why science is wrong… about almost everything — review by Society for Psychical Research

Tom is hitting pretty hard, isnt he :O

 

Apparently both the book and it's title ruffled someone's feathers. Anyone who thinks that status-quo science isn't the religion du jour need only read that "review."

 

dont tear me to peaces for that, but what if hes atleast partly right? what if mainstream science isnt just all wrong ? im by no means concurring with that review right here, but hes from a psychology organization, isnt he? he propably knows a thing or two about consciousness and stuff like that. im not saying that hes right but he just may be nt totally wrong either. but okay, despite the title of the book, well - i never thought about it as a scientific paper where you need to argue every possible problem that you can think of. it seemed more like a book full of mind-food for me. but well, thats just me.

 

"Everything Science tells us about the physical universe is ultimately wrong if it fails to recognize the fundamental nature of consciousness and the underlying role of consciousness in every physical phenomenon that occurs."

I don't see how Science can be right about anything as long as the consciousnesses of scientists don't understand themselves and their own role in the existence of the physical universe. The materialist, naturalist world view of most scientists ignores the fact that consciousness is fundamental and all matter is dependent on consciousness for its existence. Everything Science tells us about the physical universe is ultimately wrong if it fails to recognize the fundamental nature of consciousness and the underlying role of consciousness in every physical phenomenon that occurs. Double slit experiments, quantum entanglement, and the quantum Zeno effect demonstrate this role yet scientists refuse to accept it along with the many other independent forms of evidence demonstrating that consciousness is not produced by the brain. Consciousness cannot be produced by any physical process. How could the changing concentration of ions across the membranes of brain cells produce what the color blue looks like to you? The brain might store data about the wavelength of light falling on the retina, or it might perform calculations on that data, but how could a computational device produce the subjective experience of what a color looks like? Consciousness is fundamentally different from any physical property or process and therefore cannot be produced by the brain. What could be more important to Science than the huge gaps this reveals in the scientific world view? What could be more important to humanity? Science has failed at its most basic and fundamental duty. When Science adopted naturalism it ironically left religion as the best source of information about consciousness and the origin of matter. Until science gives up naturalism and corrects its mistakes, Science will never be what it claims to be: an objective search for truth.

 

I think it is odd that the author of "The Science Delusion" would criticize the title of Alex's book.

 

That seems a fair point. However his opinion may derive from the difference in the intention behind each title. If I recall, Sheldrake's was more or less a swipe aimed at a similarly-titled book, whereas I think Alex was aiming at a broader target. Still, for me it's what's inside the books that matters, the title is just a way to get people's attention.

 

But , but . ."tearing to pieces" is so much fun.

Okay jokes aside, you're conflating different things. The two main ones being the reviewer's opinion of Tsakiris' book and the state of mainstream science. Of course there are many things mainstream science is correct about. Although - as an aside - other than the most obvious we don't really know what. My comment is that I see in the review a tendency towards considering it outrageous for someone to call into question SQ science as a whole. A reaction no different to how many adherents within someone claiming their religion is wrong. And it's worse because the review reads in a way where I get the impression that it wasn't done with intent. It's just an unquestioned part of the reviewer's worldview.

On a slight tangent. I greatly enjoy lots of status quo science. I just haven't made a religion out of it. And I also think that established science is far less open now than it was even at the time QM was first being formulated.

 

Newtonian mechanics is a pretty good approximation but ultimately, as quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity demonstrated, Newtonian mechanics is wrong. The scientific materialist, naturalist world view may be a pretty good approximation in some areas but ultimately it is wrong.

 

The difficulty for Science in admitting it is wrong is that once you accept that consciousness is non-physical the whole edifice of materialist creation comes crashing down. Results from parapsychology show ESP is not dependent on time and distance and this suggest that consciousness is not part of the physical universe. If you accept that consciousness is non-physical, is not part of the physical universe, you have to admit that the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe is due to design by a transcendent creator. Science will never admit its mistake because that would be tantamount to surrender in its war on religion.

 

The Science Delusion by Sheldrake is a book exactly about what it says, though I think he'd have preferred a different title too if I recall correctly. It's not an attack on science per se but on 'scientism', ie the misrepresentation of science by those with an agenda.

I can't see how anyone could seriously believe 'science' as a process for discovery is wrong about everything as so much of our modern living is based on the fruits of the process however, it has produced a body of knowledge which continuously grows and changes and what is a 'cast iron fact' today might not be tomorrow. That's not a problem unless we adopt a view that the only things that are true about the universe are those things revealed by science and that everything apparently revealed by the scientific method is exactly what is claimed for it.

 

I "liked" Jim Smith's post because I agree that the reviewer may have missed the point Alex and others have brought up. If consciousness is fundamental, then it isn't a matter of merely tweaking the current models, in the way that Einstein tweaked Newton. "Wrong...about almost everything" really does seem to be the scale we would be talking about.

Linda

 

I'm laughing at the fact that here's a case where I think you are going too far. Consciousness is fundamental. I make no apologies for stating that actuality. That said, within this physical framework there are characteristics, tendencies, etc. Gravity is (like everything) an expression of consciousness but that doesn't change the fact that on earth it operates at around 9.81 m/s^2.

As much as I strongly emphasize that status-quo science isn't the only field/method of knowledge and isn't always the appropriate way, I also strongly emphasize that it is a field/method that is valid and very useful within certain areas. To use one of my faves - just because a tool isn't appropriate for every job doesn't mean it's inappropriate for all jobs. It's foolish to throw out the phillips just because one is currently tightening flat-head screws.

 

I thought it was quite a fair review.

 

Well, I woudn't call neither Alex nor his style "robust" or 'merciless". I consider him tolerant and patient enough to remain quite polite dealing with the worst kinds of misinformed and uninformed "skeptics". And the ridiculously weak level of argumentation presented by such type of "skeptics" does not need to be specially shown or emphasised by Alex: it is obvious to anyone but to such "skeptics" themselves. It is a kind of self-debunking.

Never met one? Hmmm... Probably he never encountered personally a pair of guys known as R. Dawkins and D. Dennet. Those are well-known to have views which are noticeably similar to those described by Alex.

However, I have to agree with Tom that Alex is indeed a bit too harsh to atheists in general. Beyond Dawkins and Dennet, atheist ranks include people like Raymond Tallis and Thomas Nagel, who do not think that people are biological robots, or that our life is meaningless, or that human values are illusory. Such atheists are actually closer to spiritual people than to the hardcore New Anti-Theist crowd.

 

Yeah sorry Alex I wasn't responding to your point it was someone else's and I forget who lol
Just checked - it was Jim's observation.

I think Science can come up with the wrong answer certainly.