Does the word 'love' really aggravate the old guard/hierachy within Science?

Question

I had never thought about this before, not until I had read the article below, but upon further consideration, it does kind of make of sense.

I have never seen an atheist/materialist actually use this word on here, it seems taboo amongst them, most prefer to sneer or hate. Logic and reason, seems to be the order of the day, amongst devotees of Scientism, if that logic is hate, then so be it.


Sheldrake tells No Family Madder that the remarkable experiments with mice, in which they have been shown to inherit their fathers’ fears even when they’ve never met their fathers or grandfathers, might just defy the conventional belief that behavioral traits cannot be inherited, an argument that, he insists, has never been settled.

How could this aversion have been inherited?

“Perhaps it involved some new kind of epigenetic inheritance, based on modified gene expression, or perhaps it was transmitted by morphic resonance,” Sheldrake said in an email reply.

He referenced an experiment with mice in the 1920s by Ivan Pavlov, he of the Pavlov dog fame. “Pavlov trained white mice to run to a feeding place when an electric bell was rung. The first generation required an average of 300 trials to learn, the second only 100, the third 30, and the fourth 10. His last statement on the subject was that ‘the question of the hereditary transmission of conditioned reflexes and of the hereditary facilitation of their acquirement must be left completely open.’”

If Sheldrake’s far-out theories of epigentics and morphic resonance are shaking up an overly orthodox viewpoint, then so be it. They just might need shaking up.

Besides, it just make psychiatry interesting again.


I think he aggravates the old guard for many reasons, but notably because, as a scientist, he’s not afraid to utter the word “love.” He feels no need to hide his sense of spirituality. In fact he embraces it.

Controversially, his latest TED Talk in London, which ran under the banner “Challenging Existing Paradigms,” was yanked allegedly for taking on the materialist scientific worldview itself.

The default paradigm of the educated classes, Newtonian materialism holds that only that which is observable with the five senses can be said to be real under the fixed laws of nature.

It has been the sacrosanct basis of all Western philosophy since John Locke published his Essay on Human Understanding about 500 years ago.

And it survives perfectly intact today in Richard Dawkins’ phrase that we are all “lumbering robots,” with brains that are genetically programmed.

Sheldrake believes there’s a lot more to it than that. It’s fascinating stuff, intellectually seductive food for thought. While hidebound psychiatry cleaves to crude descriptors like “schizophrenia” and “bipolar manic depression,” Sheldrake probes the great mysteries of this otherworldly, non-ordinary state of mind.

This is a welcomed change. Clunky diagnostic labels seem no better than a game of paint-by-numbers in describing mental states. Their chief use seems to be in connecting the dots laid out in the pseudo scientific document known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) V. And as the head of the NIMH archly observed earlier this year,“Biology has never read the DSM.


http://blogs.psychcentral.com/no-family-madder/2013/12/does-rupert-sheldrake-explain-hallucination/

Answer 1

A life dedicated to logic and rational is not bitter or hateful. The fact that so many atheists here claim to be dedicated to logic and rationale and yet are hateful and bitter shows they've failed to achieve either.



Weak minds that try to grasp the deeper nature of logic and reason begin to find life joyless and bitter. A single minded dedication to rational analysis renders all things joyless (and is perhaps a direct byproduct of fear).



The only real recompense for most Atheists is to compensate for the emptiness of a materialistic/Scientism based worldview is with mocking and disdain. I don't think they really had any idea what they were getting into when they decided "facts" in accordance with Science are more important than genuine feelings.



Even if the system can pressure everyone toward intellectual enlightenment and other high minded ideals, wisdom is not a forgone conclusion.



@Bob, do you really think atheists are stupid enough to believe what they say? No, they cling to a delusional worldview in which they actions and feelings have purpose and meaning. The problem is that the modern structure of society pressures us into a homogenous mass of unfeeling humanity as "psychologically normal". Atheism is just a byproduct of this kind of worship of Science and desire for control. Most Atheists just can't cope with reality.



@Sol, the old guard are the science deniers. They rigidly defend the existing paradigms, if for no other reason, than because the old views of the establishment are the basis of their own mental models. Schopenhauer phrased it this way: Truth has three stages Ridicule>Violent Opposition>Acceptance.



Atheists aren't quite at the acceptance stage just yet. They're still ridiculing modern science and contemporary philosophy without an awareness of it. They think they're defending the existing paradigm without realizing their science-denying the new paradigm.

Answer 2

I'll be honest with you. I didn't actually read all of what you posted, but I think I got a grasp on what you mean. Yes you're right that the word love isn't commonly used amongst atheists, firstly because atheists are skeptical by nature, second most atheists- scientific ones specifically- regard love as a human emotion that is in the same category as let's say anger?. So, the whole concept of love isn't given that much significance in the atheist mind because it's not rational and it's impulsive and atheists typically, look at things from a logical, rational, perspective that is lead by reason. Feelings and emotions while they do have value, they aren't as important as deducing the reality of things even if it goes against one's own feelings.



I hope this helps, have a nice day.

Answer 3

I love you. An awkward amount. Want to exchange email addresses?



Seriously though, the only behaviors that are inherited genetically are ones that natural selection can select for. And it has nothing to do with memories being transferred. When you say, "Old Guard" you really mean the general consensus of scientists. And though I can see how romantic it is for a rebel intellectual to overturn the beliefs of scientists at large, so do those same scientists! They want to be proved wrong! It is how the field advances. But generally if someone is on the fringe, it is not because they are super clever or tipping over sacred cows. It is because their ideas have been carefully considered and most scientists do not see anything to them.



Edit: I am happy to grant you your opinion if you will allow me mine. I think you read more new age material than science journals.

Answer 4

Liam , as you can see almost all atheists on here never use the word love because in their ignorant, shallow worldview love is just a bunch of chemicals, neurons and electricity pulsating on and off mindlessly. People who think like this are the epitome of shallowness. I feel pity for them.



Sheldrake's work is revolutionary and his scientific credentials are hard to. Rite size and that is why the materialists attack him by trying to suppress his work. Incidentally Liam his video was taken off when jerry. Coyne and a few other idiots complained to the tedx anonymous scientific committee and that did it. I wonder why TEDX's scientific committee is anonymous ?



Anyways the TEDX viewers were furious and many people lodged complaints about this.



Atheists work by trying to suppress information , which is why atheism is nothing but an ignorant, dogmatic cult that will suppress any information that doesn't fit into their worldview.

Answer 5

You're REALLY stretching now.



You must have either run out of arguments, or have realized how silly all of the arguments for religion are, and just thought to ratchet the silliness up a notch or two.

Answer 6

This is a science question and it is in the religion and spirituality section. Try asking it within a scientific community. It is a good question. I love questions like this.

Answer 7

lol , think your first reply answers your question .... ROFL

Edit

Dawkins said " humans are lumbering robots"...& thats what he has got . as followers .

Answer 8

We're more loving than you people...we're not the ones running around shouting about how you'll all burn forever if you don't agree with my political views.

Answer 9

This is more of that hate you post we were talking about earlier.

Answer 10

I suspect you mean "irritate", not "aggravate".



A not-uncommon mistake.