Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

A New Science
of Life

Post 44. 07/04/2018

Empirical vs Theoretical Science

    Dialogue on the Nature of Science

This dialogue between two scientists on the gray area between Modern/Reductive/Empirical Science and Postmodern /Holistic/Theoretical Science, is a good example of the quandary addressed by the BothAnd principle. When sincere people agree on the goal, but disagree on the route, how can we find our position on the truth scale? Michael Shermer was trained as a psychologist, and is now a professional skeptic, defending mater-ialistic science, and debunking spiritualistic pseudoscience. Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist, who has developed a holistic theory of form fields, that contradicts much of the current paradigm of Materialism, and its corollary of Atomism. I agree with both of them in general, so I can't commit fully to either camp.

My own theory of EnFormAction is similar to Morphogenesis, but my mundane experience of reality doesn't jibe with some of Sheldrake's spin-off hypotheses of psychic communication. I can see how he might reason from his general theory to these special cases, but I don't see the evidence to support them. Indeed, what counts as evidence is a bone of contention in this discussion, and in other debates between analytical Reason and holistic Intuition. In a court of law, there are rules of evidence that apply to eyewitness testimony or tangible objects, and to relevance & reliability. But this is just an informal dialogue.

Ultimately, it's just a small part of the wider debate between Theism & Atheism, Modernism & Postmodernism, Rationalism & New Ageism, Scientism & Spiritualism, Holism and Atomism, Fideism & Skepticism. And my current position falls somewhere in the middle, just as Deism overlaps theism and atheism. So, is my middling position tenable in the quest for truth? Although I have some sympathy for the unorthodox scientific views of Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, I can't subscribe to their primacy of Intuition & Emotion over Reason & Sensation. That's because I have my own rules of evidence.

I'm aware that, for most people, beliefs & feelings come first, then “reasons” to prop-up their weak structure. That's how Faith-first works to indoctrinate the masses with one of thou-sands of interpretations of the invisible powers of the world. Ideally, a Reason-first approach will establish the facts before proposing hypotheses, and seeking supporting or dis-confirming evidence. I'm aware that Science doesn't always meet that high standard, but the alternative to a general rational understanding of reality is a plethora of incompatible local faiths. It's a matter of Subjective vs Objective belief.

Where I agree with the New Agers is that that Atomism & Materialism only made sense until science discovered Quantum Fields & Cosmic Expansion. Now the former firm foundation of particulate matter seems to be built upon a substrate of holistic fields of potential. Einstein's cosmology, when he produced his iconic  E = MC2 formula, envisioned an eternal universe with only local cycles of change. But he had to change his mind after the Big-Bang-beginning nixed the notion of a stable pattern of stars. With a definite birthday, the existence of the cosmos can no longer be taken for granted, because the universe is not self-existent1. Which opens a door to speculations on what came before the beginning. Theists and New Agers agree on some kind of eternal power source, but disagree on the details of our relationship to that creative entity.

Post 44 continued . . . click Next

Empirical Evidence :
Generally consists of information derived from the five senses, or via techno-logical  extensions of those biological senses.
   Like most scientific debates, Ultimately, this one will be resolved when we have practical appli-cations of the morpho-genetic field theory that are equivalent to the real-world implementations of Field Theory, such as flash drives & memory sticks. The implicit quantum leap is not observable, but the only reasonable explanation is non-classical (non-mechanical) translocation.
https://www.geek.com/blurb/quantum-mechanics-in-flash-memory-547896/

• Any new mind-field apps should work whether you believe or not. That’s why tests involving humans must guard against Confirmation Bias. Unless the CB is also a mind-field effect. In which case, ordinary reason goes out the window. Our normal experience of Cause & Effect is based on observ-able causes, so invisible causes are inferred from beliefs and expectations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

• Without empirical evidence, theories tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies.

• Evidence must be interpreted in light of some general theory or worldview. The materialist paradigm of science, and the spiritualist faith of religion will yeild different interpretations.

1. Was evolution pre-determined at the BB, or is it self-determining via local feedback loops? It’s simpler to assume an unbroken chain of cause & effect. But nothing is that easy in modern science. Chaos theory finds order in disorder.

Dialogue on the Nature of Science :

https://thebestschools.org/special/sheldrake-shermer-dialogue-nature-of-science/#TOC

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruperts-resonance/

• Theoretical philosophy consists of open-ended possibilities. Empirical science is here & now actuality.

• Einstein was a theoretical scientist, but his theories were confirmed by Empirical evidence.

• Sheldrake is a theoretical scientist, and Shermer is asking, “where is the evidence?”

• A TED talk by Sheldrake, entitled The Science Delusion was uploaded to YouTube, but then removed after many objections from scientists. It was sub-sequently reinstated after counter-objections by his supporters. You be the judge,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

• Sheldrake website :
https://www.sheldrake.org/