サイエンスの虚像

Compare to the quotation below, this book is very thin.
Well, maybe that’s why I did not persist reading on . . .

“When the ancients saw a scapegoat, they could at least recognize him for
  what he was: a pharmakos, a human sacrifice. When modern man sees one,
  he does not, or refuses to, recognize him for what he is; instead
  he looks for ‘scientific’ explanations — to explain away the obvious.”

—Thomas Szasz, Ceremonial Chemistry


The Science Delusion

by Rupert Sheldrake, 2012 [ PDF ]

  1. Is Nature Mechanical?

  2. Is the Total Amount of Matter and Energy Always the Same?

  3. Are the Laws of Nature Fixed?

  4. Is Matter Unconscious?

  5. Is Nature Purposeless?

  6. Is All Biological Inheritance Material?

  7. Are Memories Stored as Material Traces?

  8. Are Minds Confined to Brains?

  9. Are Psychic Phenomena Illusory?

  10. Is Mechanistic Medicine the Only Kind that Really Works?

  11. Illusions of Objectivity

    The idea of disembodied minds soon became a central feature of mechanistic science.  René Descartes in his Meditations (1641) took as the first principle of his philosophy, ‘I am thinking, therefore I exist’, and immediately inferred that his thinking mind was disembodied: . . .
    . . .Thought experiments have played an important part in science, most notably when Albert Einstein imagined himself running alongside a wave of light. He realised that, from the point of view of a disembodied mind travelling at the speed of light, the light would appear to be stationary and no time would elapse. . .
    . . . a peculiar style of writing that became popular in the late nineteenth century and is still found in many scientific reports today. . . wrote in the passive voice as if they were dispassionate, disembodied observers before whom events unfolded spontaneously. . . Instead of someone thinking about the results, ‘It was considered that . . .’
    . . . The further the distance, the stronger the illusion.  Those who are most prone to idealise the objectivity of scientists are people who know almost nothing about science, people for whom it has become a kind of religion, their hope of salvation.
    . . . The supposed objectivity of the ‘hard sciences’ is an untested hypothesis.  There is a conspiracy of science about experimenter-expectancy effects in most branches of physics, chemistry and biology.  The assumption that they are confined to clinical research, human psychology and animal behaviour may well be untrue.
    Another problem is that scientists usually publish only a small proportion of their data.  If they cherry-pick the results that suit their hypotheses, this will introduce another source of bias, sometimes called ‘publication bias’, and sometimes called the ‘file-drawer effect’, because negative results are left in files (see Chapter 9).
    . . . Scientists usually assume that fraud is rare and unimportant because science is self-correcting.  Ironically, this complacent belief produces an environment in which deception can flourish.

  12. Scientific Futures

  • Notes
  • References
  • Index
www.000webhost.com