TED Talk censorship

[ant]

Robert Tulip wrote;
"I am a materialist"

You also engage in scientism quite frequently.
Scientism is a self defeating ideogical meme.
Its claims about its own epistemology are not the consequence of specific scientific investigation. The claim exemplifies science reaching outside itself into an area it insists does not exist.

Your logic here Robert is that of an infant who claims that because he knows everyone in his house, there can be no people outside his house.
Duh, Robert!



Your brilliant brain is the product of evolutionary forces, Robert., Just like my brain.
This idea that materialism is all there is, is itsel a meme. Like a virus, the materialist meme has as its goal to spread to as many hosts as it can in order to increase the odds of future survival.
Good luck with your infected brain, Robert.

It's fun throwing your science right back atcha!!

[Robert Tulip]

Well, ant's insults are entertaining, if foolish.

So glad to see ant's stinging apparent defence of "morphic resonance", Sheldrake's blinding theory of homeopathic memory in matter. We have an ironic inversion of our previous debate, with ant defending a new ager and me critiquing him. Sheldrake's error is to suppose that a new paradigm must reject main findings of existing science.

Materialism is a starting axiom for sound philosophy. There is no evidence that any spiritual events are anything other than wholly caused by material energy. Energy is highly complex, especially in language, but this complexity is reducible in principle to a material basis.

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html Morphic resonance is a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake in his 1981 book A New Science of Life. He uses the expression to refer to what he thinks is "the basis of memory in nature....the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species."

Sheldrake has been trained in 20th century scientific models--he has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cambridge University (1967)--but he prefers Goethe and 19th century vitalism. Sheldrake prefers teleological to mechanistic models of reality. His main interests are in the paranormal.

[ant]

So glad to see ant's stinging apparent defence of "morphic resonance", Sheldrake's blinding theory of homeopathic memory in matter.

Can you show me where I've defended morphic resonance, please? I can't find where I wrote a defense of it.

Materialism is a starting axiom for sound philosophy.

You and your little scientific vocabulary, Robert.
Just because you use a word like "axiom" to sound scientific it doesn't mean you are speaking with the authority of science.
Remember, science is not atheistic. You are atheistic, Robert.

Science is not in the business of values, morals, or philosophy. Its strength is due to a restricted focus on observations of the natural world. You have a horrible habit of adding your own godless flavor of philosophy to it, Robert.
And actually, what you're saying here is that the philosophy of materialism is your chosen flavor.
Like I said, just because you know everyone's name in your sandbox, it doesn't mean there are no other sandboxes in existence. That's philosophy even a child can understand.

You need to behave about all this, Robert. We might have people read your soggy scientism and mistake it for fact.

[Interbane]

Its strength is due to a restricted focus on observations of the natural world.

You have a horrible habit of adding your own godless flavor of philosophy to it, Robert.

You blame Robert for putting in his own philosophical perspective, then you turn around and do the exact same thing. The strength of science is due to it's ability to limit human bias. It's strength is not due to it's "limited focus". That would be a consequence of the process, not a strength.

[ant]

Its strength is due to a restricted focus on observations of the natural world.

You have a horrible habit of adding your own godless flavor of philosophy to it, Robert.

You blame Robert for putting in his own philosophical perspective, then you turn around and do the exact same thing. The strength of science is due to it's ability to limit human bias. It's strength is not due to it's "limited focus". That would be a consequence of the process, not a strength.

Thanks for chiming in to come to Robert's defense. He actually needs it here.

Yes, when an "atheistic scientist" like Robert speaks as if his worldview is supported by the authority of science, I am in fact willing to point a dirty finger his way. Recall, both you and I agree that science is NOT atheistic. At least that's what you posted on BT. Robert doesn't speak from the authority of science any more than I speak from the authority of God.

A restricted focus is an acknowledgement of an inability by science to address questions of meaning and value, which Robert's scientism attempts to do with regularity. It's called "bad philosophy," Interbane.
It's also a form of psuedoscience
.
I am more apt to crown Robert a pseudoscientist than I am a pure scientist.

[Interbane]

A restricted focus is an acknowledgement of an inability by science to address questions of meaning and value, which Robert's scientism attempts to do with regularity. It's called "bad philosophy," Interbane.

I was merely pointing out that the restricted focus is not the strength of science, as you claimed. The strength is in how science puts a damper on human bias. If anything, the restricted focus you mention is a weakness. However, I wouldn't be so quick to claim that meaning and values are outside science. I also wouldn't claim they are in the purview of science. What I would say is that it's currently an open discussion, with excellent arguments from both camps. I'm not an expert, so I'll refrain from placing my opinion in either camp, meanwhile continue reading each sides arguments.



With regards to the thread, Sheldrake does give a good defense of the points he makes. I didn't see anything overly pseudo-scientific, although I also haven't watched the video. I only viewed the transcript. At the same time, Johnson points out many areas where, pseudo-scientific or not, Sheldrake's ideas don't hold up.

The problem I have is the feeling of the talk as a whole. By how it's pieced together, he ulterior motive shines through quite strongly. There are many questionable paradigms that could have been chosen that wouldn't have reflected on an ulterior motive, but on sincere criticism.

[ant]

The strength is in how science puts a damper on human bias. If anything, the restricted focus you mention is a weakness.

This is actually the complete opposite of my opinion about this.

The human bias element is actually its biggest WEAKNESS.

I'm working on something time sensitive right now but I'll say this quickly:

Perceptual differences are great due to personal biases, cultural, economic, and interpersonal influences within a scientific community. Accordingly, each person's lens' influences the manner data is interpreted, how data is applied to working hypotheses, etc, etc. Science is not practiced in a vacuum. The context of the time and the practitioner adds unavoidable bias - always. Subjective experience actually makes objective discovery that much more difficult. So, no, I don't agree with what you claim is the strength of science. Read some Thomas Kuhn.

For science to direct its focus away from matters of value, meaning, and morality would allow the pure examination of the natural world, its laws, mechanics, and predictability. Leave the former to philosophy - another branch of human knowledge. Don't over-burden science.
But we want to give it all to science, hence the word "scientism," right?

[Interbane]

This is actually the complete opposite of my opinion about this.

The human bias element is actually its biggest WEAKNESS.

You misunderstand the interplay of concepts here ant. Human bias is an element in every facet of our existence. We cannot be human without our bias. It is a part of us. The fact that science minimizes this bias is a strength. There is nothing else that is the equal to science in minimizing bias. In every other facet of our existence, bias is much less restrained and far more influential. It is only through science that we've been able to minimize our own biases enough to progress the pool of human knowledge to where it is today.

So, no, I don't agree with what you claim is the strength of science. Read some Thomas Kuhn

I've read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Nothing within Kuhn's book supports your point. If you think it does, you'll need to offer up some quotes and provide an explanation.

For science to direct its focus away from matters of value, meaning, and morality would allow the pure examination of the natural world, its laws, mechanics, and predictability. Leave the former to philosophy - another branch of human knowledge. Don't over-burden science.
But we want to give it all to science, hence the word "scientism," right?

There is no "giving". If values can be studied from a scientific perspective, then who are you to say we shouldn't study them? Are you saying values/meaning/morality are absolutely out-of-bounds of scientific inquiry? That's presumptuous.

[ant]

The fact that science minimizes this bias is a strength.

withdrawn without prejudice

to be continued

[Robert Tulip]

just because you know everyone's name in your sandbox, it doesn't mean there are no other sandboxes in existence.

So for ant, if I understand his view correctly, science is like a sandbox where children play, and religion is like another child's sandbox which the kids in the science box can't see. This is a bad metaphor.

Science is about facts. Facts do not in themselves say how we ought to respond. However, in ant's sandbox, an imaginary fantasy is just as good as views that are compatible with evidence. But for ant that does not matter since he can ignore the kids playing in the science sandpit.

Our 'sandbox' here is what TS Kuhn called our paradigm. Like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance, ant argues for a paradigm that lacks any scientific evidence, suggesting that imaginary myths are real. Maybe he does not understand why people find Sheldrake so objectionable. The objection, understood philosophically, is that science considers only matter is real, that e=mc squared includes everything.