The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake

The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake

whew, i'm halfway through this,
just published this year (2012)
and i can highly recommend it,
to absolutely everybody on this forum
it should be an entrance exam to even using a forum

well done Mr Sheldrake, Sir
i am forever in your debt

;-j

I have long liked Sheldrake. I have his book The Presence of the Past. I particularly like his explanation of how a fetus comes into being. Although the human genome has been known for quite some time, no one still knows how it is a cell knows to become a skin cell in the fetus big toe or a nerve in the eye. With trillions of cells in a human body, how do they all know where to go and what to do? As he puts it - what commander could orchestrate a billion man army let alone a trillion man army?

Sheldrakes answer is a 'morphogenic field' which I particularly like. In the same way gravity acts on matter, other forces operate on cells to cause them to form a fetus. Fetus formation as a natural consequence of forces acting on cells like gravity acts on water to cause it to flow downhill and 'form' various rivers for example. Sheldrake was big on Priggogine as I recall. In any case since any such field is not known to science - people in science are likely to poo poo his ideas and call his ideas pseudo-science and thereby giving rise to Sheldrake attacking science the way I often do. From my perspective karmic 'forces' act on us at all times attempting to cause us to act in various ways. Yet no one has ever 'measured' a 'karmic force.' So I have been defending myself from science for a long time defending my yoga ideas.

he points out that even though there are countless reams of data
in the 'human genome' all that genes actually do is synthesize proteins and amino acids ...
and that nearly all genetic 'science' is actually pseudo-science
that has produced very little, if any tangible (positivist) results

he also points out that the CEO of Enron, had listed 'the selfish gene'
as his favorite book, which (in my view) shows that the driving force
behind the current financial crisis is primarily an infantile obsession with sex
that resonates clearly with dawkins and his pseudo-scientific, and dogmatic
'priesthood' of lackeys...

... that science has lost its empirical grounding to the point that it is
becoming more and more a cancer in the body of True Philosophy.

Next time I am at the bookstore I will look for this book. 3 other books I consider as defiant about science as Sheldrake justifiably so are

Our improbable Universe by Michael Mallary (fairly easy to read)
A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization by Dean L. Overman (fairly easy to read)
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo, Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards which is also fairly easy to read but has extensive scientific references to backup what they say. These books are along the lines of 'Yes - humanity is special. No, the Earth and intelligent life are not a dime a dozen in such a huge universe.'

Another one I like is Constants of the Universe where he shows how arbitrary selection of constants in science is and how they evolved for convenience and as such do not lead to insight as to how one might lead to understanding what another is. In otherwords - astronomers use light years while chemists use nanometers. Both are distances used for convenience but whey you do calculations relating distance to other things like velocity (think special relativity) and other things, the units themselves (light years and nanometers are 'units' I am refering to) may serve to confuse your understanding.

On the DNA account I have gone far past the "Miller-Urey" account creating amino acids. The details of the the early Earth, hydrothermal vents an cyanogenic lifeforms there etc. To understand how life might come about elsewhere in the universe is a direct function of understanding how life came about on Earth. If you don't know how life came about on Earth - you are going to have a hard time coming up with how it could come up elsewhere. The thread I created on Yellowstone Supervolcano is just a spin-off of my researching these things - what conditions might cause extinction of all life on a planet? (for example)

sheldrake also shows how between 1928 and 1945 the speed of light dipped by 20 m.s-1
what he asks is did it really dip
or did someone make an off reading, and therefore everyone else was just too terrified
to disagree, and so skewed their results 'to conform'

either way this points out one of two issues,
that 99% of scientists just obey authority, ignoring data that does not fit with
socially accepted pre-experimental assumptions,
or that the speed of light is not constant

since then, the speed of light has been 'fixed'

i'm inclined to think it may just be both issues going down

the only bit i am perturbed by is how he reckons that quantum mechanics
is somehow associated with the notion of the square root of negative 1

none of the QC i was reading in the 90's mentions this
i read the 'official copy' in the vault at rhodes university in phil of science honors
- the EPR paradox
and it mentioned nothing like that

i really cannot accept the square root of a negative number

he only mentions it briefly
i would expect such a paradoxical idea to be justified, rather than mentioned

other than that its a mind-blowing read

On the changing of the SOL - that only tells me what Sheldrake doesn't know. They build billion dollar particle accelerators in accordance with the SOL. In otherwords, they would not work if they did not take into account when building them the fact that the SOL is fixed. Forget about all that noise on things like the square root of a negative number. There is extensive mathematics (complex analysis) that makes use of the square root of negative numbers. You are not going to find something physical to represent the square root of a negative number but when you use complex analysis as an intermediate means to an end, the end is something that can be physically measured in the physical world. It is only people that know little mathematics or physics that tinybop their way on these forums thinking they have a subject to talk about - and they do - with other people with the same lack of education.

I need to post a thread on examples of complex numbers that people can clearly see precisely what they mean using only simple algebra. Sometimes for example you go to solve a quadratic equation and you need to use the quadratic equation. The number you get under the radical sign may come out to be negative. If you are using mathematics to build something physical and this happens then the mathematics is telling you that it cannot be done in 3 dimensions. You can't for example have something 3 inches long and -6 inches wide. You were asking the mathematics to give you something and it does - but the answer cannot be used in 3 physical dimensions. I have a book that shows several examples that make very good subtle points on the use of complex numbers to construct a box - what the mathematics is telling you about the situation physically.

Roger Penrose is the guru of Complex Analysis. Complex Analysis is standard mathematics for Electrical Engineering. Its not even considered advanced mathematics until you get into things like State Space for example (Or in Penrose case 'Phase Space').

OK, here it is - square root of negative one physical interpretation and more.


This is taken from Intermediate Algebra and Analytic Geometry Made Simple by William R. Gondin and Bernard Sohmer Chapter 4. copyright 1959. Oh dear! Its an old book….. Oh dear! mathematics is ageless.



If you fire a projectile straight up ignoring air resistance at an elevation c above sea level with an initial velocity b, its height y after x seconds is given by the formula

y = -16x^2 +bx + c.



If we want to know how long in seconds it will take to reach 15,600 ft, fired from 2000 ft up at an initial velocity of 1000 ft/sec the above equation becomes

15,600 = -16x^2 +1000x +2000.

or

16x^2 -1000x + 13,600 = 0. [A]

The quadratic formula for solving quadratic equations is

-b +- (b^2 – 4ac)^1/2/2a

in this case

-(-1000) +- (1000^2 – 4(16)(13,600)/2(16)

=1000 +- (129,600)^1/2/32 = 1,000 +- 360/32 = 650/32 and 1360/32 = 20 and 42.5.

Answer: The projectile will be at a height of 15,600 feet at the end of 20 seconds and at the end of 42.5 seconds.



The reason it will be at that height 2 different times is because if you plot that function [A] above you will see that it is a downward pointing parabola. The bullet goes up and reaches that height at 20 seconds, reaches its maximum height and then goes down again reaching that height.



This is an example of a quadratic equation giving 2 solutions that have real physical interpretations.



Using the same equation above 16x^2 -1000x + 13,600 = 0. [A], how many seconds will the projectile take to reach a height of 20,125 feet?

20,125 = -16x^2 +1000x +2000 or

16x^2 -1000x +18,125 = 0

Using the quadratic formula to solve for x,

-(-1000) +- [(-1000)^2 -4(16)(18,125)]^1/2 /2(16)

= 1000 +- [1000,000 – 1,160,000]^1/2 /32

= 1000 +- 400i/32 = 31.25 +- 12.5i

where i = (-1)^1/2 or i^2 = -1



Since the solution contains no real roots (numbers without imaginary components), because only imaginary roots show up in the answer says that it is impossible for a projectile to reach 20,125 feet using the above equation.



A different example with a different interpretation.

After one side of a square field has been reduced by 50 feet, and the adjacent side has been reduced by 80 feet, the remaining rectangular area is 400 square feet. How large was each side of the original field?



Let x = the side of the square field originally. Then the reduced sides are x -50 and x – 80.

Then

(x -50)(x-80) = 400

x^2 -130x + 4000 = 400

x^2 -130x +3600 = 0.

Using the quadratic formula again:

x = -(-130) +- [(130^2) = 4(1)(3600)]^/1/2 / 2(1)

= 130 +- (2500)^1/2 /2 = 130 +- 50 /2 = 90 and 40.



In this case both solutions are real or positive and both 90 and 40 plugged into the original equation show they are true solutions to the problem mathematically.

However, in a real field we cannot start with a field that is 40 feet on a side and reduce it by 50 feet because that would give us a dimension of -10. So the solution for this particular physical problem must be thrown out as it represents a physically inappropriate solution to this problem and the answer is 90 feet.

Just Finished reviewing volcanos. Lava vs magma. Basalt vs Gabro. Rhylite vs Granite. Olivine. Pyroxene. Extrusive vs Intrusive rock. Tetrahedra and crystal formation into minerals. Outgassing. Shale and mica. What sorts of rocks could I expect to find on Mars or Venus and why? Next up glacier/climate long term 100's of millions of years. Intermediate 100s of thousands of years. Short Term the last 1000 years review then renewable/non-renewable energy sources.

Complex numbers are used to design CPU's and network routers, therefore this very forum is material proof of PoseidonsNet's ignorance.

In order to discuss the universe from a scientific perspective, one must, at least, go through all calculus and physics subjects. Science is not like politics, it's not a matter of opinion or view. Nature is relentless, it's truth will not bend to religion.

For example, the recent acceptance by the Vatican that the garden of eden (in genesis) is a metaphor, demonstrates how it is religion that bows to science. Actually, religion bows to public opinion. In an era of information, such a ridiculous myth cannot be sustained as truth of man's origin. In the dark ages, Adam was himself the selfish gene (a more shitty and sexist version of it at least)

All criticism of genetic science is welcome, for, like Coppernicus to Kepler, the unfinished work of today's geneticists will be the basis for tomorrow's epiphany.

The Symbolic God is dead, along with its allegories and superheroes (or saints).

God is the unknown. Science is the bridge.

Posiedon is just unfamiliar with complex numbers just like theres lots of mathematics I am sure you don't know and might be skeptical of. I do not think all that highly of science. In fact science is pretty funny in many ways. I can say this because I have a great deal of knowledge of science. It takes someone that knows a lot about science to know how funny it can be. It is childs play for me to make fun of science.

As far as Eden goes, there were many explanations of what that might have been. The latest and most interesting to me has to do with the rising of the Mediterranean and the bursting of it through the Bosphorus catastrophically flooding the Black sea causing large numbers of people to have to very quickly evacuate their homes. Entire villages are underwater in the Black sea. The area had fertile soil being close to sea level and many might have associated the flood of Noah and Eden. Similarly the Persian Gulf (think 'craddle of civilization'/Tigris/Euphrates rivers) flooded over time as sea levels rose after the last ice age forcing people out of their homes into a nomadic life to settle elsewhere as newcomers. I also have a metaphorical version of Eden and what the 'first sin' was and the 'fall of man' was. I do not accept many things the world accepts as true. From my perspective, the world is so funny because people do not even put words into sentences coherently so as to make sense of what they say. FOr example, I don't accept the way most people use the word 'life.' Life did not 'arise' about 540 million years ago in the Cambrian period. BODIES containing life arose 540 million years ago. As in bodies are not life. Embodied life arose 540 million years ago. 'We' are not star-stuff. Our bodies were cooked up in stars. The physical elements of which our bodies are made were cooked up in stars.

What the bible says and what Popes do to me is largely pretty funny as well. But that has nothing to do with God. The bible and other religions are about man creating God in his own image - pretty funny like a lot of science. I don't need any bibles to believe in God. In recent years, science itself is proving the existence of God - proving how miraculous human existence is while doing everything in its power to disprove it like every little good boy atheist scientist was taught to do. The fact of the matter is - how special humanity is - scares the pants off most scientists being unable to account for such a long string of miraculous conditions giving rise to an intelligent species.

Its only when you go running for some scripture (like that found in the NT and OT) that God becomes some kind of comic book character.

Razor Wire

Physical, verbal and visual abuses are common.

I wonder if the is a quadratic equation for that?

Science is bridge if and only if for gain of mon.

E.T. ary gain so it seems to-day in fact of splat.

Ter of blood as those same equations calculated,

Trajectories of shells, rockets to land in pockets.

Fab science calou cally jabberwockies educated.

"Loser." said a punk in a mall between eye sockets.

Bullies on playground are not comic characters.

Scott wrote Waverley, Rob Roy's a scottish hero.

Aristotelian Society identity crisis mass debaters.

Logic is bridge since it identifies attributes: Nero.

Whatever number their is its inverse proportion.

Number fact not number theory solves equation.

liv+luv=peat

Got a new favorite quote from Professor Michael Wysession (How the Earth Works Lecture series). This is paraphrasing Arthur Clark 'Sometimes I think we are alone in the universe and that very amazing. And sometimes I think we are not. That is at least as amazing.'

Ate some sonchus asper yesterday. It is an 'ethnobiological' plant not comercially grown in civilized countries but was in the past used extensively as a green. Tastes a little like spinach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonchus_asper
These weeds grow world wide in many cases. A cactus called Prickly Pear was introduced into Austraila and in a few years nearly took over the continent. It had no natural predators. Then the cactoblastus moth was introduced and the problem was brought under control.

Knocked out 6 plums trees last night - chickasaw plum, american plum, coco plum, hog plum, tallowood plum and gopher apple. Today I ate some Hastate-leaf dock - Rumex hastatulus. (scary not only knowing maybe a hundred plants scientific names - but it is even more shocking discovering I know how to spell them as well!) A few days ago I found a huge poison ivy plant about 12 feet high.