Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake

[Angrboda]

[emjay]

Not just full of shit but also straw... it was cringeworthy to watch that video. I've had that book sitting (borrowed) on my shelf for ages, meaning to read it, but watching that video, has put me right off. His chapter 7 for instance, paints the picture that science sees the brain like a traditional computer, and is failing to find memory trace/'stores' from that perspective, which is just flat out wrong... it's not looking for that at all... total straw man that's making my blood boil.

[Fireball]

He's wrong on Dogma 3, as physicists do not claim that the laws thereof are the same now as in the beginning (big bang). As far as whether or not we are truly conscious (Dogma 2), I'll leave that to the people who specialize in that sort of research. As for Dogma 1, I see nothing wrong with a mechanistic universe, and have yet to see any way it is non-mechanistic. Dogpile 3 is as far as I watched; that was enough for me to give this talk the FoS stamp.

[Whateverist]

Is contemporary science based on 10 dogmas, or is Sheldrake full of shit?

Well I made it in a bit past 7 minutes.  Geez, straw man much?  Nothing like arranging the straw in a way that it just falls apart all by itself without any further effort.

[Pat Mustard]

Is contemporary science based on 10 dogmas, or is Sheldrake full of shit?

Sheldrake is full of shit. I don't even have to watch the video to know that.

I've read enough of his execrable effluence to know what he's like.

---

Estimating the quality of a product from the manufacturer’s track record is not.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

When the sum total of a man's claim to be right is the Galileo fallacy, then you can dismiss his ideas.

Sheldrake is a copious user of the Galileo fallacy.

[Quick]

I see a lot of people claiming this guy doesn't know what he is talking about, but I don't see why he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[vulcanlogician]

Yeah, as others have said, he staw mans quite a bit. I would like to hear the opinion of Polymath or Anom about his claims concerning the fluctuations of constants. That was really the only thing that piqued my interest. If the gravitational constant fluctuated, wouldn't that create observable anomalies in planetary motions? IDK.

Science is far from perfect. Errors do occur. Publication bias is a thing. False theories (such as ether) are sometimes generated because of scientist's assumptions. But science eventually corrects its errors.

Science is all about proof. If this guy thinks that rodents can commune psychically from different continents, he should prove it. If he can't prove it, then he should admit that it's unproven, and accept that that's why it isn't taken seriously by scientists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems like eight of his ten are just different ways of griping about the same thing.  More the conclusions of observations than some foundational dogma. : shrugs :

[chimp3]

Is contemporary science based on 10 dogmas, or is Sheldrake full of shit?

I can not answer honestly since I endured less than three minutes of this presuppositional bullshit.

[emjay]

Seems like eight of his ten are just different ways of griping about the same thing.  More the conclusions of observations than some foundational dogma. : shrugs :

I think he just needs to have it out with Richard Dawkins... that's what my dad (a Christian) said... just stick 'em in a room together and lock the door