Tic-Tac doesn't obey laws of physics

I have read my previous post again and I don't see any evidence of me attacking anything. You claim "attack" twice in your post above so I am going to have to ask you for your evidence and if you don't have it then I would have to conclude that you were speaking with bias.

Sheldrake, for example, has endured 30 years of attacks about his (sincere) ideas and analyses of the various philosophies of science (including the bases for philosophies of materialism) and got censored by TED talks because of lobbying by one or two dogmatic "scientific" organizers who found out he was scheduled to speak and sabotaged it. TED leadership had to apologize for this. He gets accused of dogmatism in science by those who espouse scientific dogmas themselves. He has many scientists as friends and, as he said in one of the videos, personally they confide in him that their respective fields contain much dogma and that, if you would counter it, you would do so at your own professional peril. Combine this with the fact that much scientific research has economic incentive rather than knowledge incentive. Despite this, people like Sheldrake are still conducting many experiments that involved thousands of people from all over the world. As I said I did some website work for him once and I can attest to this. In fact he has never stopped doing this. So if your characterization pertained to him, you are purely speaking with bias. You apparently just assumed, as your mind was made up already -- which would be the antithesis of scientific inquiry. Maybe you just "don't like" his ideas, just like Richard Dawkins didn't. Even though Dawkins got scientific papers sent to him, he didn't read them -- so how would he even know? He disregarded actual findings of statistical significance and instead favored the public shaming of a person of inquiry, such as done in the Middle Ages. Yet, people this spiteful and unscientific should have our trust? In short, your point was that the victim of countless, spiteful and unwarranted attacks is the attacker because he is analyzing the history of scientific dogma. I guess it would be a sweeter deal if those who were abused and shamed would also shut up about how they were treated by "the community."

I was rather talking about the possibility that man might have had experiential knowledge of the universe in more ways than the sensory and intellectual, in relation to the idea that consciousness might be a fundamental reality in the universe. If you see an attack of sorts in my *defense* of those "injectors of mysticism into science who enjoy impunity in the scientific community" -- to paraphrase you -- then I feel we are truly upside-down in this discussion. If anything, your unsolicited "with impunity" comment was an attack on those scientists who have come to a different model or overview than your own or the one you consider to be consensus. My point was to say that scientists other than your "mystics with impunity" are injecting various unproven assumptions and dogmas regarding reality into science all the time -- it is apparently just that you appear to side with their overview more so than with those whom you describe as "mystics."

I understand my subconscious mind a lot better than Freud did his. That I can and will say. See, I said all this without making any phallic references (or maybe I just did, lol).

Why even have the need to supplant any deity? Who is requiring this? I guess you are confirming the argument that many scientists are still seeking to eliminate God from their worldview. To which I would say, if your reality does not require a God, then these scientists must be subconsciously reactionary to religious conditioning, still. This type of conditioning is actually one of the things I'm talking about, namely dogmatic and reactionary worldviews that have roots outside of what should be the scientific process.

So you are slamming my defense of openness with arguing the merits of openness? Thank you!

 

Identity politics is everywhere. Tribalism. This is Rupert Sheldrake's plane after he tried to contact the Consensus Amazonicus tribe:

 

Be safe with the storm. Living in a somewhat rural area myself I often have blackouts. Once I was right at this desk and a lightning storm crept up on me quietly and suddenly a lightning strike hit right around my house and literally zapped my modem which I had sitting on top of my PC at the time. I could see a bright flash inside the modem and then smoke coming out of it. Normally I use Wi-Fi for my computers but at that time I had directly wired the modem to my PC, but luckily (very) it did not blow up my PC or even the ethernet socket.

Tennis should be largely explainable by Newtonian and Einsteinian science, have fun