At the beginning

In Newton's day, it was believed that we had the fundamental equations to the universe. Knowing these equations were the key to understand everything. We could know the future of the universe simply by applying the maths. Well, we could until Heisenberg, Lorenz and Einstein muddied the waters. They showed that there were things that Newton's equations didn't account for.

We seem to be in the same Zeitgeist at the moment, where significant scientists can safely ignore evidence for phenomena which they know to be impossible. Now, this is a perfect acceptable stance if you know what's going to be discussed is impossible, or that you already have a completely plausible theory which is the only one to fit all the facts. If you are in a lift with 1 other person and you know you didn't fart, a discussion on "bottom elves" isn't going to sway your opinion on the identity of the culprit. However, the key factor here is that you are certain of your conclusion, because you believe your method of deduction to be perfect. Historically, of course, we've never been right yet.

It's important to note here that I am all for ignoring stupid people with stupid ideas. It's impossible to investigate every new idea that challenges firmly held scientific beliefs. However, you have to look at the person behind the idea. In 1970 Hannes Alfven won the Nobel prize in physics, yet he had papers rejected by technical journals on the grounds that they did not agree with current theoretical physics. I don't think I'm stretching things to say that Nobel prize winners have earned the right to disagree with the current dogma.

Science is young

I recently heard Noam Chomsky described as being a polarising figure in linguistics: is he right or wrong? That, to me, is a question based on the belief that we are so close to "finishing" linguistics that we can ask questions about being right or wrong. In a game of golf when the player is on the putting field we can make similar statements about a shot. It's a good shot if the ball goes in the hole and a bad shot if it doesn't. However, we have different definitions of a good shot from the tee, because we can't expect a hole in one every time. Now imagine teeing off in Edinburgh for a hole in London - the definition of a good shot there could be broadened all the way to "did the ball travel south?".

This is where I believe we are with science, really quite close to the start. Despite the computers and space travel, I suspect there's still a long way to go yet and this makes a big difference to the questions we should be asking and the attitude towards new ideas we should be having. I always find it helpful to remember the massive gaps in our knowledge or our total failures when faced with the dogmatic certainty of a tv presenter like Brian Cox.

• We don't know how 2 dimensional DNA encodes the complex 3 dimensional structures required for life (we're basically stuck in genetics).
• String theory (we're basically stuck in physics).
• People still die.
• Nassim Taleb can make a living explaining to financial workers that they still don't understand chance.
• Our attempts to build a robot that can walk on two legs are in their infancy.
• Despite the presence of the sun, there's an energy crisis.
• Dark matter?
• We need a singularity to explain creation.
• We don't understand what conciousness is.

Despite that last gap in our knowledge, many still believe that we are so close to understanding everything, we'll soon be able to create sentient machines. Anyone that's tried to use a printer's OCR software will know that we are still safe leaving little Timmy alone with the toaster.

Conclusion

Embrace not being all knowing and relax your expectations. This way we could comfortably praise Chomsky as having "hit the ball south" and discussing his ideas as progress along the way. To me, if Sheldrake is right about morphic resonance it's pretty much a "hole in one" scenario. The most I expect from him is to "hit the ball south" and that his experiments will be noted in history as markers along the way to some greater understanding of conciousness or reality. We are close to the beginning of science and we would progress faster if we started acting like it.

• We need a healthy, skeptical outlook without dogmatic disbelief.
• We need alternative sources of funding and a viable alternative to big science.
• Respect for scientists outside the mainstream.
• A more open scientific media.