Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
What you say seems rational. I just moderate the par on talking to funders, seems outspokend people like Kelvin have no problem of funding... they were, like many, locked in their conservatism... by the way, as a foreign english speaker, could you say what does mean outspoken, as you use it, as Charles Beaudette use in his book... It seems to be a little a critic for you and Beaudette, like people who talk loud and capture the apparent opinion with their critics, insults... like grande gueule in French. loudmouth. My dear Indonesian translator told me it was in a fact more positive, like someone who dare to clearly state what he consider as a problem, not chatting, but stating without politically correct self-censorship... like franc-parler in french... straight, frankly speaking. maybe our outspoken physicists are simply sincerely deluded conservative without enough imagination compared to their ego. 2014/1/10 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist, my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a love for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality, serendipity, anomalies, they refuse to accept it. I like teleology. But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science. for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of something that should not exist, you should... IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory. I think it can be a little hard to decipher the behavior of scientists with regard to a new discovery. If the discovery is benign and falls under Kuhn's normal science, there's not much to the matter and there is no controversy. With discoveries that do not fall under normal science, perhaps there are three groups of scientists, classified by their reaction to the anomaly under investigation: - Scientists who take a passive or fleeting interest in it, and are open to chalking it up to something we don't understand yet, whether they are optimistic or skeptical. They may even have something of an opinion, but they reserve the option to change their mind. Meanwhile they're busy doing other things and are happy to let other people worry about it. (Perhaps the vast majority.) - Scientists who take an active interest in the anomaly and champion further research (a small minority). - Scientists who are outspoken in their criticism of the science giving rise to the anomaly (a small minority). The behavior of the last group can be the most challenging to understand, and it is easy to misinterpret. In their criticisms they seem to be addressing the scientists who have produced the anomaly and the hobbyists who follow it on message boards and mailing lists. In fact, they are more likely to be addressing potential funders who might be listening in on the conversation. In years of tight budgets, perhaps they do not want to see part of the limited funding going to their research diverted to the deluded group that is inveigling people with the alleged anomaly. The takeaway here is that it seems like they are arguing that the science is bad, but this is only a half-hearted effort. Really what has happened is that they knew all along that the science was bad and they just don't want the funders to waste their attention and limited analytical ability on the matter, because they could end up confusing themselves and extravagantly spending money on the wrong thing. Who can blame the funders for being liable to confusion? They did not study the science involved for years and years and acquire the crucial insights. You have to protect them from themselves, and that might mean taking a little bit of a roundabout approach and revealing little snippets here and there about why the science is bad. But this type of demonstration would neither stand up to the scrutiny of one's peers, nor is it expected to. It is polemics. In other contexts and on other topics, these people, or some of these people at any rate, are capable of dropping the whole psuedosceptic tack and providing a solid, scientific argument. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
To give an example of what might be an ignored anomoly In the last few years Konovalov in mosow has published papers that appear to show that when you do serial dilultion of certain solutes then structures persist in the water that can be seen in the water (and therfore might be the basis for some homeopathy like effects). He uses DLS to do the measurements, and when I spoke some people who work on DLS they told me they occasionally see much the same thing and assume that it means that impurities have got into the water, so will restart the experiment. Nigel On 10/01/2014 05:36, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist, my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a love for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality, serendipity, anomalies, they refuse to accept it. I like teleology. But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science. for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of something that should not exist, you should... IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory. I think it can be a little hard to decipher the behavior of scientists with regard to a new discovery. If the discovery is benign and falls under Kuhn's normal science, there's not much to the matter and there is no controversy. With discoveries that do not fall under normal science, perhaps there are three groups of scientists, classified by their reaction to the anomaly under investigation: * Scientists who take a passive or fleeting interest in it, and are open to chalking it up to something we don't understand yet, whether they are optimistic or skeptical. They may even have something of an opinion, but they reserve the option to change their mind. Meanwhile they're busy doing other things and are happy to let other people worry about it. (Perhaps the vast majority.) * Scientists who take an active interest in the anomaly and champion further research (a small minority). * Scientists who are outspoken in their criticism of the science giving rise to the anomaly (a small minority). The behavior of the last group can be the most challenging to understand, and it is easy to misinterpret. In their criticisms they seem to be addressing the scientists who have produced the anomaly and the hobbyists who follow it on message boards and mailing lists. In fact, they are more likely to be addressing potential funders who might be listening in on the conversation. In years of tight budgets, perhaps they do not want to see part of the limited funding going to their research diverted to the deluded group that is inveigling people with the alleged anomaly. The takeaway here is that it seems like they are arguing that the science is bad, but this is only a half-hearted effort. Really what has happened is that they knew all along that the science was bad and they just don't want the funders to waste their attention and limited analytical ability on the matter, because they could end up confusing themselves and extravagantly spending money on the wrong thing. Who can blame the funders for being liable to confusion? They did not study the science involved for years and years and acquire the crucial insights. You have to protect them from themselves, and that might mean taking a little bit of a roundabout approach and revealing little snippets here and there about why the science is bad. But this type of demonstration would neither stand up to the scrutiny of one's peers, nor is it expected to. It is polemics. In other contexts and on other topics, these people, or some of these people at any rate, are capable of dropping the whole psuedosceptic tack and providing a solid, scientific argument. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: by the way, as a foreign english speaker, could you say what does mean outspoken, as you use it, as Charles Beaudette use in his book... Outspoken has mildly negative connotations. It vaguely suggests that one is a little bit of a boor about something, or that one has a vendetta. I don't recall having heard outspoken used in a positive context. It does not imply that a person is wrong about something, though. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
*I like teleology. But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science.* I think its a misconception that teleology and science are mutually exclusive. I think Nagel in Mind and Cosmos, amongst others, makes a convincing argument for this. The neo-Darwinian and Newtonian conception of how we got here and our natures are inaccurate and myopic to an extreme degree. When we actually look at the evidence there very little evidence for random process, especially when we contemplate deeply the meaning of non-linear chaos and open system dynamics. This is not to say we're deterministic robots, certainly free will coexists along side it as an equal partner, but nature does tend to have a arrow of evolution. As flow accelerates (both cosmic and earthbound), nature is always attempting to harmonize those flows into cycles and reach higher and higher levels of cooperation between those flows. That is the deterministic aspect (and arguably the teleological aspect at base level). What happens within those flows, and the interactions between them, is where free will enters the picture. There are no easy answers to these questions however. Regards, John On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: by the way, as a foreign english speaker, could you say what does mean outspoken, as you use it, as Charles Beaudette use in his book... Outspoken has mildly negative connotations. It vaguely suggests that one is a little bit of a boor about something, or that one has a vendetta. I don't recall having heard outspoken used in a positive context. It does not imply that a person is wrong about something, though. Eric
RE: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
Sir William Crookes also showed non-physical like events under strict scientific protocols: http://www.atisma.com/spiritart/crookes.htm Wow, it just occurred to me that Rossi's secret ingredient surely is Ectoplasm. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US From: leaking pen [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 6:59 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted Heh i've been playing around with that idea since reading a book on chemical memories when I was 12. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand. Nigel On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote: ... The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism by Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Free http://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927 ... Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole Experiment http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/scole.htm (see near end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program). Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of scientific materialism persuasion (if he ever was)! --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
good remarks. Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist, my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a love for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality, serendipity, anomalies, they refuse to accept it. for me scientists are not enough materialist, which may force them to admit black magic effects if experiments were showing it... discussing on a blog with a skeptic he moaned about SRI that it was not the Stanford academics, and that when facing a famous magician (huri geller?) the (bad experimentators but real ) scientists concluded from a sucessful experiment that they should study more... Of course they made mistakes in protecting from that smart artist and were ridiculed. for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of something that should not exist, you should... IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory. of course, the risk when accepting evidence, is that if the evidence is wrongly made, and the theory is right, you may study something unreal... It happen most of the time when you find an anomaly... not always. for me that is the game. Science is taking the risk to make experimental error, to trust evidences, but verify. and as engineer, I know we learn much from errors. 2014/1/8 Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com *My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand.* Well I would say many of the ideas will still remain in the non-materialist realm because the core of materialism is A) direct measurement, and B) isolated atomism. So while the newly unveiled science will still have a material (3 Dimensional) aspect, it will draw much more heavily on A) indirect measurement, and B) interconnected field theory. And of course as we dig down deeper and deeper into the quantum realm the whole notion of material entities begins to lose its coherence because nothing more than smeared quantum waves exist that obey all manner of bizarre rules contrary to our experience. Also the whole non-materialist notion is inlaid with the idea of teleology and meaning, while materialism is all about random chance and serendipity. So you're right that materialism will not disappear, but our understanding of how the world works and our place in it will be totally reworked (similar to the transition from medieval to renaissance thinking). Regards, John On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand. Nigel On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote: ... The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Freehttp://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927 ... Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole Experiment http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/scole.htm (see near end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program). Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of scientific materialism persuasion (if he ever was)!
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist, my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a love for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality, serendipity, anomalies, they refuse to accept it. I like teleology. But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science. for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of something that should not exist, you should... IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory. I think it can be a little hard to decipher the behavior of scientists with regard to a new discovery. If the discovery is benign and falls under Kuhn's normal science, there's not much to the matter and there is no controversy. With discoveries that do not fall under normal science, perhaps there are three groups of scientists, classified by their reaction to the anomaly under investigation: - Scientists who take a passive or fleeting interest in it, and are open to chalking it up to something we don't understand yet, whether they are optimistic or skeptical. They may even have something of an opinion, but they reserve the option to change their mind. Meanwhile they're busy doing other things and are happy to let other people worry about it. (Perhaps the vast majority.) - Scientists who take an active interest in the anomaly and champion further research (a small minority). - Scientists who are outspoken in their criticism of the science giving rise to the anomaly (a small minority). The behavior of the last group can be the most challenging to understand, and it is easy to misinterpret. In their criticisms they seem to be addressing the scientists who have produced the anomaly and the hobbyists who follow it on message boards and mailing lists. In fact, they are more likely to be addressing potential funders who might be listening in on the conversation. In years of tight budgets, perhaps they do not want to see part of the limited funding going to their research diverted to the deluded group that is inveigling people with the alleged anomaly. The takeaway here is that it seems like they are arguing that the science is bad, but this is only a half-hearted effort. Really what has happened is that they knew all along that the science was bad and they just don't want the funders to waste their attention and limited analytical ability on the matter, because they could end up confusing themselves and extravagantly spending money on the wrong thing. Who can blame the funders for being liable to confusion? They did not study the science involved for years and years and acquire the crucial insights. You have to protect them from themselves, and that might mean taking a little bit of a roundabout approach and revealing little snippets here and there about why the science is bad. But this type of demonstration would neither stand up to the scrutiny of one's peers, nor is it expected to. It is polemics. In other contexts and on other topics, these people, or some of these people at any rate, are capable of dropping the whole psuedosceptic tack and providing a solid, scientific argument. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand. Nigel On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote: ... The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Free http://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927 ... Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole Experiment http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/scole.htm (see near end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program). Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of scientific materialism persuasion (if he ever was)!
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
*My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand.* Well I would say many of the ideas will still remain in the non-materialist realm because the core of materialism is A) direct measurement, and B) isolated atomism. So while the newly unveiled science will still have a material (3 Dimensional) aspect, it will draw much more heavily on A) indirect measurement, and B) interconnected field theory. And of course as we dig down deeper and deeper into the quantum realm the whole notion of material entities begins to lose its coherence because nothing more than smeared quantum waves exist that obey all manner of bizarre rules contrary to our experience. Also the whole non-materialist notion is inlaid with the idea of teleology and meaning, while materialism is all about random chance and serendipity. So you're right that materialism will not disappear, but our understanding of how the world works and our place in it will be totally reworked (similar to the transition from medieval to renaissance thinking). Regards, John On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand. Nigel On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote: ... The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Freehttp://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927 ... Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole Experiment http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/scole.htm (see near end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program). Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of scientific materialism persuasion (if he ever was)!
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
On 8/01/2014 5:26 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand. It is hard to imagine how a glowing disembodied hand, which floats over and taps you on the shoulder when you ask it to, could ever turn out to be classed as materialist!
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
I think this video sums it up...:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY#t=58 On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:09 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 8/01/2014 5:26 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand. It is hard to imagine how a glowing disembodied hand, which floats over and taps you on the shoulder when you ask it to, could ever turn out to be classed as materialist!
RE: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au Nigel Dyer wrote: My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand. It is hard to imagine how a glowing disembodied hand, which floats over and taps you on the shoulder when you ask it to, could ever turn out to be classed as materialist! . what about wave-particle duality? The glow is photonic, photons are waves but wave-particle duality implies that there is physical aspect. that is, if you buy into complementarity . .not to mention, as skeptics will surely do - if the hand is a hologram there is probably a laser somewhere. The major disagreement between Sheldrake and Dawkins often boils down to what can be called degrees of randomness . the implication being that nothing is truly random within a complex system - and like Maxwell's demon, order can arise from disorder to the degree that information nudges natural uncertainty in a goal-oriented way.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
Heh i've been playing around with that idea since reading a book on chemical memories when I was 12. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the science that we already understand. Nigel On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote: ... The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Freehttp://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927 ... Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole Experiment http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/scole.htm (see near end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program). Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of scientific materialism persuasion (if he ever was)!
Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted
On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote: ... The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Free http://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927 ... Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole Experiment http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/scole.htm (see near end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program). Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of scientific materialism persuasion (if he ever was)!
