This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
There's been a lot of heat today about Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx Talk. And in the spirit of radical openness, I'd like to bring the community into our process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO4-9l8IWFQ
While TED does not vet speakers at independent TEDx events, a TEDx talk can be removed from the TEDx archive if the ideas contained in it are wrong to the point of being unscientific, and that includes misrepresenting the scientific process itself.
Sheldrake is on that line, to some commenters around Twitter and the web. His talk describes a vision of science made up of hard, unexamined constants. It's a philosophical talk that raises general questions about how we view science, and what role we expect it to play.
When my team and I debate whether to take action on a TEDx talk, we think deeply about the implications of our decision -- and aim to provide the TEDx host with as clear-cut and unbiased a view as possible.
You are invited, if you like, to weigh in today and tomorrow with your thoughts on this talk. We'll be gathering the commentary into a couple of categories for discussion:
1. Philosophy. Is the basis of his argument sound -- does science really operate the way Sheldrake suggests it does? Are his conclusions drawn from factual premises?
2. Factual error. (As an example, Sheldrake says that governments do not fund research into complementary medicine. Here are the US figures on NIH investment in complementary and alternative medicine 2009-2010: http://nccam.nih.gov/about/budget/institute-center.htm )
As a note: Please know that whether or not you have time or energy to contribute here, the talk is also under review by the TED team. We're not requiring your volunteer labor -- but we truly welcome your input. And we're grateful to those who've written about this talk in other forums, including but not limited to Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Kylie Sturgess and some thoughtful Redditors.
vidit patil
But in the case of Sheldrake instead of providing any solid proof to any any of his arguments he is just searching the unfilled gaps in other's work or conventional theories and putting forward his Morphic resonance without any sound proofs or valid arguments.
I think TED should not promote this kind of stuffs.
Frank Matera
Why don't you prove him wrong. Replicate his dog telepathy experiments for a start... and see if there is any validity to the claim. Others have done this like Alex Tsakiris and were impressed enough that they applied for James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge because they thought they could show a valid effect.
Of course it is no surprise that Randi ran 1000 miles the other way when the claim came in and tried to ridicule and ignore it... making up excuses as to why he ignored the application.
So instead of ridiculing without investigating why don't you do something about it and prove Sheldrake wrong.
Katie McClymont
Before TED staff make the mistake of censoring Sheldrake. I suggest all TED staff get up to speed by watching a google talk video by Dr Dean Radin 'Science and the taboo of psi'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew
In addition Sheldrake has conducted 'Sense of Being Stared at' studies. The results have been replicated by others. Combined together in the literature there were 65 studies, 34,097 sessions. A meta-analysis has produced odds against chance of 85000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1 (Source: Dr Dean Radin's book Entangled Minds)
'' A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ' - Max Planck
Assuming of course the new generation actually gets to hear it. What decision will TED make?
Frank Matera
There is an ASSUMPTION that because a lot of people in the science community don't know about these studies that they must not exist. It is seriously worrying stuff.
Also that talk by Dean Radin about the taboo of PSI within science should be watched by every single student in every university in the country. He shows not only evidence for PSI in that talk... but evidence that there is a massive taboo within Science to even discuss it. Some of the comments in this forum just prove it even further.
Toby Randel
Randy Gault
Surely it's on the person making the claim to either refine it to a degree where it becomes of interest to more scientists, or to collect the evidence themselves.
sandy stone 30+
Ben Goertzel
All in all, I think Sheldrake has done enough actual empirical data gathering to support his out-of-the-mainstream ideas, that his perspective should be respected and heard. I really do NOT think he has fraudulently doctored-up all the data he's presented in his various papers....
Some of the conclusions he has drawn from his data may not be correct ... and some of his analyses of the nature of mainstream science may be a bit exaggerated. But yet, I can see why he feels as he does, given the hostile reception the scientific community has given to the actual empirical results he has been collecting and presentig over the years...
And, obviously, this assault on his TEDx video exemplifies the sort of hostility he's experienced, which has guided his view of the contemporary scientific community...
Ben Goertzel
About the speed of light: He seems mainly to be arguing that, due to the way the scientific community arrives at its consensus beliefs, the possibility of changes in the speed of light is not being considered as seriously as it should be..... There is evidence regarding different measurements of the speed of light, but detailed discussion of this evidence would have gone beyond the scope of his sort talk. (FYI, my current best guess is that the speed of light is not changing...)
About consciousness: that is a weird issue at the border of philosophy and science, and there have been other TED and TEDx talks treating it in various ways -- all over the map. Stuart Hameroff's talk on quantum gravity and consciousness, mentioned elsewhere in this comment thread, is just one example...
Andrew Wiggin
Ben Goertzel
I will stand by my characterization of PZ Myers as a zealot. He is part of a group of narrowly "humanist" pundits who make a habit of aggressively attacking anything not allowed by their rather constricted and unimaginative world-view.
As to whether Sheldrake's largely philosophical talk belongs in the Science section on TED's website, that's a question regarding TED's internal cataloguing criteria. But moving the video to a different section would be different than removing it...
Questioning the conceptual and methodological foundations of science is not unscientific, it's just "philosophy of science" rather than science per se. Think about a classic like PaulFeyerabend's "Against Method." Feyerabend was edgy, and he radically questioned many assumptions that scientists typically make, just like Sheldrake does. He was way more confrontational than Sheldrake. If Feyerabend were alive today, would he be banned from Ted, due to deviating from some sort of Popperian/naive-reductionist consensus?? I hope not !!
Regarding replication of Sheldrake's work there has been some, see e.g. (just one example)
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/pdf/Lobach.pdf
which is a replication of his work on telephone telepathy. Replication of psi results is a subtle matter, and I'm not going to give a dissertation on it in this comment.
The fact that his work has not been widely replicated, nor published in the top science journals, is not evidence of its invalidity. Nature and Science, for instance, have current policies against publishing psi research, regardless of the apparent quality of the work or results. TED should not, IMO, be afraid of posting unpopular, radical ideas that buck current trends. Unpopularity does not imply incorrectness ;p
Barry Conchie
sandy stone 30+
Frank Matera
Sheldrake and the likes of Dean Radin are trying to find if there is such a thing as telepathy, PSI, Presentiment, and ultimately a consciousness that exists outside of what neurological science tells us occurs in the physical brain. Their results tell us there IS something going on that science cannot account for and that further studies warranted.
The reason Atheists like PZ Myers hate that.... is that if you prove consciousness exists outside the brain, you are starting to validate the existence of a soul.... and therefore an afterlife.
Doesn't bode well for the religion that is Atheism does it. That's why we have these fundamentalist radical Atheists trying so hide to discredit anyone who doesn't automatically accept materialism as a religion.
sandy stone 30+
That shouldn't stop anyone from following the data and finding out if psi actually occurs, but sadly, it does. Worse than that, there are people out there actually trying to suppress research and stop such dangerous ideas from being presented in forums like this one.
Frank Matera
It gives Atheists validity for their "religion"... they can point to materialism as evidence for their beliefs... and discredit other religions because they are only based on "faith".
Like you said PSI doesn't prove the existence of god but if you can predict future events before they happen and show an effect as Radin has done with his presentiment studies, what does that say about time and space and what science knows? What does it say about consciousness that they can show 2 people telepathically communicating with each other from different sides of the planet? It starts to lend credibility to the non materialistic viewpoint that so much of science lives on.
Randy Gault
Or are you simply trying to demean the whole group, or those who speak up?
Randy Gault
Douglas Kinney
Jerry Coyne is right on re Sheldrake.
It is an absurd waste of time to have poor thinkers like Rupert Sheldrake and Lynn Mctaggart at any TED functions. Why not have the Creationists, Flat Earthers, Geocentrists and so on have the stage as well?
Sheldrake has nothing to offer but poor science and questionable data to try and support absurd conclusions.
One would think the organizers of TED and TEDx would be more discriminating and offer "Ideas worth spreading", instead of pseudoscientific pap. I have no motivation to attend TEDx in Brussels again after Lynn McTaggart offered her tripe and now Sheldrake!
I saw a talk by Sheldrake at the European Skeptics meeting on Brussels a few years ago and learned quickly he has nothing of substance to offer. I could not believe TED gave him time to waste so many other peoples time.
His ideas should be examined in other venues where they can be examined and challenged. For his theories to be presented as "Ideas worth spreading" without refutation is an insult to ones intelligence. My respect for TED has been diminished greatly.
Toby Randel
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your Opinion, man"
What you need are more facts and less outrage.
It seems a bit dangerous to me that ideas about science should be censored to fit in with the a certain worldview.
sandy stone 30+
Frank Matera
Let me guess all the Newtonian Scientists thought the same of anyone who dared suggest there may be more than they current know? They are just "poor thinkers". Burn the heretics and poor thinkers at the stake and sure as hell don't allow them to talk about it publically on Tedx!
Can't have people "Free thinking" now can we. Your science isn't a science at all, it is starting to sound more like a religious cult.
Brian Hughes 500+
Emily McManus 200+
After extending this conversation for an additional day, I'm just sending a quick reminder that it'll close in about 5 hours.
And to say an early THANK YOU -- this has been a truly fascinating conversation to be part of. I've read every word and so have some of my coworkers. We won't be able to make a decision that pleases every single flavor of opinion on this thread, but: You have been heard.
And in fact, the quality of this conversation has inspired some of my coworkers to think about an interesting new project for TED.com (stay tuned...).
Until the clock runs out, please keep chiming in -- especially if you have a new twist to consider, like reine de violettes' fascinating opinion on American communication methods earlier today: http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_tedx_talk.html?c=618581
Toby Randel
Frank Matera
The comments in here from the anti-Sheldrake brigade only further prove how right he was. So many assumptions and proclamations about Sheldrake's work, yet not the first shred of evidence to back up their claims about Sheldrake. It is basically character assassination to try and silence the heretic.
This quote which basically explains the history of science, says it all:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
It's sad that we have so many of the Anti-Sheldrake brigade stuck in the First and Second stage... holding back humanity and real science... just like so many of their ancestors did 100s of years before them.
Randy Gault
Being opposed doesn't mean an idea is right.
In most cases, it means the bulk of the evidence shows that some other idea is better.
sandy stone 30+
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
This talk is currently posted at Sheldrakes website also.
http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html
Cory Warshaw 500+
For instance, the idea of crystal memory or rat memory. If this was true then after millions of years of forming all over the universe it should be nearly energetically free to make ice. And rats should be amazingly smart. Also the psychic phenomena is hypothesis that cannot be falsified, as one can always say we simply aren't able to measure it. Could it be true, maybe but it's not something anyone can ever prove one way or the other.
I know that TED is a place to challenge conventional ideas, but I think above all the talks have to be factually and logically sound. I think he has a right to talk about his theories, but as a TEDx organizer, I do not want falsehoods associated with the brand I work so hard to promote. That being said the issue of censorship is a tricky one, it would be best if he never was given the stage, but that is not the case. I think that at the very least a disclaimer saying, "These opinions reflect personal views and not those of TED or TEDx as a whole" would be a good start.
sandy stone 30+
Targ, R. & Puthoff, H. Nature 252, 602–607 (1974).
Puthoff, & Targ, R. Proc. IEEE 64, 329–354 (1976).
http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf
Mandeep Singh
Science Principle 101: You can never prove ANYTHING. You can only disprove it. And until you do, the theory gains more credence.
Regarding psychic phenomena - if you're truly open to considering it, you should check out books like "The Field" (Lynne McTaggart) and "The Conscious Universe" (Dean Radin). Delicious stuff. Even if you find eventually that you don't want to believe any of it, you can still pretend you saw a really cool movie or something!
Cheers,
Mandeep
Brian Hughes 500+
I want you to be a speaking at my next TEDx! Are you coming to Vancouver next spring?
Jon Freeman
sandy stone 30+
Toby Randel
BTW - I would give you a thumbs up, but I'm spent :)
sandy stone 30+
Randy Gault
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Toby Randel
The thing that has surprised me much about the so called skeptics of Rupert Sheldrake is that their arguments have been so weak - even the celebrity skeptics like Coyne and Myers. It is like they have been caught with their trousers down, and they are just fumbling around in damage control mode. They want Rupert Sheldrake silenced because his arguments question their dogmatic beliefs, and they are incapable of dealing with these arguments. Easier to say that he is a "woo meister" than to actually tackle his claims about scientific dogmatism.
My guess is that the TED people have already made their mind up about Sheldrake. I hope not. My post will likely be taken as a rant, but I'm just so annoyed by this attempt by a very vocal group to silence a legitimate argument. It is up to the people at TED to decide on what videos they wish to put their name to, but it seems to me that if they do decide to censor Sheldrake they will be damaging their own credibility. The arguments raised by Rupert are not going away.
Randy Gault
There is not an equivalence between unsupported opinion, and evidence-based theories.
If this speaker had better ideas than current science possesses, and could back it up with evidence, he would be rich, honoured with awards, and the leader of a horde of scientists all seeking similar riches and honours.
The fact that so many TED viewers cannot even tell the difference between good science and woo shows what may be the most serious flaw in the 20-minute-or-less pizza-delivery sound-byte format promoted by TED. It's great for opinion, but not so great for getting at the truth.
Joe Martin
What is TEDxTalks to do? It has inadvertently touched paths with one of the more deep-seated, often-times unpleasant, yet important and exciting controversies extant in science today. Should it opt out by declaring Sheldrake guilty-as-charged, thereby appeasing those who want his head......
......or should it invite Rupert Sheldrake and his “opponents” to a series of TEDx sponsored debates?
I cannot think of a “hotter” ticket, both in terms of its relevance to science and its crowd-pleasing potential.
Ben Kadel
While we may rightly question some of his hypotheses, that in no way makes his argument "unscientific." In fact, it is the very essence of science. The nature of science is to propose new theories and explanations that do a better job of explaining the gap between existing theories and data. These educated guesses then serve as the basis for experiments that can test previously accepted assumptions and/or provide a more refined context in which the theory applies. Relativity doesn't invalidate Newtonian physics, it merely contains it to the realm of relatively large scales. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't disprove evolution, it just refines our understanding on its mechanisms.
To tell you the truth, the thing that I find most shocking is not the presentation - which would make sense in most "scientific method 101" courses - but the reaction by some that it is pseudo-science. I would say the reaction itself proves his point more convincingly than his actual presentation.
As to the "factual error" around government funding, it is such a minor and inconsequential point that it's hardly worth mentioning. At worst, he could be criticized for poorly chosen phrasing, but not for the essential correctness of the idea.
In short, I have seen far less scientific presentations with greater factual inaccuracy than this live long and popular lives on TED . The desire by some to censor this talk is the best argument I can think of for keeping it and actually promoting it more broadly
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Torbjörn Larsson
Token biochemist - published a review once in biochemistry. [ Google Scholar]
Peddler of pseudoscience - rejected parapsychology, untestable "morphic field".
"Members of the scientific community consider Sheldrake's claims to be currently unfalsifiable and therefore outside the scope of scientific experiment. The "morphic field" concept is believed by many to fall into the realm of pseudoscience.[36][44][45]". [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake ]
Sheldrake indulges in character assassination of science, calling results painstakingly derived through hundreds of years as solid "dogma" and painting it with random philosophic ideas that science is not responsible for. And he is unashamed about doing so as transparently one of the many "Dawkins' fleas", sucking his book title from Dawkins' "The God Delusion".
This talk is not about science and it is about selling pseudoscience, both enough reasons to withdraw the talk. Please do so!
Kevin Munro
Conor O'Higgins 20+
On a point of information: he published three articles in Nature and was a fellow of biochemistry at Cambridge. It does not matter, but I don't think we should let factual errors go uncorrected.
The Ageing, Growth and Death of Cells, Nature, Vol. 250, No. 5465, pp. 381-385, August 2nd 1974
Sheldrake, A. R. "Polar auxin transport in leaves of monocotyledons." (1972): 352-353.
Production of Auxin by Detached Leaves, Nature (1968), 217, 195
Ben Kadel
Ken brown 30+
Barry Palmer 50+
Ken brown 30+
Barry Palmer 50+
Ken brown 30+
Mandeep Singh
I thought he was very clear in separating the scientific method (which he wholeheartedly endorses) and the assumptions that he believes currently go unquestioned (and he laid out ten of these.), which - by definition - have to be taken as starting truths, and therefore can only be "believed in" ... until shaken to its roots, and even then, only when majority view switches to allowing them to be accepted as the "new" truths.
It's been the history of science through and through ... starting from the flat earth, to Newtons laws, to Einstein's ... to whatever new world-view will happen to hold sway 100 years from now. I mean, surely there is not ONE person amongst us who believes that we have uncovered all of the world's mysteries? Or, that the next SURPRISE will come from a linear extension of current world-views and not from a fundamentally disruptive paradigm?
In fact, it is PRECISELY this track record of how Scientific Discovery has historically played out that makes his ACTUAL theories so appealing. And it appears that he has designed experiments surrounding his hypotheses, and got interesting, confirming data, AND others have replicated his experiments and got confirming data, as well.
In the face of this, I can only imagine two sets of reactions. ONE ... SUSPICION and imagining that subversive sets of people are CONSPIRING to foist all this mumbo-jumbo on the Scientifically Inclined ... which, unfortunately, appears to be more of a reaction expected from BELIEVERS rather than from Scientifically Minded people. Or TWO ... a reasonable "Okay, fair enough; we'll take on doing these experiments ourselves and evaluate the results and get back to you".
Personally, since my curiosity has been piqued, and I'd love to find out more, I'd LOVE to hear back about the results garnered by people who have gone down route TWO. So, dear TEDsters - any links to any such information?
Cheers!
Mandeep
Torbjörn Larsson
Yes, most theorists believes we have now understood the laws underlying everyday physics (with the standard cosmology (SC) and Standard Model of particles (SM)), and that they won't likely change. This is something every literate person should try to grasp, even though the results are 40 (SM) and 10 (SC) years old. Indeed the last SM field, the Higgs field, was just observed last year.
_No one_ "started" with "flat Earth" during the time period of science or even the last couple of thousands years, google the flat Earth myth.
No one can replicate Sheldrake since he hasn't quantified his claims. that is the problem and why it is pseudoscience. You can google that too, or read the link in my previous comment.
Mandeep Singh
That's what I'm calling starting truths.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
Now, what if these assumptions are NOT true? What if there are a 1000 different factors that are particular to our environment on Earth that are invisible to us - just like water is invisible to fish - that makes all of our science really TRUE, but only within the particular circumstances that are AUTOMATICALLY getting controlled for simply because they are there, they are consistent, and they are invisible to us?
"Flat Earth" is a good example. To anyone alive at the time, it would have been "obvious". What was wrong with these Copernicus and Galileo types? Couldn't they SEE? That the Earth was flat wasn't an ASSUMPTION ... it was very real, SELF-EVIDENT Truth. Yet, if people suspended their beliefs for a few minutes to listen, and consider what Galileo and co. were saying ... well, IF the World WAS round, planetary orbits became MUCH easier to explain. Hmm. Fast forward many years, and now you have photographs of our lovely blue globe.
Forget that. In MY lifetime, I had a colleague come tell me that Space was curved. I looked at him as if he was Nuts. Space is "obviously" the ABSENCE of stuff. How can NOTHING be curved? Yet, once I was able to suspend disbelief, I learned something.
These are fun times, guys. Allow yourselves a bit of wonder. You lose nothing. You could gain a lot.
Nathan Pieplow
Sheldrake's talk is clearly pseudoscience. It meets the definition of pseudoscience because 1) he uses the rhetoric of science and presents himself as a scientist, but 2) the entire goal of his talk is discredit science as it is currently practiced. It's not a focused surgical strike on particular types of "bad" science, but a massive philosophical broadside that, if accepted at face value, would force all scientists to recant most of what they think they know. Sheldrake's central message is that science is largely wrong and that mainstream scientists should be distrusted. Intentionally or not, it plays into and reinforces unfortunate lines of thinking that can have dangerous consequences, from poor environmental regulation to the fatal mistreatment of disease.
It's not a question of censorship. Sheldrake and his fantasies about telepathic rats will live forever on YouTube and elsewhere. (Long live the telepathic rats!) The question is whether his ideas deserve the TED seal of approval -- whether they rise to TED's initial standard.
It comes down to what TED is all about. Are these talks supposed to be the best distillations of the best learning achievements of the best modern thinkers? Or is TED a place for society-wide brainstorming, in which everybody tosses out their ideas (good, bad, or crazy) to see which ones have the staying power to survive as memes?
If TED's purpose is the former, some serious housecleaning is in order (and not just with Sheldrake). If it's the latter, Sheldrake and his ilk can stay on the stage, but many of us will continue to downwardly revise our expectations of your institution.
JF Fortier
Not at all. He claims that the materialistic philosophical position is mainly taken for granted and that influences the way science is done in a way we might not suspect. Science as it is done now works very well in a vast majority of domains and I don't hear that Rupert Sheldrake has problems with that.
But on some specific issues, like consciousness for example, he explains why the materialistic philosophical position may prevent us to do science as it should be done.
But be sure that if is talk is removed, it will illustrate perfectly what he just said!
Barry Palmer 50+
JF Fortier
Leo Abrantes
I'm all for keeping the video on your archives. It can teach someone something about anti-science thought in the future. I cannot, however, say I will follow the talks of TEDex with interest or regard them as "an idea worth spreading"
Kevin Munro
Torbjörn Larsson
Here we can see that scientists have asked Sheldrake for evidence and he has produced none. "Members of the scientific community consider Sheldrake's claims to be currently unfalsifiable and therefore outside the scope of scientific experiment. The "morphic field" concept is believed by many to fall into the realm of pseudoscience.[36][44][45]". [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake ]
Skeptics looks at the facts objectively. Why didn't you do that?
Kevin Munro
from Merriam-Webster: "1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object."
This represents a bias and since you haven't looked at the data (not as you say "facts") your posts are closed minded, unscientific and hypocritical.
P.S. Who requested data that wasn't provided by Sheldrake?
Sherry Heinze
Whether or not what Rupert Sheldrake says is correct, something from his talk may be the key someone else needs. If you can prove him wrong, give a talk and do that. Taking it down now will generate distrust in the whole TED process.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Torbjörn Larsson
Also, in both cases these people do harm with their lies. Harmful activities are often frown at or even banned, certainly many forms of scams are.
And what is it with people and the flat Earth myth?
"The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1] The idea seems to have been widespread during the first half of the 20th century, so that the Members of the Historical Association in 1945 stated that:
"The idea that educated men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching."[2]
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks."
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_myth ]
Pete Chapman
Barry Palmer 50+
The Theory of Relativity is the best we have for explaining large scale physics, and it is flawed. The "laws of nature" break down when applied to black holes and the theory is inadequate to explain some other phenomena.
Quantum Mechanics has no adequate explanation for the particle/wave duality. Noted physicists admit that the results of double-slit experiments remain a mystery. The math is amazingly accurately in its predictions, but the true nature of the subatomic world is still waiting to be discovered.
These and other areas of science that remain stubbornly resistant to the traditional approach to theory and research indicate that the traditional approach may be inadequate. In order to develop the Theory of Relativity, Einstein had to discard a lot of old thinking. The next advance in the physical sciences just might REQUIRE discarding ideas that are now considered as part of the foundation of physics. Sheldrake is trying to open minds to new approaches. His specifics are just examples that might or might not be correct, but his effort to break down the boundaries of the box imposed by the "scientific worldview" (not science) is admirable and perhaps necessary.
Troy Tice
One could also add consciousness, which is probably the most baffling puzzle in all of science.
Still, I anticipate some commenters would say that just because these mysteries exist does not necessarily mean that psi does, for example. I would have to agree. The existence of psi or other anomalies must rely on its own evidence. It just so happens that that evidence is stronger than most would suspect or admit.
Torbjörn Larsson
In short this time: Relativity applies to black holes, there is no "duality" in QM but you can observe quantum relativistic fields which is _the whole point_ physically speaking, Einstein didn't discard but introduced new physics (special relativistic mechanic out of classical relativistic mechanic), et cetera.
Sheldrake is trying a) to scam people out of money for his talks and books without having to do any work in science and b) to close minds against the amazing progress of science. We _know_ there are no more mystical forces ("morphic fields") as the Standard Model (SM) of particles can predict values with 11 decimals. This is because the vacuum has the amazing property that everything that is not forbidden by physic law is happening - so since SM is correct up to 100's of GeV, way beyond chemical phenomena of ~eV, there are no more fields, no more forces to account for in daily life. (Of course the details remains to fill in in many cases. But the fundamentals are _understood_ now, with SM and standard cosmology (SC).)
This is something every literate person should try to grasp, even though the results are 40 (SM) and 10 (SC) years old. Indeed the last SM field, the Higgs field, was just observed last year.
Barry Palmer 50+
Gabriel Roberts
Torbjörn Larsson
Sheldrake has all the opportunity in the world to do experiments on his ideas and publish them in peer review. He has failed to do so. Case closed.
Derek Young 30+
Torbjörn Larsson
Meanwhile, science has has inspired a lot of thought and interest about the real world. It is amazing what we can tell about it, and that Sheldrake is utterly wrong is but the most uninteresting part. We _know_ there are no more mystical forces ("morphic fields") as the Standard Model (SM) of particles can predict values with 11 decimals. This is because the vacuum has the amazing property that everything that is not forbidden by physic law is happening - so since SM is correct up to 100's of GeV, way beyond chemical phenomena of ~eV, there are no more fields, no more forces to account for in daily life.
That the vacuum is like that is amazing, that SM is so precise is wondrous and that we still haven't seen dark matter that constitutes the bulk part of the matter is exciting! Sheldrake's woo - yawn. There are 100's like him out there, utter bores all of them, no one with any new ideas but recycled crap from the 18th and 19th century or even further back.