Michael Larkin

Someone is shy

Michael hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Michael Larkin
Posted over 1 year ago
Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.
Yes. Sheldrake has many papers published in peer-reviewed journals. His papers, grouped into categories, include: Hormone Production In Plants http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/hormone/index.html Auxin Transport In Plants http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/auxin/index.html Cell Differentiation http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/cell/index.html# The Ageing and Death of Cells http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/ageing/index.html Crop Physiology http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/cropphysio/index.html Morphic Resonance http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/index.html Experimenter Effects http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/experimenter/index.html The Sense of Being Stared At http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/staring/index.html Unexplained Powers of Animals http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/index.html Telepathy http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/telepathy/index.html But you see, it's nothing to do with evidence in peer-reviewed journals. Even Nobel prize winners, if they stray off the reservation, are not immune to scurrilous and ill-informed attacks by the intellectually lazy and ideologically programmed. Examples include Hannes Alfvén, Dan Shechtman and Luc Montagnier. The rule is this: stick within accepted paradigms, and you may well be lauded; but challenge established paradigms, and you will be vilified and marginalised. Paradigms must not be challenged! But if paradigms are never challenged, then paradigms can never change, and that will lead to the ossification of science. Challenges should be given a fair shake; and nothing anyone can do, in the end, will stop truth, whatever it might be, from emerging. Certainly not TED, which I think has made major blunders by censoring ideas that may eventually prove to be more worth spreading than most of their current output, and thereby greatly damaged its reputation.
Noface
Michael Larkin
Posted over 1 year ago
Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
I agree one shouldn't be able to equate religion with science, and Sheldrake would definitely agree with that too. However, it's a question of who the religionists are. Your attitude in the posts you have been making seems indistinguishable to me from that held by members of a number of fundamentalist groups I could mention: creationists, for example. Sheldrake offends you because he dares question your deepest metaphysical beliefs, and you are are coming across as if being engaged on a holy crusade, or a jihad, against him. TED has done a number of talks far more off-the-wall than Sheldrake's, but Sheldrake is one of the most articulate and popular critics of scientism, which is why pseudo-sceptics are out in force, making all sorts of unsubstantiated assertions. They feel particularly threatened by him. And they so they should, because he has marked their card. The truth really hurts.
Noface
Michael Larkin
Posted over 1 year ago
Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
How utterly depressing that TED should even be considering censoring Rupert Sheldrake. The guy has a very strong intellect and has done plenty of orthodox scientific work in Biochemistry and cell biology. It's because he has this experience that he's able to identify and question scientific paradigms. He's also not a bad philosopher, and that's one area where many scientists are uneducated. These guys who are trying to dictate to me what I should and should not be able to see should be ashamed of themselves. If TED does censor the talk, that will be it for me. The sour taste in my mouth will likely prevent me from continuing to watch its talks, a few of which I haven't liked or agreed with, but which it never crossed my mind to seek to be censored. I have a science degree (zoology) and some postgrad research experience. Even the limited amount of that I've had enables me to see that the way science is conducted frequently leaves much to be desired, and there are certain organisations and prominent people within those who are the true woo-meisters, if truth be known. They are completely unable to see that the underpinnings of their views are as metaphysical as the inquisitionists, with whom they share quite a lot in common.