Re: Double Standards?

John Wilkins wrote:

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:54:08 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John
Wilkins):

Iain <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 14, 11:03 pm, t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (The Enigmatic One) wrote:
In article <66fgu1F2kb42...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
alwaysaskingquesti...@xxxxxxxxx says...

Now, I am not seeking to argue the merits or otherwise of
Sheldrake's work, it's simply the attitude taken by Dawkins that
disturbs me. Although I have previously been a vocal critic of
Dawkins' approach to ideas and beliefs he disagrees, I did not
expect him to be quite this cavalier in his approach to presenting
scientific arguments. Initially, indeed, I was highly suspicious of
the story, thinking it was probably concocted along the lines of
the "stuck for an answer" YouTube video but I can find no denials
by Dawkins.

If the story is true then it seems most hypocrital for Dawkins to
be criticising the methods used by other filmmakers.

He's dealing with a fucking crackpot who says telepathy exists.

But the idea telepathy is not *inherently* absurd -- it's just lacks
evidence. The original poster's point (right or wrong) is that this
evidence(or lack thereof) wasn't properly considered.

Telepathy *is* inherently absurd, as much as precognition, clairvoyance
and telekinesis. These are simply not physically possible on any
understanding of physics (not least being the second law of
thermodynamics - where does the energy come from?).

Telekinesis, unless the energy came from the practitioner
and was transferred to the manipulated object by some
obscure and probably impossible means, would violate
conservation laws. And in my opinion precognition is ruled
out because the future isn't fixed. Clairvoyance...I dunno;
I can't think of any way it could work biologically, but I
don't see what laws it violates, since we can do the same
thing via technology. But telepathy wouldn't violate *any*
laws I know of; the brain uses far more energy than would be
required to send a signal to another brain, and it's
functioning is essentially electronic (well,
electrochemical, but that involves electrical signals). The
real roadblock, IMHO, would be interpretation, since I
believe it's lately been determined that the "language" of
each brain is unique (but I could be misremembering that, in
which case the roadblock doesn't exist). In this instance
"inherently absurd" translates merely as "we haven't seen it
happen, that we're aware of".

Consider what would be needed for the brain to act as a radio receiver:
how many watts of energy would need to be broadcast for the brain to
receive a signal over the background noise with an aerial smaller than
20cm. OK, so not radio then. What? Microwave? Magnetism? Light? Where's
the friggin' receiver, let alone the broadcaster?

If we exhaust the sort of radiation that *does* exist, then telepathy is
as absurd as the others.


There are sound reasons for wanting a plausible mechanism before accepting
any sort of data as evidence, but still: we don't know what most of the
mass or most of the energy of the universe is composed of, so one should be
hesitant about dogma. If the data is truly carefully done (i.e. double
blind), and has been repeated by others who are skeptics, then it at least
requires explanation by established science before rejecting all
explanations based on new science.It does seem clear that if any telepathic
ability exists it is so uncertain as to be of no practical value.


--
Yours, Bill Morse

.