On Embracing Scientific Revolutions
“Science advances funeral by funeral” according to Max Planck, German theoretical physicist and 1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics. In his autobiography he goes on to sadly remark that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” (Planck, 33-34). Though vociferously opposed to dogmatic practises, practical science has been sullied by the reluctance to push boundaries and welcome breakthroughs. The scientists in a field may often feel repulsed by theories that risk sabotaging their life’s work - with the struggle for survival, especially in science, the wrong move can lead to ‘career suicide’. In an age where freedom of speech is championed and rigorous inquiry is encouraged, it is still difficult to imagine a scientific revolution where we have a radical shift in paradigm, as we did with Galileo or Einstein. Yet, the brain is often referred to as the enigma of the century, and as such, paradigmatic shifts may not only be likely, but necessary. Thus, in order to reform the system from within, welcoming challenges to the normative approach in a discipline will only optimize science as a whole. What is more, platforms fertilising such discourse need to be cultivated, sanctioned and protected in the name of advancing science.
On January 12, 2013, Rupert Sheldrake, an acclaimed English author and psychologist gave a TEDx talk entitled “The Science Delusion”. The “Science Delusions” refer to ten unscrutinized dogmas that science is based on, such as the immutability of universal constants or the strictly physical, and local nature of the mind. The talk was taken down as a result of vicious comments from militant materialists on the video; the anonymous board of TED’s scientific advisors decided that the video “crossed the line into pseudoscience”, justifying its ban from TED. Ironically, the talk was given at a TEDx event called Visions for Transition: Challenging existing paradigms and redefining values (for a more beautiful world) in conjunction with other talks, one of which, by Graham Hancock entitled “The War on Consciousness”, was also initially banned from TED. After subsequent upheaval, both talks were reposted on the TED blog page with a cautionary introduction warning viewers of its content. Prior to the ban, the former talk had 35,000 views; it now has over 3 million (Sebastianpenraeth).
Granted, platforms like TED have the right to deny proposals and ban contributions, but the to and fro signals a greater fear of what contentious ideas may do. Two months after the talk was banned TED released an article on their blog entitled “Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take”. Here they announced that they will repost the videos and “invite a reasoned discussion from the community” (TED blog) about “ the line between science and pseudoscience” and “how far TED and TEDx should go in giving exposure to unorthodox ideas”. They also announced that they plan on using this discussion to manage future contentious talks and determine how far the line can be pushed before it is no longer worth sharing (TED blog). This is a promising step forward, whether the intentions were to preserve TED’s reputation or not; regardless, the reputation of Sheldrake and the other speakers is besmirched, and great suspicion regarding supposedly free-thinking platforms lingers.
In a letter to all TEDx organizers, TEDx being the brand name for conferences outside the main TED events based on TED’s format and rules, TED curator Chris Anderson proposed a set of “red flag” topics, among them the general area of pseudoscience (Anderson). This was received negatively, as it discourages, and even condemns, free thinking. Even if you defend that TED has the right to give guidelines to conferences using their name, as Anderson implies in his letter (Anderson), banning Sheldrake’s talk remains suspicious, as it was just offering ten dogmas of mainstream science for scrutiny, which is more challenging “bad science” than performing it. Therefore, the crux of the issue is that unless the content is obviously harmful to the everyday audience, it should not be TED’s job, nor right, to curate their productions, contrary to what Anderson says, and, on top of that, the fact that they have rescinded their trademark from conferences in the past due to “questionable speakers” (Kurzweil) endangers their right to call themselves a platform supporting free thinking and rigorous inquiry.
The remnants of this issue from a few years ago are still present in how science is evaluated and published now. Science currently operates in a very narrow materialist reductionist paradigm, and the various discrepancies or questions that a strictly materialist view provokes have become taboos that scientists eschew in the professional realm. As a result, boundaries are not pushed and science descends deeper into the materialist reductionist faction. Karl Popper, a philosophy of science scholar, carved the way for rigorous inquiry in science with his method of falsification, claiming that a theory is scientific if it can be falsified i.e disputed or proved wrong (Stokes). He thereby draws the line between science and pseudo-science. In Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Popper contends that “A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice” (Popper, 7). This approach lays the groundwork for peer-review and the general exchange of scrupulous feedback that characterises the cooperation in the scientific community.
TED’s mission is to create a forum for those “who seek a deeper understanding of the world” (TED). Specifically in the Science Standards section, they say that the “Scientific claims by our speakers should be based on data that has survived scrutiny by experts in the field” (TED). In order for a theory to be considered part of scientific literature, however, it must withstand peer review, which is what the “scrutiny by experts in the field” refers to. With the increase in numbers of researchers, competition in this crucial step has swelled up. The competitiveness of high-impact journals such as Nature only accepting 5-10% of their submissions suggests an element of randomness or taste, similar to acceptance rates at competitive universities. The distinction between the accepted and rejected proposals falls on luck, where the winner is whichever article the reviewer personally prefers (Cole, S, et al). This preference can be related to anything from what research builds on the reviewers own work, to whether or not the author is the reviewer’s competitor.
According to the article Scrutinizing science: Peer Review by an “Understanding Science” initiative at UC Berkeley, peer review consists of a series of steps, starting with the scientist/scientists sending their research, in the form of a paper, to a journal for publication. The journal’s editors will then pass on this article to “peers”, namely other scientists in the field, who then provide feedback on the article and give it a green light for publication based on the quality. The authors also have a chance to revise and submit for consideration if they are rejected in the first round (Scrutinizing Science: Peer Review). The criteria for acceptance includes a reliance on logical reasoning, rigorous use of evidence to back up claims, well-designed experiments, and, finally, that the article “acknowledge[s] and build[s] upon other work in the field” (Scrutinizing Science: Peer Review). The last criterion emphasises the previously made point that in highly selective journals, convergence with the reviewer’s own research will be favoured. As Horace Freeland Judson observed in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama) “the persons most qualified to judge the worth of a scientist’s grant proposal or the merit of a submitted research paper are precisely those are the scientist’s closest competitors” (Judson, Horace Freeland). Of course the efficacy of peer review depends on checks and balances from the cognoscenti, and so the threatening attenuation of science is a catch-22 situation.
In the modern day, scholars continue to hold falsifiability as the end all be all. Janet D. Stemwedel, for example, in her article Drawing the Line between Science and Pseudoscience, says that falsifiability “keeps the borders of science secure” (Stemwedel), but what does “secure” really mean and why do scholars perceive science under threat? History has shown that selective falsification of threats at the border is not the predominant way science progresses, but rather that the disruption of an internal “security” has contributed most to the advancement of science. The great strides in science, such as the Copernican revolution, are marked by a radical renewal of the system, rather than the falsification of conjecture outside the system. Thomas Kuhn argues in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that science progresses by paradigm shifts, where at key moments in history a new conceptual framework in which science would be conducted is built on the ashes of a disintegrated paradigm (Kuhn) . This new framework boasts new assumptions, methods and questions that need to be answered. Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity was, for example, seemingly falsified by observations of the moon’s orbit and it is due to Newton and his disciples’ steadfastness, that his theory survived the apparent refutations (Warburton, 135). Thus, if we strictly discard ideas through Popper’s filter of falsifiability, we risk potentially crippling our search for truth in the long run.
In order to better understand the danger of the ban, as well as the peer-review system’s flaws, we must travel back in time to John Stuart Mill, who, a century preceding Kuhn and Popper’s contributions to the Philosophy of Science, rose to defend the freedom of speech in On Liberty. He contends that silencing the expression of opinion is particularly pernicious as it robs the existing generation as well as posterity, both those who assent or dissent to the opinion: “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” (Mill). This quote is instrumental to our understanding of the importance of free inquiry in science, as science seeks to understand the workings of the universe, and this goal is obstructed if even erroneous opinions are silenced, let alone promising ones.
Mill goes on to say that “The silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility” and that the “tyranny of opinion” silencing certain discussions assume that the prevailing opinion is irrefutably true, blind to the fact that the geniuses of society are a minority. As he famously remarks, that “it is necessary to preserve the soil in which [geniuses] grow. Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom” (Mill). It follows that if we do not nourish our society’s intellectual soil by fostering welcoming environments, the geniuses among us will be not be able to near us to truth with their revolutionizing insights.
This “assumption of infallibility” is highlighted in Sheldrake’s talk in attempt to liberate science from its embedded dogmas. Sheldrake begins his presentation by drawing a distinction between science as a “a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation” and “science as a belief system or a world view”. He then lists the ten science delusions that pervade the collective worldview. One of the dogmas he expounds on is that the laws of nature are fixed - that they are the same now as they were at the time of the Big Bang (Sheldrake). Sheldrake challenges why in an evolutionary universe, the laws themselves wouldn’t evolve. Upon his visit to the Patent Office Library in London to look at old handbooks listing the universal constants, he found that the speed of light dropped all over the world between 1928 and 1945 by around 20 kilometers per second, a huge drop considering the error bar (Sheldrake). In 1948, people began getting similar values again - the values reset once more. The Head of Metrology (metrology being the study of constants) labeled this discrepancy the “most embarrassing episode of the history of sciences”. The problem was, however, resolved in 1972 when the the metre was defined by the speed of light i.e if there were to be fluctuations, the units follow suit. For years Sheldrake has unsuccessfully tried to persuade metrologists to publicize the raw data on constants on the internet. Unfortunately, here we see an example of where a dogmatic assumption actually inhibits inquiry, as fluctuating constants could lend very interesting insights to physics (Sheldrake).
This “delusion” that the universal constants are immutable in an evolving universe, presages the adulteration of physics as a discipline, as the very foundation it lies on is fractured. Moreover, Sheldrake suggests that the pioneering field of neuroscience faces a similar plight, as it is also hinges on various irrefutable ‘truths’. His sixth dogma is that “your mind is inside your head”. This is an idea that has been thought about by philosophers for centuries. For example, in his essay, “A Conversation with Einstein’s Brain”, Douglas R. Hofstadter showcases a conversation between Achilles and a tortoise wherein they discuss a hypothetical situation, where they have access to a book containing the neural code to Einstein’s brain. The essay didactically illustrates how the reductionist view of the brain neglects so many aspects of consciousness (Hofstadter). It thus provokes the reader to challenge the end materialist neuroscience is moving towards - is developing an organic neuroarchitecture that will enable us to understand our actions, feelings and perceptions, realistic, or even rational? After All, the strictly physical view of the brain breaks down once we realise that matter and energy are equivalent, according to E=mc2; even though critics would say that this equivalence law only applies to the subatomic level, one could still argue that we are made up of subatomic particles and therefore also exist on a subatomic level. No longer comprised of the physical parts, the normative view of local consciousness strictly explained through the interaction of organic particles combatted, and the potential for a non-local consciousness emerges. With the cracks in the conceptual framework that underpins the neuroscience behind consciousness, it should come as no surprise that scholars are questioning it.
Sheldrake, for example, proffers his theory of morphic resonance, which he has developed into a scientific hypothesis. Summed up, morphic resonance is “a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems” (Sheldrake). This theory predicts that if you make a certain crystal for the first time, it will have no existing habits; however, once it has been crystallized, the next time you make the same crystal, there will be a collective memory being drawn on that will through morphic resonance, inspire and catalyze the crystallization. This prediction is corroborated by observations that compounds get progressively easier to crystallize around the world (Sheldrake). Sheldrake’s proposition stokes a reconsideration of how memory is stored in our minds, as well as how we think about genetic inheritance. Interaction with a collective memory challenges the dogma of a local consciousness or mental function, and, consequently, the notorious mind-body problem is reconceptualised. Unsurprisingly, Sheldrake is not alone. Scientists like Menas Kafatos, Stuart Hameroff, Rudolph Tanzi, Deepak Chopra and Neil Theise have dedicated years of burgeoning research in neuroscience and consciousness to push the boundaries of mainstream thinking and crystallize an interpretive shift (Chopra, Deepak, et al). Mind-body dualism, as well as less reductionist views of consciousness have been silenced for so long, and by challenging the groundings of this belief, and awakening the dormant tradition, new ideas spearheading paradigmatic shifts are greeted.
This demand for interpretive shifts is not limited to science, nor is the sterility of the praxis unique to science. Bulging problems such as global poverty are similarly in need of an interpretative shift. While at a global seminar on The Future of the Urban World in May 2011, Ash Amin, world-renowned author and geographer, expressed his view on global poverty; his ideas were at first poorly received, with little concurrence. However after reflecting on his standpoint further, he wrote a paper expounding his theory, and was eventually given a platform to present his work. In his paper, entitled Telescopic Urbanism and the Poor, Ash Amin advocates for an interpretive shift in how we view slum dwellers, and the resulting poverty that plagues cities; rather than a “Telescopic Urbanism” where only a certain demographic is considered, there needs to be a more inclusive optic, where all social stratas are considered in an urban space (Amin). He terms this optic the “human potential optic”, where slums are viewed as having the potential to drive new waves of entrepreneurship that would be mutually beneficial to both slum dwellers and the other citizens; for this potential to be realised, he claims that “the urban imaginary will need to change radically” (Amin). Here we see that the need to revolutionize the optic in urban development is akin to revolutionizing budding fields such as neuroscience are approached. Nascent issues, such as global poverty cannot be tackled with the same modus operandi used to tackle other issues in the past- a paradigmatic shift is necessary (Amin).
If science is to be the cynosure of human development, we must collectively ensure that it has secure foundations, and that its soil is receptive to dissenters. As gleaned from history, many extraordinary advancements, which are now common knowledge, used to be fringe theories, repudiated by the society of the time. Thinkers like Sheldrake may be able to achieve a similar feat, since as Deepak Chopra says on the front cover of Sheldrake’s book on Morphic Resonance, “Rupert Sheldrake’s contribution will be recognised one day on the same level as those of Newton and Darwin”.
The solution I propose is that we reform the way we think about fringe theories; rather than abhorring their departure from the modus operandi of their respective disciplines, we need an interpretive shift where we realise that paradigmatic tremors are what have galvanised science from its inception. Starting with neuroscience, and how we conceptualise the brain, we need to realise that challenging the status quo does not necessarily mean that all the work afforded thus far has to be discarded, but rather reconceptualised. Exposing the dogmas are a necessary first step towards doing so; if these efforts are silenced, or even banished, it will become increasingly plausible that thinkers like Sheldrake are unearthing a shrouded insecurity that the collective harbours. Once these dogmas are internalised, the next step is to start questioning fearlessly. Platforms like TED, as well as the peer-review system, must be receptive to both exposing and questioning in order to foster a society conducive to future revolutions in science. Maybe then, groundbreaking discoveries will be acknowledged in the present generation, rather than after funerals.
Work Cited
Anderson, Chris. “A Letter to the TEDx Community on TEDx and Bad Science.” TEDx, 7 Dec. 2012, tedx.tumblr.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad.
Balietti, Stefano. “Here's How Competition Makes Peer Review More Unfair.” The Conversation, 13 Apr. 2018,
Cole, S, et al. “Chance and Consensus in Peer Review.” Science, vol. 214, no. 4523, 1981, pp. 881–886., doi:10.1126/science.7302566.
Chopra, Deepak, et al. “Dear TED, Is It 'Bad Science' or a 'Game of Thrones'?” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 June 2013, www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dear-ted-is-it-bad-scienc_b_3104049.html.
Hofstadter, Douglas R., and Daniel Clement. Dennett. The Minds I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul. Basic Books, 2000.
Judson, Horace Freeland. “Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review.” JAMA, American Medical Association, 13 July 1994, jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/376093.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, 2015.
“Kurzweilaccelerating Intelligence.” Kurzweil TED Removes TEDxWestHollywood License Ideas That Have Failed to Gain Scientific Acceptance Comments, www.kurzweilai.net/ted-removes-tedxwesthollywood-license-speakers-failed-to-gain-scientific-acceptance.
Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 33-34.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Batoche Books, 2001.
“Our Organization.” About | TED, www.ted.com/about/our-organization.
Popper, Karl Raimund. Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge, 2002.
Sebastianpenraeth. “TED's Spectacular Fail: Ideas Worth Suppressing.” Sebastian.Penraeth, 24 Mar. 2013, sebastian.penraeth.com/post/46115422948/teds-spectacular-fail-ideas-worth-suppressing.
Sheldrake, Rupert, and Rupert Sheldrake. Morphic Resonance: the Nature of Formative Causation. Park Street Press, 2009.
Scrutinizing Science: Peer Review, undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16.
Stemwedel, Janet D. “Drawing the Line between Science and Pseudo-Science.” Scientific American Blog Network, 4 Oct. 2011, blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/drawing-the-line-between-science-and-pseudo-science/.
Stokes, Geoffrey. Popper: Philosophy, Politics and Scientific Method. Polity Press, 2001.
theconversation.com/heres-how-competition-makes-peer-review-more-unfair-62936.
“Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a Fresh Take.” TED Blog, 19 Mar. 2013, blog.ted.com/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take.
Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: the Basics. Routledge, 2013.
Something From Sleep III (for Tom Rauffenbart) x David Wojnarowicz
