|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.227.194.42
In Reply to: RE: Poor baby posted by unclestu on February 16, 2013 at 13:13:17
You never said his theory is incorrect? You just did a couple of posts ago. I'm afraid your memory thing is kicking in again. Allow me to refresh your memory.You wrote,
"I may not agree with Rupert Sheldrake's theory but right now I am reading Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past, which, instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief that he is wrong, simply because he ignores many facets of modern physics."
So, which is it - his theory is correct, his theory is incorrect, or you're just confused? I know, you'll try to keep an open mind. LOL. How does it feel, being the Poster Boy for the Backfire Effect, you know, what with "instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief he is wrong." The very definition of the Backfire Effect...now you can say you learned at least one thing today.
Edits: 02/16/13 02/16/13Follow Ups:
lack of reading comprehension skills again:
I wrote I do not agree with his theory, with the implication that no "proof" was forthcoming nor revealed. You, on the other hand, are proclaiming "proof" when in fact there is none, and that so called "proof" you proclaim was refuted by the originator of the theory himself. That is pretty pathetic, and, as I have pointed out, the backfire effect's primary example would be YOU.
Not agreeing with a theory has nothing to do with right or wrong in reality. I believe there are many other much more rational explanations for his supposed examples and, as a matter of fact, many of his examples are not universally true. A theory is just that, a theory, a presumed supposition. Proof is another animal entirely. I can disagree with the theory because I do not see sufficient proof. You on the other hand see proof when there is NONE. Just because you can see no other causality, does not constitute "proof", simply a refusal to open your mind.
LOL !
Einstein's theory remained simply a theory for many years, until visual confirmation was made during an eclipse. There were many doubters before the visual observation backed his prediction. The fact that there was visual and photographic confirmation which fell in the mathematically predicted range and that there were no other plausible explanations would constitute proof for me.
Sheldrake has nothing to show. Geoff Kaitt has nothing to show, but, at least, Sheldrake is MAN enough to admit the failure of his experiment. I have far more respect for Sheldrake because of the admission.
"Not agreeing with a theory has nothing to do with right or wrong in reality"
If you had said "in practice" instead of "in reality" then I might have agreed with you. However, the use of the word "reality" has connotations that do not consort with my epistemology. Also, "right" and "wrong" have unnecessary personal and moral connotations. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Do I detect resort to authority in your argumentation? (At least you aren't using disputatious words such as "claim" and "evidence".)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
on the same page, and, yes, I do agree I should have worded it better.
what I meant was a theory is simply that: a statement with no necessary means of proof. If there is no proof, there is no right or wrong to the theory.
I believe part of the issue is with the popular vernacular.
Einstein's theory of relativity, while it was once a theory, has moved far beyond and has been proven, and perhaps may be better stated as the laws of relativity. But the popular parlance keeps it just as the theory.
As far as theories are concerned, I really make no judgement, but some kind of proof is what I desire. If proof to the contrary is presented, fine with me. Early on, in astrophysics, my mental state was such that I prefered Hoyle's steady state theory, probably becasue of the sense of security it gave. The Hubble red shift and cosmic noise and such, rapidly changed my mind, though, as the evidence they revealed became public.
Those aspects (and others)could not be explained by the steady state theory, or, if it could, were too convoluted to really be practical.
It is when experimental evidence is presented as factual, when the actual basis for the experiment is at question and thus the results, that I get a bit upset. This is particularly true when there are other, much more simplistic explanations. It's even worse when the statistical analysis even based on the flawed supposition is very small. Couple that with no publication in any major scientific journal and you have a recipe for potential disaster.
Sheldrake himself has admitted that trying to present "proof" may be an impossibility, and yet he tries and fails, not surprisingly. As a biologist he gives anectdotal "evidence" or perhaps more accurately examples. There are other explanations and the most readily availble and more "scientific" ones are due to the quantum nature of the molecular bonding. Those are predictable and consistent.
Of course, YMMV
Stu
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: