The 10 dogmata of modern science

[Student of X]

In The Science Delusion, biochemist Rupert Sheldrake lays out what he calls the 'dogma of science'. I thought it might be fun to post them and see what you all think of them!

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activity of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared).

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

 

[swamplizard]

Hi Student,

I'll look at #7 for a moment: The tree is within the one AND the one is within the tree.

best,
swampy

 

[Iti oj]

The end of number 3 was a strawmen...and you failed to make any reasonable argument aginst these things

 

[Revoltingest]

In The Science Delusion, biochemist Rupert Sheldrake lays out what he calls the 'dogma of science'. I thought it might be fun to post them and see what you all think of them!

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activity of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared).

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works

Methinks there is either a misunderstanding about the definition of the word dogma, or a deliberate rascally provocative use of the word.
To most of us, "dogma" would be a premise, ie, an unshakable & irreplaceable foundation for a line of thought. Yet many of your listed
items are challenged regularly in the scientific world, & are assumed only for convenience of the moment.
Example: The speed of light is constant & unchanging. This works for us, but there are circumstances where it hasn't yet been tested, &
experiments possible of overturning it are in the works.
I suggest that if you want to criticize current scientific consensus, transmogrifying it into religion is not the way. (You will never convince
a science fan of anything with that. They have a low BS tolerance, ya know.) Whatever you disagree with, try offering evidence, which is
something they'd appreciate & consider.

 

[Student of X]

I also recommend watching the video in the OP. Here is a shiny new link to it. He does address each one in detail.

Rupert Sheldrake Lecture: The Science Delusion on Vimeo

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

For a "student," Student of X sure assigns a lot of homework.

-Nato

 

[Iti oj]

In regards to number 9, science does have room for such things if they were proven to be true if that were to happen a model would be devoloped to explain the mechanism

As per 10 well science knows the plasibo effect well

 

[Revoltingest]

I also recommend watching the video in the OP. Here is a shiny new link to it. He does address each one in detail.
Rupert Sheldrake Lecture: The Science Delusion on Vimeo

Is there any porn, comedy or cute animals in it?
Otherwise, I don't wanna spend the time.

 

[Iti oj]

Is there any porn, comedy or cute animals in it?
Otherwise, I don't wanna spend the time.

Cute animals? Ha I knew you had a heart like I said your like the old man from up

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In The Science Delusion, biochemist Rupert

Sheldrake lays out what he calls the 'dogma of science'. I thought it might be fun to post them and see what you all think of them!

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

That's not a dogma, that's a metaphor for better understanding how life functions bimechanically. There's a difference between saying "we can understand this the same way we understand a computer" and saying "this thing has no purpose or goals of their own".

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activity of brains.

This also isn't a dogma, just the result of scientific inquiry. There's no need, in a scientific sense, to apply any special qualities to the phenomena of consciousness. All evidence indicates that consciousness is an effect of the brain - a purely physical organ - and when that organ is damaged or destroyed, consiousness goes with it.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared).

Big fat lie. The big bang theory does not state that all matter in the Universe "suddenly appeared". It states that all matter was compressed to a singular, infinitely dense particle. Before that (if such a concept as "before" the big bang is even valid) we do not know. But the big bang theory does not state that any quantity of matter "suddenly appeared" out of nothing.

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

This, again, isn't a dogma, it's just an observation. If we observed alterations in particular laws of nature, then they would no longer be laws of nature. Also, science does not claim that such laws would remain constant "forever" or that they must "always" remain the same.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

Philosophy has no place in science. Evolution is merely a process, nothing more. It has no intended goal, but it does serve a purpose on propagating and improving living biological systems. It doesn't need any more meaning than that.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

This is an established and observed fact of biology. Are you suggesting biological inheretence is not material?

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

The image, yes. The tree itself, not necesarilly. Again, basic fact. What you see is an image in your head pulled from information gathered by your eyes. I don't see any objection to that.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

Science makes no suggestion about what happens after you die, but since your brain is clearly essential in the processing and recording of memories, it stands to reason that when a person dies those memories are gone. Is this really any more dogmatic than the notion that brain damage can cause memory loss?

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

Science takes no position on the subject of "unexplained phenomena" except that they are "unexplained" until they have a reasonable explanation supported by the relevant facts and subjected for objective review.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Here your use of language is clearly freighted. "Mechanistic medicine" is a nonsense phrase that doesn't mean a damn thing. Also, scientists have conducted hundreds of studies into kinds of medicine such as the placebo and nocebo effects with many varied and interesting results.

In short, all of these are bullcrap.

 

[Student of X]

Is there any porn, comedy or cute animals in it?
Otherwise, I don't wanna spend the time.

Yes but not in that order.

 

[mycorrhiza]

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

Disagree. All sentient animals have goals of their own. While the goals of a dog might only be "eat that squirrel" or "chase that ball", it still has goals of it's own. Free will kind of exists. While most of what we do is guided by our genetics and our personalities, we can go against this.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activity of brains.

Disagree. Consciousness exists and is enabled by the brain.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared).

Disagree. Big Bang simply expanded the Universe, it didn't create it. Whether the amount of energy and matter is the same, I will leave to scientists. It all depends on which explanation is true.

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

Agree, though I might change my mind when the field of quantum physics develops further.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

Agree. Though, we can create our own purpose.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

Agree.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by this, but the tree exists out there, while the image of it in our minds, yes. So agree, I guess.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

Agree.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

Agree, but I'm open to the possibility of them existing.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Agree. There is no proof that prayer, healing or homeopathy works. Mechanistic medicine, no matter if it's pills or plants, is the only thing that has been proven to work (not counting placebo).

 

[vepurusg]

That's not a dogma, that's a metaphor for better understanding how life functions bimechanically. There's a difference between saying "we can understand this the same way we understand a computer" and saying "this thing has no purpose or goals of their own".

Even better way to say it:

We assume everything is fully comprehensible, because that leaves us free to search for a comprehensible answer- if it turns out not to be, we try and fail, but there is no great loss. If we allow ourselves to assume something incomprehensible, we give up trying, and if it was indeed comprehensible after all, we miss out on the understanding.

It can be phrased similarly to Pascal's wager using decisions theory- you can even draw out a very useful table

Of course, unlike Pascal's wager (which is logically faulty due to a false dichotomy), this is not (this also applies to so called "psychic" interference with blind trials).

Big fat lie. The big bang theory does not state that all matter in the Universe "suddenly appeared". It states that all matter was compressed to a singular, infinitely dense particle. Before that (if such a concept as "before" the big bang is even valid) we do not know. But the big bang theory does not state that any quantity of matter "suddenly appeared" out of nothing.

Also, his claim is not true according to quantum mechanics- electron positron pairs form from nothing constantly, disappearing again from whence they came.

Conservation of matter and energy is old hat; now it is a matter of probability and energy with respect to time.

This, again, isn't a dogma, it's just an observation. If we observed alterations in particular laws of nature, then they would no longer be laws of nature. Also, science does not claim that such laws would remain constant "forever" or that they must "always" remain the same.

The early universe, and special super-dense matter, are some examples of where we are currently exploring alternative 'laws'.

Also, scientists have conducted hundreds of studies into kinds of medicine such as the placebo and nocebo effects with many varied and interesting results.

"nocebo", I have to be critical of your use of that word; it's somewhat counter-productive because it is not a different principle from placebo and whether the effect is ultimately positive or negative is highly subjective (e.g. some times it might be good for a patient's blood pressure to fall, and sometimes that might be bad- it will also vary from patient to patient, etc.).

You should look into some of the criticism of the term; it might change your mind as it did mine, as to the usefulness of the term.

 

[Student of X]

The end of number 3 was a strawmen...and you failed to make any reasonable argument aginst these things

Check out the vid...

 

[PolyHedral]

Also, his claim is not true according to quantum mechanics- electron positron pairs form from nothing constantly, disappearing again from whence they came.

Due to the rather strange mathematics going on, this doesn't violate conservation of energy. (Alternatively, you can rearrange everything so that it boils down to momentum being conserved. In that case, nothing is wrong with particle pairs being produced and then destroyed, so long as the momentum adds up to zero.)

 

[outhouse]

In short, all of these are bullcrap.

exactly

its playing on peoples ignorance

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well... i disagree with the brackets in 3 and I disagree with 4 (there is nothing to suggest that they need be static), I also disagree with the wiped out component of 8 (under certain circumstances) other than that, a pretty solid set of guidelines

 

[vepurusg]

Due to the rather strange mathematics going on, this doesn't violate conservation of energy.

It does if you're going by the strict interpretation theists use that doesn't allow for wave mechanics/uncertainty.

It's a matter of uncertainty between energy and time, and you are right in that it does balance itself out over time (and is symmetrical in the most beautiful way to boot), but the issue is the theistic claim that something can never come from nothing- which is patently untrue. It can come from nothing, it just can't stick around very long (a shorter lifespan, the more it is)--- but how long is "very long" depends on the reference frame.

In another reference frame, our universe may be a much shorter blip of an instant still- a lot more energy, for a much shorter time.

(Alternatively, you can rearrange everything so that it boils down to momentum being conserved. In that case, nothing is wrong with particle pairs being produced and then destroyed, so long as the momentum adds up to zero.)

True, but the anti-scientific claim of theism has nothing to do with that.

I'm not criticizing conservation of energy/mass as it is properly understood in the context of uncertainty- but as it is improperly understood and used to attack science and naturalism.

 

[PolyHedral]

You can't decrease the energy of the universe with a reference frame shift alone, though.

 

[vepurusg]

You can't decrease the energy of the universe with a reference frame shift alone, though.

Maybe not the energy, no, but from the perspective of a photon the universe doesn't last terribly long does it

That said, it's just a hypothetical example to prove a point crudely; that of the false assertion by creationists that something cannot come from nothing. It's enough to demonstrate a possible route for an uncaused genesis of the universe for nothing.

MWI does a much better and more conclusive job if it, though, without referring explicitly to random quantum fluctuations to explain the genesis of matter and energy in an otherwise empty temporal universe.