THE SCIENCE DELUSION BY RUPERT SHELDRAKE | MY THOUGHTS

[@Mr.Jasaw13]

great stuff brother, been intending on reading this book, and now you've convinced me to finally get into it .. i know Sheldrake from his concept "intellectual phase locking" which is bias in an institutionalized scientific circles that basically makes researches not want to deviate too much from what other scientist concluded, so it basically comes out as an echo chamber

[@JimBob1937]

Researchers do not commonly reject outliers as bad data, without determining why the outliers exist... that is known as p-hacking, and essentially is data manipulation. If this is found in a paper, it is retracted, if it even made its way through peer review.

[@Gamster420]

p-hacking - ah, now i have learnt something new. 😄

[@wandering3ngineer]

While I appreciate your view on this Jim. This is a deeper ethical and incentives problem you've touched on. My experience in the scientific establishment, albeit subject to selection bias, is that researchers do reject outliers 'as bad data' without good 'science' reasoning as a result of the incentives present in the research publishing model. The reasoning is more related to other 'rational' reasons related to social status and career and grant positioning. In practice few good checks and balances really exist on data audits for many researchers. Its my experience as well that peer review and selection of papers itself is highly suspect because of the business incentives behind the publishing and research model as well.

[@JimBob1937]

@@wandering3ngineer , you won't find any disagreements regarding that here. If those bad outlier rejections occur, they should be more stringently caught and prevented. Though, I sometimes wonder if the reasons are valid, but just not appropriately explained. I've ran into a few of those myself when reading papers.

[@wandering3ngineer]

@@JimBob1937 Yeah. Agreed on the stringency as well. Agreed as well that some rejections for sure may have valid reasons that can't be easily articulated.

[@JimBob1937]

The speed of light is currently known as a constant as we have yet to see it vary, but the community is certainly open to knowing if the speed of light varies, which is why experiments are done to find the value to higher and higher precisions, to see if it varies at all in the far end of the precision range. The impact the varying speed of light would have on physics would be quite large and is some of large interest to multiple scientific fields. It sounds to me like the book may be a bit questionable then.

[@cristristam9054]

Initially they believed it is constant but than they found out it's speed is "medium dependant" and it is slower in water for example. Also gravity can alter it's speed over long distance with enough gravity ,I believe.

[@JimBob1937]

@@cristristam9054 , that is incorrect though. The speed of light is defined very specifically to be the speed of light in a vacuum. That vacuum part is important. Further, the speed of light actually does not change in a medium either. A photon always, 100% of the time, is going at the speed of light. Rather, in a medium what you're seeing is a slowing down of the wavefront due to the induction of new light wavefronts that add together due to the medium itself being composed of charge carrying particles, which react to the introduction of a light wave through it, causing the charges to oscillate, which in turn produce their own light/electromagnetic wave. This induced wavefront is effectively a slightly offset version of the original, and this compounds until it exits the medium, leading to an apparent slowdown, but the original photons of that light never actually slowed down themselves. This is slightly confusing since light is both a particle and a wave, and technically, this is still a simplification of the physics. You'll have to delve into quantum field theory for the more complete picture. Gravity does not alter the speed of light. Rather, there is a concept of spacetime, and in that spacetime framework, gravity curves spacetime, and light can take longer to travel a curved spacetime. This isn't because the speed of light is slower, but because there is more distance to travel with an increase in curvature. Ironically, the entire point of general relativity is that light is a constant (as far as we know), and as such proves that dilation and contraction of time due to the speed of light (distance traveled per unit time) being a constant to all frames of reference.

[@DetInspectorMonkfish]

what "longstanding notion that science is this absolute perfect method that doesn't make mistakes"? I don't know a single person who believes that. I know plenty of people who believe much more ridiculous things such as their religious beliefs are perfect and couldn't be mistaken. You for example. But i know of literally nobody who would claim the former.

[@JimBob1937]

In general, my response to this book and video is that one should be able to support their metaphysical and religious views without misrepresenting the works of others and the general scientific method. This seems to be a case of making science and the science community the enemy of your beliefs, for no reason other than a misunderstanding of their intent.

[@nabeel8194]

Its more so atheists misrepresenting science as the only path to knowledge, and use empiricism to justisy their rejection of religion. Once the nature of science is understood, then those problems can be resolved

[@JimBob1937]

@@nabeel8194 , I'm an atheist, but I am a practical atheist as I like to say. What this means is that: - Science is one method of gaining knowledge. Other methods may exist, but they should still be falsifiable as a point of practicality. - You can't prove a negative, so the possibility space for a god or other such concept is still there. However, as a point of practicality, I'll accept the highest probability scenario as what is likely correct, until given more information. Even among atheists, there are other forms of knowledge gathering, outside of the scientific method. You have plenty of atheist philosophers, for example, that explore the concepts of knowledge and attempt to glean new knowledge, entirely outside the scientific method. "and use empiricism to justisy their rejection of religion" As pointed out, it can also just be a practical view. I don't outright reject the possibility of religious views being correct, but without falsifiability, why should I believe in them any more than the infinite other non-falsifiable possibilities? If you view falsifiability as being limiting, I'd still argue it is a point of pragmatism. Knowledge gained through philosophical thought can still be tested, logically or mathematically. Otherwise, it is difficult to call it knowledge without having a method of proving correctness.

[@JimBob1937]

If the book says that the speed of light decreased... then I wouldn't trust the book from a scientific standpoint. The speed of light, as far as we've been able to measure, has remained 100% stable. We have only increased our precision of our measurement, which makes me think they're incorrectly trying to argue measurement error as a variation.

[@darkrebel123]

Exactly, this is common fallacy that scientifically illiterate people often make. They have no conception of how science advances. when the science becomes more precise they misinterpret it to mean that the prior prediction was just outright wrong.

[@speedoflink]

Relevant paragraph in the book fyi: "Not surprisingly, early measurements of the speed of light varied considerably, but by 1927, the measured values had converged to 299,796 kilometres per second. (...) However, all around the world from about 1928 to 1945, the speed of light dropped by about 20 kilometres per second. (...) In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again by about 20 kilometres per second and a new consensus developed around the higher value.

[@speedoflink]

References: Birge, W. T. (1929), ‘Probable valves of the general physical constants’ Reviews of Modern Physics, 33, 233-9. Sheldrake, R. (1994), Seven Experiments That Could Change the World: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science, Chapter 6 De Bray, E. J. C. (1934), ‘Velocity of light’, Nature, 133, 948.

[@JimBob1937]

​@@speedoflink , thanks! And yep, as I suspected. The guy is pretty much trying to argue measurement precision as variation. This is disingenuous, and enough to to make all of his other statements highly questionable. That's a precision difference of 0.0067%, which is not bad. Let's say I have a single "standard" 1kg weight of extremely high precision (1000 +- 0.0001 grams). The true weight unknown to 500 scientists I ask to measure it, and each scientist uses their own method of measurement. Perhaps many use electronic scales, perhaps some use mechanical scales, perhaps others find other clever ways to indirectly measure the weight. To rule out gravity differences, we'll say it is all measured in the same location at the same height. This fixed weight will likely be measured to be 1000 +- 50 grams, with a clustering towards the 1000 (measurements would likely follow a gaussian distribution). Does this mean the actual weight varied, or simply the precision of measurements varied? What if we take the mean value of these measurements and deem it the standard value of 1kg? Even taking the mean, the final value may be 1005 grams, or 995 grams, or similar, depending on if there is a skew in the precision error. Does this mean the true value of the 1kg weight varied? No. When researchers report a single value for something, like the speed of light, they already considered precision error and averaged their measurements to get 'closer' to the true value, but you can only get closer and closer to the true value of a continuous measurement, where the precision can technically go into infinity. This is why scientists still try to measure the speed of light with increasing precision, to see if it varies at all in the higher and higher precision territories... but very careful not to confuse precision error with actual underlying variability of the thing being measured. This is essentially the speed of light scenario being presented. Similarly: "all around the world from about 1928 to 1945, the speed of light dropped by about 20 kilometres per second" Is not true, rather, the speed of light as measured varied randomly within a certain level of precision, depending on the method used and the relative precision of that method. It did not drop universally around the world, as claimed. You can look up historical measurement records from multiple attempts to measure it. To fixate on a 20 km/s drop makes me think they're focusing on a single measurement attempt. After all, even the same measurement type will yield variability due to precision, so a quoted single 20 km/s drop is extremely suspicious. Given the author of the book knows the sciences, biology I believe, then he should be fully aware of this. Which leads me to believe he is just being intellectually dishonest.

[@JimBob1937]

@@speedoflink , also of interest is the references you gave. One is a single example of an averaged measurement attempt in 1934 or near about, one is Sheldrake's own book, and the other understands precision error and advertises this in the title with "Probable values." Probable in this case because scientists are always aware that their measurement setups are not perfect and that their measurement result of something like the speed of light is only accurate to so many digits.

[@ihafidh]

Jazak Allah khair. Always great to listen to your book reviews. I benefited a lot from your review on Rethinking Islam and the West and went on to read it myself. By the way, at 2:26, did you mean to say “Metaphysical Naturalism” instead of “Methodological Naturalism”?

[@JimBob1937]

Apologies for the splitting of my replies, was battling YT's bad spam filtering that kept eating my replies.

[@phillipmaxwellastrology2978]

You can do anything from teach about the book in depth to giving an overview and not spoil a book like Sheldrakes. With a book that's fictional or non fictional storytelling there's a story that needs to be preserved and the plot could be ruined beforehand. With a book of scientific exposition there are layers of information to understand so someone explaining it doesn't mean there's more you could learn and discover after someone has discussed in depth. That being said then you did a good job, and if you want to reveal more about these kinds of books you can't go wrong

[@s.a9794]

Could you please make a video on how to understand and interpret NDEs from an islamic point of view brother?

[@darkrebel123]

I haven't read the book but I listened to his TED talk on the book. I'm a biologist, and I've been surrounded by scientists for years. I believe that sheldrake is making one of the same errors in thinking that he accuses science of making, namely that of reductionism and dualism. The problem with how science is communicated, largely lies in the fact that most people are not actually scientifically literate, or statistically literate, and as such, when we communicate science, it inevitably must get reduced down to the lowest common denominator. Me using the term scientifically illiterate is not a judgement against these people (just a descriptive observation), I am grossly illiterate in many topics because I cannot and do not want to study every topic known to man. I personally have several scientific publications, two on neuroscience and structural biology, and another on developmental biology, and every time I have to explain to someone who is not a scientist what my discoveries are, and what the implications are, I necessarily have to omit ~90% of the actual rationale etc in an attempt to reduce it to a level of understanding that corresponds with someone who is not an expert in the field. This same phenomenon also applies to the general ethos around science and how it is perceived by the public vs what it actually is. The materialistic worldview is an excellent example of this. The notion of materialism is often grossly oversimplified among the scientifically illiterate community. Scientists are often very good at non-dual thinking. We understand very deeply that there are apparent paradoxes in reality. We have to confront these paradoxes every day in our scientific research. We also understand that a big source of paradox is a dualistic mode of perception. Humans are evolved such that our rational, thinking part of our brain (which fuels the rationality of science) must by definition be dualistic. The very substrate of our consciousness is based on the ability to discriminate one thing from another, categorize things. Our consciousness cannot process information without reducing it down to simplified approximations and comparisons. Every scientist I've had the pleasure of discussing such things with, fully understands the limitations of such a dualistic, reductionistic approach. Science is much like the rational part of the human consciousness. There has been a massive shift in scientific thinking over the past ~50 years or so, centered around the idea of chaos theory and emergent properties of chaotic systems. As usual, the actual scientific application of emergence is wildly misunderstood by the general public, as demonstrated by the colloquial term "butterfly effect." The butterfly effect is not chaos theory, but it is colloquially confused with chaos theory. The real takeaway from chaos theory and emergence theory that applies to the actual work of scientists, is that we as scientists all know that reductionism fails to explain everything. Chaos theory and emergence theory is in a big way, the scientists' way of saying that the material world is not fully explainable by simple dissecting reality into its constituent parts, based on our current level of knowledge. Scientists recognize this gap in our understanding. See, as scientists, when we are doing our research, we have taken into account far more perspectives on our work than the scientifically illiterate public will ever understand. We may make a statement that has come from the synthesis of 27 different perspectives, but the audience can only grasp one or two of those perspectives, and so the message gets bent out of shape due to the message being reduced to the lowest common denominator. This is a long-winded way of saying that, at least based on the authors' Ted talk on his book, he is making that exact mistake. He is reducing the scientific community down to something that it is not, simply because he does not understand what science actually is. he understands pop-science, not real science. And sure I'm sure he uses a lot of sources from actual scientists, like Dawkins (I personally think Dawkins has a rather narrow view that doesn't not represent the majority of science or scientists). His description of what science is, is at best a reduced approximation of the reality of science, and by definition when you reduce and approximate things this way, you get details wrong, and in his case, much of his criticism is aimed at details that he got wrong. He is fighting an opponent of his own imagination, as best as I can tell at this point. He is a great example of hwo pseudoscience spreads. That being said, it would be so ironic if it turns out I'm making the same mistake I'm accusing him of because I haven't actually read his book. So maybe I should go read his book haha

[@JimBob1937]

Pretty much spot on. Often when I see pseudoscientific thinking, it is because they disagree with a figment of their imagination. They often don't disagree with the current scientific consensus... because they don't actually understand what the consensus actually states. Instead, they're arguing against a non-existent model or theory that they formed through misunderstandings. I always like to tell them that if "science" actually states what they think it does, I too would disagree with it, but the fact of the matter is that what they believe it states is false. Even in these comments, you have people that think an extra physical dimension somehow would produce metaphysical effects for some reason. Instead, the mundane truth is that an extra dimension in physics would be as mundane as our existing dimensions. However, describing the reasons why in any detail would easily take up a large essay or small book. It definitely is hard to convey answers to something, when it requires a certain level of foundational knowledge. This is an strong argument for argument by authority. Such an argument is weak when discussing among peers, but have strength when there is too large a disparity.

[@JimBob1937]

Science is only concerned with the physical reality and not the metaphysical. This isn't a bias as much as metaphysical is simply outside the scope of science and doesn't attempt to solve problems of the metaphysical nature. This is due to the limitations of the scientific method to investigate things that fall outside of the observable reality.

[@shamanahaboolist]

it's not outside observable reality though that's the point. It's another dimension of reality.

[@JimBob1937]

@@shamanahaboolist , to you perhaps. Being respectful of your beliefs, there have not been any type of physical evidence based psychic or metaphysical evidence. I have explored this topic in depth out of interest to see what evidence actually exists... let's just say, just like with religion, what some think of concrete evidence tends to be more a subjective interpretation. Even in the case of psychic remote sensing, the statistical odds tended to be close to that of chance. Rather, the statements of the viewing tend to be vague where they can easily slot into the eventual reality after the fact. You can look up pretty good examples of what proper controls are like to detect real psychic ability (if it exists) via something like the James Randy Foundation challenges.

[@JimBob1937]

@@shamanahaboolist , "It's another dimension of reality." This term tends to get misused. A dimension is like, length, width, height, time, and so on. Spacetime is 4 dimensional, for example. Another dimension won't really lead to metaphysical actions/abilities, and so on.

[@shamanahaboolist]

@@JimBob1937 That's like saying the 4 dimensions modelled in your computer aren't measurable or real. They're real but as model of our 4 dimensions held within an informational dimension which exists only when measured in a particular way. It would be like saying information held in communication isn't real because it's metaphysical. It's real. And there's ways of measuring it. It's just not measured in the same way as measurinng the physical objects which contain the patterns which require a mind to decifer into meaning.

[@shamanahaboolist]

@@JimBob1937 ugh... bruh... the world moved on from Randy a long time ago.

[@commentarytalk1446]

The main premise: "Science as Scientific Method" is fundamentally a useful tool for developing domains of knowledge of the physical nature of reality or the universe or the world around us and is effective used as such. So taking this premise and comparing the consequences: 1. Scientific Method is effective however it is not The Only One Method, there are other effective methods also outside of science and legitimate in the same sense of being useful. 2. This Scientific Method relies heavily on deductive reasoning that is taking apart something to find simpler or more fundamental units with which to measure and generate more "universal" mathematical formula models that describe broader patterns in reality at wider more applicable scale. However this as said is one method only and it's use is mainly for describing the natural phenomena OBJECTIVELY without reference to the human experience as conscious observers and beings. This distinction is quite important. 3. As such Science although useful for it's descriptions eg engineering calculations concerning the integrity of a building says nothing about whether or not that building FEELS RIGHT for a given person talking about their holistic experience subjectively. Now extending this one simple example illustration, trying to base how we live our lives and how our societies function based of a scientific - as you say materialism or physical basis - only is as such MISSING a large and important component of reality extended that of the mind itself... even psychology is severely lacking reliant on statistical modelling ie population replication not on individual information in the experience itself. Extrapolate the consequence of this and they're everywhere in modern Western Secular Society. 4. What is the unfortunate consequence at large in this society: It's to turn Science a method into a totem and it becomes "Scientism" AKA "Western Secular Religion": An atheistic version of religion and a misuse of Science. As you said a part of the problem is taking science and treating the current theories that to present knowledge can be considered facts or laws of nature as immutable or dogma as such and ignores the edge cases or measurement variance eg The Speed of Light does not account for a faster expanding universe or quantum effects which are both faster than light. Namely it works within wide bounds but it's still an incomplete description of underlying reality aka like all knowledge it is both "current fact" and future work in progress" simultaneously. 5. Inevitably the way a society operates it needs a structure or basis for the actions and collective organization of the people in the society. Where science talks about the world we can use that knowledge however where it is silent that is with respect to the complexity of interactions within societies that Religions deal with and combine multi-discipline areas eg philosophy, morality, ethics, culture, tradition, scriptures, economics, law and politics... a lot of this is not within the remit of Sciences of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology though that information may flow and inform the above. For Religion the solution is complex in operation but simple in outcome: Which system the Western Secular Religion or the Traditional Religion eg Islam leads to an overall more coherent and functional basis for societies that develops the people within both individually and as groups? The post is too long to provide an answer, but we can look at different societies and outputs pointing to which ones are using processes better suited to the human full experience of life - above only materialism...

[@PrimitiveArchery6]

My "religion" created internet, electricity, space travel and heart transplants. And its not done yet🎉🎉🎉. Who knowywhat it will produce next. What did yours create?

[@commentarytalk1446]

@@PrimitiveArchery6 Let me give you a basic example: Protocol or Manners at a table deal with the accurate description of polite behaviour and actions that are formally agreed. If one takes it personally and says akin to "my manners are 2 elbows on the table" then that person is really not talking about the subject itself but about their own confusion and emotional state. Is scattering bread-crumbs the right response to such a person?

[@anywallsocket]

Sheldrake is gripping for relevance, full stop.