Mar 7 2013: Not at all. "Working hypothesis" implies the ability to change given new facts and testing. "Dogma" does not. And the idea that there is just one idea worth allowing is just plain wrong in most cases. If this were the case, science in general would never get anywhere. Stuff like Relativity, QM, Plate Tectonics etc., were all "out there" at one point, but proved themselves via testing and data collection. In other words, "they worked".
The "other ideas" Sheldrake mentions may well have merit, but, they simply haven't proved themselves yet. I wouldn't begrudge someone testing the "changing light speed" hypothesis- more power to 'em- just as I wouldn't begrudge some other scientist for pointing out where the first one went awry. Sheldrake has gone awry in this talk.
Mar 7 2013: Whether or not he’s right about, say, the speed of light being variable, his method of demonstrating it- that is, by looking at the very noisy historical records of the measurement of the speed of light and spotting a trend in them despite the fact that those methods changed and increased in precision and accuracy- doesn’t demonstrate this.
One can be completely right about something (“the earth is not at the center of the solar system”) and still not be doing science (“because a magical dragon set it spinning about the sun!”)
Mar 7 2013: As far as we know, Bell's inequality does not really allow for the transfer of data instantaneously. Two particles can be linked via non-locality, and measurement in one does affect the other instantaneously. However, the theory goes: since the two particles that are linked are, until they are measured, in a superposition of states and can unpredictably wind up in one or the other state by the act of measurement, one does not transfer any data in the act of measuring one particle. All one sees is: "Yep, this photon ended up right-hand polarized here in our lab when we measured it, so that other one at Alpha Centauri must be left hand polarized." Since one cannot >force< a photon to assume one state or the other, all one gets is a random stream of particles of one flavor or another. No information is passed from one spot to the other.
Granted, this is all provisional (like all science), but superluminal communication has not yet been demonstrated via quantum entanglement. And, confirmation of quantum entanglement after the fact is always limited by the speed of light.
Mar 7 2013: It should be noted, in support of your statement, that error bars only cover the precision of data, not its accuracy. One can have very consistent data, but have systematic errors that compromise accuracy of the data. I can measure my room very precisely by repeated use of a worn-out/stretched-out tape measure. The data, if I have collected many measurements, would have very small error bars and but the accuracy would be off, my room would appear smaller than it really was.
Past methods for measuring the speed of light were both less precise (larger error bars) and had systematic problems (as all measurements do to some greater or lesser extent) which led to decreased accuracy. Sheldrake has interpreted the minimizing of systematic errors over time as real data. While there may be something there, there is no way to tell, as it is lost in the "noise."
Mar 7 2013: It's not the fact that Sheldrake goes against the 10 Dogmas that raises eyebrows, its the fact that the idea that they are Dogmas misrepresents science. They are not "Dogmas" they are "working hypotheses" supported by copious amounts of evidence, and subject to change >given evidence.<
I'm more than willing to entertain the idea that the speed of light is variable, that there is more to inheritance than genetics or epigenetics, or that we are able by virtue of some hitherto unexplained quantum mechanical method communicate via a kind of ESP, and so on. However it is vital that those propositions, being rather extraordinary, must run the gauntlet of publication, evaluation, peer-review, and further experimentation to be accepted just like all other science. PSI, Variable Light Speed etc,. simply hasn't done that yet. In the case of positive data, there are always serious systematic errors, it seems.
Moreover, pointing to the ever increasing accuracy and precision in data collection, and drawing an inference like "the speed of light is decreasing" is jumping the gun. Giving the impression that scientists are engaged in a "conspiracy of dogma" is irresponsible.
Mar 7 2013: Sheldrake, in his strong implication that the speed of light is changing and that it is only "scientific dogma" that is keeping the broader physics community from recognizing this, has shown us only that he has discovered the concept of noise in data and doesn't understand statistics. In his gently mocking suggestion that we publish the changes in physical constants as we do values in the stock market, he is clearly confusing the well observed phenomenon that all measurement is inherently imprecise and inaccurate at some level, and suggesting that the fluctuations seen are indicative of some actual, physical phenomenon. In other words he completely ignores the fact that at some number of significant digits deep in any method of observation there is always "noise." To strongly suggest a "conspiracy of dogma" because scientists seemingly refuse to entertain the idea that this noise represents a real phenomenon is misleading and irresponsible.
As an analogy: I can measure the distance between my home and a building downtown by, say, pacing it out. If I do this a hundred times, I'll find that each measurement comes up somewhat different (within a range of, perhaps, plus or minus a dozen paces different each time.) If it were the case that my only method of determining distance were pacing out the distance between that building and my home, and I were completely ignorant of other methods, if I were doing as Sheldrake does with light, I would entertain the idea that I am actually seeing the building moving back and forth. What to do? Determine the imprecision of my measurement by statistical methods, and not consider the measurement any more precise than that.
That said, should this talk be "banished?" No. Was it unfortunate that Sheldrake was selected for TEDx? Yes. TED should, instead, offer up a rebuttal by an expert on statistics to clarify where Sheldrake has made a misleading logical inference. It would be a great science lesson.
TEDCred score: +1.80 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
The "other ideas" Sheldrake mentions may well have merit, but, they simply haven't proved themselves yet. I wouldn't begrudge someone testing the "changing light speed" hypothesis- more power to 'em- just as I wouldn't begrudge some other scientist for pointing out where the first one went awry. Sheldrake has gone awry in this talk.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
One can be completely right about something (“the earth is not at the center of the solar system”) and still not be doing science (“because a magical dragon set it spinning about the sun!”)
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
Granted, this is all provisional (like all science), but superluminal communication has not yet been demonstrated via quantum entanglement. And, confirmation of quantum entanglement after the fact is always limited by the speed of light.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
Past methods for measuring the speed of light were both less precise (larger error bars) and had systematic problems (as all measurements do to some greater or lesser extent) which led to decreased accuracy. Sheldrake has interpreted the minimizing of systematic errors over time as real data. While there may be something there, there is no way to tell, as it is lost in the "noise."
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
I'm more than willing to entertain the idea that the speed of light is variable, that there is more to inheritance than genetics or epigenetics, or that we are able by virtue of some hitherto unexplained quantum mechanical method communicate via a kind of ESP, and so on. However it is vital that those propositions, being rather extraordinary, must run the gauntlet of publication, evaluation, peer-review, and further experimentation to be accepted just like all other science. PSI, Variable Light Speed etc,. simply hasn't done that yet. In the case of positive data, there are always serious systematic errors, it seems.
Moreover, pointing to the ever increasing accuracy and precision in data collection, and drawing an inference like "the speed of light is decreasing" is jumping the gun. Giving the impression that scientists are engaged in a "conspiracy of dogma" is irresponsible.
A comment on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
As an analogy: I can measure the distance between my home and a building downtown by, say, pacing it out. If I do this a hundred times, I'll find that each measurement comes up somewhat different (within a range of, perhaps, plus or minus a dozen paces different each time.) If it were the case that my only method of determining distance were pacing out the distance between that building and my home, and I were completely ignorant of other methods, if I were doing as Sheldrake does with light, I would entertain the idea that I am actually seeing the building moving back and forth. What to do? Determine the imprecision of my measurement by statistical methods, and not consider the measurement any more precise than that.
That said, should this talk be "banished?" No. Was it unfortunate that Sheldrake was selected for TEDx? Yes. TED should, instead, offer up a rebuttal by an expert on statistics to clarify where Sheldrake has made a misleading logical inference. It would be a great science lesson.