Materialism

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a video interview with Rupert Sheldrake...scientist and philosopher. Very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzkMXoC8hQ

He speaks well and is very articulate. Speaks of science, materialism, spirituality, atheism and many other things.

I know some of you will just dismiss him away.....typically.  However, some others may find his talk very interesting.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Gordon]

Hi everyone,

Here is a video interview with Rupert Sheldrake...scientist and philosopher. Very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzkMXoC8hQ

He speaks well and is very articulate. Speaks of science, materialism, spirituality, atheism and many other things.

I know some of you will just dismiss him away.....typically.  However, some others may find his talk very interesting.

Cheers.

Sriram

Given his reputation for pseudoscience he is easily dismissed.

[SusanDoris]

Given his reputation for pseudoscience he is easily dismissed.

Having heard him a bit here and there, I'm glad that his son, Merlin, of Entangled Life'* does not seem to have followed his path into pseudo-science. My (older) son read me 'Entangled Life' over the phone and we were both very interested in it.

From a wikipedia page or something, I have read that Rupert Sheldrake did some pioneering work in something or other in the serious world of science before his delusion of a faith belief set in which should of course be given the credit it merits, but I must say I do not wish him well on the bandwagon of publishing books referring to the paranormal etc.

*This book is one of the six on the list from which best Science book of the year will be chosen.
Rupert Sheldrake's voice has a somewhat smug air to it in my opinion and I wonder if he is trying to convince himself he made the right vchoice going into the pseudo-science area. c

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given his reputation for pseudoscience he is easily dismissed.

Materialism is philosophy Gordon. So you are committing a fallacy suggesting that everything he says is dismissable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi everyone,

Here is a video interview with Rupert Sheldrake...scientist and philosopher. Very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzkMXoC8hQ

He speaks well and is very articulate. Speaks of science, materialism, spirituality, atheism and many other things.

I know some of you will just dismiss him away.....typically.  However, some others may find his talk very interesting.

Cheers.

Sriram

I believe he was cancelled by the TEDocracy for criticising materialism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having heard him a bit here and there, I'm glad that his son, Merlin, of Entangled Life'* does not seem to have followed his path into pseudo-science. My (older) son read me 'Entangled Life' over the phone and we were both very interested in it.

From a wikipedia page or something, I have read that Rupert Sheldrake did some pioneering work in something or other in the serious world of science before his delusion of a faith belief set in

A career path like Dawkins then.

[Gordon]

Materialism is philosophy Gordon. So you are committing a fallacy suggesting that everything he says is dismissable.

Nope - I'm simply referring to an oft-made criticism of him: that he peddles overt pseudoscience, and on that basis I'd say he can be dismissed. 

[Sriram]

It only seems like pseudoscience because many people are not able to see beyond mainstream theories. 

Obsessive materialism (physicalism) is the problem.

[Bramble]

Obsessive materialism (physicalism) is the problem.

Perhaps dualism is the problem.

[Stranger]

It only seems like pseudoscience because many people are not able to see beyond mainstream theories. 

No, it's pseudoscience because he isn't doing science but claims that he is. He's not doing science because his ideas are not properly formulated hypotheses that can be tested and potentially falsified. They are also at odds with real theories that have been tested.

[ProfessorDavey]

It only seems like pseudoscience because many people are not able to see beyond mainstream theories.

That demonstrate that you completely misunderstand what a scientific theory is. It isn't some kind of guess or assertion - here is a standard definition:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

So a theory in science is an explanation based on really, really strong evidence and data. So if Sheldrake has no evidence (he doesn't) then he has no theory in scientific terms. If he claims he does then he is playing at pseudoscience, not practicing science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought we were talking about Sheldrake on materialism not his cockamamy science.
Now I bet people here don’t know what those are and are arguing they don’t need to (The Myer’s shuffle).

First of all, he accuses many in the scientific establishment of crusading for philosophical materialism.
Secondly he argues that materialism requires a couple of miracles I.e supernatural events to be true.

While there are Sheldrake’s about more heinous offences are slipping under the radar and here I mean
Sean M Carroll who has sought to eliminate the principle of sufficient reason and those authors who contribute to the Edge organisation on what they would remove from science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope

Nope it isn’t a philosophy or nope it doesn’t matter if it is or not we can still dismiss him wholesale whatever he says on anything

- I'm simply referring to an oft-made criticism of him: that he peddles overt pseudoscience, and on that basis I'd say he can be dismissed.

ok so it may be ok to dismiss his pseudoscience on it’s merits but dismissing anything and everything he says is fallacious.

[Gordon]

I thought we were talking about Sheldrake on materialism not his cockamamy science.
Now I bet people here don’t know what those are and are arguing they don’t need to (The Myer’s shuffle).

You mean like his 'morphic resonance' notion (which has been well and truly trashed). I'd imagine that others here are at least aware of this, albeit pseudoscience like this doesn't merit much in the way of attention.

First of all, he accuses many in the scientific establishment of crusading for philosophical materialism.
Secondly he argues that materialism requires a couple of miracles I.e supernatural events to be true.

While there are Sheldrake’s about more heinous offences are slipping under the radar and here I mean
Sean M Carroll who has sought to eliminate the principle of sufficient reason and those authors who contribute to the Edge organisation on what they would remove from science.

If you're going to defend Sheldrake and extrapolate from that then I'll leave you to it: I've got some drying paint that needs watching.

[Sriram]

That demonstrate that you completely misunderstand what a scientific theory is. It isn't some kind of guess or assertion - here is a standard definition:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

So a theory in science is an explanation based on really, really strong evidence and data. So if Sheldrake has no evidence (he doesn't) then he has no theory in scientific terms. If he claims he does then he is playing at pseudoscience, not practicing science.

We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses. No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.

His discussion is largely about Consciousness and the mind, about which science has no definitive ideas at all.

Also, there are many others who share similar ideas....Chalmers, Tononi, Hoffman and others. Just because Sheldrake quotes extensively from Hindu philosophical ideas, his ideas need not be dismissed as pseudoscience. Sam Harris also quotes from Buddhist ideas.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is Sheldrake on materialism

It’s almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.”’17 The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”
― Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean like his 'morphic resonance' notion (which has been well and truly trashed). I'd imagine that others here are at least aware of this, albeit pseudoscience like this doesn't merit much in the way of attention.

If you're going to defend Sheldrake and extrapolate from that then I'll leave you to it: I've got some drying paint that needs watching.

All you are saying here is that because Sheldrake’s pseudoscience was so heinous that permits us to unfallaciously dismiss everything he say’s. That’s a fallacy Gordon.

[ProfessorDavey]

We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses.

Sriram - there is a massive difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. If you don't understand the difference I suggest you do and do some homework.

But even if Sheldrake has a valid scientific hypothesis, to be valid it needs to be based on some prior evidence. And the whole purpose of a hypothesis is for it to be tested via the scientific method in order to obtain evidence and data which inform further hypotheses to be tested and so on. Eventually when sufficient repeatable data are obtained from the testing of multiple hypotheses then we may come to a point where we can derive a theory.

But to an extent all scientific theories remain speculative as they are the best explanation based on the available evidence, which must be a considerable amount of evidence. But, of course, as we conduct further science we may end up with new data which means that a different or variant theory is a better explanation. But we don't just chop and change on theories all the time - why, because for something to be a theory there must be really strong evidence for it.

That's how science works.

[Sriram]

Sheldrake does have a valid hypothesis. As valid as any of the others that I mentioned above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram - there is a massive difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. If you don't understand the difference I suggest you do and do some homework.

But even if Sheldrake has a valid scientific hypothesis, to be valid it needs to be based on some prior evidence. And the whole purpose of a hypothesis is for it to be tested via the scientific method in order to obtain evidence and data which inform further hypotheses to be tested and so on. Eventually when sufficient repeatable data are obtained from the testing of multiple hypotheses then we may come to a point where we can derive a theory.

But to an extent all scientific theories remain speculative as they are the best explanation based on the available evidence, which must be a considerable amount of evidence. But, of course, as we conduct further science we may end up with new data which means that a different or variant theory is a better explanation. But we don't just chop and change on theories all the time - why, because for something to be a theory there must be really strong evidence for it.

That's how science works.

And yet at least two laddies on this forum argue that others may be proved wrong by what might be in an unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe....and nobody bats an eyelid......bonkers.

[Outrider]

We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses. No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.

In principal you are absolutely correct, the fact that they are Sheldrake's ideas rather than someone else's isn't sufficient basis to reject them. However, these comparisons you are trying to make are not like for like.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are explicitly terms for phenomena we observe for which we currently don't have a good explanation - they are not claims, they are place-holders for areas where we currently know we don't have any good ideas.

Parallel universes and multiple dimensions are more philosophy than science, an idea which in the future may or may not be testable but currently is not - currently it's just fanciful thinking that borrows from some current science as a basis.

String theory is a mathematical model which explains some (but not all) observable effects at a quantum level, and is theoretically testable if a) it gets refined into a complete explanation and b) we develop suitable equipment.

Genomorphic theory was Sheldrake's attempt to explain phenomena that either didn't exist, or which had other explanations in line with demonstrated science.

His discussion is largely about Consciousness and the mind, about which science has no definitive ideas at all.

Science has not finished exploring consciousness, it's true, but Sheldrake's ideas around consciousness are not science because they aren't testable. Again, that doesn't, of itself, make them wrong, but it does make his claims of science in regard of his work on consciousness wrong, and it makes his prominent expression of his science education and background in support of his claims at least unethical, if not downright dishonest.

Also, there are many others who share similar ideas....Chalmers, Tononi, Hoffman and others. Just because Sheldrake quotes extensively from Hindu philosophical ideas, his ideas need not be dismissed as pseudoscience. Sam Harris also quotes from Buddhist ideas.

Again, it's not about who is making the argument, it's about how the argument stacks up. Sheldrake, and others, make up untestable and unevidenced explanations to 'explain' phenomena, which they're allowed to do, and we're allowed to dismiss. To my knowledge, the other people you've cited don't claim 'science' when they do it, but Sheldrake does.

O.

[Stranger]

We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses.

Yet again you're showing your ignorance by lumping all those things together as if they were even all in the same category. As I've explained to you many times, they aren't.

No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.

Yes, there is. He's basically just made up something vague and undefined, apparently just because he likes it and/or thinks he can make more money selling new age woo than he could doing real science.

Also, there are many others who share similar ideas....Chalmers, Tononi, Hoffman and others.

These people's ideas are not even similar to each other.

Just because Sheldrake quotes extensively from Hindu philosophical ideas, his ideas need not be dismissed as pseudoscience.

That's not why he's dismissed as pseudoscience.

[Stranger]

This is Sheldrake on materialism

It’s almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.”’17 The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”
― Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry

So, he talks shit about that too.   

[Stranger]

And yet at least two laddies on this forum argue that others may be proved wrong by what might be in an unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe....and nobody bats an eyelid......bonkers.

Nobody has attempted to prove anything at all by anything without evidence, except that your argument doesn't take into account all the possibilities. Are you really too dim to get that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses. No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.

His discussion is largely about Consciousness and the mind, about which science has no definitive ideas at all.

Also, there are many others who share similar ideas....Chalmers, Tononi, Hoffman and others. Just because Sheldrake quotes extensively from Hindu philosophical ideas, his ideas need not be dismissed as pseudoscience. Sam Harris also quotes from Buddhist ideas.

Isn’t the level of vilification of Sheldrake though down to his criticism of materialism. After all he was considered ok enough to be invited to give a TED talk after which the vilification really started.

I think the animus against him might partially be down to snobbery because in his book about ideas that deserve investigation he chose things that the person in the street was interested in.