(12-10-2018, 02:04 AM)PaulP link Wrote:A very strange and frankly nonsensical comparison. Contemplating this or that and having a desire to be this or that is irrelevant. Sheldrake has the training, the working experience and all the chops to be as scientific a scientist as Dawkins. Hitler had a few dreams and sang a few hymns.
https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake
Not really, trained scientists are not oracles of knowledge, they are generally very specifically trained in detail in a narrow field of knowledge and should adhere to the scientific method within their field.
The first alarm bell you should raise is when a person identifying as a scientist raises ideas that are not testable while claiming they have scientific significance in the absence of proof or testable hypothesis.
A good example is the misappropriation of scientific credentials used by climate deniers to claim a biologist arguing against climate change proves there is no scientific consensus.
They are all free to have an opinion, but we know about opinions and we certainly know they are not all equal, some are much bigger than others!
But can you clarify one thing from your debate, define "materialistic science" from science, and what are the other sciences?
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"