Blowing Up Darwin

[otto105]

Exposing Scientific Dogmas - Banned TED Talk - Rupert Sheldrake​

Yup, another flat white earth maga fuckup talk.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yup, another flat white earth maga fuckup talk.

 

[otto105]

Exactly right on the political point maga fuckup.

You're not questioning science, you're denying it.

 

[MisterBeale]

Exactly right on the political point maga fuckup.

You're not questioning science, you're denying it.

Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Dogmas Holding Back Science: Rupert Sheldrake PhD – Forbidden Knowledge TV

forbiddenknowledgetv.net

 

[otto105]

Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Dogmas Holding Back Science: Rupert Sheldrake PhD – Forbidden Knowledge TV

forbiddenknowledgetv.net

Sure fuckup

What does science inform us about human caused climate change.

 

[scruffy]

Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Dogmas Holding Back Science: Rupert Sheldrake PhD – Forbidden Knowledge TV

forbiddenknowledgetv.net

Psychic phenomena?

Really?

Do you know how many thousands of experiments have been performed on that?

It's somewhere between unrepeatable and nonexistent.

Proven thousands of times.

 

[MisterBeale]

Psychic phenomena?

Really?

Do you know how many thousands of experiments have been performed on that?

It's somewhere between unrepeatable and nonexistent.

Proven thousands of times.

Yeah, I'm familiar.

It is very hard to do unbiased scientific research when you start out with an epistemology which seeks to "de-bunk," certain natural phenomenon. This is what researchers do.

Am I accusing them of falsifying their data? Of course not. But researchers are only human.
When you understand that human thought and emotion, affect experimental outcomes, regardless of what researches do, then looking into this type of phenomenon becomes nearly impossible.

. . . now, if you understand the double slit experiment and the nature of the universe, you would not even need to ask these silly questions.

 

[scruffy]

Yeah, I'm familiar.

It is very hard to do unbiased scientific research when you start out with an epistemology which seeks to "de-bunk," certain natural phenomenon. This is what researchers do.

Oh. You mean like evolution.

Am I accusing them of falsifying their data? Of course not. But researchers are only human.
When you understand that human thought and emotion, affect experimental outcomes, regardless of what researches do, then looking into this type of phenomenon becomes nearly impossible.

"Looking into it" consumed most of the 60's and the first half of the 70's.

. . . now, if you understand the double slit experiment and the nature of the universe, you would not even need to ask these silly questions.

Brains do not function using double slits.

They function with noise, which is a much more sophisticated form of randomness.

You know the criteria for science - independently observable and repeatable. Repeatability and randomness are opposites.

You're welcome to design an experiment demonstrating a relationship. No one has yet done so for psychic phenomena.

 

[otto105]

Yeah, I'm familiar.

It is very hard to do unbiased scientific research when you start out with an epistemology which seeks to "de-bunk," certain natural phenomenon. This is what researchers do.

Am I accusing them of falsifying their data? Of course not. But researchers are only human.
When you understand that human thought and emotion, affect experimental outcomes, regardless of what researches do, then looking into this type of phenomenon becomes nearly impossible.

. . . now, if you understand the double slit experiment and the nature of the universe, you would not even need to ask these silly questions.

Doing unbiased scientific research isn’t hard. Keeping maga from politicizing it is the challenge.

 

[Frankenstein]

Sure fuckup

What does science inform us about human caused climate change.

That it exists, and that is a lie

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, questions have answers. If you question science and get your answer, say thank you and move on.

Otherwise it's just baseless, irrational doubt.

 

[otto105]

That it exists, and that is a lie

So, a political answer.

 

[Frankenstein]

So, a political answer.

Nope factual

 

[whutTHEYsay]

whut I say in my first response to the first statement in PoliticalChic Post #490 Dec 13, 2024 …~… When a white Republican Christian nationalist such as St.Pchic says “There are two religions in conflict.” she is seeking validation for what only Trump supporting Christians need as she has trouble coping as a religious zealot who is forced to live in a secular culture under a system that protects individual and group religious liberty against zealots like her.

She needs a US President and political party machine who will destroy her perceived religious enemies as her “War God of the Holy Bible” has done for thousands of years …

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Questioning is not the same as doubting.

The entire scientific process is questioning. Testing hypotheses.