Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on Rupert Sheldrake?

Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 1:50:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You didn't provide a link, SoM, so I can only respond to your summary and from a little background reading.

Every generation or so, a small number of bright scientists produce some interesting, non-standard ways of thinking about science itself.

Sometimes these are empirically untestable -- meaning, they differ more in explanation than in prediction. Sometimes they might be testable eventually, with sufficient technology. Sometimes they challenge scientists to think about what testability itself means.

I haven't read Sheldrake's work -- only some reviews, but it needn't be pseudoscience just because it's nonstandard. Neither does it need to become a cult opposing established scientific explanation.

I hope that may help.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:24:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I've been following him in recent years. He's a genius, imo, but at the same time lacks the means to fully prove his theories. I believe it's just due to a lack of technology that can actually pick up the field - thus making it empirical. Without empirical evidence, our modern scientific community tosses it in with all the other metaphysical pursuits. I do think he's ahead of his time, and think that at some point a majority of his theories will be proven correct.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 3:33:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I only recently came across Rupert Sheldrake and can't say I know much about him, I understand he has recently underook going through a 3 month dialogue against sceptic, Michaels Shermer.

Other than that I watched His Ted Talk, and the only thing I kept thinking was, this man sounds like Richard Dawkings nemesis, He looks like him, Talks like him, and even sounds like him. Spooky in the least, only he is the exact opposite of him. lol I found this highly amusing.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 3:36:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 3:33:06 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I only recently came across Rupert Sheldrake and can't say I know much about him, I understand he has recently underook going through a 3 month dialogue against sceptic, Michaels Shermer.

Other than that I watched His Ted Talk, and the only thing I kept thinking was, this man sounds like Richard Dawkings nemesis, He looks like him, Talks like him, and even sounds like him. Spooky in the least, only he is the exact opposite of him. lol I found this highly amusing.

Oh yeah..him and Dawkins ARE pretty much exact opposites.

Dawkins called one of Sheldrake's books on morphic resonance "The best candidate for burning to come along in years."

Ouch.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 3:42:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 10:24:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I've been following him in recent years. He's a genius, imo, but at the same time lacks the means to fully prove his theories. I believe it's just due to a lack of technology that can actually pick up the field - thus making it empirical. Without empirical evidence, our modern scientific community tosses it in with all the other metaphysical pursuits. I do think he's ahead of his time, and think that at some point a majority of his theories will be proven correct.

I agree with you on all counts.

His biggest nemesis has been the inability of others to prove his theories. (Well, I guess that would be ANY scientist's biggest nemesis, eh?) And it's funny: the way Sheldrake so matter-of-factly states is theories on morphic fields and such. As if saying "the sky is blue" and there is no doubt whatsoever in his mind.

Are you familiar with his bit about dogs knowing when their masters are coming home? Or the "japanese nursery rhymes?" Or the finches back in England during mid-century that learned to open milk bottles? To me these are some of the most intriguing and there has been some good evidence for their veracity.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:55:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 3:36:31 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/10/2015 3:33:06 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I only recently came across Rupert Sheldrake and can't say I know much about him, I understand he has recently underook going through a 3 month dialogue against sceptic, Michaels Shermer.

Other than that I watched His Ted Talk, and the only thing I kept thinking was, this man sounds like Richard Dawkings nemesis, He looks like him, Talks like him, and even sounds like him. Spooky in the least, only he is the exact opposite of him. lol I found this highly amusing.


Oh yeah..him and Dawkins ARE pretty much exact opposites.

Dawkins called one of Sheldrake's books on morphic resonance "The best candidate for burning to come along in years."

Ouch.

If you like Rupert Sheldrake you might want to get involved in the Skeptiko forums, There are some pretty ardent members there keen on his ideas.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com...
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 10:16:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 9:55:30 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/10/2015 3:36:31 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/10/2015 3:33:06 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I only recently came across Rupert Sheldrake and can't say I know much about him, I understand he has recently underook going through a 3 month dialogue against sceptic, Michaels Shermer.

Other than that I watched His Ted Talk, and the only thing I kept thinking was, this man sounds like Richard Dawkings nemesis, He looks like him, Talks like him, and even sounds like him. Spooky in the least, only he is the exact opposite of him. lol I found this highly amusing.


Oh yeah..him and Dawkins ARE pretty much exact opposites.

Dawkins called one of Sheldrake's books on morphic resonance "The best candidate for burning to come along in years."

Ouch.

If you like Rupert Sheldrake you might want to get involved in the Skeptiko forums, There are some pretty ardent members there keen on his ideas.


http://www.skeptiko-forum.com...

Thanks. Yeah..I just visited there; looks interesting. I'm going to watch the Shermer debate; should be a good one.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:47:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

Your comment that Sheldrake has "been almost drummed-out of the sciences" is very telling, science is as prone to dogmatic and fundamentalist thinking as religion is, and because Sheldrake is a very welcome force against that tendency, he is ostracized as a heretic by the dogmatic. Rupert Sheldrake is rethinking some of the most basic beliefs of science, gazing differently to wonder if the maps could have been drawn differently, and that is a very healthy process.

He accepts that the pictures we draw, the systems we build, can never fully embrace the richness and the unruliness of creation, and he is creative and fearless enough to look at it all differently with the full knowledge that as a result, he will be on the outside looking in at his chosen profession. You have to respect that.

We are finite creatures contemplating the infinite, and there is always the danger of confusing our maps with reality itself, at the bottom of it all, I think that is what motivates dogmatic thinking in science. I respect Rupert Sheldrake for the very reason the science community disrespects him, I may not agree with many of his ideas, a lot of his ideas do have merit, but I certainly agree with his approach and his motivation. It"s all about progress, the picture becomes more and more complete as you see it from more and more different points of view, Sheldrake provides an angle from which we can look and in the process enhance and move towards a more complete picture. In the end, the truth goes marching on.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 11:58:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:47:43 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

Your comment that Sheldrake has "been almost drummed-out of the sciences" is very telling, science is as prone to dogmatic and fundamentalist thinking as religion is, and because Sheldrake is a very welcome force against that tendency, he is ostracized as a heretic by the dogmatic. Rupert Sheldrake is rethinking some of the most basic beliefs of science, gazing differently to wonder if the maps could have been drawn differently, and that is a very healthy process.

He accepts that the pictures we draw, the systems we build, can never fully embrace the richness and the unruliness of creation, and he is creative and fearless enough to look at it all differently with the full knowledge that as a result, he will be on the outside looking in at his chosen profession. You have to respect that.

We are finite creatures contemplating the infinite, and there is always the danger of confusing our maps with reality itself, at the bottom of it all, I think that is what motivates dogmatic thinking in science. I respect Rupert Sheldrake for the very reason the science community disrespects him, I may not agree with many of his ideas, a lot of his ideas do have merit, but I certainly agree with his approach and his motivation. It"s all about progress, the picture becomes more and more complete as you see it from more and more different points of view, Sheldrake provides an angle from which we can look and in the process enhance and move towards a more complete picture. In the end, the truth goes marching on.

Nice post. Very well said, sir.

Too bad Sheldrake isn't quite as understanding with his former science peers' ostracizing of him and his ideas. LOL.

In his latest book, 'Science Set Free" he basically lambasts that rigorous and dogmatic mindset that he believes science is mired in. The book reads as a manifesto of sorts, and an appeal to them to remember that in the pat their were many ideas that were at first ridiculed, but then proven to be true.

His favorite example of this, at least judging by the many times he mentioned it (LOL) seems to be that of Dark Energy, which we never knew about a generation ago but now realize is a driving and prevalent force in the Cosmos.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 12:10:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
He uses "the 100th monkey" as evidence for his morphogenic fields (which is a known fraud) so I have very little trust in Rupert Sheldrake.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 12:49:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 12:10:09 PM, janesix wrote:
He uses "the 100th monkey" as evidence for his morphogenic fields (which is a known fraud) so I have very little trust in Rupert Sheldrake.

Actually, Dr. Sheldrake has his own version of the old "100th Monkey" hypothesis.

In fact, it occured BEFORE that one, and is perhaps Sheldrake's original idea that gave rise to his Morphic Resonance theories. It;s conveyed in his first book on the subject.

Let's call it the "100th Blue Tit." LOL

Here is its............OK.. This occurrence was first observed in 1921 in Southampton, England among blue tits and spread primarily through simple imitation. Since blue tits rarely travel more than a few miles, it"s unlikely that imitation could account for the appearance of this habit in Sweden, Denmark and Holland. "The Dutch records are particularly interesting," writes Sheldrake.

Milk bottles practically disappeared during the war, and became reasonably common again only in 1947 or 1948. Few if any tits that had learned the habit before the war could have survived to this date, but nevertheless attacks on bottles began again rapidly.

So, I would ask you to be very careful in dismissing an esteemed scientist's ideas because of merely one vague reference to an old idea of the same ilk that was discredited.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 12:56:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 12:49:53 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/26/2015 12:10:09 PM, janesix wrote:
He uses "the 100th monkey" as evidence for his morphogenic fields (which is a known fraud) so I have very little trust in Rupert Sheldrake.

Actually, Dr. Sheldrake has his own version of the old "100th Monkey" hypothesis.

In fact, it occured BEFORE that one, and is perhaps Sheldrake's original idea that gave rise to his Morphic Resonance theories. It;s conveyed in his first book on the subject.

Let's call it the "100th Blue Tit." LOL

Here is its............OK.. This occurrence was first observed in 1921 in Southampton, England among blue tits and spread primarily through simple imitation. Since blue tits rarely travel more than a few miles, it"s unlikely that imitation could account for the appearance of this habit in Sweden, Denmark and Holland. "The Dutch records are particularly interesting," writes Sheldrake.

Milk bottles practically disappeared during the war, and became reasonably common again only in 1947 or 1948. Few if any tits that had learned the habit before the war could have survived to this date, but nevertheless attacks on bottles began again rapidly.

So, I would ask you to be very careful in dismissing an esteemed scientist's ideas because of merely one vague reference to an old idea of the same ilk that was discredited.

No, he actually used the original "100th monkey" in one of his books. That's how I learned of it. When I went online to research it for myself, I learned it was a fraud, known for decades. It's possible he didn't realize it was a fraud, but then I would question his research capabilities. So he's either a poor researcher, or he cited the research knowing it was a fraud. Either way, I don't trust him after that.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 1:05:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 12:56:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/26/2015 12:49:53 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/26/2015 12:10:09 PM, janesix wrote:
He uses "the 100th monkey" as evidence for his morphogenic fields (which is a known fraud) so I have very little trust in Rupert Sheldrake.

Actually, Dr. Sheldrake has his own version of the old "100th Monkey" hypothesis.

In fact, it occured BEFORE that one, and is perhaps Sheldrake's original idea that gave rise to his Morphic Resonance theories. It;s conveyed in his first book on the subject.

Let's call it the "100th Blue Tit." LOL

Here is its............OK.. This occurrence was first observed in 1921 in Southampton, England among blue tits and spread primarily through simple imitation. Since blue tits rarely travel more than a few miles, it"s unlikely that imitation could account for the appearance of this habit in Sweden, Denmark and Holland. "The Dutch records are particularly interesting," writes Sheldrake.

Milk bottles practically disappeared during the war, and became reasonably common again only in 1947 or 1948. Few if any tits that had learned the habit before the war could have survived to this date, but nevertheless attacks on bottles began again rapidly.

So, I would ask you to be very careful in dismissing an esteemed scientist's ideas because of merely one vague reference to an old idea of the same ilk that was discredited.

No, he actually used the original "100th monkey" in one of his books. That's how I learned of it. When I went online to research it for myself, I learned it was a fraud, known for decades. It's possible he didn't realize it was a fraud, but then I would question his research capabilities. So he's either a poor researcher, or he cited the research knowing it was a fraud. Either way, I don't trust him after that.

Again...you miss my point. You should base trust or distrust on your review of his OWN experiments and ideas.

Are you familiar with his: "Japanese nursery rhymes." Or "crystals growing" or "water maze rats?" Check those out and then decide--if you like, that is. You would be much better informed and credible in opining on his veracity if you actually were a bit more familiar with his work.

What you have done thus far is the debate equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 1:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 1:05:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/26/2015 12:56:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/26/2015 12:49:53 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/26/2015 12:10:09 PM, janesix wrote:
He uses "the 100th monkey" as evidence for his morphogenic fields (which is a known fraud) so I have very little trust in Rupert Sheldrake.

Actually, Dr. Sheldrake has his own version of the old "100th Monkey" hypothesis.

In fact, it occured BEFORE that one, and is perhaps Sheldrake's original idea that gave rise to his Morphic Resonance theories. It;s conveyed in his first book on the subject.

Let's call it the "100th Blue Tit." LOL

Here is its............OK.. This occurrence was first observed in 1921 in Southampton, England among blue tits and spread primarily through simple imitation. Since blue tits rarely travel more than a few miles, it"s unlikely that imitation could account for the appearance of this habit in Sweden, Denmark and Holland. "The Dutch records are particularly interesting," writes Sheldrake.

Milk bottles practically disappeared during the war, and became reasonably common again only in 1947 or 1948. Few if any tits that had learned the habit before the war could have survived to this date, but nevertheless attacks on bottles began again rapidly.

So, I would ask you to be very careful in dismissing an esteemed scientist's ideas because of merely one vague reference to an old idea of the same ilk that was discredited.

No, he actually used the original "100th monkey" in one of his books. That's how I learned of it. When I went online to research it for myself, I learned it was a fraud, known for decades. It's possible he didn't realize it was a fraud, but then I would question his research capabilities. So he's either a poor researcher, or he cited the research knowing it was a fraud. Either way, I don't trust him after that.

Again...you miss my point. You should base trust or distrust on your review of his OWN experiments and ideas.

Are you familiar with his: "Japanese nursery rhymes." Or "crystals growing" or "water maze rats?" Check those out and then decide--if you like, that is. You would be much better informed and credible in opining on his veracity if you actually were a bit more familiar with his work.

What you have done thus far is the debate equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. LOL

And you miss my point. I don't trust the guy, so why would I trust his work?

On another note, you seem to be more familiar with his work. Do you know if it has been repeated by other scientists?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 1:37:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sure...there are many.

here is one that was, interestingly enough, originally constructed in an attempt to DISprove Sheldrake's ideas on Morphic Resonance, and specifically, how a species can "tap into" collective memory fields from their predecessors so as to learn tasks faster.

https://books.google.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:31:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 1:37:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Sure...there are many.

here is one that was, interestingly enough, originally constructed in an attempt to DISprove Sheldrake's ideas on Morphic Resonance, and specifically, how a species can "tap into" collective memory fields from their predecessors so as to learn tasks faster.

https://books.google.com...

I'm not sure about this experiment. It looks like there was a disagreement over the results, with opposing views.

I did a lot of reading yesterday,and watched a few videos with Rupert Sheldrake. He mentions some experiments, but I am having trouble locating information on the original experiments.

However, there are things like the Flynn effect that could back up his theory etc. Still looking into it.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:42:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:31:18 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/26/2015 1:37:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Sure...there are many.

here is one that was, interestingly enough, originally constructed in an attempt to DISprove Sheldrake's ideas on Morphic Resonance, and specifically, how a species can "tap into" collective memory fields from their predecessors so as to learn tasks faster.

https://books.google.com...

I'm not sure about this experiment. It looks like there was a disagreement over the results, with opposing views.

I did a lot of reading yesterday,and watched a few videos with Rupert Sheldrake. He mentions some experiments, but I am having trouble locating information on the original experiments.

However, there are things like the Flynn effect that could back up his theory etc. Still looking into it.

Cool.

You should read some of his books. Maybe begin with his famous "Seven Experiments" that was one of his earliest ones. And it offers experiments anyone can do in order to test his theories.

Also...if yo Google stuff on his "Seven Experiments" you will get a slew of stuff about others trying to replicate them. (Most of it is, alas, negative. LOL)

Here is a sampling of his books............

https://www.google.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:49:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just read the Wiki article on the Flynn Effect.

And I noticed that Morphic Resonance was not mentioned as a possible explanantion for the longtime rise in IQ test scores. LOL. Bugger.

Although..I also noticed that it seems social scientists really have no other plausible explanation. Oh..they offered a few possibilities, like better education; more outside stimulus on a daily basis in today's world; nutrition, etc. But they never nailed it down.

I am sure Sheldrake would eagerly jump on this as an example of M.R. at work!

Too...I do not feel the Flynn Effect would really explain the Japanese Nursery Rhyme Theory. Because, remember that it was ONLY when the kids were taught REAL Japanese language that they showed faster learning time, as a result of the Morphic Fields that have been promulgated by generations of past Japanese kids.

When the kids were taught nonsensical words..they showed no quicker times. So...if the Flynn Explanation of "Better schools, nutrition, etc" were at work, would not the kids ALSO learn the jibber-jabber faster too?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 10:38:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

Although Sheldrake has an education and has written some good papers, he has given up any form of reason and rationale, and is wallowing in magical thinking and woo woo. His assertions regarding Morphic Resonance are as hilarious as they are lacking in any physical properties. Genius, not. Nut, absolutely.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:46:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 10:38:06 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

Although Sheldrake has an education and has written some good papers, he has given up any form of reason and rationale, and is wallowing in magical thinking and woo woo. His assertions regarding Morphic Resonance are as hilarious as they are lacking in any physical properties. Genius, not. Nut, absolutely.

Sheldrake is a misunderstood genius who will one day join the pantheon of Darwin and Mendel in the Great Minds of Biology. Narrow-minded colleagues once thought those two were nuts as well.
But now? Mmm..not so much. LOL

Here is a link that will show you how unfairly maligned Sheldrake is. And also how critics have egregiously misunderstood some of his thoughts. There are also links to studies here that have confirmed some of Sheldrake's ideas.

http://www.sheldrake.org...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:17:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:49:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I just read the Wiki article on the Flynn Effect.

And I noticed that Morphic Resonance was not mentioned as a possible explanantion for the longtime rise in IQ test scores. LOL. Bugger.

Although..I also noticed that it seems social scientists really have no other plausible explanation. Oh..they offered a few possibilities, like better education; more outside stimulus on a daily basis in today's world; nutrition, etc. But they never nailed it down.

I am sure Sheldrake would eagerly jump on this as an example of M.R. at work!

Too...I do not feel the Flynn Effect would really explain the Japanese Nursery Rhyme Theory. Because, remember that it was ONLY when the kids were taught REAL Japanese language that they showed faster learning time, as a result of the Morphic Fields that have been promulgated by generations of past Japanese kids.

When the kids were taught nonsensical words..they showed no quicker times. So...if the Flynn Explanation of "Better schools, nutrition, etc" were at work, would not the kids ALSO learn the jibber-jabber faster too?

Neither the Flynn effect nor Sheldrake's theory on morphic resonance are well known, so I'm not surprised the two haven't been associated.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:41:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I have to admit that I'm skeptical of all of this. Have any research papers been published by this man?
You can call me Mark if you like.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:56:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:41:17 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I have to admit that I'm skeptical of all of this. Have any research papers been published by this man?

Yes, lots of them. But they are all on cell biology, not his theory of morphic resonance.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:59:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:56:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:41:17 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I have to admit that I'm skeptical of all of this. Have any research papers been published by this man?

Yes, lots of them. But they are all on cell biology, not his theory of morphic resonance.

Ah. "morphic resonance" warranted most of my skepticism toward this man's work.
You can call me Mark if you like.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 4:06:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:59:18 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:56:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:41:17 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I have to admit that I'm skeptical of all of this. Have any research papers been published by this man?

Yes, lots of them. But they are all on cell biology, not his theory of morphic resonance.

Ah. "morphic resonance" warranted most of my skepticism toward this man's work.

I have a lot of skepticism too. But there are some things he points out that are pretty hard to explain. I don't think it's morphic resonance though.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 4:12:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 4:06:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:59:18 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:56:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:41:17 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

I have to admit that I'm skeptical of all of this. Have any research papers been published by this man?

Yes, lots of them. But they are all on cell biology, not his theory of morphic resonance.

Ah. "morphic resonance" warranted most of my skepticism toward this man's work.

I have a lot of skepticism too. But there are some things he points out that are pretty hard to explain. I don't think it's morphic resonance though.

I'm inclined to believe that he's falsely interpreting a correlation as a cause.
You can call me Mark if you like.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 7:18:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:46:15 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/29/2015 10:38:06 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:12:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I was not sure whether to post this thread in the Science or the Philosophy Forums.

Since, it is on the British Biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Yes: the founder and indeed one of the very few believers in his theory of Morphic Resonance. Or rather: that Nature has an innate and built-in "memory" to it. In which certain "morphic fields" are created with which it can communicate with itself. Ans also with which others can "tap into" and glean knowledge.

And example Sheldrake often cites of this is with growing crystals. He says (In his book: Seven Experiments You Can Do at Home --to prove his theory) that if you grow a set of salt crystals in your house and log how much time it take..and then grow a SECOND set, that the latter will grow faster because it has "learned" from the morphic field which was created by the first set.

He also claims things like forest trees being able to communicate with each other in order to create chemicals in their biologic systems to ward off invading pests.

The sense of being stared at--when you feel it and turn around--is another of his examples of this field.

He is a highly trained and educated PhD who originally had a background in bio-genetics. Did some wonderful stuff with crop growing in impovershed countries. Was an early founder of GMO.

But since has been almost drummed-out of the sciences. Last I heard he was teaching at a Noetic Institute in California.

So...what are your thought on this controversial scientist?

Genius? Or nut? Do any of his ideas have merit?

Thanks!

Although Sheldrake has an education and has written some good papers, he has given up any form of reason and rationale, and is wallowing in magical thinking and woo woo. His assertions regarding Morphic Resonance are as hilarious as they are lacking in any physical properties. Genius, not. Nut, absolutely.


Sheldrake is a misunderstood genius who will one day join the pantheon of Darwin and Mendel in the Great Minds of Biology. Narrow-minded colleagues once thought those two were nuts as well.

But, when I read Darwin and Mendel the first time, I was amazed, with Sheldrake, I can't help but just laugh.

But now? Mmm..not so much. LOL

Here is a link that will show you how unfairly maligned Sheldrake is. And also how critics have egregiously misunderstood some of his thoughts. There are also links to studies here that have confirmed some of Sheldrake's ideas.


http://www.sheldrake.org...

LOL. The guys a nut, he's only maligned himself.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth