List:
Kirsti’s very solid post is worthy of a very careful read,
although I not state the case so forcefully.
In general, although I have not studied Sheldrake’s work as
closely as she, I have followed it for several decades from the
perspective of biochemical dose-response relationships. In general,
I find his scientific logic sound.
Historically, quantitative scientific measurements of phenomena can
proceed decades or centuries before a quantitative theories of how
the phenomena can be symbolized.
A clear example of the factual measurements before quantitative
explanations are genetic phenomena. Inheritable traits appear as if
by magic. Another example, the need for specific vitamins in diets
and the influence of hormones on behavior. CSP grounds his view of
realism on the facts associated with quali-signs, sin-signs and
legi-signs, in illation to possible measurement. Scientific
theories are necessarily grounded in such facts, either qualitative
of quantitative.
It (observation) is what it is, regardless of assertions about the
formal logics of mathematics.
Sheldrake's statements about scientific “dogmas” contain some
grains of truth but are not well stated from either a chemical,
mathematical or logical point of view.
Sheldrake is certainly NOT applying a Procrustian bed to
observations in order to accommodate his personal philosophy.
Cheers
Jerry
On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:33 AM, [email protected] wrote:
John,
Actually Sheldrake was able to test a hypothesis (which, to my
knowledge he did not himself believe in at the time)on non-local
effects. His series of experiments (one will never do) on pidgeons
are truly ingenious and suberb AS experimental designs.
If that is agreed (after thorough studying), then his findings
arew noteworthy. Within my expertice his experimental designs were
impeccable. - If the result feel odd and mysterious, that is no
scientific ground to reject them.
This has nothing to do with sympathy or antipathy. The result of
any well-conducted experiment are what they are. They present 'brute
secondness' as I think CSP would have put it.
Being so seasoned as I am in doing and evaluating experimental
research, I do not take seriously any 'results' I have not been able
to check according to the design, process and statistical methods
used. - Sheldrake with his pidgeon investigations passed this test.
In philosophy of science, as you well know, there was a belief in
cumulating scientific 'facts' showing us 'the truth'. Positivism.
Now we, at least most of us, know that truth is a bit more
complicated issue.
With former investigations on phenomena called 'telepathy' or
other of the same kind, one of the flaws rises up from statistical
tests used to test statistical significance. Any results
(measuremensts) of any investigation showing statistically
nonsignificant difference between zero hypotothesis (no effect) and
the hypothesis tested, do not in fact prove the zero hypothesis. -
The 'no effect' hypothesis is extremely difficult to prove. - It may
well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.
To my knowledge this has not been truly PROVED, so far. I believe
it will be. But this is just foreboding.
Relational thinking is needed in taking any stance with
'paranormal' phenomena. What today is taken as such, were not so
taken in history. Even our history as modern scientists and
logicians. It is not so long ago phenomena now considered as odd,
were considered as normal.
One difference lies in that people talked about such things.
Nowadays people get worried about seeming odd. - Nothing scientific
or logical in that. It is about paying attention. In science, that
means systematic, prolonged attention.
The modern world and history is full of totally useless
experimental investigations.
Sheldrake's investigations do not belong in this lot.
This does not mean that I all fore for his "dogma" thing. I am
definitely not.
But I do think they are worth some attention.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 11.6.2017 13:36:
Kirstina,
I'm sympathetic to the possibility of paranormal phenomena. In
fact,
I know of some unexplained examples. But the only thing we can
say
is "They're weird, and we don't know how or why they happened."
Sheldrake has not been searching evidence for 'parapsychology'
as such, as a somewhat popular stream of thinking, instead he has
been lead to investigate phenomena commonly considered paranormal.
Such as 'telepathy', i.e non-local connections between minds which
may have systematically observable effects.
Investigation involves search. There have been claims about
paranormal
phenomena for centuries. They fall into three categories:
1. Explainable by normal or abnormal psychology. For example,
as the
result of human feelings and imagination -- sometimes
delusional.
2. Deliberate fraud. Magicians are experts in creating weird
effects
-- and in exposing fraudulent claims by other magicians.
3. Unexplainable by any known causes.
For #3, there have been many kinds of explanations, but none of
them
can make any testable predictions. For telepathy, there are
cases
where people have experienced information about a distant event
that
could not have come by any known method of communication.
But nobody is able to control the telepathy or to do it on a
consistent
basis (i.e., at a level above chance). That failure of control
is not
a proof that telepathy does not occur. But unless telepathy can
be done
at a level above chance, it cannot be distinguished from a lucky
guess.
Just compare the experimental investigations by Jastrow and
Peirce
with those by Sheldrake.
They are totally different. Jastrow and Peirce were doing
science:
They started with observations, formed hypotheses, make
predictions
about what would happen in new circumstances, performed the
experiments,
and got results that confirmed their predictions.
He observed (systematicly) the workings of his own mind as well
as
the workings of his dog's mind. And he experimented with both.
Sheldrake started with some observations (or claims about
observations)
and formed hypotheses. But he did not make testable
predictions,
perform experiments, and get results that confirmed the
predictions.
And the experiments have to be performed under controlled
conditions.
A dog can easily pick up subtle cues. See the case of Clever
Hans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans [1]
As is evidenced by scattered remarks in his writings till the
end of his life.
According to Wikipedia, he's still alive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake [2]
From 2005 to 2010, he received funding from the Perrot-Warrick
Fund:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perrott-Warrick_Fund [3]
That fund is administered by Cambridge University. There is
nothing
wrong with exploring unexplained phenomena and forming
hypotheses
(guesses) about them. But guesses don't become science until
they
can make reliable, repeatable, testable predictions.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
[email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [4] .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
[email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [4] .
