Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)

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

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:53 AM

Dec 2012

between it and religion, also, I don't know what the difference is between "good" and "bad" religion.

He makes unfalsifiable claims of a pseudo-scientific nature, or claims that are falsifiable and have been falsified already. Yet, instead of re-evaluating his theories, he sticks by them, and then complains about the "dogma" of "mainstream" science. This sounds like a classic case of fundamentalism and closed mindedness.

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