5 ms·

This won't be a popular opinion around here but I've read quite a bit of Sheldrake's works and they strike me as very lucid. He's a scientist to the bone. Howe

by jonasvp 14y ago

This won't be a popular opinion around here but I've read quite a bit of Sheldrake's works and they strike me as very lucid. He's a scientist to the bone. However, his findings go against many current scientific theories. This should be an opportunity for intellectual debate. I don't understand why many people think it's heresy to come to different conclusions about how the world works. The editor of "Nature" actually called for his books to be burned. It's quite disheartening to see how a bit part of current "science" (including some internet mobs) has turned into a new version of the church that condemned Galileo.

gruseom 14y ago
Assuming that human nature and basic demographics haven't changed much since Galileo, the class of people who used to be priests must still be around in roughly the same proportions today. Since they're obviously not priests any more, it's worth asking where they went.
polemic 14y ago
Two axioms you seem to put forward: 1) You have a right to have unusual, heretical, controversial or just plain dumb opinions. 2) The scientific community is required to respect, and seriously debate your conclusions, regardless of their foundations. Point (1) is valid. Calling for book-burning is silly. Some correct ideas do, indeed, seem wacky to begin with. Point (2) is not. "Lucid" theories are worth almost nothing until backed by scientific rigor, peer review and the weight of evidence. Cf. "intelligent design" - a theory invented out of nowhere as a backstop against evolution. You're more than welcome to believe it (1), but real scientists shouldn't be wasting their time with it (2). -- EDIT: I felt the need to add... It's quite one thing to have an idea that you believe passionately, that you spend your life defending, that is ultimately proved true in the fullness of time. It's quite another to dabble in a wide range of quackery, pushing unfounded positions in everything from constants of physics to animal telepathy and the conciousness of inanimate objects. That's not perseverance in the face of scientific obstructionism, it's throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.
- exodust 14y ago
  polemic, you seem frustrated in your efforts to condemn. Why? Are his ideas dangerous? Have they touched a nerve? Maybe that's a good thing. This talk is not aimed at the scientific community anyway. It's aimed at a TED audience, who love a bit of creative, unconventional thinking with their rigorous scientific discoveries and rock solid demonstrations. So the talk was heavy on the creative, and light on the rigorous scientific demo, but that's ok... we have the option of not buying his book, and taking his ideas with a grain of salt. No need to cry panic, no need to worry. Eventually, ideas such as these either gather momentum or die from lack of evidence. We don't need to put this speaker, or TED on trial just because someone speaks for 18 minutes about intriguing, exotic ideas that you don't like.
  - Ao7bei3s 14y ago
    TED is not a fiction conference.
- greyfade 14y ago
  I wouldn't say "intelligent design" was invented out of nowhere. It's an old (3000+ years old) concept. The name of it is new, but it's the same old tired dogma.
  - GotAnyMegadeth 14y ago
    It was invented out of nowhere at one point, even if it was 3000+ years ago.
- Executor 14y ago
  How are his ideas dumb? He is proposing to expand scientific inquiry. Your comments seem to prove his point - dogmatism. Using the terms "dumb" or "quackery" really lowers your persuasion. Using your own vocabulary: I guess your "shit" didn't stick to the wall. :)
  - polemic 14y ago
    Firstly, I didn't say his ideas are dumb. I said you have a right to hold dumb ideas. Secondly, some ideas are dumb, some ideas are quackery. It's a good thing to recognise that fact. If you don't like the terminology, well, I'm just saying it like it is.
Steuard 14y ago
Nobody should stop him from talking, of course, but I don't see any good reason for anyone to listen for more than a few minutes, either. Neither the scientific community nor society as a whole will benefit from spending time and energy "debating" ideas past the point where it becomes clear that they're fundamentally flawed. New, innovative ideas are great, but it turns out that we already know an awful lot about how the world works, including lots of very precise measurements that any new theory must match to be worth considering. And if this talk is any example, Sheldrake really doesn't know what he's talking about, at least where physics is concerned. If he understood what we mean by "we've now defined the speed of light to be constant", he'd phrase his arguments differently (regardless of whether they're actually right or wrong). I certainly wouldn't call for his books to be burned, but I suspect the world might be a little bit be better off if they'd never gotten wide attention and distracted valuable brain cells from more useful tasks.
exodust 14y ago
Completely agree, jonasvp. If it can motivate intellectual debate, then that's a good thing. Unfortunately on HN, it's motivated the book-burning brigade into a frenzy of condemnation. Why don't people discuss the ideas presented instead of crying about how the ideas should never have made it to a TEDx video?
exodust 14y ago
Completely agree, jonasvp. If it can motivate intellectual debate, then that's a good thing. Unfortunately on HN, it's motivated the book-burning brigade into a frenzy of condemnation. Why don't people discuss the ideas presented instead of crying about how the ideas should never have made it to a TEDx video?
summerdown2 14y ago
Scientists don't dislike his work because it goes against their theories. They dislike his work because there is no experimental support for it. If anyone could prove this stuff there would be nobel prizes galore for them. They can't prove it because he has the wrong type of theories and no possibility of proof. Here's a video of Richard Feynman explaining what it takes for something to be real science, and why the letters from amateurs he keeps getting are incorrect. Sheldrake is no different from the people who wrote to Feynman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw There is also the issue of how much of their career a scientist needs to spend examining the theories of cranks. They have, after all, got their own jobs to do. Perhaps it could be a tithe, in which scientists are ordered to spend one half day a week debunking perpetual motion machines before they are allowed to practice actual science? Or perhaps the onus ought to be on Sheldrake to prove his theories rigorously first?

by jonasvp 14y ago

gruseom 14y ago

Assuming that human nature and basic demographics haven't changed much since Galileo, the class of people who used to be priests must still be around in roughly the same proportions today. Since they're obviously not priests any more, it's worth asking where they went.

polemic 14y ago

Two axioms you seem to put forward: 1) You have a right to have unusual, heretical, controversial or just plain dumb opinions. 2) The scientific community is required to respect, and seriously debate your conclusions, regardless of their foundations. Point (1) is valid. Calling for book-burning is silly. Some correct ideas do, indeed, seem wacky to begin with. Point (2) is not. "Lucid" theories are worth almost nothing until backed by scientific rigor, peer review and the weight of evidence. Cf. "intelligent design" - a theory invented out of nowhere as a backstop against evolution. You're more than welcome to believe it (1), but real scientists shouldn't be wasting their time with it (2). -- EDIT: I felt the need to add... It's quite one thing to have an idea that you believe passionately, that you spend your life defending, that is ultimately proved true in the fullness of time. It's quite another to dabble in a wide range of quackery, pushing unfounded positions in everything from constants of physics to animal telepathy and the conciousness of inanimate objects. That's not perseverance in the face of scientific obstructionism, it's throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.

exodust 14y ago
polemic, you seem frustrated in your efforts to condemn. Why? Are his ideas dangerous? Have they touched a nerve? Maybe that's a good thing. This talk is not aimed at the scientific community anyway. It's aimed at a TED audience, who love a bit of creative, unconventional thinking with their rigorous scientific discoveries and rock solid demonstrations. So the talk was heavy on the creative, and light on the rigorous scientific demo, but that's ok... we have the option of not buying his book, and taking his ideas with a grain of salt. No need to cry panic, no need to worry. Eventually, ideas such as these either gather momentum or die from lack of evidence. We don't need to put this speaker, or TED on trial just because someone speaks for 18 minutes about intriguing, exotic ideas that you don't like.
- Ao7bei3s 14y ago
  TED is not a fiction conference.
greyfade 14y ago
I wouldn't say "intelligent design" was invented out of nowhere. It's an old (3000+ years old) concept. The name of it is new, but it's the same old tired dogma.
- GotAnyMegadeth 14y ago
  It was invented out of nowhere at one point, even if it was 3000+ years ago.
Executor 14y ago
How are his ideas dumb? He is proposing to expand scientific inquiry. Your comments seem to prove his point - dogmatism. Using the terms "dumb" or "quackery" really lowers your persuasion. Using your own vocabulary: I guess your "shit" didn't stick to the wall. :)
- polemic 14y ago
  Firstly, I didn't say his ideas are dumb. I said you have a right to hold dumb ideas. Secondly, some ideas are dumb, some ideas are quackery. It's a good thing to recognise that fact. If you don't like the terminology, well, I'm just saying it like it is.

Steuard 14y ago

Nobody should stop him from talking, of course, but I don't see any good reason for anyone to listen for more than a few minutes, either. Neither the scientific community nor society as a whole will benefit from spending time and energy "debating" ideas past the point where it becomes clear that they're fundamentally flawed. New, innovative ideas are great, but it turns out that we already know an awful lot about how the world works, including lots of very precise measurements that any new theory must match to be worth considering. And if this talk is any example, Sheldrake really doesn't know what he's talking about, at least where physics is concerned. If he understood what we mean by "we've now defined the speed of light to be constant", he'd phrase his arguments differently (regardless of whether they're actually right or wrong). I certainly wouldn't call for his books to be burned, but I suspect the world might be a little bit be better off if they'd never gotten wide attention and distracted valuable brain cells from more useful tasks.

exodust 14y ago

Completely agree, jonasvp. If it can motivate intellectual debate, then that's a good thing. Unfortunately on HN, it's motivated the book-burning brigade into a frenzy of condemnation. Why don't people discuss the ideas presented instead of crying about how the ideas should never have made it to a TEDx video?

exodust 14y ago

summerdown2 14y ago

Scientists don't dislike his work because it goes against their theories. They dislike his work because there is no experimental support for it. If anyone could prove this stuff there would be nobel prizes galore for them. They can't prove it because he has the wrong type of theories and no possibility of proof. Here's a video of Richard Feynman explaining what it takes for something to be real science, and why the letters from amateurs he keeps getting are incorrect. Sheldrake is no different from the people who wrote to Feynman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw There is also the issue of how much of their career a scientist needs to spend examining the theories of cranks. They have, after all, got their own jobs to do. Perhaps it could be a tithe, in which scientists are ordered to spend one half day a week debunking perpetual motion machines before they are allowed to practice actual science? Or perhaps the onus ought to be on Sheldrake to prove his theories rigorously first?