TED talk is the epitome of scientific discourse (edit: /tongue-in-cheek).
Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-?
Maybe it should have been Venkmann.
Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-?
Maybe it should have been Venkmann.
So if you were a scientist interested in a field that others called, "stupid", you would just change for fear of peer pressure? I admire following your interest with scientific method... Which is what this man advocates, and not just blind faith to stats... Did you even watch the video before forming your opinion?
Much of this, for example, looks like depak chopra level pseudoscience drivel: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&...
Or what about the idea of constants not being so exactly concrete? Just do yourself a favour and watch the video.
And besides, his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but experimentation and theory. If you dismiss it simply because it seems "too crazy"... then I could argue it could be comparable to the scientists of Galileo, dismissing such ridiculous ideas. Not even worth entertaining...
Alright, I'll bite. Can you point me to his papers that describe falsifiable experiments, and to the peers that have repeated his results? Or just some books on Amazon?
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&h...
More specific: http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf
Again, not saying he's right. I'm saying that to dismiss an actual scientist when they say that in general, the field of science has "believers", and not enough people entertaining the questioning of "facts", is a dogmatic, and bad trend.
This is a good unbiased look on the whole event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo
See also: Venkman and the pretty girl at the beginning of Ghostbusters
I tried to find instances of other scientists
Morphic resonance (and the 'morphogenic field') is an old idea from before we even knew about chromosomes, let alone DNA: it's a lot like how homeopathy was a big thing until we kind of figured out that bacteria caused disease.. A low statistical correlation with no corresponding replication with a high probability of accidental corruption by the original experimenter does not a compelling argument make.
Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself. I don't think that really counts..
Agreed lol.
I guess we just don't agree on the merits of materialism. While I definitely think it helps explain the world, and is our best friend when it comes to our perceptions or reality, it is a poor agent in even CONSIDERING non-materialistic characteristics in anything.
I find the whole thing highly ironic. It's almost like the highly educated / scientifically literate persons in our day and age worship materialism instead of the scientific method. Thats all science is. The methods and the steps we take to create reproducible research. Not the institutions and boards that write to editors claiming that the constant of the the speed of light did NOT change during the 20 years between X and Y.
I for one, can hold onto the ideas of constants, without engaging in a flight or fight response in my neocortex that forces me to reject new or creative ideas without even entertaining them.
For instance, could you investigate the possibility that global warming isn't because of human action? I could even thought I dont BELIEVE it. The dogmatic idelogue of modern science would have you act like a religious person regarding it. /rant.
The conclusions he draws are -way- out there. It's like newton comparing the dropping of two objects and their rate of fall, and saying the penny drops at the same rate as the bowling ball because the penny thinks faster. Complete disconnect between results and hypothesis.
He's saying "look, their behavior changes over time (even this is disputable)! Without the chicks talking to each other! IT MUST BE PSYCHIC." God of the gaps, and all that.
Not all TED talks are worth their weight in bandwidth.