The Science Delusion

[spiritualized]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/27/science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake-review?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

The unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter isn't often mentioned today. It's a mess that can be ignored for everyday scientific purposes, but for our wider thinking it is getting very destructive. We can't approach important mind-body topics such as consciousness or the origins of life while we still treat matter in 17th-century style as if it were dead, inert stuff, incapable of producing life. And we certainly can't go on pretending to believe that our own experience – the source of all our thought – is just an illusion, which it would have to be if that dead, alien stuff were indeed the only reality.

We need a new mind-body paradigm, a map that acknowledges the many kinds of things there are in the world and the continuity of evolution. We must somehow find different, more realistic ways of understanding human beings – and indeed other animals – as the active wholes that they are, rather than pretending to see them as meaningless consignments of chemicals.


Rupert Sheldrake, who has long called for this development, spells out this need forcibly in his new book. He shows how materialism has gradually hardened into a kind of anti-Christian faith, an ideology rather than a scientific principle, claiming authority to dictate theories and to veto inquiries on topics that don't suit it, such as unorthodox medicine, let alone religion. He shows how completely alien this static materialism is to modern physics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/physics), where matter is dynamic. And, to mark the strange dilemmas that this perverse fashion poses for us, he ends each chapter with some very intriguing "Questions for Materialists", questions such as "Have you been programmed to believe in materialism?", "If there are no purposes in nature, how can you have purposes yourself?", "How do you explain the placebo response?" and so on.


In short, he shows just how unworkable the assumptions behind today's fashionable habits have become. The "science delusion" of his title is the current popular confidence in certain fixed assumptions – the exaltation of today's science, not as the busy, constantly changing workshop that it actually is but as a final, infallible oracle preaching a crude kind of materialism.


In trying to replace it he needs, of course, to suggest alternative assumptions. But here the craft of paradigm-building has chronic difficulties. Our ancestors only finally stopped relying on the familiar astrological patterns when they had grown accustomed to machine-imagery instead – first becoming fascinated by the clatter of clockwork and later by the ceaseless buzz of computers, so that they eventually felt sure that they were getting new knowledge. Similarly, if we are told today that a mouse is a survival-machine, or that it has been programmed to act as it does, we may well feel that we have been given a substantial explanation, when all we have really got is one more optional imaginative vision – "you can try looking at it this way".


That is surely the right way to take new suggestions – not as rival theories competing with current ones but as extra angles, signposts towards wider aspects of the truth. Sheldrake's proposal that we should think of natural regularities as habits rather than as laws is not just an arbitrary fantasy. It is a new analogy, brought in to correct what he sees as a chronic exaggeration of regularity in current science. He shows how carefully research conventions are tailored to smooth out the data, obscuring wide variations by averaging many results, and, in general, how readily scientists accept results that fit in with their conception of eternal laws.


He points out too, that the analogy between natural regularities and habit is not actually new. Several distinctly non-negligible thinkers – CS Peirce (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/), Nietzsche, William James, AN Whitehead (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/) – have already suggested it because they saw the huge difference between the kind of regularity that is found among living things and the kind that is expected of a clock or a calcium atom.


Whether or no we want to follow Sheldrake's further speculations on topics such as morphic resonance (http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html), his insistence on the need to attend to possible wider ways of thinking is surely right. And he has been applying it lately in fields that might get him an even wider public. He has been making claims about two forms of perception that are widely reported to work but which mechanists hold to be impossible: a person's sense of being looked at by somebody behind them, and the power of animals – dogs, say – to anticipate their owners' return. Do these things really happen?


Sheldrake handles his enquiries soberly. People and animals do, it seems, quite often perform these unexpected feats, and some of them regularly perform them much better than others, which is perhaps not surprising. He simply concludes that we need to think much harder about such things.
Orthodox mechanistic believers might have been expected to say what they think is wrong with this research. In fact, not only have scientists mostly ignored it but, more interestingly still, two professed champions of scientific impartiality, Lewis Wolpert and Richard Dawkins, who did undertake to discuss it, reportedly refused to look at the evidence (see two pages in this book). This might indeed be a good example of what Sheldrake means by the "science delusion".

[spiritualized]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnkun1HIG0M

[Emmalevine]

Not sure of the connection with the song Spiritualized but I'm actually in the middle of reading the book you mentioned - certainly interesting stuff.

[spiritualized]

Not sure of the connection with the song Spiritualized

Dunno - seemed to fit the subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm8ClRnVxtE

[Quintessence]

As a scientist, my response to this is... "huh?"

The person seems to be operating from a dated (or just plain wrong) understanding of what science is and science does. My field certainly doesn't rest on the old mechanistic model of the universe. Ecology, conservation, and land management is incredibly holistic. :confused: I'll grant that the field this guy comes from tends to be more reductionistic, but biochemistry =/= all of science. >_<

[n2mec]

For me, though not a scientist you make some interesting points. If I may, boil it all down for me "Focus on the ability to coexist in natural state spiritually while maintaining a material world without conflict".

Then again I could have you all wrong. either way thanks.

[Gem]

Interesting Little Article

http://boingboing.net/2008/04/09/biologist-rupert-she.html

[SpiralNature]

As a scientist, my response to this is... "huh?"

The person seems to be operating from a dated (or just plain wrong) understanding of what science is and science does. My field certainly doesn't rest on the old mechanistic model of the universe. Ecology, conservation, and land management is incredibly holistic. :confused: I'll grant that the field this guy comes from tends to be more reductionistic, but biochemistry =/= all of science. >_<

As one myself also I agree. Matter understanding has increased with quantum mechanics and is still a huge learning curve for us

[spiritualized]

Also worth checking out -

http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/

[spiritualized]

Matter understanding has increased with quantum mechanics and is still a huge learning curve for us

The field of Quantum Mechanics is over a Hundred years Old!!!

[SpiralNature]

Yes? and our understanding of the world around us began with Neanderthal's, just because our knowledge of quantum mechanics began over 100 years ago doesn't mean we haven't had any new discoveries in the field.

Bohr/Dirac and Lorentz are all physicists from the 20th century who made huge steps forward in this field.

Modern works are aimed on quantum computer technology/particle accelerators and many others, so I really don't understand how a topics age can be used as an example for not learning anything new?

[spiritualized]

Modern works are aimed on quantum computer technology/particle accelerators and many others, so I really don't understand how a topics age can be used as an example for not learning anything new?

I was simply making the point that there are things in certain areas that have moved radically - & that a lot of people are having problems with quantum mechanics - even given the age of a lot of it's discoveries.

[Saspian]

Also worth checking out -

http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/
Re O.P.
Just a few brief considerations; I have not had time to do it justice.

I am not anti science but see the Scientism of Dawkins, Dennett et al quite worrisome by virtue of the limits inherent in the scientific method which, again, I am not denigating in any way.
Science can be very helpfull in the here, now, and not too far down the track.As for possible cosmic and ethical considerations it is found wanting.

Logisc and science as Popper and Kuhn have indicated ,deal with high degrees of probability within our arguably limited secular world appraisal.
There may well be a lot more as quantum mechanics tends to indicate.

Will check out your links. Thanks:hug3: ......

[SpiralNature]

I was simply making the point that there are things in certain areas that have moved radically - & that a lot of people are having problems with quantum mechanics - even given the age of a lot of it's discoveries.

Blame Schrondinger for his (in my opinion) horrendous wave equation ;)

The problem with QM is huge, heisenbergs uncertainty principle somewhat restricts us from more indepth experiements but modern scientists are making new discoveries, such as the new particle found with ATLAS named Chi.

Remember in quantum mechanics, its a choice ;) everything is in a constant state of oscillation and is everywhere at once!

[spiritualized]

http://www.stanislavgrof.com/pdf/Global.Crisis_Future.of.Humanity.pdf

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Whew !.... at first I thought this might be some religious-based, science bashing thread about Creationism of some other lameatrocity , but after breezing through the O.P., seeing Sheldrake's name and 'morphic resonance' , I breathed a sigh of relief . Then I thought of this song 'Supercollider' by Tribe , about the SSC in Texas , that was killed for politico-financial excuses .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1-EPTAFE0o

"Goodbye Princeton , goodbye CERN
He's gone to Texas to watch the holy fire burn
He's gone to build the super colli-i-i-i- derrrrr "

winks...

[spiritualized]

Beyond science and religion? - Part 5

http://youtu.be/ZL9a4HchCqQ


[An interesting 5 part discussion on this subject (rest on U-Tube)]


Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion about science and religion, or is such a debate doomed to be taken over by extremists on both sides and descend into name-calling by those who think the ultimate argument is four-letter words?

Has scientific materialism restricted scientific progress as fundamentalism has restricted spiritual progress? Is there value in having a dialogue between open-minded people in the fields of science and spirituality?

[UndercoverElephant]

Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion about science and religion, or is such a debate doomed to be taken over by extremists on both sides and descend into name-calling by those who think the ultimate argument is four-letter words?


It's harder than it ought to be.


Has scientific materialism restricted scientific progress as fundamentalism has restricted spiritual progress?


No. Dawkins/Dennett-style materialism restricts adherents to that belief system in terms of their own understanding of non-scientific matters, but materialism hasn't restricted scientific progress. Materialism makes sense from a strictly scientific point of view. Science can't do immaterialism.


Is there value in having a dialogue between open-minded people in the fields of science and spirituality?

Yes, it is very important indeed.

[spiritualized]

Materialism makes sense from a strictly scientific point of view.
I don't think that it does. I think that's the point - that materialism isn't proper science.

Materialism is an interpretation of the facts, not fact. Materialism is based on assumptions. In fact the actual science disproves materialism.

To state that all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality - is an unproven assumption. Physicalism assumes, insists & arrogantly states; that there is nothing in the Universe apart from from physical phenomena & their emergent properties - who said!!!??? That's Dogma; not science!

To understand the World of experience; & not something that transcends experience - it needs to be understood that there is no World of experience without consciousness.

Daniel J Boorstin - "Throughout human history; illusions of knowledge, not ignorance, have proven to be the principle obstacle to discovery".

Toward the First Revolution in the Mind Sciences -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhntEOGslbs (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiritualforums.co m%2Fvb%2Fredir.php%3Flink%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww .youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DAhntEOGslbs)

[I'm in no way defending fundamentalist religions, or in fact any religion (I think that 'they' are as deluded as the materialists - they are both wrong - The classic double bind)]

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't think that it does. I think that's the point - that materialism isn't proper science.


Materialism isn't science at all. It's a metaphysical doctrine. When we are doing science, it usually makes sense to think about things as if that metaphysical doctrine were true. The problems arise when people start claiming it is actually true, especially if they are claiming scientific authority for that belief.


Materialism is an interpretation of the facts, not fact. Materialism is based on assumptions. In fact the actual science disproves materialism.


I don't think science can prove or disprove any metaphysical claim.


To state that all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality - is an unproven assumption. Physicalism assumes, insists & arrogantly states; that there is nothing in the Universe apart from from physical phenomena & their emergent properties - who said!!!??? That's Dogma; not science!


Yes, it's dogma, and not science. However, this particular sort of dogma doesn't actually get in the way of scientific progress - at least not usually. Although it may cause other problems.


To understand the World of experience; & not something that transcends experience - it needs to be understood that there is no World of experience without consciousness.


That may well be true, but it isn't science. Words like "consciousness" and "experience" are devoid of scientific meaning, and I think this will always be the case. You could only give a subjective meaning to those words, and science doesn't trade in subjectivity. From a strictly scientific point of view, the claim "I know I'm conscious, because I'm directly aware of it" is precisely as meaningful and verifiable as "I know Jesus lives, because I feel his presence directly." This has nothing to do with proper science.

[spiritualized]

Words like "consciousness" and "experience" are devoid of scientific meaning
I'm not so sure. You only have to look at Robert Monroe's work to see this isn't the case (among many others).

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not so sure. You only have to look at Robert Monroe's work to see this isn't the case (among many others).

I have read Monroe's books. They are certainly fascinating, but they aren't science. His ideas ultimately boil down to personal anecdotes. That doesn't mean they are worthless, but it does mean they aren't science.

Science can't even get past the first square on the issue of consciousness, because there is no valid scientific means of providing a meaning for that word. That's why scientific-minded people always end up defining consciousness in terms of some sort of physical entity. You can define consciousness as "brain activity" if you like, but from that moment onwards every time you mention consciousness you will actually be talking about brain activity. How does consciousnes (i.e. brain activity) arise from brain activity? Dumb question.

Any scientist trying to understand Monroe as science would just be left trying to analyse what looked to them like an endless stream of meaningless gibberish.

[spiritualized]

I'm still unsure - I think that there are experiments that can & have been done to properly investigate these areas.

The major obstacle is the definition of science - If you feel (as most do), that science is the study of the physical; & you base the understandings of science on the primary assumption that all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality - i.e. Nothing is real except the physical; then I agree; anything that falls outside of that isn't science - & a larger system can never be described from the perspective of a sub-set.

This is the contention that I have - I don't think that this is science; it's just another mental box, no different really to fundamentalist religious belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiritualforums.co m%2Fvb%2Fredir.php%3Flink%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fen. wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FScience)

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm still unsure - I think that there are experiments that can & have been done to properly investigate these areas.


There are people trying to investigate "the paranormal." They call themselves "parapsychologists" and there is no agreement with the mainstream scientific community that parapsychology is a branch of science at all. There are fundamental differences between the sort of causality that normal science investigates, and the sort that the parapsychologists try to investigate. Paranormal phenomena are person-dependent, for example, and that immediately messes up any attempt to investigate it with normal scientific methods.

The conclusions of these experiments are generally borderline if positive at all, and they are always disputed by skeptics.


The major obstacle is the definition of science - If you feel (as most do), that science is the study of the physical; & you base the understandings of science on the primary assumption that all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality - i.e. Nothing is real except the physical;


You've mixed two things up together there.

(1) Science is the study of the physical.
(2) We must assume that all phenomena are emergent from physical properties.

(1) is relatively non-controversial, and I agree with it.
(2) is much trickier. You can make that assumption when you're doing science and then drop the assumption when you're not doing science.


then I agree; anything that falls outside of that isn't science - & a larger system can never be described from the perspective of a sub-set.

This is the contention that I have - I don't think that this is science; it's just another mental box, no different really to fundamentalist religious belief.


Materialism isn't science, and yes it is a sort of (negative) religious belief which is taken to fundamentalist levels by certain individuals. In some ways it is even worse than religious fundamentalism, because the people who adhere to that belief system tend to spend a great deal of time defending the notion that their belief is backed up by science and/or reason. At least the religious fundies recognise that they are religious fundies.

[spiritualized]

You've mixed two things up together there.

(1) Science is the study of the physical.
(2) We must assume that all phenomena are emergent from physical properties.

(1) is relatively non-controversial, and I agree with it.
(2) is much trickier. You can make that assumption when you're doing science and then drop the assumption when you're not doing science.
In regards to the scientific method; I feel that we need to drop all the assumptions; especially in regards to consciousness. I feel that scientific materialism is becoming a very big stumbling block & massive brick wall towards the advancement of genuine knowledge & wisdom. The idea of a mechanical Universe is ludicrous.

Materialism isn't science, and yes it is a sort of (negative) religious belief which is taken to fundamentalist levels by certain individuals. In some ways it is even worse than religious fundamentalism, because the people who adhere to that belief system tend to spend a great deal of time defending the notion that their belief is backed up by science and/or reason. At least the religious fundies recognise that they are religious fundies.
This is the result of assuming that science should only be concerned with the study of the physical (scientifically proven to be energy anyway); & assuming that 'all phenomena are emergent from physical properties' - (a scientifically unproven & baseless claim). Do you see my point? Is it really any longer valid to continue to listen to the endless polemics of rabid materialists, & raving fundamentalist religious loonies - personally I'm sick of it all. Not to mention that as a species we could quite possibly destroy ourselves; if we continue along the path for much longer with such entrenched World views.

[UndercoverElephant]

In regards to the scientific method; I feel that we need to drop all the assumptions; especially in regards to consciousness.


Would there be any point in dropping assumptions which compromise the integrity of science at the same time as "unblocking" the route to investigating consciousness?

Science needs some assumptions in order to work properly as science.


I feel that scientific materialism is becoming a very big stumbling block & massive brick wall towards the advancement of genuine knowledge & wisdom.


I think it can get in the way of some people's capacity to understand some aspects of reality which aren't compatible with scientific materialism. Where I disagree with you is that science can ever be anything other than materialistic, by which I mean I don't think science can ever do spirituality. I think those things are necessarily not part of science.

Put it this way: science has to be for everybody, regardless of their spiritual disposition, but if science did spirituality then everybody would be obliged to accept this "official scientific spirituality." There is something very wrong about that.


The idea of a mechanical Universe is ludicrous.


It's pretty out of date even from a scientific point of view.


This is the result of assuming that science should only be concerned with the study of the physical (scientifically proven to be energy anyway); & assuming that 'all phenomena are emergent from physical properties' - (a scientifically unproven & baseless claim). Do you see my point?


Not really. You are saying that if science starts with an assumption that materialism is true, we end up believing that only material things exist. That doesn't have to be true, even if it is a lot of the time. In other words, even if there is no scientific meaning to words like "consciousness", it doesn't mean we should conclude that there is no such thing. It just means we need to accept that science doesn't answer every sort of question, and leave the investigation of consciousness to non-scientists.


Is it really any longer valid to continue to listen to the endless polemics of rabid materialists, & raving fundamentalist religious loonies - personally I'm sick of it all.


They annoy me too. :-)


Not to mention that as a species we could quite possibly destroy ourselves; if we continue along the path for much longer with such entrenched World views.

I agree. The difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying is that you think science needs to be expanded to cope with more sorts of territory, and I'm saying science needs to be more aware of its own limitations.

Richard Dawkins would like nothing more than a scientific explanation of consciousness. You appear to want the same thing. I think you're both wrong, but for different reasons. He's wrong because he thinks there must be a materialistic explanation for consciousness (if only we could work it out....) and there isn't (because it is conceptually impossible, like a square circle), and you're wrong because you think science can cope with spiritual/artistic concepts without ceasing to be science.

UE

[psychoslice]

I think that spirituality and science can learn from each other, all they are is seeing what is in a different perspective, one is not better than the other.

[spiritualized]

I agree. The difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying is that you think science needs to be expanded to cope with more sorts of territory, and I'm saying science needs to be more aware of its own limitations.
I see what your saying - But it seems to me that those entrenched in the 'science camp' are convinced that science can one day potentially explain & figure everything out; very largely based on the unproven assumption that 'all phenomena are emergent from physical properties'.

Fair enough if 'science' wants to confine itself to the study of the physical; & it openly admits that it knows f*ck all about anything else. But that doesn't seem to be what happens in practise/the real World.

If 'science' wants to think it can potentially explain/understand everything; then it better start by expanding it's scientific method to encompassing what it very obviously doesn't/can't explain (starting with the nature of consciousness), & taking a very hard & honest look at it's assumptions.

[psychoslice]

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (c460-c.377 BCE) Greek physician. Law

Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.
Robert K. Merton, Social Theory, 1957

[UndercoverElephant]

I see what your saying - But it seems to me that those entrenched in the 'science camp' are convinced that science can one day potentially explain & figure everything out; very largely based on the unproven assumption that 'all phenomena are emergent from physical properties'.


Certainly Dawkins himself believes something along those lines, although he'd probably state it as "anything science cannot potentially figure out is unknowable, so don't bother trying to find the answers." But I don't think anyone should consider Dawkins as merely pro-science. He goes much further than that - he's anti-religion, unless he can portray that religion as "not really a religion" (which is what he thinks about Buddhism.)

I am very much pro-science myself. I'm just not anti-religion unless that religion really is anti-science (e.g. literalist creationism.)



Fair enough if 'science' wants to confine itself to the study of the physical; & it openly admits that it knows f*ck all about anything else. But that doesn't seem to be what happens in practise/the real World.


That depends who you talk to. I think that in the case of extremist scientism, just as in the case of extremist anything else, it is the most extreme individuals who make the biggest noise.

There is, I think, something of a cultural problem within science. I think anybody studying a science at university should spend at least 10% of their time studying philosophy of science, precisely to avoid some of these problems happening in the first place. Dawkins is a scientist. His philosophical views are very naive, and not just with respect to the metaphysical problem you have been talking about. He has a rather simplistic idea of what science actually is and how it relates to other forms of knowledge. He doesn't think critically about his own views, even though he tries. I think the basic mistake he makes is to think that philosophy is easy - that because he thinks rationally as part of his practice of science he is automatically well-placed to be a philosopher of science. It doesn't actually work like that in reality, because philosophy is much harder than science and you don't find that out until you study it properly.


If 'science' wants to think it can potentially explain/understand everything; then it better start by expanding it's scientific method to encompassing what it very obviously doesn't/can't explain (starting with the nature of consciousness), & taking a very hard & honest look at it's assumptions.

Yes. But that's philosophy, not science. Dawkins knows all too well that science has got a major problem explaining consciousness. He just doesn't understand that it is a permanent problem caused by the nature of scientific enquiry itself. For him to change his views on this would be akin to a religious de-conversion. It is not going to happen easily.

[spiritualized]

Yes. But that's philosophy, not science.
I feel that the scientific method can be applied to such things.

Science is about understanding what is - & it ought to apply itself to that - & not limit itself to assuming what reality is & isn't.

[UndercoverElephant]

I feel that the scientific method can be applied to such things.

Science is about understanding what is - & it ought to apply itself to that.

Science is about finding quantifiable causal connections between different physical processes. If you ask science to try to understand what science itself is, it could only do so by treating it as a type of human behaviour. And when you take a strictly scientific approach to understanding human behaviour, you end up thinking like Richard Dawkins.

[norseman]

Something I set down some time back. I was a "scientist" for many decades before I saw the "alternative light" :D.

SCIENCE OR MAGIC – DOES IT HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER ?

For many, acceptance of magic implies a denial of science and vice-versa. But does it have to be so ? Is there an intermediate which connects the two ?
Perhaps we have to look at earlier times, when “Science” was actually referred to as Natural Philosophy – a much more appropriate image.
Magic is part of the natural universe, obeying laws as do all things in nature. So, it’s not a big stretch to see Magic as part of Natural Philosophy, along with disciplines like Ethics, for example.
We were taken down a blind alley by Newtonian Physics. Newtonian logic, the objective deterministic universe, is a mental trap which seeks Certainty in an Uncertain world.
A “map” could be put forward :
Mythology>>Natural Philosophy>>Soft Science>>Hard Science>>Philosophy [?]

Natural Philosophy, in all it’s forms, does not deal in Certainty but in Possibilities. It does not seek absolute proofs of an idea but rather options and alternatives.
Taking something which is central to Science, Cause and Effect, the Natural Philosophy stance would be to see a Cause resulting in many possible Effects with varying degrees of Probability. What we might call “Magic” are then effects which lie in the low probability ranges, the tail ends of the bell curve. So, the adept in magic is not producing an Effect, as they already exist, but is actually changing the probability of the Desired Effect manifesting in this world.

We need to think about myths and legends before moving on. Myths and legends all had origins somewhere. Why do we need to think about this area ? It is because it has a major bearing on a society’s culture, and culture has a major influence on that society’s philosophy.
In Britain, our myths date back to the time when these isles were a dangerous place to be, a time of the “Wild Wood” – the dense forest which covered the land, the forest with wolves and bears and wild boar, the forest which we saw as populated by mystical being who could be friend or enemy. Our myths are very tenacious, our longest-lasting deities come from that time – The Horned Man [ Cernunnos, Hern, the Lord of the Animals] and the Green Man – The Spirit of Wild Nature, Hob, Robin.
Take a simple myth concerning Glastonbury Tor – a pre-christian holy place. It is said that walking the spiral paths in a certain order will lead you into another world [ Avalon, Lyonesse ?]. Now is this just a tale to be told or is there some justification to it ? From personal experience, I can say that engaging in this quest with a clear mind produces a feeling of elation. There is no measurable proof of this but there is a philosophical experience to be gained. Perhaps, in a nutshell, this defines the division. Science is concerned with proofs, while Natural Philosophy gives Life Experiences.

So, where and when did we lose our way ?
The Ancients [ Greek, Chinese, Romans, etc] produced fine Philosophers [ mathematics, ethics, medicine etc. Their philosophies were open to debate and the exploration of many avenues and possibilities. The rot appears to set in with Dogmatism and the “one true way” philosophy. This lead to a way of thinking which resulted in Newtonian logic, no longer concerned with possibilities but in absolutes. The reversal began with Heisenberg and Uncertainty as a prime feature of our universe – a more Subjective point of view, and emerging philosophies mirrored that change.

To sum up my viewpoint, Natural Philosophy produces experiences of life, encourages thought, changes attitudes and life styles, and broadens your outlook. Science is more concerned with the reduction of Uncertainty and bringing order. This is a flawed concern because Uncertainty and Disorder are vital to life’s development.

So that is my thesis. If we wish to see the universe in a holistic way, we need to shift away from Hard Science towards Soft Science [ Philosophy] as is beginning to creep into leading edge Physics where leading thinkers are less Scientists and more like Philosophers.

Norse Oct 2000.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think that spirituality and science can learn from each other, all they are is seeing what is in a different perspective, one is not better than the other.

Yes. It's all the same world.

[Rin]

I read the article, then the comments following the article on the guardian website.

What I find most disturbing is the hostility and virtual complete denial that Sheldrake may have some points worthy of discussion.

[spiritualized]

It's the Age of Ahriman...

[spiritualized]

The Voice, The Cosmos & The Quantum Universe (Full Documentary)

http://youtu.be/CUCIDPclpro

[seekerscientist]

I agree completely. Scientists need to adopt the open mindedness that Erwin Schrodinger had. I would suggest reading his book "My View of the World", c. 1961.

[BlueSky]

Personally I am quite impressed with science these days. In particular the works of Brian Swimme.
I am currently reading a relatively new book called 'Journey of the Universe' and I am finding it fascinating.
James

[sbjazzman]

Something I set down some time back. I was a "scientist" for many decades before I saw the "alternative light" :D.

SCIENCE OR MAGIC – DOES IT HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER ?

For many, acceptance of magic implies a denial of science and vice-versa. But does it have to be so ? Is there an intermediate which connects the two ?
Perhaps we have to look at earlier times, when “Science” was actually referred to as Natural Philosophy – a much more appropriate image.
Magic is part of the natural universe, obeying laws as do all things in nature. So, it’s not a big stretch to see Magic as part of Natural Philosophy, along with disciplines like Ethics, for example.
We were taken down a blind alley by Newtonian Physics. Newtonian logic, the objective deterministic universe, is a mental trap which seeks Certainty in an Uncertain world.
A “map” could be put forward :
Mythology>>Natural Philosophy>>Soft Science>>Hard Science>>Philosophy [?]

Natural Philosophy, in all it’s forms, does not deal in Certainty but in Possibilities. It does not seek absolute proofs of an idea but rather options and alternatives.
Taking something which is central to Science, Cause and Effect, the Natural Philosophy stance would be to see a Cause resulting in many possible Effects with varying degrees of Probability. What we might call “Magic” are then effects which lie in the low probability ranges, the tail ends of the bell curve. So, the adept in magic is not producing an Effect, as they already exist, but is actually changing the probability of the Desired Effect manifesting in this world.

We need to think about myths and legends before moving on. Myths and legends all had origins somewhere. Why do we need to think about this area ? It is because it has a major bearing on a society’s culture, and culture has a major influence on that society’s philosophy.
In Britain, our myths date back to the time when these isles were a dangerous place to be, a time of the “Wild Wood” – the dense forest which covered the land, the forest with wolves and bears and wild boar, the forest which we saw as populated by mystical being who could be friend or enemy. Our myths are very tenacious, our longest-lasting deities come from that time – The Horned Man [ Cernunnos, Hern, the Lord of the Animals] and the Green Man – The Spirit of Wild Nature, Hob, Robin.
Take a simple myth concerning Glastonbury Tor – a pre-christian holy place. It is said that walking the spiral paths in a certain order will lead you into another world [ Avalon, Lyonesse ?]. Now is this just a tale to be told or is there some justification to it ? From personal experience, I can say that engaging in this quest with a clear mind produces a feeling of elation. There is no measurable proof of this but there is a philosophical experience to be gained. Perhaps, in a nutshell, this defines the division. Science is concerned with proofs, while Natural Philosophy gives Life Experiences.

So, where and when did we lose our way ?
The Ancients [ Greek, Chinese, Romans, etc] produced fine Philosophers [ mathematics, ethics, medicine etc. Their philosophies were open to debate and the exploration of many avenues and possibilities. The rot appears to set in with Dogmatism and the “one true way” philosophy. This lead to a way of thinking which resulted in Newtonian logic, no longer concerned with possibilities but in absolutes. The reversal began with Heisenberg and Uncertainty as a prime feature of our universe – a more Subjective point of view, and emerging philosophies mirrored that change.

To sum up my viewpoint, Natural Philosophy produces experiences of life, encourages thought, changes attitudes and life styles, and broadens your outlook. Science is more concerned with the reduction of Uncertainty and bringing order. This is a flawed concern because Uncertainty and Disorder are vital to life’s development.

So that is my thesis. If we wish to see the universe in a holistic way, we need to shift away from Hard Science towards Soft Science [ Philosophy] as is beginning to creep into leading edge Physics where leading thinkers are less Scientists and more like Philosophers.

Norse Oct 2000.

How does one avoid pigeonholes when dealing with something so far out of the box that the only reaction I typically get is a jaw drop and maybe a slight wow. As a Kabbalist, we deal with a metaphysical blueprint that is quite clear that matter is animated by spirit as it shoots through the various levels spiritual intent, thought and emotional energizing.This does not discount evolution - it factors in a benevolent leaning intelligence to magnetically pull probable constructs into manifestations that best serve the overall system. It does add a God variable into the equation which is beyond the purview of the scientist. But what happens when the elephant in the room can't be avoided anymore? http://www.oracleofthephoenix.com/forum/5-phoenix-lights/46-isaiah-s-vision.html

[spiritualized]

Science's First Mistake - Professor Ian Angell -

http://vimeo.com/24014769

Science is a perpetual search for new ideas, but this says nothing of how correct it is. Professor Angell argues that no matter how elaborate, sophisticated or subtle a scientific description may appear, it always generates paradox. Science, the formal enterprise for probing the nature of reality, is awash with such paradoxes, from zero and infinity, to causality, particles and gravity. Reality emerges from our systems of observation, but Ian argues that paradox is a fundamental property of observation within emergent systems. As a scientist and philosopher, Professor Angell challenges us to recognise that as we seek scientific rationality, ultimate reality, concluding formulae or final identities, we will find, or even generate, paradoxes.

[StephenK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnkun1HIG0M (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatc h%3Fv%3DQnkun1HIG0M)

OMG! These guys are great! Listing to "Right Effect" at the moment!
Thanks for posting this! :headbang:

[StephenK]

Dunno - seemed to fit the subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm8ClRnVxtE (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiritualforums.co m%2Fvb%2Fredir.php%3Flink%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww .spiritualforums.com%252Fvb%252Fredir.php%253Flink %253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%2525 2Fwatch%25253Fv%25253DQm8ClRnVxtE)
Hey... thanks again for this Spiritualized! I've been listening to this group a lot in the last couple of days... I checked with Rhapsody but they weren't
listed but did find a youtube page with most of their productions... not a stinker in the bunch!! Marvelous music! :^)


http://www.youtube.com/artist/Stereo_MC%27s?feature=watch_metadata (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiritualforums.co m%2Fvb%2Fredir.php%3Flink%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww .youtube.com%252Fartist%252FStereo_MC%252527s%253F feature%253Dwatch_metadata)

[spiritualized]

Glad that you like them Stephen - I used to listen to them a lot in the early 'rave' culture days. There was some good music in the early 90's.

These were another favourite -

http://youtu.be/6ifNTb1Xx_I

[StephenK]

Glad that you like them Stephen - I used to listen to them a lot in the early 'rave' culture days. There was some good music in the early 90's.

These were another favourite -

http://youtu.be/6ifNTb1Xx_I (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiritualforums.co m%2Fvb%2Fredir.php%3Flink%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww .spiritualforums.com%252Fvb%252Fredir.php%253Flink %253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.spiritualforums. com%25252Fvb%25252Fredir.php%25253Flink%25253Dhttp %2525253A%2525252F%2525252Fyoutu.be%2525252F6ifNTb 1Xx_I)
Tight! I love the energy/motion behind the driving intensity of their work!
I enjoyed reading the comments on the youtube page as well... looks like we may be
finally coming around to appreciate music that was ahead of it's time for the day!

Music to meditate/dance to... (hey, why not.... :^)