Since it is a slow week, I was thinking about variations on Rupert Sheldrake’s idea of morphic resonance, and how these might apply to an Aristotelian philosophy of nature. You recall in that philosophy, the key is that all is composed of form and prime matter (blog/Substack).
Accepting that, at least for the sake of argument, those forms have to come from somewhere, and there has to be some action (to use a somewhat neutral word) to instantiate a form. That can’t be from patterns created in some mechanistic manner from below, which only sounds like a solution until you realize you have only pushed the problem one level back, and still have to explain the forms of the stuff below.
We are told that the mundane reaction of a W- boson and an anti-neutrino produces an electron. How does the electron which emerges from this joining know to take that “shape”? The math and observation say it happens, but the form of the electron must originate from something. The math says how it happens, but not why it happens. Why not a “metamorphic”, i.e. form-bearing, field?
There has to be something accounting for the form of the electron, and indeed of the form of any thing. Field theories are used hither and yon, so it’s not crazy. And consider we have highly—or perhaps purportedly is a better word—intelligent people earnestly defending wiggling strings in large dimensional dark-matter spaces, so if you’re inclined to giggle at whacky theories, like form-yielding fields and multiverses, there is plenty of material.
Plenty of material. Multiverse. Get it? Get it?
No charge for the jokes, my friends.
Now in my search I duly came across Sheldrake’s Wokepedia page, which glows with how-dare-he indignation. My favorite was a lunatic editor of Nature, John Maddox, calling for Sheldrake’s books to be burnt. Another, and our subject at last, was the linking to the 2016 peer-reviewed paper “Why Do Irrational Beliefs Mimic Science? The Cultural Evolution of Pseudoscience” by Stefaan Blancke, Maarten Boudry and Massimo Pigliucci in Theoria. What an impressive title. They call out Sheldrake, too.
Most don’t know that in the Twentieth Century, philosophers worked hard at finding a formula to demarcate science from so-called pseudoscience. It was eventually agreed the search was futile after it was realized that each suggested criterion would exclude what is considered legitimate science. It turns out the only way to tell good from bad science is the old-fashioned technique of putting claims to the test.
Yet Pigliucci and pals think they have hit upon a New & Improved! demarcation, at least to separate Experts from non-approved sources. They exhort non-Experts to follow the five points below. As you read these, keep in mind the covid panic, “climate change”, and all the rest (my paragraphications):
Firstly, one can check the arguments that experts bring to the discussion. Lay people may not be able to grasp the arguments directly, but they can check for what Goldman calls “dialectical superiority”. This does not simply mean that one looks for the best debater – although debating skills can certainly add to the impression that one is an expert – but that one keeps track of the extent to which an alleged expert is capable of debunking or rebutting the opponent’s claims.
Secondly, a novice can check whether and to what extent other experts in that field support a given (alleged) expert’s propositions. It will be more reasonable to follow an expert’s opinion if it is in line with the consensus.
Thirdly, lay people can distinguish between experts on the basis of meta-expertise, in the form of credentials such as diplomas and work experience. For example, an expert with a PhD in a relevant field can in general be considered to be more reliable –ceteris paribus – than an amateur.
Fourthly, a novice can check for biases and interests that affect an expert’s judgement. If an expert has a stake in defending a particular position, it will raise the suspicion that he is not interested in providing correct information, which will undermine his credibility. Of course, nobody can be free of biases, which also counts for scientists. Hence, according to Pigliucci (2010, p. 296), “the question is not whether there is bias (there always is), but how much, where it comes from, and how one can become aware of and correct it.”
Fifthly, a novice can assess an expert’s past track record. The more an expert has been right in the past, the more he has demonstrated that he has indeed access to some expert domain. As such, he will probably be right again in the future
This list, in essence, was given in a discussion with Leonard Susskind recently, coming, funnily enough, in what was otherwise a criticism of the very field which he helped heap upon us.
Anyway, you will have heard versions of these tips from many sources. The list boils down to credentialism. Listen to us because we’re the guardians of The Idea under discussion. Works great when The Idea is true, or mostly true; works terrible when The Idea stinks (but touted by Experts) or is new and untested.
Scientists are raised hearing the stories of stalwart heroes of the past who stuck to their ideas, come what may. What usually come-what-may-ed was hersterical screeching and calls for book burnings. Remember the hand-washing guy? Hounded. The drifting continents fellow? Scorned. The meteor man? Loathed.
The lesson scientists think they take from this is that when it comes their turn to consider the bold new idea, they will defend the person making it, and ensure the fellow gets his due. They will stand up to their blustering colleagues and remind them the way forward is not timid surrender to Consensus and review of peers, but bold thinking!
When the real lesson of the endless supply of these stories is that many more of them are to come, and that most scientists will be part of them, almost every one of them on the wrong side. Instead of the humility that should result from these cautionary tales, scientists should understand it’s much more likely they’ll evince standard stunted stubbornness.
It was ever so; it will ever be so.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.
I was interested in Sheldrake from early in his career – and saw him give a lecture in 1984, which was indeed full of Aristotle (as I recall). I later got to know him a little as a penfriend, and he gave me useful feedback on a theory paper once.
So I have generally benign feelings towards the chap!
However, I think there is a degree of misrepresentation about what he is doing; because he is primarily a metaphysical philosopher –
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-is-rupert-sheldrake.html
In other words; he is suggesting a new framework for science. This is why he can never convince anyone who does not want, or does not see any need for, a new framework for science.
Anthropogenic climate change cultism, corona virus hysteria, and transgender “affirmative care” dogma should have taught us to dismiss anyone who cites credential or consensus as a reason to take any statement seriously.
Thanks, Bruce.
I’ve only just now started reading his papers, such as the staring ones. We need to wean him off p-values. If you have his contact, I’ll be glad to help him out.
Nonsense – but merry Christmas!
Well this was a cherry article (not sarcasm). Merry Christmas!
BRIGGS, YOU FOOL! AND ALL YOU FOOLISH EXPURTS TOO!!!
There is also a sixtly!
SIXTLY – A novice can assess an expert’s credibility based on how many Hollywood sci-fi movies or Netflix series have been made, or are currently being made, to increase consensus in the popular opinion of the masses of what catastrophic prophecies or future prognostications can be intelligently made based on their calculus!
The more daft movies! The better credentialed the Expertise behind them!
We know multiverses exist and electrons take specific shapes because it’s all the fault of that blasted dastardly Spider-Man! OOo oOOoOOOO!@!!!!&*($@^%!!! PARKER, YOU FOOL! GET IN HERE AND GIVE ME WHATEVER PICTURES YOU’VE GOT OF THAT WEBHEADED WALL-CRAWLING MISFITTED ELECTRON MENACE TO SOCIETY!!! WE NEED SOMETHING FOR THE FRONT PAGE OF THE EVENING EDITION!!! WE’VE GOT A GOVERNMENT EXPERT WRITER EXPOSING THAT FREAK’S INTEFRERENCE IN MR. WILSON FISK’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, AND MR. FISK IS THE ONLY ONE STANDING BETWEEN US AND THE FASCISTS!
I don’t believe Time exists as a physical entity
I don’t believe the speed of light is constant
I cannot fathom why an electron has a certain mass and charge
I cannot understand how or why metals or metallic ores are deposited geologically nor how they were ‘created’
I cannot understand why the earth rotates at a most benign 24 hour cycle
I do believe all of our science is probably a bit off the mark and 100 years hence will be amusing to historians
We seen to be groping in the darkness since the Fall and by the sweat of our brow must slowly uncover the infinite Goodness of God
Merry Christmas Briggs. Thanks for all your articles.
A Christmas-related thought occured to me this morning and I’d like to share it with the audience here. It’s not really related to this article, but it isn’t too far off and there’s no open thread soo…
Crucifiction is self-causing and exists in a closed time loop. Hear me out: as Catholics, we know that Mary Mother of God was concieved without original sin. This was, as they say, merited by her son’s sacrifice which happened in the future relative to her conception. In other words, her Immaculate Conception was *caused* by the Crucifiction. And the Immaculate Conception is part of the set of causes that eventually caused Crucifiction. Here I’m assuming Immaculate Conception of Mary is necessary for Christ’s conception, which isn’t that much of a stretch really, what with the “pregnant by Holy Spirit” thing which indicates there were some technical reasons she needed to be in a state of original perfection. Which means this particular causative strand doesn’t have a beggining, it just loops back on itself. The strand of causality goes forward in time from the Immaculate Conception to the Crucifiction, and Ressurection and then from somewhere there it goes backward in time to the Immaculate Conception.
And obviously Christ’s birth sits inbetween the two ends of the loop, so merry Christmas! 🙂
crucifixion not fiction
beginning
It is not difficult to conceive that the Divine Christ – He and the Father are One – as Perfect Holiness could not be born of a sinful woman so an extraordinary Grace was given the Blessed Mother to be the Holy sinless tabernacle by which the Word of God would incarnate.
If a person believes in the Divinity of Christ – something really missing today in proper awe and magnitude – then an ever Virgin and spotless Holy Mother seems necessary to the Almighty’s Will.
“The No. 1 mystical belief of the age of science was that the methods of the natural sciences can and should pertain to social sciences.
This key error wrecked so many different fields, from politics and economics to psychology and sociology. The attempt to take methods for studying stable things and use them to study rational and volatile things never worked. To make it plausible required building fallacies into the model. We see this everywhere now. Look up common fallacies to see the very core of the junk science that overwhelms us today.
I’ve written about many fallacies—not only post hoc ergo propter hoc but also the subject bias. Then you have the absolute junk science of modeling: Assume pigs can fly and that you can prove it.
Looking back, the most powerful and prescient critique of this outlook was F.A. Hayek’s amazing “Counterrevolution of Science,” a book I revisited in the depths of lockdown to find insight into what had gone wrong.
This is the 50th anniversary of Hayek’s Nobel Prize speech of 1974. He had received the prize for his work on business cycles. He could have delivered a technical and relatively noncontroversial talk. Instead, he used the occasion to send out a grave warning not only to all economists but also to everyone in academia and the intellectual world. Provocatively, he called his paper “The Pretense of Knowledge.” Consider the following passage:
He concluded his talk as follows:
There we go, words spoken half a century ago never more applicable than in our time. We seem to be learning. We seem to be applying the lesson. The only way to save science from itself is to apply it in proper ways while recognizing the limits of the ability to construct the world according to the imaginings of a handful of intellectuals. It’s tragic that we had to come to the point of nearly destroying the globe to discover this, but here we are.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/end-age-scientism
That is a great post – thanks.
I have struggled through Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” and I think he says that you cannot displace the millions of individual economic actions and decisions with a ‘planned’ economy – Socialism. He warned also that the worst sorts of people will rise to power in Socialism and that Socialism will devolve inevitably into Totalitarianism. One may suppose much of his thinking developed from the rise of Nazism in Germany from which he fled.
The tragedy in the USA education system, especially university, is that almost none of our graduates have a clue about Friedrich Hayek.