For telling the truth about yet another clothesless emperor that rules in this insane world.
Entirely predictable that he would be censored. The high priests never take kindly to their religion being questioned.
Tedstaff accuses Sheldrake of engaging in pseudoscience because he questions the essential myths that undergird the religion of naturalism. The ironies are rich and endless.
I suggest reading the works of the Japanese philosopher Masanobu Fukuoka.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened. -Ron Paul
to reading this thread. Thank you for posting it! Many of the comments were well expressed and insightful (thank you commenters). So I watched the video. Sheldrake is down to earth, calm, cool, eloquent and spot on with his observations (IMHO). What some have been calling pseudo-science is not Sheldrake or any of his comments but the dogmatic science which is by its very nature pseudo (false, color of science). Sheldrake is asking that we question this non-thinking dogmatism as we ask the 'difficult' questions. The ten points of politically correct "accepted science" he raises are amazing in their implied willful ignorance and denial of enormous bodies of evidence to the contrary. So all this makes modern science a political whore dialing for dollars and begging for prestige (fame and fortune). The NWO political control of capital will fund only those research projects that will further their agenda. Research into the questions raised will never be funded by The System as it erodes their false premises of lack, inevitable destruction, human helplessness and impotence and victimhood. Society as a whole is in the beginning (or middle) of a vast shift. Very little of the global disturbances we see (protests but the millions, leaping technologies, self-education of the masses through the internet, etc.) resemble the past we all grew through and experienced. It's all new. Everything is being transformed. To what? A redress to and revision of those ten pseudo-science points of dogmatism. This is already taking place else Sheldrake would not be discussing them. As these sand castles of pseudo-science tumble we see the birth of a new consciousness or understanding of what and who we are within a more lively universe than atheistic materialism can ever hope to perceive.
I don't deny that there is dogma within science. That's not what my post was about. Frankly speaking, I have no qualms with someone pointing this out. But if you are going to point out such a thing, it's best if you don't commit the very same sins you accuse others of. Despite what you might think about scientists, they DO appreciate a well structured argument. Some of them even delight in being proven wrong, because like another poster stated, it would open up new research venues.
You think scientists like the idea that we aren't conscious at all? That the universe or evolution has no purpose? You would think these scientists must have a streak of masochism. Sheldrake is wrong about this. The reason scientists go out to prove these things, is because deep down they hope they might find evidence that this worst case scenario is out of the question and thus DISPROVEN.
Because it's human nature to only assume a truth that is compatible with what they are comfortable with. We've seen where roads like that one lead: witch hunts, groupthink, mob behaviour, persecution, etc. The very reason the scientific method exists is to eliminate this tendency of ours to only assume truths we are comfortable with. Not human authority must be the guide, but the evidence itself must point the way. Assume the worst and if it doesn't happen to be true, the science (or the evidence) will speak for itself.
One might be tempted to take Shelldrake's side on this one. Afterall, his truth is very close to what most of DP deem comfortable. And he IS articulate, well spoken and funny, which would up the chances of his legitimacy. All of the 10 points he named happen to be points that hit close to home: afterall, alot of people here would like to think that we have souls. So his points about consciousness would be music to our ears, regardless of the veracity of his arguments.
Needless to say, when science was first developing, there were alot of people that came with the most outrageous hypotheses. The first scientists were actually delighted, because even they wanted to know the answers to these particular questions. But the thing with outrageous hypotheses is that they never hold up that very well under careful scrutiny. They soon noticed that when questioned, the people were actually starting to get hostile, ignoring the evidence in front of them. THEIR own truth was actually more important than the evidence in front of them. Alot of them were wannabe scientists, with an overinflated notion of their own opinion and they had the cultured mannerism that goes with it. Ever since then, scientists in general have had a phobia concerning people with outrageous claims with no evidence to back it up. To the point where they even censor these people.
Now I do agree that censoring is an over the top reaction. Encouraging people to look at the evidence at hand would have been the better approach. Sure, there will be alot of people that interpret the evidence in a way convenient to them, but you can't avoid that anyways.
To summarize, my main point is not to be so eager to accept someone who happens to agree with you and fits with your worldview. Look at the quality of his arguments and the evidence at hand. Because Sheldrake did mention that there's overwhelming evidence. Really? Scientists have heard that story before. And whenever such "evidence" is put under close scrutiny, it always starts to crumble. It's easy to think that the reason these dogmas exist is because scientist are arrogant snobs (and some of them are indeed snobs). But the truth rarely is an easy story.
So basically the jest of the talk is: Question everything always
I hate the idea of scientific heresy. Science must operate under the assumption that anything is possible. To say light is always the same and always will be the same ect ect is ridiculous. It's better to always test it and AFFIRM that it has always been the same(if it fact stays the same) while assuming that it may change at any time.
ill say this about his speech. while it is a known fact that once a crystal is made it replicates globally, the mechanism by which this happens has been thoroughly investigated and is the result of microscopic grains of crystal seeding the globe. this is particularly damaging to drug manufacturing since they rely on certain crystal structures to work. I'm skeptical that it happens through some resonant frequency, but it should be tested and considered. and in terms of varying fundamental constants, why would the standard testers discount variations in it? i didn't know there was any contention in these constants but this speech has made me question :)
Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.
It's TEDx. The standards are far lower - practically nonexistent.
Edit: I read the other comments. Apparently the TED people got wind of this talk and removed it from their servers and youtube channel.
"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln
"We suggested that we were flagging the talks because of 'factual errors' but some of the specific examples we gave were less than convincing."
Science from the Scripture
Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love the YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Science and Spirituality are rejoining, so those of Faith and Atheists alike need to prepare to Change their induced beliefs to survive in the coming age of conscious awareness.
This kind of knowledge was coming to the surface in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Coincidentally, WWI began in 1914 followed by WWII in 1939 putting a "cork" in this flow of enlightened information.
Today, another wave of enlightenment is emerging but on a collective global level thanks to the internet. And yet again, here come the wars, and cyber wars at that.
These things are cyclical in nature, and so are the methods of their suppression. But we are moving well beyond any attempts to divert attention. Even faking an alien invasion won't work now. The common enemy they hope to create is the very thing they have all become. And Humanity is beginning to see it as just that.
Powerful Time to be Alive!!
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
"the coming age of conscious awareness"?
Not to pick on you but I hear this mental dribble too often more and more.
Most of the time it means that people are justified in believing that whatever stupid-as$ opinion they come up with is just as valid as any other opinion, totally contrary to objectivism (small O) and reason.
No, not all opinions are valid. And, no, they are not all equal. For example, expressing ones opinion that food, water or air is not required for human life is a stupid opinion, obviously contrary to established scientific fact and reason.
Just because someone has such an opinion does not make it valid. Sure they have a "right" to their opinion, but the opinion in and of itself is not equal to other opinions or to reason or fact.
So, perhaps this is not what you intended to mean. If that's the case, that's great. As often as not it is, however, when people talk about this "consciousness" touchy-feely stuff.
Yes, I know that the whole "touchy-feely" stuff is awkward to approach at first. I, as a straight man, found it odd to feel like I needed to be more emotionally aware of myself. But I pushed myself beyond my discomforts and societal opinions about emotionally aware men.
I may have come off a bit too "New Agey". When talking about "conscious awareness" it doesn't need to mean some sort of profound spiritual awakening. It can be as simple as acknowledging how our technology is helping us come to this new global perspective. Sure, we all have opinions. Some valid, some not. The validity is YOUR perspective of which you are equally free to have. But if a person tries to discredit or invalidate another's opinion rather than establishing their own for conversation sake, then it's really wasted time.
It's that sort of "push back" that I see less and less of these days. People are more open to listening to the opinions of others even if just to see if their opinion sparks a new idea.
The things that I have been reading about over the last 3-4 years, anywhere from ancient knowledge to quantum physics, has lead me to believe we are on the cusp of an understanding where science and spirituality exist as one again. There is really no need for division anymore and those rigid in their beliefs, be it science or faith, need to open their hearts and minds to one another.
I mean everything I say or I wouldn't say it. How you view that is completely up to you. I'm not here to convince you of my views, I only present them as my own unique life's perspective.
Whereas I agree with the fundamental premise that Science is dogmatic and hence flawed I thing what Whitechapel presented is not strong evidence for those flaws. The speed c is now defined as a fundamental constant over the meter because there are more accurate ways to measure the speed of light vs the length of a meter stick. That doesn't mean that the speed of light will in science always be a constant, its just that no successfully testable hypothesis has been put forward. Science always relies on experimentation to disprove something and that the real issue is that experimentation is often expensive and so relies on funding, which is political and hence that is where dogma becomes important. I think scientists would be astoundingly grateful if someone could disprove the speed of light was a constant because that would open up massive amounts or potential new research. So is it the scientists or the potential funders who are most reliant on dogma? I say the latter.
As to the sense someone is behind you. That is weak. We have 5 very acute senses that we numb daily with drugs, distractions and drudgery. Doesn't mean they don't work, just means we not are always aware of how well they work. When someone is standing behind you staring at you your hearing is very capable of detecting the changes in their breathing patterns as well the lack of normal sounds like rustling and shuffling. This together creates a recognizable pattern to the primitive ape brain as one of the important four 'f's: fear. ( This assumes that when someone stands and stares they will often do it secretly, and its the actions of hiding something that is identified as a potential danger, something that animals in the wild have evolved to face all the time.)
I consider this video to be an eye opener.
Not an end-all answer to whatever the speaker brings up.
He is basically loosening up people's thinking.
Not convincing them beyond reasonable doubt.
due to the realization that an object with rest mass cannot move faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum) regardless whether or not the speed "fluctuates."
Is Sheldrake's book, related to this topic:
FWIW, isn't is clear that all organized groups have their own orthodoxy? Religion, of course, but political parties as well. Ron Paul was clearly outside the established and accepted orthodoxy of the Republican party, which drove the Establishment nuts! They did the exact same thing to Ron Paul.
Of course its not just the GOP. The Democratic party is the same, with Kucinich playing the Ron Paul / Rupert Sheldrake role over in that drama.
Libertarians are no different, either. There is an orthodoxy and factions that must be respected. Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard cannot be questioned (nor, for that matter, can Ron Paul). If you so much as hint that some government program somewhere might in fact benefit someone, you'll be shouted down as bloody "STATIST!"
The current controversy will hopefully help others to see through their own bullshit.
I have not read the book, but I think he covers the same 10 assumptions in that book. As posted by dailypaul user MarkDran,
1. universe is mechanical
2. matter is unconscious
3. The parameters/laws of nature are fixed*
4. total energy and mass is conserved.
5. (Biological) Nature is purposeless
6. (Parental) Inheritance is material
7. Memory is stored a physical trace.
8. Your mind is the activity of your brain*
9. Psychic phenomena are illusory
10. mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works.
The discussion of number 4 in this video was particularly valuable to me.
There is always room for disagreement. No one is a true saint.
An email with the subject line: "How Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard Took Liberty Down the Wrong Road" from friend & fellow DPer Nelson Hultberg, who just wrote a new book that challenges the traditional orthodoxy of the dominant Anarchist strain of modern day libertarianism.
I took the liberty of reposting it here:
I expect a full force attack, with Nelson (and maybe me, simply for posting it) getting the Rupert Sheldrake treatment.
Or maybe I should say that I "devoured" or "savored" the book. Mr. Hultberg is a genius (a term I don't use flippantly) and his book SHOULD become a modern classic.
I will forever be grateful for the post on the Daily Paul that led me to read this gem of a book.
And thanks to you for bringing it up again.
The Virtual Conspiracy
between TED and Sheldrake
Posted by: tedstaff
After due diligence, including a survey of published scientific research and recommendations from our Science Board and our community, we have decided that Graham Hancock’s and Rupert Sheldrake’s talks from TEDxWhitechapel should be removed from distribution on the TEDx YouTube channel.
We’re not censoring the talks. Instead we’re placing them here, where they can be framed to highlight both their provocative ideas and the factual problems with their arguments. See both talks after the jump.
All talks on the TEDxTalks channel represent the opinion of the speaker, not of TED or TEDx, but we feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talks which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience.
March 18, 2013
I would like to respond to TED’s claims that my TEDx talk “crossed the line into pseudoscience”, contains ”serious factual errors” and makes “many misleading statements.”
This discussion is taking place because the militant atheist bloggers Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers denounced me, and attacked TED for giving my talk a platform. I was invited to give my talk as part of a TEDx event in Whitechapel, London, called “Challenging Existing Paradigms.” That’s where the problem lies: my talk explicitly challenges the materialist belief system. It summarized some of the main themes of my recent book Science Set Free (in the UK called The Science Delusion). Unfortunately, the TED administrators have publically aligned themselves with the old paradigm of materialism, which has dominated science since the late nineteenth century.
TED say they removed my talk from their website on the advice of their Scientific Board, who also condemned Graham Hancock’s talk. Hancock and I are now facing anonymous accusations made by a body on whose authority TED relies, on whose advice they act, and behind whom they shelter, but whose names they have not revealed.
TED’s anonymous Scientific Board made three specific accusations:
“he suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it’s generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness, and there’s much research and literature exploring the idea.”
I characterized the materialist dogma as follows: “Matter is unconscious: the whole universe is made up of unconscious matter. There’s no consciousness in stars in galaxies, in planets, in animals, in plants and there ought not to be any in us either, if this theory’s true. So a lot of the philosophy of mind over the last 100 years has been trying to prove that we are not really conscious at all.” Certainly some biologists, including myself, accept that animals are conscious. In August, 2012, a group of scientists came out with an endorsement of animal consciousness in “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness”. As Discovery News reported, “While it might not sound like much for scientists to declare that many nonhuman animals possess conscious states, it’s the open acknowledgement that’s the big news here.”
But materialist philosophers and scientists are still in the majority, and they argue that consciousness does nothing – it is either an illusion or an ”epiphenomenon” of brain activity. It might as well not exist in animals – or even in humans. That is why in the philosophy of mind, the very existence of consciousness is often called “the hard problem”.
“He also argues that scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants, using as his primary example the dogmatic assumption that a constant must be constant and uses the speed of light as example.… Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a careful rebuttal of this point.”
TED’s Scientific Board refers to a Scientific American article that makes my point very clearly: “Physicists routinely assume that quantities such as the speed of light are constant.”
In my talk I said that the published values of the speed of light dropped by about 20 km/sec between 1928 and 1945. Carroll’s “careful rebuttal” consisted of a table copied from Wikipedia showing the speed of light at different dates, with a gap between 1926 and 1950, omitting the very period I referred to. His other reference (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedofligh...) does indeed give two values for the speed of light in this period, in 1928 and 1932-35, and sure enough, they were 20 and 24km/sec lower than the previous value, and 14 and 18 km/sec lower than the value from 1947 onwards.
In my talk I suggest how a re-examination of existing data could resolve whether large continuing variations in the Universal Gravitational Constant, G, are merely errors, as usually assumed, or whether they show correlations between different labs that might have important scientific implications hitherto ignored. Jerry Coyne and TED’s Scientific Board regard this as an exercise in pseudoscience. I think their attitude reveals a remarkable lack of curiosity.
“Sheldrake claims to have “evidence” of morphic resonance in crystal formation and rat behavior. The research has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, despite attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work.”
I said, “There is in fact good evidence that new compounds get easier to crystallize all around the world.” For example, turanose, a kind of sugar, was considered to be a liquid for decades, until it first crystallized in the 1920s. Thereafter it formed crystals everyehere. (Woodard and McCrone Journal of Applied Crystallography (1975). 8, 342). The American chemist C. P. Saylor, remarked it was as though “the seeds of crystallization, as dust, were carried upon the winds from end to end of the earth” (quoted by Woodard and McCrone).
The research on rat behavior I referred to was carried out at Harvard and the Universities of Melbourne and Edinburgh and was published in peer-reviewed journals, including the British Journal of Psychology and the Journal of Experimental Biology. For a fuller account and detailed references see Chapter 11 of my book Morphic Resonance (in the US) / A New Science of Life (in the UK). The relevant passage is online here: sciencesetfree.tumblr.com
The TED Scientific Board refers to ”attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work” on morphic resonance. I would be happy to work with these eager scientists if the Scientific Board can reveal who they are.
This is a good opportunity to correct an oversimplification in my talk. In relation to the dogma that mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works, I said, “that’s why governments only fund mechanistic medicine and ignore complementary and alternative therapies.” This is true of most governments, but the US is a notable exception. The US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine receives about $130 million a year, about 0.4% of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) total annual budget of $31 billion.
Obviously I could not spell out all the details of my arguments in an 18-minute talk, but TED’s claims that it contains “serious factual errors,” “many misleading statements” and that it crosses the line into “pseudoscience” are defamatory and false.
We’ve been reviewing the response this past weekend to our decision to move two TEDx talks off the TEDx YouTube channel and over here onto the main TED Blog. We’d like to recap here what happened and suggest a way forward.
UPDATE: To discuss the talks, view them here:
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk
The debate about Graham Hancock’s talk
Four years ago, TED began an experiment in which we granted free licenses to people who wanted to organize their own local events in which ideas could be exchanged, with talks captured on film and uploaded to YouTube. These events use the brand name TEDx, where x stands for “self-organized.” Organizers pledge to work within a set of rules, but then they have freedom to run the event themselves. Speakers are invited without our pre-approval. Requests to hold TEDx events poured in from all over the world, and to date, more than 5,000 have been held, with around 8 more every day. There’s been TEDxBoston, TEDxAmsterdam, TEDxBaghdad, TEDxKabul, TEDxSoweto, and so forth, a thrilling explosion of idea sharing that has spawned more than 25,000 recorded talks on YouTube (uploaded there by the organizers themselves, without our prescreening). We have selected more than 200 TEDx talks to appear on ourmain TED.com homepage, where they have attracted millions of views. This growth is made possible by our deliberately open approach.
The obvious question is “how do you ensure the quality of these events”?
Our approach is to empower organizers to achieve greatness, by providing detailed guidelines – and guidance – on what works and what doesn’t. And we’re constantly amazed at how good most of these events are. But we also count on the community to help when things go wrong. Occasionally a TEDx event will include a speaker who causes controversy or upset. When that happens, someone in the community will flag the talk, and we have to decide how to respond.
One option would be to have an “anything goes” policy. We could just say that these events are the responsibility of the local organizer and wash our hands of it. The problem with that stance is that we would soon find the TEDx brand and platform being hijacked by those with dangerous or fringe ideas. And eventually credible speakers would not want to be associated with it. TED’s mission is not “any old idea” but “ideas worth spreading.” We’ve taken a deliberately broad interpretation of that phrase, but it still has to mean something.
The hardest line to draw is science versus pseudoscience. TED is committed to science. But we think of it as a process, not as a locked-in body of truth. The scientific method is a means of advancing understanding. Of asking for evidence. Of testing ideas to see which stack up and which should be abandoned. Over time that process has led to a rich understanding of the world, but one that is constantly being refined and upgraded. There’s a sense in which all scientific truth is provisional, and open to revision if new facts arise. And that is why it’s often hard to make a judgement on what is a valuable contribution to science, and what is misleading, or worthless.
Some speakers use the language of science to promote views that are simply incompatible with all reasonable understanding of the world. Giving them a platform is counterproductive. But there are also instances where scientific assumptions get turned upside down. How do we separate between these two? We have done two things as a tentative answer to this question:
- we’ve issued a set of guidelines to TEDx organizers.
- and we’ve appointed a board of scientific advisers. They are (deliberately) anonymous, for obvious reasons, but they are respected working scientists, and writers about science, from a range of fields, with no brief other than to help us make these judgements. If a talk gets flagged they will advise on whether we should act or not.
When Sheldrake and Hancock’s talks were flagged, the majority of the board recommended we remove them from circulation, pointing out questionable suggestions and arguments in both talks. But there was a counter view that removing talks that had already been posted would lead to accusations of censorship. It’s also the case that both speakers explicitly take on mainstream scientific opinion. This gives them a stronger reason to be listened to than those who simply use scientific sounding language to make nonsensical claims. So we decided we would not remove the talks from the web altogether, but simply transfer them to our own site where they could be framed in a way which included the critique of our board, but still allow for an open conversation about them.
What happened next was unfortunate. We wrote to the TEDx organizer indicating our intention and asking her to take the talks off Youtube so that we could repost. She informed the speakers of what was coming, but somehow the part about the talks staying online got lost in translation. Graham Hancock put out an immediate alert that he was about to be “censored”, his army of passionate supporters deluged us with outraged messages, and we then felt compelled to accelerate our blog post and used language that in retrospect was clumsy. We suggested that we were flagging the talks because of “factual errors” but some of the specific examples we gave were less than convincing. Instead of the thoughtful conversation we had hoped for, we stirred up angry responses from the speakers and their supporters.
We would like to try again.
We plan to repost both talks in individual posts on our blog tomorrow, Tuesday; note a couple of areas where scientists or the community have raised questions or concerns about the talks; and invite a reasoned discussion from the community. And there will be a simple rule regarding responses. Reason only. No insults, no intemperate language. From either side. Comments that violate this will be removed. The goal here is to have an open conversation about:
- the line between science and pseudoscience
- how far TED and TEDx should go in giving exposure to unorthodox ideas
We will use the reasoned comments in this conversation to help frame both our guidelines going forward, and our process for managing talks that are called into question.
Both Sheldrake and Hancock are compelling speakers, and some of the questions they raise are absolutely worth raising. For example, most thoughtful scientists and philosophers of science will agree it’s true that science has not moved very far yet in solving the riddle of consciousness. But the specific answers to that riddle proposed by Sheldrake and Hancock are so radical and far-removed from mainstream scientific thinking that we think it’s right for us to give these talks a clear health warning and to ask further questions of the speakers. TED and TEDx are brands that are trusted in schools and in homes. We don’t want to hear from a parent whose kid went off to South America to drink ayahuasca because TED said it was OK. But we do think a calmer, reasoned conversation around these talks would be interesting, if only to help us define how far you can push an idea before it is no longer “worth spreading.”
Where does that whole thread come from originally?
Where are the videos reposted?
Thanks in advance for your help.
I should have posted the links and shortened it.
I'm not sure where the videos were re-posted. I'll let you know if I find them.
Oh, I see. They were re-posted at blog.ted.com, the links above.
The funny thing is that the whole controversy made these videos more popular than they would have been otherwise.
Sheldrake's extended thought concept is based on Vernadsky's proposition of the "three spheres of existence": the geosphere (of inanimate material), the biosphere (animate), and the noösphere (the extended mind).
Of course, Graham Hancock's proposition that human creativity was sparked amongst prehistoric peoples by "visionary plants", was echoed by Huxley, who along with Leary were convinced LSD would spark the next great leap in evolution, if only they could get all of humanity on acid at once.
Both the noösphere and the hallucinogen as an agent of evolution are controversial topics at the very least, but it is the responsibility of science to investigate these matters.
My science teacher in middle school held up an old science text book and said, "Science never stays constant. It always changes and it is the duty of the scientist to accept the fact his work may be proven wrong at any time in the future."
I was eleven when he said that, and I still remember it.
"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"
...is that the speaker's hypothesis threatens the prevailing state religion. Whether you call it "scientific materialism", "secular humanism" or "political correctness", there is no question that the philosophy of the political establishment is just as dogmatic and faith-based as the most fanatical Bible-thumping evangelical or Jihadist. What makes it more insidiously damaging to society, however, is that its acolytes sincerely believe that they are free of superstition and more "enlightened" than the rest of us. They believe that their insight gives them the right, even obligation, to manage society for the greater good of all.
If everything in the universe is mechanistic and deterministic, then (for example) the Federal Reserve SHOULD be able to find the ideal interest rate, Obama SHOULD be able to design the perfect health care system, the U.S. Supreme Court SHOULD be able to decide social issues for everyone, Agenda 21 SHOULD be able to ideally manage and preserve our resources.
Ultimately, there is no reason why we should not be able to design a perfectly just, eternally peaceful, "scientifically" optimized, GLOBAL society ruled over by an all-wise, benevolent world government. This is, in fact, the inescapable conclusion of the state religion.
If Mr. Sheldrake's talk had not threatened this intellectual house of cards, he would never have been censored. He would simply have been dismissed as an interesting and amusing, but ultimately irrelevant, eccentric.
now that's pseudoscience...
I agree with what this man says to a degree. I do however think the laws are set, but we haven't discovered any true laws yet. We see the true laws consequences but not their true reason.
Gravity, light, sound are only reflections from the workings of the universe their true underlying reason or law behind it we don't know, we study consequences and call them laws but we have never truly been able to solve the core reason.
The lesson from this is that few things are truly constant, if you want to be a true scientist always keep in mind that nothing that we have discovered so far is truly set in stone, they are a description of our observation often very accurate but a description not "absolute truth".