For those of you who are interested in what we are about, we have developed a new FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
It covers topics such as;
What is Theosophy?
What is Theosophy and/or Esotericism in Academia?
and goes over other topics such as Esotericism and Occult Science.
Basically this will give you a basic run-down of what Theosophy.Net is all about.
All this can be viewed on the new FAQ by clicking the image below:
For more information on Theosophy,
you can also check out "Theosophy A Beginners Guide"
by selecting the image below:
I noted that in the description it indicated "doctrine free", and then later mentioned peer reviewed. Doctrine is showing it's ugly head within our science. Our science depends on doctrine, it is doctrine that is supported differently than the doctrine of religion, but at it's core it is the same thing.
If we find it of no use in one place, we should look very suspiciously anywhere we see it. Chances are it is only a matter of time before we come to see it as the same throughout.
As Sri Aurobindo stated, “Systemize we must, but even in making and holding the system, we should always keep firm hold on this truth that all systems are in their nature transitory and incomplete.” (See FAQ: Theosophy)
We must note that these are guidelines and will change as the discipline(s) change. We also have latitude to step outside them (guidelines) when needed and necessary.
I noticed you said "Doctrine is showing it's ugly head within our science."... example?
You make a good point, and we are aware of the inherent conundrum: To avoid doctrines is a doctrine <g>.
Here's a good Ted Talk I remember seeing a while back about the ruts the scientific world tends to fall into:
I hope you are joking?
I have posted many real peer-reviewed science article and papers which debunk several of these 10 items. The others are also part of Sheldrake's imagination. His talk was junk-science because of this alone. He should have stayed on his topic. It may have passed muster.
It's interesting how emotions can be conjured up so easily.
I really wasn't joking. Most of them seemed valid to me. Some of it is clearly his own unproven thoughts, like the giraffe embryo and thought-patterns grouping together to influence matter etc, but the rest of it was just dogmas that the scientific world tends to fall into, as anyone can see by observing the mass of scientific materialists around them. Materialism is a no more provable world view than spiritualism, it's just how different people choose to perceive the world around them.
I'm not against checking out those papers you referenced though, if you wouldn't mind linking them.
I am only concerned about his 10 myths/dogmas of Science. His discussion of those are way off-base. (actual lies).
I think if he had left that part of his talk out, the presentation would have survived. He needs some more concrete examples/references to improve them (his ideas). However - I am not concerned with those ideas.
so - I am not talking about his personal theory, just his list of science dogmas.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "only concerned about his 10 myths/dogmas of Science," as far as if you think they're absurd or justified. These are his 10 dogmas though:
1. Everything is mechanical; only mechanistic explanations will do.
2. Matter is unconscious / inanimate.
3. The matter and energy of the universe is constant, and has remained constant since the Big Bang.
4. The laws of nature are fixed.
5. Nature is without inherent purpose, and evolution has no goal.
6. Biological inheritance is a purely material process.
7. Minds are located within heads, and are nothing but the activities of brains.
8. Memories are stored in the brain, and are wiped out at death.
9. Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works.
These beliefs are so widespread in the scientific community that I don't think any proofs or examples are needed. It simply is what it is. Just have a conversation with your typical scientist (or atheist). I think he's right in that they are not proven concepts, and that they are accepted blindly and dogmatically by those that adhere to them.
need another topic for these.
Item 1, is false and has been since modern physics began (over 100 years ago). True random number generators eliminates it e.g.. (any QM measurement violates items 1, actually). Those exist. One can buy one as a COTS product.
we can go down the list. However they all fail, especially in the light that active Science is studying ways and techniques to disprove them if they haven't already done so.
You find a few Neanderthal Scientists who may try to support them. The Skeptical Inquirers' are one group of such people. They are rather Quacks... vocal ones too. they do not have any license to speak for any community in general. Some of the nuttiest ideas come from them.
I'm not really following you.
Quantum mechanics is still mechanics, which is still mechanical. Hence, using quantum mechanics, one could still believe that everything is mechanical, and only mechanistic explanations will do. (The first dogma).
Also, you believe all these dogmas are proven false? What about dogma two? Has it been proven and accepted that matter thinks? What about number 9? You're saying "telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory" has been proven false- you are saying that its been accepted that they're real? I don't understand where you're coming from.
I am unsure what you mean by mechanical. If one has a device that behaves in an indeterminate manner (NOT even probabistic) then it is the antithesis of a mechanical system like a sewing machine. Furthermore, they can have emergent properties greater than the sum of the whole. In my mind this is not a mechanical system as meant by item 1.
as to item 9, there are peer-reviewed papers demonstrating effects similar to this, and has and had supportive and active respected research in the area. Two groups emerge - scientists that are convinced it is a real effect and those staunch skeptics who debunk it. Hence, as a community - I'd say it misrepresents the Science community to state item 9.
The Science Community is very divided on these things.
Rather than propagate Myths about Science Dogmas, Sheldrake should learn from simple places first. Frankly, he should know better:
the New York Times:
two sentences/paragraphs strike one:
Nothing makes scientists happier than an experimental result that completely contradicts a widely accepted theory. The scientists who first invented the theory might not be tickled, but their colleagues will be overjoyed. Science progresses when a good theory is superseded by an even better theory, and the most direct route to building a better theory is to be confronted by data that simply don’t fit the old one.
most physicists take the attitude that almost none of our current models are exactly correct; our best ideas are still approximations to the underlying reality. In that case, apparent fine-tunings can be taken as potential clues that might prod us into building better theories.
the only Dogma in Physics is that Science should be radically reformed at all possible chances. Most Scientists relish the concept of doing this. After all, it leads to Nobel prizes, Templeton prizes etc.
Sheldrake suffers from a delusion that Science is out to "get" him. he has taken it out on Science by spreading false rumors about Science. if he quit doing that - he might get TED lectures released into Public Domain.
Unfortunately, he has been very successful - by selling his idea of Science to uninformed people - and people of a spiritual nature are at the top of the list and also the most vulnerable.
Thank you for laying all of that out for me. It looks like he's wrong, at least when it comes to true scientists. If his talk was based purely on the laymen scientifically minded person, then I think his dogmas would still hold up. I know my fair share of "scientific" atheists, and they all hold onto those 10 dogmas. But as far as science itself goes, I must admit my ignorance as to what the majority of them think. Thank you again for taking to time to explain this.