The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Rupert Sheldrake's recent talk on TED wich was banned from them- The Science Delusion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
 

psychegram

Jedi Council Member
It seems there are now two books with the title "The Science Delusion". An interview with the author of the new book, Curtis white, is posted here:

_http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/19/big-science-little-minds/

It's quite interesting, and seems to be a critique not of science per se, but of Big Science, of science that has lost its way and become merely a method for protecting and extending the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful (via weapons development, social regimentation, etc.), rather than a means of shedding light on truth.

Reading it, I was reminded of this passage from the most recent (23 Mar 2013) transcript:

A: Yes. But scientists have been blinded by being led by the blind!

Q: (L) Hmm. So you say, "Scientists have been blinded by being led by the blind." Do you mean that...

A: When science is used for killing they have lost their honor and their way. Remember the parable of the talents. The man who was afraid and hid and hoarded? Then when the master came he was cast into darkness with the weepers and wailers. Thus shall it be yet again.
 

SMM

The Living Force
Approaching Infinity said:
mkrnhr said:
Just watched two recent videos by Rupert Sheldrake in which he discusses the subject of consciousness. He cites an interresting philosophical approach called "panpsychism" (_http://consc.net/online/1/all#panpsychism) where the whole universe (humans, animals, stars, etc. express different aspects of consciousness).
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4&feature=youtu.be
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Seems that leaving the trap of materialism leads to interresting points of view :)

Edit: He also cites a book that might be worth reading: "Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" by Thomas Nagel: _http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-ebook/dp/B008SQL6NS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1359090769&sr=8-2&keywords=mind+and+cosmos
David Ray Griffin discusses panpsychism in his latest book on Whitehead, which is where I first encountered the word. He makes some interesting connections, pointing out that the panpsychic worldview was pretty much stamped out in the fight between Christianity and atheistic materialism, both of which are highly flawed philosophies.
I caught the two part "Science Set Free" videos this morning - very interesting!
 

Possibility of Being

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
There is a new book by Craig Weiler just published that talks, e.o., about Sheldrake's misadventure with TEDx:

Psi Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet (Amazon link here)

Amazon said:
In journalistic fashion, Craig Weiler relates what began as a seemingly harmless attempt to make sure that TED talk videos maintained a high standard and how this exploded into a wild scientific controversy. When the nonprofit company took down one of their YouTube videos by scientist Rupert Sheldrake, who had given a speech on the philosophy of science, they ignited a fierce discussion that eventually grew to include hundreds of people spanning the globe. For a while, ordinary folks, distinguished scientists, Internet trolls and even a Nobel Prize winning physicist all got together to hash out the greatest scientific controversy . . . ever. What is reality? The controversy pitted an assortment of bloggers, scientists, futurists, philosophers and other intellectuals against TED and a small army of reactionaries, desperate to keep new scientific ideas out of the mainstream. This book explores the basis for the controversy and why so many intellectuals support major changes in scientific thinking. The book also explores the question: What's up with these science reactionaries? It also examines the people and the organizations who lobby the mainstream media, universities, and scientific organizations, and who work together to bend Wikipedia to their point of view. The controversy over the nature of reality has a profound effect on our society. Chances are that some of the science you read about in Wikipedia, and popular magazines and newspapers, has been altered to reflect the views of these skeptic reactionaries who have organized to "protect" you from "crazy" ideas.
Sheldrake's and Handcock's talks were removed from TEDx YouTube channel. There was also a big event originally licensed by TEDx called “Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm?” with many speakers, physicists included, and the license was taken back shortly before the scheduled date.

Those interested in the topic can read about the 'controversy" on TED's blog:

Open for discussion: Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake from TEDxWhitechapel
_http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/
(with Sheldrake's response and a link to a summary called "a fresh take")

and on Weiler's blog:

TED Not Satisfied With Current Censorship: TEDxWestHollywood is Taken Down
_http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/ted-not-satisfied-with-current-censorship-tedxwesthollywood-is-taken-down/

A little gem from TEDx organizer's email:
We’re not saying all the speakers are off-base. Perhaps you could make a case for each of them individually. But when we look at the program as a whole, it’s clear that it doesn’t meet our guidelines.
The Psi Wars Come To TED
_http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-psi-wars-come-to-ted/

The Big TED Controversy of 2013
_http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/the-big-ted-controversy-of-2013-part-1/
_http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/the-big-ted-controversy-of-2013-part-2/
 

mb

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Morphogenetic fields visualized?

Of course the researcher thinks this is great because of the potential to develop new patentable, profitable drugs, but I am fascinated by the possibility of electrical gradients serving to guide gene expression. Watch the sequence starting at 0:34 in the video below.

http://youtu.be/ndFe5CaDTlI
 

Possibility of Being

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The battle continues. From the latest Sheldrake's newsletter:

From Rupert Sheldrake
London, March 20, 2014:
The Spring Equinox.

... A group in New York, led by Paul Revis, is planning a protest meeting at TED headquarters in New York City on April 2. This is the anniversary of the date on which TED removed my TEDx talk, along with that of Graham Hancock, from their main web site, under pressure from some militant atheists. I only heard about this protest movement a month ago, and have never met the organizers. You can read about the protest here: Set Science Free

They are also organizing a petition, which can be signed on their Set Science Free web site. This petition is limited to signatories with a PhD or MD degree. Those who have signed already include a Nobel laureate. If you have a PhD or MD and would like to sign, please do so. The petition asks TED to do the following:

1. Reinstate Rupert Sheldrake's Talk "The Science Delusion" into the main database of searchable talks on TED.com

2. Publish the names of all members of TED's anonymous scientific board.

TED, we agree with your mission and we advocate open access of ideas. We simply ask that you put your own principles to practice in your distribution of information.
The editing war on my Wikipedia biography page has given rise to a new web site called "Wikipedia, We Have a Problem," which documents what has been happening: Wikipedia, We Have a Problem The tireless and well-trained group of militant Skeptics who have taken control of my biography page, together with their allies among Wikipedia administrators, have banned editor after editor who has tried to restore a fair and balanced portrayal of my work. You can see the blow-by-blow process by going to the "Talk" pages, accessed through the Talk button at the top left of the Wikipedia entry on me. There are now 19 files of archived arguments, plus many other pages on Wikipedia discussing this. In one of the more amusing sections, an editor called The Cap'n has written some spoof works of fiction about the activities of the militant Skeptics: Militant Skeptics In the last few months, the militant Skeptics have been capturing increasing numbers of pages in Wikipedia, shaping them to reflect their very limited point of view, which is essentially that of scientific fundamentalism.

We are undoubtedly in a period of great change, which is why these conflicts are becoming increasingly intense. Meanwhile, there is a serious shift going on within the scientific world, a new mood of doubt and questioning, the like of which I have never seen before. There have been several recent press reports about it. For example a major article in Forbes magazine highlights the fact that "Scientists themselves are becoming increasingly concerned about the unreliability - that is, the lack of reproducibility - of many experimental or observational results." http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/01/08/the-trouble-with-scientific-research-today-a-lot-thats-published-is-junk/ And an article in the New York Times, entitled "Scientific Pride and Prejudice" begins, "Science is in crisis, just when we need it most". New York Times (http://jc.emlnk1.com/lt.php?s=8560329c497bc7c6cbdc9a2a0c037f71&i=77A97A2A1144)
...
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Possibility of Being said:
The battle continues. From the latest Sheldrake's newsletter:

The editing war on my Wikipedia biography page has given rise to a new web site called "Wikipedia, We Have a Problem," which documents what has been happening: Wikipedia, We Have a Problem The tireless and well-trained group of militant Skeptics who have taken control of my biography page, together with their allies among Wikipedia administrators, have banned editor after editor who has tried to restore a fair and balanced portrayal of my work.
Thanks for sharing. The link "Wikipedia, We have a Problem" was very sad to read, given that Wikipedia, as a resource for millions, is ripe as a tool to steer people away from any given subject's objectivity with conscious disinformation.

I read a type of environmental manifesto the other night on how to deal with global warming deniers, how to help them to see - it was so pitiful.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
If you scroll down on this page (_http://www.ctr4process.org/media/), or find "Conversations with Rupert Sheldrake" using the 'find' function on your browser, you can watch a series of talks Sheldrake gave at the Center for Process Studies, on topics in The Science Delusion. I just watched the one on causation (which deals with precognition/presentiment/retrocausation, direct link here: _http://videocenter.cst.edu/videos/video/424/in/channel/50/), in which Sheldrake gives his thoughts, David Ray Griffin responds, and they end by not quite agreeing. ;) Not sure what to think of it all yet (what's the nature of time? does the 'future' literally exist, or only as a possibility grounded in the present? can the past be changed, or only the present, to reflect a change 'as if' it occurred in the past?), but it's interesting food for thought!
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
FWIW, R. Sheldrake coauthored a "Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science" in The Journal of Science and Healing (edited by Elsevier), which is quite a peculiar journal nevertheless. The Manifesto can be read here: _http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307%2814%2900116-5/pdf

The introduction of the text reads

From its inception, science has continually evolved because of a fundamental reason: the accumulation of empirical evidence that could not be accommodated by entrenched views. The resulting changes have often been minor, but sometimes they have been titanic, as in the quantum-relativistic revolution of the early decades of the 20th century. Many scientists believe a similar transition is currently required, because the materialistic focus that has dominated science in the modern era cannot account for an ever-increasing body of empirical findings in the domain of consciousness and spirituality. The following Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science by a group of contemporary scholars and researchers attempts to visualize what an emerging scientific view may look like.
 

Palinurus

The Living Force
Thanks for sharing, mkrnhr.

I've just read it and I think it's enough in line with the FOTCM Statement of Principles to consider adding this to it as a reference, an annex or an addendum.

Just a thought, fwiw.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
mkrnhr said:
FWIW, R. Sheldrake coauthored a "Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science" in The Journal of Science and Healing (edited by Elsevier), which is quite a peculiar journal nevertheless. The Manifesto can be read here: _http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307%2814%2900116-5/pdf
Yes, thank you for this also.
 
Top Bottom