More Crackpot Magnets on YT

[joigus]

I've just found a video on YT under the title "Exposing Scientific Dogmas - Banned TED Talk - Rupert Sheldrake". I'm constantly struggling over whether to say something or just shut up. This is one of the times when I just couldn't shut up. The video 'exposes' a series of dogmas that --apparently-- keep people's minds in a prison. For some mysterious reason dogmas #6 and #8 don't appear in the video. Unless they popped up at the end of the video, which I don't know. For some reason the algorithms 'thought' I would find this interesting. And they were right. I find some kinds of stupidity very interesting. So you don't have to watch the video, here's the low-down:

Dogma #1: Nature is mechanical

Dogma #2: Matter is unconscious

Dogma #3: The laws of Nature are fixed

Dogma #4: The total amount of matter & energy is always the same 

Dogma #5: Nature is purposeless

Dogma #7: Memories are stored inside your brain as material traces

Dogma #9: Psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible

Dogma #10: Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works

And here are my comments:

Quote

 

I respectfully disagree with most everything said here.

Here are some facts:

Dogma #1: Not true. Nature is quantum-mechanical, ultimately based on probability amplitudes, contrary to local realism. Therefore not mechanical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GHZ_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem

Dogma #2: Not true. At present consciousness is not scientifically understood. How could something of which there's no present consensus as to its definition, whether fundamental or emergent, be denied by science in any given context? There are different degrees of consensus, that's all.

Dogma #3: Not true. Already as early as 1937, Paul Dirac considered changing laws of physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis . Changing laws of physics are considered today by many scientific authors as a possibility, although a very difficult one to test. https://www.science.org/content/article/are-laws-physics-changing https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120329-can-the-laws-of-physics-change

Dogma #3: Not true. Inflationary models, CPT symmetric universes, etc. Many, many models that do not conserve energy and particle number. But even as early as 1948 a model was proposed that assumed exactly that: https://www.britannica.com/science/steady-state-theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model

Dogma #4: Not true. Present most accepted view of problem is purpose is an emergent phenomenon, contingent on more basic laws. https://youtu.be/3L7uNyQL0H0

Dogma #5: Not true: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/mandela-effect-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-happen.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256375079_Collective_representation_elicit_widespread_individual_false_memories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Mandela_effect

Dogma #6: Not true. Science concerns itself with the likely and the unlikely, not with the possible or the impossible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtXa6paOVD0

Dogma #7: Not true. Again, the mechanistic view ceased to be the basic paradigm around 1925 (formulation of quantum mechanics). Plus even in the context of classical mechanics we have chaos theory. Biologists, cognitive scientists, etc, today consider most biological phenomena to be emergent, in a context of chaos and complexity.

 

Any thoughts --including, of course, disagreement--, further arguments, etc, most welcome.

[Genady]

I've just looked up his name and read the Wikipedia article. I don't think he is worthy of your attention, @joigus. Not more than Deepak Chopra  .

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I've just looked up his name and read the Wikipedia article. I don't think he is worthy of your attention, @joigus. Not more than Deepak Chopra  .

You're right about this Rupert Sheldrake person. What concerns me a bit more is how much attention pseudo-science like this --it's not just RS-- attracts. It's a concern having to do with social movements, and mass thinking, IYKWIM.

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

Dogma #9: Psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible

Dogma #10: Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works

I think these are not dogmas so much as false impressions.  In fact, there have been research groups, like Princeton's PEAR group, that studied paranormal phenomena. 

And holistic medicine, and investigation of ancient techniques in Ayurvedic medicine, indigenous peoples herbal treatments, etc, is an active area of study right now.

Sheldrake has always styled himself as a maverick who is stifled by a rigid orthodoxy.  (sound familiar, science forum regulars?)  The only positive thing I can say about him is that he has proposed several scientific experiments to test his hypotheses about morphic resonance.  Anyone can look at his nineties book, 7 Experiments that Could Change the World, and try doing one of them.  I don't see how positive results would prove his particular theoretical framework of morphic fields, however.  They would, at best, show  there's something unusual going on, and maybe lead to better experimental setups in the future.

Do dogs telepathically know when their humans are coming home?  I would think clean data would be really hard to get on this.  Sheldrake seems to forget that interpretation of animal behavior, where nonverbal creatures are concerned, is quite tricky and observers can deceive themselves quite easily.

[joigus]

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think these are not dogmas so much as false impressions.  In fact, there have been research groups, like Princeton's PEAR group, that studied paranormal phenomena. 

And holistic medicine, and investigation of ancient techniques in Ayurvedic medicine, indigenous peoples herbal treatments, etc, is an active area of study right now.

Sheldrake has always styled himself as a maverick who is stifled by a rigid orthodoxy.  (sound familiar, science forum regulars?)  The only positive thing I can say about him is that he has proposed several scientific experiments to test his hypotheses about morphic resonance.  Anyone can look at his nineties book, 7 Experiments that Could Change the World, and try doing one of them.  I don't see how positive results would prove his particular theoretical framework of morphic fields, however.  They would, at best, show  there's something unusual going on, and maybe lead to better experimental setups in the future.

Do dogs telepathically know when their humans are coming home?  I would think clean data would be really hard to get on this.  Sheldrake seems to forget that interpretation of animal behavior, where nonverbal creatures are concerned, is quite tricky and observers can deceive themselves quite easily.

Thank you. Very interesting comments.

Well, to tell you the truth, I'm more concerned about the sweeping statements that they're making about science as being a rigid system that stifles imagination than I am about the particular theory of Dr. Sheldrake. If his is a falsifiable theory, I'm OK with it.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

I'm more concerned about the sweeping statements that they're making about science as being a rigid system that stifles imagination

Why are you concerned about this? I am not. Maybe I am missing something.

[joigus]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Why are you concerned about this? I am not. Maybe I am missing something.

Food for MAGA nuts?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Food for MAGA nuts?

I don't think they care. They are autotrophs.

[joigus]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I don't think they care. They are autotrophs.

I won't take any chances.  

[studiot]

Wishful Thinking seems to be buried deep in the human psyche.

Most folks seem to be happy to keep it in its place, so people don't really believe in Santa Claus or Harry Potter.

Huge industries, some legal some not and some a bit iffy, are based on this.

It seems to be a double edged sword as some of the best of human endeavours and aspirations are the result.

But also some of worst and of course the boring inbetween such as science deniers.

[CharonY]

30 minutes ago, joigus said:

I won't take any chances.  

I think the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that reality does not matter much anymore. What is one more person on that heap? In the olden days there may have been a discussion to be had, but at this point one might as well yell at clouds. 

[joigus]

Yes, it feels like wishful thinking, conspiracy discourse, mindless trashing of anything that comes from authoritative sources has become the norm.

But to have videos promoting this stuff seems like too much.

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, joigus said:

But to have videos promoting this stuff seems like too much.

I think it has become part of regular media diet at this point. During the height of the pandemic we had a roundtable and a lot of the discussions were based on youtube videos. 

These videos are basically designed to make you feel that things are plausible or that you have learned something, without really conveying any factual information. And I think that very few folks are equipped to deal with it. I see that increasingly also among college students. It almost seems that folks around GenX and older millenials are a tad more critical, while social media consuming baby boomers and GenYers seem more vulnerable to believe the most outrageous nonsense. 

[StringJunky]

What can be plausibly done? It seems to me, through no fault of their own, the those-yet-to-be-born  are going to get lost in a sea of BS and played by whoever has the misinformation upperhand at the tme. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by StringJunky

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What can be plausibly done? It seems to me, through no fault of their own, the those-yet-to-be-born  are going to get lost in a sea of BS and played by whoever has the misinformation upperhand at the tme. 

One hope is self-distraction: the amount of misinformation will be so large that it will become a white noise, which people will have no choice but ignore. Also, competing sources will engage in wars between themselves, making even more noise.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, Genady said:

One hope is self-distraction: the amount of misinformation will be so large that it will become a white noise, which people will have no choice but ignore. Also, competing sources will engage in wars between themselves, making even more noise.

Which is basically the situation as it already is. So much noise that the signal is lost (for many).

[Markus Hanke]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

What can be plausibly done?

I don’t think there’s an easy answer to this. However, at least part of any possible approach should be to educate our youngsters about how to skilfully relate to digital media - I mean specifically to teach them skills that help to recognise and properly relate to misinformation. I’m talking about general media skills here, which is quite a separate thing from having expertise in any particular area. “Media Skills” should be part of any school curriculum, IMHO.

Ultimately we’ve got to understand that misinformation and crackpottery has always been present, and will continue to always be present. So the question isn’t how to eradicate this, but how to help people relate to it properly.

[Genady]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Ultimately we’ve got to understand that misinformation and crackpottery has always been present, and will continue to always be present. So the question isn’t how to eradicate this, but how to help people relate to it properly.

I think that the proper relation is skepticism. This is an important general skill and it includes but is not limited to the areas of media, misinformation and crackpottery.

[Alex_Krycek]

I've been a reader of Sheldrake for some time; in my opinion he has some interesting ideas. The "banned" TED talk you referenced seems to be a summary of his book "Science Set Free", which challenges premises underpinning the current mechanistic, materialist worldview of the universe. He's come under attack from the likes of Richard Dawkins and others who have attempted to "debunk" him for challenging the aforementioned worldview.

Sheldrake himself is an accomplished scientist, professor, and author.  Biography here.  The questions he poses are important; as Thomas Kuhn argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science is vulnerable to group think like every other discipline, and thus theories that run contrary to the mainstream shouldn't be suppressed or ridiculed.

[Genady]

48 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I've been a reader of Sheldrake for some time; in my opinion he has some interesting ideas. The "banned" TED talk you referenced seems to be a summary of his book "Science Set Free", which challenges premises underpinning the current mechanistic, materialist worldview of the universe. He's come under attack from the likes of Richard Dawkins and others who have attempted to "debunk" him for challenging the aforementioned worldview.

Sheldrake himself is an accomplished scientist, professor, and author.  Biography here.  The questions he poses are important; as Thomas Kuhn argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science is vulnerable to group think like every other discipline, and thus theories that run contrary to the mainstream shouldn't be suppressed or ridiculed.

The OP does not say anything about his ideas. It rather objects to his purported 'dogmas' of science.

[Alex_Krycek]

56 minutes ago, Genady said:

The OP does not say anything about his ideas. It rather objects to his purported 'dogmas' of science.

Sheldrake's perspective, as I understand it, is that some prominent scientists do not operate objectively, but rather have a pre-existing worldview that colors their views on what is acceptable scientific discourse or inquiry - hence Sheldrake's objections to what he perceives as dogma, and those who attempt to shut down dialogue that they deem illegitimate.

[TheVat]

And yet here are some scientists discussing him, he has several widely read books out, and his seven experiments have gotten quite a bit of peer review.  (see my earlier post on those experiments)  I don't think he can legitimately complain that people trying to poke holes in his theories (which is the basic and essential gauntlet of all scientific research) are shutting him down.  I've heard people in various scientific fields talking about Sheldrake for nearly forty years.  Methinks he doth protest too much.

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Sheldrake himself is an accomplished scientist, professor, and author. 

Yes.  Francis Crick, a towering eminence in molecular biology, wrote a book in the eighties about earthly life starting with microbes that were intentionally delivered by a visiting alien spaceship.  He fully expected many scientists would poke holes in the idea ("directed panspermia") and had the integrity to say he wasn't wedded to the idea.  Perhaps Sheldrake could take the resistance and critique he receives with similar grace.  

[StringJunky]

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I don’t think there’s an easy answer to this. However, at least part of any possible approach should be to educate our youngsters about how to skilfully relate to digital media - I mean specifically to teach them skills that help to recognise and properly relate to misinformation. I’m talking about general media skills here, which is quite a separate thing from having expertise in any particular area. “Media Skills” should be part of any school curriculum, IMHO.

Ultimately we’ve got to understand that misinformation and crackpottery has always been present, and will continue to always be present. So the question isn’t how to eradicate this, but how to help people relate to it properly.

I was thinking last night how the 'pure digital generation' are losing something that we 'analogues-cum-digital' have, and will disappear as we die off.  Perhaps this paradigm change has been replicated throughout history, with other profound changes of communication symbology/media. Yes, there are tapes and phono records still being made but they are of restricted demand and not ubiquitous.

Edited March 12, 2023 by StringJunky

[joigus]

Thanks for your comments everyone. I'll get up to speed ASAP.