The Science Delusion

Posted March 5, 2012 by Fallensoul in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on Nov. 24, 2013
by dustproduction



The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality. The fundamental questions are answered, leaving only the details to be filled in. In this book, Dr Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows that science is being constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The 'scientific worldview' has become a belief system. All reality is material or physical. The world is a machine, made up of dead matter. Nature is purposeless. Consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain. Free will is an illusion. God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.

Dr Rupert Sheldrake examines these dogmas scientifically, and shows persuasively that science would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2013

    I have references this before as well. "Micro bio"




    And then there is "toxoplasma gondii"

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2013

    The Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby takes a serious look at how neurogenetic consciousness informs awareness, knowledge, symbolism and culture. His comparison of the ancient cosmic serpent myths to the genetic situation in every living cell reveals the immortal biomolecular wizard behind the curtain of everyday life. His anthropological study, ayahuasca experience and scientific speculations weave a tale of shamans who bring their consciousness down to molecular levels with sophisticated neurotransmitter potions in order to perceive information contained in the coherent visible light emitted by DNA.


    In the early 1980s, thanks to the development of a sophisticated measurement device, a team of scientists demonstrated that the cells of all living beings emit photons at a rate of up to approximately 100 units per second and per square centimeter of surface area. They also showed that DNA was the source of this photon emission.

    The wavelength at which DNA emits these photons corresponds exactly to the narrow band of visible light: “Its spectral distribution ranges at least from infrared (at about 900 nanometers) to ultraviolet (up to about 200 nanometers)”…DNA emits photons with such regularity that researchers compare the phenomenon to an “ultra-weak laser.”

    Inside the nucleus, DNA coils and uncoils, writhes and wriggles. Scientists often compare the form and movements of this long molecule to those of a snake.

    There…is the source of knowledge: DNA, living in water and emitting photons, like an aquatic dragon spitting fire.

  • A.R.K. Nov 23, 2013

    A place where I see measurable science and the nature of consciousness dove-tailing is the "bio photon". Our DNA is a weal lasik molecule and fires photons in random directions like a twisted drunken rail gun! The brain is picking up on and firing EM spirals out into the luminous envelope created by every DNA strand in your body. This would explain the phantom limb effect as an extension of the bodies self holographic projective nature.

    Here's the kicker: 9 out of 10 cells in your body are a whole ecology of bacteria in your gut, like and entire rainforest of species. Our diet determines the species population and the general type of environment they occupy. The ecology could range from predatory and toxic to balance and pastoral along with many other variations. Goes to explain why diet is so important and influential on our health and mood. Much of the malaise of current society could be due to the disharmonious envelope emitted be aberrant and toxic gut cultures. The general angst and ill at ease that some just can't shake. It might be nothing mentally they can do about it because the source of the problem is simply not located there.

    Connection: In human gestation the cell that divides to form the nervous system, the other half forms the intestinal track. Our gut feelings and connection to natural balance and harmony, aka intuition. A very similar ecology is found in healthy soils, so the biome in our guts ideally is self similar in bio photon emission in living soils. Direct subconscious connection to Earth. Ideally ;)

    Nature exhibits herself as nested wholo-archies; Wise civilizations exhibited similar organization....

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    IONS rely on science, or the scientific method, to uncover the evidence of the paranormal. Should it?

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 20, 2012

    So the debate over neutrinos is exactly what I mean by questions. Now, they are re-testing to see if the results were interpreted incorrectly or the experiments were run erroneously. At least the scientific community is still considering the possibility of finding something that travels faster than light.

    Everything is subject to falsification. I can think of numerous examples of spiritual texts being misconstrued to justify everything from genocide to the Inquisition. It's not just science.

    The intent was not to falsify any scientific information. The intent was ask you what you mean by problems. Do you mean questions?

    Also, your reference to science being 400 years old and religion asking us to believe...is unclear. What do you mean?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 19, 2012

    Re: Postmodern science:
    "The Postmodern Adventure: Science, Technology, and Cultural Studies at the Third Millennium" by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner

    "This college-level survey of science, technology and cultural studies provides challenges to theory, politics and issues which we face in modern times. A cross-section of disciplines is revealed in a title which is billed as philosophy but which includes a strong examination of science and culture. Students within many scientific disciplines will find its discussions intriguing - and scholarly."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 19, 2012

    Re: " it was determined that yes, something can travel faster than light."

    See, this is the trouble with the way most science is understood by most people, and I will add it is not entirely you that is at fault.
    You write here that it was "determined." Well, I will challenge you to fine me one place, in a scientific publication, where it stated the it was determined that, we are discussing neutrinos here, can travel faster than light.
    If you Google, "determined that neutrinos travel faster than light" you will find a dozen articles that refer to a second experiment at CERN, named ICARUS, "confirms" that this is not the case. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/18/new-experiment-shows-neutrinos-do-not-travel-faster-than-light/
    It may have been reported that there was an "indication" that they "may" have found evidence of neutrinos traveling faster than light, but this is the beauty of science; it is subject to falsification.

    Re: the major problems of science

    Let's keep in mind that science is 400 years old, but we have discover a great deal in that time (whereas religion is still asking us to have faith and believe in century old myths)
    I can recommend, "The End Of Science: Facing The Limits Of Knowledge In The Twilight Of The Scientific Age" by John Horgan.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 19, 2012

    Well, Kyrani, thanks for explaining your perception of God & Ultimate Reality. It helps clarify. Much appreciated.

    I experience connection to whatever All is whether I meditate or not. Maybe it is residual Nirvana dust left over from an NDE early in life.

    Dustproduction, I thought the postmodern view was that the narrative of scientific disciplines (via publications and explanations of experiments and deductions based on them) is what constitutes a loose framework for what is percieved as reality (Foucalt? Derrida? Lacan? Barthes?).

    Also...What do you mean by problems? Are they the same as questions? For example, the question, before, in quantum mechanics was whether or not anything could travel faster than light. Recently, it was determined that yes, something can travel faster than light. This resolves dissonance in some models, and it opens up a whole new field of inquiry.

    What do you mean by "victims of their own success?" Can you give examples?

  • KYRANI Mar 19, 2012

    @ Slowlygetnthar
    Yes I now understand what you are asking about. I do equate Truth, God and Ultimate Reality and none of that really can be defined, BUT you can discover this when you experience from the position of I am. You become the observing self and not the ego self. If you persist in observation and don't allow the mind's chatter to carry you away, you will overcome the mind and go beyond mind and beyond consciousness, beyond even that observing self to that place that is beyond concepts, beyond being known. That is the Ultimate Reality, God.

    @ dustproduction
    you say "some areas of science many of the major problems have all ready been solved" can you please tell us which are these?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 18, 2012

    Where do we find this concept of the science delusion, perhaps from science writers but not from scientist? The postmodern proposition is that science cannot deliver absolute, permanent truths, because all theories are provisional, subject to change. In some areas of science many of the major problems have all ready been solved,they have become victims oof their own success, but in others the problems have resisted all assaults.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 18, 2012

    Kyrani, I am not saying everyone has to define G*d for the rest of us. I am saying that when someone claims God=Truth or whatever, it would make things a lot clearer if they defined for us how he/she perceives God, so we can get a closer understanding to what is being said.

    You are using a lot of terms run together: God, the Truth, the Ultimate Reality. While what you mean may be clear to you, your parameters for what these consitute are not clear.

  • KYRANI Mar 18, 2012

    @ Slowlygetnthar, God cannot be defined. It is beyond consciousness, beyond the mind, beyond all concepts. It has no attributes. It is the Ultimate Reality. No one can know it. It can only know Itself. However we can choose whatever form we like as God but only for the purpose of worship. It has to be realized that no form, no definition defines the Ultimate Reality. The Truth is realized through direct experience ONLY. Direct experience is irrefutable authority. I had studied for a time under Aitken Roshi and he kept saying that we had to have him check our experience that it had to be confirmed. I crossed swords with him over other matters and moved on. I then studied for a time under a Burmese Buddhist master that I only remember as U-Pandita, which I thought was his name but only means venerable teacher. Anyway he kept saying your experience does not need to be confirmed. I begged him believing it was necessary. He kept laughing at me saying it was not necessary, not necessary, not necessary. I finally had a very significant enlightenment experience in the dawn of 1994 and then I realized he was right. It was laughable to say it needed confirmation. I can't compare it to anything but let's just say you are in the shower, washing yourself, would you need someone to confirm for you that you are in the shower washing yourself? No. Well enlightenment experience is 1000's of times more certain.

    The basic problem really is that matter is secondary and at the present it is not only treated as primary, it is treated as the one and only. The shift that is needed is to recognize that consciousness is primary and matter is secondary. Matter is made of consciousness.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 17, 2012

    Kyran, yes, individuals can define what they mean when they refer to God. Some conceptualize G*d as energy, the Tao, the great bearded man on Sistine Chapel, a mighty and oppressive being who manipulates us like pieces on a chessboard...and the list goes on and on. So, it would be helpful, if someone is going to claim G*d as Truth or panacea or whatever, if he/she could be more clear on what exactly is being defined and discussed.

    Also, yes, you do need to understand what zero means if you are going to use it. Why would you use it if you don't understand what it means?

    No one has defined which parts of the scientific paradigms are outmoded. There is just sort of this blanket reference to all sciences as if they were all the same, and they are not.

  • KYRANI Mar 17, 2012

    @ fallensoul.
    Death... I'm LMAO HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Death is a joke! Only those that reject Life die. Even those who only accept that Life is are carried across the dark door to safety. Those that know Life do not die. The death of the garb of flesh is not real death. Death only comes to those that are evil, for they reject Life. What do you mean by "our power to control"? Do you mean the ego self? That is a delusion.

    And speaking of delusions, the health delusion is what the medical industry put over on an ignorant public.. for now!

    And none of this is off topic! Sheldrake has presented his material in a way that stops short of openly condemning the forces that uphold the current scientific paradigm. He asks questions and provides answers that are hypothetical and which lead to discussion. That is fine in one way but, for the position he holds as a scientist, he would do far more good for the lay people to openly state the case rather than dance around it. The cold hard fact is that the scientific paradigm is out-moded, that does not fit the evidence we see and it is being maintained for profit.

    We can't define God because we are elements within the system. It is like asking a fish to define the ocean. Yes they can tell us all manner of things but they can't define it as we can who are outside the system. However we don't need to define God to make use of what God gives us, just as we don't need to define zero in mathematics to make use of zero.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 15, 2012

    Fallensoul, define God.

  • Fallensoul Mar 15, 2012

    @Kyrani: It's great that you have been able to allude disease for the time being, but the real question is can you elude death? The reality is that our power of control is limited. The Health Delusion!?

    @bechamel: The Noetic Sciences is trying to rid modern science of these dogma's described about. Then science can function in the way it was intended.

    @slowlygetnthar: "If there were Truth, in a pure, objectified form, yes, it would be a panacea, but we just aren't there yet." Wouldn't God be that Absolute Truth? I guess for many, we ourselves are the main obstacles in getting closer to the truth.

    Now getting back to the topic please. Our modern society is very much dominated by these scientific assumptions/dogmas that affect us on various subtle levels on our thinking and acting. All in the name of science. All credit to Rupert for highlighting these so nicely in his new book. It's a must read for any scientist.

  • KYRANI Mar 12, 2012

    @ Slowlygetnthar
    The body will clear away ALL cancers once the mental attacks stop OR the person is able to stop their attackers from attacking them. This might be by leaving the area and breaking their ties with people.

    Cancer is all about stem-cell mediated immunity erroneously ignited in the body owing to a mistaken belief that there is an attack going on in some area(s) of the body. The person is placed under danger so they become fearful and that means more mentally perceptive and less discriminative. Once ideas can be presented (requires close relationship for ESP) that the person perceives and believes are real (also involves general statement that are upheld as true) then the action of mirror neurons in the brain cause a reaction in the body as if the attacks were real. Most people suppress these ideas almost immediately so they are not conscious of them. Unfortunately it is not "out of mind" but "out of consciousness", which means the ideas remain active. Basically get rid of the ideas (issues) and the body begins a clean up operation. This can be hurried up considerably by the use of mental prescriptions.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 11, 2012

    Kyrani, Because you have experienced cancer and recovery and focused on healing, I am wondering if you think that some cancers are simply transient in the body? I often read about people being diagnosed, then, the cancer being gone, suddenly. I do believe people can heal themselves, but I also wonder if not all cancers are permanent. Are there ones that go into remission on their own? Do you happen to know?

  • frequencytuner Mar 11, 2012

    Whoever wrote that explanation about the beliefs of Science is a node perpetuating the division by ignorance. If one cannot see "God" in the beauty of a sunrise, the miracle of birth, the force of a hurricane or the harmony of music and dance or any other form of life or existence in the universe for the Higgs Boson to Black Holes --> one is not a true man of Science.

  • KYRANI Mar 10, 2012

    @Slowlygetnthar I think that while there is fair overlap of this and your thread on fear of paradigm shift but I posted my reply to your question there.

    @Lazuleye I am talking about getting well from cancer multiple times, averting strokes and heart attacks among other things.
    I have described the cancer episodes very briefly here http://www.noetic.org/noetic/issue-seventeen-december/unexpected-remission/#comment_5036

    and some other associated comments on these links.

    And the attempts to cause me to have a stroke, which I was able to avert here on this link

    You can also check out my blogs see my profile for the links.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Lazuleye Mar 10, 2012

    Kyrani - I"m curious about what medical issues you have resolved for yourself without recourse to outside medical help. And how.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 09, 2012

    I like your ideas, but I keep wondering, as I read what we are both saying here, is: how in the world are we going to get folks to put down the cheese burgers and remotes and give a fig about changing their thinking about health and well-being?~and thus, making moves to change systems that are supposed to care for them?

    Are we getting too far afield from the original question, here? I am not sure, but thought I should ask...

  • KYRANI Mar 09, 2012

    @ slowlygetnthar yes I agree with you and maybe I should not have used the capitals. What I see is that when people discover the truth about stress and disease then they will understand how simple it is to overcome their problem. The vast majority will not need medical help. So it is not about getting the industry to go in a new direction, although there is merit in that, but to force it to take a serious hair cut, a shave all over! The problem is who will be left standing. I think the good doctors and other in allied herbal etc industries need to form a cooperative of ethical medical practitioners. They can do this if the good /humane doctors get together and develop tests for toxicity /being evil/greedy, which they can do. They don't need to test a single toxic doctor. All they need to do is apply the test on humane people as to acredit them and then form an organization or cooperative of humane medical practitioners of whichever sort. THEN let the market forces decide. Who would go to a toxic doctor or herbalist or whatever? So when the industry downsizes significantly only the humane are left standing. This will have enormous flow on effects on science in general because right now there is huge overwhelming influence by the medical industry.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 08, 2012

    If there were Truth, in a pure, objectified form, yes, it would be a panacea, but we just aren't there yet.

    The medical profession is (obscenely) big business, but, every year, there are more holistic medical fields gaining ground. Also, in places such as the qi gong hospitals, in Asia, for instance, people are working between the three areas of holistic, traditional, and transpersonal healing and making great progress. Again, I think balance can be found between what are currently seen as oppositional approaches to health and well-being. Because traditional medicine is becoming so cost-prohibitive (as our economy struggles), the medical industry has to change, or lose business to those who are providing other healing methods, and training people to maintain themselves better. This could force the industry in a new direction.

  • KYRANI Mar 08, 2012

    @ Slowlygetnthar
    The Truth is the panacea. Since discovering what is behind diseases such as cancer, strokes, heart disease, diabetes and others I have had no need of any doctors for treating them. I can arrest the problem before it becomes a problem. If the medicos were faced with people like me in large numbers they would surely go broke. I have been to only one doctor to get a simple test done that I thought I needed at the time and that is since 1994. That is I went to a doctor once in 18 years and I am under savage attack! The average person is much better off so yeah the medical industry face a serious crisis. They have built their industry on the belief that disease would continue to spiral out of control until people are all born sick and live sick all of their lives. But of course the bubble always bursts.

    Having said that I would also say that limitedly I agree with you in saying "new opportunities and ways of working as medical professionals". Disease is easy money. However there is a huge field in improving health and improving quality of health as people age. This is where the focus should be. There is a huge amount of work that could be done for health research.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 06, 2012

    Bechamel, to which threads are you referring?

    Also, I thought profiling was making assumptions about people based on stereotypes projected on populations. If these discussions are an attempt to restructure/refine thought, I am confused about what you mean by profiling.

    Anyway, I am not anti-science, though the stodgy adherence to antiquated ways of thinking is aggravating. I also think that there needs to be a balance between holistic sciences and medical ones for people to maximize their health. It seems rash to assert that improving mind-body sciences will avert disease and destroy the medical profession. It seems to me it would create new opportunities and ways of working as medical professionals.

    Nothing is a panacea.

  • Anonymous Icon

    BECHAMEL Mar 06, 2012

    This entire set of threads seems geared to refining peoples belief systems, like a form of profiling.

  • KYRANI Mar 06, 2012

    @ deafening
    If it was only an academic question. There are very good reasons to fight to free science from the restrictions and those that are bringing these restrictions to free an open inquiry of all areas regardless of personal opinions. ESP is a key area and inside of relationship it is the critical factor that stands behind disease. Billions of people's lives would be saved but then of course trillions of medical dollars would also be lost because people would realize how to get well without help and stay well!

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Mar 06, 2012

    Very true Fallensoul, most of them can not be reasoned with however. So it's best to let them be and eventually the status quo will burn out on its own, and replaced with some new world view.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 05, 2012

    Yes, this is the Noetic SCIENCES site, Bechamel...last I checked...

    Fallensoul, while you raise many valid concerns, isn't it a matter of subscribing to simply another form of extreme dogmatism to completely reject scientific paradigms? Isn't this extremism counterproductive as well? I also think that it is unfair to represent all scientists as thinking in terms of the absolutes you describe. It is the same fallacy as any other hasty generalization or stereotyping. You are inflicting on "scientists" exactly what you may despise in their circles when they are confronted with information that flies in the face of their set paradigms.

    It seems to me that what is really being sought is balance. We would like sciences to allow for consideration of things currently considered "fringe" and pseudo-science. Change occurs slowly, though, and scientists have to demonstrate extreme integrity to assert theories that are thought to be suspect, stick by them, do the science, and prove them.

    We are evolving now. Change is here. The way to bring it about is to keep talking with the scientists, not to shut them out.

  • Anonymous Icon

    BECHAMEL Mar 05, 2012

    Isn't this site the Noetic Sciences?

Stay in touch with IONS