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

That's the scientific philosophical angle. There is also the sociological angle...


And I would add that part of the problem is that science journalism is complicit.


“journalists want to earn money, whereas scientists are only seeking the truth.” This brought loud guffaws from all three [professors]. “Scientists,” answered Dr. Fischer, “want success; they want a wife, a hotel room, an invitation, or perhaps a car!"

These sociological factors are symptomatic of the same permissive environment that makes it possible for obsolete ideas like materialism and naturalism to survive despite being implausible for many reasons.

Science is wrong about almost everything because it has been taken over by atheists who misuse science to pursue their metaphysical agenda. We don't even know how wrong it is because it rejects a priori some explanations because of methodological naturalism.

Atheist deceptions: methodological naturalism, god of the gaps, the multiverse, universe from nothing, promissory materialism, wish fulfillment.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/scientific-deceptions-how-science-is.html

Atheist deceptions that misuse science to promote a metaphysical belief ie. atheism:
  • Methodological naturalism - it is unscientific to reject a priori any empirical evidence based solely on metaphysical preferences.
  • God of the gaps - Theists believe God created the universe and natural laws, they do so because of logical reasons and empirical evidence. They don't limit God's role to just those things science can't explain.
  • Only scientific explanations are valid: There are different types of explanations and theist explanations do not conflict with scientific explanations any more than Henry Ford and mechanical engineering conflict as explanations for automobiles produce by Ford. Science cannot explain those things that cannot be reduced to chemistry and physics such as mathematics, ethics, the meaning of life, information, semiotics.
  • Multiverse - The multiverse theory, for which no evidence exists, is unfalsifiable and does not save atheism from the fine tuning problem.
  • The universe came from nothing / fake definitions: natural laws are not nothing
  • Promissory Materialism - Materialists promise to eventually explain everything through natural causes including consciousness, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe, because they claim that the progress of science has always supported the materialist position.. However promissory materialism isn't even plausible, it is contradicted by the history of science.
  • Wish Fulfillment: Atheists often claim belief in God is false because it is due to wish fulfillment - the psychological phenomenon of thoughts that satisfy a desire. This is a deception because satisfying a desire doesn't make a belief false. You have to determine the truth or falsity of a belief based on evidence. Belief in atheism satisfies a desire for those who would be afraid of punishment in the afterlife or who look forward to an end to suffering from extinction at death. But this is not why atheism is false.

Atheists scientists like to say that because of scientific explanations there is no need for God as an explanation. Except they exclude a priori God as an explanation for any evidence. Despite stacking the deck like this with methodological naturalism they also ignore the fact that even if science can explain something as a result of natural laws it might be as, theists believe, that God created the natural laws. In order to dismiss the evidence of fine-tuning atheist scientist rely on the multiverse theory for which there is no evidence and which is unfalsifiable. And they rely on fake definitions of nothing when they claim that the universe came from nothing - natural laws are not nothing.
 
Last edited:
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.
Yes, but if consciousness is really fundamental, the laws of physics may actually derive from some sort of consciousness. The value of G and the inverse square law of gravity may be more akin to international exchange rates - i.e. artificial constructions of some sort (but varying a lot more slowly!). You can't swap US dollars for GBP on a one to one basis - any more than you can alter the laws of physics at will, but in the former case we know that people ultimate set these numbers - and indeed the whole financial framework.

Consciousness doesn't have to mean only human consciousness - there may well be broader classes of consciousness at work.

Linda really does see what I think a lot of scientists see - that the entire nature of science may change if consciousness is fundamental - which I think it is.

David
 
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.
This is where I wish we had adopted a narrower meaning of the word "Atheist". You can be willing to conceive (or even believe) that consciousness is fundamental, but not believe in God - or decide that belief in God is too woolly a concept to have a view one way or the other. Think how many people come out with statements like, "To me God is.....". That is the problem. I would say that Raymond Tallis and Thomas Nagel are on our side in that they really do see the explanatory problem with pure materialism.

David
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716
Science 28 August 2015:
Vol. 349 no. 6251
...
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
...
We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available.
...
Thirty-six percent of replications had significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects.
...
No single indicator sufficiently describes replication success, and the five indicators examined here are not the only ways to evaluate reproducibility. Nonetheless, collectively these results offer a clear conclusion: A large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings despite using materials provided by the original authors, review in advance for methodological fidelity, and high statistical power to detect the original effect sizes.


 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015083pap.pdf
Is Economics Research Replicable?
Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say “Usually Not”
Andrew C. Chang and Phillip Liy
September 4, 2015

We attempt to replicate 67 papers published in 13 well-regarded economics journals using author-provided replication files that include both data and code. Some journals in our sample require data and code replication files, and other journals do not require such files. Aside from 6 papers that use confidential data, we obtain data and code replication files for 29 of 35 papers (83%) that are required to provide such files as a condition of publication, compared to 11 of 26 papers (42%) that are not required to provide data and code replication files. We successfully replicate the key qualitative result of 22 of 67 papers (33%) without contacting the authors. Excluding the 6 papers that use confidential data and the 2 papers that use software we do not possess, we replicate 29 of 59 papers (49%) with assistance from the authors. Because we are able to replicate less than half of the papers in our sample even with help from the authors, we assert that economics research is usually not replicable. We conclude with recommendations on improving replication of economics research.​
 
Hey,

I am new to this forum but have watched almost all of the Skeptiko Videos. I find all of this very fascinating and love the debates and conversations. What got me into Skeptiko was Rupert Sheldrake. I find him extremely interesting and am now currently working on reading his books. One of his theories that I enjoy is his concept on how the brain is analogous to a T.V. with an antenna and consciousness is streamed through, but not created by said T.V.. One of his arguments for this theory is our inability to pinpoint where memories are stored. But doing some research I found thi artle: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-location-of-memories-individual-neurons Where a group of doctors working at MIT was able to pinpoint the neurons that triggered the mouses fear of being shocked and therefore "Discovered where memories are stored". I don't know if anyone of you have gone over this and I just did not see it, but I would like to hear Skeptikos take on this. Love the talks and debates hope to hear from you all soon. Thanks

-Devin
 
Hey,

I am new to this forum but have watched almost all of the Skeptiko Videos. I find all of this very fascinating and love the debates and conversations. What got me into Skeptiko was Rupert Sheldrake. I find him extremely interesting and am now currently working on reading his books. One of his theories that I enjoy is his concept on how the brain is analogous to a T.V. with an antenna and consciousness is streamed through, but not created by said T.V.. One of his arguments for this theory is our inability to pinpoint where memories are stored. But doing some research I found thi artle: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-location-of-memories-individual-neurons Where a group of doctors working at MIT was able to pinpoint the neurons that triggered the mouses fear of being shocked and therefore "Discovered where memories are stored". I don't know if anyone of you have gone over this and I just did not see it, but I would like to hear Skeptikos take on this. Love the talks and debates hope to hear from you all soon. Thanks

-Devin
Welcome Devin.

I'm a big Sheldrake fan, too. You should check out the podcasts that predate the youtube vids.

Concerning the memory thing, I couldn't imagine being persuaded by a study that claims to have located where memories are stored. It seems ludicrous to me. At any rate, you should start a thread on it. There are a few here that don't believe in psi at all. If you want their opinions, then start a thread in Critical Discussions. I just say that because I remember when I first came to the skeptiko forum, I was a bit surprised to only get replies from people who seemed to belong at the Randi forum. It made me almost think I was at the wrong place.

Oh, and there's this thread that was recently started that pertains: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/no-brainer.2575/ . . . one would be led to think that these individuals couldn't have very many memories!
 
... 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. ...

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-zeno-effect-verifiedatoms-wont.html

'Zeno effect' verified—atoms won't move while you watch

October 23, 2015 by Bill Steele

One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can't change while you're watching it – has been confirmed in an experiment by Cornell physicists.
...
The researchers demonstrated that they were able to suppress quantum tunneling merely by observing the atoms.
...
Previous experiments have demonstrated the Zeno Effect with the "spins" of subatomic particles. "This is the first observation of the Quantum Zeno effect by real space measurement of atomic motion," Vengalattore said. "Also, due to the high degree of control we've been able to demonstrate in our experiments, we can gradually 'tune' the manner in which we observe these atoms. Using this tuning, we've also been able to demonstrate an effect called 'emergent classicality' in this quantum system." Quantum effects fade, and atoms begin to behave as expected under classical physics.

The researchers observed the atoms under a microscope by illuminating them with a separate imaging laser. A light microscope can't see individual atoms, but the imaging laser causes them to fluoresce, and the microscope captured the flashes of light. When the imaging laser was off, or turned on only dimly, the atoms tunneled freely. But as the imaging beam was made brighter and measurements made more frequently, the tunneling reduced dramatically.


 
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-zeno-effect-verifiedatoms-wont.html

'Zeno effect' verified—atoms won't move while you watch

October 23, 2015 by Bill Steele

One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can't change while you're watching it – has been confirmed in an experiment by Cornell physicists.
...
The researchers demonstrated that they were able to suppress quantum tunneling merely by observing the atoms.
...
Previous experiments have demonstrated the Zeno Effect with the "spins" of subatomic particles. "This is the first observation of the Quantum Zeno effect by real space measurement of atomic motion," Vengalattore said. "Also, due to the high degree of control we've been able to demonstrate in our experiments, we can gradually 'tune' the manner in which we observe these atoms. Using this tuning, we've also been able to demonstrate an effect called 'emergent classicality' in this quantum system." Quantum effects fade, and atoms begin to behave as expected under classical physics.

The researchers observed the atoms under a microscope by illuminating them with a separate imaging laser. A light microscope can't see individual atoms, but the imaging laser causes them to fluoresce, and the microscope captured the flashes of light. When the imaging laser was off, or turned on only dimly, the atoms tunneled freely. But as the imaging beam was made brighter and measurements made more frequently, the tunneling reduced dramatically.


Interesting experiment. But doesn't this provide support for a non-consciousness based effect in quantum observation? The experiments shined a light on the particles starting very dim and gradually turning it up. The effect on the particles seemed to start from none when the light was dimmest and gradually became more classical as the light was increased which implies that it was the increased physical effect from the increasing strength of the light that had the effect.

(Edit: just realised this was posted in the main podcast thread - where I'm not allowed to post being a skeptic. I'll cross post this in the Against Realism thread.
 
"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.
That´s right. How can a computational device, whether the brain or a computer explain how "loving" feels like?
 
Interesting experiment. But doesn't this provide support for a non-consciousness based effect in quantum observation? The experiments shined a light on the particles starting very dim and gradually turning it up. The effect on the particles seemed to start from none when the light was dimmest and gradually became more classical as the light was increased which implies that it was the increased physical effect from the increasing strength of the light that had the effect.

(Edit: just realised this was posted in the main podcast thread - where I'm not allowed to post being a skeptic. I'll cross post this in the Against Realism thread.
I think it is still a consciousness based effect since the increasing beam fixed the particles that acted quatum-like and forced them to act classically if we take our consciousness as the originator of the experiment.
 
I think it is still a consciousness based effect since the increasing beam fixed the particles that acted quatum-like and forced them to act classically if we take our consciousness as the originator of the experiment.
Ok, but we're observing the results no matter what variables we're manipulating here, right? If we keep our manner of observation the same, but only adjust the light doesn't that entail it is the light adjustment that is causing the change in what we observe?

(welcome to the forum by the way!)
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Ok, but we're observing the results no matter what variables we're manipulating here, right? If we keep our manner of observation the same, but only adjust the light doesn't that entail it is the light adjustment that is causing the change in what we observe?

(welcome to the forum by the way!)
The observation could just be necessary but insufficient.

If the experiment can be done with robots and producing the same (later reviewed) results then we could say with greater confidence that it's the light.

Admittedly depending on how the Zeno Effect is supposed to require consciousness that might be enough to say observation at the time the results are produced are unnecessary.
 
The observation could just be necessary but insufficient.

If the experiment can be done with robots and producing the same (later reviewed) results then we could say with greater confidence that it's the light.

Admittedly depending on how the Zeno Effect is supposed to require consciousness that might be enough to say observation at the time the results are produced are unnecessary.
If it wasn't the light, and was just consciousness based then should we be able to produce the same results without varying the light and just varying our consciousness?

For example: if the experiment was set up the same way but unbeknownst to the experiment the knob (or whatever they use to raise or dim the light) is not attached to the light. The experimenter is blinded, and thinks the light is raising or dimming. Would we expect different results? (you could have one experimenter with a working knob, the other without.

Is this getting at what you guys are thinking of in terms of the role of consciousness here?

there is so much debate over the role of consciousness in these experiments, but relatively few experiments seem to focus on isolating consciousnes as the variable and seeing the difference. We've got Radin's double slit experiment. Not many others focussing on this issue that I can think of offhand.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

If it wasn't the light, and was just consciousness based then should we be able to produce the same results without varying the light and just varying our consciousness?

For example: if the experiment was set up the same way but unbeknownst to the experiment the knob (or whatever they use to raise or dim the light) is not attached to the light. The experimenter is blinded, and thinks the light is raising or dimming. Would we expect different results? (you could have one experimenter with a working knob, the other without.

Is this getting at what you guys are thinking of in terms of the role of consciousness here?

there is so much debate over the role of consciousness in these experiments, but relatively few experiments seem to focus on isolating consciousnes as the variable and seeing the difference. We've got Radin's double slit experiment. Not many others focussing on this issue that I can think of offhand.
I'm not saying consciousness is definitively involved at all in this experiment. I'm just saying assuming consciousness is influencing the results isn't falsified by the experiment AFACITell.

Seems to me you'd have to ensure there isn't an observer at the time of the experiment. It may not be the intention of the observer but merely their presence as an observer.

In fact in the general idea of consciousness collapsing the wave function, as commonly conceived, my understanding is observation causes a collapse but doesn't direct reality. Additionally whether it's a necessary condition for collapse or simply capable of causing collapse is also, AFAIK, up for debate.
 
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.
I think it is rather superficial to judge a book by the title
 
Top