Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

OP, I think what you keep missing here is that Xei is never actually making a claim to the opposite be true simply because something is proven false, or that because the lack of credible evidence, the hypothesis is false for good. As a man of science, he believes that unless there is empirical evidence to suggest said phenomenon is true, there is no reason to investigate it. It should be plainly obvious how this saves time, as researching down any little old path that suits your fancy is bound to leave you feeling like a dope. You need not prove every possible wacky hypothesis wrong to conclude that it is. For instance, if I said pigs given massive amounts of alcohol shit into space and the result is a star, there isn't a need to give this claim a "proper analysis" because no attempt to make it fit the scientific method of investigation was made. In order for a hypothesis to be taken seriously, it must fit the criteria the scientific community has set out in the name of quality control. If you can't even begin the process scientifically, how can you end it scientifically?

Originally Posted by snoop

... For instance, if I said pigs given massive amounts of alcohol shit into space and the result is a star, there isn't a need to give this claim a "proper analysis" because no attempt to make it fit the scientific method of investigation was made. ...

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I'll be honest, were someone to make a claim about science, I would be giving the same responses you are.
I know how it works, I know that there are no real dogmas in science.

I don't know how much the scientific community clings to any particular preconception because I don't personally have to deal with them.
I only have to deal with people, let's call them materialists, which believe in preconceptions and label them scientific facts without any evidence to actually back their statements up.

You have, in the past, done the same, and now that I actually address the issue you slip into the easiest possible claim, which is that you're not guilty of this trait. Fine, you don't to be guilty, I won't hold you to it.

You claim the scientific community doesn't cling to dogma, fine. I'll admit that at best I've dealt with materialist dogmatists who simply misunderstand what science has created data for and what logical leaps have filled in the gaps to give people the easiest understanding. You're obviously not going to admit for falling into this same dissonance in a thread about it anyways.

I am curious what conclusive evidence for shared dreaming would satisfy you, though. You claim no one has ever found any, but I suspect if they have you'd simply change th goal posts on what qualifies as conclusive.

Ookay - so this is very satisfying actually - thank you OP for not further dogmatically clinging to this assertion of Mr. Sheldrake's.
Also - interesting to see, where you are coming from.
So - you basically have a feeling, that if there was more money and more attention put into shared dreaming research - then we would have it established just as officially as LDing is.

I agree with Xei here - proving that LD is real, was comparably much more difficult, than it would be to prove shared dreaming.
For that you wouldn't even need equipment - just making sure, there is no communication between subjects and see, if content - like a password - can be transmitted.
If you really want to scientifically prove it - you need a premises, which is objectively observable. So it doesn't help, that so many people slip and slide about and claim, this would not be in the nature of SD.
What on earth is in it's nature then - if there can be no specific communication - why bother? Why actually claim it at all then?
You sure understand, that nobody would do serious research into it, if it wouldn't even be believed to properly work by it's own proponents.

I don't know how long this has been going on on here - but since this forum has this huge beyonder section - one would expect, that you have proven it all over and comprehensively years ago.
With no need for funding or equipment or anything - and where, where is the evidence??
What I have come across on here is all very, very vague and weak indeed. Not once did I see even a claim to have transferred real information.

You want science - and you claim there is lots of evidence for shared dreaming - open a thread, where you collect significant anecdotal evidence wafting about in this forum, which you personally deem credible and worth considering in a scientific way?
That's what you want - science, right?

If you were really good - the only argument against said evidence should then be an accusation of fraud.
And conduct an experiment with the people you deem credible and able - something realistic, please - like password transfer.
If you get that to seemingly work - the only thing you needed to do then to get it to it's in your eyes scientific relevance - repeat under controlled conditions to make sure there is no fraud.

That is not step one, to look for money for such a thing - step one is to make a good case.
What I see on here is most and mainly wishful thinking, delusion and a lot of insincerity as well.
So - go about making such a thread!
Instead of bashing phantom-dogmas with Mr. Sheldrake - not a good company for aspiring (hobby-) scientists.



By the way - it is refreshing to see, that somebody is actually able to consider arguments and step back from a false assertion.
Makes me feel less stupid with arguing, than I feel doing it with people like astralboy.

Originally Posted by snoop

OP, I think what you keep missing here is that Xei is never actually making a claim to the opposite be true simply because something is proven false, or that because the lack of credible evidence, the hypothesis is false for good. As a man of science, he believes that unless there is empirical evidence to suggest said phenomenon is true, there is no reason to investigate it. It should be plainly obvious how this saves time, as researching down any little old path that suits your fancy is bound to leave you feeling like a dope. You need not prove every possible wacky hypothesis wrong to conclude that it is. For instance, if I said pigs given massive amounts of alcohol shit into space and the result is a star, there isn't a need to give this claim a "proper analysis" because no attempt to make it fit the scientific method of investigation was made. In order for a hypothesis to be taken seriously, it must fit the criteria the scientific community has set out in the name of quality control. If you can't even begin the process scientifically, how can you end it scientifically?

But what Mr. Sheldrake supposes is that no scientific data actually supports any of the dogmas he lists, which is why he calls them dogma. They are assumed true without a drop of evidence in their support, and in fact these ideas are often grandfathered in from old ways of thinking which have already been disproven.

I am not making an affirmative claim in favor of shared dreaming or anything else like it. The claim I have made is that many assumptions are held by so called empirically minded people only because they're rooted in our culture and not because they have actually been proven or predicted.

My view is similar to Bill Nye's in the debate he had with Ken Ham recently. If you can actually show evidence to prove any of the "dogma" listed in OPs youtube video, then fantastic. As it is, they are culturally created bias and are no more viable than stars being born of alcohol induced shit. So when Sheldrake proposes theories and shows evidence that would require us to change the culturally inherited model, he meets more resistance than evidence which does not contradict the culturally inherited model. I understand science has always worked this way, phrenology and early theories of evolution is a great example of how a theory was validated based on cultural bias, and theories which contradicted these racist assumptions were met with far more resistance but eventually won out because the evidence was too compelling to ignore. I also believe that if the theory of the extended mind is true it will eventually win out.

But it's not based on bias to start with, and it's not so outrageous to be unworthy of investigating either, the theory of the extended mind started the same way the theory of the Big Bang started. Hubble observed an expanding universe and wondered why that was. Sheldrake observed the sense of being stared at and couldn't find an explanation in our current understanding of science so he went on to explore other possibilities, did several experiments which validated his hypothesis until he formed the theory of the extended mind, and then met resistance from the scientific community which he chose to label dogmatic to draw similarity to the dogmatic way early scientists repressed theory that did not prove us superior to black people.

This repression is rooted in the way non-racist evolutionary theory would be compared to the poop stars theory you just made. They are called outrageous and unworthy of investigation by de facto even though they're born out of a question, hypothesis and experiment. They are considered outrageous because cultural bias opposes it and seeks easier explanations. In fact, outrageous explanations are often considered more rational so long as they agree with the current bias. For example when Sheldrake did his experiments to show pets have a psychic link with their owners one of the pieces of criticism he met was that it really just showcases how fantastic a dog's hearing is. The actual experiment had the owner leaving work for home at different times and utilizing different methods of transportation throughout the day with dogs dependably still sitting by the door the moment the intention hit the owner's mind to begin the journey home. At this point, the evidence is pretty compelling but hearing is still used as an easy excuse and remains the more popular explanation for the experiment's result. This explanation does not have more compelling evidence than Sheldrake's explanation, it does not account for how the dogs could predict their owners' intentions so dependably, it's solely more likely if you believe that the mind cannot exist outside the brain. In other words, it is based on a de facto (or as Sheldrake put it, dogmatic) assumption which creates inherent resistance to psychic theory.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

But what Mr. Sheldrake supposes is that no scientific data actually supports any of the dogmas he lists, which is why he calls them dogma. They are assumed true without a drop of evidence in their support

Why do you keep saying this? Please read my first post? There's a mountain of evidence for e.g. energy-mass conservation. Sheldrake is lying to you.

Sheldrake observed the sense of being stared at and couldn't find an explanation in our current understanding of science so he went on the explore other possibilities, did several experiments which validated his hypothesis until he formed the theory of the extended mind.

There have been studies in the past which found no correlation between being stared at and the sensation of being stared at. That's not the failure to detect a positive correlation; that's a positive detection of no correlation. Sheldrake has done experiments that gave a positive result, but scientists found that he had not randomised properly. It's pretty easy to create a properly randomised series of experiments. A serious question I would ask you is why you give greater weight to Sheldrake's questionable positive result than to the negative results of others? What's your basis for that decision? I mean, the guy's given you a lecture in which he repeatedly made false and misleading statements.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do you keep saying this? Please read my first post? There's a mountain of evidence for e.g. energy-mass conservation.
Sheldrake is lying to you.


There have been studies in the past which found no correlation between being stared at and the sensation of being stared at. That's not the failure to detect a positive correlation; that's a positive detection of no correlation. Sheldrake has done experiments that gave a positive result, but scientists found that he had not randomised properly. It's pretty easy to create a properly randomised series of experiments. A serious question I would ask you is why you give greater weight to Sheldrake's questionable positive result than to the negative results of others? What's your basis for that decision? I mean, the guy's given you a lecture in which he repeatedly made false and misleading statements.

Exactly my point.
That's why I got into the monkey example.
He does know better, he is not a misguided man - he is a fraud. That's what I see.