Famous Idealists in the history of science

[Martin_]

Allow me to be an annoyig devil's advocate for a bit;


So, essentially, your're asking for scientists, who got famous for their purely scientific contriibution, and - in addition - are metaphysical idealists, but where this idealism in no way whatsoever has influenced their scientific contribution?

[SanteriSatama]

My issue with Sheldrake is that he's pretty blatantly a spiritualist. I have no problem with spiritualism but to say what he's doing is hard-cut science just isn't true. He's trying to PROVE something with science rather than going into it and just seeing what happens.

I've followed Sheldrake's work relatively close for a very long time, and never got that impression. His main talent and contribution is the very bread and butter of scientific method, hypothesis formulation and developing methods to test the hypothesis as reliably as possible. You sound like accusing Sheldrake basically of fraud, which even his pseudoskeptic opponents have not done, AFAIK. Experimenter effects is something Sheldrake has much discussed and he's very much aware of the issue as a top rate experimentalist.

Or maybe your confusion comes from a very deep bias, as you don't consider materialists who appeal to science to prove their already held beliefs pseudoscientists. All Sheldrake wanted to in his public appearances was to speak of the empirical evidence. And as usual, like others all you have is an ad hominem to justify your outrageous claim of pseudoscience. It should be the evidence that is all that matters, if you are genuine about science.

I don't reject Dawkins scientific contribution for the reason that as a person, he's very obviously deeply anti-ethical asshole who speaks from deep resentment, as his infamous comment "it works, bitches" shows. At least Dawkins' idea of memes proved very fruitful in the art of the Internet. On the other hand, epigenetics firmly debunks Dawkins' theory of genes. Which is a good thing, because frankly speaking it's a racist theory and not in essence different from earlier skull measuring etc. forms of racist scientism, and in some ways even worse. "Genes and their Will to Power", in the very wrong interpretation of Nietzsche, like hey, com'on...! The irony here is that it's Heidegger, who had his much discussed dalliance with Nazi party, draws critical attention to the inherent racism of classical gene theories.

[Astra052]

Allow me to be an annoyig devil's advocate for a bit;


So, essentially, your're asking for scientists, who got famous for their purely scientific contriibution, and - in addition - are metaphysical idealists, but where this idealism in no way whatsoever has influenced their scientific contribution?

No, I'm not saying that. The thing about Sheldrake is that he goes in trying to prove parapsychological phenomena like telepathy and stuff like that, not evidence for idealism.

[SanteriSatama]

No, I'm not saying that. The thing about Sheldrake is that he goes in trying to prove parapsychological phenomena like telepathy and stuff like that, not evidence for idealism.

No, he's not trying to prove the phenomenon. The phenomenon is a given, as reported and referred by huge amount of anecdotal evidence in various situations. Sheldrake is studying the phenomenon with rigorous methodology, starting from most common forms reported in natural environments, such as "guessing" who is calling before answering the phone. Statistical evidence shows that there's something genuine about the phenomenon. More interesting is that according to statistical evidence it does not correlate with geographic distance, suggesting some form or level of non-locality, but it correlates with emotional closeness. That's standard science, studying a common phenomenon and trying to find is some generalities can be found. A part of the process is also conceptual work. How telepathy should be more accurately defined, for the purposes of the study and to make it distinct category of 'meaningful coincidences' aka synchronicities.

The very idea of telepathy can seem scary and stressful to many, and lead to various psychological defense mechanisms. It was certainly scary for me when telepathic experiences started happening to me, a main worry being what if people could hear what I really think and feel. What if my ability to hide my thoughts and feelings would cease? In retrospect, that stress was related to the fact that I really didn't like myself much during those days, about couple decades ago, I was feeling mostly ashamed of myself, very awkward and clumsy in social situations. It is also possible to willfully cover your thoughts and feels, but that's not really necessary, as usually people don't really care about your thoughts and feels being preoccupied their own, and if and when they do care, that probably happens for a good reason. Such as falling in love etc.

Whether right or wrong, it's the materialist who keep thinking and saying that telepathy debunks their metaphysical world view. In relation to idealism, are there any good reasons for privacy from MAL or some level in MAL?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Astra wrote: The thing about Sheldrake is that he goes in trying to prove parapsychological phenomena like telepathy and stuff like that, not evidence for idealism.

Well, more to the point, if one can demonstrate through repeatable experiments ~ significantly defying statistical 50/50 chance ~ that telepathy actually is a verifiable phenomenon, that this leaves materialism with yet another explanatory gap that can't just be once again swept under the rug in academia, as they are wont to do with phenomena that doesn't fit the dogmatic paradigm, and to some extent lends support to the premise of the primacy of consciousness.

[AshvinP]

Allow me to be an annoyig devil's advocate for a bit;


So, essentially, your're asking for scientists, who got famous for their purely scientific contriibution, and - in addition - are metaphysical idealists, but where this idealism in no way whatsoever has influenced their scientific contribution?

No, I'm not saying that. The thing about Sheldrake is that he goes in trying to prove parapsychological phenomena like telepathy and stuff like that, not evidence for idealism.

Not trying to pile on too much here, but it sounds like you are really concerned about this issue of spiritual people being referenced as support in scientific pursuits, like you were with the fact Essentia Foundation has some such people as contributors. Leaving aside the motivations of these people, which we should generally avoid questioning without solid evidence, I would suggest your concern should be in the opposite direction. We should be concerned if science and philosophy further divorce themselves from spirituality and spiritually-minded people are falling off the radar in these disciplines. That assumes, of course, that you still find some value in spirituality. If not, then I would be inclined to ask you whether that could be a significant motivating factor in your criticisms.

[Astra052]

Allow me to be an annoyig devil's advocate for a bit;


So, essentially, your're asking for scientists, who got famous for their purely scientific contriibution, and - in addition - are metaphysical idealists, but where this idealism in no way whatsoever has influenced their scientific contribution?

No, I'm not saying that. The thing about Sheldrake is that he goes in trying to prove parapsychological phenomena like telepathy and stuff like that, not evidence for idealism.

Not trying to pile on too much here, but it sounds like you are really concerned about this issue of spiritual people being referenced as support in scientific pursuits, like you were with the fact Essentia Foundation has some such people as contributors. Leaving aside the motivations of these people, which we should generally avoid questioning without solid evidence, I would suggest your concern should be in the opposite direction. We should be concerned if science and philosophy further divorce themselves from spirituality and spiritually-minded people are falling off the radar in these disciplines. That assumes, of course, that you still find some value in spirituality. If not, then I would be inclined to ask you whether that could be a significant motivating factor in your criticisms.

I have a problem with trying to pass off spirituality as science. Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Pauli, Heisenberg, Wheeler, Bohm, Planck, and so many others were spiritual or had interests in spirituality. What I have a problem with is spiritual activity which is inherently subjective interfering with the scientific method. If idealism is true then I trust it will be discovered through experimentation and good old fashioned science. I like how Carlo Rovelli thinks of it, science and religion do not contradict each other but spirituality has the issue of assuming certain fundamental facts about reality that may not be true. Materialism of course is the same thing there! We shouldn't be letting our ontological views influence scientific work and possibly cause confirmation bias.

[AshvinP]

No, I'm not saying that. The thing about Sheldrake is that he goes in trying to prove parapsychological phenomena like telepathy and stuff like that, not evidence for idealism.

Not trying to pile on too much here, but it sounds like you are really concerned about this issue of spiritual people being referenced as support in scientific pursuits, like you were with the fact Essentia Foundation has some such people as contributors. Leaving aside the motivations of these people, which we should generally avoid questioning without solid evidence, I would suggest your concern should be in the opposite direction. We should be concerned if science and philosophy further divorce themselves from spirituality and spiritually-minded people are falling off the radar in these disciplines. That assumes, of course, that you still find some value in spirituality. If not, then I would be inclined to ask you whether that could be a significant motivating factor in your criticisms.

I have a problem with trying to pass off spirituality as science. Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Pauli, Heisenberg, Wheeler, Bohm, Planck, and so many others were spiritual or had interests in spirituality. What I have a problem with is spiritual activity which is inherently subjective interfering with the scientific method. If idealism is true then I trust it will be discovered through experimentation and good old fashioned science. I like how Carlo Rovelli thinks of it, science and religion do not contradict each other but spirituality has the issue of assuming certain fundamental facts about reality that may not be true. Materialism of course is the same thing there! We shouldn't be letting our ontological views influence scientific work and possibly cause confirmation bias.

A couple things here. First, science is not trying to prove idealism or materialism - we should just be clear on that. Science has always been nested within philosophical frameworks and there is no reason to think that has stopped or will stop being the case. Secondly, and related to that, purely 'objective' science is a fantasy which does not exist - clearly scientists should strive to not allow their beliefs of the world influence the way they do science, but allowing their beliefs of the world to ask questions of science which did not occur to other people is not only good but necessary for there to be any progression. The formulation of precise questions is a prerequisite for any scientific inquiry. Lastly, and also related, there is no reason why a "spiritual science" cannot exist, meaning a science which not only takes on spiritual questions but also investigates those questions through spiritual means. Now obviously this last one could be wrong, and perhaps there is no way to extend our investigatory methods using spiritual tools, but the point is that it is not fundamentally inconceivable or impossible to implement, unless we limit ourselves from using such tools.

[SanteriSatama]

What I have a problem with is spiritual activity which is inherently subjective interfering with the scientific method.

It's the other way around. Objectifying is inherently subjective.

Much of spiritual activity is centered in the asubjective level, where codependent subject-object relation is absent. What the post-Cartesian wrong turn often means by 'scientific method' is pseudo-scientific dogma. Amputation of introspective methodologies is anti-empirical and hence anti-scientific.

[dkpstarkey]

Look, I'm all for studying parapsychological phenomena from a scientific, unbiased basis. Scientists study all types of things that are explicitly pointless but are worth knowing just for the scientific knowledge. Since that is the case, I don't see why studying things like supposed supernatural phenomena shouldn't be done from a neutral standpoint. One that isn't trying to confirm the phenomena nor is it trying to disprove it, just studying what happens. My issue with Sheldrake is that he's pretty blatantly a spiritualist. I have no problem with spiritualism but to say what he's doing is hard-cut science just isn't true. He's trying to PROVE something with science rather than going into it and just seeing what happens. This is why his studies get so much criticism, he's openly biased towards the spiritual point of view. Just being a biologist doesn't give you legs to stand on, Richard Dawkins is a biologist. I do agree there is a real dogmatism in science that is and will be over come, Sheldrake just isn't the man to point to for this in my opinion. To me he's a pseudoscientist who appeals to science to prove already held beliefs. One day those beliefs may turn out to have been true and we were all fools but the way he goes about arguing for and trying to prove it just isn't science.

You sound like you have bought into enough scientism that you would make statements like that about someone whose work you obviously do not understand. Have you read any of Sheldrake's books? In any case, my impression is that you have an idealized image of science that is offended by Sheldrake's attitude. So it doesn't matter what he's actually done, right? Just that attitude. Believe it or not, we all have attitudes.