sheldrake

Wiseman also complains that he and his colleagues were badly misrepresented in Sheldrake's paper, and that Sheldrake tried to present excuses for the failed trials.

For anyone who doesn't know, Sheldrake has for years been trying to convince people that telepathy is real.

And making that claim is pretty convincing evidence that Sheldrake doesn't understand the physics that he's so upset about.

Rupert Sheldrake gave a TEDx talk on his non-scientific opinions, which wasn't considered to be appropriate.

Or perhaps the onus ought to be on Sheldrake to prove his theories rigorously first?

And if this talk is any example, Sheldrake really doesn't know what he's talking about, at least where physics is concerned.

If Sheldrake or whoever makes a valid point then it is what it is.

There is in which he does a trialogue with Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph Abraham.

Maybe it's because as Sheldrake says, you can't prove or disproof those dogmas.

That is all Sheldrake is asking us to do here.....

Why didn't Sheldrake get this published under peer review?

Rupert Sheldrake had a great TED talk on the dogma's of modern science, and was even further legitimized when a private council of TED banned the talk.

As far as I can tell, none of Sheldrake's hypotheses are "dumb." Some are probably wrong, some may be right.

So yes, Sheldrake is a "science critic." So are many of the purveyors of homeopathy, of miracle cancer cures, of coffee enemas, of dowsing and of Intelligent Design.

I would even suggest that there are more and more scientific authors showing up who are helping to bridge the gap between "chaos magic" concepts and hard science (see Rupert Sheldrake, Bruce Lipton, Michael Talbot, and others) "I regard consciousness as fundamental.

'This week big G was slightly up, the charge on the electron was down, the speed of light held steady,' and so on." If Sheldrake expects the journal Nature to eventually publish weekly reports on the current value of the speed of light, that's a pretty clear statement that he thinks the speed of light isn't constant.

A current example is the article on Rupert Sheldrake,[1] which has recently been subjected to vigorous edit-warring, perhaps as part of a publicity campaign by followers of Sheldrake.

This struck me when the author, in his introduction, mentioned a previous Q&A with telepathy proponent Rupert Sheldrake.

That paper also mentions that three independent scientists were invited to attempt to replicate Sheldrake's work.