Arguing Science: A Dialogue on the Future of Science and Spirit

Great read, Shermer looked very disingenuous, bad faith, and frankly intellectually under equipped to debate Rupert.

I had read excerpts of the structured talks around 2015. This book is the well-written record of the debate over whether the ultimate reality of the cosmos can be explained by the laws of physics, or if there is a higher dimension as the primary structure. I like that in arguing for a spirit of the universe (a morphic field which remembers and repeats), Sheldrake never uses intelligent design or invokes any deity as an explanation. This book is all legitimate science.

this excellent book presents new ways to think about science. Shermer represents the current way; Sheldrake some interesting new ways. I recommend it highly!

Really interesting

Sheldrake provides an alternative way of viewing some of the prevailing paradigms in science. Scientists and nonscientists all need to rethink the limitations of their particular frames-of-reference. Scientists, like most everyone else, have learned to accept the validity of their version of reality. Those who accepted the '"flat earth" hypothesis found lots of evidence to support their view.

interesting how scientists view research and theories from a specific stance and how that can effect the outcome or interpretation of results.But I believe this is healthy, necessary debate so that scientific discoveries can move forward and be used for development of this civilization and for the future.

This is an excellent discussion between two intelligent people of widely divergent philosophies. Sheldrake argues well in showing the errors of materialism, and challenging materialist assumptions and dogmas.

A great book. Highly recommended.

Rupert Sheldrake has carved himself a reputation of being a maverick in science, arguing for a greater acceptance of spirituality, investigating psychic phenomena and also offering a new approach to how science views nature. Michael Shermer also has built up a reputation of his own as an debunker of frauds in the psychic area, a defender of the mainstream scientific worldview and a critic of religion. Neither should be completely ignored by proponents of either approach. Both men have formidable academic qualifications. Both also have reported things that challenge their approaches also, and appear to have done their homework in the area.The open letters in this book, originally appeared on the web together with interviews with each followed by the letters. Each interview was followed by the letters published here on the themes of philosophical materialism in science, psychic phenomena and finally the role of spirituality and religion. Having read these before, I miss the dialogues which added something about each man and their backgrounds. Yet the letters do give to a degree pointers about each position. They also do show each one is more nuanced and complex than might appear from caricatures, and the dialogue does touch on core beliefs, with Shermer ending with the point neither knows the whole truth.In the end, as with all such dialogues, if trying to decide who was "won" the arguments, I suspect the answer is more likely to be according to which position one is more sympathetic to. Both men ask questions of the other about where is their proof. From reading this my suspicion is that Sheldrake comes from a broader perspective. Those apposed to him are unlikely to see him as a fool based on what he says here. But Shermer is no fool either, and makes some valid points showing he has at the very least studied what Sheldrake is actually saying- which sin't always the case with some opponents.The value of this book is that a serious debate takes place and raises these issues avoiding the distortions polemics often bring. The issues are not going to go away. It is good to see them debated in a serious, considered way. Of value to those of both persuasions.

I like Rupert for pushing the boundaries