Missing Evidence | Full Debate | Rupert Sheldrake, Tara Shears, Massimo Pigliucci, Philip Ball

A favourite debate from 2016: We think science is based on facts and evidence. But from gravity to dark matter, string theory to parallel universes, its theories are curiously bereft of hard evidence. Is evidence less important than we think and conjecture alone capable of leading to greater understanding? Or has science dangerously drifted into fantasy?
Rupert Sheldrake: Biologist whose research into parapsychology and evolution led to the theory of morphic resonance, expounded in A New Science of Life.
Tara Shears: Particle physicist and the first female physics professor at Liverpool. "Rapidly becoming the go-to scientist to explain all things CERN" (Wired).
Massimo Pigliucci: Professor of Philosophy at CUNY and founder of Rationally Speaking, Massimo Pigliucci's most recent book is Answers for Aristotle.
Theme 1: What is evidence?
Theme 2: Has contemporary science drifted into conjecture?
Theme 3: Can we have a science without evidence?
#science #rupertsheldrake #iai #darkmatter #stringtheory #evidence
The IAI offers a host of different platforms where you can watch and debate the big issues that matter:
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
We also have extensive discussions on our Facebook and Twitter pages: / theinstituteofartandideas
/ iai_tv
/ philosophyforourtimes
Subscribe for more videos and debates!

[@adrianobulla7875]

a philosopher who waits for the scientific community to accept something before he even feels that there is warranty to study it is NOT a philosopher. Signed: a philosopher.

[@lindalanders3967]

And the winner is Rupert.

[@Problembeing]

A true intellectual. Very lucky to have met him at EUUK 2018. Runs rings around the ideologically possessed pseudo-rationalists.

[@TheShootist]

only because Sabine wasn't here.

[@david672orford]

I agree that Sheldrake did best in the debate. The telepathy study results may be wrong for all sorts of reasons. But the findings are empirical. Skeptics need to criticize the design of the experiment or the statistical analysis or whatever. When instead they argue that the results are not explained by theory or are at odds with community consensus they are renouncing the very scientific method they love to explain.

[@buddhist.wisdom]

@@TheShootist Oh yes! KZbinr scientist Sabine wasn't there to shut down real scientists like Rupert. Again, Sabine who?

[@oscargustaverejlander.]

Let's face it. Everyone knows that Rupert should have been given the arm chair.

[@MatthewC137]

Rupert is the only honest one.

[@undertow8910]

the difference between an open mind and closed mind is evident here

[@awandererTJ]

I see Rupert Sheldrake and two not-so-bright school children repeating their textbooks. Where is the discussion?

[@ROForeverMan]

Well said!

[@MrLeighman]

Yes, well said.

[@mikeguliano3159]

@@RaveyDavey How do you come to decide who is and isn't a crank? By your logic, string theorists and multiverse believers are cranks too. They have no evidence.

[@adrianobulla7875]

awandererTJ I find the first intervention by Tara Shears almost patronising. She just repeats a textbook explanation of what science is. And she is intellectually dishonest, the problem with multi verses is not that they have not been tested, but that they cannot by definition be observed in any possible way.

[@RyanGBanister]

fIrSt OnE tO sAy ScIeNtIfIcAlLy IlLiTeRaTe WiNs

[@Hoireabard]

Scientists can be dogmatic, and sometimes unnecessarily so. Massimo demonstrated this in an empirically decisive way.

[@100pcRenewables]

Totally.

[@joeredman569]

Massimo is a jerk.

[@chrisbennett6260]

agreed

[@brianjacob8728]

I knew Massimo in grad school. Very bright guy, probably the brightest in our department, but he is totally committed to the materialist, reductionist mode of conducting science. And this is where science is now failing. Science has painted itself into a corner and the egotists and careerists don't want to admit they have been wrong about a great many things.

[@Hoireabard]

@@brianjacob8728 I agree. Shakespeare was a pretty bright guy too. He had a lot to say about the human condition. Massimo can’t measure that.

[@KipIngram]

9:27 - So, string theory hasn't progressed to the point of being testable - but it's progressed to the point where physicists have been drummed out of the profession for failing to support it. Something is WRONG with that model. The minute we start trying to "silence" opposition, we're in the weeds.

[@stevejames5863]

to be honest , i even question evolution. i m not saying its not true, but i question it. i thought part of concept of the scientific method, is one could question and be skeptical about almost anything in science. however, evolution is seen as complete gospel truth. and, you can t suggest id, in the science world....it shows that the science world have their standards, and fixed views, which they conform too. their own bias, if you will. of course, einstien questioned things newton thought of, and came up with different views on physics...

[@KipIngram]

@@stevejames5863 Depends on what you're using the word "evolution" to refer to. I think it's pretty certain that heredity works and that species gradually change over time in response to natural selection. I think there's a mountain of evidence for that. On the other hand, evolution has some rather daunting mountains to climb so far as explaining the ORIGIN of life goes. If you really look at what has to happen for life-supporting molecules to just spontaneously appear in a chemical soup as a result of random bubbling around, the probability of it happening that way is low indeed - VERY low. Obviously we are here, so it did happen somehow, but we might be unique in the universe for all I know. Anyway, don't take my word for it - go off and find some reading to do where people actually talk about the entire chemical pathway of getting life launched. There's a lot to it. Scribble some numbers and see what you think.

[@gyozakeynsianism]

No one has been "drummed out" of the field for failing to support it. You just made that up. The difference between multiple universes and string theory on one hand and psi research on the other is that the former can't be tested at all. It's pure theory. Psi can be tested, and has been tested rigorously for 200 years. It fails time and time again-except when there's fraud.

[@brianjacob8728]

this is a problem in many scientific fields. Dogma has ruined things.

[@jeffjones3040]

No one said that Massimo needs to believe things just because Sheldrake or any one else SAYS it. He is too sure of himself.

[@ROForeverMan]

Massimo, like all skeptics, plays the "open-minded" card, when in fact he is so close-minded. Sheldrake talks about evidence for telepathy, and 1 second later Massimo says there is no evidence. He's awful.

[@magnuscritikaleak5045]

Close minded Skeptics and Antitheism alike are biggest con artists I have ever witnessed. They collectively believe in ostracism and Ethical Bullying.

[@elru374]

Rupert Sheldrake is my hero. :)

[@MassDefibrillator]

The reason Dark Matter and Dark energy exist is because people want to believe that general relativity and Newtonian gravity are correct. That's about it. The reasons we have for believing that GR is correct is tests we've done in our solar system. So we've basically got no good reason to believe it should also be correct at the scales of galaxies and the universe. So yes, it's a total dogma that we believe it is correct there, and therefore DM and DE exist because of dogma.

[@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763]

Massimo’s opening pitch essentially describes his view of science as a religion and not self correcting, sceptical nor open minded.

[@hoodwink578]

The guy on the far right (I won't bother learning his name) talks a lot but doesn't actually say much -- rather annoying.

[@adrianobulla7875]

ーのHOODWINK He almost made me stop watching. He goes from fallacy to fallacy and says something while at the same time denying it with what he says... I am not closed minded but I refuse to look at the data.

[@jsat5609]

I get the impression he's trying to out talk Rupert, and keep the floor as long as he can to shut down any real debate.

[@Iznenadan]

what else is to be expected from a pompous academic who wears a bloody diamond earring... that's the sort of person who toots his own horn much too often

[@nelsonsoucasaux2751]

He's truly irritating...

[@Cookiekeks]

Bring up examples.

[@kokolanza7543]

There seem to be several commentors supporting Rupert and denigrating the others; but I am so glad to see any public debate on the issues he raises. Thanks to the entire panel for helping bring a bit of reasonable discussion to an area that is filled with physicalist orthodoxy, claiming to describe the entirety of that which exists when it does not do so.

[@betacam235]

I find it extraordinary that a philosopher of science can be so ignorant of the vast evidential data of parapsychology. The few working parapsychologists left, who haven't yet been starved of funding by misguided University authorities are not bothering with further existential demonstrations as it's pointless. There's more than enough already, as anyone open minded who bothers to read it will be aware. Massimo clearly is neither open minded, nor literate in the subject. I'm glad Rupert got the last word. Also horrified to learn that Edinburgh Uni are wasting Arthur Koestler's legacy on straight 'psychology' when he specifically left it for parapsychology. Can't they be legally compelled to use it as directed?

[@DeusVu]

betacam235 Well said, how can one claim to be a philosopher and be in utter denial and closed minded to the possibilities that Rupert describes? Shocking really, that’s not science it’s religion. A basic understanding of Natural Law which in modern times is described in a different way by quantum mechanics can leave little doubt that the nature of consciousness and it’s effect on matter and reality is a real and measurable phenomenon.

[@adrianobulla7875]

betacam235 And even more ignorant about evolution, which is not natural selection but speciation via natural selection. And it appears that there is no evidence at all that this occurs. Now, I don't want to start a debate on evolution, but to ignore very sound arguments against it just because "it is established" is quite unscientific. He refuses to even consider the arguments... Appalling.

[@jsat5609]

Watch Pigliucci's body language throughout the debate.

[@betacam235]

@@jsat5609 I do wonder whether he even believes what he's saying...it's really quite difficult to imagine.

[@finky555]

Massimo lost me when he mentioned the 97% scientists argument for climate change. No way a philosopher can agree with that if they took the time to look at the actual survey that made it up.

[@adamnoble1689]

Dr. Shears is quite elegant, insightful, transparent, and truthful about what physics science is up to. I really like her.

[@PhillipYewTree]

There are a lot of Massimo- types in my local pub.

[@tribeawoke6327]

Lmao

[@MrTruth111]

hahaha, ay mate, talkin to me?

[@denishougaard8312]

@@MrTruth111 He should listen to Stephen Meyer !

[@kevintucker3354]

Most pubs are, most laboratories are. It is strange to be a free thinking human spirit amongst the prideful whom already know it all, as their clock ticks down toward death....

[@gyozakeynsianism]

You mean, smart people who aren't easily fooled by well-mannered charlatans who lie about their evidence for telepathy and how it supposedly has been ignored by mainstream scientists?

[@KipIngram]

6:00 - In other words, scientists LIE to achieve career success.

[@keithtomey5046]

If they don't lie they're out of a job.. (Dot)

[@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763]

This is why “Believe the Science” is an oxymoron.

[@kevintucker3354]

If Massimo can explain how Epigenetics works and by what signal, or what intelligence or what sensory function and precisely why I supposedly have more “junk DNA” than normal DNA, and explain how a strand of DNA in a glass jar under vacuum will organize light in a way no one understands, and when the DNA strand is removed the laser light still organizes the same for up to 3 weeks and then returns to a mass of unorganized randomly scattered photons, then I will buy his old 150 year old plus, natural selection idea from the horse and buggy age.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

You're wrong

[@doobzb5482]

@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 how is he?

[@laautaro11]

hi, which experiment you are talking about?

[@david672orford]

Could you provide a reference for what you wrote about DNA, water, and a laser? I can't find anything about it.

[@antreasAnimations]

These people believe that the 'qualia', is something that will ever be proven.. Truly clowns

[@sunnyla2835]

If you’re not even willing to examine Dr Sheldrake’s experiments, how the hell Can you even comment?!?

[@betacam235]

It's called arrogant entitlement I think.

[@nelsonsoucasaux2751]

The guy on the right ( Massimo Pigliucci ? ) has NO intelectual, philosophical and true scientific qualification to argue with Sheldrake. I know very well the type based on my own 45 years experience as a medical doctor who deeply studies parapsychology and related subjects along all those years. He simply ruined a debate that had everything to be great. Too sad...

[@theelectricorigins846]

Multiverse is predicted by maths???????????? What the ...... Math is a quantitative LANGUAGE. A set of abstract rules (a convention). Math DOES NOT PREDICT ANYTHING. 4 is not a prediction of 2+2! Languages are used to represent, describe or explain theories, not based on those theories.

[@danzigvssartre]

Lol. Well said. This Pigliucci guy is biologist who speaks dismissively of philosophy. Perhaps if he bothered to read some philosophy of math and science he would not have made such a dumb comment?

[@acarpentersson8271]

All physicist I have ever listened too or read, believe that the laws of nature are fixed now, but were different if you go back far enough or forward far enough. They use that to get around the God Hypothesis. Rupert is the only honest one on the stage.

[@tokajileo5928]

how do u know the laws were different earlier in time? why should I beleive you?

[@denishougaard8312]

@@tokajileo5928 listen to Stephen Meyer and Donald D Hoffmann !

[@Cookiekeks]

Why do you think they are not fixed?

[@rolo2415]

@@Cookiekeks I know I'm a few years late with this reply and it'll probably just enter the yt comment section void, but here goes anyway. Big G aka the the gravitational constant, which is one of the pillars of the aforementioned law, is a good example of this habit hypothesis. Gravity was measured all over the world for quite some decades and it was not in fact a constant. There was even a period in the twenties when the average measurement dropped, then a resurgence occurred. This could have been for various reasons, but the fact remains that the experiments done to measure gravity vary in results and are then averaged to reach a conclusion. The only thing that is "constant" about it is the equation used to produce it. So either our equipment used for measuring it is extremely shoddy, or gravity has the potential to fluctuate. Obviously the fluctuations are so small now that it hardly makes a difference anyway, but one could envisage a time in the past where gravity and its effects were much more unpredictable. TLDR, there's a whole universe of evidence that suggest things change over time.

[@Cookiekeks]

@@rolo2415 That's wrong, we didn't 'average out' all our results, we simply measured it again with better equipment. It is no surprise that our modern day measurements yield more percise results than a few hundert years ago.

[@marks-bp2hf]

"Dark matter is missing, so it must be there" Empirical inference.

[@mikeguliano3159]

@@RaveyDavey appeal to authority fallacy. Show us the data lol

[@mikeguliano3159]

@@RaveyDavey lol i kick your ass on every post you make

[@edwardgucker5790]

The proposed existence of dark matter came from galaxy observations. There are 2 ways to estimate the mass contained within a galaxy, its rotation speed and its luminescence compared to distance. The problem is that these methods don't agree. The faster the rotation, the more mass it needs for the force of gravity to hold the galaxy together. "Dark matter" is whatever fixes the discrepancy or explains it, because the math doesn't work out. If there is mass there that is non-luminous, which seems reasonable, that would explain it. Something must be there, otherwise the galaxy would fly apart. It's missing because we can't see, or as yet directly detect it.

[@superduck97]

Edward Gucker Or... our math and understanding of physics is wrong.

[@jsar5409]

@@superduck97 seems unlikely as our math has gotten us this far.

[@garywright8137]

Most scientists seem to foget that science itself is little more than a series of corrections based on our ability to measure at that time. At some point the "paranormal" will be proven to be true, we just don't know how to measure it yet. It drives me mad when people steadfastly refute something based on our inability to understand it properly, even when faced with countless reports to the contrary.

[@doobzb5482]

Exactly, what if the evolution of science has taken a wrong turn or is highly unevolved? What if we can only measure paranormal occurrence with biological machines? Or super advanced scientific tools way beyond our knowledge? What if we discover dark matter properly and it is the missing link to spirituality?

[@ephraimhorse]

I admire Rupert's open mindedness and attachment to experiment, a truly scientific spirit. Besides, he also seems to have the sense of direction toward the yet unknown yet potentially meaningful.

[@superduck97]

Who's your pick for sunday dinner, Rupert or Massimo? I would chose Rupert. 50 sundays a year. :)

[@safardebon9720]

So can it scientifically be deduced, that you are on vacation two weeks annually :)

[@bethanyhunt2704]

Wow, Massimo isn't even being logical. Completely ignorant of the evidence of psi, yet dismisses it as "not worth" investigating further.

[@carpathianhermit7228]

He should look at the research on remote viewing

[@onenesslucas722]

It's because deep in his subconscious he KNOWS that if he studies it, he will find proof. If he find proof, he will have to accept it. If he accepts it, all he stands for is completely shattered. This hurts the EGO so bad, that the EGO can't get to admit it and covers it giving "n" amount of excuses of why this shouldn't be studied! If we had more people that care less about their salaries and their egos, we would definitely have moral and scientific advancement along with the technological advancement we have today.

[@morphixnm]

Massimo is an excellent example of exactly what Sheldrake has identified as the problem, and of what Thomas Kuhn analyzed decades ago. This is not a scientific attitude, it is scientism where faith in what others believe is coupled with fear of the unknown. Quite medieval.

[@andromega5545]

Sheldrake is a pioneer.. Real open minded scientist with intuition. Because of that he's gonna have hard time being excepted to present science community.. They all want to be like Einstein who was stubborn.. Couldn't except quantum mechanics at that time trapped in his own dogma..

[@bernardputersznit64]

Indeed - he is the poster boy for everything Sheldrake has told us to be on guard against

[@antoniocarlosandrada6657]

I love the faces of "other experts" when Rupert starts talking and immediately deconstructs the scientism of the scientific narratives sold to the uninitiated.

[@adamnoble1689]

The last part of Rupert's argument right at the end was thunderous. It laid a heavy hammer on Massimino.

[@oscargustaverejlander.]

Haha, yeah, it's beautiful I agree 👌

[@TailoredReaction]

Anything a pseudo-intellectual can grasp on to is good theatre? LOL If the world was left in your hands you would be just inventing pointy sticks right about now.

[@antoniocarlosandrada6657]

@@TailoredReaction Well done, you just confirmed what i said, scientism only live on fallacies.. do you have any point to dispute or just empty offenses?

[@TailoredReaction]

@@antoniocarlosandrada6657 Am I now supposed to figure out what an apeman means by "scientism only live on fallacies". Normally I only deal with real human communication. But here is my shot at replying to you. Ugh Ugh Bunga Binga Mook!

[@mareknetzel]

That was a surprisingly nice debate :)

[@lubamovie5841]

Too short. Was there more to this or was it just that hour? Very much enjoyed. Could've heard a lot more on this subject with these guests.

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

We're glad you enjoyed this one too Luba. You can see Massimo Pigliucci discussing the topic further in this video: After The End of Evidence: iai.tv/video/after-the-end-of-evidence

[@lioneye108]

Wow. Rupert floored them.

[@Cookiekeks]

Absolutely not.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

I would love to hear Pigliucci lay out what is usually considered the *strongest* evidence for psi, explain in detail *why* it's convinced so many of those who actually study the evidence,* and *then* tell us exactly what's wrong with the evidence... This task would expose him as utterly ignorant of the field. (* the majority of scientists haven't studied the evidence, so what matters is the opinion of those scientists and scholars who study the evidence and publish in the field)

[@jeffjones3040]

Even though I am highly skeptical of PSI, You are absolutely correct. This is how things should be looked at and considered.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@jeffjones3040 I appreciate that. Also, please forgive me for this, but “psi” doesn’t need to be capitalized lol.

[@betacam235]

@@jeffjones3040 An honest response. How much reading have you done on the subject yourself, from primary sources, as opposed to the skeptical works which normally aren't? The CSICOP era skeptics never did their own experimentation, except once (Gaughelin) when unfortunately their results confirmed the results they were aiming to disprove, so....they lied about their own results, claimed they HAD disproved the original 'unacceptable' results, then launched a cover-up and generally behaved like a bunch of totally unscientific religious crazies. "All in defense of Science" of course. The editor of whatever their rag was called at the time, Marcello Truzzi, resigned when he realised the level of dishonesty of the committee.

[@jeffjones3040]

@@betacam235 ....I have not done much reading on the subject of psi. I would like to read more.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@jeffjones3040 I’ll give you some peer reviewed refs tonight !

[@crazyeyedme4685]

Ruperts ability to stay so collected is 1 of his greatest strengths. I dont know how he can do it but its very entertaining. All physics is based off of gravity. The gravitational constant is ,so far, impossible to measure as a constant. Anyone like to ping in on this? Im am not even a "grass lvl" scientist, so l cant say much, but i feel like this would be a good point for actual scientists to keep in mind when considering Sheldrakes proposals.

[@silversoulawakening9195]

Gravity? is it a push? or a pull that we are experiencing? stay in constant curious questions.

[@crazyeyedme4685]

@@silversoulawakening9195 I think it depends on how we choose to interpret it. Most physicists would say it's both. From what I understand, string theorists want to show that gravity and fundamental forces are an emergent property from a previous 2 dimensional reality. Idk tho

[@crazyeyedme4685]

@@silversoulawakening9195 I recently heard about a model called ADS CFT...Anti de-sitter conformal field theory... Check it out if you get bored..

[@betacam235]

@@crazyeyedme4685 Doubtless a similar mechanism to that which drives "emergent consciousness" ie the sudden popping into being of consciousness once a brain has become sufficiently complex to 'support it' (by entirely random processes. All so very convincing....

[@Bless-the-Name]

I'm no scientist either but I can tell you - the curves in space (that describe relativity) depict variation in gravity.

[@WMAlbers1]

The trimming of the Cosmological constant is still going on, it seems.

[@stevewillson9218]

I really enjoyed that debate, fascinating.

[@IproCoGo]

Massimo’s arguments are painfully dull.

[@medicalmisinformation]

I reject the multiverse theory offhand because it means there's a world somewhere where I'm married to Rosie O'Donnell.

[@brandgardner211]

Pigliucci is a jerk.

[@joekidger]

19:26 - 19:50 wow Massimo is rude

[@mrblack1348]

Another ANNIHILATION by Dr. Rupert !!

[@kevintucker3354]

Science and philosophy should go hand in hand.

[@kevintucker3354]

A man should first have a love and passion for wisdom, and then become a scientist. Society has separated these two things, however that is exactly who Plato was, and Isaac Newton, and any other “Renaisance” scientists of the past.

[@GodsVibes]

One Fish said that the Water was nice and clear and the other fish ask'd what is Water

[@lapuertadelosmuertos]

Two of these four are only bright enough to convince themselves.

[@ROForeverMan]

Hahaha. =))

[@Tom-sp3gy]

Absolutely brilliant discussion with 3 truly great minds ... 47:50 min that has made me wiser

[@tribeawoke6327]

Science is a hypothesis really but in order to be curious and have a hypothesis perhaps you should not think like 99% of other people. Thats the problem with this world. How do you discover things when you think and conduct yourself like the masses and the people that pay you.

[@No-oneInParticular]

Because society gives you the impression that a title and profit is the same as discovery and truth.

[@Cookiekeks]

They talk about exactly this, and the guy in the right gave you an example why scientists are not that closed minded as people think. Scientists do not "think like 99% of other people" and dismiss other opinions because they arent public. Thats not how science works.

[@doobzb5482]

@@Cookiekeks his proof of that is that paraphysical research has been going on for decades, which sheldrake argues has a large potential for and often is biased towards the current scientific view, his idea that telepathy would upheave the entirety of science is nonsense, how does that make sense? Because then they would have to search for the hidden spirituality particle or wave? What if it doesn't exist? What if there is just an innate ability for paranormal connection that exists outside of the material world or just shows no signs of itself? What if telepathy can't be proven with an mri or something because spiritual connections don't exist within your brain ?

[@charliesloan6059]

Watching the speakers respond to Sheldrake is like watching an immune response. They're operating in their moral foundations based on the perception that scientific dogma is the only way to operate. Recommend: The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt If Sheldrake is right, Haidt's moral foundations would be an organizing field within a field, which the opponents are definitely orbiting.

[@MatthewC137]

Those people are establishment muppets, willfully without the the capacity to question corrupt, fraudulent authorities.

[@jacekmaui7381]

re: 22:54 "climate scientists tell me yeah this this thing is happening and it is at least in part anthropogenically fueled" - the irony of this moment is quite perplexing...

[@harlanmueller7499]

Remarkable how Pigliucci dismisses Sheldrake while showing no indication he has ever looked at the evidence for telepathy. He should look at Dean Radin’s treatment of meta-analyses of this data! He makes Sheldrake’s case for him!

[@gabrielszohner6243]

Consciousness , the writer , producer and director ,the audience and all acting parts,,,,the universe is the screen . and the film just keeps on rolling to cover all topics and possibilities , captivated , enslaved by curiosity there will always be new questions and answers , but the source of all never changed...........

[@maryhitchcock4847]

Although, the editing of this debate and discussion is curious, the dialogue is good and, for me, rare.

[@keithtomey5046]

The guy on the right is advocating we trust people who are dependent on funding from corporations lol 😂 (Dot)

[@epitrix]

I simply don't understand why Sheldrake is still given a platform. He doesn't know what he's talking about and is there to sell his books.

[@weshard1]

Why did it end on such a significant question, to which there is a lucid answer?

[@nitongpelingon8374]

they should also invite leading philosophers and scientists like william lane craig,johm lennox,stephen meyers,james tour,francis collins,michael behe etc

[@judonazim_dot_com_is_a_website]

Hellish people are those materialists

[@4sovereignT]

no reason to do research on telepathy, but o wait Darwin theories weren't initially accepted! Re: 25:50 what a genius, what a philosopher, what a scientist. I think I'm going to go back and read Aristotle and remember what he said about Identity and contradiction.

[@prenuptials5925]

Actually, Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution by natural selection was pretty accepted. There was a huge theoretical gap, and they filled it with an elegant theory with tons of evidence to back it. It's just that the church and Victorian society didn't accept it because it contradicted their beliefs

[@gyozakeynsianism]

We've done two centuries of experiments. Scientists are hostile to Sheldrake and telepathy not because they're bigoted, but because the evidence is laughably weak.

[@judonazim_dot_com_is_a_website]

I'm with Rupert, god bless him.

[@KipIngram]

I think the dark matter question is being approached fairly well. The "we know something must be there" comes from trust in general relativity to describe gravitational effects. Most scientists assume GR is correct, and once you do that then SOMETHING must be there. But not all scientists - there are scientists who are exploring potential modifications to gravity theory - and if that bore fruit then there would no longer need to be any drak matter. So the issue is being looked at from both sides, and that feels right and proper to me.

[@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763]

Except that this is not realty. Look at the billions that are being spent on trying to find dark matter and dark energy and how little, if any, is spent to refute it.

[@hassandiallo5326]

Rupert Sheldrake is part of the scientific community and his one of the best. see his cv please.

[@garyewart9185]

Speaking as a 60 year old 'career scientist'...Rupert Sheldrake is my scientific hero! He advocates so eloquently and powerfully for what the TRUE scientific endeavor is about. Questions towards "truth"; not careers. Thank you so much, Rupert.

[@betacam235]

Quite so. I would also cite Dr Carl Sargent, Britain's leading Parapsychologist in the late '70s, whose extraordinary research results with the Ganzfeld unfortunately inspired a soon to be 'star' of the appalling CSICOP to visit his lab in Cambridge in late 1979, and who was allowed to wander around his lab unaccompanied on a day when Carl was absent with glandular fever. Carl's research assistant Trevor Harley told me he 'regrets this incident' but (Dr) Sue Blackmore 'found a piece of paper' with a letter, A,B,C or D on it somewhere, and built an edifice around this in a report to the London SPR, who funded her visit to Cambridge. This report wasn't released for years, but Carl knew about it, and became so disgusted with the state of academic sceptical dishonesty that he left parapsychology in the mid '80s. Of course, a good CSICOP member would have said "Aha! Who actually SAW Sue Blackmore 'find' that piece of paper?" When Carl, who was perhaps a little thin-skinned and most certainly didn't suffer fools gladly left parapsychology he said "I have learned what I was looking for....." Carl then worked in writing games, and was equally successful. Of course he didn't have people working under the banner of CSICOP opposing him in this new field.

[@mpaczkow]

Einstein once said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Imagining non-evidentiary possibilities is a part of science which leads to hypothesis. But too many big questions can’t be tested except potentially in the future.

[@thoughfullylost6241]

Rupert sheldrake is a rare modern scientist who is more worried about wisdom than data

[@doobzb5482]

How so? He has been performing experiments with empirical data that is just ignored because of presuppositions towards paranormal activity

[@thoughfullylost6241]

@@doobzb5482 I dont think he let's presuppositions get in the way of research. I think he is open to things beyond the materialistic paradigm. While still using the scientific method together data on observable phenomena.

[@doobzb5482]

@@thoughfullylost6241 yeah, sorry I thought you were slighting him in your comment lol

[@thoughfullylost6241]

@@doobzb5482 no worries he's one of my favorite scientists along with David bohm and Vandana Shiva

[@gyozakeynsianism]

He's so unworried about data that he spouts nonsense about telepathy without good evidence.

[@philjamieson5572]

I really enjoyed this debate. Thanks for putting this on here. Do I really need to read Sheldrake's 'The Science Delusion' now though?

[@paxdriver]

The problem is in the fluid definition of what constitutes evidence to public media. It's become profane to suggest seemingly unmeasurable theories might be scientific.. Before things were discovered they were unknown but still true. Not thinking about something without bothering to disprove it - that's the entire problem.

[@design7054]

"Climate change, 97% of scientists say..." - what a way to discredit yourself in such a discussion on scientific truth. Poor from Massimo.

[@Sundar...]

😂

[@martin36369]

Just as Derrida showed that the meaning is not in a text, but in the reading of the text, so one can extrapolate that to the book of nature,

[@PreparedGuy]

This discussion kind of went in circles. Very few points were made and by few I mean none. Mostly posturing. The evidence that was missing was the point of this talk in the first place. It's gone.

[@judonazim_dot_com_is_a_website]

I thought telepathy is acceptable even among the most hardcore materialist scientists.

[@sherlockholmeslives.1605]

They could do with having Jacob Bronowski on the panel.

[@brutusl2786]

So if if the law of gravity is not fixed and is like a habit and not fixed then the whole panel could have floated away.

[@jsat5609]

Why does Sheldrake have to debate 2 people instead of just 1? Also, why can't Sheldrake face his opponents without his face being in darkness, but they can face him and their faces are lighted? 42:34 Dark matter is on life support.

[@doobzb5482]

Because he frequently gets ganged up on

[@TailoredReaction]

The real question should be why is Sheldrake even included on a scientific panel?

[@root9837]

@@TailoredReaction because hes a scientist

[@TailoredReaction]

@@root9837 "First they steal the words, then they steal the meanings."

[@george3737]

There was clear evidence of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Maxwell's Equations of EM were invariant under STR and Michaelson Morley. On General Theory of Relativity, it predicted an expanding Universe, which Einstein did not believe.

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Riddle, from the future out of the past into the 21st century, wingmaker.

[@rodneynorfolk9737]

wow....

[@brandgardner211]

where did this Pigliucci guy come from anyway?

[@leighwalton8190]

Why would the CIA have employed the gifts of Ingo Swann as a remote viewer if there was no such thing as remote viewing? CIA documents are online, for example the psychic probe of Jupiter. Or the CIA document on remote viewing of natural targets by Russell Targ and Harold Putoff, by Stanford Research Institute and presented at the Conference on Quantum Physics and Parapsychology in Geneva.

[@betacam235]

Seriously, anyone interested in psi or psi research should try joining the PA...that's the Parapsychological Association. The yearly Symposium is fun, and an eye opener!

[@paulwillisorg]

20:50. Well Sheldrake IS a scientist. So the statement "scientists don't believe this" is not true.

[@jerrysaylor8910]

Darwin himself admitted his therories had flaws

[@denishougaard8312]

Yes he did not understand what had happend in the Kambrian explosion 530 mio years ago !

[@robertglass1698]

Welcome to a typical comment section...

[@Cookiekeks]

This one here is particularlly weird

[@pappapiccolino9572]

I'm a Sheldrake fan, and whilst I agree that there is a definite bias against him and his ideas (he comes with a certain baggage for materialists), my personal feeling is that his biggest problem is that his ideas on telepathy lack a certain "wow" or importance factor. The way he presents them, they come across as phenomena of minor interest. For those who know anything about devising experiments, you will hopefully agree the way he formulates his experiments on dogs, phone calls etc., is really quite clever, especially considering that he must operate on what is surely a shoestring budget. I believe his results, and I believe his interpretation of those results is very plausible and perfectly scientific. I believe the phenomena he investigates do exist, and they certainly exist at his level of experimentation. But I'm left wondering, what next ? Once you realize that you have an even chance of guessing who is calling you (among a small group of people close to you), or that your dog has a fair idea when you're coming home, what happens then ? It's kinda fun, but doesn't seem to lead anywhere "significant." Maybe I lack imagination...... But these ideas should definitely be part of science IMO. I'd love to see what he or others could do on a decent budget, and with some decent support from his colleagues.

[@thomasbergbusch3641]

Yeah, I kept on thinking "could we not crowdfund his research, and that of people like Dean Radin, since neither the state nor the private sector seems inclined to do so?"

[@janellemckinley172]

Piccolino Where it leads completely destroys their premise.

[@hoodwink578]

@Pappa Picollino Your comment lacks a certain "wow" or importance factor, so I didn't read it.

[@adamwayne4413]

The implications of proving morphic resonance fields are the real wow factor. If they give credence to Sheldrake's theory, then many different departments of scientific thought and study from psychology to quantum physics have to open the doors to new variables that have always been dogmatically left out by the materialistic framework. Now the "kooks" that add some type of religious thought to the Which Way double split experiment have more "evidence." To someone that holds to a materialistic worldview, that is a sin against nature.

[@doobzb5482]

It could progress in the way of allowing more research into intuition and connection, possibly how to strengthen it, and then how to use it in our daily lives, imagine the connectivity the world would have if everyone was psychic or we could communicate to animals, which then leads to the concept of the extreme possibilities of what the human race could achieve if we were all able to connect to the hive mind, we could build cities and great monuments in days, end all war famine and suffering and advance scientifically, culturally, spiritually, artistically and intelligently to never before seen heights

[@samrowbotham8914]

Great to see Sheldrake taking part. What about inviting Bernardo Kastrup, Tom Campbell, Anthony Peake and Jurgen Zeiwe, new talking heads will keep your shows fresh and introduce some new ideas! Science is never settled I feel all scientists should have to study philosophy to help them in the clarification of their ideas and thoughts: "....Let us remember, however, that even scientific beliefs should never be held dogmatically. Few, very few of them, can be safely assumed to be true for all time. Every triumph of science marks the destruction of some previously accepted conclusion. For this reason, men of science refrain, in serious discussion, from talking about belief. They prefer the more accurate word hypothesis. For working purposes, they assume a hypothesis to be true until it is proved false; but they preserve (or they should preserve) an open mind as to whether or not it is absolutely true. Many sceptics have professed to see in the evolution of science only a reason for pessimism. They point out that the new “truths” of science are perpetually succeeded by newer “truths.” Viewed as a whole, therefore, science proceeds only from one error to another and the wise man will put no more reliance on the very latest and best attested scientific theory than he did on the one which it replaced." C.E.Joad Pigliuuci is engaged in Scientism if he is claiming that the Theory of Evolution is an established fact. There is no evidence for his claim, no one has ever seen life evolve into other forms of life. Cats do not become Bats, Cats will always be Cats and Bats will always be Bats. Warfare evolves, science evolves, sport evolves, transport evolves, chess evolves but Life does not.

[@silversoulawakening9195]

if humanity evolved from an ape, why are there still apes?

[@neue01]

Anthony Peake is awesome!!!

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Find out more. See me code to correct infinity, make me geometry, realise that we follow the 1st to escape infinity!

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Rupert listen me, is creation quantum or continuity?

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

Once Massimo said 97% of scientist he said all he needed to say

[@PrimeTime345]

exactly. not even familiar with study he is supposedly citing. so condescending

[@AABB-zb6dv]

He is exactly the type of person that would lock up Galileo had he lived during that period. "97% of clergy agree, Galileo is heretic!"

[@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763]

97% of climate scientists agree? Nope. They were not exclusively “climate scientists” in that survey. In fact, most atmospheric physicists dispute the fact that CO2 is the driving force for warming and cite solar activity as the correlating factor. Massimo is ignorant of climate science, is biased and closed minded. He says he is a sceptic but is anything but that.

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Rules of reality set down to assist escape from infinity, geometry follow we inside the 1st to see, however the 1st is the1st and we are we, followers in the geometry!

[@adrianobulla7875]

I don't know how Sheldrake can keep his calm in front of these people... Or better their "arguments". He must be an angel...

[@s.muller8688]

because life is a play, not a journey...he knows....

[@brandgardner211]

EVERY ONE of these vids has poor audio.

[@arvindjain169]

Conference of substance !!!

[@MassDefibrillator]

It's ironic that Tara points to Newton as an example of someone standing on the shoulders of giants. Newton was the example of the person who's work most dismissed the existing scientific paradigm of the time than anyone else. The mechanical philosophy was the reigning scientific paradigm for 150 years. Newton's work dismissed it in a lifetime. I should say that newton himself did not dismiss it, and in fact spent the rest of his life trying to make his theory of gravity congruent with the mechanical philosophy. A task he failed at and that no-one has really attempted to pick up since. You could argue that Newton was standing on the shoulders of Giants, but those giants existed hundreds of years before him. If there is anything to take on about scientific progress from this example, it is that indeed, hundreds of years of work can be made obsolete.

[@ogreegg]

How is this a debate when only one person is talking the whole time?

[@MrBorceivanovski]

If there's mathematical interpretation that's already evidence but not good enough without experimental proof #

[@williambunting803]

I would generally consider myself to being a card carrying esp sceptic. HOWEVER . It is not just observed, but also proven, and the mechanism understood that animals can sense magnetism, the earth’s very weak magnetism. So there is one undeniable extra sensory mechanism, and you have to say that where there is a mechanism there are possibilities. If animals were able to emit a magnetic field, or perhaps affect a magnetic field then there is the possibility of a communication of sorts. However I definitely believe that cyborg extra sensory functionality is achievable. Broad Band Radar with kilometers of range has an Antenna power consumption of just 0.2 watts, well within the bodies energy production range, so there is scope for an implant that can achieve distant vision, through wall vision, and inter person communication. Extreme? We do have implants for hearing, and some for sight, so why not extended special perception. So I have to say that ESP is anything but a closed field. And I wouldn’t have said that several years ago.

[@Ponk_80]

But all we know is what our senses tell us, and how our mind chooses to interpret those signals given to us by those senses.

[@Speydork666]

Sheldrake has an extended mind....and the guy to the right, have a very closed mind.

[@SayedHamra83]

Massimo sounds like a priest. Dogma über alles.

[@Cookiekeks]

Stimmt doch garnicht

[@georgmenath]

oh i wish they would have invited bernardo kastrup, he would have smashed this close minded so called skeptic philosopher on the right. very disturbing to listen to him

[@Bless-the-Name]

Is science in danger of drifting into sheer fantasy and philosophy? That's like asking: is this comment in danger of being read?

[@ironjohnlad]

Massimo's arguments are crap ! He just wants to promote Science as a religion ! He is the most rigid of them all !

[@hoodwink578]

You are correct, sir.

[@rad608]

James Randi would have hit 75% on that phone experiment! LOL!