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 . <[email protected]> > *"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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] 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)! >> >> >> >
