from persistent vegetative state to total necrosis of the cerebral tissue and some states between these two which include but are not limited to certain areas of the brain being dead. It is possible for some one to meet the criteria of brain death and being “brought back.”

 

[Oreoracle]

In one paper, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud, located in Orsay, France and his colleagues identified a quantum level mechanism for interpreting vacuum as being filled with pairs of virtual particles with fluctuating energy values. As a result, the inherent characteristics of vacuum, like the speed of light, may not be a constant after all, but fluctuate.

The key word here is “quantum”. The speed of light is assumed to be constant in relativity but not in quantum mechanics. Relativity and quantum mechanics are known to be incompatible, so finding an inconsistency isn’t surprising. Scientists fully admit that these two disciplines are inconsistent and are working on a unified theory.

Well, you define consciousness as somekind of a chemical reaction within the brain? Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton argues that for example form of crystals (and all other things in the universe) are determined by fields (like the gravitational field) that operates within and without the crystal across space and time.
This is why when one kind of a crystal is crystallized, the next one doesn’t take as much time to be crystalized

I don’t see what this has to do with consciousness.

Only “civilized” human societies have “laws”, not the universe. The universe operates according to “habits” that may or may not evolve and change.

Let’s suppose that you’re right and physics changes over time. Could it be that physics changes in predictable ways over time? For example, could there be a formula that describes the speed of light at various points in history? If so, then the universe is still operating according to laws, and these laws are the “real” laws of physics. By analogy, our “civil” laws change over time as well, but they change in a predictable way (by judicial review, for example).

fluctuation in the speed of light, since long assumed to be an ABSOLUTE “LAW”.

Scientists are usually more than willing to admit that they make assumptions and that our understandings will change over time. Even if we measured a different value for the speed of light than what we anticipated, it would only prove that we were wrong about the speed of light. It wouldn’t prove that the universe doesn’t operate according to rules.

What about people who die and come back to life? How is it that there memories are not erased, since the brain has died?

As you allude to later in your post, people come back from clinical death, not brain death. There’s no reason why the heart stopping for a brief period should immediately kill the brain.

I’d argue that the human brain is a conduit for consciousness. just like an on/off switch that operates a conduit for electricity to a light.
If you hit the switch with a hammer, it doesnt mean you have destroyed the electricity.
This makes sense considering the amount of people that have had near death experiences after the body is clinically dead.

Again, clinical death is unremarkable from the brain’s point of view. The heart has to stop for a while to kill the brain. If the person is revived in time, brain damage needn’t occur.

I merely passed on what I find to be an interesting situation where a scientist is being ridiculed by non-scientists, self-proclaimed “sceptics” who are in fact religious dogmatics

No, you labeled the thread clearly enough. “10 dogmas of science” you say, and you’ve made it clear that you do believe these to be dogmas. If you don’t want to defend that claim anymore, then that’s fine, but don’t act like an innocent messenger.

 

[Catolico65]

Is there anyone on this forum that:

1. Is Catholic, and,
2. Has a 21st century understanding of science?

I’m an engineer and was in a masters program where I l did research and learned advanced statistics and the scientific method and currently planning to work in the near future at a local university teaching advanced math and physics. What is your background?