The Science Delusion

[Cornfed]

Here Rupert Sheldrake questions the basic assumptions of the scientistic view of the universe. Interesting stuff.

[OutWest]

Excellent post. He is not arguing against science, but rather the current subversion of science into an ideology.

[gsjackson]

Absolutely astounding that this was banned from Ted. Well, actually no it isn't. The current science establishment is as dogmatic as the Spanish Inquisition, but instead of torturing you they just make you disappear professionally. But Sheldrake has had a high profile for a very long time, enjoys a large lay audience and gets his books published by the commercial press, so he doesn't need them

Incidentally, dogma number one that he mentioned is why medicine is at an impasse. Why current modes of research into something like cancer will never bear fruit.

[Cornfed]

In another video, Sheldrake points out that morphic resonance explains why people have been scoring higher in IQ tests over the years while clearly actually getting dumber. The more people do the tests the easier the tests are to others.

[MrMan]

The morphic resonance thing seems a little bit far fetched, but I would like to see his evidence. I wish he'd cited a source on the rat experiments, but that wouldn't fit with a speech for a 'lay' audience. He seems to be the big name behind this theory, but I couldn't find the rat paper with a brief Google Scholar search.

I had heard that there was evidence that speed of light measurements had changed over time. if it changes too much, and meters grow or shrink too much, then people will notice the difference. They could just not update the rulers and the masses wouldn't know.

If physicists believe that light bends due to gravity, they should be able to allow for the idea that variables could potentially effect the speed of light without changing their world view.

[Cornfed]

Here's a page on morphic resonance with some reference links:
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

[Winston]

The morphic resonance thing seems a little bit far fetched, but I would like to see his evidence. I wish he'd cited a source on the rat experiments, but that wouldn't fit with a speech for a 'lay' audience. He seems to be the big name behind this theory, but I couldn't find the rat paper with a brief Google Scholar search.

I had heard that there was evidence that speed of light measurements had changed over time. if it changes too much, and meters grow or shrink too much, then people will notice the difference. They could just not update the rulers and the masses wouldn't know.

If physicists believe that light bends due to gravity, they should be able to allow for the idea that variables could potentially effect the speed of light without changing their world view.

Of course he has evidence. All his articles and books do. So does dean radin. Its not a matter of evidence. People who want to believe will see the evidence and people who dont will ignore and deny the evidence. We all have cognitive dissonance. People arent that objective. They believe what makes sense to them and cherry pick evidence to support it. Evidence never changes a skeptics mind if they've already made up their minds.

Science is a tool. It doesnt have a viewpoint or position. The problem is that the scientific establishment that funds people like lawrence krauss, bill nye, michio kaku, etc wants to suppress spirituality and God and metaphysics and push its atheism paradigm. It has an agenda. Thats what sheldrake is exposing. Not that science is good or bad. Its just a tool, like a computer. You use it or you dont. You follow the scientific method or you dont. If you have an agenda then you will only accept data that fits your agenda. Thats not how the scientific method works but its how the scientific establishment works. They arent the same thing. The scientific method is objective but the scientific establishment is not.