Missing Evidence | Full Debate | Rupert Sheldrake, Tara Shears, Massimo Pigliucci, Philip Ball

A favourite debate from 2016: We think science is based on facts and evidence. But from gravity to dark matter, string theory to parallel universes, its theories are curiously bereft of hard evidence. Is evidence less important than we think and conjecture alone capable of leading to greater understanding? Or has science dangerously drifted into fantasy?

Rupert Sheldrake: Biologist whose research into parapsychology and evolution led to the theory of morphic resonance, expounded in A New Science of Life.

Tara Shears: Particle physicist and the first female physics professor at Liverpool. "Rapidly becoming the go-to scientist to explain all things CERN" (Wired).

Massimo Pigliucci: Professor of Philosophy at CUNY and founder of Rationally Speaking, Massimo Pigliucci's most recent book is Answers for Aristotle.

Theme 1: What is evidence?
Theme 2: Has contemporary science drifted into conjecture?
Theme 3: Can we have a science without evidence?

#science #rupertsheldrake #iai #darkmatter #stringtheory #evidence

The IAI offers a host of different platforms where you can watch and debate the big issues that matter:

Subscribe for more videos and debates!

[adrianobulla]

a philosopher who waits for the scientific community to accept something before he even feels that there is warranty to study it is NOT a philosopher.

Signed: a philosopher.

[KipIngram]

9:27 - So, string theory hasn't progressed to the point of being testable - but it's progressed to the point where physicists have been drummed out of the profession for failing to support it. Something is WRONG with that model. The minute we start trying to "silence" opposition, we're in the weeds.

[Hoireabard]

Scientists can be dogmatic, and sometimes unnecessarily so. Massimo demonstrated this in an empirically decisive way.

[ROForeverMan]

Massimo, like all skeptics, plays the "open-minded" card, when in fact he is so close-minded. Sheldrake talks about evidence for telepathy, and 1 second later Massimo says there is no evidence. He's awful.

[undertow]

the difference between an open mind and closed mind is evident here

[awandererTJ]

I see Rupert Sheldrake and two not-so-bright school children repeating their textbooks. Where is the discussion?

[nelsonsoucasaux]

The guy on the right ( Massimo Pigliucci ? ) has NO intelectual, philosophical and true scientific qualification to argue with Sheldrake. I know very well the type based on my own 45 years experience as a medical doctor who deeply studies parapsychology and related subjects along all those years. He simply ruined a debate that had everything to be great. Too sad...

[vociferon-heraldofthewinte]

Massimo’s opening pitch essentially describes his view of science as a religion and not self correcting, sceptical nor open minded.

[MassDefibrillator]

The reason Dark Matter and Dark energy exist is because people want to believe that general relativity and Newtonian gravity are correct. That's about it. The reasons we have for believing that GR is correct is tests we've done in our solar system. So we've basically got no good reason to believe it should also be correct at the scales of galaxies and the universe. So yes, it's a total dogma that we believe it is correct there, and therefore DM and DE exist because of dogma.

[jeffjones]

No one said that Massimo needs to believe things just because Sheldrake or any one else SAYS it. He is too sure of himself.

[betacam]

I find it extraordinary that a philosopher of science can be so ignorant of the vast evidential data of parapsychology. The few working parapsychologists left, who haven't yet been starved of funding by misguided University authorities are not bothering with further existential demonstrations as it's pointless. There's more than enough already, as anyone open minded who bothers to read it will be aware.
Massimo clearly is neither open minded, nor literate in the subject. I'm glad Rupert got the last word.
Also horrified to learn that Edinburgh Uni are wasting Arthur Koestler's legacy on straight 'psychology' when he specifically left it for parapsychology. Can't they be legally compelled to use it as directed?

[kokolanza]

There seem to be several commentors supporting Rupert and denigrating the others; but I am so glad to see any public debate on the issues he raises. Thanks to the entire panel for helping bring a bit of reasonable discussion to an area that is filled with physicalist orthodoxy, claiming to describe the entirety of that which exists when it does not do so.

[hoodwink]

The guy on the far right (I won't bother learning his name) talks a lot but doesn't actually say much -- rather annoying.

[oscargustaverejlander.]

Let's face it. Everyone knows that Rupert should have been given the arm chair.

[KipIngram]

6:00 - In other words, scientists LIE to achieve career success.

[adamnoble]

Dr. Shears is quite elegant, insightful, transparent, and truthful about what physics science is up to. I really like her.

[acarpentersson]

All physicist I have ever listened too or read, believe that the laws of nature are fixed now, but were different if you go back far enough or forward far enough. They use that to get around the God Hypothesis. Rupert is the only honest one on the stage.

[garywright]

Most scientists seem to foget that science itself is little more than a series of corrections based on our ability to measure at that time. At some point the "paranormal" will be proven to be true, we just don't know how to measure it yet. It drives me mad when people steadfastly refute something based on our inability to understand it properly, even when faced with countless reports to the contrary.

[bethanyhunt]

Wow, Massimo isn't even being logical. Completely ignorant of the evidence of psi, yet dismisses it as "not worth" investigating further.

[ephraimhorse]

I admire Rupert's open mindedness and attachment to experiment, a truly scientific spirit. Besides, he also seems to have the sense of direction toward the yet unknown yet potentially meaningful.