Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

Originally Posted by Xei

Again this is just metaphysics and so is a completely separate domain to science. Words like "I" are very vague and in any case impossible to tie down to facts about observations.

Science is about patterns in our perceived world. It can't make dogmatic statements about anything "beyond" that because it doesn't care about them, has no effect upon them, and is not affected by them.

Non-empirical belief

For all of these vague statements you're coming up with, name some kind of specific observation which inveighs on the issue. If you can't, then... whatever you're talking about, it has nothing to do with science, and so cannot be a scientific "dogma".

My claim remains the same, you use falsification of claims in order to validate their opposing claims and this is fallacious. Anything you're unwilling to question proves my point and any attempt to turn the tables and force me to attempt to make a claim so that you can falsify it also proves my point.

What Sheldrake is concerned with is in the domain of science, and thus his vaguer dogmas about whether "stars are aware" and stuff are not relevant because they're not in the domain of science. He's making specific claims about how reality works; specific patterns in our observed worlds which we should be able to see if they're there. "Morphic resonance", "telepathy", "free energy"; these all make real predictions about phenomena.

They are not accepted as true because the empirical evidence is not there. That is not how a dogma works. A dogma rejects something without any concern for the empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is the ultimate arbiter of science. Your contrary claim, that science never accepts the "counter intuitive", is demonstrably false, with counter examples such as the bizarre theories of quantum mechanics, which despite scepticism, quickly came to the fore because ultimately its empirical predictions were correct. Your claim that science has no tolerance of unorthodox ideas is demonstrably false, with counter examples like the quantum theory of mind posted by Zoth, which made it way into major journals. It's still not believed en masse because the evidence against is generally deemed stronger than the evidence for, but ultimately if the empirical evidence continues to stack up, the conclusion will change, as it has many times before.

Science is simply the idea that we should judge hypotheses about the observed world based on observations of the observed world. It's really quite incredible to me that such an idea could ever be called "dogmatic". Essentially the entire method is just the statement, "don't be dogmatic". One can only wonder what alternative method you would suggest. Accepting all hypotheses as equally plausible, perhaps? Accepting Sheldrake's hypotheses because they sound fun and he has an authoritative-sounding British accent? Please enlighten us.

My only suggestion is to stop acting like just because you haven't seen enough empirical evidence in support of something doesn't mean the opposite is true. Regardless of what you choose to argue now that it's on the chopping block, the inherent assumption is that mind exists within the brain. Or, if you really intend to go there, that science doesn't deal with the metaphysical, which is also bullshit. You can't just dismiss something or assume it has no effect. Your attitude in its regard has already basically proven my point, which is that many of your assumptions are baseless, not based on any empirical evidence. I never said ALL as you would like to argue.

If the ability to imagine things and construct abstract vision is purely in the realm of metaphysics and not scientific, as you claim, then that would be an assertion in duality which is also completely unproven. Not only that, but it doesn't reflect the views of the scientific community at large.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Non-empirical belief

I don't know what this was supposed to respond to or what it's supposed to mean.

My claim remains the same, you use falsification of claims in order to validate their opposing claims and this is fallacious.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Give an example.

Anything you're unwilling to question proves my point

I have never refused to question anything, either read my posts more carefully or stop straw manning.

and any attempt to turn the tables and force me to attempt to make a claim so that you can falsify it also proves my point.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

My only suggestion is to stop acting like just because you haven't seen enough empirical evidence in support of something doesn't mean the opposite is true.

Nobody is acting like that.

Regardless of what you choose to argue now that it's on the chopping block, the inherent assumption is that mind exists within the brain.

I've already discussed this. You're just repeating yourself and still haven't engaged with anything that was said on the matter. Move the discussion forwards or drop it.

Or, if you really intend to go there, that science doesn't deal with the metaphysical, which is also bullshit. You can't just dismiss something or assume it has no effect.

I like to think of myself as a clear communicator but apparently not, as you've understood nothing of what I've just tried to communicate. Science concerns observations of the observed world. That's its definition. By metaphysics, I refer to anything which does not concern observations. That these two cannot coincide is simply a matter of definitions. If something has an observed effect then obviously it's not metaphysics.

Your attitude in its regard has already basically proven my point, which is that many of your assumptions are baseless, not based on any empirical evidence.

Which assumptions?

I never said ALL as you would like to argue.

All what?

If the ability to imagine things and construct abstract vision is purely in the realm of metaphysics and not scientific, as you claim, then that would be an assertion in duality which is also completely unproven. Not only that, but it doesn't reflect the views of the scientific community at large.

For one thing you're using vague words. To the extent that you are making any scientific claims about imagination, I never even mentioned the subject.