Saturday, February 14, 2009

Rupert Sheldrake and Scientific Fundamentalism

Such a great article, you can find it here.

Some quotes:

The same is true of controversies about telepathy. Sceptics like Rutherford, who accused me of "crimes against reason", rely on the claims of other skeptics, like Michael Shermer, who rely on yet other skeptics such as David Marks, who ignore any evidence that goes against their beliefs.
Their beliefs. That is true and it totally excludes them from being considered skeptics and tags them as debunkers.

Science is our best method for exploring what we do not understand. But for some people science has become a religion. They need authority and certainty, and want to believe that the fundamental answers are already known.

Scientific fundamentalism serves deep emotional needs, but it is counter-productive for the progress of science itself. It inhibits scientific exploration, gives science a bad name and puts young people off. Science advances through questioning dogmas, by considering new possibilities, and through open-minded enquiry.

That is also completely true.

Certain people need certainty because they are afraid of the unknown. If there is an unknown that means that they really have no control. They are afraid of having no control.

In fact, it does inhibit science as well. I know several people who have come up with great inventions and patents simply by not following "scientific laws." Yes, by trying something new. By trying something that others told them would never work.


  1. Thank You
    Science should be dispassionate about results, and so shoud scientist. Can anyone honestly say that about the behavior of Debunkers.
    Dr James McDonald proved many of the scientist debunkers theories wrong on UFOs... because Atmospheric Physics was his expertise. Did any of the debunking "scientist" of the day look carefully at those calculations or did they call his boss and try to get him fired. John Mack a publizer prise winner and a skeptic became curious so he investigated ET abductions. He came to certain possitive conclusions about them like some were real... what did a debunkers type scientist try to do about these conclutions, debate with take his tenure away. They warned Canada about Stanton Frieman moving back there...what does that sound!
    People are not turned off to science they are turned off to scientific fundlementelism. The young know the science will change. They see the impossible happen before their eyes.
    The mystical is still around and being experienced now by honest people of character with calibrating evidence. The UFOs are still around experienced by intelligent, sober minded people and still caught on radar
    . The debunkers dilemma is... it doesn't it stop in fact it's being investigated more than ever. Before we all laugh the TV shows are proving what could be done if we had the resources to do it. On one UFO Hunters they concluded by independent test how the debunkers theories which were put out there and accepted on classic UFO was just plan bad science.
    Since we do not have a fair playing field out there... in others word we always have to prove the debunkers wrong no matter how stupid the explanation...and when we do.. no one, except with in our groups, call them on it. The media and mainstream scientist buys it. It is time to go to the people about this... the day for praying that science will answer there inner calling is gone. The only scientist now are doing this type of work and the innovators. Institutionalized science is, for me , the worst that science has to offer, and mid-management the debunkers are the worst of the group. If debunkers are not stop they will make sure any professional person that could make a difference, will lose there job, if they discuss these phenomenon openly in a positive way.
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Absolutely what irritates me most about debunkers. They cloak themselves in science when no real science is involved. In most cases there isn't any scientific investigation, at best there are "scientific theories," but they are put forth as absolute proven fact.

    I don't know how to get it through to the media that just believes everything they say because they are "scientists," but we need to continue to point out whenever possible that there is very little (if any) science involved. Science requires experiments with repeatable results and there is none of that. Just theories, no more proven than little green men.