Mar 20 2013: Yes, I read it. And that's why I wrote what I wrote.
"Materialist" is the new bogey man. And quoting a scientist, not his experimental results, or offering new results, does not proof a thing about the claim of quicker, easier crystallization.
Maybe it's because a lot of people has tried to study afterlife and has gotten no result at all when they are rigorous. See Susan Blackmore, for instance.
Mar 20 2013: There's a lot of interesting things on citizen science. That's a way Dr. Sheldrake could gather more data in a rigorous way. I suggest collaborating with somebody like James Randi for experimental deisign
Mar 20 2013: No. I would not. I have been in that position, I have been slandered on national press in my country, and I have been slandered in some websites.I don't like it, of course, but I do not claim there's a war against me, neither that there's a witch hunt against me. I know about wars and real witch hunting. I respect those who suffer too much a lot to make outrageous claims.
Dr. Sheldrake has gotten a lot of publicity, even if that particular video has been moved to a different place, he still has his publications, the video can be seen, and his web site and work are still available for anybody interested. So, yes, you are doing a mountain out of a molehill, a Jupiter out an asteroid, a supernova out of a white dwarf. That is not helpful.
Also, don't think that people disagree with you because they hate you or want to harm you. People can disagree without that being true. Making motives out of nowhere is not helpful for you or for TED, or anybody else.
Mar 20 2013: Also, avoiding throwing the world "materialist" as an insult, would help. It avoids a deeper discussion. Many scientists believe in an afterlife, and we accept as facts things weirder than Dr. Sheldrakes claims. Particles that come out from nothing, places where even light cannot come out, alcohol among the stars, that we are very similar to mice and horses at the genetic level, and many more things that are counter intuitive. The difference is that we have strong evidence about these weird, mind blowing claims. Quantum mechanics is weird, nearly impossible to understand and bizarre, but we accept it. It's not a matter of accepting what we'd like to be true, but of accepting the evidence. But often people with weak or zero evidence resort to name calling when asked for more evidence.
Maybe tomorrow Dr. Sheldrake will be praised as the stubborn man who fought the establishment, the one who saw a whole new field, boiling with new opportunities and wonders. Maybe. But for now, he still needs to show a lot more evidence than quoting a thee words of a scientist, instead of new experimental results.
I have been proved wrong many times in my life, in science, it's often delightful. I doubt this will be the case here. But if so, the wonderful perspectives would outweigh any negative feelings for being proved wrong. That's why I am scientist, not because I am right all the time, or I pretend I am, but because the universe is beautiful, complex and mysterious, and I find pleasure understanding how things work out.
While it's understandable that we get passionate about beliefs that are dear to us, I ask people to please chill out and take a break. Let's not get so excited and blow things about perspective.
I read words like 'war', and 'witch hunting' on the messages here. Please, don't use them. There is real war right now, going on, we are just about to commemorate 10 years of the beginning of the war in Iraq, of the loss of so many lives, the destruction of so many dreams, the loss of limbs, health and sanity for hundreds of thousands. Even today there are people, children sometimes, accused of witchcraft, tortured, expelled out of their homes and sometimes even murdered by their relatives or by a mob.
Neither you or Dr. Sheldrake is going to be assaulted or killed because TED disagreed with you. Neither you or Dr. Sheldrake is going to lose their home and be shunned by their relatives because we have a disagreement, no matter how big, over Dr. Sheldrake's claims. So, please calm down and stop making mountains of a molehill, stop dishonoring the suffering and pain of the victims of real war and real witch hunting by comparing them to an academic argument. Please have some empathy and think twice before making these incensing statements.
That being said, Dr. Sheldrake could get more support for his hypotheses if he would offer stronger evidence. So, rather than quoting experts who might be talking metaphorically about crystal growth, or praising the way scientists do learn techniques from each other the way to crystallize new compounds (by hard effort, not by morphogenetic fields), it'd be better to support these arguments with carefully designed experiments and precisely measured results that prove this claim, around the world, in different labs, using exactly the same procedure.
TEDCred score: +3251.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
"Materialist" is the new bogey man. And quoting a scientist, not his experimental results, or offering new results, does not proof a thing about the claim of quicker, easier crystallization.
Maybe it's because a lot of people has tried to study afterlife and has gotten no result at all when they are rigorous. See Susan Blackmore, for instance.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Dr. Sheldrake has gotten a lot of publicity, even if that particular video has been moved to a different place, he still has his publications, the video can be seen, and his web site and work are still available for anybody interested. So, yes, you are doing a mountain out of a molehill, a Jupiter out an asteroid, a supernova out of a white dwarf. That is not helpful.
Also, don't think that people disagree with you because they hate you or want to harm you. People can disagree without that being true. Making motives out of nowhere is not helpful for you or for TED, or anybody else.
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Maybe tomorrow Dr. Sheldrake will be praised as the stubborn man who fought the establishment, the one who saw a whole new field, boiling with new opportunities and wonders. Maybe. But for now, he still needs to show a lot more evidence than quoting a thee words of a scientist, instead of new experimental results.
I have been proved wrong many times in my life, in science, it's often delightful. I doubt this will be the case here. But if so, the wonderful perspectives would outweigh any negative feelings for being proved wrong. That's why I am scientist, not because I am right all the time, or I pretend I am, but because the universe is beautiful, complex and mysterious, and I find pleasure understanding how things work out.
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
While it's understandable that we get passionate about beliefs that are dear to us, I ask people to please chill out and take a break. Let's not get so excited and blow things about perspective.
I read words like 'war', and 'witch hunting' on the messages here. Please, don't use them. There is real war right now, going on, we are just about to commemorate 10 years of the beginning of the war in Iraq, of the loss of so many lives, the destruction of so many dreams, the loss of limbs, health and sanity for hundreds of thousands. Even today there are people, children sometimes, accused of witchcraft, tortured, expelled out of their homes and sometimes even murdered by their relatives or by a mob.
Neither you or Dr. Sheldrake is going to be assaulted or killed because TED disagreed with you. Neither you or Dr. Sheldrake is going to lose their home and be shunned by their relatives because we have a disagreement, no matter how big, over Dr. Sheldrake's claims. So, please calm down and stop making mountains of a molehill, stop dishonoring the suffering and pain of the victims of real war and real witch hunting by comparing them to an academic argument. Please have some empathy and think twice before making these incensing statements.
That being said, Dr. Sheldrake could get more support for his hypotheses if he would offer stronger evidence. So, rather than quoting experts who might be talking metaphorically about crystal growth, or praising the way scientists do learn techniques from each other the way to crystallize new compounds (by hard effort, not by morphogenetic fields), it'd be better to support these arguments with carefully designed experiments and precisely measured results that prove this claim, around the world, in different labs, using exactly the same procedure.