Missing Evidence | Full Debate | Rupert Sheldrake, Tara Shears, Massimo Pigliucci, Philip Ball 

a philosopher who waits for the scientific community to accept something before he even feels that there is warranty to study it is NOT a philosopher. Signed: a philosopher.

Massimo’s opening pitch essentially describes his view of science as a religion and not self correcting, sceptical nor open minded.

the difference between an open mind and closed mind is evident here

The reason Dark Matter and Dark energy exist is because people want to believe that general relativity and Newtonian gravity are correct. That's about it. The reasons we have for believing that GR is correct is tests we've done in our solar system. So we've basically got no good reason to believe it should also be correct at the scales of galaxies and the universe. So yes, it's a total dogma that we believe it is correct there, and therefore DM and DE exist because of dogma.

Scientists can be dogmatic, and sometimes unnecessarily so. Massimo demonstrated this in an empirically decisive way.

No one said that Massimo needs to believe things just because Sheldrake or any one else SAYS it. He is too sure of himself.

There seem to be several commentors supporting Rupert and denigrating the others; but I am so glad to see any public debate on the issues he raises. Thanks to the entire panel for helping bring a bit of reasonable discussion to an area that is filled with physicalist orthodoxy, claiming to describe the entirety of that which exists when it does not do so.

9:27 - So, string theory hasn't progressed to the point of being testable - but it's progressed to the point where physicists have been drummed out of the profession for failing to support it. Something is WRONG with that model. The minute we start trying to "silence" opposition, we're in the weeds.

And the winner is Rupert.

Rupert Sheldrake is my hero. :)

I see Rupert Sheldrake and two not-so-bright school children repeating their textbooks. Where is the discussion?

Massimo, like all skeptics, plays the "open-minded" card, when in fact he is so close-minded. Sheldrake talks about evidence for telepathy, and 1 second later Massimo says there is no evidence. He's awful.

Let's face it. Everyone knows that Rupert should have been given the arm chair.

Dr. Shears is quite elegant, insightful, transparent, and truthful about what physics science is up to. I really like her.

I admire Rupert's open mindedness and attachment to experiment, a truly scientific spirit. Besides, he also seems to have the sense of direction toward the yet unknown yet potentially meaningful.

The guy on the far right (I won't bother learning his name) talks a lot but doesn't actually say much -- rather annoying.

If you’re not even willing to examine Dr Sheldrake’s experiments, how the hell Can you even comment?!?

Multiverse is predicted by maths???????????? What the ...... Math is a quantitative LANGUAGE. A set of abstract rules (a convention). Math DOES NOT PREDICT ANYTHING. 4 is not a prediction of 2+2! Languages are used to represent, describe or explain theories, not based on those theories.

The guy on the right ( Massimo Pigliucci ? ) has NO intelectual, philosophical and true scientific qualification to argue with Sheldrake. I know very well the type based on my own 45 years experience as a medical doctor who deeply studies parapsychology and related subjects along all those years. He simply ruined a debate that had everything to be great. Too sad...

Speaking as a 60 year old 'career scientist'...Rupert Sheldrake is my scientific hero! He advocates so eloquently and powerfully for what the TRUE scientific endeavor is about. Questions towards "truth"; not careers. Thank you so much, Rupert.

I find it extraordinary that a philosopher of science can be so ignorant of the vast evidential data of parapsychology. The few working parapsychologists left, who haven't yet been starved of funding by misguided University authorities are not bothering with further existential demonstrations as it's pointless. There's more than enough already, as anyone open minded who bothers to read it will be aware. Massimo clearly is neither open minded, nor literate in the subject. I'm glad Rupert got the last word. Also horrified to learn that Edinburgh Uni are wasting Arthur Koestler's legacy on straight 'psychology' when he specifically left it for parapsychology. Can't they be legally compelled to use it as directed?

If Massimo can explain how Epigenetics works and by what signal, or what intelligence or what sensory function and precisely why I supposedly have more “junk DNA” than normal DNA, and explain how a strand of DNA in a glass jar under vacuum will organize light in a way no one understands, and when the DNA strand is removed the laser light still organizes the same for up to 3 weeks and then returns to a mass of unorganized randomly scattered photons, then I will buy his old 150 year old plus, natural selection idea from the horse and buggy age.

Most scientists seem to foget that science itself is little more than a series of corrections based on our ability to measure at that time. At some point the "paranormal" will be proven to be true, we just don't know how to measure it yet. It drives me mad when people steadfastly refute something based on our inability to understand it properly, even when faced with countless reports to the contrary.

Who's your pick for sunday dinner, Rupert or Massimo? I would chose Rupert. 50 sundays a year. :)

Massimo’s arguments are painfully dull.

I love the faces of "other experts" when Rupert starts talking and immediately deconstructs the scientism of the scientific narratives sold to the uninitiated.

All physicist I have ever listened too or read, believe that the laws of nature are fixed now, but were different if you go back far enough or forward far enough. They use that to get around the God Hypothesis. Rupert is the only honest one on the stage.

There are a lot of Massimo- types in my local pub.

Wow. Rupert floored them.

6:00 - In other words, scientists LIE to achieve career success.

Rupert sheldrake is a rare modern scientist who is more worried about wisdom than data

Ruperts ability to stay so collected is 1 of his greatest strengths. I dont know how he can do it but its very entertaining. All physics is based off of gravity. The gravitational constant is ,so far, impossible to measure as a constant. Anyone like to ping in on this? Im am not even a "grass lvl" scientist, so l cant say much, but i feel like this would be a good point for actual scientists to keep in mind when considering Sheldrakes proposals.

I would love to hear Pigliucci lay out what is usually considered the *strongest* evidence for psi, explain in detail *why* it's convinced so many of those who actually study the evidence,* and *then* tell us exactly what's wrong with the evidence... This task would expose him as utterly ignorant of the field. (* the majority of scientists haven't studied the evidence, so what matters is the opinion of those scientists and scholars who study the evidence and publish in the field)

"Dark matter is missing, so it must be there" Empirical inference.

Rupert Sheldrake is part of the scientific community and his one of the best. see his cv please.

"Climate change, 97% of scientists say..." - what a way to discredit yourself in such a discussion on scientific truth. Poor from Massimo.

Wow, Massimo isn't even being logical. Completely ignorant of the evidence of psi, yet dismisses it as "not worth" investigating further.

I don't know how Sheldrake can keep his calm in front of these people... Or better their "arguments". He must be an angel...

Watching the speakers respond to Sheldrake is like watching an immune response. They're operating in their moral foundations based on the perception that scientific dogma is the only way to operate. Recommend: The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt If Sheldrake is right, Haidt's moral foundations would be an organizing field within a field, which the opponents are definitely orbiting.

Science and philosophy should go hand in hand.

Once Massimo said 97% of scientist he said all he needed to say

Pigliucci is a jerk.

I reject the multiverse theory offhand because it means there's a world somewhere where I'm married to Rosie O'Donnell.

Remarkable how Pigliucci dismisses Sheldrake while showing no indication he has ever looked at the evidence for telepathy. He should look at Dean Radin’s treatment of meta-analyses of this data! He makes Sheldrake’s case for him!

I'm with Rupert, god bless him.

Massimo's arguments are crap ! He just wants to promote Science as a religion ! He is the most rigid of them all !

Two of these four are only bright enough to convince themselves.

re: 22:54 "climate scientists tell me yeah this this thing is happening and it is at least in part anthropogenically fueled" - the irony of this moment is quite perplexing...

One Fish said that the Water was nice and clear and the other fish ask'd what is Water

19:26 - 19:50 wow Massimo is rude

Too short. Was there more to this or was it just that hour? Very much enjoyed. Could've heard a lot more on this subject with these guests.

Science is a hypothesis really but in order to be curious and have a hypothesis perhaps you should not think like 99% of other people. Thats the problem with this world. How do you discover things when you think and conduct yourself like the masses and the people that pay you.

Another ANNIHILATION by Dr. Rupert !!

The trimming of the Cosmological constant is still going on, it seems.

"Massimo Pigliucci . . . founder of Rationally Speaking" ~ Could have fooled me.

Consciousness , the writer , producer and director ,the audience and all acting parts,,,,the universe is the screen . and the film just keeps on rolling to cover all topics and possibilities , captivated , enslaved by curiosity there will always be new questions and answers , but the source of all never changed...........

they should also invite leading philosophers and scientists like william lane craig,johm lennox,stephen meyers,james tour,francis collins,michael behe etc

Einstein once said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Imagining non-evidentiary possibilities is a part of science which leads to hypothesis. But too many big questions can’t be tested except potentially in the future.

The guy on the right is advocating we trust people who are dependent on funding from corporations lol 😂 (Dot)

I'm so happy to read all the comments in support of Dr Sheldrake. 👍

That was a surprisingly nice debate :)

I figured out the main rule of this talk. You have to come to meeting untidily dressed, without having combed your hair or taken a shower you are given a comfortable chair. If you shower and wear clean clothes and tidy yourself up you have to sit in an uncomfortable straight-backed chair so that just looking at you makes other people feel squirmy and uncomfortable.

Summary: skeptics do nothing but push dogma

Great to see Sheldrake taking part. What about inviting Bernardo Kastrup, Tom Campbell, Anthony Peake and Jurgen Zeiwe, new talking heads will keep your shows fresh and introduce some new ideas! Science is never settled I feel all scientists should have to study philosophy to help them in the clarification of their ideas and thoughts: "....Let us remember, however, that even scientific beliefs should never be held dogmatically. Few, very few of them, can be safely assumed to be true for all time. Every triumph of science marks the destruction of some previously accepted conclusion. For this reason, men of science refrain, in serious discussion, from talking about belief. They prefer the more accurate word hypothesis. For working purposes, they assume a hypothesis to be true until it is proved false; but they preserve (or they should preserve) an open mind as to whether or not it is absolutely true. Many sceptics have professed to see in the evolution of science only a reason for pessimism. They point out that the new “truths” of science are perpetually succeeded by newer “truths.” Viewed as a whole, therefore, science proceeds only from one error to another and the wise man will put no more reliance on the very latest and best attested scientific theory than he did on the one which it replaced." C.E.Joad Pigliuuci is engaged in Scientism if he is claiming that the Theory of Evolution is an established fact. There is no evidence for his claim, no one has ever seen life evolve into other forms of life. Cats do not become Bats, Cats will always be Cats and Bats will always be Bats. Warfare evolves, science evolves, sport evolves, transport evolves, chess evolves but Life does not.

im with sheldrake, but why doesnt he respond to massimo's claim that the scientific evidence doesnt support the existence of paranormal phenomena? his own evidence supports it, so what is the difference between his evidence and the other studies that fail to confirm evidence for the paranormal? that failure to respond to massimo's claim is a huge strike against sheldrake.

Massimo absolutely embarrassed himself here

Absolutely brilliant discussion with 3 truly great minds ... 47:50 min that has made me wiser

Hellish people are those materialists

I think the dark matter question is being approached fairly well. The "we know something must be there" comes from trust in general relativity to describe gravitational effects. Most scientists assume GR is correct, and once you do that then SOMETHING must be there. But not all scientists - there are scientists who are exploring potential modifications to gravity theory - and if that bore fruit then there would no longer need to be any drak matter. So the issue is being looked at from both sides, and that feels right and proper to me.

I simply don't understand why Sheldrake is still given a platform. He doesn't know what he's talking about and is there to sell his books.

no reason to do research on telepathy, but o wait Darwin theories weren't initially accepted! Re: 25:50 what a genius, what a philosopher, what a scientist. I think I'm going to go back and read Aristotle and remember what he said about Identity and contradiction.

Evolution as a theory has been proven very very wrong, read Dr. Micheal Denton's books.

Massimo sounds like a priest. Dogma über alles.

I thought telepathy is acceptable even among the most hardcore materialist scientists.

This discussion kind of went in circles. Very few points were made and by few I mean none. Mostly posturing. The evidence that was missing was the point of this talk in the first place. It's gone.

Although, the editing of this debate and discussion is curious, the dialogue is good and, for me, rare.

So if if the law of gravity is not fixed and is like a habit and not fixed then the whole panel could have floated away.

Sheldrake has an extended mind....and the guy to the right, have a very closed mind.

Why did it end on such a significant question, to which there is a lucid answer?

The problem is in the fluid definition of what constitutes evidence to public media. It's become profane to suggest seemingly unmeasurable theories might be scientific.. Before things were discovered they were unknown but still true. Not thinking about something without bothering to disprove it - that's the entire problem.

rupert is the man

I really enjoyed that debate, fascinating.

Why does Sheldrake have to debate 2 people instead of just 1? Also, why can't Sheldrake face his opponents without his face being in darkness, but they can face him and their faces are lighted? 42:34 Dark matter is on life support.

20:50. Well Sheldrake IS a scientist. So the statement "scientists don't believe this" is not true.

How is this a debate when only one person is talking the whole time?

Sheldrake is just trying to breathe life in top his telepathy and morphic resonance ideas by attacking science rather than accepting that the experiments done in regards to those ideas have come back negative.

It's ironic that Tara points to Newton as an example of someone standing on the shoulders of giants. Newton was the example of the person who's work most dismissed the existing scientific paradigm of the time than anyone else. The mechanical philosophy was the reigning scientific paradigm for 150 years. Newton's work dismissed it in a lifetime. I should say that newton himself did not dismiss it, and in fact spent the rest of his life trying to make his theory of gravity congruent with the mechanical philosophy. A task he failed at and that no-one has really attempted to pick up since. You could argue that Newton was standing on the shoulders of Giants, but those giants existed hundreds of years before him. If there is anything to take on about scientific progress from this example, it is that indeed, hundreds of years of work can be made obsolete.

Why would the CIA have employed the gifts of Ingo Swann as a remote viewer if there was no such thing as remote viewing? CIA documents are online, for example the psychic probe of Jupiter. Or the CIA document on remote viewing of natural targets by Russell Targ and Harold Putoff, by Stanford Research Institute and presented at the Conference on Quantum Physics and Parapsychology in Geneva.

Maybe it's time to rename it to Dark Thought and then it has to be true! Love Sheldrake's take on the world.

This Massimo is far too self-assured to be a real philosopher. Clearly he is not aware of the recent discovery of non-axional data transfer within the brain just discovered. So for him no new research is warranted, but without new research such a discovery wouldn't have been found. And in the same week, they discovered 4 new letters for the DNA program. Again something no one knew was there and they found it through further research. He is incredibly closed-minded, and really has a tiny Vision of possibility. These are not attributes of a philosopher, but of a dogmatist. Take the L Massimo.

There was clear evidence of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Maxwell's Equations of EM were invariant under STR and Michaelson Morley. On General Theory of Relativity, it predicted an expanding Universe, which Einstein did not believe.

"Scientists, such as myself.." Sir, you are a philosopher. Perhaps in 1880 you would have also been a scientist, but you are not. Also, "going to the scientific community" has nothing to do with evidence. One piece of contradicting evidence, writ large enough, should dissolve all debate. But it doesn't. And that is the problem.

Existence is far behind our ability as humans to understand.

where did this Pigliucci guy come from anyway?

But all we know is what our senses tell us, and how our mind chooses to interpret those signals given to us by those senses.

by far one of the best. down to the wire. Science is an industry. a business. our times are the hard evidence. 2021

To me, the least intelligent and least interesting person (Massimo), spent the most amount of time talking. What a waste.

Darwin himself admitted his therories had flaws

Is science in danger of drifting into sheer fantasy and philosophy? That's like asking: is this comment in danger of being read?

oh i wish they would have invited bernardo kastrup, he would have smashed this close minded so called skeptic philosopher on the right. very disturbing to listen to him