Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Helmut,

Now you are talking! Excellent post.

"Interaction" is one way of taking relational logic seriously.

But it does not follow that "explanation" (if based on scientific 
evidence, may not have any objective definition. Or whatever the term 
used.  I would prefer the expression: "objective grounds".


Nominalistic philosophizing realies on just definitions. In geometry, as 
well as with any deductive inferences (e.g. formal logic) definitions 
play a very different role than in empirical sciences, relying a great 
deal on abductive % probable inferences.


"Interaction" is a dual idea. CSP deals with such taking them to present 
secondness & Secondness.


Which do not mean quite the same in the writings of CSP. He uses 
capitalized and not so terms SYSTEMATICALLY. Which has not been taken 
into proper consideration in republishing & editing his writings.  - It 
not just a matter of linguistic concerns & current usage of capitals.


CSP was definely not modern, he truly was post-modern. Anticipating 
developments in our millennium.


So, interaction is good to start with, but a third is needed. Mediation 
brings in the third.


The third brings in Meaning, not just reference.

Best, Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 9.6.2017 22:16:

John, Kirsti, All,
Now I think that it was naiive of me to put "explanation" in
opposition to "magical thinking", which "reverses cause and effect".
Because cause and effect are reversed all the time in what we call
"interaction". And "explanation" has no objective definition, it
merely is subjective, when an individual says: "Ok, I am satisfied,
this explains it for me".
Now I say: Magical thinking is to take an effect for cause and be
satisfied with that, and stop inquiring.
To be open minded would mean not to stop the inquiry, and say: Nothing
is the cause alone, nothing the effect alone, what I am looking for is
interaction with known other effects and laws.
I doubt, that a magnetic field is fully explained to everybody. At
least for me, there remain many mysteries. But there is known
interaction between the magnetic field and other phenomena: Electric
current, change of electric field, presence of iron or nickel...
With the morphogenetic field this is not so.
Also the memory of water is mysterious to me: I think, that only solid
structures (stable networks) can have a memory.
This is not a criticism of Sheldrake´s: It is not his fault, that
there are not sufficient interactions discovered, that would sort of
explain "morphogenetic field" and "water memory" to me.
All I want to say is: I do not believe in two worlds (a physical and a
magical or fine-substantional (? german:"feinstofflich") one) between
which there is no measurable interaction, and the said phenomena are,
experimentally well confirmed ok, but not causes, but effects, of
something not yet uncovered, I guess.
Best,
Helmut

07. Juni 2017 um 08:54 Uhr
 "John F Sowa"  wrote:

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=guest=4E2DC93EE4641BFAB00E8253006B4B2C
[1]
 .

 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
[2]

 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
[3]

 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/
[4]

 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 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

As per how the Wolpert quote ought to lead, please try a google search for:
The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than 50 cells
in any direction.

And if you're concerned of where actually the ambiguity lies, I'd recommend
looking up bicoid or wnt in morphogenesis.

Best,
Jerry R

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:

> kirsti, list:
>
> thanks for your response.  I am well aware of certain things and not so of
> others.  But when I raise attention to the sizing and scaling problem, I am
> concerned with future objections.  It is with that intention I said what I
> said.  For instance, why do you not even bring up the biology when you're
> so ready to bring up matters that are of importance for you?
>
> "Thus an "idea" is the substance of an actual unitary thought or fancy;
> but "Idea," nearer Plato 's idea of
> *ἰδέα*, denotes anything whose Being consists in its mere capacity for
> getting fully represented, regardless of any person's faculty or impotence
> to represent it."
>
> Best,
> Jerry R
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:46 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Jerry R., list
>>
>> The question of "sizing" electromagnetic "fields" is not the kind of
>> question to be posed first. (See e.g. Kaina Stoicheia). If you pose the
>> question, the answer is: Not possible to answer it.
>>
>> The problem of morphic (etc.) resonance must be tackled before any
>> measuring of any kind of size makes sense.
>>
>> If e.g. the equation of quantum potential is properly studied, one can
>> see that distances vanish, only frequences remain (to be measured). With
>> kinds of requences only possible resonance matters. In principle, there are
>> just three kinds of (inter)resonance. One of them is indifference.
>>
>> Wave theory is needed, not just particle theory. They are complementary.
>> As you most likely well know.
>>
>> Also, the question of proper scale must be tackled before any attepts to
>> measure sizes in any sensible way.
>>
>> Best, Kirsti
>>
>>
>> Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 22:48:
>>
>>> btw, I was also trying to call attention to the difficult problem of
>>> sizing the field, for different, complex physical/mechanical and
>>> chemical interactions operate across large domains.  It's hard to
>>> imagine a complete theory of pattern formation involving a field size
>>> of a whole, entire vertebrate embryo.  a better approach would be to
>>> treat individual, growing fields of proper size, ~ 500um.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> J
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jerry Rhee 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> dear kirsti, list:

 I was responding to your remark:
 ""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
 theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
 anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
 backing it up."

 I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
 formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence
 on morphogenetic fields. It's rather large and still mysterious
 once you get down to the molecular details.

 Best,
 J

 On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:
 Dear J. Rhee,

 You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any
 connection to my recent post to the list.

 Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your
 point to be a most important one.

 Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.

 With most kind regards.

 Kirsti

 Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:

 Dear kirsti, all,

 "The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than
 50
 cells in any direction."

 Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
 diameter.

 Best,
 J

 On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:

 Helmut,

 "Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
 theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
 anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
 backing it up.

 Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
 presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
 theory? - If so, where?

 Or are his theories just surprising and odd?

 In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
 experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
 exceptionally well designed and carried out.

 I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
 the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
 theory
 should!)

 All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.

 Best,

 Kirsti

 Helmut Raulien 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

kirsti, list:

thanks for your response.  I am well aware of certain things and not so of
others.  But when I raise attention to the sizing and scaling problem, I am
concerned with future objections.  It is with that intention I said what I
said.  For instance, why do you not even bring up the biology when you're
so ready to bring up matters that are of importance for you?

"Thus an "idea" is the substance of an actual unitary thought or fancy; but
"Idea," nearer Plato 's idea of *ἰδέα*,
denotes anything whose Being consists in its mere capacity for getting
fully represented, regardless of any person's faculty or impotence to
represent it."

Best,
Jerry R

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:46 AM,  wrote:

> Jerry R., list
>
> The question of "sizing" electromagnetic "fields" is not the kind of
> question to be posed first. (See e.g. Kaina Stoicheia). If you pose the
> question, the answer is: Not possible to answer it.
>
> The problem of morphic (etc.) resonance must be tackled before any
> measuring of any kind of size makes sense.
>
> If e.g. the equation of quantum potential is properly studied, one can see
> that distances vanish, only frequences remain (to be measured). With kinds
> of requences only possible resonance matters. In principle, there are just
> three kinds of (inter)resonance. One of them is indifference.
>
> Wave theory is needed, not just particle theory. They are complementary.
> As you most likely well know.
>
> Also, the question of proper scale must be tackled before any attepts to
> measure sizes in any sensible way.
>
> Best, Kirsti
>
>
> Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 22:48:
>
>> btw, I was also trying to call attention to the difficult problem of
>> sizing the field, for different, complex physical/mechanical and
>> chemical interactions operate across large domains.  It's hard to
>> imagine a complete theory of pattern formation involving a field size
>> of a whole, entire vertebrate embryo.  a better approach would be to
>> treat individual, growing fields of proper size, ~ 500um.
>>
>> Best,
>> J
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jerry Rhee 
>> wrote:
>>
>> dear kirsti, list:
>>>
>>> I was responding to your remark:
>>> ""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
>>> theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
>>> anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
>>> backing it up."
>>>
>>> I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
>>> formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence
>>> on morphogenetic fields. It's rather large and still mysterious
>>> once you get down to the molecular details.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> J
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:
>>> Dear J. Rhee,
>>>
>>> You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any
>>> connection to my recent post to the list.
>>>
>>> Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your
>>> point to be a most important one.
>>>
>>> Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.
>>>
>>> With most kind regards.
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:
>>>
>>> Dear kirsti, all,
>>>
>>> "The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than
>>> 50
>>> cells in any direction."
>>>
>>> Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
>>> diameter.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> J
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> Helmut,
>>>
>>> "Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
>>> theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
>>> anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
>>> backing it up.
>>>
>>> Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
>>> presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
>>> theory? - If so, where?
>>>
>>> Or are his theories just surprising and odd?
>>>
>>> In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
>>> experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
>>> exceptionally well designed and carried out.
>>>
>>> I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
>>> the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
>>> theory
>>> should!)
>>>
>>> All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:
>>>
>>> Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
>>> the
>>> below text.
>>> Lalala,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> Dear list members,
>>> I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
>>> Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
>>> that
>>> the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
>>> blocks
>>> the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
>>> leads
>>> to false conclusions.
>>> To tell, whether a 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Jerry R., list

The question of "sizing" electromagnetic "fields" is not the kind of 
question to be posed first. (See e.g. Kaina Stoicheia). If you pose the 
question, the answer is: Not possible to answer it.


The problem of morphic (etc.) resonance must be tackled before any 
measuring of any kind of size makes sense.


If e.g. the equation of quantum potential is properly studied, one can 
see that distances vanish, only frequences remain (to be measured). With 
kinds of requences only possible resonance matters. In principle, there 
are just three kinds of (inter)resonance. One of them is indifference.


Wave theory is needed, not just particle theory. They are complementary. 
As you most likely well know.


Also, the question of proper scale must be tackled before any attepts to 
measure sizes in any sensible way.


Best, Kirsti

Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 22:48:

btw, I was also trying to call attention to the difficult problem of
sizing the field, for different, complex physical/mechanical and
chemical interactions operate across large domains.  It's hard to
imagine a complete theory of pattern formation involving a field size
of a whole, entire vertebrate embryo.  a better approach would be to
treat individual, growing fields of proper size, ~ 500um.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jerry Rhee 
wrote:


dear kirsti, list:

I was responding to your remark:
""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
backing it up."

I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence
on morphogenetic fields. It's rather large and still mysterious
once you get down to the molecular details.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:
Dear J. Rhee,

You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any
connection to my recent post to the list.

Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your
point to be a most important one.

Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.

With most kind regards.

Kirsti

Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:

Dear kirsti, all,

"The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than
50
cells in any direction."

Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
diameter.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:

Helmut,

"Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
backing it up.

Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
theory? - If so, where?

Or are his theories just surprising and odd?

In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
exceptionally well designed and carried out.

I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
theory
should!)

All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.

Best,

Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:

Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
the
below text.
Lalala,
Helmut

Dear list members,
I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
that
the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
blocks
the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
leads
to false conclusions.
To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental.
The
experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the
same?

If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not
think,
that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being
done
now to some extent?
On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma,
Laplacism
was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead
to
famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery
of
epigenetic mechanisms.
When 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Dear Jerry R., list

No theoretical paper gives detailed enough description of the 
experiments, experimental designs & the process of conducting the 
experiments in order to check its soundness.


Which is a time consuming job & which cannot be done without being 
properly skilled in designing and conducting experimental research 
oneself. Which is what I have been doing for a couple of decades. I also 
have been teaching post-graduate students how to design and conduct 
experimental investigations for many, many years.


Your belief that e.g. Wolpert "ought to lead" to sound evidence just is 
not good enough for me.


Also, if you find Wolpert's paper/ evidence mysterious, how can you 
conclude that the evidence is sound?


Best, Kirsti




Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 22:43:

dear kirsti, list:

I was responding to your remark:
""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence backing
it up."

I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence on
morphogenetic fields.  It's rather large and still mysterious once you
get down to the molecular details.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:


Dear J. Rhee,

You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any
connection to my recent post to the list.

Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your
point to be a most important one.

Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.

With most kind regards.

Kirsti

Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:

Dear kirsti, all,

"The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than
50
cells in any direction."

Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
diameter.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:

Helmut,

"Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
backing it up.

Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
theory? - If so, where?

Or are his theories just surprising and odd?

In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
exceptionally well designed and carried out.

I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
theory
should!)

All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.

Best,

Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:

Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
the
below text.
Lalala,
Helmut

Dear list members,
I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
that
the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
blocks
the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
leads
to false conclusions.
To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental.
The
experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the
same?

If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not
think,
that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being
done
now to some extent?
On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma,
Laplacism
was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead
to
famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery
of
epigenetic mechanisms.
When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do
not
know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
molecules.
But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
"Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This
Peircean
"Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
is
merely an observation. I think it 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

dear kirsti, list:

I was responding to your remark:
""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a theoretical
concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining anything, a theory is
needed, with sound experimental evidence backing it up."

I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence on
morphogenetic fields.  It's rather large and still mysterious once you get
down to the molecular details.

Best,
J


On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:

> Dear J. Rhee,
>
> You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any connection to
> my recent post to the list.
>
> Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your point to be
> a most important one.
>
> Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.
>
> With most kind regards.
>
> Kirsti
>
>
>
>
>
> Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:
>
>> Dear kirsti, all,
>>
>> "The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than 50
>> cells in any direction."
>>
>> Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
>> diameter.
>>
>> Best,
>> J
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> Helmut,
>>>
>>> "Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
>>> theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
>>> anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
>>> backing it up.
>>>
>>> Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
>>> presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
>>> theory? - If so, where?
>>>
>>> Or are his theories just surprising and odd?
>>>
>>> In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
>>> experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
>>> exceptionally well designed and carried out.
>>>
>>> I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
>>> the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile theory
>>> should!)
>>>
>>> All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:
>>>
>>> Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
>>> the
>>> below text.
>>> Lalala,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> Dear list members,
>>> I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
>>> Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
>>> that
>>> the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
>>> blocks
>>> the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
>>> leads
>>> to false conclusions.
>>> To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
>>> ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental.
>>> The
>>> experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
>>> experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the
>>> same?
>>>
>>> If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
>>> explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
>>> looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not
>>> think,
>>> that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
>>> they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
>>> something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
>>> remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
>>> I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
>>> publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being
>>> done
>>> now to some extent?
>>> On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma,
>>> Laplacism
>>> was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
>>> Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead
>>> to
>>> famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery
>>> of
>>> epigenetic mechanisms.
>>> When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
>>> convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
>>> have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
>>> carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do
>>> not
>>> know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
>>> molecules.
>>> But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
>>> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This
>>> Peircean
>>> "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
>>> is
>>> merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
>>> ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized),
>>> transmitted,
>>> and so on.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
>>> "John Collier"  wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
>>> that have served well.
>>>
>>> But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear kirsti, all,

"The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than 50 cells
in any direction."

Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in diameter.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:

> Helmut,
>
> "Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a theoretical
> concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining anything, a theory is
> needed, with sound experimental evidence backing it up.
>
> Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been presenting is
> not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his theory? - If so, where?
>
> Or are his theories just surprising and odd?
>
> In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his experiments
> both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were exceptionally well
> designed and carried out.
>
> I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of the usual
> sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile theory should!)
>
> All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.
>
> Best,
>
> Kirsti
>
>
> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:
>
>> Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in the
>> below text.
>> Lalala,
>> Helmut
>>
>> Dear list members,
>> I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
>> Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think that
>> the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness blocks
>> the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and leads
>> to false conclusions.
>> To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
>> ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental. The
>> experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
>> experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the same?
>>
>> If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
>> explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
>> looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not think,
>> that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
>> they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
>> something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
>> remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
>> I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
>> publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being done
>> now to some extent?
>> On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma, Laplacism
>> was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
>> Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead to
>> famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery of
>> epigenetic mechanisms.
>> When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
>> convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
>> have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
>> carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do not
>> know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
>> molecules.
>> But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
>> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This Peircean
>> "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It is
>> merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
>> ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized), transmitted,
>> and so on.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>>
>>  02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
>>  "John Collier"  wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
>> that have served well.
>>
>> But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be
>> dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the
>> world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application
>> noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither by
>> genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
>> self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now, but
>> thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees (not
>> Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough for a
>> selectionist explanation.
>>
>> John Collier
>>
>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>>
>> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>
>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier [2]
>>
>> FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
>>  SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
>>  TO: Peirce-L 
>>  SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED
>> Talk
>>
>> John S, list,
>>
>> John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
>> nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that
>> nothing _ought _to be a dogma.
>>
>> And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Helmut,

"Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a theoretical 
concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining anything, a theory 
is needed, with sound experimental evidence backing it up.


Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been presenting is 
not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his theory? - If so, 
where?


Or are his theories just surprising and odd?

In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his experiments 
both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were exceptionally 
well designed and carried out.


I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of the 
usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile theory 
should!)


All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.

Best,

Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:

Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in the
below text.
Lalala,
Helmut

Dear list members,
I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think that
the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness blocks
the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and leads
to false conclusions.
To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental. The
experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the same?

If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not think,
that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being done
now to some extent?
On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma, Laplacism
was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead to
famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery of
epigenetic mechanisms.
When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do not
know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
molecules.
But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
"Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This Peircean
"Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It is
merely an observation. I think it is necessary to inquire about the
ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized), transmitted,
and so on.
Best,
Helmut

 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
 "John Collier"  wrote:

I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses
that have served well.

But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can be
dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of the
world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application
noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither by
genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now, but
thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees (not
Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough for a
selectionist explanation.

John Collier

Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate

Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier [2]

FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
 SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
 TO: Peirce-L 
 SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED
Talk

John S, list,

John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that
nothing _ought _to be a dogma.

And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy,"
materialism, necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in "Reply
to the Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to the nothing-but-ism of
actions/reactions of 2ns, etc.

Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an _ideal_ of scientific, but
I do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of
scientists in Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them, whether
they would say they do, or think they do, or not.

Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the
Additaments) by writing that even