The Science Delusion?

Barr125

Has anyone read this book? I saw it in the Science and was originally intrigued but upon research online, found out that the author is not that recognized and purports that science assumes that all of reality and nature is understood (I don't for a second believe this, otherwise no further science would ever be conducted.)

Has anyone else seen/read this? What are your thoughts? :pac:

DrumSteve

Thoughts? The author is speaking codswallop.

Barr125

DrumSteve wrote: »

Thoughts? The author is speaking codswallop.

Like I said, I haven't read it so I didn't want to judge it. Based on the author's background however...........

Barr125

Barr125 wrote: »

Like I said, I haven't read it so I didn't want to judge it. Based on the author's background however...........

The author is a crank who is butthurt about real scientists not taking his nonsense seriously.
It works on the completely false and laughable strawman that scientists claim that they have discovered everything etc, misrepresents gaps in our current knowledge (being unaware of this irony of course) and uses this to make the argument that because of these things, magic exists. (And no doubt tons of shots at mean old skeptics who challenged him on his bull****.)

I got all of this from just reading the blurb on the back and knowing the "work" of the author.

Also the title is a very classy move indeed :rolleyes:

MagicMarker

Bear in mind he's the guy who also wrote about psychic dogs. But my personal favourite book title of his is "The Physics of Angels"...

Yup.

equivariant

MagicMarker wrote: »

Bear in mind he's the guy who also wrote about psychic dogs. But my personal favourite book title of his is "The Physics of Angels"...

Yup.

I couldn't resist clicking on the amazon link there - the book description is hilarious

DB21

Why do these people get publishing deals? It makes me sad that their misinformation can be spread

MagicMarker

DB21 wrote: »

Why do these people get publishing deals? It makes me sad that their misinformation can be spread

Because there are morons who will buy them unfortunately.

Zillah

MagicMarker wrote: »

Bear in mind he's the guy who also wrote about psychic dogs. But my personal favourite book title of his is "The Physics of Angels"...

Yup.

Those reviews are most amusing.

nagirrac

Barr125 wrote: »

Has anyone read this book? I saw it in the Science and was originally intrigued but upon research online, found out that the author is not that recognized and purports that science assumes that all of reality and nature is understood (I don't for a second believe this, otherwise no further science would ever be conducted.)

Has anyone else seen/read this? What are your thoughts? :pac:

Unlike the previous responses I have actually read the book so can give a response based on something other than ranting based on ignorance.

Sheldrake is indeed a maverick but science has many mavericks, Galileo was a maverick in his day. However, he is also a wonderful clear writer and whether you choose to believe any of his hypotheses or not I assure you, if you have an open mind, you will enjoy the book and it will give you lots of ideas to ponder. I would actually recommend reading the God Delusion and this book for an interesting contrast.

If you look at his biography on line you will see he was a very distinguished scientist before heading for the fringes. Unlike a lot of scientists who never leave acedemia, he worked for over 15 years mainly in India on agriculture research. His work led to the development of cropping techniques that greatly improved the ability to farm in semi-arid areas.

A scientist who devoted much of his working life to actually helping the quality of life for people is of course not to be taken seriously.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

A scientist who devoted much of his working life to actually helping the quality of life for people is of course not to be taken seriously.

I fail to see the relevance. Should he be taken more seriously because he helped people?

nagirrac

DB21 wrote: »

Why do these people get publishing deals? It makes me sad that their misinformation can be spread

Have you read the book?

Zillah

nagirrac wrote: »

Sheldrake is indeed a maverick but science has many mavericks, Galileo was a maverick in his day.

Galileo clashed with the church by proposing ideas based on evidence and observation that contradicted their baseless nonsense. Sheldrake advocates baseless nonsense. The comparison is absurd. One, I suspect, carefully nurtured by the man himself. This is the equivalent of someone attacking modern theories based on the contention that science once believed the world has flat (no it didn't).

MagicMarker

Zillah wrote: »

Galileo clashed with the church by proposing ideas based on evidence and observation that contradicted their baseless nonsense. Sheldrake advocates baseless nonsense. The comparison is absurd. One, I suspect, carefully nurtured by the man himself. This is the equivalent of someone attacking modern theories based on the contention that science once believed the world has flat (no it didn't).

Taken from a review of "The Physics of Angels"....

This was a Very thought provoking book, but I would not expect anything less from Sheldrake and Fox. I highly recommend reading other books by both of these men. They are both "fringe" thinkers but so was Galileo.

Hmmmm...

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance. Should he be taken more seriously because he helped people?

Why would I eneter into discussion with someone who called me a "moron"?

As usual on A&A as long as one is toeing the atheist party line one can get away with any kind of personal insult, but the mods are pretty quick to crack the whip when a dissenting voice gets personal.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

If you look at his biography on line you will see he was a very distinguished scientist before heading for the fringes. Unlike a lot of scientists who never leave acedemia, he worked for over 15 years mainly in India on agriculture research. His work led to the development of cropping techniques that greatly improved the ability to farm in semi-arid areas.

A scientist who devoted much of his working life to actually helping the quality of life for people is of course not to be taken seriously.

This has no baring on the quality of his work or his theories. It is a clearly silly and fallacious argument. One a real scientist, or scientifically minded person, or an honest persona would neither use or accept as convincing....

Dades

nagirrac wrote: »

Why would I eneter into discussion with someone who called me a "moron"?

As usual on A&A as long as one is toeing the atheist party line one can get away with any kind of personal insult, but the mods are pretty quick to crack the whip when a dissenting voice gets personal.

WTF?

Are you saying because MM said morons buy the book, and you subsequently said you read it that I should infract him? Get a grip.

If there's a decent argument he makes for something in the book, post it.

nagirrac

Zillah wrote: »

Galileo clashed with the church by proposing ideas based on evidence and observation that contradicted their baseless nonsense. Sheldrake advocates baseless nonsense. The comparison is absurd. One, I suspect, carefully nurtured by the man himself. This is the equivalent of someone attacking modern theories based on the contention that science once believed the world has flat (no it didn't).

Absolute hogwash, learn a little about scientific history. The geocentric model was the standard model in all cultures, not just the church, up until the 17th century based on evidence there was at the time. The telescope was not invented until 1609 which allowed measurements to overturn the geocentric model. This is how science works, new discoveries allow us examine the universe in ways we had not previously been able to.

Galileo was a genius and his work led to the greatest breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe at the time. However, he was a maverick in his day because his proposals contradicted the standard model. Like all shifts in scientific thought it took a lot of convincing to overturn an established model with a new one.

nagirrac

Dades wrote: »

WTF?

Are you saying because MM said morons buy the book, and you subsequently said you read it that I should infract him? Get a grip.

If there's a decent argument he makes for something in the book, post it.

Fine, I think all people who give a negative review on a book they have not read are morons.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Galileo was a genius and his work led to the greatest breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe at the time. However, he was a maverick in his day because his proposals contradicted the standard model. Like all shifts in scientific thought it took a lot of convincing to overturn an established model with a new one.

<cough> Galileo wasn't the one who proposed it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

And people were convinced by evidence, experiment, theory and prediction. All of which Sheldrake's brain farts lacks and likely does not understand.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

Fine, I think all people who give a negative review on a book they have not read are morons.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

This has no baring on the quality of his work or his theories. It is a clearly silly and fallacious argument. One a real scientist, or scientifically minded person, or an honest persona would neither use or accept as convincing....

I am talking about the quality of his work. His work led to the improvement in the quality of life for a large population of people. What better measure of a scientist than one who actually contributes to the betterment of society.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

I am talking about the quality of his work. His work led to the improvement in the quality of life for a large population of people. What better measure of a scientist than one who actually contributes to the betterment of society.

Again, relevance?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

<cough> Galileo wasn't the one who proposed it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

And people were convinced by evidence, experiment, theory and prediction. All of which Sheldrake's brain farts lacks and likely does not understand.

Yes, but it was not until the invention of the telescope and Galileo that Copernicus' proposal could be validated. Up to that point the geocentric model was the accepted model as there was no compelling evidence to contradict it.

Zillah

nagirrac wrote: »

What better measure of a scientist than one who actually contributes to the betterment of society.

One who does good science?

Honestly, just look up morphic resonance and it's clear the man is loopers.

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

Again, relevance?

The relevance is that scientists who spend many years of their career actually in the environment working on real world problems generally are interesting to listen to. My point to the OP is that the book is thought provoking and interesting. I can give you a quick summary of one of the chapters if you are interested.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

I am talking about the quality of his work. His work led to the improvement in the quality of life for a large population of people. What better measure of a scientist than one who actually contributes to the betterment of society.

The quality of the work. The quality of his pseudo-science work is worse than poor.
What he did otherwise is irrelevant. You trying to shoe horn it in is a fallacy.
And a fallacy that you either know it one, thus are being dishonest, or you don't know is one and you aren't as educated as you are pretending to be.

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, but it was not until the invention of the telescope and Galileo that Copernicus' proposal could be validated.

Yet, had we taken your original rant people might have been mistaken into thinking that you believed that Galileo did all of the work and made up the model by himself....

nagirrac wrote: »

Up to that point the geocentric model was the accepted model as there was no compelling evidence to contradict it.

Except for the evidence that Copernicus and numerous others used to form their theories. Unlike sheldrake and his ilk, these and other real scientists don't just pluck theories out of the air and then cling to any evidence for it....

nagirrac

Zillah wrote: »

One who does good science?

Honestly, just look up morphic resonance and it's clear the man is loopers.

Good science is not putting your expertize to work to improve the lives of society? Then what is good science?

Why would I need to look up morphic resonance? I am the one who has read Sheldrake and you have not. If you want to actually learn something about the idea I can summarize it for you.

Zillah

nagirrac wrote: »

Good science is not putting your expertize to work to improve the lives of society? Then what is good science?

One who is good at engaging in the scientific process: Designing experiments, accurately testing hypotheses, accepting when the evidence does not support one's hypothesis etc.

Using science to improve lives means you're a good person, not a good scientist.

Why would I need to look up morphic resonance? I am the one who has read Sheldrake and you have not. If you want to actually learn something about the idea I can summarize it for you.

Ok, go on then.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Except for the evidence that Copernicus and numerous others used to form their theories. Unlike sheldrake and his ilk, these and other real scientists don't just pluck theories out of the air and then cling to any evidence for it....

The point, which you continue to miss, is the Ptolemic system was the standard model until the invention of the telescope whcih allowed Copernicus' theory to be validated. Of course there were lots of theories about the nature of the universe then just as there are now, in the endless scientific quest to understand our universe better.

There is lots of evidence to support Sheldrake's theories and other scientists you and others mock such as Dean Radin. Sceptics continue to ignore it as it does not fit with their world view. However the ongoing evidence suggests the more we study the universe the stranger it becomes. The advancement of science benefits from an open mind, the one's doing the clinging are those stuck in materialistic dogmatism such as yourself.

nagirrac

And the ranting instead of addressing points begins.
You're being paid by the word and more words don't make a better argument.

nagirrac wrote: »

The point, which you continue to miss, is the Ptolemic system was the standard model until the invention of the telescope whcih allowed Copernicus' theory to be validated. Of course there were lots of theories about the nature of the universe then just as there are now, in the endless scientific quest to understand our universe better.

And this isn't what your original claim that Galileo was a scientific maverick sounded like.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is lots of evidence to support Sheldrake's theories and other scientists you and others mock such as Dean Radin. Sceptics continue to ignore it as it does not fit with their world view. However the ongoing evidence suggests the more we study the universe the stranger it becomes. The advancement of science benefits from an open mind, the one's doing the clinging are those stuck in materialistic dogmatism such as yourself.

No there isn't any evidence, there's just bull**** and bad arguments that you've swallowed without crictical thought and then defend using tactics you know are dishonest.

Just because they style themselves as "mavericks" it doesn't make them right.
It does make for good marketing for the gullible though.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Sheldrake is indeed a maverick but science has many mavericks, Galileo was a maverick in his day.

He was also right, and could demonstrate that he was right, something you consistently fail to consider all that relevant to science.

nagirrac wrote: »

A scientist who devoted much of his working life to actually helping the quality of life for people is of course not to be taken seriously.

Not simply for that, no.

That personal qualities of the individual scientists, how ever admiral they are, are utterly irrelevant to assessment of their work. That is in fact precisely the point of the scientific method.

nagirrac wrote: »

Good science is not putting your expertize to work to improve the lives of society? Then what is good science?

Devising falsifiable predictive theories that can be repeatably tested and verified by other scientists.

nagirrac wrote: »

Why would I need to look up morphic resonance? I am the one who has read Sheldrake and you have not. If you want to actually learn something about the idea I can summarize it for you.

Wonderful.

Please summarize the scientific (ie falsifiable) predictions of the hypothesis of morphic resonance and the experiments that have consistently (ie can and have been run repeatably) that supported them.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

The advancement of science benefits from an open mind, the one's doing the clinging are those stuck in materialistic dogmatism such as yourself.

I think science has done pretty well in the last few hundred years despite being stuck in materialistic dogmatism, or "reality", as I like to call it.

I don't suppose that you have some examples of science progressing through the use of something else?

nagirrac

Zillah wrote: »

One who is good at engaging in the scientific process: Designing experiments, accurately testing hypotheses, accepting when the evidence does not support one's hypothesis etc.

..and how do you think Sheldrake developed new techniques for farming in semi-arid conditions if it was not following that exact methodology?


Ok, go on then.

The concept of Morphic Resonance was not invented by Sheldrake, it has been around since the early 20th century. The best source is the work of Alfred North Whitehead who suggested that the whole universe is evolutionary and that inherited patterns from the past build up and become comonplace over time. Whitehead talked about temporary habits of nature that over time become permanant habits, that the laws of nature are not fixed but evolve over time.

Sheldrake's hypothesis is that these habits of nature depend on a process called morphic resonance. This proces applies to all self organizing systems such as molecules, plants, animals. An experimental example of this is the formation of crystals. It can be very difficult in the laboratory to generate a crystal of a new molecule. However, the experimental data suggests that once the crystal has been formed once it forms easier in other laboratories independently. Another experiment is teaching rats to nagivate a maze in different universites around the world, the evidence appears to suggest that once one rat figures it out, others quickly learn the same behavior independently and it becomes commonplace.

The above is just a quick summary from the chapter "Are the Laws of Nature fixed". It is interesting. There is data to support it. It may be the wrong conclusion. However, just like psychic phenomena which sceptics don't accept until they actually look at the data, these are observed effects that are on the fringes of science but scientists continue to study them. Thats how science works, trying to understand things better. It may be a blind alley, just as string theory or multiverses may be a blind alley, who knows?

Condemning Sheldrake, Radin and others who are proposing radical new proposals is the modern day equivalent of the Church condemning those who disagreed with the geocentrist model of the universe. We still have a very limited understanding of our universe, why would we want to limit science? Should we start banning books again as the church did that we don't agree with?

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Condemning Sheldrake, Radin and others who are proposing radical new proposals is the modern day equivalent of the Church condemning those who disagreed with the geocentrist model of the universe. We still have a very limited understanding of our universe, why would we want to limit science? Should we start banning books again as the church did that we don't agree with?

We are not condemning them for the radical-ness of their claims.
We are condemning them for their completely unscientific methods, practices and conclusions.

None their claims stand up to rigour, yet they pretend that they have (which folks like you believe without a critical thought.) then invent conspiracies to explain away their shortcomings.
They make conclusions and conjectures that they could not possibly make even if their experiments had been successful.
Their theories are nonsensical and often contrary to facts and logic.
They make claims that are false and misleading.
They use dishonest and silly arguments and tactics, which apparently they pass on to their disciples.

We'd be fine with accepting their notions of magic dogs etc if they engaged like proper scientists.
But they don't.
Yet they like to play pretend and tell people otherwise and make money off rubes like yourself.

That's why we mock and condemn them.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Sheldrake's hypothesis is that these habits of nature depend on a process called morphic resonance. This proces applies to all self organizing systems such as molecules, plants, animals. An experimental example of this is the formation of crystals. It can be very difficult in the laboratory to generate a crystal of a new molecule. However, the experimental data suggests that once the crystal has been formed once it forms easier in other laboratories independently.

And that has been consistently shown to be modeled by the theory of "morphic resonance" how exactly?

nagirrac wrote: »

Another experiment is teaching rats to nagivate a maze in different universites around the world, the evidence appears to suggest that once one rat figures it out, others quickly learn the same behavior independently and it becomes commonplace.

You appreciate that everyone on this forum roles their eyes every time you say "appears to suggest". Anything can appear to suggest anything.

What experiments with rats have consistently matched the predictions of morphic resonance.

Or to put it another way, what experiments have consistently shown that the current used model of morphic resonance accurately predicts the outcome of the experiments.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is data to support it. It may be the wrong conclusion.

If he is doing science it can't be the wrong conclusion.

Zillah

nagirrac wrote: »

It can be very difficult in the laboratory to generate a crystal of a new molecule. However, the experimental data suggests that once the crystal has been formed once it forms easier in other laboratories independently. Another experiment is teaching rats to nagivate a maze in different universites around the world, the evidence appears to suggest that once one rat figures it out, others quickly learn the same behavior independently and it becomes commonplace.

Were these controlled experiments with published results or is this just an anecdotal conclusion? I assume you know the difference, and the relevance? The very fact that you think doing good works makes one a good scientist tells me you don't have a very clear grasp of the philosophy of science.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

If he is doing science it can't be the wrong conclusion.

Of all the stupid and illogical comments I have read on any forum that takes the biscuit. Well done.

Science consistently reaches the wrong conclusions based on the available experimental method and evidence at the time. To go back to the geocentralist model, scientists looking at the skies for a few thousand years accepted the existing model as being "right" until the evidence from the invention of the telescope indicated it was "wrong". This is why it is dangerous to speak of a scientific theory being "right" as history tells us that many theories are later proven to be "wrong".

This forum appears to be populated by people who do not understand science and prefer to attack anyone who does not agree with their atheist worldview. Take off the blinkers people and open your minds a little.

Zillah

nagirrac wrote: »

This forum appears to be populated by people who do not understand science and prefer to attack anyone who does not agree with their atheist worldview. Take off the blinkers people and open your minds a little.

Uh huh. So were these controlled experiments with published results or is this just an anecdotal conclusion?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

We are not condemning them for the radical-ness of their claims.
We are condemning them for their completely unscientific methods, practices and conclusions.

Yet they like to play pretend and tell people otherwise and make money off rubes like yourself.

That's why we mock and condemn them.

lol the irony of the one who criticizes those who attack the poster..

Dean Radin conducts exemplary science as anyone who has examined his work has confirmed. In fact his work has been scrutinized far more than most scientists. The fact that the experimental data does not fit with your blinkered view of the world is your problem.

How I spend my money is my business, its called free will.

nagirrac

Zillah wrote: »

Uh huh. So were these controlled experiments with published results or is this just an anecdotal conclusion?

What happened to the rest of your rant?

I have worked in research for over 30 years, clearly I don't know the difference.

I am not arguing that Sheldrake is a "good" scientist just because he did "good" work from a humanitarian viewpoint. It is possible to do "good" science that has a "good" or "bad" humanitarian outcome, the development of the atomic bomb was "good" science, but hardly a "good" outcome for those living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sheldrake is a "good" scientist because he developed a methodology following good scientific method to improve agricultural practices. The results of his work in this area is the evidence of his "good" science.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

lol the irony of the one who criticizes those who attack the poster..

You don't seem to understand the difference between personal attacks and critiquing some ones work.

Again, something a scientist should know.

nagirrac wrote: »

Dean Radin conducts exemplary science as anyone who has examined his work has confirmed.

In fact his work has been scrutinized far more than most scientists. The fact that the experimental data does not fit with your blinkered view of the world is your problem.

Except for those who are involved in teh conspiracy or too closed mined of course :rolleyes:

nagirrac wrote: »

How I spend my money is my business, its called free will.

Sure it is, and if you want to throw it at cranks cause they tell you magic is real and you get to be one of the few who have access to the "secret knowledge" go nuts.

FrostyJack

Saying something a lot of times does not make it so, though by the theory of morphic resonance you should have gotten better at it by now You have so far avoid answering any scientific questions and only mentioned crystals and rats with no details whatso ever. Science does not work like that, there has to evidence, controls, data, repeatable results etc.

nagirrac

swampgas wrote: »

I think science has done pretty well in the last few hundred years despite being stuck in materialistic dogmatism, or "reality", as I like to call it.

I don't suppose that you have some examples of science progressing through the use of something else?

It depends on how you define "pretty well".
Science has led to many wonderful discoveries that have enhanced the human existance, breakthroughs in medicine, communication, travel, etc.

Science also brought us weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, pesticides which have destroyed much of our environment, fossil fuels which could well make our planet uninhabitable. It is not a one way street.

Science can only progress by following the scientific method. What science chooses to pursue is the question. As long as corporate capitalism is in control of society, much of science will be focussed on profit generating ventures, a lot of which is not for the benefit of society. To think otherwise is extremely naive.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the difference between personal attacks and critiquing some ones work.

Again, something a scientist should know.

So in your warped view of reality, calling someone a "moron" and a "rube" for buying and reading a book is not a personal attack?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Of all the stupid and illogical comments I have read on any forum that takes the biscuit. Well done.

Yeah I thought you would say that. The problem here isn't this book, or Sheldrake, it is that you don't understand what science is.

As such you and everyone else are simply talking past each other. You are not on the same page as everyone else.

nagirrac wrote: »

Science consistently reaches the wrong conclusions based on the available experimental method and evidence at the time.

The conclusion of a scientific experiment is that the prediction was matched by the experiment or it wasn't.

You cannot reach the "wrong" conclusion. That is in fact the whole point of science. The theory either predicted the the result or it didn't. You can't be wrong about that.

nagirrac wrote: »

To go back to the geocentralist model, scientists looking at the skies for a few thousand years accepted the existing model as being "right" until the evidence from the invention of the telescope indicated it was "wrong".

The geocentralism was not a scientific model. Science hadn't been invented yet.

nagirrac wrote: »

This is why it is dangerous to speak of a scientific theory being "right" as history tells us that many theories are later proven to be "wrong".

Scientists don't talk about scientific theories being "right", they talk about them being "accurate". Did the model predict the result. Has the model consistently predicted the result. Does it predict other results from other experiments. What does it not predict. What has it predicted that doesn't match the results of experiment.

This is where things like morphic resonance fall completely apart, because there is no model, there is no prediction, there is no experiment.

Its not science.

nagirrac wrote: »

This forum appears to be populated by people who do not understand science and prefer to attack anyone who does not agree with their atheist worldview. Take off the blinkers people and open your minds a little.

Christ all might, no one who knows anything about the philosophy of science would ever tell anyone to "open your minds".

They would say Here is my model, here are its predictions and here are the experiments that match the predictions.

If you think someone has to "open their mind" to see your model is accurate you are doing science wrong

nagirrac

FrostyJack wrote: »

Saying something a lot of times does not make it so, though by the theory of morphic resonance you should have gotten better at it by now You have so far avoid answering any scientific questions and only mentioned crystals and rats with no details whatso ever. Science does not work like that, there has to evidence, controls, data, repeatable results etc.

I am well aware of how science works having worked in research for over 30 years.

FrostyJack

nagirrac wrote: »

Science also brought us weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, pesticides which have destroyed much of our environment, fossil fuels which could well make our planet uninhabitable. It is not a one way street.

The morals of science is irrevant to this debate.

Science can only progress by following the scientific method. What science chooses to pursue is the question. As long as corporate capitalism is in control of society, much of science will be focussed on profit generating ventures, a lot of which is not for the benefit of society. To think otherwise is extremely naive.

And you don't think the proof that magic exists would be profitable? Considering how profitable it is when there is no evidence for it I think think that is a silly assumption.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

I am well aware of how science works having worked in research for over 30 years.

How does it work then?

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

So in your warped view of reality, calling someone a "moron" and a "rube" for buying and reading a book is not a personal attack?

Yes, if you fall for the same dishonest philosophical tricks that cranks like sheldrake use and you are reusing, then yes you are a rube as you have been suckered in.

I never called anyone a moron, but hey, why worry about accuracy or addressing points now?
Getting pissy will surely prove your points.... :rolleyes:

No doubt a tactic that has served you well in your claimed career...

FrostyJack

nagirrac wrote: »

I am well aware of how science works having worked in research for over 30 years.

Research of what? Could you be more vague? The evidence in the thread so far suggests you do not know how it works.