Troy Tice

Someone is shy

Troy hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Troy Tice
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Hi Peter, If Hancock mentioned enzyme inhibitors it was probably only in the context of explaining how the brew works. (Without certain enzyme inhibitors present in the stomach, the DMT will not be absorbed into the bloodstream.) Also, your suspicions about Hancock's financial alleged financial motivation and the will to believe can just as easily cut both ways with skeptics.
Noface
Troy Tice
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Hi Sarah, I am wondering what you found objectionable in the talk since it wasn't on Hancock's archaeological work (which I don't find compelling in the least) but rather on consciousness.
Noface
Troy Tice
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
I have been thinking quite a bit about the genesis of this controversy. TED curator Chris Anderson stated in the comments to “Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a Fresh Take” that the removals had nothing to with “radical atheists.” While it is true that atheism might not have played a role in the TED staff’s decision, it certainly motivated the bloggers who forced TED’s hand. Jerry Coyne even makes this explicit in one of his blog posts on Sheldrake: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/the-guardian-touts-sheldrake-again-pigeons-find-their-way-home-ergo-jesus/ Jerry Coyne and the other bloggers who started the firestorm are atheists and adherents of philosophical naturalism. They believe that the only real things in the universe are material things, that human beings are “wet robots,” and that free will is an illusion. Moreover, they believe that science has vindicated this metaphysical stance, and that every scientist, if he wishes to be intellectually honest, must subscribe to it. Of course, this is not to say that all scientists are atheists or philosophical naturalists, but a large proportion are, and the percentage is even higher among elite scientists. This article on the reaction to philosopher Thomas Nagel’s recent book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, makes that point clear: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=1 Nagel’s sin, if you will pardon the pun, was to question the physicalist worldview. Despite being an atheist himself, he was excoriated for “[bringing] comfort to creationists and fans of Intelligent Design. I feel like something similar is going on here. Although neither Sheldrake nor Hancock bring up God in their talks, their criticisms of physicalism and discussions of the alleged irreducibility of consciousness smacks of religion in their critics’ eyes . Again, I am not saying that TED acted as it did because it is atheistic, but
Noface
Troy Tice
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
I have been thinking quite a bit about the genesis of this controversy. TED curator Chris Anderson stated in the comments to “Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a Fresh Take” that the removals had nothing to with “radical atheists.” While it is true that atheism might not have played a role in the TED staff’s decision, it certainly motivated the bloggers who forced TED’s hand. Jerry Coyne even makes this explicit in one of his blog posts on Sheldrake: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/the-guardian-touts-sheldrake-again-pigeons-find-their-way-home-ergo-jesus/ Jerry Coyne and the other bloggers who started the firestorm are atheists and adherents of philosophical naturalism. They believe that the only real things in the universe are material things, that human beings are “wet robots,” and that free will is an illusion. Moreover, they believe that science has vindicated this metaphysical stance, and that every scientist, if he wishes to be intellectually honest, must subscribe to it. Of course, this is not to say that all scientists are atheists or philosophical naturalists, but a large proportion are, and the percentage is even higher among elite scientists. This article on the reaction to philosopher Thomas Nagel’s recent book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, makes that point clear: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=1 Nagel’s sin, if you will pardon the pun, was to question the physicalist worldview. Despite being an atheist himself, he was excoriated for “[bringing] comfort to creationists and fans of Intelligent Design. I feel like something similar is going on here. Although neither Sheldrake nor Hancock bring up God in their talks, their criticisms of physicalism and discussions of the alleged irreducibility of consciousness smacks of religion in their critics’ eyes . Again, I am not saying that TED acted as it did because it is atheistic, but
Noface
Troy Tice
Posted over 2 years ago
Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
Very true. One could also add consciousness, which is probably the most baffling puzzle in all of science. Still, I anticipate some commenters would say that just because these mysteries exist does not necessarily mean that psi does, for example. I would have to agree. The existence of psi or other anomalies must rely on its own evidence. It just so happens that that evidence is stronger than most would suspect or admit.
Noface
Troy Tice
Posted over 2 years ago
Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
“I hope the editors will look at the quality of the arguments presented here in the comments - all the positive ones seem to say "well I like what he said" or "yeah scientific dogma, bad, waffle" or "we must be open to like, stuff", which is thin in actual arguments.” I hope so, too. Especially because a lot of the negative ones are negative without giving any indication of a thoughtful engagement with the evidence for anomalous cognition.
Noface
Troy Tice
Posted over 2 years ago
Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A few responses to this... "One obvious one is his 'second dogma' that 'consciousness does not exist'. That is emphatically not what science says and I have no idea where he pulled that from." I have no idea, either; probably because he never said that. In any case, some mainstream philosophers argue that consciousness does not exist. Their position is called 'eliminative materialism.' Most scientists and philosophers, however, believe it exists, but assume that it can be reduced in some way to brain function. Sheldrake - and a growing number of others (such as philosopher Thomas Nagel, though to be fair, I doubt Nagel is interested in psi phenomena) - takes issue with that assumption. "There is NO, ZERO, credible evidence for 'influencing on a distance'. ZIP. Science would actually welcome such findings as this is exciting stuff, like Higgs Bosons or 3 trillion dwarf galaxies. Alas, without evidence we must conclude it does not exist." A lot of skeptical commenters in this discussion have made this claim. It's not true. There's a vast experimental literature. In an earlier post I suggested the recent book "Debating Psychic Experience: Human Potential or Human Illusion," which has essays by proponents and skeptics, as an entry point into this literature. Of course, this would require reading journals like the AAAS accredited "Journal of Parapsychology," which some here have claimed – prejudicially, in my opinion – is not a science journal. This bias reinforces a circular loop that keeps such people from even the most superficial examination: Parapsychology journals are not reputable nor are they scientific; ergo, anything published in them is not scientific and no evidence exists.
Noface
Troy Tice
Posted over 2 years ago
Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
The Journal of Parapyschology is published by The Parapsychological Association, which has been an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1969. It most definitely is a rigorous science journal. The fact that you think it offers no "legitimacy, insight or abjudication for the issues Sheldrake raises" strikes me as prejudicial.