/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7056822
nothing is ever a set value, not even the speed of light in a vacuum.

inb4 science seeks truths based on hard evidence, scientist aren't immune from politics, economics and sociology:

"In his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), the historian of science Thomas Kuhn argued that in periods of "normal" science, most scientists share a model of reality and a way of asking questions that he called a paradigm. The ruling paradigm defines what kind of questions scientists can ask and how they can be answered. Normal science takes place within this framework and scientists usually explain away anything that does not fit. Anomalous facts accumulate until a crisis point is reached. Revolutionary changes happen when researchers adopt more inclusive frameworks of thought and practice, and are able to incorporate facts that were previously dismissed as anomalies . In due course the new paradigm becomes a new phase of normal science."

So /sci/, are any of Rupert Sheldrakes experiments showing a 'global consciousness' real?

Have there been further studies into this?

What do you think about his research?

I'm angry and want to rant. Enjoy, /sci/

Sheldrake makes the scientific mainstream look bad because they do indeed dismiss his ideas out of hand without looking at the evidence. That's wrong of them to do that, but...

They dismiss his ideas because they have better things to do than study dogs who know when their owner is coming home. This stuff is...junk, and the experimental results are tedious and, well, not convincing. Apparently, the most psychically gifted people he can find have a 5-10% advantage over just guessing, if that. His own work in no way justifies his own beleifs, and he makes sweeping assumptions based on no real evidence at all, just a bunch of lame anecdotes about that time someone just KNEW they were about to get a phone call. He's spent the last few decades shit-stirring and writing crap books that pseudo intellectual new-agey people lap up because it makes the big bad scientific establishment look dogmatic, and he criticizes the "capito-industrialist scientismists" that don't have time for their solipsistic postmodernism.

Maybe he should have spent more time doing real research or scouring the globe for super-powered ESPers that can dodge bullets and cloud people's minds.

He's using the old trick of making bullshit claims, letting the real experts explain why he's wrong, then running to the public, crying about how the big bad establishment is oppressing his touchy-feely spiritual science with its cold unfeeling robo-logic.

discuss.

>Rupert Sheldrake

why does he believe that the brain spreads out beyond itself like an antenna? what evidence has brought that guy to that conclusion? Anyone know if its worth watching hour long videos on the guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

Discuss.