agear OP
1,202 posts
10-29-2016 6:38pm
Actually The Presence of the Past is filled with logically laid out evidence of Morphic resonance.
Such as? Speculative Biology is fun reading much like the Tao of Physics and other quantum pablum. Much of it has the same intellectual merit as science fiction. There is some merit in it but not enough to build a company around.
Saying there is no evidence is actually a typical undergraduate mistake in logic, you know, since you have not even looked at the evidence.
Again, quote something specific for us as examples. For a formal deconstruction of Sheldrake’s "crimes against reasons can be found here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/evolution Btw I have more semester hours than you do and more difficult course material.
No you don’t. I have 19 yrs of formal education and training. You have 4.
So you can drop the pretense that you’re some some of Master debater.
No pretense needed.
I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
Based on the construction of both your arguments and garbled mentation, one has to wonder.
The problem with your logic is you use a PhD, your Pop, to refute Morphic resonance.
no, it refutes itself.
But that doesn’t make sense, it’s an appeal to authority.
Ironically, that is what Deepak Chopra (and by sins of association) Sheldrake pull:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/07/professor-jerry-coyne-explains-why-deepak-chopra-... Just because your Pop is a PhD in the SAME FIELD doesn’t mean Morphic resonance is NOT REAL. That’s a, you know, fallacious argument.
That wasn’t the argument Einstein. Hel-looo?
Same with using your biology background an Dumpty ump years in school. Strictly a fallacious argument. Follow?
No, I don’t follow.
I think we need an addendum aphorism to Einstein’s quip about education being what’s left. How about this:
Knowledge is what remains after time has robbed the mind of facts. The mind then attempts to fill in the blanks through a process called confabulation which to the impassive observer appears like magical thinking. Enter the neoshamans Sheldrake and Chopra.....
With addresses each one of your comments specifically I think it’s a safe to say your arguments are actually just more mistakes in logic. Appeals to authority, illogical association with Chopra, illogical appeal to number of years of study,meta. Gee whiz, agear if time on the job was a real measure of anything all audiophiles with 30 years of experience would be geniuses and have really great sound. Of course that’s not true. It appears to me you are simply a victim of the Backfire Effect, the more contradictory evidence that’s presented the more the person clings to his beliefs. One imagines you will argue this subject until you’re blue in the face, which in think is probably already blue. One also imagines they don’t teach real open mindedness in the College. They do in the E school. It's not how long you studied or trained, it's the quality of that study and training.
It’s always nice to engage someone who keeps coming back with these really good examples of illogical arguments AND attitude. LOL what’s funny is you are blissfully unaware of what you are even arguing against, I.e., Morphic resonance. Hel-loo!
from intro to Zen and Art of Debunkery:
As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.
• Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air certifying that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Adopting a disdainful, upper-class manner is optional but highly recommended.
• Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous," "trivial," "crackpot," or "bunk," in a manner that purports to carry the full force of scientific authority.
• Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will send the message that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
• By every indirect means at your disposal imply that science is powerless to police itself against fraud and misperception, and that only self-appointed vigilantism can save it from itself.
..........................
have a nice weekend
