|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.227.194.140
In Reply to: RE: Lets see.... posted by unclestu on February 15, 2013 at 17:58:23
You can't even provide a link or cut and paste what the heck you're talking about. Who cares if Sheldrake objected to some procedure or even the test that won the contest. Sheldrake was not refuting his theory. You do see the difference, don't you? (That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer).The plain fact is that Sheldrake himself has not refuted his own theory of Morphic Resonance. Just because a theory is difficult to prove doesn't mean that it is not true. That's the whole point of his book, Presence of the Past, that Sheldrake certainly realizes the theory is difficult to prove but that there is considerable evidence to support it. Naysayers like yourself are fond of ignoring evidence and whining, "where's the proof?" You're just being superstitious.
Edits: 02/16/13 02/16/13Follow Ups:
Sheldrake refutes the experiment you claim is proof of his theory. Note I never said his theory was incorrect, but there is sufficient writings to show that David Bohm, the noted physicist, never fully endorsed Sheldrake, no matter how much you want to claim that it is so.As such, despite your addled reasoning:
1. There is NO proof of Morphic resonance, and as a matter of fact Sheldrake himself says any such proof may not be possible.
2. To quote Bohm's name as actively supporting morphic resonance, does NOT match the information contained in Bohm's body of work.
3. Some of the examples in Sheldrake's book run contrary to, say, the work of Francis Crick. Certainly the molecular formation of the crystals mentioned falls actually in support of current thoughts of quantum theory, and has no relation to morphic resonance, since the electron quanta is what really determines the molecular formation, and which is also very predictable. If you are saying that quantum theory is a manifestation of morphic resonance, then so be it, but then with the quantum theory many things are explainabe, aren't they?
4. You desire validation so much you take an experiment put forth by Sheldrake and when later refuted by the man, you still claim that it is "proof" of his theory? Please reread your backfire effect article on wikipedia, as that seems to be your primary source of information. If that is not the backfire effect in operation, I don't know what would serve as a better example.
As for the precise quotes and such , I don't bother to memorize data which has no further use. That info was given in a previous thread on Morphic resonance on this very forum, BTw, and you were an integral part of tht particular discussion. However, it is a tribute to your reading comprehension that you retain no memory of that thread. IIR , and if you care to look it up, it was contained in a web based book on Sheldrake's website. But then why bother, if you didn't accept the refutaion back then why should you change your mind ?
BACKFIRE EFFECT.......
hahahahahaha
Edits: 02/16/13
You never said his theory is incorrect? You just did a couple of posts ago. I'm afraid your memory thing is kicking in again. Allow me to refresh your memory.You wrote,
"I may not agree with Rupert Sheldrake's theory but right now I am reading Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past, which, instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief that he is wrong, simply because he ignores many facets of modern physics."
So, which is it - his theory is correct, his theory is incorrect, or you're just confused? I know, you'll try to keep an open mind. LOL. How does it feel, being the Poster Boy for the Backfire Effect, you know, what with "instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief he is wrong." The very definition of the Backfire Effect...now you can say you learned at least one thing today.
Edits: 02/16/13 02/16/13
lack of reading comprehension skills again:
I wrote I do not agree with his theory, with the implication that no "proof" was forthcoming nor revealed. You, on the other hand, are proclaiming "proof" when in fact there is none, and that so called "proof" you proclaim was refuted by the originator of the theory himself. That is pretty pathetic, and, as I have pointed out, the backfire effect's primary example would be YOU.
Not agreeing with a theory has nothing to do with right or wrong in reality. I believe there are many other much more rational explanations for his supposed examples and, as a matter of fact, many of his examples are not universally true. A theory is just that, a theory, a presumed supposition. Proof is another animal entirely. I can disagree with the theory because I do not see sufficient proof. You on the other hand see proof when there is NONE. Just because you can see no other causality, does not constitute "proof", simply a refusal to open your mind.
LOL !
Einstein's theory remained simply a theory for many years, until visual confirmation was made during an eclipse. There were many doubters before the visual observation backed his prediction. The fact that there was visual and photographic confirmation which fell in the mathematically predicted range and that there were no other plausible explanations would constitute proof for me.
Sheldrake has nothing to show. Geoff Kaitt has nothing to show, but, at least, Sheldrake is MAN enough to admit the failure of his experiment. I have far more respect for Sheldrake because of the admission.
"Not agreeing with a theory has nothing to do with right or wrong in reality"
If you had said "in practice" instead of "in reality" then I might have agreed with you. However, the use of the word "reality" has connotations that do not consort with my epistemology. Also, "right" and "wrong" have unnecessary personal and moral connotations. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Do I detect resort to authority in your argumentation? (At least you aren't using disputatious words such as "claim" and "evidence".)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
on the same page, and, yes, I do agree I should have worded it better.
what I meant was a theory is simply that: a statement with no necessary means of proof. If there is no proof, there is no right or wrong to the theory.
I believe part of the issue is with the popular vernacular.
Einstein's theory of relativity, while it was once a theory, has moved far beyond and has been proven, and perhaps may be better stated as the laws of relativity. But the popular parlance keeps it just as the theory.
As far as theories are concerned, I really make no judgement, but some kind of proof is what I desire. If proof to the contrary is presented, fine with me. Early on, in astrophysics, my mental state was such that I prefered Hoyle's steady state theory, probably becasue of the sense of security it gave. The Hubble red shift and cosmic noise and such, rapidly changed my mind, though, as the evidence they revealed became public.
Those aspects (and others)could not be explained by the steady state theory, or, if it could, were too convoluted to really be practical.
It is when experimental evidence is presented as factual, when the actual basis for the experiment is at question and thus the results, that I get a bit upset. This is particularly true when there are other, much more simplistic explanations. It's even worse when the statistical analysis even based on the flawed supposition is very small. Couple that with no publication in any major scientific journal and you have a recipe for potential disaster.
Sheldrake himself has admitted that trying to present "proof" may be an impossibility, and yet he tries and fails, not surprisingly. As a biologist he gives anectdotal "evidence" or perhaps more accurately examples. There are other explanations and the most readily availble and more "scientific" ones are due to the quantum nature of the molecular bonding. Those are predictable and consistent.
Of course, YMMV
Stu
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: