Mar 18 2013: No, it's in the meaning. And you are reading your own meaning into Sheldrake's comment. You have set yourself up as judge, prosecutor and jury. Stop playing pedantic word games. Ad hominem attacks are below the level of discourse in scientific and peer-reviewed journals.
Mar 18 2013: $441 million is still paltry, still trivial and still beneath contempt. 0.34% of the total budget is an appallingly repugnant commitment to the scientific investigation of complementary and alternative medicine a term that is itself insulting. Integrative medicine should have a much higher proportion of the NIH budget - instead of 0.34% - how about 34%? According to my calculations, 34% of the $30.9 billion is about $10.5 billion, a far more realistic figure for the advancement of science.
Mar 14 2013: Agreed - spending $441 million would be significant if paltry, however the correct figure is $441 THOUSAND - beneath paltry - beneath trivial - beneath contempt.
TEDCred score: +0.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Did Rupert Sheldrake make a factual error?
A reply on Conversation: Did Rupert Sheldrake make a factual error?
A reply on Conversation: Did Rupert Sheldrake make a factual error?