Obviously, now with the added publicity of having had his TEDx Talk removed and all the controversy this is bringing up, Mr. Sheldrake's book is receiving quite a bit more attention then it had gotten when it was released.

Anyone here read it?

I had it on my kindle as something to get around to, but have recently decided to give it a good read through...

I am interested as to what my colleagues here think of his 10 Dogmas specifically.

I won't cut and paste his work here, but for those who want to see his banned TEDtalk, here is a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

He does a better job of summarizing his book than I ever could.

These are his 10 DOGMAS:


1. Is Nature Mechanical?
2. Is the Total Amount of Matter and Energy Always the Same?
3. Are the Laws of Nature Fixed?
4. Is Matter Unconscious?
5. Is Nature Purposeless?
6. Is All Biological Inheritance Material?
7. Are Memories Stored as Material Traces?
8. Are Minds Confined to Brains?
9. Are Psychic Phenomena Illusory?
10. Is Mechanistic Medicine the Only Kind that Really Works?

Each is a chapter of his book, and he goes into each with his usual aplomb. Whether you agree with everything (or anything) he says is secondary. It would be interesting to simply go over what it is he is actually saying first.

note: In the US, THE SCIENCE DELUSION was released as SCIENCE SET FREE for whatever reason. ;-)

I have not read it but I read some of his other books and I agree with him..though this is not going to be well recieved by many here I assume.

I'll have to check it out. I've long found the scientific community to be quite arrogant in many ways. Good questions to ask for sure.

Oh yeah, I remember hearing about a new Sheldrake book--thanks for reminding me.

Rupert is very well spoken in this video. Soothing balm it is, to hear someone make so much sense. I wonder why ever the TED talk was banned?


EDIT, fine, I'll answer my own question.

Dogmas are rigid beliefs that lead to the cessation of thought. Everyone knows that, right? You'd think that science would welcome Rupert's questions, right? Unless....

"the world view aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very life-blood of the scientific endeavor"

Then again, the talk could have been banned as a stunt to sell books, ch-ching!, for all I know.

Very interesting discussion of the possibility that laws of nature may not be constant, never thought to look at it that way. Nice find.

Jamie did you even listen to the TED talk?

Having not read the book, I can't really comment on it's contents. I will however comment on those 10 topics briefly...

Firstly:
5. Is Nature Purposeless?

No scientist has any evidence to suggest this... Far as I know it has never been proposed let alone published...

4. Is Matter Unconscious?
7. Are Memories Stored as Material Traces?
8. Are Minds Confined to Brains?
9. Are Psychic Phenomena Illusory?

There's no evidence for science to really say anything about this, so again I've never heard a scientific conclusion against these ideas. Do we really know anything about the brain right now? not really... So attacking these points is more like attacking a new field. He has interesting theories in his TED talk but he gives studies in science to back these ideas. So is science dogmatic towards these things? No...

10. Is Mechanistic Medicine the Only Kind that Really Works?

There's plenty of studies about placebo and accupuncture showing it's efficacy, etc...

1. Is Nature Mechanical?

The word mechanical is pretty ugly. It leads someone to think of a plain text clock design. Can we understand some phenomenon in nature from a 'mechanistic' perspective? Yes...

2. Is the Total Amount of Matter and Energy Always the Same?
3. Are the Laws of Nature Fixed?

For number 2 find me one example where thermodynamics has failed... No need to abolish it until again there is some evidence against it.

Are the laws of nature fixed? Hah, again science creates models for understanding. Listening to his TED talk his complaint is "why don't the laws of nature evolve"? Give some context... For example, if something on a cosmic scale occurred, and we were still here to observe it, then sure, things can change. Can the speed of light change, perhaps, can gravitational constant change, maybe. If you can find a way to explain it with good accuracy it would be taken into science in a heart-beat. Again in his TED talk he gives studies in science to back the ideas.

So is science dogmatic towards these things? No...

There just aren't answers to these questions yet... He essentially made a rip on Dawkin's "The God Delusion" lol. It's cool he's bringing up these ideas but at the same time, the title of the book and thread might mislead a person.

Is science dogmatic? No. Science is just a way of thinking and interacting with the world. Are people dogmatic? Yes, probably by nature. This is why I always say, dose scientists.

I read a good chunk of the book a few months ago but became busy and got side tracked with other things.. so the rest is on hold for the moment. As someone who'll have a degree in cognitive science in a few months and is friends with several scientists i thought it was enjoyable and i agreed with a lot of his points. The historical background of many of the 10 dogmas was especially interesting.. I don't think many people realize that some trace back to theological roots. I'll try to remember to post more in this thread when i get around to reading the rest this summer

The scientific method is great...but alas, humans are involved! ^_^ The scientific method does not = science as it is used and thought of in the world and minds of people. People sometimes act as if they are one, get on the defensive, and spiral into endless arguments.

There is a decent amount of closed mindedness and dogma in the system these days- just as with any system that attempts to investigate and explain aspects of reality...and sadly for some its more like a religion than a method of inquiry. Not to mention the large governmental/corporate/industrial influence on it but i wont get into that.. One main thing that bugs me is often i see people conflating skepticism with ignorance. Skepticism is vital, yes. But when confronted with some information that is considered outside of their acceptable paradigm of reality, many people will just wave hand at it in dismissal under the guise of "i'm skeptical", when really the act of dismissing something without even looking into it would be better termed ignorant...

Its pretty ridiculous him and graham hancocks talks got banned from Ted because a few militant reductionist materialist atheist bloggers complained..The irony of removing a talk thats actually labelled "the war on consciousness" and about psychedelics!! lol

Reminds me of this

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -Arthur Schopenhauer

Yea but all he's saying essentially is "here's things science doesn't touch much". As you said uni you will be a cognitive scientist(officially) soon. Will you touch these topics? I hope so.

The reason people don't touch these things much is a pretty simple one. THERE IS NO ANSWER, yet. Are people trying? Bet your ass they are... That's why there are endless arguments. No one has a solid conclusion and if they do it isn't out there yet. It also takes time to adapt to drastic theories, for example people thought Einstien and fehynman were full of hot air. Took a few years for people to understand what they were saying but next thing you know a revolution occurred in the fields.

People assume all scientists are stiff but they don't understand that science is based on evidence. Is our understanding CURRENTLY flawless? No. Not even close. Does it work? Well take a look at some of the recent advances based on the current theories it's beyond mind blowing... Especially considering a decent understanding of say electricity is 100 some odd years old? Imagine what could happen with what will be brought to the table. Maybe we will finally be able to answer some of these questions.

Is it possible that these constants change? Maybe. Bring some evidence and a theory to explain why and it could change the world. Is nature mechanistic? Bring some evidence and a theory to explain why and it could change the world.

TED banning his talk isn't like all the scientists in the world conglomerating to bring him down. It's more like one corporation is interested in maintaining a certain image and audience base. Happens all the time, even on the Alex Jones show I'm certain.

I don't think science or scientists are really to blame. I think it's lazy ignorant people who don't really want to question the things science tells them. In my opinion, it had kinda become the modern religion. Just have faith in it and don't question it.

Nice.

Glad you are all on this wave.

It is a tantalizing provocation, no?

I will go back to my kindle and finish reading his words before I comment on them.

The only real objection I have with Sheldrake's approach (and I still think his talk is worth listening to) is that he generalizes, and his use of the word "dogma" is slightly off. It's not difficult to find scientists who would flat out reject some of those "dogmatic" assumptions in the name of science.

Science is not that monolithic really, particularly when it comes to discussing hard problems. But seems that Sheldrake, among others, is somehow caught in the middle of a war (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett et al. versus certain mystical, philosophical ideas and particularly religious doctrines) that has become necessarily fierce and excessively polarized, and does not favor departing from the hard line. Some materialistic rottweilers will lunge at anyone not lining up with them, and shut down their ears instead of pricking them up as new ideas would deserve. I miss a few Sagans around making criticism more constructive and challenging.

They claim Sheldrake's ideas are not falsifiable, but some of the assumptions made by those critics are not falsifiable either with the tools we have today.

But again, science encompasses a lot of people. Let's not judge it according to the hard liners.

yes.

Personally, I find it INCREDIBLE that things like the speed of light and the gravitational constant might be fluctuating wildly, and that the people we tap to keep track of this stuff have taken it upon themselves to give us averages and means and call them fixed.

I am not in a position to monitor these "constants" myself directly, (obviously), but Sheldrake's idea of a news broadcast that includes the current readings for C and Planck's Constant or whatever, got me a little giddy. I want that app. Yesterday.

I think that science makes certain dogmatic claims. I haven't read the book, but I'm not impressed by the 10 questions he poses. I think that there are much more fundamental questions that be asked, such as "Can conscious perceptions be trusted?" and "Can logic be used to get to truth?". These and many of the questions he poses are philosophical questions. In my experience, scientists are aware that they cannot answer such philosophical questions and they do not try to. From what I can tell, the problem he asserts is not so much the delusion of scientists but is his and others' delusion that science can and should strive to answer philosophical questions.

Regarding questions 2 and 3, my impression is that physicists agree that the laws of universe have changed over time. For example, there are 4 fundamental forces now, but that was not always the case. Otherwise, what does it mean for laws to change over time? If there is some overarching law that governs the changing of subsidiary laws over time, then the law that governs law evolution is still fixed. If the laws of nature change over time, then THAT is a law of nature that does not change over time. Regarding conservation of energy, the physicists I've spoken to on the matter tend to agree that such laws can be violated temporarily, on spacetime scales too small to measure.

It's not a delusion as long as science improves its ways to observe the universe. Some of the philosophical (as in, unanswerable) questions of yesterday have become scientific answers today. We might be able to measure a consciousness field in the future. And that might of course simply expand the border of terra incognita further, but that does not mean we should refrain from asking. It's about finding new questions and/or new ways to take them on.



That's only true if we decide it's observation what collapses the laws. Most people would say that the only difference between now and before is that the 4 fundamental forces had always been there before, but we had not observed them yet. Whether these forces were merged in the distant past (like some aspects of the big bang theory suggest) or have changed, we need new tools to find out - if it's possible at all, but we don't know that either.

Sheldrake has a good reason to attack certain pillars, because our architecture is still primitive and some people are allergic to demolition balls, and we need them.

I guess I just can't tell what he's attacking. The idea that "science" is some sort of big cohesive machine is a misinformed perception of the scientific community, in my opinion. There are no pillars of science; only individual people and individual discoveries that, when put together, tell a story about the nature of reality.

I agree with that and maybe my sentence about pillars not properly expressed. I wanted to imply that certain assumptions are too often accepted as truths by a large part of the population, and both certain media and certain scientists are responsible for that. I have read statements made by famous scientists (Hawking, to mention one) that, even within context, treated as true certain assumptions, or were too pushed by inertia and tradition.

Those pillars that might be there for many people should be challenged, and even if you think Sheldrake's tactics are not be the best ones, he's aiming to a relevant target imo.

I recommend reading the book.

I am not saying his arguments are airtight. That isn't really the point.

But, he does shine a light on some rather threadbare carpet covering some pretty musty holes where most of us expect to find plush new deep pile. Not only are the foundations not level, it turns out that the machines we use to determine if things are level don't work.

There is one point in the video I linked above where he talks about them fixing the speed of light by definition (despite constant fluctuations in its measure) and then going on to define the meter in terms of the speed of light... thus making it impossible for us to know if the speed of light is actually changing anymore. And this after having had no explanation for the drop in the speed of light between 1928 and 1945.

I think people should read the book, if only so that we can discuss the actual points he makes... rather than just treat this like an abstract attack on scientific dogmatism.

Mind you, he is not attacking anyone. He, as a scientist himself, is merely pointing out that the dominant worldview that most of us take for granted is not resting on anything remotely like the solid footing we might hope that it should have.

I should also point out that while there is some overlap between this stuff and philosophy, this is NOT an exercise in pointing out that science can not answer philosophical questions. Not in the least.

[side note: I rather enjoyed the last book from Rupert I read which was a study of dogs who know that their owners are coming home without any conceivable mechanism for this.]

The big point here though, is the idea that a scientist deigns to admit that modern science has become dogmatic without even realizing it... and then he is silenced by an anonymous "scientific board" in an act which succinctly demonstrates his point.

While I do think the controversy will help Dr. Sheldrake sell books, this was not a publicity stunt. Chris Anderson of TED has spoken volumes about his reasoning in censoring not only Sheldrake, Graham Hancock, and the other more "known" of the banned TED Talkers... but also people like comedienne Sarah Silverman, Eddie Huang, and the entire TEDx West Hollywood which will take place tomorrow as EX TEDx West Hollywood because TED doesn't want to sully their "brand" with controversial speakers and their oh-so hazardous ideas.

I think some are really misunderstanding what this book is about. He's not generalizing and saying all scientists are dogmatic and stiff or anything like that. He doesn't hate science, or scientists, or think its all bollocks and useless...hes a scientist who actually loves it. He's just investigating 10 assumptions (formatted as questions in the book) that are frequently held in the minds of people and scientists which are often taken as being a given, and showing that the scientific evidence supporting these assumptions is not as rock solid as many people believe.

i repeat: he is not attacking ALL THAT IS SCIENCE. lol. Just investigating some assumptions that many people take as being a given. Thats all

"Firstly:
5. Is Nature Purposeless?

No scientist has any evidence to suggest this... "

Really? Inmo, i think we all know countless people and scientists who would subscribe to this belief- along with many if not all of the other 10 assumptions- and cite science as their reason. Sure its not often seen as the topic of a scientific publication in a journal, but thats not the point man.

I know universecannon that he is not attacking science lol. He is a research scientist or was his entire life he said. A lot of people don't seem to be getting that though.

UC, like you said, it's a belief not a scientific theory or even really related to science. No one get's all up in a nihilists buisiness about those ideas though, or calls nihilists dogmatic, etc. Science says nothing about the purpose of anything. It shows applications for things, potential applications of things, what things were shown to not work, models for things, discoveries, etc. It can explain the utility of an organ in a body however when there is a context. Or the role a catalyst plays in a reaction. A purpose beyond the scope of a proven(no proof in science actually... only evidence to suggest something occurs) application is a belief though. If a scientist holds such a belief its not science's bias, it's the persons belief.

A scientist may be more inclined to hold such a belief because of their training. I mean after you dissect so many things and have a working understanding of how a lot of things 'go down' a person might feel more inclined in the belief that science can describe the universe and that a "purpose" is not needed for things to exist. Reiterated though, that's not science, that's a belief a scientist may uphold however.