Rupert Sheldrake
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-04-2016, 06:36 AM
Rupert Sheldrake
I don't know if this has ever been discussed on this hollowed forum before so my apologies if it has.

In 2013, Rupert Sheldrake gave a TEDx talk which was subsequently banned. I've seen the video a couple of times. In it he states, amongst other things, that physical constants such as the speed of light aren't constants and they do vary with time. He also has some interesting ideas on something he calls Morphic Resonance.

The issue is, he seems plausible. If the guy is a nutter, then he isn't obviously so and does provide some evidence for his assertions unlike Ken Ham and Kent Hovind et al.

What's the thoughts of people on here, is Rupert Sheldrake a nutter or not and why?

Here's the video:




Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2016, 02:50 PM
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
Yes, a nutter...

Morphic Resonance.

Morphic resonance is a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake in his 1981 book A New Science of Life. He uses the expression to refer to what he thinks is "the basis of memory in nature... the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species."

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2016, 03:20 PM
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
That's one idea not worth spreading. Wink

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cactus's post
17-04-2016, 11:08 PM
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
Complete nutter. Anybody who starts with a rant on how science is a dogmatic, materialistic worldview is typically interested in having their audience open their minds so wide that their brains dribble out. Sheldrake is a botanist turned parpsychologist and his "morphic resonance" sounds like the bastard offspring of Lamarckism and telepathy.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
18-04-2016, 02:28 AM
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
(17-04-2016 03:20 PM)cactus Wrote:  That's one idea not worth spreading. Wink

That's the point.

This talk was not BANNED.

It was BINNED.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
18-04-2016, 03:18 AM
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
Thanks guys.

So Rupert Sheldrake - MA (Cantab), PhD (Cantab), Frank Knox Fellow (Harvard) - turned idiot?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2016, 03:27 AM (This post was last modified: 18-04-2016 03:30 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
(18-04-2016 03:18 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Thanks guys.

So Rupert Sheldrake - MA (Cantab), PhD (Cantab), Frank Knox Fellow (Harvard) - turned idiot?

Not entirely.

I have no problem with his opinion that the scientific community must be wary of thinking it has perfected a worldview or even that the method has no flaws. There have been many examples over the centuries of scientists declaring that there is nothing left to learn.

It's just the conclusions he draws are ... well ... y'know... 'immaterial'.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
18-04-2016, 04:02 AM
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
(18-04-2016 03:27 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 03:18 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Thanks guys.

So Rupert Sheldrake - MA (Cantab), PhD (Cantab), Frank Knox Fellow (Harvard) - turned idiot?

Not entirely.

I have no problem with his opinion that the scientific community must be wary of thinking it has perfected a worldview or even that the method has no flaws. There have been many examples over the centuries of scientists declaring that there is nothing left to learn.

It's just the conclusions he draws are ... well ... y'know... 'immaterial'.

Dodgy

Reminds me of Professor John Taylor. He went all metaphysical and paid the price.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2016, 05:07 AM
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
(18-04-2016 03:27 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 03:18 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Thanks guys.

So Rupert Sheldrake - MA (Cantab), PhD (Cantab), Frank Knox Fellow (Harvard) - turned idiot?

Not entirely.

I have no problem with his opinion that the scientific community must be wary of thinking it has perfected a worldview or even that the method has no flaws. There have been many examples over the centuries of scientists declaring that there is nothing left to learn.

It's just the conclusions he draws are ... well ... y'know... 'immaterial'.

Dodgy

What about his claims that the speed of light varies?

Any thoughts there?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2016, 11:07 PM
RE: Rupert Sheldrake
(18-04-2016 05:07 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 03:27 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Not entirely.

I have no problem with his opinion that the scientific community must be wary of thinking it has perfected a worldview or even that the method has no flaws. There have been many examples over the centuries of scientists declaring that there is nothing left to learn.

It's just the conclusions he draws are ... well ... y'know... 'immaterial'.

Dodgy

What about his claims that the speed of light varies?

Any thoughts there?

Show me the data.

Here's another one...





It's not too difficult for a sceptical mind to pick apart the folly above (category errors; appeal to authority; appeal to emotion) but it does not really help to label the presenter as a nutter... better to just point out how and where they went wrong.

I have no problem show-casing these things but take the case of Dan Dennett and his response to Pastor Rick Warren.

A wider question relates to the devaluing of the TED / TEDx brand.

Some ideas are worth spreading and others are worth containing with a counter-idea, i.e. there are ideas worth debunking




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: