Controversy from Science Buzz Cafe on Feb 5

[skynelson]

Hi there,
This is Sky, the presenter from the SBC at Coffeecatz on Feb 5, Expecting Synchronicity. I realize that the ideas I presented sparked some wrath from the scientists in the community, which I understand, coming from within that community myself. I apologize for not being clearer with the audience that these are speculations (though very carefully studied and presented) that have not been accepted or verified from within the scientific establishment. I also regret the particular examples chosen, as they led to an unhelpful discussion surrounding political activism. I will correct these mistakes in the future.

I look forward to the opportunity to talk with any scientist who would like to discuss any concerns they have directly with me. I have a strong dislike for pseudo-science myself, and I would appreciate the opportunity to defend the ideas presented here. I hope you will come away feeling that although the concepts stretch the bounds of what we know about physics today, they are nevertheless an internally consistent theory that does not in any way conflict with physics as we know it. Rather, it agrees with it in some very profound ways.

So far, in all the controversy, I have not heard any evidence that anything I presented was incorrect, only new and untested.

Please email me and give me a run for my money!

With all due respect,
Sky

theskyband [at] gmail.com

[JuliaB]

Sky,
would you mind clueing in those of us who were not there? I am interested in what you spoke about and what, particularly, provoked a reaction. This could have the makings of an interesting discussion that is also a very important one in the science and spirit arena: science vs psuedoscience
thanks, Julia



This is Sky, the presenter from the SBC at Coffeecatz on Feb 5, Expecting Synchronicity. I realize that the ideas I presented sparked some wrath from the scientists in the community, which I understand, coming from within that community myself. I apologize for not being clearer with the audience that these are speculations (though very carefully studied and presented) that have not been accepted or verified from within the scientific establishment. I also regret the particular examples chosen, as they led to an unhelpful discussion surrounding political activism. I will correct these mistakes in the future.

I look forward to the opportunity to talk with any scientist who would like to discuss any concerns they have directly with me. I have a strong dislike for pseudo-science myself, and I would appreciate the opportunity to defend the ideas presented here. I hope you will come away feeling that although the concepts stretch the bounds of what we know about physics today, they are nevertheless an internally consistent theory that does not in any way conflict with physics as we know it. Rather, it agrees with it in some very profound ways.

So far, in all the controversy, I have not heard any evidence that anything I presented was incorrect, only new and untested.

Please email me and give me a run for my money!

With all due respect,
Sky

[Photoguy]

Sky, I was at your presentation and I would like to start off by thanking you for being part of what was a great evening for me. I think the presentation of your ideas was probably fairly good for people who don't have much of a background in science or spirituality. The problem was that Sebastopol is filled with nothing but experts in science/spirituality/pseudoscience/pseudospirituality/massage/tantra/spectral investigation and all sorts of groovy things. I think the crowd all had a fine time and you need not apologize. I think after some adjustment for the level of the audience and with some more time than what you were given you will have a real shot at not being too crabbed at by the crazy locals.
-Dennis

[Gayla]

Hi Sky,

I wish I'd known about your presentation (I *must* keep a better eye on the Wacco Calendar) because, I'm fascinated by the topic! I'd be delighted to hear any kind of explanations, "pseudo-science", or otherwise, because, I, myself, am totally mystified by it. I DO expect synchronicity, because, sometimes it shows up in my life on almost a daily basis. Occasionally it is profound. I've written about it. Please let me know when you'll be speaking, again. Or, let's talk, sooner.

Gayla 707.573.1133

[QUOTE=skynelson;82950]Hi there,
To Sky, the presenter from the SBC at Coffeecatz on Feb 5, Expecting Synchronicity.

[skynelson]

Hi there,
To fill you in more on the theory I presented regarding synchronicity, you can join our discussion group this Tuesday, Feb 24, in Santa Rosa. Please RSVP for directions if you'd like to come (707)-217-8595. Also, visit www.expectingsynchronicity.com

The theory I presented at Coffeecatz is an interpretation of special relativity that should have been made long ago, and I think has by some people. But I think others have not grasped the far-reaching consequences of it that bring together various diverse theories, including Feynman's ideas on light, holographic theory, quantum mechanics, wave mechanics, and some aspects of string theory, not to mention spirituality.

My particular work in this discussion group focuses on applying quantum principles to daily life, leading to a description of synchronicity. My ideas are firmly backed up with education and research, and I emphasize the importance of EXPERIENCING and LIVING these principles. This is NOT ONLY a place to discuss theory, but one where we look at the way life works for us, and try to make better use of synchronicity.

I completely agree with most scientists about the misuse of pseudoscience. For example, I think people use the word 'energy' to describe many things that may or may not actually be associated with energy. People like to use words and analogies (i.e. like saying the law of attraction is like a 'magnetic pull' of events to us) to help them understand concepts, but they end up cluttering up our knowledge base with poorly defined language, and this pisses off scientists.

As enthusiasts, I think people should be careful to define their language well, and not infringe on areas already claimed by science.

As a heavily trained scientist, my writing and ideas focus on science, on well-defined words and axioms and postulates, on stable logic. In the time since the presentation two weeks ago, I haven't heard one correct argument against my theory or presentation. I have heard one INCORRECT criticism, and I have heard other criticism that is just based on the fact that the ideas are new. As far as I am concerned, people with such an approach treat science as a religion, and we have a responsibility to challenge them in a responsible way.

So I do think it's important for people to take science seriously, and not believe most of what they hear. I am a careful scientist and thinker, and I take that responsibility highly.

Cheers,
Sky
theskyband [at] gmail.com[/quote]

[hales]

Hi, Sky, I didn't attend your talk and I am not aware of the details of what the discussion encompassed, but I appreciate that you are trying to bring clarity to discourse.. I am a bit frustrated when people talk about energy, without first clarifying what kind of energy they are discussing and perhaps, backing this up with some kind of evidence.

I'm sort of a mugwump... on one hand, I am open to lots of metaphysical and spiritual concepts and ideas, yet I also would like to see some kind of logical or scientific explanation for those ideas. I don't like the mushyness of a lot of metaphysical proponents.

I do value my own inner experiences, though, and I am not strictly a materialist. I'm interested in a clarification of the language used to explore the boundaries between spirituality and materialistic science. (If there really are boundaries.. ; )

Synchronicity is a really big interest for me. I hope I can make it to one of your talks. I'll check out your website and check it out.

Thanks!
Scott.

Hi there,
To fill you in more on the theory I presented regarding synchronicity, you can join our discussion group this Tuesday, Feb 24, in Santa Rosa. Please RSVP for directions if you'd like to come (707)-217-8595. Also, visit www.expectingsynchronicity.com

The theory I presented at Coffeecatz is an interpretation of special relativity that should have been made long ago, and I think has by some people. But I think others have not grasped the far-reaching consequences of it that bring together various diverse theories, including Feynman's ideas on light, holographic theory, quantum mechanics, wave mechanics, and some aspects of string theory, not to mention spirituality.

My particular work in this discussion group focuses on applying quantum principles to daily life, leading to a description of synchronicity. My ideas are firmly backed up with education and research, and I emphasize the importance of EXPERIENCING and LIVING these principles. This is NOT ONLY a place to discuss theory, but one where we look at the way life works for us, and try to make better use of synchronicity.

I completely agree with most scientists about the misuse of pseudoscience. For example, I think people use the word 'energy' to describe many things that may or may not actually be associated with energy. People like to use words and analogies (i.e. like saying the law of attraction is like a 'magnetic pull' of events to us) to help them understand concepts, but they end up cluttering up our knowledge base with poorly defined language, and this pisses off scientists.

As enthusiasts, I think people should be careful to define their language well, and not infringe on areas already claimed by science.

As a heavily trained scientist, my writing and ideas focus on science, on well-defined words and axioms and postulates, on stable logic. In the time since the presentation two weeks ago, I haven't heard one correct argument against my theory or presentation. I have heard one INCORRECT criticism, and I have heard other criticism that is just based on the fact that the ideas are new. As far as I am concerned, people with such an approach treat science as a religion, and we have a responsibility to challenge them in a responsible way.

So I do think it's important for people to take science seriously, and not believe most of what they hear. I am a careful scientist and thinker, and I take that responsibility highly.

Cheers,
Sky
theskyband [at] gmail.com

[/quote]

[JuliaB]

Thanks for this Sky,
I have run into "scientism" many times, and it can be very frustrating at the least, because they sometimes make it sound like you are less "scientific" than them if you believe in anything that they don't agree with.

Like you, I was trained in science and have a very deep respect for it. But I also studied philosophy and specifically the philosophy of science. Most of those who co-opt their view of science as the final authority on an issue have probably not investigated the rich and differing perspectives on how/why/what really constitutes knowledge. Scientists are not immune to holding beliefs that cannot be proven--the extreme become religious about it and this is called "scientism". It is as annoying to me as psudoscience. In fact I kind of put them in the same camp. Its not good science and its an attitude that closes the door on possibilities.

One thing seems certain--that the more someone has a knee-jerk and defensive reaction to something you say, it is likely a cherished belief is being confronted. In the case of psuedoscience, education is called for. Many people in the new age community or religious communities adopt certain things, concepts and language from science in order to furthur a nonscientific agenda. This is often unintentional, though sometimes its not. It is very very annoying to those of us who have been trianed in science and love it, so its understandable that some folks have become wary and defensive. But a better response is to educate and offer perspectives.

The moral of the story is: open mind, inquiring mind, discerning mind.


Julia

As a heavily trained scientist, my writing and ideas focus on science, on well-defined words and axioms and postulates, on stable logic. In the time since the presentation two weeks ago, I haven't heard one correct argument against my theory or presentation. I have heard one INCORRECT criticism, and I have heard other criticism that is just based on the fact that the ideas are new. As far as I am concerned, people with such an approach treat science as a religion, and we have a responsibility to challenge them in a responsible way.

So I do think it's important for people to take science seriously, and not believe most of what they hear. I am a careful scientist and thinker, and I take that responsibility highly.

Cheers,
Sky
theskyband [at] gmail.com[/quote][/quote]