Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Gene,

The most important message ever in Peirce-list is this one you posted!

I repeat: ever!

I am literally schocked by the fact, that I am the first to respond. 
This late.


Am I conversing with human beings? - Or just kinds of extensions to 
automatization of everyday life & "common sense" moulded into it?


The news you are sharing, Gene, are even more alarming than climate 
change.


Because this proceeds more rapidly, for instance.

I have no deep trust in tests of empathy etc. But even a poor tests do 
catch this kind of change. in these proportions.


Are you folks happy with this? - Not moving your eyelid?

If this is the situation in US, something like it happens almost all 
over the world.


But, just a moment, this list may not be about what CSP was concerned 
about. This list may nowadays  be concerned just about AI.  And how to 
(mis)use CSP to those purposes.


Hey, fellows, there is life to attend to!

Kirsti






Eugene Halton kirjoitti 12.6.2017 19:40:

In the past generation in the United States, empathy among college
students, as measured by standardized tests, has dropped about 40%
according to a 2010 University of Michigan study, with the largest
drop occurring after the year 2000. This is the new normal. Should we
now suppose the previous norm to be paranormal, above or beyond the
norm? Other standardized tests show that Narcissism has gone up for
this age group, as would be expected, since Narcissism involves
empathy deficiency.

Could there be a day when empathy is regarded as a paranormal
phenomenon? Imagine that society where rigorous experiments on the
subjects show no signs of empathy above chance, because the society
has systematically self-altered itself to diminish or virtually
extinguish a passion older than humanity itself.

Of course all of this involves socialization and especially parenting.
Imagine a society where frequent empathic touch and gaze between
parent and young children is regarded as paranormal, because the norms
reveal very little empathic touch or gaze. Harlow’s monkey
experiments showed what this would be like.

A society shaped by a rational-mechanical bureaucratic
mindset is likely to manifest it not only in its norms of parenting
and social interaction, but tacitly in its science and technology as
well, despite the best intentions and technical methods. The passions
tend to be denigrated in such a world.

In mid-twentieth century “the new synthesis” in
genetics, as Julian Huxley called it, showed a determinist perspective
in which socialization, experience, and Lamarckian-like phenomena,
such as Peirce’s idea of “evolutionary love,” evolution by
Thirdness, were unacceptable, perhaps again, literally
“paranormal.” Epigenetics and related developments in biology have
shown the limitations of "the new synthesis."

I grant that Sheldrake attempted rigorous experiments with original
designs, which I'd like to look further into, including the dog ones.
On the upside I can see that the dog experiments at least included
beings living more from their passions. It throws a light on the more
typical experimental assumptions: Why would we think that randomized
untrained subjects from the humanly diminished altered state of a
rational-mechanical bureaucratic society performing cognitive tasks
would provide rigorous objective data in experiments on phenomena such
as telepathy?

Gene Halton

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Jerry LR Chandler
 wrote:


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, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

John,
Actually Sheldrake 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Eugene Halton]

Dear Edwina et al,
Regarding your first point. Edwina: "If I understand you correctly, you
are suggesting that 'empathy', as a societal characteristic, i.e., a
habit/Thirdness within a population, might be removed from that
population's behaviour.  Such a population, I suggest, couldn't last beyond
a generation, for the psychological reality of 'empathy' or connection
-with-others, is vital in human society, which learns most of its behaviour
from others [rather than inheriting it]."

Yes, you understand that correctly, but I allow that empathy is a deeply
engrained, biosocial instinctive capacity requiring sufficient empathic
parenting to develop, and "eradicable" only as pathology, notably as
clinical narcissistic disturbance. And I am in agreement with your
conclusion.
 Gene Halton



On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Yes  as noted in the Wiki article [yes, I know, I know, how plebeian of
> me]..on Sheldrake, Brian Josephson [Nobel Laureate in Physics] - who does
> know of Peircean semiosis and indeed, supports it..wrote in criticism of
> Maddox's rejection of Sheldrake's hypotheses as 'not testable'. Josephson
>
> criticised Maddox for "a failure to admit even the possibility that
> genuine physical facts may exist which lie outside the scope of current
> scientific descriptions"
>
> Again, testing for the reality of potentiality, which plays a huge role in
> the ability of an organism to Anticipate and Hypothesize, is very
> difficult, since our scientific method, powerful as it is, is focused on
> discrete individual actualities.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Mon 12/06/17 1:53 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> John, Kirsti, list,
>
> John Sowa wrote:
>
> A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not the
> same as 'unscientific'.  It just means that the methods of
> science are not applicable.   Perhaps someday they might be.
> But nobody knows how.
>
>
> I agree. Peirce used the term 'prescientific' in places in reference to
> his early cosmological (what we'd call pre-Big Bang) musiings. On this list
> Jon Schmidt has argued that such early prescientific comsological
> 'hypotheses', for example, those occurring in certain of the 1898 lectures
> published as Reasoning and the Logic of Things, esp. in consideration of
> the famous Blackboard example, offer support for a belief in God as “Really
> creator of all  three Universes of Experience” (CP 6.452) . (In addition,
> those prescientific musings can be seen to offer an origin of Peirce's
> three universal categories; but that's for another discussion.)
>
> Meanwhile, scientific method has caught up with some previously not
> (adequately) testable hypotheses about our own post-Big Bang cosmos, so
> that experiments on such 'spooky' phenomena as quantum action at a distance
> have recently (2015) been shown to be real to the satisfaction of at least
> some scientists working in quantum physics. See:
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-prov
> es-spooky-action-distance-really-real
>
> As described in a  paper posted online 
> and published in  Physical Review
>  
> researchers
> from NIST and several other institutions created pairs of identical light
> particles, or photons, and sent them to two different locations to be
> measured. Researchers showed the measured results not only were correlated,
> but also—by eliminating all other known options—that these correlations
> cannot be caused by the locally controlled, "realistic" universe Einstein
> thought we lived in. This implies a different explanation such as
> entanglement.
>
>
> It seems to me very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that science
> will ever (can ever?) develop methods to test pre-Big Bang hypotheses (so,
> again, the term 'prescientific' seems apt), or for the reality of God. But
> if quantum action at a distance can be supported experimentally, other
> 'spooky' phenomena (like telepathy) may prove testable in time as well.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
>
> [image: Blocked image]
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
> C 745
> 718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:08 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
>>
>>> It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.
>>>
>>
>> That may be true.  That may be like the existence of God.
>> There are no proofs that God exists.  There are no proofs that
>> God does not exist.
>>
>> In fact, there are no two people -- believers or nonbelievers --
>> who will give you the same definition of God.  Just ask them.
>>
>> But I do think they are worth some attention.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.  A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not the
>> same as 'unscientific'.  It just means 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Yes  as noted in the Wiki article [yes, I know, I know, how plebeian
of me]..on Sheldrake, Brian Josephson [Nobel Laureate in Physics] -
who does know of Peircean semiosis and indeed, supports it..wrote in
criticism of Maddox's rejection of Sheldrake's hypotheses as 'not
testable'. Josephson

criticised Maddox for "a failure to admit even the possibility that
genuine physical facts may exist which lie outside the scope of
current scientific descriptions"

Again, testing for the reality of potentiality, which plays a huge
role in the ability of an organism to Anticipate and Hypothesize, is
very difficult, since our scientific method, powerful as it is, is
focused on discrete individual actualities. 

Edwina
 On Mon 12/06/17  1:53 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 John, Kirsti, list,
 John Sowa wrote:
 A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not thesame as
'unscientific'.  It just means that the methods ofscience are not
applicable.   Perhaps someday they might be. But nobody knows how.
 I agree. Peirce used the term 'prescientific' in places in reference
to his early cosmological (what we'd call pre-Big Bang) musiings. On
this list Jon Schmidt has argued that such early prescientific
comsological 'hypotheses', for example, those occurring in certain of
the 1898 lectures published as  Reasoning and the Logic of Things,
esp. in consideration of the famous Blackboard example, offer support
for a belief in God as “Really creator of all  three Universes of
Experience” (CP 6.452) . (In addition, those prescientific musings
can be seen to offer an origin of Peirce's three universal
categories; but that's for another discussion.)
 Meanwhile, scientific method has caught up with some previously not
(adequately) testable hypotheses about our own post-Big Bang cosmos,
so that experiments on such 'spooky' phenomena as quantum action at a
distance have recently (2015) been shown to be real to the
satisfaction of at least some scientists working in quantum physics.
See: 
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real
[1]
 As described in a  paper posted online and published in  Physical
Review  researchers from NIST and several other institutions created
pairs of identical light particles, or photons, and sent them to two
different locations to be measured. Researchers showed the measured
results not only were correlated, but also—by eliminating all other
known options—that these correlations cannot be caused by the
locally controlled, "realistic" universe Einstein thought we lived
in. This implies a different explanation such as entanglement. 
 It seems to me very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that
science will ever (can ever?) develop methods to test pre-Big Bang
hypotheses (so, again, the term 'prescientific' seems apt), or for
the reality of God. But if quantum action at a distance can be
supported experimentally, other 'spooky' phenomena (like telepathy)
may prove testable in time as well.
 Best,
 Gary R
 Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745718
482-5690 [2] 
 On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:08 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
 On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi [4] wrote:
  It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.
 That may be true.  That may be like the existence of God.
 There are no proofs that God exists.  There are no proofs that
 God does not exist.
 In fact, there are no two people -- believers or nonbelievers --
 who will give you the same definition of God.  Just ask them.
  But I do think they are worth some attention.
 I agree.  A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not the
 same as 'unscientific'.  It just means that the methods of
 science are not applicable.   Perhaps someday they might be.
 But nobody knows how.
 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
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [5] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [6] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce [7]-l/peirce-l.htm .


Links:
--
[1]
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real
[2] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(718)%20482-5690
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'s...@bestweb.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'kirst...@saunalahti.fi\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Gary Richmond]

John, Kirsti, list,

John Sowa wrote:

A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not the
same as 'unscientific'.  It just means that the methods of
science are not applicable.   Perhaps someday they might be.
But nobody knows how.


I agree. Peirce used the term 'prescientific' in places in reference to his
early cosmological (what we'd call pre-Big Bang) musiings. On this list Jon
Schmidt has argued that such early prescientific comsological 'hypotheses',
for example, those occurring in certain of the 1898 lectures published
as *Reasoning
and the Logic of Things*, esp. in consideration of the famous Blackboard
example, offer support for a belief in God as “Really creator of all three
Universes of Experience” (CP 6.452) . (In addition, those prescientific
musings can be seen to offer an origin of Peirce's three universal
categories; but that's for another discussion.)

Meanwhile, scientific method has caught up with some previously not
(adequately) testable hypotheses about our own post-Big Bang cosmos, so
that experiments on such 'spooky' phenomena as quantum action at a distance
have recently (2015) been shown to be real to the satisfaction of at least
some scientists working in quantum physics. See:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-
proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real

As described in a paper posted online
 and published
in *Physical Review *

researchers
from NIST and several other institutions created pairs of identical light
particles, or photons, and sent them to two different locations to be
measured. Researchers showed the measured results not only were correlated,
but also—by eliminating all other known options—that these correlations
cannot be caused by the locally controlled, "realistic" universe Einstein
thought we lived in. This implies a different explanation such as
entanglement.


It seems to me very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that science
will ever (can ever?) develop methods to test pre-Big Bang hypotheses (so,
again, the term 'prescientific' seems apt), or for the reality of God. But
if quantum action at a distance can be supported experimentally, other
'spooky' phenomena (like telepathy) may prove testable in time as well.

Best,

Gary R



[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:08 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:

> On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
>
>> It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.
>>
>
> That may be true.  That may be like the existence of God.
> There are no proofs that God exists.  There are no proofs that
> God does not exist.
>
> In fact, there are no two people -- believers or nonbelievers --
> who will give you the same definition of God.  Just ask them.
>
> But I do think they are worth some attention.
>>
>
> I agree.  A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not the
> same as 'unscientific'.  It just means that the methods of
> science are not applicable.   Perhaps someday they might be.
> But nobody knows how.
>
> 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
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Eugene, list

Interesting. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that
'empathy', as a societal characteristic, i.e., a habit/Thirdness
within a population, might be removed from that population's
behaviour.  Such a population, I suggest, couldn't last beyond a
generation, for the psychological reality of 'empathy' or connection
-with-others, is vital in human society, which learns most of its
behaviour from others [rather than inheriting it]. 

With regard to Thirdness in the biological realm, something which
might be partly comparable to what Sheldrake referred to as
'morphism' - I wonder if this mode of reality [ and Thirdness IS real
] - can be easily tested within the methods of experimental science.
That is, can generals or habits, as potentials and not actuals, be
reliably tested using methods which are confined to events/things in
actual Secondness.

With regard to the actual results of Thirdness; i.e., when that
potential information  is actualized among a population - that might
be open to testing. I can see this in animal and bird migration where
a potential habit is actualized when light/temperature actualities
occur; i.e., robins migrate according to the light/sun. 

 I can see it in animal sensing of disasters [tsunami] taking place
NOW [actualized] but far away...for their senses of air pressure etc
might be more acute than that of humans. But this is not a
potentiality become actual - but an actuality occurring in a
different space from the subject. This is  very difficult to test but
there are a lot of non-testable examples from our own experience -
i.e., I can 'sense' when one of my sons emails me. Now - that doesn't
make empirical sense but ..This implies that informational
connections operate on multiple sensual levels and in non-local
spatial domains - and some of them are non-conscious, so to speak.

Edwina
 On Mon 12/06/17 12:40 PM , Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu
sent:
In the past generation in the United States, empathy among college
students, as measured by standardized tests, has dropped about 40%
according to a 2010 University of Michigan study, with the largest
drop occurring after the year 2000. This is the new normal. Should we
now suppose the previous norm to be paranormal, above or beyond the
norm? Other standardized tests show that Narcissism has gone up for
this age group, as would be expected, since Narcissism involves
empathy deficiency.  

Could there be a day when empathy is regarded as a paranormal
phenomenon? Imagine that society where rigorous experiments on the
subjects show no signs of empathy above chance, because the society
has systematically self-altered itself to diminish or virtually
extinguish a passion older than humanity itself.  

Of course all of this involves socialization and especially
parenting. Imagine a society where frequent empathic touch and gaze
between parent and young children is regarded as paranormal, because
the norms reveal very little empathic touch or gaze. Harlow’s
monkey experiments showed what this would be like.  

A society shaped by a rational-mechanical bureaucratic
mindset is likely to manifest it not only in its norms of parenting
and social interaction, but tacitly in its science and technology as
well, despite the best intentions and technical methods. The passions
tend to be denigrated in such a world.  

In mid-twentieth century “the new synthesis” in
genetics, as Julian Huxley called it, showed a determinist
perspective in which socialization, experience, and Lamarckian-like
phenomena, such as Peirce’s idea of “evolutionary love,”
evolution by Thirdness, were unacceptable, perhaps again, literally
“paranormal.” Epigenetics and related developments in biology
have shown the limitations of "the new synthesis."  

I grant that Sheldrake attempted rigorous experiments with original
designs, which I'd like to look further into, including the dog ones.
On the upside I can see that the dog experiments at least included
beings living more from their passions. It throws a light on the more
typical experimental assumptions: Why would we think that randomized
untrained subjects from the humanly diminished altered state of a
rational-mechanical bureaucratic society performing cognitive tasks
would provide rigorous objective data in experiments on phenomena
such as telepathy?  

Gene Halton 
 On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Jerry LR Chandler  wrote:
 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, 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Eugene Halton]

In the past generation in the United States, empathy among college
students, as measured by standardized tests, has dropped about 40%
according to a 2010 University of Michigan study, with the largest drop
occurring after the year 2000. This is the new normal. Should we now
suppose the previous norm to be paranormal, above or beyond the norm? Other
standardized tests show that Narcissism has gone up for this age group, as
would be expected, since Narcissism involves empathy deficiency.

Could there be a day when empathy is regarded as a paranormal phenomenon?
Imagine that society where rigorous experiments on the subjects show no
signs of empathy above chance, because the society has systematically
self-altered itself to diminish or virtually extinguish a passion older
than humanity itself.

Of course all of this involves socialization and especially parenting.
Imagine a society where frequent empathic touch and gaze between parent and
young children is regarded as paranormal, because the norms reveal very
little empathic touch or gaze. Harlow’s monkey experiments showed what this
would be like.

A society shaped by a rational-mechanical bureaucratic mindset
is likely to manifest it not only in its norms of parenting and social
interaction, but tacitly in its science and technology as well, despite the
best intentions and technical methods. The passions tend to be denigrated
in such a world.

In mid-twentieth century “the new synthesis” in genetics, as
Julian Huxley called it, showed a determinist perspective in which
socialization, experience, and Lamarckian-like phenomena, such as Peirce’s
idea of “evolutionary love,” evolution by Thirdness, were unacceptable,
perhaps again, literally “paranormal.” Epigenetics and related developments
in biology have shown the limitations of "the new synthesis."

I grant that Sheldrake attempted rigorous experiments with original
designs, which I'd like to look further into, including the dog ones. On
the upside I can see that the dog experiments at least included beings
living more from their passions. It throws a light on the more typical
experimental assumptions: Why would we think that randomized untrained
subjects from the humanly diminished altered state of a rational-mechanical
bureaucratic society performing cognitive tasks would provide rigorous
objective data in experiments on phenomena such as telepathy?

Gene Halton

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> 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, kirst...@saunalahti.fi 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

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Kirst, list:

I'm not sure of the logic of:

"Does belief in God have effects. - It most certainly does. No
statitical  
  tests needed. "

Can the effects of a person's belief in god be linked directly to
the 'reality of God'? Or are they linked to the 'reality of having a
Belief'?

It would be like the old error of 'affirming the consequent', where
the effect of a wet car cannot be linked directly to 'It rained' but
instead is due to' I left the water sprinkler on'.

Edwina
 On Mon 12/06/17  8:43 AM , kirst...@saunalahti.fi sent:
 Well, it is well known that CSP was not so very keen on existence.
Even  
 though he succeeded in completing his Existential Graphs to his full
 
 approval.  But on being that was not the case. 
 Being was to him the key to what is real.  What was real (to him)
was  
 effects. 
 Does belief in God have effects. - It most certainly does. No
statitical  
 tests needed. 
 Wtih existance follows the question of location. 
 With elector-magnetic phenomena the question is just silly. 
 Was CSP essentialist? - Absolutely so. But not in the sense of
catching  
 any being by any set of firmly set definitions.  - Which are just as
 
 abolutely needed in deductive inferences. 
 Kirsti 
 John F Sowa kirjoitti 12.6.2017 15:08: 
 > On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi [1] wrote: 
 >> It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove. 
 >  
 > That may be true.  That may be like the existence of God. 
 > There are no proofs that God exists.  There are no proofs that 
 > God does not exist. 
 >  
 > In fact, there are no two people -- believers or nonbelievers -- 
 > who will give you the same definition of God.  Just ask them. 
 >  
 >> But I do think they are worth some attention. 
 >  
 > I agree.  A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not the 
 > same as 'unscientific'.  It just means that the methods of 
 > science are not applicable.   Perhaps someday they might be. 
 > But nobody knows how. 
 >  
 > John 


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'kirst...@saunalahti.fi\',\'\',\'\',\'\')

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Well, it is well known that CSP was not so very keen on existence. Even 
though he succeeded in completing his Existential Graphs to his full 
approval.  But on being that was not the case.


Being was to him the key to what is real.  What was real (to him) was 
effects.


Does belief in God have effects. - It most certainly does. No statitical 
tests needed.


Wtih existance follows the question of location.

With elector-magnetic phenomena the question is just silly.

Was CSP essentialist? - Absolutely so. But not in the sense of catching 
any being by any set of firmly set definitions.  - Which are just as 
abolutely needed in deductive inferences.



Kirsti

John F Sowa kirjoitti 12.6.2017 15:08:

On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.


That may be true.  That may be like the existence of God.
There are no proofs that God exists.  There are no proofs that
God does not exist.

In fact, there are no two people -- believers or nonbelievers --
who will give you the same definition of God.  Just ask them.


But I do think they are worth some attention.


I agree.  A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not the
same as 'unscientific'.  It just means that the methods of
science are not applicable.   Perhaps someday they might be.
But nobody knows how.

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[John F Sowa]

On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.


That may be true.  That may be like the existence of God.
There are no proofs that God exists.  There are no proofs that
God does not exist.

In fact, there are no two people -- believers or nonbelievers --
who will give you the same definition of God.  Just ask them.


But I do think they are worth some attention.


I agree.  A useful term is 'prescientific'.  That is not the
same as 'unscientific'.  It just means that the methods of
science are not applicable.   Perhaps someday they might be.
But nobody knows how.

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[John F Sowa]

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


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

From 2005 to 2010, he received funding from the Perrot-Warrick Fund:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perrott-Warrick_Fund

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

kirsti, list:

You said,
"If I were to bring up biology to this discussion with you , it would be
very different from your conception of biology.  – Would take all too much
time and energy to get our views close enough."

If you're genuinely concerned about this matter, then just say the
phenomemon. State the syllogism.  Put down the abductive argumentation
outside of yourself.  Let us see if there are many biologies or just one.

Best,
Jerry R

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:06 AM,  wrote:

> John, list,
>
> Thanks for interesting points  sheading light to the historical contexts
> of Sheldrake's work.
> I 'm  quite interested in knowing  which was the year he spent  at Harward
> & whether he got familiar with Peirce by then. Which I do not think was the
> case.
> To my mind it seems that Sheldrake is mainly doing science, not  so much
> interested in the various schools and variable top ten's  in current
> philosophy of science.  Being a laboratory minded scientist.  (As was
> Peirce).
> You wrote:
> JFS "People have been trying to find evidence for parapsychology for
> centuries without success.  There is nothing wrong with considering
> the idea as an interesting hypothesis.  But Sheldrake seemed to be
> just as dogmatic as anybody that he was criticizing."
>
> I do think you are mistaken here. To my mind  Sheldrake has not been
> searching evidence for 'parapsychology' as such, as a somehat 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.
>
> Sheldrake did not just  whimsically adopt a hypothesis, he was lead to do
> so by  results in his own experimental investigations.  He wanted to find
> out, not just philosophize in thin air.
>
> Just compare the experimental investigations by Jastrow and Peirce. with
> those by Sheldrake. Peirce never stopped observing similar phenomena in his
> everyday life. As is evidenced by scattered remarks in  his writings till
> the end of his life.  He observed (systematicly) the workings of his own
> mind as well as the workings of his dog's mind. And  he experimented with
> both. – So have I, by the way.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kirsti
>
>
>
> John F Sowa kirjoitti 7.6.2017 09:54:
>
>> Jerry, Kirsti, Gary R, Helmut, list,
>>
>> I didn't respond to some earlier points in this thread because I was
>> tied up with other things.  But I looked into Sheldrake's writings and
>> the earlier writings on morphogenesis by Conrad Waddington, a pioneer
>> in genetics, epigenetics, and morphogenesis.  For a 1962 article about
>> Waddington's theories, see
>> http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/
>> micro/29/1/mic-29-1-25.pdf?expires=1496787497=id&
>> accname=guest=4E2DC93EE4641BFAB00E8253006B4B2C
>> .
>>
>> Alan Turing (1952) wrote a mathematical analysis "The chemical basis
>> of morphogenesis" and cited a 1940 book _Organisers and Genes_ by
>> Waddington.  See http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Turing.pdf
>>
>> Sheldrake has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge, and he spent a year
>> at Harvard studying the philosophy of science.  His primary reference
>> is to Waddington's work.  But many scientists believe that he crossed
>> the thin line between genius and crackpot:  he took a reasonable
>> hypothesis in biology and mixed it with dubious speculations about
>> parapsychology.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
>>
>> For a sympathetic interview with Sheldrake by a skeptic, see
>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-
>> heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-
>> and-other-mysteries/
>>
>> Some comments on previous notes:
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>> Are you saying  Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state?
>>>
>>
>> No.  I was just saying that the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian are
>> related:  both are global functions of a system, and local equations
>> of motion can be derived from them.  For any physical system, the
>> Hamiltonian represents the total energy, and the Lagrangian represents
>> the total action (it has the dimensions of energy x time).
>>
>> Kirsti
>>
>>> Are there dogmas in science? Could there be?
>>>
>>
>> Gary R,
>>
>>> Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific...
>>>
>>
>> Science, as science, does not have dogmas.  As Peirce stated in his
>> First Rule of Reason, "Do not block the way of inquiry."
>>
>> But scientists are human, and some are dogmatic.  They might
>> do everything they can to block hypotheses they don't like.
>>
>> Kirsti
>>
>>> If so, how could one tell?
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes it's hard to tell.  A theory that has proved to be
>> reliable for a wide range of applications is hard to give up.
>> Tycho Brahe, for example, correctly believed that the Ptolemaic
>> theory of epicycles was more accurate than the circles in
>> the theory by Copernicus.
>>
>> 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Helmut,

Now you are talking! Excellent post.

"Interaction" is one way of taking relational logic seriously.

But it does not follow that "explanation" (if based on scientific 
evidence, may not have any objective definition. Or whatever the term 
used.  I would prefer the expression: "objective grounds".


Nominalistic philosophizing realies on just definitions. In geometry, as 
well as with any deductive inferences (e.g. formal logic) definitions 
play a very different role than in empirical sciences, relying a great 
deal on abductive % probable inferences.


"Interaction" is a dual idea. CSP deals with such taking them to present 
secondness & Secondness.


Which do not mean quite the same in the writings of CSP. He uses 
capitalized and not so terms SYSTEMATICALLY. Which has not been taken 
into proper consideration in republishing & editing his writings.  - It 
not just a matter of linguistic concerns & current usage of capitals.


CSP was definely not modern, he truly was post-modern. Anticipating 
developments in our millennium.


So, interaction is good to start with, but a third is needed. Mediation 
brings in the third.


The third brings in Meaning, not just reference.

Best, Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 9.6.2017 22:16:

John, Kirsti, All,
Now I think that it was naiive of me to put "explanation" in
opposition to "magical thinking", which "reverses cause and effect".
Because cause and effect are reversed all the time in what we call
"interaction". And "explanation" has no objective definition, it
merely is subjective, when an individual says: "Ok, I am satisfied,
this explains it for me".
Now I say: Magical thinking is to take an effect for cause and be
satisfied with that, and stop inquiring.
To be open minded would mean not to stop the inquiry, and say: Nothing
is the cause alone, nothing the effect alone, what I am looking for is
interaction with known other effects and laws.
I doubt, that a magnetic field is fully explained to everybody. At
least for me, there remain many mysteries. But there is known
interaction between the magnetic field and other phenomena: Electric
current, change of electric field, presence of iron or nickel...
With the morphogenetic field this is not so.
Also the memory of water is mysterious to me: I think, that only solid
structures (stable networks) can have a memory.
This is not a criticism of Sheldrake´s: It is not his fault, that
there are not sufficient interactions discovered, that would sort of
explain "morphogenetic field" and "water memory" to me.
All I want to say is: I do not believe in two worlds (a physical and a
magical or fine-substantional (? german:"feinstofflich") one) between
which there is no measurable interaction, and the said phenomena are,
experimentally well confirmed ok, but not causes, but effects, of
something not yet uncovered, I guess.
Best,
Helmut

07. Juni 2017 um 08:54 Uhr
 "John F Sowa"  wrote:

Jerry, Kirsti, Gary R, Helmut, list,

 I didn't respond to some earlier points in this thread because I was
 tied up with other things. But I looked into Sheldrake's writings and
 the earlier writings on morphogenesis by Conrad Waddington, a pioneer
 in genetics, epigenetics, and morphogenesis. For a 1962 article about
 Waddington's theories, see

http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/micro/29/1/mic-29-1-25.pdf?expires=1496787497=id=guest=4E2DC93EE4641BFAB00E8253006B4B2C
[1]
 .

 Alan Turing (1952) wrote a mathematical analysis "The chemical basis
 of morphogenesis" and cited a 1940 book _Organisers and Genes_ by
 Waddington. See http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Turing.pdf
[2]

 Sheldrake has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge, and he spent a
year
 at Harvard studying the philosophy of science. His primary reference
 is to Waddington's work. But many scientists believe that he crossed
 the thin line between genius and crackpot: he took a reasonable
 hypothesis in biology and mixed it with dubious speculations about
 parapsychology. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
[3]

 For a sympathetic interview with Sheldrake by a skeptic, see

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/
[4]

 Some comments on previous notes:

 Jerry
 > Are you saying Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state?

 No. I was just saying that the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian are
 related: both are global functions of a system, and local equations
 of motion can be derived from them. For any physical system, the
 Hamiltonian represents the total energy, and the Lagrangian
represents
 the total action (it has the dimensions of energy x time).

 Kirsti
 > Are there dogmas in science? Could there be?

 Gary R,
 > Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific...

 Science, as science, does not have dogmas. As Peirce stated in his
 First Rule of Reason, "Do not block the way of inquiry."

 But 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

rst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Helmut,
>>>>
>>>> "Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
>>>> theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
>>>> anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
>>>> backing it up.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
>>>> presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
>>>> theory? - If so, where?
>>>>
>>>> Or are his theories just surprising and odd?
>>>>
>>>> In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
>>>> experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
>>>> exceptionally well designed and carried out.
>>>>
>>>> I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
>>>> the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
>>>> theory
>>>> should!)
>>>>
>>>> All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Kirsti
>>>>
>>>> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:
>>>>
>>>> Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
>>>> the
>>>> below text.
>>>> Lalala,
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>> Dear list members,
>>>> I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
>>>> Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
>>>> that
>>>> the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
>>>> blocks
>>>> the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
>>>> leads
>>>> to false conclusions.
>>>> To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
>>>> ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental.
>>>> The
>>>> experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
>>>> experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the
>>>> same?
>>>>
>>>> If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
>>>> explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
>>>> looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not
>>>> think,
>>>> that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
>>>> they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
>>>> something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
>>>> remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
>>>> I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
>>>> publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being
>>>> done
>>>> now to some extent?
>>>> On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma,
>>>> Laplacism
>>>> was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
>>>> Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead
>>>> to
>>>> famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery
>>>> of
>>>> epigenetic mechanisms.
>>>> When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
>>>> convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
>>>> have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
>>>> carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do
>>>> not
>>>> know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
>>>> molecules.
>>>> But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
>>>> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This
>>>> Peircean
>>>> "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
>>>> is
>>>> merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
>>>> ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized),
>>>> transmitted,
>>>> and so on.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>> 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
>>>> "John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure that these "dogmas" are n

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

 well designed and carried out.
>>>
>>> I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
>>> the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
>>> theory
>>> should!)
>>>
>>> All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:
>>>
>>> Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
>>> the
>>> below text.
>>> Lalala,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> Dear list members,
>>> I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
>>> Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
>>> that
>>> the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
>>> blocks
>>> the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
>>> leads
>>> to false conclusions.
>>> To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
>>> ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental.
>>> The
>>> experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
>>> experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the
>>> same?
>>>
>>> If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
>>> explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
>>> looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not
>>> think,
>>> that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
>>> they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
>>> something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
>>> remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
>>> I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
>>> publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being
>>> done
>>> now to some extent?
>>> On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma,
>>> Laplacism
>>> was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
>>> Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead
>>> to
>>> famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery
>>> of
>>> epigenetic mechanisms.
>>> When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
>>> convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
>>> have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
>>> carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do
>>> not
>>> know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
>>> molecules.
>>> But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
>>> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This
>>> Peircean
>>> "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
>>> is
>>> merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
>>> ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized),
>>> transmitted,
>>> and so on.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
>>> "John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
>>> that have served well.
>>>
>>> But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can
>>> be
>>> dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of
>>> the
>>> world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application
>>> noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither
>>> by
>>> genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
>>> self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now,
>>> but
>>> thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees
>>> (not
>>> Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough
>>> for a
>>> selectionist explanation.
>>>
>>> John Collier
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>>>
>>> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>>
>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [1] [2]
>>>
>>>
>>> FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
>>> SENT: Thur

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery
of
epigenetic mechanisms.
When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do
not
know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
molecules.
But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
"Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This
Peircean
"Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
is
merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized),
transmitted,
and so on.
Best,
Helmut

02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
"John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
that have served well.

But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can
be
dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of
the
world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application
noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither
by
genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now,
but
thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees
(not
Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough
for a
selectionist explanation.

John Collier

Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate

Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [1] [2]

FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake
TED
Talk

John S, list,

John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists
agree,
nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that
nothing _ought _to be a dogma.

And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy,"
materialism, necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in
"Reply
to the Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to the nothing-but-ism
of
actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.

Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an _ideal_ of scientific,
but
I do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of
scientists in Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them,
whether
they would say they do, or think they do, or not.

Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the
Additaments) by writing that even "approximate acceptance of the
Pragmaticist principle" has helped those who do accept it:

". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths
that other philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of
them not at all. Among such truths -- all of them old, of course,
yet acknowledged by few -- I reckon their denial of
necessitarianism; their rejection of any "consciousness" different
from a visceral or other external sensation; their acknowledgment
that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits (which
Really
would produce effects, under circumstances that may not happen to
get actualized, and are thus Real generals); and their insistence
upon interpreting all hypostatic abstractions in terms of what they
would or might (not actually will) come to in the concrete. . . . "

(CP 6.485).

It seems to me that Peirce is clear--and while here he seems to be
addressing philosophers in particular, elsewhere and frequently he
argues this for science more generally--that many thinkers
(philosophers and scientists alike) do indeed hold such dogmas as
"necessitarianism" and "mechanism" (==Sheldrake's slide for dogma
#1
"EVERYTHING IS ESSENTIALLY MECHANICAL). That Peirce's views were
far
from dogmatic follows for me from his theory of inquiry including
his
pragmaticism.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with Sheldrake's list of putatie
dogmas, and I would certainly fully agree with you if by "nothing
is a
dogma of science" you mean that this should be an essential maxim
of
the ethics of science. But just as Peirce argued that every
scientist
has a metaphysics--even as certain scientists argue against
metaphysics altogether, that everyone of them ought take pains at
discovering what are her perhaps hidden metaphysical
presuppositions--I think that even those who claim that "nothing is
a
dogma of science" (but, I must quickly add, certainly not you,
John)
still many yet hold certain dogmatic views, and that these can
enter
into even whole 'schools' in certain fields of scientific endeavor.

Best,

Gary R

GARY RICHMOND

PHILOSOPHY AND CRITICAL THINKING

COMMUNICATION STUDIES

LAGUARDIA COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

C 745

718

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

"Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
is
merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized),
transmitted,
and so on.
Best,
Helmut

02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
"John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
that have served well.

But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can
be
dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of
the
world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application
noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither
by
genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now,
but
thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees
(not
Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough
for a
selectionist explanation.

John Collier

Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate

Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [1] [2]

FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake
TED
Talk

John S, list,

John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists
agree,
nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that
nothing _ought _to be a dogma.

And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy,"
materialism, necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in
"Reply
to the Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to the nothing-but-ism
of
actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.

Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an _ideal_ of scientific,
but
I do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of
scientists in Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them,
whether
they would say they do, or think they do, or not.

Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the
Additaments) by writing that even "approximate acceptance of the
Pragmaticist principle" has helped those who do accept it:

". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths
that other philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of
them not at all. Among such truths -- all of them old, of course,
yet acknowledged by few -- I reckon their denial of
necessitarianism; their rejection of any "consciousness" different
from a visceral or other external sensation; their acknowledgment
that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits (which
Really
would produce effects, under circumstances that may not happen to
get actualized, and are thus Real generals); and their insistence
upon interpreting all hypostatic abstractions in terms of what they
would or might (not actually will) come to in the concrete. . . . "

(CP 6.485).

It seems to me that Peirce is clear--and while here he seems to be
addressing philosophers in particular, elsewhere and frequently he
argues this for science more generally--that many thinkers
(philosophers and scientists alike) do indeed hold such dogmas as
"necessitarianism" and "mechanism" (==Sheldrake's slide for dogma
#1
"EVERYTHING IS ESSENTIALLY MECHANICAL). That Peirce's views were
far
from dogmatic follows for me from his theory of inquiry including
his
pragmaticism.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with Sheldrake's list of putatie
dogmas, and I would certainly fully agree with you if by "nothing
is a
dogma of science" you mean that this should be an essential maxim
of
the ethics of science. But just as Peirce argued that every
scientist
has a metaphysics--even as certain scientists argue against
metaphysics altogether, that everyone of them ought take pains at
discovering what are her perhaps hidden metaphysical
presuppositions--I think that even those who claim that "nothing is
a
dogma of science" (but, I must quickly add, certainly not you,
John)
still many yet hold certain dogmatic views, and that these can
enter
into even whole 'schools' in certain fields of scientific endeavor.

Best,

Gary R

GARY RICHMOND

PHILOSOPHY AND CRITICAL THINKING

COMMUNICATION STUDIES

LAGUARDIA COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

C 745

718 482-5690 [2]

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:34 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>
wrote:

On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:

I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science.

As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
nothing is a dogma of science.

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
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscri

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[John F Sowa]

Jerry, Kirsti, Gary R, Helmut, list,

I didn't respond to some earlier points in this thread because I was
tied up with other things.  But I looked into Sheldrake's writings and
the earlier writings on morphogenesis by Conrad Waddington, a pioneer
in genetics, epigenetics, and morphogenesis.  For a 1962 article about
Waddington's theories, see 
http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/micro/29/1/mic-29-1-25.pdf?expires=1496787497=id=guest=4E2DC93EE4641BFAB00E8253006B4B2C 
.


Alan Turing (1952) wrote a mathematical analysis "The chemical basis
of morphogenesis" and cited a 1940 book _Organisers and Genes_ by
Waddington.  See http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Turing.pdf

Sheldrake has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge, and he spent a year
at Harvard studying the philosophy of science.  His primary reference
is to Waddington's work.  But many scientists believe that he crossed
the thin line between genius and crackpot:  he took a reasonable
hypothesis in biology and mixed it with dubious speculations about
parapsychology.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

For a sympathetic interview with Sheldrake by a skeptic, see
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/

Some comments on previous notes:

Jerry

Are you saying  Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state?


No.  I was just saying that the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian are
related:  both are global functions of a system, and local equations
of motion can be derived from them.  For any physical system, the
Hamiltonian represents the total energy, and the Lagrangian represents
the total action (it has the dimensions of energy x time).

Kirsti

Are there dogmas in science? Could there be?


Gary R,

Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific...


Science, as science, does not have dogmas.  As Peirce stated in his
First Rule of Reason, "Do not block the way of inquiry."

But scientists are human, and some are dogmatic.  They might
do everything they can to block hypotheses they don't like.

Kirsti

If so, how could one tell?


Sometimes it's hard to tell.  A theory that has proved to be
reliable for a wide range of applications is hard to give up.
Tycho Brahe, for example, correctly believed that the Ptolemaic
theory of epicycles was more accurate than the circles in
the theory by Copernicus.

But it was Kepler, Brahe's assistant, who discovered that
elliptical orbits were more accurate than the epicycles.

Kirsti

Are there flaws and shortcomings in [Sheldrake's] theory?


People have been trying to find evidence for parapsychology for
centuries without success.  There is nothing wrong with considering
the idea as an interesting hypothesis.  But Sheldrake seemed to be
just as dogmatic as anybody that he was criticizing.

Helmut

"Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
"Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit".


Words, by themselves, can't explain anything.  Peirce admitted
that the following two statements are different ways of stating
the same observation:

   Opium puts people to sleep.
   Opium has dormitive virtue.

By applying Ockham's razor, nominalists would "shave away"
the concept of "dormitive virtue" because it is an unnecessary
assumption.  But Peirce said that the assumption that there
exists some underlying principle or substance can suggest a useful
methodology:  analyze the chemicals in opium to find some substace
that has "dormitive virtue".

In this case, the chemists discovered morphine as the common
chemical that had that dormitive virtue.  The neuroscientists
then began the search for naturally occurring chemicals in
the brain, and they discovered endomorphins -- whose structure
had that critical "dormitive virtue".

In summary, the hypothesis of "dormitive virtue" inspired
a successful search for chemicals and mechanisms tht might have
been overlooked.

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

might ask: What should be the
>>> carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do
>>> not
>>> know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
>>> molecules.
>>> But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
>>> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This
>>> Peircean
>>> "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
>>> is
>>> merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
>>> ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized),
>>> transmitted,
>>> and so on.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
>>> "John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
>>> that have served well.
>>>
>>> But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can
>>> be
>>> dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of
>>> the
>>> world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application
>>> noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither
>>> by
>>> genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
>>> self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now,
>>> but
>>> thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees
>>> (not
>>> Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough
>>> for a
>>> selectionist explanation.
>>>
>>> John Collier
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>>>
>>> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>>
>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [2]
>>>
>>>
>>> FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
>>> SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
>>> TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>>> SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake
>>> TED
>>> Talk
>>>
>>> John S, list,
>>>
>>> John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists
>>> agree,
>>> nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that
>>> nothing _ought _to be a dogma.
>>>
>>> And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy,"
>>> materialism, necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in
>>> "Reply
>>> to the Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to the nothing-but-ism
>>> of
>>> actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.
>>>
>>> Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an _ideal_ of scientific,
>>> but
>>> I do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of
>>> scientists in Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them,
>>> whether
>>> they would say they do, or think they do, or not.
>>>
>>> Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the
>>> Additaments) by writing that even "approximate acceptance of the
>>> Pragmaticist principle" has helped those who do accept it:
>>>
>>> ". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths
>>> that other philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of
>>> them not at all. Among such truths -- all of them old, of course,
>>> yet acknowledged by few -- I reckon their denial of
>>> necessitarianism; their rejection of any "consciousness" different
>>> from a visceral or other external sensation; their acknowledgment
>>> that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits (which
>>> Really
>>> would produce effects, under circumstances that may not happen to
>>> get actualized, and are thus Real generals); and their insistence
>>> upon interpreting all hypostatic abstractions in terms of what they
>>> would or might (not actually will) come to in the concrete. . . . "
>>>
>>> (CP 6.485).
>>>
>>> It seems to me that Peirce is clear--and while here he seems to be
>>> addressing philosophers in particular, elsewhere and frequently he
>>> argues this for science more generally--that many thinkers
>>> (philosophers and scientists alike) do indeed hold such dogmas as
>>> "necessitarianism" and "mechanism" (==Sheldrake's slide for dogma
>&g

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear kirsti, all,

"The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than 50 cells
in any direction."

Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in diameter.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:

> Helmut,
>
> "Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a theoretical
> concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining anything, a theory is
> needed, with sound experimental evidence backing it up.
>
> Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been presenting is
> not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his theory? - If so, where?
>
> Or are his theories just surprising and odd?
>
> In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his experiments
> both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were exceptionally well
> designed and carried out.
>
> I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of the usual
> sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile theory should!)
>
> All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.
>
> Best,
>
> Kirsti
>
>
> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:
>
>> Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in the
>> below text.
>> Lalala,
>> Helmut
>>
>> Dear list members,
>> I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
>> Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think that
>> the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness blocks
>> the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and leads
>> to false conclusions.
>> To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
>> ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental. The
>> experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
>> experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the same?
>>
>> If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
>> explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
>> looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not think,
>> that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
>> they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
>> something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
>> remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
>> I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
>> publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being done
>> now to some extent?
>> On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma, Laplacism
>> was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
>> Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead to
>> famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery of
>> epigenetic mechanisms.
>> When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
>> convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
>> have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
>> carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do not
>> know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
>> molecules.
>> But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
>> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This Peircean
>> "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It is
>> merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
>> ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized), transmitted,
>> and so on.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>>
>>  02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
>>  "John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
>> that have served well.
>>
>> But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be
>> dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the
>> world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application
>> noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither by
>> genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
>> self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now, but
>> thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees (not
>> Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough for a
>> selectionist explanation.
>>
>> John Collier
>>
>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Res

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Helmut,

"Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a theoretical 
concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining anything, a theory 
is needed, with sound experimental evidence backing it up.


Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been presenting is 
not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his theory? - If so, 
where?


Or are his theories just surprising and odd?

In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his experiments 
both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were exceptionally 
well designed and carried out.


I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of the 
usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile theory 
should!)


All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.

Best,

Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:

Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in the
below text.
Lalala,
Helmut

Dear list members,
I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think that
the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness blocks
the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and leads
to false conclusions.
To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental. The
experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the same?

If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not think,
that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being done
now to some extent?
On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma, Laplacism
was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead to
famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery of
epigenetic mechanisms.
When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do not
know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
molecules.
But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
"Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This Peircean
"Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It is
merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized), transmitted,
and so on.
Best,
Helmut

 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
 "John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
that have served well.

But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be
dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the
world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application
noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither by
genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now, but
thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees (not
Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough for a
selectionist explanation.

John Collier

Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate

Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier [2]

FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
 SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
 TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
 SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED
Talk

John S, list,

John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that
nothing _ought _to be a dogma.

And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy,"
materialism, necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in "Reply
to the Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to the nothing-but-ism of
actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.

Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an _ideal_ of scientific, but
I do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of
scientists in Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them, whether
they would say they d

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Helmut Raulien]

 
 

Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in the below text.

Lalala,

Helmut




Dear list members,

I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.: Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think that the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness blocks the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and leads to false conclusions.

To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental. The experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the same?

If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not think, that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.

I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being done now to some extent?

On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma, Laplacism was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead to famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery of epigenetic mechanisms.

When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier convinced  to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do not know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl molecules.

But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This Peircean "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It is merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized), transmitted, and so on.

Best,

Helmut

 

 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
"John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
 




I am not sure that these “dogmas” are not merely working hypotheses that have served well.

 

But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the world’s experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither by genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now, but thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees (not Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn’t looked hard enough for a selectionist explanation.

 

John Collier

Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate

Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier

 




From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk



 


John S, list,


 



John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that nothing ought to be a dogma.


 



And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy," materialism, necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in "Reply to the Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to  the nothing-but-ism of actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.



 



Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific, but I do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of scientists in Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them, whether they would say they do, or think they do, or not. 




 



Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the Additaments) by writing that even "approximate acceptance of the Pragmaticist principle" has helped those who do accept it:




 



". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths that other philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of them not at all. Among such truths -- all of them old, of course, yet acknowledged by few -- I reckon their denial of necessitarianism; their rejection of any "consciousness" different from a visceral or other external sensation; their acknowledgment that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits (which Really would produce effects, under circumstances that may not happen to get actualized, and are thus Real generals); a

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Helmut Raulien]

Dear list members,

I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.: Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think that the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness blocks the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and leads to false conclusions.

To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental. The experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the same?

If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not think, that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.

I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being done now to some extent?

On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma, Laplacism was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead to famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery of epigenetic mechanisms.

When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier convinced  to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do not know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl molecules.

But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This Peircean "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It is merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized), transmitted, and so on.

Best,

Helmut

 

 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
"John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
 




I am not sure that these “dogmas” are not merely working hypotheses that have served well.

 

But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the world’s experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither by genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now, but thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees (not Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn’t looked hard enough for a selectionist explanation.

 

John Collier

Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate

Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier

 




From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk



 


John S, list,


 



John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that nothing ought to be a dogma.


 



And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy," materialism, necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in "Reply to the Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to  the nothing-but-ism of actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.



 



Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific, but I do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of scientists in Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them, whether they would say they do, or think they do, or not. 




 



Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the Additaments) by writing that even "approximate acceptance of the Pragmaticist principle" has helped those who do accept it:




 



". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths that other philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of them not at all. Among such truths -- all of them old, of course, yet acknowledged by few -- I reckon their denial of necessitarianism; their rejection of any "consciousness" different from a visceral or other external sensation; their acknowledgment that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits (which Really would produce effects, under circumstances that may not happen to get actualized, and are thus Real generals); and their insistence upon interpreting all hypostatic abstractions in terms of what they would or might (not 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Gary Richmond]

John C, list,

John wrote: "I am not sure that these “dogmas” are not merely working
hypotheses that have served well."

I would tend to agree with you. I recall Peirce saying something to the
effect that even hypotheses which were later found not to be supported by
evidence did yet move the research forward, or as you put it, they were
"working hypotheses that have served well."

I'm hoping I can find that passage in Peirce since, besides what I've just
written, I recall being somewhat shocked by his giving an example which I
thought at the time was scientifically beyond the pale.

Best,

Gary


[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:55 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

> I am not sure that these “dogmas” are not merely working hypotheses that
> have served well.
>
>
>
> But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be
> dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the
> world’s experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application noting
> that he had found variation that could be explained neither by genetics nor
> by environment, and he wanted to explore self-organization during
> development. This is a commonplace now, but thirty years ago he failed to
> get the grant because his referees (not Douglas fir experts) said that he
> just hadn’t looked hard enough for a selectionist explanation.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED
> Talk
>
>
>
> John S, list,
>
>
>
> John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists
> agree, nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that
> nothing *ought *to be a dogma.
>
>
>
> And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy," materialism,
> necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in "Reply to the
> Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to  the nothing-but-ism of
> actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.
>
>
>
> Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an *ideal* of scientific, but I
> do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of scientists in
> Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them, whether they would say they
> do, or think they do, or not.
>
>
>
> Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the Additaments) by
> writing that even "approximate acceptance of the Pragmaticist principle"
> has helped those who do accept it:
>
>
>
> ". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths that
> other philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of them not at
> all. Among such truths -- all of them old, of course, yet acknowledged by
> few -- I reckon their denial of necessitarianism; their rejection of any
> "consciousness" different from a visceral or other external sensation;
> their acknowledgment that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits
> (which Really would produce effects, under circumstances that may not
> happen to get actualized, and are thus Real generals); and their insistence
> upon interpreting all hypostatic abstractions in terms of what they would
> or might (not actually will) come to in the concrete. . . . "
>
> (CP 6.485).
>
>
>
> It seems to me that Peirce is clear--and while here he seems to be
> addressing philosophers in particular, elsewhere and frequently he argues
> this for science more generally--that many thinkers (philosophers and
> scientists alike) do indeed hold such dogmas as "necessitarianism" and
> "mechanism" (==Sheldrake's slide for dogma #1 "*Everything is essentially
> mechanical*). That Peirce's views were far from dogmatic follows for me
> from his theory of inquiry including his pragmaticism.
>
>
>
> Again, I don't necessarily agree with Sheldrake's list of putatie dogmas,
> and I would certainly fully agree with you if by "nothing is a dogma of
> science" you mean that this should be an essential maxim of the ethics of
> science. But just as Peirce argued that every scientist has a
> metaphysics--even as certain scientists argue against metaphysics
> altogether, that everyone of them ought take pains at discovering what are
> her perhaps hidden metaphysical presuppositions--I t

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[John Collier]

I am not sure that these “dogmas” are not merely working hypotheses that have 
served well.

But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be dogmatic. 
A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the world’s experts on 
Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application noting that he had found 
variation that could be explained neither by genetics nor by environment, and 
he wanted to explore self-organization during development. This is a 
commonplace now, but thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his 
referees (not Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn’t looked hard enough 
for a selectionist explanation.

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

John S, list,

John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, nothing is 
a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that nothing ought to be a 
dogma.

And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy," materialism, 
necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in "Reply to the 
Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to  the nothing-but-ism of 
actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.

Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific, but I do not 
agree you in that it seems to me that any number of scientists in Peirce's day 
and in ours as well yet hold them, whether they would say they do, or think 
they do, or not.

Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the Additaments) by 
writing that even "approximate acceptance of the Pragmaticist principle" has 
helped those who do accept it:

". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths that other 
philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of them not at all. Among 
such truths -- all of them old, of course, yet acknowledged by few -- I reckon 
their denial of necessitarianism; their rejection of any "consciousness" 
different from a visceral or other external sensation; their acknowledgment 
that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits (which Really would 
produce effects, under circumstances that may not happen to get actualized, and 
are thus Real generals); and their insistence upon interpreting all hypostatic 
abstractions in terms of what they would or might (not actually will) come to 
in the concrete. . . . "
(CP 6.485).

It seems to me that Peirce is clear--and while here he seems to be addressing 
philosophers in particular, elsewhere and frequently he argues this for science 
more generally--that many thinkers (philosophers and scientists alike) do 
indeed hold such dogmas as "necessitarianism" and "mechanism" (==Sheldrake's 
slide for dogma #1 "Everything is essentially mechanical). That Peirce's views 
were far from dogmatic follows for me from his theory of inquiry including his 
pragmaticism.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with Sheldrake's list of putatie dogmas, and I 
would certainly fully agree with you if by "nothing is a dogma of science" you 
mean that this should be an essential maxim of the ethics of science. But just 
as Peirce argued that every scientist has a metaphysics--even as certain 
scientists argue against metaphysics altogether, that everyone of them ought 
take pains at discovering what are her perhaps hidden metaphysical 
presuppositions--I think that even those who claim that "nothing is a dogma of 
science" (but, I must quickly add, certainly not you, John) still many yet hold 
certain dogmatic views, and that these can enter into even whole 'schools' in 
certain fields of scientific endeavor.

Best,

Gary R




[Gary Richmond]

Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690<tel:(718)%20482-5690>

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:34 AM, John F Sowa 
<s...@bestweb.net<mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> wrote:
On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science.

As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
nothing is a dogma of science.

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 
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send 
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to 
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe 
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .






-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Nothing should be does not quite amount to nothing is. CSP was for the 
first, not for the second.


Are there dogmas in science? Could there be? If so, how could one tell?

Kirsti


John F Sowa kirjoitti 1.6.2017 09:34:

On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:

I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science.


As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
nothing is a dogma of science.

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Gary Richmond]

John S, list,

John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, nothing
is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that nothing *ought *to
be a dogma.

And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy," materialism,
necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in "Reply to the
Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to  the nothing-but-ism of
actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.

Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an *ideal* of scientific, but I do
not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of scientists in
Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them, whether they would say they
do, or think they do, or not.

Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the Additaments) by
writing that even "approximate acceptance of the Pragmaticist principle"
has helped those who do accept it:


". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths that
other philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of them not at
all. Among such truths -- all of them old, of course, yet acknowledged by
few -- I reckon their denial of necessitarianism; their rejection of any
"consciousness" different from a visceral or other external sensation;
their acknowledgment that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits
(which Really would produce effects, under circumstances that may not
happen to get actualized, and are thus Real generals); and their insistence
upon interpreting all hypostatic abstractions in terms of what they would
or might (not actually will) come to in the concrete. . . . "
(CP 6.485).


It seems to me that Peirce is clear--and while here he seems to be
addressing philosophers in particular, elsewhere and frequently he argues
this for science more generally--that many thinkers (philosophers and
scientists alike) do indeed hold such dogmas as "necessitarianism" and
"mechanism" (==Sheldrake's slide for dogma #1 "*Everything is essentially
mechanical*). That Peirce's views were far from dogmatic follows for me
from his theory of inquiry including his pragmaticism.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with Sheldrake's list of putatie dogmas,
and I would certainly fully agree with you if by "nothing is a dogma of
science" you mean that this should be an essential maxim of the ethics of
science. But just as Peirce argued that every scientist has a
metaphysics--even as certain scientists argue against metaphysics
altogether, that everyone of them ought take pains at discovering what are
her perhaps hidden metaphysical presuppositions--I think that even those
who claim that "nothing is a dogma of science" (but, I must quickly add,
certainly not you, John) still many yet hold certain dogmatic views, and
that these can enter into even whole 'schools' in certain fields of
scientific endeavor.

Best,

Gary R





[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:34 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:

> On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
>
>> I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science.
>>
>
> As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
> nothing is a dogma of science.
>
> 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
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[John F Sowa]

On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:

I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science.


As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
nothing is a dogma of science.

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Gary Richmond]

Ben, list,

I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science.

Best,

Gary


[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Benjamin Udell  wrote:

> Gary, list,
>
> My understanding is that "3. The total amount of matter and energy is
> conserved" is not a dogma of science and contradicts current physical
> theory, which argues that the total energy (including mass) of the universe
> increases as the universe expands, and would decrease if the universe were
> to contract.
>
> Best, Ben
>
> *On 5/31/2017 6:15 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:*
>
> List,
>
> As an addendum to my forwarded post, here are what Sheldrake claims to be
> 10 dogmas of science.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *1. Everything is essentially mechanical. 2. All matter is unconscious. 3.
> The total amount of matter and energy is conserved. 4. The laws of nature
> are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they
> will stay the same forever. 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no
> goal or direction. 6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in
> the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures. 7. Minds are
> inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at
> a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it
> seems to be, but inside your brain. 8. Memories are stored as material
> traces in brains and are wiped out at death. 9. Unexplained phenomena like
> telepathy are illusory. 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that
> really works.*
>
> I had earlier written that dogma 9, seems not supported by Peirce's
> writings. Although he thought that such matters as telepathy ought be
> investigated, he seems not to have been convinced himself that such
> phenomena had been experimentally validated.
>
> Perhaps I should have added that while his general anti-materialist
> tendencies as well as his views concerning the role of a kind of Lamarckian
> inheritance would tend to support 6., that the second part of that putative
> dogma is probably not what Sheldrake is emphasizing here (not to mention
> that DNA research hadn't begun in Peirce's time).
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690
> <(718)%20482-5690>*
>
> *On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Gary Richmond **wrote:*
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
 Gary R  - ah, that's better. I figured I had missed something.
Thanks.

Edwina
 On Wed 31/05/17  6:58 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina,
 The list is of dogmas of science which Peirce did *not* adhere to.
 Best,
 Gary
  Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New YorkC 745718
482-5690 
 On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Gary R - you are saying that all but #9 of Sheldrake's axioms are
implicit or explicit in Peirce's work. I must be missing something
because I consider that 

Axioms 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 - i.e., all but 3 are
non-Peircean views.

Edwina
 On Wed 31/05/17  6:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com [2]
sent:
 List,
 As an addendum to my forwarded post, here are what Sheldrake claims
to be 10 dogmas of science.
 1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
 3. The total amount of matter and energy is conserved.
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were
at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.
 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic
material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of
brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing
is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain. 
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out
at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
 I had earlier written that dogma 9, seems not supported by Peirce's
writings. Although he thought that such matters as telepathy ought be
investigated, he seems not to have been convinced himself that such
phenomena had been experimentally validated. 
 Perhaps I should have added that while his general anti-materialist
tendencies as well as his views concerning the role of a kind of
Lamarckian inheritance would tend to support 6., that the second part
of that putative dogma is probably not what Sheldrake is emphasizing
here (not to mention that DNA research hadn't begun in Peirce's
time).
 Best,
 Gary R
 Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New YorkC 745718
482-5690 [3]  
 On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Gary Richmond  wrote:
 List,
 It appears to me that many scientists--although not all by all
means--who have looked into it think that Rupert Sheldrake's
hypothesis of "morphic resonance"   [4]http://www.sheldrake.org/
[5]research/morphic-resonanceis at very least unsupported by
experimental testing of it and, well, even a bit whacko. Sheldrake
would argue in part that much of this negative assessment is the
result of most scientists being intellectually bonded to materialism,
what he also calls 'philosophical materialism'.
 Although several years ago I read some of his books and followed the
experiments then being made in an attempt to prove/disprove his
theory, I haven't much thought about it for some time now. When this
video was posted to the biosemiotics list, however, and intrigued by
the knowledge that this TED talk had been censored, I played the
video, watching it with some considerable interest. 
 For in it Sheldrake offers what he calls "ten dogmas of science" and
references Peirce, suggesting that Peirce's understanding of 'habit'
led Sheldrake to a sense that *this* notion, as Peirce conceived of
it, ought replace that of 'law' (and constants, etc.) in science,
Sheldrake seeing 'law' as an "anthropological metaphor" at best. 
 It seems to me that at least 9 of the "dogmas" he offers (although
not the 9th) are either implicit or explicit in Peirce's work.  
 But as mentioned, I have not followed Sheldrake's work for years;
when doing so I viewed his hypothesis as then not fully supported by
experimental testing of it--although he has argued that those tests
do in fact support his theory--so that I offer this short video as an
opportunity for us to consider (1) whether these 10 are indeed dogmas
of science, and (2) if listers think any of them concur with the
views of Peirce. (I think it would be unwise at this point to get
into a discussion of morphic resonance.) 
 Best,
 Gary R
 - Forwarded message --
 From: Prisca Augustyn 
 Date: Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:56 PM
 Subject: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk
 To: "biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee" 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg  
   Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK 
www.youtube.com [6]  Re-uploaded as TED have decided to censor Rupert
and remove this video from the TEDx youtube channel. Follow this link
for TED's statement 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Benjamin Udell]

Gary, list,

My understanding is that "3. The total amount of matter and energy is 
conserved" is not a dogma of science and contradicts current physical 
theory, which argues that the total energy (including mass) of the 
universe increases as the universe expands, and would decrease if the 
universe were to contract.


Best, Ben

*On 5/31/2017 6:15 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:*

List,

As an addendum to my forwarded post, here are what Sheldrake claims to 
be 10 dogmas of science.


*1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is conserved.
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at 
the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic 
material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. 
When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not 
“out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at 
death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.*

I had earlier written that dogma 9, seems not supported by Peirce's 
writings. Although he thought that such matters as telepathy ought be 
investigated, he seems not to have been convinced himself that such 
phenomena had been experimentally validated.


Perhaps I should have added that while his general anti-materialist 
tendencies as well as his views concerning the role of a kind of 
Lamarckian inheritance would tend to support 6., that the second part of 
that putative dogma is probably not what Sheldrake is emphasizing here 
(not to mention that DNA research hadn't begun in Peirce's time).


Best,

Gary R

Gary Richmond

*Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690*

*On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Gary Richmond **wrote:*


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Gary Richmond]

Edwina,

The list is of *dogmas *of science which Peirce did *not* adhere to.

Best,

Gary


[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Gary R - you are saying that all but #9 of Sheldrake's axioms are implicit
> or explicit in Peirce's work. I must be missing something because I
> consider that
>
> Axioms 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 - i.e., all but 3 are non-Peircean
> views.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 31/05/17 6:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> List,
>
> As an addendum to my forwarded post, here are what Sheldrake claims to be
> 10 dogmas of science.
>
> 1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
> 2. All matter is unconscious.
> 3. The total amount of matter and energy is conserved.
> 4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at
> the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.
> 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
> 6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic
> material, DNA, and in other material structures.
> 7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains.
> When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out
> there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
> 8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at
> death.
> 9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
> 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
>
>>
>> I had earlier written that dogma 9, seems not supported by Peirce's
> writings. Although he thought that such matters as telepathy ought be
> investigated, he seems not to have been convinced himself that such
> phenomena had been experimentally validated.
>
> Perhaps I should have added that while his general anti-materialist
> tendencies as well as his views concerning the role of a kind of Lamarckian
> inheritance would tend to support 6., that the second part of that putative
> dogma is probably not what Sheldrake is emphasizing here (not to mention
> that DNA research hadn't begun in Peirce's time).
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> [image: Blocked image]
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
> C 745
> 718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> List,
>>
>> It appears to me that many scientists--although not all by all means--who
>> have looked into it think that Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis of "morphic
>> resonance" 
>> http://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance
>> is at very least unsupported by experimental testing of it and, well,
>> even a bit whacko. Sheldrake would argue in part that much of this negative
>> assessment is the result of most scientists being intellectually bonded to
>> materialism, what he also calls 'philosophical materialism'.
>>
>> Although several years ago I read some of his books and followed the
>> experiments then being made in an attempt to prove/disprove his theory, I
>> haven't much thought about it for some time now. When this video was posted
>> to the biosemiotics list, however, and intrigued by the knowledge that this
>> TED talk had been censored, I played the video, watching it with some
>> considerable interest.
>>
>> For in it Sheldrake offers what he calls "ten dogmas of science" and
>> references Peirce, suggesting that Peirce's understanding of 'habit' led
>> Sheldrake to a sense that *this* notion, as Peirce conceived of it, ought
>> replace that of 'law' (and constants, etc.) in science, Sheldrake seeing
>> 'law' as an "anthropological metaphor" at best.
>>
>> It seems to me that at least 9 of the "dogmas" he offers (although not
>> the 9th) are either implicit or explicit in Peirce's work.
>>
>> But as mentioned, I have not followed Sheldrake's work for years; when
>> doing so I viewed his hypothesis as then not fully supported by
>> experimental testing of it--although he has argued that those tests do in
>> fact support his theory--so that I offer this short video as an opportunity
>> for us to consider (1) whether these 10 are indeed dogmas of science,
>> and (2) if listers think any of them concur with the views of Peirce. (I
>> think it would be unwise at this point to get into a discussion of morphic
>> resonance.)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>>
>> - Forwarded message --
>> From: Prisca Augustyn
>> Date: Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:56 PM
>> Subject: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk
>> To: "biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee" < biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>
>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
>> Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
>> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - you are saying that all but #9 of Sheldrake's axioms are
implicit or explicit in Peirce's work. I must be missing something
because I consider that 

Axioms 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 - i.e., all but 3 are
non-Peircean views.

Edwina
 On Wed 31/05/17  6:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 List,
 As an addendum to my forwarded post, here are what Sheldrake claims
to be 10 dogmas of science.
 1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
 3. The total amount of matter and energy is conserved.
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were
at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.
 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic
material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of
brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing
is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain. 
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out
at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
 I had earlier written that dogma 9, seems not supported by Peirce's
writings. Although he thought that such matters as telepathy ought be
investigated, he seems not to have been convinced himself that such
phenomena had been experimentally validated. 
 Perhaps I should have added that while his general anti-materialist
tendencies as well as his views concerning the role of a kind of
Lamarckian inheritance would tend to support 6., that the second part
of that putative dogma is probably not what Sheldrake is emphasizing
here (not to mention that DNA research hadn't begun in Peirce's
time).
 Best,
 Gary R
 Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New YorkC 745718
482-5690 
 On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Gary Richmond  wrote:
 List,
 It appears to me that many scientists--although not all by all
means--who have looked into it think that Rupert Sheldrake's
hypothesis of "morphic resonance"  http://www.sheldrake.org/
[2]research/morphic-resonanceis at very least unsupported by
experimental testing of it and, well, even a bit whacko. Sheldrake
would argue in part that much of this negative assessment is the
result of most scientists being intellectually bonded to materialism,
what he also calls 'philosophical materialism'.
 Although several years ago I read some of his books and followed the
experiments then being made in an attempt to prove/disprove his
theory, I haven't much thought about it for some time now. When this
video was posted to the biosemiotics list, however, and intrigued by
the knowledge that this TED talk had been censored, I played the
video, watching it with some considerable interest. 
 For in it Sheldrake offers what he calls "ten dogmas of science" and
references Peirce, suggesting that Peirce's understanding of 'habit'
led Sheldrake to a sense that *this* notion, as Peirce conceived of
it, ought replace that of 'law' (and constants, etc.) in science,
Sheldrake seeing 'law' as an "anthropological metaphor" at best. 
 It seems to me that at least 9 of the "dogmas" he offers (although
not the 9th) are either implicit or explicit in Peirce's work.  
 But as mentioned, I have not followed Sheldrake's work for years;
when doing so I viewed his hypothesis as then not fully supported by
experimental testing of it--although he has argued that those tests
do in fact support his theory--so that I offer this short video as an
opportunity for us to consider (1) whether these 10 are indeed dogmas
of science, and (2) if listers think any of them concur with the
views of Peirce. (I think it would be unwise at this point to get
into a discussion of morphic resonance.) 
 Best,
 Gary R
 - Forwarded message --
 From: Prisca Augustyn 
 Date: Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:56 PM
 Subject: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk
 To: "biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee [3]" < biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee [4]>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg  
   Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK 
www.youtube.com [5]  Re-uploaded as TED have decided to censor Rupert
and remove this video from the TEDx youtube channel. Follow this link
for TED's statement on the matter and Dr ... 
Some of you may enjoy this (formerly banned) TED talk. Sheldrake
questions scientific dogma by foregrounding Peircean habit. 
Prisca Augustyn  Professor Department of Languages, Linguistics &
Comparative Literature Florida Atlantic University 


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]