Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. has been teaching, researching, and practising design engineering since 1989. He has been involved with research and design of cars, aircraft, spacecraft, robots, temporary structures, toys, home appliances, and medical equipment. His research interests include formal and informal methods of designing, information visualization, and web-based design tools. He is a member of the Design Society, the Design Research Society, CSME, IEEE, and INCOSE; he is a founding member of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. He is currently an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Ryerson University.
science, design, humanism
Systems thinking, in design and in life, lets one understand the complexity and the simplicity of what happens to us, what we do, and how we can all live well together.
science, design, humanism
This member doesn't have any favorite talks yet.
TEDCred score: +8.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
Also, yes, making an "ass out of u and me" happens when an assumption is taken as incontrovertible, because assumptions are NOT incontrovertible and it is an error in reasoning to think otherwise. A fact is not an assumption; nor is it a convention.
A convention is fact by fiat, which is an *entirely* different situation.
What is so hard about this? These are very simple concepts and terms.
Moving the goal posts is a rhetorical tactic used by some to distract from the issue of the discussion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
If he's on about metaphysics (which I'm not sure about), then he still has to ground his metaphysics in the real. If a metaphysicist says that scientific knowledge is wrong just because it disagrees with his own metaphysical stance, then that's just bollocks.
If the metaphysicist goes further and makes errors of fact (like the claims about 'c' or 'G' that Sheldrake makes), then he's just being irresponsible.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
What I was trying to say was that the bald assertions made by Sheldrake in the TED video subject of this discussion lack specificity and detail. He provides no evidence for his claims, and his reasoning is faulty.
Look at TED presentations by honest scientists. You should be able to see the differences.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
I remain open to being "proved" wrong. But it will have to be on grounds of solid evidence and solid reasoning, neither of which is reflected by Sheldrake.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
But another aspect of the whole notion of experimentation is whether meaningful predictions can be made that themselves can be falsified by experiment.
One of the admitted problems with, for instance, string theory, is the lack of falsifiable predictions (as far as I know).
One of the reasons why evolution is so well accepted is that its predictions *are* verifiable via experiments that could falsify it - and yet do not falsify it when studied experimentally.
I'm unaware of any falsifiable predictions that are made by any of Sheldrake's "work."