Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery

In this book, the author argues that science, as it is practiced today, has become prisoner to a collection of dogmas which constrain what should be free inquiry into the phenomena it investigates. These dogmas are not the principal theories of modern science such as the standard models of particle physics and cosmology, quantum mechanics, general relativity, or evolution (scientists work on a broad front to falsify these theories, knowing that any evidence to the contrary will win a ticket to Stockholm), but rather higher-level beliefs, often with remarkably little experimental foundation, which few people are working to test. It isn't so much that questioning these dogmas will result in excommunication from science, but rather that few working scientists ever think seriously about whether they might be wrong.Suppose an astrophysicist in the 1960s started raving that everything we could see through our telescopes or had experimented with in our laboratories made up less than 5% of the mass of the universe, and the balance was around 27% invisible matter whose composition we knew nothing about at all and that the balance was invisible energy which was causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, defying the universal attraction of gravity. Now, this theorist might not be dragged off in a straitjacket, but he would probably find it very difficult to publish his papers in respectable journals and, if he espoused these notions before obtaining tenure, might find them career-limiting. And yet, this is precisely what most present-day cosmologists consider the “standard model”, and it has been supported by experiments to a high degree of precision.But even this revolution in our view of the universe and our place within it (95% of everything in the universe is unobserved and unknown!) does not challenge the most fundamental dogmas, ten of which are discussed in this book.1. Is nature mechanical?Are there self-organising principles of systems which explain the appearance of order and complexity from simpler systems? Do these same principles apply at levels ranging from formation of superclusters of galaxies to the origin of life and its evolution into ever more complex beings? Is the universe better modelled as a mechanism or an organism?2. Is the total amount of matter and energy always the same?Conservation of energy is taken almost as an axiom in physics but is now rarely tested. And what about that dark energy? Most cosmologists now believe that it increases without bound as the universe expands. Where does it come from? If we could somehow convert it to useful energy what does this do to the conservation of energy?3. Are the laws of nature fixed?If these laws be fixed, where did they come from? Why do the “fundamental constants” have the values they do? Are they, in fact, constants? These constants have varied in published handbooks over the last 50 years by amounts far greater than the error bars published in those handbooks—why? Are the laws simply habits established by the universe as it is tested? Is this why novel experiments produce results all over the map at the start and then settle down on a stable value as they are repeated? Why do crystallographers find it so difficult to initially crystallise a new compound but then find it increasingly easy thereafter?4. Is matter unconscious?If you are conscious, and you believe your brain to be purely a material system, then how can matter be unconscious? Is there something apart from the brain in which consciousness is embodied? If so, what is it? If the matter of your brain is conscious, what other matter could be conscious? The Sun is much larger than your brain and pulses with electromagnetic signals. Is it conscious? What does the Sun think about?5. Is nature purposeless?Is it plausible that the universe is the product of randomness devoid of purpose? How did a glowing plasma of subatomic particles organise itself into galaxies, solar systems, planets, life, and eventually scientists who would ask how it all came to be? Why does complexity appear to inexorably increase in systems through which energy flows? Why do patterns assert themselves in nature and persist even in the presence of disruptions? Are there limits to reductionism? Is more different?6. Is all biological inheritance material?The softer the science, the harder the dogma. Many physical scientists may take the previous questions as legitimate, albeit eccentric, questions amenable to research, but to question part of the dogma of biology is to whack the wasp nest with the mashie niblick. Our astounding success in sequencing the genomes of numerous organisms and understanding how these genomes are translated (including gene regulation) into the proteins which are assembled into those organisms has been enlightening but has explained much less than many enthusiasts expected. Is there something more going on? Is that “junk DNA” really junk, or is it significant? Is genetic transfer between parents and offspring the only means of information transfer?7. Are memories stored as material traces?Try to find a neuroscientist who takes seriously the idea that memories are not encoded somehow in the connections and weights of synapses within the brain. And yet, for half a century, every attempt to determine precisely how and where memories are stored has failed. Could there be something more going on? Recent experiments have indicated that Carolina Sphinx moths (Manduca sexta) remember aversions which they have learned as caterpillars, despite their nervous system being mostly dissolved and reconstituted during metamorphosis. How does this work?8. Are minds confined to brains?Somewhere between 70 and 97% of people surveyed in Europe and North America report having experienced the sense of being stared at or of having another person they were staring at from behind react to their stare. In experimental tests, involving tens of thousands of trials, some performed over closed circuit television without a direct visual link, 55% of people could detect when they were being stared at, while 50% would be expected by chance. Although the effect size was small, with the number of trials the result was highly significant.9. Are psychic phenomena illusory?More than a century of psychical research has produced ever-better controlled experiments which have converged upon results whose significance, while small, is greater than that which has caused clinical drug trials to have approved or rejected pharmaceuticals. Should we reject this evidence because we can't figure out the mechanism by which it works?10. Is mechanistic medicine the only kind that really works?We are the descendants of billions of generations of organisms who survived and reproduced before the advent of doctors. Evidently, we have been well-equipped by the ruthless process of evolution to heal ourselves, at least until we've reproduced and raised our offspring. Understanding of the causes of communicable diseases, public health measures, hygiene in hospitals, and surgical and pharmaceutical interventions have dramatically lengthened our lifespans and increased the years in which we are healthy and active. But does this explain everything? Since 2009 in the United States, response to placebos has been increasing: why? Why do we spend more and more on interventions for the gravely ill and little or nothing on research into complementary therapies which have been shown, in the few formal clinical tests performed, to reduce the incidence of these diseases?This is a challenging book which asks many more questions than the few I've summarised above and provides extensive information, including citations to original sources, on research which challenges these dogmas. The author is not advocating abolishing our current enterprise of scientific investigation. Instead, he suggests, we might allocate a small fraction of the budget (say, between 1% and 5%) to look at wild-card alternatives. Allowing these to be chosen by the public from a list of proposals through a mechanism like crowd-funding Web sites would raise the public profile of science and engage the public (who are, after all, footing the bill) in the endeavour. (Note that “mainstream” research projects, for example extending the mission of a spacecraft, would be welcome to compete.)

I was fascinated by the review and immediately bought myself a copy, poured myself a stiff brandy and started to read it. Perhaps you’ve already read into it. If so, what immediately follows won’t come through as news. Here are my impressions. First of all, although I learned little or nothing new from its contents, I found it to be very valuable for the way in which it set the odyssey of the discoveries of modern science into historical perspective –very much a three dimensional presentation. But what riveted my attention was his ability to put together sentences that are as aesthetically pleasing as they are informative. Sentence after sentence without end. Seemingly he can’t help himself; he can’t express himself In any other way. In consequence,I found it absolutely impossible to be put down. ---BUT---Much to my surprise, I was to discover omissions and/or misunderstandings over issues of prime importance. First of all, in his confrontation of the question of Transcendence – that is, the extent to which the Platonic Realm to which it points is to be taken seriously. The approach he has taken has been to comment upon how a number of authors have regarded the matter. In sharp contrast, what he should have done was simply to remind us all of Gödel’s celebrated theorem (1933, if I remember correctly) which proves the existence of such a domain with the force of a logical or formal imperative. Arguably, his achievement sets a new historical high watermark among the discoveries of the questing philosophical mind.Second, he accepts Einstein’s Relativity as-is, more or less at face value. It is not clear whether or not he understands that Relativity is not at all demonstrated fact, but rather, simply one of two alternative ways of interpreting the discovery of the constancy of the speed of light –made by Michelson & Morley towards the end of the Nineteenth century.A minority have always felt the choice was a bad one –for sentiments with which I fully concur, have very much felt the choice to be the wrong one for many reasons. –Glance at the link:[...]-where I hope you will find the matter made clear- in terms of the figures and diagrams which it featuresBut in 1964 the whole situation was to change through the discovery, by mathematician John Steward Bell, of a theorem now bearing his name. What the theorem asserted was that there was a logical –i.e. formal incompatibility between the quantum domain and relativity. Bell’s relativity mind set –as we might term it- led him to assume that the quantum theory was the villain of the piece. The wonderful thing about Bell’s conjecture was its openness to empirical verification. The necessary experiments were performed by Alain Aspect in 1982-1984. He found that Bell was wrong –i.e. that his conjecture was disconfirmed. In other words there’s no longer any question of choice at all; intellectual honest demands that all accept the truth of its dismissal, whether they like it or not.Believe me; I really do know what I’m talking about. However, I could hardly blame you should you dismiss me: the following Whitehead aside is very appropriate here: “…In each period there is a general form of the forms of thought; and like the air we breathe, such a form is so translucent and so pervading and so seemingly necessary, that only by extreme effort can we become aware of it” A.N. Whitehead. However, I can do better than that. When I opened the newly arrived copy of the Journal Scientific American back in October 2009, I was to discover that it contained an article A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity by David Albert and Rivka Galchen, both at Columbia University. If you don’t carry this journal, you can get it at this link: [...] 2009 Sci Am Article.doc -note that it may take a minute or two to download, Ignore the comments you’ll find scrawled on it: they’re for my benefit and not aimed at you. Obviously, the fact that one half of modern physics is falsely grounded is a matter of utmost importance demanding a remedial response. Yet I know of only one other place where the matter is so much as mentioned. This is why I had to rub my eyes when spotting the Scientific American article. Finally, we come to how Sheldrake deals with what might appropriately termed the greatest delusion which confronts all of us. In the course of plain everyday experience we are open to perception of our own bodies and the environment immediately at hand. We take what we directly sense and know to be reality itself, rather than its surrogate image. It has been dubbed the fallacy of Naïve Realism. This is a good example where one image is worth a thousand words; take a look at the link [...]This remains the case, despite the fact that only a glance at the domain of neuroscience makes it clear that naïve realism is false, and needs to be replaced by the authentic epistemology of Representationalism. This is more easily said than done, thanks to the overwhelming insistence of commonsense of its truth. Nature has done a wonderful job in covering her tracks.Sheldrake’s handling of the problem is curious. First, he does indeed concede that what we directly know is not external reality itself but instead is but a surrogate representation. But He now insists that inner perception is not interfaced solely with the peripheral neural system. In addition, he envisages a direct outreach from surrogacy to its reference. In terms of the figure, we may add a set of rays coupling the two images of the man on the stairs. What he ends up with is a hybrid epistemology!Neuroscientists themselves have difficulties in divesting themselves of its appeal. Many of them entertain a schizoid mind set. While they dismiss it cognitively, they remain captive to it viscerally. This is unfortunate because such a mindset could corrupt the way in which their research endeavours shall be organized. What fascinates is the way –historically- in which an awareness of the problem alternately surfaces and disappears. It had seemingly been absent till post World War II. We owe its rediscovery to neuroanatomist and physiologist Dr (later, Sir) John Eccles. He and Dr John Smythies created a society (named the Sherrington Society –after the famed neuroanatomist) limited to fifty members, of all those who had declared their dismissal of naïve realism I was not to get elected till around 1990. As with almost everyone else, my discovery was an independent one. I have yet to hear of anyone who got it from someone or somewhere else. By the end of the twentieth century, only a few members were still around. In 2008, concerned that knowledge of it no longer seemed to have any part in mainstream thought, Edmond Wright published a volume titled The Case for Qualia, containing essays by a score of ‘believers’.All of the above shall give you some idea of what I’ll be uploading for general consumption in the near future. My conviction is that the current paradigm in which we are immured is bankrupt, in urgent need of replacement, and that obviously Process Theology is made to order as the means of substituting the sacred for secular ambiance

Caution, this is the same book as Science Delusion!

Thank you :-)

Sheldrake is a great open-minded thinker and this book goes some way to opening other people's minds. It turns well-found scientific statements into questions which, by the way, I think they should be anyway! However, you need to really concentrate. Which is unusual for a Sheldrake book. He's usually quite reader-savvy and scientific language-free, though this book goes some way towards that, it can be a bit dry and you have to work at trying to decipher what the meaning of each chapter is.All in all, an informative book, but not as 'exciting' or reader-friendly as I believed it would be.Kaye

I am only part way through this book. I am a layperson with no science background, but for the past few years I have made medical-science politics a hobby to understand. The "logic" of science is mystifying to some of us, but only because ultimately politics and economics rule. Today I personally consider science having the supreme rule like the church once did. It is treated with the supreme authority and those that try to break the dogma fare about as well as if they lived in the 15th century. Now, this book, isn't about all of that, but it certainly answers a lot of my basic questions when I apply it to the subject matter I am interested in. It can be rather daunting reading if you aren't a scientist, or don't have keen interest. It would be my hope that all budding young scientists would read this book at some point during their studies, and shake up a thoughts in older ones. An Einstein quote that really does fit this book is:"The scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother’s milk;and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses these conceptualtools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth whichis hardly even, and in any case not seriously to be doubted...in the interest of science it is necessary over andover again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously beruled by them."Bottom line - great book. It has benefited me. I'm happy the author decided to write it.

As a researcher who has seen science converted into scientism (a dogmatic, belief ridden religion) over the years, this book comes as a wonderful breath of fresh air. It's written by a scientist with an impressive curriculum and does what science is supposed to do, present a series of well thought out and balance questions about our world.The part that describes the history of science and dogma is also fascinating and an eye opener for me as I discovered things about science through the ages that I had no idea.