Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake

[Drich]

Hey retard, answer the OP's video. Or are you saying that guy is scientifically illiterate as well? Or are you saying anyone who disagrees with you is scientifically illiterate??

The consensus seems to be that 'that guy' is scientifically illiterate.

...and you do not see the irony??? Bet none of you do. bet If i offered 1000 dollars none of you could see the statement that dooms you all to the realm of scientific illiteracy, because what was said was sooo normal it what you said makes sense.

You said the "consensus" seems to be that Guy is scientific illiterate...

When does a consensus make a scientific determination without the presence of any evidence? then wherefore is your said evidence? 

You have none yet your belief in the 'consensus' of the group is enough to put your little mind at ease. therefore you do not subscribe to rational nor logical thought. You simply seek the popular answer.what does my neighbor think.. 

riddle me this.. is this a collage thing/where you taught to be a drone or was it more of a natural thing? (parent telling to shut up and stop asking questions.)

Because clearly you are not ready to defend your position if your thoughts amount to that what everythinks.

No wonder none of you can find God/anything you do not already know exists.

[Mister Agenda]

The consensus seems to be that 'that guy' is scientifically illiterate.

...and you do not see the irony??? Bet none of you do. bet If i offered 1000 dollars none of you could see the statement that dooms you all to the realm of scientific illiteracy, because what was said was sooo normal it what you said makes sense.

You said the "consensus" seems to be that Guy is scientific illiterate...

When does a consensus make a scientific determination without the presence of any evidence? then wherefore is your said evidence? 

You have none yet your belief in the 'consensus' of the group is enough to put your little mind at ease. therefore you do not subscribe to rational nor logical thought. You simply seek the popular answer.what does my neighbor think.. 

riddle me this.. is this a collage thing/where you taught to be a drone or was it more of a natural thing? (parent telling to shut up and stop asking questions.)

Because clearly you are not ready to defend your position if your thoughts amount to that what everythinks.

No wonder none of you can find God/anything you do not already know exists.

The consensus among those of us participating in this thread, brainiac.

[Drich]

...and you do not see the irony??? Bet none of you do. bet If i offered 1000 dollars none of you could see the statement that dooms you all to the realm of scientific illiteracy, because what was said was sooo normal it what you said makes sense.

You said the "consensus" seems to be that Guy is scientific illiterate...

When does a consensus make a scientific determination without the presence of any evidence? then wherefore is your said evidence? 

You have none yet your belief in the 'consensus' of the group is enough to put your little mind at ease. therefore you do not subscribe to rational nor logical thought. You simply seek the popular answer.what does my neighbor think.. 

riddle me this.. is this a collage thing/where you taught to be a drone or was it more of a natural thing? (parent telling to shut up and stop asking questions.)

Because clearly you are not ready to defend your position if your thoughts amount to that what everythinks.

No wonder none of you can find God/anything you do not already know exists.

The consensus among those of us participating in this thread, brainiac.  

i know... let that sink in

[Amarok]

...and you do not see the irony??? Bet none of you do. bet If i offered 1000 dollars none of you could see the statement that dooms you all to the realm of scientific illiteracy, because what was said was sooo normal it what you said makes sense.

You said the "consensus" seems to be that Guy is scientific illiterate...

When does a consensus make a scientific determination without the presence of any evidence? then wherefore is your said evidence? 

You have none yet your belief in the 'consensus' of the group is enough to put your little mind at ease. therefore you do not subscribe to rational nor logical thought. You simply seek the popular answer.what does my neighbor think.. 

riddle me this.. is this a collage thing/where you taught to be a drone or was it more of a natural thing? (parent telling to shut up and stop asking questions.)

Because clearly you are not ready to defend your position if your thoughts amount to that what everythinks.

No wonder none of you can find God/anything you do not already know exists.

The consensus among those of us participating in this thread, brainiac.  

And anyone who isn't a total mental case

[Mister Agenda]

i know... let that sink in

It WAS difficult to take on board that you would spring a scientific method rant off my comment completely unselfconscious of the irony, but you ARE Drich, after all; and knowing that helped.

[Amarok]

i know... let that sink in

It WAS difficult to take on board that you would spring a scientific method rant off my comment completely unselfconscious of the irony, but you ARE Drich, after all; and knowing that helped.

Isn't that standard for him

[Drich]

i know... let that sink in

It WAS difficult to take on board that you would spring a scientific method rant off my comment completely unselfconscious of the irony, but you ARE Drich, after all; and knowing that helped.

it's funny you see only irony here. I seem me using the scientific method to smash in your collective teeth here. meaning I am using your tool to shut you up. I ask for proof you give me consensus/popular belief. I point out popular belief is not apart of rational thought and I ask for documentation to establish your theory you give me collective wishes and speculation.

I asked you to let it sink in apparently I did not take into account how shallow your keel was..

do you still not get it? do you still not see the double standard I exposed using your ever so prised methodology against your 'collective'

---

The consensus among those of us participating in this thread, brainiac.  

And anyone who isn't a total mental case

I'm asking for
P-R-R-R-O-O-O-O-F-F-F-F-F-F you oaf

Ad Hom attacks are not proof of flawed position, they are however proof of fallicious logic

IE: You=because everyone thin he is an idiot it must be true. that is not logic moron and saying anyone who question you is a mental case is also not proof. where is your allegiance to logic and reason? or is making fun of people who you do not agree with your upper limit?

[Amarok]

Keep up the comedy routine clown

[Angrboda]

it's funny you see only irony here. I seem me using the scientific method to smash in your collective teeth here.

If it's any consolation, Drich, I don't see religion as being responsible for your delusions.

[polymath257]

Hey retard, answer the OP's video. Or are you saying that guy is scientifically illiterate as well? Or are you saying anyone who disagrees with you is scientifically illiterate??

The consensus seems to be that 'that guy' is scientifically illiterate.

Even more, it is the consensus of those who are scientifically literate that this guy is scientifically illiterate. He's a kook.

---

I had hoped for other things for this thread.  Perhaps a discussion of the role of dogma in science ala Thomas Kuhn's scientific revolutions.  I take it from some quarters, Kuhn's central thesis is regarded as at best an inaccurate simplification, but I think the question of whether there is such a thing as scientific dogma and what that means may be an interesting one, even if Sheldrake himself is out to lunch.

Well, I found Kuhn's treatment of the Copernican Revolution to be incredibly simplistic. he seemed to think that the new ideas should be adopted immediately, even though it was the supporting evidence of Kepler, Galileo, and Tycho that were instrumental in showing the new ideas are correct. That wasn't so much because of a paradigm shift in the research paradigms as it was the discovery of new methods of obtaining data (the telescope, for example).

Yes, Popper is also not accurate when it comes to how science is done in practice. The *ideal* is to have testability (falsifiability) at each stage, but in practice it is often not possible to do the tests until the technology catches up. To deny the speculations to be 'scientific' in the interim seems, well, strange. On the flip side, there is a strong dislike of having so many parameters in a model that it can be made to agree with *any* observations. SOMETHING, somewhere has to be an actual prediction of new observations.