Scan barcode
pseudoscorpion's review against another edition
3.0
Great book which highlights many interesting dogmas in modern science. He also suggests alternative viewpoints for the dogmas. He also promotes his own theory with morphic fields a lot. Heavy reading, which gives it only 3 stars.
needagoodbook's review against another edition
3.0
Several interesting ideas and references to experiments mixed in with a lot of waffle. Bit tough going, especially the first third.
alanrussellfuller's review against another edition
4.0
Modern science assumes the materialistic worldview. Scientist Rupert Sheldrake explores the edges of modern science and examines its dogmas.
arnizach's review against another edition
5.0
Science is the unflinching interrogation of the universe. What sort of thing is this universe of ours? What lies inside of its boundaries and where are those boundaries in the first place? These are, first and foremost, practical questions, answered with the aid of microscopes, fMRI scanners, petri dishes, calculators and space probes. Dogma and orthodoxy and the unwillingness to question, above all else oneself, are the enemies of true science because they undermine the very task and act of doing science.
Dogma and orthodoxy of a materialist kind are rampant in modern science, according to Rupert Sheldrake, and they must be confronted. With this book, that confrontation ensues.
Taking up (or is it, shaking up?) everything from the supposed constancy of the cosmological constants, to the mind-brain problem, to the science of parapsychology of both humans and animals, "The Science Delusion" is nothing if not provocative. I was impressed by Sheldrake's wide knowledge and learning, not only in science, but in philosophy also. I learnt a lot from reading this book. I enjoyed being introduced to unfamiliar topics and re-introduced to familiar ones, often from an alternative angle. I found myself generally sympathetic toward the general gist of the book: Against reductionism, for wholism, against materialism, for vitalism. I don't quite know how I feel about morphic fields (more evidence required), but I must admit Sheldrake pretty much got on board with his acceptence in the parapsychological. The chapter I enjoyed most, I think, was the second to last one about the illusion of scientific objectivity.
I love how Sheldrake embraces his inner curmudgen through-out the book. He clearly relishes his role as iconoclastic outsider. Again, I can't say I was on board with all of his claims, but I cannot help admiring his conviction and courage in not apologising for who he is - or for simply making science more interesting. I was left with no doubt that this is a true scientist: He's not afraid to ask the questions he finds interesting and important and to do the research it takes to answer these questions, standing among his peers be damned!
"The Science Delusion" is a silly name though. "Science Set Free", the American title, is much better. It captures what the book tries to do (and, in my opinin, does): Expanding the accepted purview of the sciences. As such, it is a deep and profound affirmation of the principled integrity and reliability of science as a means of ascertaining truth about the universe. While I understand that the Dawkinsian ateists or, rather, the materialists are the "baddies" in this book, ruining science for everyone with their dogmatic delusion, the "God Delusion" wordplay can confuse some into thinking this is an anti-scientific book. That, it most certainly is not. Not everyone will agree with all Sheldake's conclusions nor find his proposals compelling - some will not agree with any, I suppose - but this is a man deeply dedicated to the scientific method. Of that there can be no doubt.
Dogma and orthodoxy of a materialist kind are rampant in modern science, according to Rupert Sheldrake, and they must be confronted. With this book, that confrontation ensues.
Taking up (or is it, shaking up?) everything from the supposed constancy of the cosmological constants, to the mind-brain problem, to the science of parapsychology of both humans and animals, "The Science Delusion" is nothing if not provocative. I was impressed by Sheldrake's wide knowledge and learning, not only in science, but in philosophy also. I learnt a lot from reading this book. I enjoyed being introduced to unfamiliar topics and re-introduced to familiar ones, often from an alternative angle. I found myself generally sympathetic toward the general gist of the book: Against reductionism, for wholism, against materialism, for vitalism. I don't quite know how I feel about morphic fields (more evidence required), but I must admit Sheldrake pretty much got on board with his acceptence in the parapsychological. The chapter I enjoyed most, I think, was the second to last one about the illusion of scientific objectivity.
I love how Sheldrake embraces his inner curmudgen through-out the book. He clearly relishes his role as iconoclastic outsider. Again, I can't say I was on board with all of his claims, but I cannot help admiring his conviction and courage in not apologising for who he is - or for simply making science more interesting. I was left with no doubt that this is a true scientist: He's not afraid to ask the questions he finds interesting and important and to do the research it takes to answer these questions, standing among his peers be damned!
"The Science Delusion" is a silly name though. "Science Set Free", the American title, is much better. It captures what the book tries to do (and, in my opinin, does): Expanding the accepted purview of the sciences. As such, it is a deep and profound affirmation of the principled integrity and reliability of science as a means of ascertaining truth about the universe. While I understand that the Dawkinsian ateists or, rather, the materialists are the "baddies" in this book, ruining science for everyone with their dogmatic delusion, the "God Delusion" wordplay can confuse some into thinking this is an anti-scientific book. That, it most certainly is not. Not everyone will agree with all Sheldake's conclusions nor find his proposals compelling - some will not agree with any, I suppose - but this is a man deeply dedicated to the scientific method. Of that there can be no doubt.
ipreferquiet's review against another edition
4.0
This was so interesting! Recommended to anyone with an open mind and an interest in science. I want this book to change the culture and standards of science.
tumblehawk's review against another edition
3.0
While I, in a basic sense, agree with many of Sheldrake's critiques of the materialist doctrine/dogma (based as many of those critiques may be in intuition and supposition as opposed to cold hard evidence), the presentation of his ideas is often a bit too floofy for someone like me who is, at base, a secular rationalist. This book should get two stars because it isn't particularly well-written but I think the importance of some of the ideas and break-aways he suggests from the materialist doctrine are worth considering, and that's what bumps it up a star for me.
theravaada's review against another edition
4.0
L’illusione più grande è che la scienza conosca già le risposte: che ormai basti definire solo i dettagli, ma che in linea di principio le domande fondamentali siano già state soddisfatte.
La scienza contemporanea si basa sull’ipotesi che tutta la realtà sia materiale o fisica. Non esiste altra realtà al di fuori della realtà materiale. La coscienza è un sottoprodotto dell’attività fisica del cervello. La materia non è cosciente. L’evoluzione è senza finalità. Dio esiste solo sotto forma di idea nella mente degli esseri umani e pertanto solo nel cervello degli esseri umani.
Queste convinzioni sono potenti, non perché la maggior parte degli scienziati le consideri in modo critico, ma proprio perché non lo fa. I fatti della scienza sono decisamente reali e tali sono le tecniche che usano gli scienziati e le tecnologie che su di esse si basano. Ma il sistema di convinzioni che governa il pensiero scientifico convenzionale è un atto di fede, che affonda le sue radici in un’ideologia del XIX secolo.
Questo è un libro a favore della scienza. Voglio solo che le scienze siano meno dogmatiche e più scientifiche. Credo che le scienze si rigenereranno quando si saranno liberate dai dogmi che le tengono in catene.
La scienza contemporanea si basa sull’ipotesi che tutta la realtà sia materiale o fisica. Non esiste altra realtà al di fuori della realtà materiale. La coscienza è un sottoprodotto dell’attività fisica del cervello. La materia non è cosciente. L’evoluzione è senza finalità. Dio esiste solo sotto forma di idea nella mente degli esseri umani e pertanto solo nel cervello degli esseri umani.
Queste convinzioni sono potenti, non perché la maggior parte degli scienziati le consideri in modo critico, ma proprio perché non lo fa. I fatti della scienza sono decisamente reali e tali sono le tecniche che usano gli scienziati e le tecnologie che su di esse si basano. Ma il sistema di convinzioni che governa il pensiero scientifico convenzionale è un atto di fede, che affonda le sue radici in un’ideologia del XIX secolo.
Questo è un libro a favore della scienza. Voglio solo che le scienze siano meno dogmatiche e più scientifiche. Credo che le scienze si rigenereranno quando si saranno liberate dai dogmi che le tengono in catene.
amehlia's review against another edition
Started out okay, then stepped into the realms of pseudoscience with strange statements like “the law of the conservation of energy is not well supported” and relies on lots of anecdotal “evidence” to support its claims. Seems like Sheldrake is hung up on his theory of morphic resonance not being able to withstand scientific testing, and is looking for any means to justify it.