The Science Delusion – Structure

The Science Delusion written by Rupert Sheldrake is a book that seeks to explain that modern science is based on a series of dogmas. The title seems to allude to Richard Dawkins The God Delusion and it is possible for some parallels to be made between the two. The book summarises much of Rupert Sheldrake’s previous work while also including some new ideas about materialism.

Rupert Sheldrake has structured the book into 10 main chapters; each being a different scientific dogma that he believes is holding back research.  These were concepts that scientists had been using for years in development and research, and Rupert Sheldrake wanted to break them. He named them the “Ten Scientific Dogmas” which are: Nature is Mechanical, The Total Amount of Matter and Energy are Always the Same, The laws of Nature are Fixed, Matter is Unconscious, Nature is Purposeless, All Biological Inheritance Material, Memories are Stored as Material Traces, Minds are Confined to Brains,

The Science Delusion not by Rupert Sheldrake

Psychic Phenomena are Illusory, Mechanistic Medicine is the only kind that really works. As you read through them you may find that you agree or disagree with the dogmas, but in each chapter Sheldrake attempts to disprove them one at a time. The chapters are not fully connected together, as they all refer to a different dogma but still refer slightly to other chapters. If a reader was to read a single, random chapter in the book they would still be able to understand the main concepts but may not be able to relate to the finer details. For this reason reading the book from start to finish may be a better course of action.

The chapters are structured much like an essay: introduction, body paragraphs and the conclusion. As this is such a simple and familiar structure to everyone it makes the chapters a lot easier to follow and understand. As he introduces the relevant dogma in every chapter, even if the reader is not familiar with the idea it they would still be able to understand and enjoy his explanations.

At the end of each chapter, Sheldrake would write a summary of its contents. This helps readers understand the harder scientific concepts and makes it possible to skip chapters and only read the summary. Included in the summary is also a series of questions, designed to question your beliefs in the dogmas. I believe this is a great idea as it doesn’t seem to force the reader to accept its concepts raised in the book but instead allows them to make their own decisions.

The Science Delusion is an interesting book that questions some fundamental scientific content. As you read it you will often find that it makes you question some things that we have always considered to be true. It makes you wonder if there are any other dogmas that you are blindly following without being aware of the whole truth.

The Science Delusion~Structure

The Science Delusion, by Rupert Sheldrake, is a book written about the 10 dogmas of science. Using a title very similar to the bestselling The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, this book tackles the 10 dogmas of science and how they might be wrong. One might think that dogmas could not be possibly false, as they are the most fundamental knowledge for scientists for years, so why are they being questioned right now? The 10 dogmas are:

• Nature is Mechanical
• The Total Amount of Matter and Energy are Always the Same
• The laws of Nature are Fixed
• Matter is Unconscious
• Nature is Purposeless
• All Biological Inheritance Material
• Memories are Stored as Material Traces
• Minds are Confined to Brains
• Psychic Phenomena are Illusory
• Mechanistic Medicine is the only kind that really works

One might look at this and agree with all of them. However, not everyone agree with these dogmas. The 10 dogmas basically states that everything is mechanical that can be explained by Science. However, that is not true. While Science can explain how the eyes see, they cannot really explain the experience of the eyes. Scientists are meant to explain objects in a purely objective way, which is proven hard when they are trying to explain experiences, for one does not simply describe flowers without the word ‘beautiful’.

Rupert has split his book into 10 main chapters, each about a dogma, making it easier for the audience to go through and find a specific chapter without reading the whole thing. The best thing about his writing is that he knows where we, the audience, stand in terms of knowledge. He only talked about the most fundamental science, without going into too much detail while still conveying what he is trying to say.

At the end of each of his chapters, he would ask questions about the dogma mentioned in the chapter, making it not only a good review, but also lets us make a judgement call instead of forcing the belief down our throats. So if you do belief any of the dogmas, have a read of this book, and ask yourself this question, ‘Is this dogma true’? Maybe if the scientists modified their dogmas slightly, they might progress faster.

The Science Delusion – Structure

Ever thought that some of the most basic scientific ideas might be wrong? If so, I might suggest you read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake because that is the underlying notion of his whole book. Sheldrake has come up with ten strongly held beliefs apparently holding back science and called them the Ten Scientific Dogmas. Reviewing this book is a group effort so I’m going to focus on how the book is structured.

Sheldrake writes in an easy familiar structure, one that I suppose makes presenting to the masses easier. Each of the ten concepts is covered in its own chapter that has been subdivided into small segments. The segments range from one to five pages and are written like casual mini-essays, with a point, explanation and evidence if required. The explanation is usually the longest part and Mr Sheldrake only includes evidence if he is able as some of the points are purely theoretical.

Sometimes I got bogged down in the heavy-going theoretical situations, like a confusing four page discussion on how human consciousness works. However this was soon relieved by a new segment because although the segments are related, they sometimes jump around quite a bit, or even take a whole new angle. This small segment structure makes for easier reading and allows pick up and go reading. Most of the time.

Rupert Sheldrake

In the Science Delusion chapters and segments sometimes talk about each other. Parts of chapters sometimes refer to topics covered in previous chapters, but they don’t go into much detail so one can read any chapter and still get the overarching idea plus 90% of the technical details.
Segments of the same chapter often build upon each other’s ideas though. If you are following along then this can be quite satisfying because Sheldrake doesn’t have to explain exactly what he means straight after making the point and you start to feel like you’re in the ‘zone’ of understanding.

At the end of each chapter he has included a set of questions for people who believe in the specified dogma and a summary that I found quite helpful when I was trying to consolidate the ideas presented inside each chapter.

I conclude that if the topic mildly interests you then the structure will help you make your way through this book.

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake – Language Features

The cover of “The Science Delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake

So here I am again, back at reading The Science Delusion. If you read my first post about this insightful read, you’ll know that I had a look at the first little sections of the book, and briefly skimmed through some of the various ideas that it poses. With a full read through the book, taking in some of its quintessential features, I’m now ready to talk about its Language Features.

To give a quick recap so you don’t have to read the last post again, the Science Delusion is like one of those “constructive feedback slips” for tourism locations; except it’s for science and written in a hella-intelligent way. He deals with ideas like materialism, objectivity, whether inheritance is purely biological and others, and reasons about their viability and why having them as foundations for future endeavors in science is holding us back. These ideas are quite interesting in themselves – I had a good portion of my curious side piqued by his proposals – however it’s the techniques that he uses which makes the book easier to flow through.

Rupert Sheldrake in Hampshire

The three main techniques I want to discuss here are his voice throughout the book, how he structures his ideas, and ultimately what separates a book like this from “The God Delusion” (click here for my post on that) which is the style.

Let’s start with the voice. Not dissimilar to the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Sheldrake adopts a voice imbued with intelligence, authority, and credibility. Through this voice Sheldrake has the audience willingly listening to and accepting his ideas, while also using it to decorate his text with alluring metaphorical language, easing our minds around difficult concepts and wordy subjects. Although a warning to some, his voice may come off as too technical, so if you don’t find a book of big science ideas interesting, you probably shouldn’t expect a fun read. However although I found at various points in the book to be dry with distant and impersonal information, I enjoyed his enchanting voice which helped me drag though the boring bits.

To get an idea of the type of voice he adopts, here’s a short passage of some of his writing.

“Scientists are often imagined to achieve a superhuman level of objectivity. This belief is sustained by the ideal of dismembered knowledge, unaffected by ambitions, hopes, fears, and other emotions.”

Now as I mentioned previously, Sheldrake creates a credible text, which is largely due to the structure and extensive research he did. Each of his main “dogmas” are separate chapters, further sub-divided into sections regarding his main points. And each of these points are FURTHER sub-divided into a structure of an introductory passage, elaboration of the proposed statement, some evidence to back it up, and finally his evaluation. Although this formatting of ideas is very simple, it’s effectiveness is astonishing, and just proves how simple structuring of ideas allows a clever progression of thought for the readers to follow through with. And his research was excellent, both extensive and in-depth, calculated and convincing, being one of the main reasons why he comes off as credible. He did his homework, and quite a lot of it.

Which leads me to my last point which is his style.  Doing all of this research but directing it as an offensive text doesn’t do wonders to appeal to audiences. The main reason why I appreciated the Science Delusion a helluva lot more than the God Delusion was his approach to changing the audiences’ perspective on things. As opposed to an offensive, ridiculing approach that Dawkins’ takes, Sheldrake uses persuasion instead. Even to those to which he is directly trying to change the views on, he adopts a style of persuasion which is demonstrated across his text; he never directly ridicules their beliefs, he uses a gradual progression of information, he doesn’t command that the reader change their mind, he instead leaves a few short reflective questions for them to ponder on. Overall his style is a lot more charming than Dawkins, and uses more subtle suggestion, less insults.

So long story short, if you have some interest in science and are interested in the debunking of various dogmas of science, then “The Science Delusion” should be a good read for you, with its language easing your passage and making for an insightful experience.

The Science Delusion

“The Science Delusion” is a book published by Rupert Sheldrake in January 2012. The “Delusion” that he refers to in the book is a series of statements, beliefs that he thinks are holding science back. He refers to these as the ten dogmas and believes that science needs to be an open-minded approach to investigating phenomenon rather than something that is restrained by these beliefs.

One key materialist belief is that science will eventually explain everything in chemistry and physics. In Chapter 1 it is suggested that science perhaps cannot explain everything. It explains that science can explain what we see and how we see it but cannot explain how we experience it. For example, it can explain why ice is cold, why we feel cold when we touch it, but

The Science Delusion

it cannot explain the feeling and experience we get when we touch it.

Although there is a lot to agree with in the book, there are also some things that I don’t agree with. For example the idea that science is an opposition to religion. I don’t think that science and religion are complete polar opposites and I believe that it is possible for them to coexist in some way. I also believe that evolution is not completely pointless, as it is striving to create better and longer lasting organisms.

The idea that science is not just a belief but a religion is brought up in the book. It is one of the key concepts that the authors talks about in the first chapter. It states that science is a religion because both science and religion and striving to answer the same questions. It also suggests that if you believe in science very strongly it is inevitable that you will become atheist

The book has changed the way that I think of some things. For instance, it states that science is not always right and in many circumstances can be completely incorrect. This taught me that it is not always the right thing to blindly follow what people, even scientists say. It also makes me wonder if I am also being held back by these dogmas as well.

The Science Delusion- 4c’s

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake.

What connections can you make between the text and your own life and learning?

What ideas, positions or assumptions do you want to challenge or ague with in the text?

What key concepts or ideas do you think are important and worth holding on to from the text?

What changes in attitudes, thinking or action are suggested by the text?

CONNECTIONS

I read only the introduction and first chapter. Rupert Sheldrake discussed how we should not take everything as truth, even if it is a widely accepted fact. I think most people have been told this before but I believe he intended us to not criticise ideas but ponder them instead. This was an expansion on what I previously thought.

CHALLENGE

When I read it, I didn’t like the idea that most scientists uncritically accept what he calls the ten dogmas. I think most people, especially scientific people, like to make their mind up on things after they have gathered facts about it. Maybe the idea that nature is mechanical seems logical to lots of people, even though they can’t describe it properly.

CONCEPTS

I think a good concept from chapter 1 is that ideas like mechanism are only theories and that other theories like vitalism are often just as valid. Some things may be facts but we should not start treating ideas that seem good like facts.

CHANGES

I think he wants us to stop accepting ideas as facts and to not swing to the other extreme of criticising everything, but to find the middle and ponder ideas and the facts behind them more.

The Science Delusion

Rupert Sheldrake’s The Science Delusion was published in 2013, and directly attacked and criticised scientists for taking certain what he claimed were “the ten dogmas” of modern science for granted. In the book he argues that people are “deluded” into believing science is a long-term miracle pill for society’s problems, and that if science would transcend to something unquestionably above religion if it were to forego these said dogmas. This critique will explore the book’s Introduction and Chapter 1 by explaining its Connections, Concepts, Challenges and Changes.

 

Connections

Sheldrake proposes that science in its current state alone cannot explain everything. Modern science he says is not keeping up with technological and economical advances, and that as science cannot be communicated in an objective manner and the perspective of the observer is sacrosanct, it is impossible to remove opinion from scientific thought.

The first chapter “Is Nature Mechanical?”—which discusses materialists’ maligned view on whether nature is a pure, infinitely complex set of chemical and physical interactions— connects this way as another similarly titled text The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, ironically one of Sheldrake’s biggest critics, states a similar example, only replacing science with religion and the fact he claims it is obselete from today’s society.

 

Challenges

He alludes scientists to desperate individuals using “intellectual osmosis” to thoughtlessly feeding of each others’ ideas, without taking their own personal scepticisms into account. I call bull. The only reason science has made it as far as it is today is because of individualist thinkers, the Darwins, Newtons, Faradays and Einsteins are some examples. Sure there are some so-called “rogue” scientists out there, but in my opinion the only way you can get anywhere in the scientific community would be through originality.

 

Concepts

The main point of the Introduction was of course that Science is hindered by the so-called materialist bigots. In Chapter 1 the main point is whether nature was but a set of chemical reactions driven by physics, without the influence of 1) a higher being(s) 2) a mysterious life force that prevents a man made object with such chemical and physical reactions such as a computer being called “alive”, thus far. However he brings up some other food for thought as well, saying how science and religion are polar opposites, or that how materialists seemingly value vitalism as worth a grain of salt.

 

Changes

This book did not shift my view points on scientific thought presented in the book, but in foresight I didn’t know much about a lot of what was explained in the Introduction and first chapter. However it is clear to note that Sheldrake makes a keen effort even in the early stages of the book to change readers’ opinions, as if they were to shelve the book at any moment, mainly the fact that scientists and others alike must keep an open mind, a point to which I agree.

Science Delusion-Haobei Ma

Connections

In the book ‘The Science Delusion’, it has proposed that Science cannot explain everything. One example is that Science can explain what we are seeing and how we are seeing an object, but not the experience of seeing the object. We cannot communicate experiences in a purely objective way. One cannot describe the warmth of the sun in a solely objective way.

Challenge

What ‘The Science Delusion’ is implying is not all true. It had stated that ‘God did not design or create these plants and animals directly’. I think that without some sort of external powers controlling the creation, nothing would be created at all. In fact, all religion has stated that some sort of being has created the entire universe. With so many people agreeing on the same fact, something must be going on.

Concepts

The book had a lot of concepts and ideas. For one, it stated that Science not just a polar-opposite of religion and philosophy, but it is a religion and philosophy. The fact that Science and religion are both trying to pursuit the truth, it gives them something in common. Also, I think it is important that the book had pointed out that Science does not know everything. Sometimes, Science cannot explain human behaviour nor can they experience what humans are feeling. Even with so many years of research, there is still much more left to explore.

Changes

The book had changed some views in me. For one, I now know that Science is not completely perfect. It cannot explain everything and it has not discovered everything there is to be discovered yet. Also, it had taught me not to be held back by the Science dogmas. It could be because of the dogmas that not everything has been discovered yet.

The Science Delusion – Review by Aaron Lee

With a first glance at “The Science Delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake, obviously you assume that this must be a polar opposite of the best seller “The God Delusion,” taking its turn of the gun to rip holes in the poor victim of Science instead of Religion. Right? Well, not really.

In contrary to this first impression, the “Science Delusion” is actually written as a pro-science book; he doesn’t want to wreck holes in science it like the “God Delusion” does to religion, “The Science Delusion,” actually seeks to improve the way which science is directed.

Rupert Sheldrake says that we are held back by these science versions of the Ten Commandments, which he calls the Ten Science Dogmas, which are basically beliefs in science that Sheldrake believes to be outdated. In metaphorical terms, he says science is being held back, just like a tethered leash would hold back an energetic dog, ready to run and explore the world; and if we would just let it go, science could reach its full potential. Although I’ve yet to read chapters two and onward, there are still countless amounts of ideas contained in just the Preface, Introduction, and the first Dogma, “Is Nature Mechanical?”

So in the rest of this blog post, get ready to see my review of how these ideas have left their mark on me. And to do this, I going to discuss how it CONNECTED with me, what I want to CHALLENGE about the text, some of the key CONCEPTS involved, and what the books has CHANGED about my perspective of science, with a major idea in each category.

Let’s kick it off with connections. For me one of the strongest connections to me and my learning is the idea mentioned in the prologue which is determinism, or more specifically the “assumption that everything can be determined by mathematical laws”. Although the book is against it as it was disapproved during the 20^th Century, it still is an interesting idea to ponder about.

Throughout school we are taught things in maths and science, but always told that these are the “simple forms,” working only when a certain set of circumstances are met. For example, in physics we are told to calculate speeds of an object falling, but leaving out the effect of air resistance. But it’s interesting to wonder if we could have an equation, or set of equations to factor in every single variable in existence that could affect the outcome. So if we had all the variables, and knew all of the interactions, then we could determine the consequences of everything. If this could happen then weather forecasts could become accurate 100% of the time! And maybe even a prediction of the future. If we can know the actions and consequences of every possible action as a mathematical represenation, and compute this into some sort of calculator, then is it possible that we can determine the future?

But of course the books says determinism was disproved, as it states, “In 1927… it became clear that indeterminism was an essential feature of the physical world,” which therefore means determinism is a faulty idea. But still, it’s interesting to think about.

Now to the challenge section. And although there are many ideas that are begging to be challenged, right now I want to address this image of scientists as gullible, feeble-minded minions who absorb the ideas of the norm of science through, as he says, “a form of intellectual osmosis.” To me I think that’s a bit harsh.

Even though he does make a bit of room for error by saying that only “most” scientists do this, I don’t entirely believe in this ideology. From my experience with scientists, I get the feeling that scientists do take opinions from others, but from the most part are individualistic thinkers, fuelled by their natural curiosity to think the hell out of whatever comes to their mind. They don’t just absorb opinions mindlessly, they drag opinions through their barrier of scepticism, toss it, rip at it, until they get in their own special ideas. Well at least that’s my opinion.

But let’s move onto the concepts, which is personally for me the most interesting part. And there are just SO MANY of them. Even in the first chapter, ideas are galore. But the most critical idea of the first chapter was in fact the answer to the title of the chapter itself, “Is Nature Mechanical?” And this question is so important because it deals with a fundamental view of life and the universe.

To give you a quick synopsis, much of the first chapter is Rupert Sheldrake showing a battle of ideologies on the view of nature over time, mostly swiveling between the corners of materialism, vitalism, mechanism, and the authors pick, the philosophy of organism. Perhaps the most dominant of these in scientists is materialism, is what Sheldrake suggests, which essentially is a belief that all organisms can be broken down into complex interactions of energy in matter, or in subject terms, all biology is just chemistry and physics but with incredible complexity.

This ties into the idea that our minds are is confined to the electrochemical simulations in our brain cells and their interactions in patterns of presently-incomprehensible patterns. Is this true? Well that totally up for you to decide. Sheldrake personally goes against that, opting for a philosophy of organism, well at least in the case of describing the world view of the universe, as he states, “the entire universe is more like a growing developing organism than a machine slowly running out of steam.”

So with all of these ideas, how has the book changed my views? Well the main thing that I have learnt is that in science, you have to keep an open mind. Essentially these dogmas have been described as holding science back, and by trying to use them as stepping stones to unravel more and more mysteries; is limited. Like a wise man once said, “Before you build a house, you have to prepare the foundations.” And Sheldrake has me persuaded on this. I do believe that if we make future discoveries without a biased view of the world, then we can discover wonders of science that we never knew were even there. By clinging onto past beliefs, we confuse ourselves into finding the truth. Imagine trying to find a hidden pirate treasure, but using an outdated map. Regardless how far and wide you search, if you prelude yourself with using something that is outdated to try and find something in the present; you’re going to have a bad time.