Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Science Delusion?

Options
  • 29-12-2012 6:16am
    #1
    Barr125
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭


    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:


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Thoughts? The author is speaking codswallop.


  • Options
    #3
    Barr125
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭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...........


  • Options
    #4
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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:


  • Options
    #5
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #6
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    DB21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,715 ✭✭✭DB21


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


  • Options
    #8
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #10
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #11
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #13
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #14
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #15
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #16
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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....


  • Options
    #17
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #19
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #20
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Options
    #21
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Fine, I think all people who give a negative review on a book they have not read are morons.
    tumblr_lwj43hxcbD1ql141xo1_400.gif


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #23
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #24
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #25
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #26
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #27
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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....


  • Options
    #28
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #29
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #30
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


Advertisement