kirsti, list: You said, "If I were to bring up biology to this discussion with you , it would be very different from your conception of biology. – Would take all too much time and energy to get our views close enough."
If you're genuinely concerned about this matter, then just say the phenomemon. State the syllogism. Put down the abductive argumentation outside of yourself. Let us see if there are many biologies or just one. Best, Jerry R On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:06 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: > John, list, > > Thanks for interesting points sheading light to the historical contexts > of Sheldrake's work. > I 'm quite interested in knowing which was the year he spent at Harward > & whether he got familiar with Peirce by then. Which I do not think was the > case. > To my mind it seems that Sheldrake is mainly doing science, not so much > interested in the various schools and variable top ten's in current > philosophy of science. Being a laboratory minded scientist. (As was > Peirce). > You wrote: > JFS "People have been trying to find evidence for parapsychology for > centuries without success. There is nothing wrong with considering > the idea as an interesting hypothesis. But Sheldrake seemed to be > just as dogmatic as anybody that he was criticizing." > > I do think you are mistaken here. To my mind Sheldrake has not been > searching evidence for 'parapsychology' as such, as a somehat popular > stream of thinking, instead he has been lead to investigate phenomena > commonly considered paranormal. Such as 'telepathy', i.e non-local > connections between minds which may have systematically observable effects. > > Sheldrake did not just whimsically adopt a hypothesis, he was lead to do > so by results in his own experimental investigations. He wanted to find > out, not just philosophize in thin air. > > Just compare the experimental investigations by Jastrow and Peirce. with > those by Sheldrake. Peirce never stopped observing similar phenomena in his > everyday life. As is evidenced by scattered remarks in his writings till > the end of his life. He observed (systematicly) the workings of his own > mind as well as the workings of his dog's mind. And he experimented with > both. – So have I, by the way. > > Regards, > > Kirsti > > > > John F Sowa kirjoitti 7.6.2017 09:54: > >> Jerry, Kirsti, Gary R, Helmut, list, >> >> I didn't respond to some earlier points in this thread because I was >> tied up with other things. But I looked into Sheldrake's writings and >> the earlier writings on morphogenesis by Conrad Waddington, a pioneer >> in genetics, epigenetics, and morphogenesis. For a 1962 article about >> Waddington's theories, see >> http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/ >> micro/29/1/mic-29-1-25.pdf?expires=1496787497&id=id& >> accname=guest&checksum=4E2DC93EE4641BFAB00E8253006B4B2C >> . >> >> Alan Turing (1952) wrote a mathematical analysis "The chemical basis >> of morphogenesis" and cited a 1940 book _Organisers and Genes_ by >> Waddington. See http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Turing.pdf >> >> Sheldrake has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge, and he spent a year >> at Harvard studying the philosophy of science. His primary reference >> is to Waddington's work. But many scientists believe that he crossed >> the thin line between genius and crackpot: he took a reasonable >> hypothesis in biology and mixed it with dubious speculations about >> parapsychology. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake >> >> For a sympathetic interview with Sheldrake by a skeptic, see >> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific- >> heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs- >> and-other-mysteries/ >> >> Some comments on previous notes: >> >> Jerry >> >>> Are you saying Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state? >>> >> >> No. I was just saying that the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian are >> related: both are global functions of a system, and local equations >> of motion can be derived from them. For any physical system, the >> Hamiltonian represents the total energy, and the Lagrangian represents >> the total action (it has the dimensions of energy x time). >> >> Kirsti >> >>> Are there dogmas in science? Could there be? >>> >> >> Gary R, >> >>> Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific... >>> >> >> Science, as science, does not have dogmas. As Peirce stated in his >> First Rule of Reason, "Do not block the way of inquiry." >> >> But scientists are human, and some are dogmatic. They might >> do everything they can to block hypotheses they don't like. >> >> Kirsti >> >>> If so, how could one tell? >>> >> >> Sometimes it's hard to tell. A theory that has proved to be >> reliable for a wide range of applications is hard to give up. >> Tycho Brahe, for example, correctly believed that the Ptolemaic >> theory of epicycles was more accurate than the circles in >> the theory by Copernicus. >> >> But it was Kepler, Brahe's assistant, who discovered that >> elliptical orbits were more accurate than the epicycles. >> >> Kirsti >> >>> Are there flaws and shortcomings in [Sheldrake's] theory? >>> >> >> People have been trying to find evidence for parapsychology for >> centuries without success. There is nothing wrong with considering >> the idea as an interesting hypothesis. But Sheldrake seemed to be >> just as dogmatic as anybody that he was criticizing. >> >> Helmut >> >>> "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the >>> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". >>> >> >> Words, by themselves, can't explain anything. Peirce admitted >> that the following two statements are different ways of stating >> the same observation: >> >> Opium puts people to sleep. >> Opium has dormitive virtue. >> >> By applying Ockham's razor, nominalists would "shave away" >> the concept of "dormitive virtue" because it is an unnecessary >> assumption. But Peirce said that the assumption that there >> exists some underlying principle or substance can suggest a useful >> methodology: analyze the chemicals in opium to find some substace >> that has "dormitive virtue". >> >> In this case, the chemists discovered morphine as the common >> chemical that had that dormitive virtue. The neuroscientists >> then began the search for naturally occurring chemicals in >> the brain, and they discovered endomorphins -- whose structure >> had that critical "dormitive virtue". >> >> In summary, the hypothesis of "dormitive virtue" inspired >> a successful search for chemicals and mechanisms tht might have >> been overlooked. >> >> John >> > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
