Religion

LeftishBrit

(41,205 posts)

11. And so were/are a lot of crackpots and cultists.

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 06:06 PM

Dec 2012

Being 'outside the box' does not automatically make your work wrong, but it also does not automatically make it right without evidence.

Moreover: although Galileo's work did go against many then-contemporary scientific theories about the universe, that was not why his work was so strongly rejected. It was the Inquisition that persecuted him, on religious grounds, not some form of scientific orthodoxy. Sheldrake's views are not being rejected because he is being persecuted by some religious or political dictatorship. They are mostly rejected because there is no evidence for them, and quite a lot of evidence against them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Bad Science Is Like Bad Religion [View all] cbayer Dec 2012 OP

Or as one of my colleagues puts it: Turbineguy Dec 2012 #1

Both wise and perceptive, and a viewpoint that needs to be taken to heart. nt humblebum Dec 2012 #2

Ahh, that Rupert sheldrake Confusious Dec 2012 #3

I'm not that familiar with his scientific work, but I think his take here cbayer Dec 2012 #5

His recent resume is very much something to sneeze at LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #7

I think you make very valid points. cbayer Dec 2012 #9

Actually he's very good experimentalist tama Dec 2012 #13

When I was in grad school in the 70's Speck Tater Dec 2012 #26

"Observer bias" and "degree of plausibility" combined tama Dec 2012 #30

If one were to judge his argument by his resume, that would just be argument from authority.... xocet Dec 2012 #29

Couple points tama Dec 2012 #31

Actually, I first read this without any idea of who he was, and I found it interesting. cbayer Dec 2012 #36

Liberal materialism has become the dominant mode burnsei sensei Dec 2012 #4

Maybe - but one of the best-known practitioners of bad science is Rupert Sheldrake himself LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #6

I wasn't aware of this when I read the article, but have now done some further cbayer Dec 2012 #8

He's unorthodox, for sure tama Dec 2012 #14

He is not unorthodox - he is a purveyor of Woo intaglio Dec 2012 #17

Well then tama Dec 2012 #18

Blindfolding has little effect intaglio Dec 2012 #23

Actually tama Dec 2012 #24

Thanks, tama. I found his writing intriguing, and looking into cbayer Dec 2012 #22

While some of Sheldrake's stuff is way outside the box, Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #10

And so were/are a lot of crackpots and cultists. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #11

The why don't you tama Dec 2012 #15

That's an idiotic comparison... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #28

Here's a free logic lesson from Carl Sagan: trotsky Dec 2012 #35

thats pretty rich coming from rupert sheldrake Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #12

Phillip McCleod is a crackpot tama Dec 2012 #16

Which particular site? The Huffington Post? cbayer Dec 2012 #21

They are also home to a lot of crackpot woo. trotsky Dec 2012 #34

Dishonest and self-serving skepticscott Dec 2012 #19

"Bad science gets better. Bad religion stays bad." cleanhippie Dec 2012 #20

Sheldrake is a crank who probably has Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #25

Well, this man definitely represents bad science, and I can't see a difference... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #27

Here's my take on Sheldrake Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2012 #32

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #37

Bad science can be countered (and conquered) by good science. trotsky Dec 2012 #33