Rupert Sheldrake v. Michael Shermer | On the edges of knowledge | Full discussion

Michael Shermer and Rupert Sheldrake go head to head over science, skepticism, spiritual claims and the boundaries of knowledge itself.

If someone's watching you, can you feel it?

If you're interested in seeing more from these two speakers, follow the links below to hear their solo talks.

What is it possible to know? Is the physical universe all there is, or is the immaterial part of reality too? Join radical scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, and world-leading sceptic, Michael Shermer, as they go head-to-head on where the edges of knowledge lie. Güneş Taylor hosts.

#skeptic #spirituality #sixthsense

00:00 Introduction
01:32 Michael Shermer pitch
05:48 Rupert Sheldrake pitch
13:58 Who is censoring you?
17:39 Psychic research evidence
20:30 Consciousness
22:02 What is evidence?
22:52 Alternative theories of physics
25:35 Mechanistic materialism
27:37 Roger Penrose
29:28 How do ideas become accepted?
30:45 Burden of proof
32:24 Scientific conservatism
34:28 Alternative medicine
36:30 Everybody thinks they're Galileo

[AnnetteLouiseBickford]

Intellectual courage, curiosity, perseverance, humility, empathy; Sheldrake is extraordinary--how fortunate we are!

[pappapiccolino]

Sheldrake and Shermer have been interacting / arguing for years. In the past I've often found that Shermer has been very rude and dismissive of Rupert and his work. Now, he is at least prepared to be civil. Whether you agree with Rupert's ideas or not, his knowledge of real world science and his intellect are clearly superior to Michael's IMO.

[kathrynoneill]

Love listening to Sheldrake, a person of Science who both understands the usefulness of rigorous study as well as the need to keep the door open in an active way in exploring the boundaries of Science. That IS Science. Dogma is not.

[mariaashot]

Always thrilled to listen to Professor Sheldrake!

[ljxn]

Sheldrake is an underrated genius, one of the best and brightest minds of our times.

[WakingUpToday]

Rupert sparks a sense of wonder in me that I take as a touchstone of a larger reality.

[gabrielmills]

Fascinating discussion, thank you both. A lot of sense talked by BOTH proponents. And I'm still rooting for Sheldrake.

[martinst]

I'm not sure about a lot of what Rupert says but I really like his attitude. I've learnt loads about the history of science from listening to him and I tune in to all of his conversations with Mark Vernon (recommended!!).

[pjbloggs]

Sheldrake follows the Scientific method scrupulously. This should be called “Spirituality versus Materialism”.

[Kafei]

The host had an obvious bias towards Shermer, but nevertheless my hat's off to Sheldrake. Always a beautifully spoken and articulate individual who cuts through the very core of these perspectives and issues in a very similar vein to his dead friend, rest his soul, Terence McKenna. Rupert, if you're reading this, please, we need more of it! You are a divine spark to ignite the collective creative soul of humanity that is so crucial to the salvation of our very planet! Keep it up, brother!

(edit) The fact that Michael Shermer's ultimate "rebuttal" was a sheer straw man of Rupert's position is a testament to the recurring fact that consciousness is still quite a mystery to science or neuroscience, and that, as Sheldrake rightly emphasizes, that we shouldn't be so dogmatic with materialism on approaching these topics. It's not about "convincing the majority of neuroscientists" as Shermer seems to find so important. It's about finding the truth about the nature of consciousness, and what's actually going on in reality despite the consensus of professionals.

[evfast]

"who is censoring you" . TED Talks censored him.

[AlpamayoJoe]

Sometime intuition is more effective than intelligence expecially in question regarding life. Bravo Rupert!

[truBador]

It is great listening to these two. Good show! Thank you.

[george]

What does it even mean to be a “world leading skeptic”? I find it baffling how someone has made a career out of being a “skeptic”, not realising his own positions I.e “humans not being special” requires skepticism

P.S this doesn’t per se mean i have to think humans are “special”

[jrbda]

I didn't believe a friend who lived in an isolated place 40 km from my work. He and my dog ​​lived there and he always said that he knew when I would show up without warning.
There was no way to warn him, and I made the decisions to go completely at random, when I had a break from work. Well, he told me he always knew when I would show up there, because my dog ​​would sit for hours, in an unusual position near the door. I doubted him, for 10 years, until I read one. Sheldrake book. I can absolutely guarantee there is telepathic communication between some living beings. Maybe it doesn't happen to all humans and this should be better investigated scientifically.

[michaelleahcim]

Sheldrake levels above, tip my hat to the beautiful moderator inbetween.

[JessieAllen-rm]

The future will prove thinkers like Sheldrake right. I've personally experienced out of body experiences which science does not explain at this level.

[jamesboswell]

As odd as some of Rupert Sheldrake's theories and ideas are, his stance is solidly scientific. He is dead right to call out a lot of the phoney scepticism or 'scientific conservatism' that starts out with the answer (universe is made purely out of particles, waves and fields) and then dismisses every piece of empirical evidence that potentially challenges that model. At the extreme, such 'scientific conservatism' bleeds into a kind of mechanistic or physicalist fundamentalism. Whereas, if science is driven by anything besides curiosity, its extra-special element is doubt, which is clearly in diametric opposition to all kinds of fundamentalist belief, whether religious or (pseudo-)scientific. And too often scientists forget this. In short, they mix up science with scientism.

[natanaellizama]

The issue with Shermer's position is that as Sheldrake points out, is not honest. He shifts the argument until we get the image of:
"Your work is not good enough to disprove the powerful evidence of the mainstream. I am honestly agnostic, and so more work needs to be done".

Which sounds reasonable, of course. Yet that is not the case. As Sheldrake points out, there is plenty within the acceptable mainstream that has poor evidence, yet it is not taboo. So, it's not poor evidence vs great evidence. Also, he is not agnostic, he has a very strong bias against. Also, the evidence is also not poor. Also, as Sheldrake pointed out, there is dishonesty at work in the examination, presentation and countering of the data.

So, what's at hand is "There is a counter paradigm that runs counter to the mainstream paradigm, which is not being taken seriously and dismissed without inquiry(non-agnosticism) and researchers suffer consequences(that such a powerhouse as Penrose took a little step outside the mainstream and received such backlash is not evidence of the openness but contrary to it), in which there's foul play". That is not scientific conservatism, or rational agnosticism, or skepticism, that is just age old dogmatism, which for some reason, many people consider cannot happen to scientists. Scientists are as biased as the next person, and it's only human that a canon authority that has a given paradigm is biased unto itself. It has happened literally in every historical case because it's "all too human".

[andacomfeeuvou]

I am a spiritualist and I have no doubts about the existence of the spiritual world but, on the other hand, I love science and understand very well its need in the world and its functioning. And to tell you the truth, I feel much more honesty in science than in religion. Of course, there are very ill-informed scientists who say barbaric things in the name of science.
I think that in truth everything is science and there is no topic within esotericism, occultism, mysticism, spirituality and religiosity that cannot be analyzed and understood by science. It is clear that the science we have today is not capable of doing so because it is trapped within limited paradigms and concepts. But in the future we will have deeper science.