The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The methods work to an incredible degree of accuracy. Of course, the entire universe might just be the dream of a supernatural, hyper-shaman, living in a field of anti-pronouns and semantic bosons, but such speculation is pretty pointless. Science does an amazing job of explaining what the universe is if we assume that it is what it appears to be and that is plenty for me!

And I think Sheldrake would agree with that - there's no problem with saying that science does a good job of describing phenomena. The problem is more when people start making extra claims which require interpretations beyond the scientific evidence; for example, the claim that the supernatural can't exist or that science has disproven/made less likely gods, or that science has debunked substance dualism (the concept of mind/soul/spirit/etc).

There are simply no real scientific grounds to make those claims but you'll still find many people, including scientists, making those mistakes. And to avoid confusion, that obviously doesn't mean that those positions mentioned are reasonable or true but rather that if they are to be challenged, it's not done on a scientific basis.

I would counter that science does provide testable, alternate explanations for many phenomena that were once said to be caused by gods - everything from thunderstorms, to human reproduction to the origin of life, the universe and everything.

Of course, that could just be the gods playing mind-games with us but once again we are entering the zone of pointless speculation. Science can't disprove god - or anything for that matter - but it does skew the odds against him rather convincingly. And, once again, that's plenty for me. Any god that's so sneaky he makes it look like he's not there just to send my immortal soul to hell is a cunt and can fuck right off.

[Mr.Samsa]

I would counter that science does provide testable, alternate explanations for many phenomena that were once said to be caused by gods - everything from thunderstorms, to human reproduction to the origin of life, the universe and everything.

Of course, that could just be the gods playing mind-games with us but once again we are entering the zone of pointless speculation. Science can't disprove god - or anything for that matter - but it does skew the odds against him rather convincingly. And, once again, that's plenty for me. Any god that's so sneaky he makes it look like he's not there just to send my immortal soul to hell is a cunt and can fuck right off.

But that latter paragraph is a philosophical, not scientific, argument. In which case you'd be excluding the supernatural on the basis of logical reasoning rather than scientific evidence (the evidence instead only acts to inform the argument you present).

Personally I've never been convinced by the argument that scientific evidence makes it unlikely because it provides another explanation. I mean, of course it presents another explanation - the fundamental assumption of science is that it ignores the possibility of the supernatural, so it makes sense that science provides alternative explanations that don't include the supernatural.

[JimC]

The methods work to an incredible degree of accuracy. Of course, the entire universe might just be the dream of a supernatural, hyper-shaman, living in a field of anti-pronouns and semantic bosons, but such speculation is pretty pointless. Science does an amazing job of explaining what the universe is if we assume that it is what it appears to be and that is plenty for me!

And I think Sheldrake would agree with that - there's no problem with saying that science does a good job of describing phenomena. The problem is more when people start making extra claims which require interpretations beyond the scientific evidence; for example, the claim that the supernatural can't exist or that science has disproven/made less likely gods, or that science has debunked substance dualism (the concept of mind/soul/spirit/etc).

There are simply no real scientific grounds to make those claims but you'll still find many people, including scientists, making those mistakes. And to avoid confusion, that obviously doesn't mean that those positions mentioned are reasonable or true but rather that if they are to be challenged, it's not done on a scientific basis.

I think the issue comes down to this; gods, the supernatural, the soul etc. were all attempts from the past to find satisfying explanations for both external phenomena, and aspects of human psychology. The various branches of science have found a series of much better explanations, ones that can be tested evidentially. Simply, it's time for the older, non-evidence based explanations to wither on the vine... This is not a rigorous disproof of the old mythology, simply that they do not add anything useful to our ability to comprehend the universe.

[Mr.Samsa]

I think the issue comes down to this; gods, the supernatural, the soul etc. were all attempts from the past to find satisfying explanations for both external phenomena, and aspects of human psychology. The various branches of science have found a series of much better explanations, ones that can be tested evidentially. Simply, it's time for the older, non-evidence based explanations to wither on the vine... This is not a rigorous disproof of the old mythology, simply that they do not add anything useful to our ability to comprehend the universe.

Sure, if we accept the assumption that true things are useful, then that makes sense. But, as you say, it wouldn't be scientific disproof against the concepts and that's what Sheldrake (and many other less crazy people) are arguing against.

The point is simply that science is truly an amazing and awesome tool but that doesn't mean we should try to stretch it to making claims that it isn't designed to make, which would just weaken the validity and power of science. We have better tools for debunking and criticising those shitty ideas.

[FBM]

There were dozens of them. I tested them with simple tasks. We were in a packaging job, so some rudimentary math was occasionally needed. Also, one had to be able to track down an error that was done say half hour earlier. None of them could do it.

Or they were lazy. If they were on their own, I guess they would just wait for college folk to show up to fix the error. Taking a pen and pad to figure out a problem was alien to them. They were 10-20 years out of high school.

Maybe I should mention that country music was played, and several of them headed straight for the casino on payday?

And they accurately represent "the public," rather than a small sampling of a single regional demographic age group? Sloppy reasoning there, I think. I say that despite not being a fan of "the public" in general. However, I hope I am more careful not to disparage the entire group with such blanket condemnations. Stereotyping, hasty generalization, composition fallacy. Introduction to Logic wasn't the most fun class I took, but at least it taught me to avoid such faulty reasoning. Not claiming to be perfect, but I don't take the qualities of a small group and attribute them to society as a whole without a whole lot more data than that.

You have figured out by now, surely, that when you imply that "the [non-scientist] public" are all mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, you're including the majority of people who are reading your posts here at Ratz, right? Has that dawned on you yet?

[FBM]

It's true that it is fallacious to assert the truth of an idea based on its utility.

Yes, scientists do focus intensely and properly on finding their own errors and second-guessing their propositions...up to a point. If you challenge the assumption, for example, that physical laws apply uniformly throughout the universe, however, you'll likely just be ostracised. Sheldrake deserves ostracism for some of his ideas, but not for challenging such basic assumptions, I think. And he did make a good point about how the conservation laws sprang out of Church dogma, rather than observation.

[Mr.Samsa]

Yes, scientists do focus intensely and properly on finding their own errors and second-guessing their propositions...up to a point. If you challenge the assumption, for example, that physical laws apply uniformly throughout the universe, however, you'll likely just be ostracised. Sheldrake deserves ostracism for some of his ideas, but not for challenging such basic assumptions, I think. And he did make a good point about how the conservation laws sprang out of Church dogma, rather than observation.

Yep - and I think the mistake many people make is in confusing challenging an assumption with rejecting an assumption. We can challenge the assumption of uniformity on the grounds that it needs a rational basis without needing to reject it. Sheldrake (in his better moments) is simply pointing out that scientists can often make huge assumptions that aren't supported in any way, and in those cases it's wise to question them in order to avoid reaching erroneous conclusions that stem from them.

[FBM]

Indeed. It could be challenged without either accepting or rejecting it.

[pErvinalia]

What's funny about this whole topic is how it perfectly portrays what's wrong with ratskep. A bunch of rationalists, but with no training or proper understanding of what science actually is, can't countenance that science has limitations. Essentially they worship science in a naive realism way. To point out the philosophical limitations of science isn't to say that science doesn't work or it's not the most useful methodology that mankind has ever employed. But those rabid dogs can't see that. They see theism hidden in any honest critique of science or indeed any honest accounting of what science actually does and tells us. Darwin's BUlldog summed it up perfectly in one of the metaphysical threads over there in the last few days. He essentially just said what I said. There's too many people over there who see a theist boogyman in honest rational debate. Just because theists abuse philosophy and metaphysical concepts, doesn't mean that all philosophy or metaphysical concepts are woo.

[FBM]

Damn. Well said, rEv.

[Mr.Samsa]

What's funny about this whole topic is how it perfectly portrays what's wrong with ratskep. A bunch of rationalists, but with no training or proper understanding of what science actually is, can't countenance that science has limitations. Essentially they worship science in a naive realism way. To point out the philosophical limitations of science isn't to say that science doesn't work or it's not the most useful methodology that mankind has ever employed. But those rabid dogs can't see that. They see theism hidden in any honest critique of science or indeed any honest accounting of what science actually does and tells us. Darwin's BUlldog summed it up perfectly in one of the metaphysical threads over there in the last few days. He essentially just said what I said. There's too many people over there who see a theist boogyman in honest rational debate. Just because theists abuse philosophy and metaphysical concepts, doesn't mean that all philosophy or metaphysical concepts are woo.

Oh god, don't say that science has limitations on RatSkep - I learnt that the hard way. Suggesting it has limitations is basically an admission that you're a fundie theist who believes that magic is a better approach to understanding how electrons work than science.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, you and I and others have all experienced this over there. DB is experiencing it now. And you and I (as both rEv and a sock or two) and others have all made this point before about the "theists under the bed" paranoia there.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If you challenge the assumption, for example, that physical laws apply uniformly throughout the universe, however, you'll likely just be ostracised.

That very much depends upon how you challenge them!

If you make your challenge by (i) introducing a model that better (or at very least equally well) describes all observable phenomena than the status quo and either (ii) back up that model with evidence that supports your hypothesis or (iii) make testable predictions based upon your hypothesis which would definitively distinguish between the two, then your challenge is scientifically valid.

If you can't provide any of this, you are just mind-wanking. Fun, in its own way, but removed from the remit of science. This is all that Sheldrake provides, along with Chopra, et al.

The jury is still out on whether String-Theory is mind-wanking, btw!

[FBM]

If you challenge the assumption, for example, that physical laws apply uniformly throughout the universe, however, you'll likely just be ostracised.

That very much depends upon how you challenge them!

...

Of course. I meant something like this: Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought.

[pErvinalia]

It depends on what you mean by "physical laws". If you mean the physical laws as we've catalogued them now, then they don't apply throughout the whole universe (not only because we have two as yet incompatible theories in concurrent use). But if you mean that there isn't an all encompassing set of physical laws (i.e. a GUT) that applies to the whole universe, then that is getting into woo territory.