4 ms·

TED talk is the epitome of scientific discourse (edit: /tongue-in-cheek). Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-? Maybe it should ha

TED talk is the epitome of scientific discourse (edit: /tongue-in-cheek). Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-? Maybe it should have been Venkmann.

tokenizer 13y ago
You mean PHD Biologist that lectured at Cambridge University? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake So if you were a scientist interested in a field that others called, "stupid", you would just change for fear of peer pressure? I admire following your interest with scientific method... Which is what this man advocates, and not just blind faith to stats... Did you even watch the video before forming your opinion?
- warfangle 13y ago
  From what I can tell, he used to do pretty awesome work ... and then went a little crazy. Much of this, for example, looks like depak chopra level pseudoscience drivel: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=1978&as_yhi=2013 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&...
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    I wouldn't go that far. So how would one approach doing scientific work on additional sense in addition to the known 5? Or what about the idea of constants not being so exactly concrete? Just do yourself a favour and watch the video. And besides, his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but experimentation and theory. If you dismiss it simply because it seems "too crazy"... then I could argue it could be comparable to the scientists of Galileo, dismissing such ridiculous ideas. Not even worth entertaining...
    - warfangle 13y ago
      > his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but experimentation and theory Alright, I'll bite. Can you point me to his papers that describe falsifiable experiments, and to the peers that have repeated his results? Or just some books on Amazon?
      - tokenizer 13y ago
        Sure! http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1 http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&h... More specific: http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf Again, not saying he's right. I'm saying that to dismiss an actual scientist when they say that in general, the field of science has "believers", and not enough people entertaining the questioning of "facts", is a dogmatic, and bad trend. This is a good unbiased look on the whole event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo
        warfangle 13y ago
        So, over time, chicks unrelated to each other began to not peck at a given object as much, given a negative stimulus. Results aren't really in question, it's the "oh, they're all psychically linked" that's pretty much in question. There are multitude of other explanations possible, including involuntary corruption of the test by the experimenter (see also: the 'counting' horse that was actually responding to visual cues from its trainer, and not actually counting). See also: Venkman and the pretty girl at the beginning of Ghostbusters I tried to find instances of other scientists Morphic resonance (and the 'morphogenic field') is an old idea from before we even knew about chromosomes, let alone DNA: it's a lot like how homeopathy was a big thing until we kind of figured out that bacteria caused disease.. A low statistical correlation with no corresponding replication with a high probability of accidental corruption by the original experimenter does not a compelling argument make. Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself. I don't think that really counts..
        tokenizer 13y ago
anExcitedBeast 13y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBIL2sdfoVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBIL2sdfoVc Not all TED talks are worth their weight in bandwidth.

TED talk is the epitome of scientific discourse (edit: /tongue-in-cheek). Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-? Maybe it should have been Venkmann.

tokenizer 13y ago

You mean PHD Biologist that lectured at Cambridge University? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake So if you were a scientist interested in a field that others called, "stupid", you would just change for fear of peer pressure? I admire following your interest with scientific method... Which is what this man advocates, and not just blind faith to stats... Did you even watch the video before forming your opinion?

warfangle 13y ago
From what I can tell, he used to do pretty awesome work ... and then went a little crazy. Much of this, for example, looks like depak chopra level pseudoscience drivel: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=1978&as_yhi=2013 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&...
- tokenizer 13y ago
  I wouldn't go that far. So how would one approach doing scientific work on additional sense in addition to the known 5? Or what about the idea of constants not being so exactly concrete? Just do yourself a favour and watch the video. And besides, his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but experimentation and theory. If you dismiss it simply because it seems "too crazy"... then I could argue it could be comparable to the scientists of Galileo, dismissing such ridiculous ideas. Not even worth entertaining...
  - warfangle 13y ago
    > his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but experimentation and theory Alright, I'll bite. Can you point me to his papers that describe falsifiable experiments, and to the peers that have repeated his results? Or just some books on Amazon?
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Sure! http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1 http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&h... More specific: http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf Again, not saying he's right. I'm saying that to dismiss an actual scientist when they say that in general, the field of science has "believers", and not enough people entertaining the questioning of "facts", is a dogmatic, and bad trend. This is a good unbiased look on the whole event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo
      - warfangle 13y ago
        So, over time, chicks unrelated to each other began to not peck at a given object as much, given a negative stimulus. Results aren't really in question, it's the "oh, they're all psychically linked" that's pretty much in question. There are multitude of other explanations possible, including involuntary corruption of the test by the experimenter (see also: the 'counting' horse that was actually responding to visual cues from its trainer, and not actually counting). See also: Venkman and the pretty girl at the beginning of Ghostbusters I tried to find instances of other scientists Morphic resonance (and the 'morphogenic field') is an old idea from before we even knew about chromosomes, let alone DNA: it's a lot like how homeopathy was a big thing until we kind of figured out that bacteria caused disease.. A low statistical correlation with no corresponding replication with a high probability of accidental corruption by the original experimenter does not a compelling argument make. Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself. I don't think that really counts..
        tokenizer 13y ago

anExcitedBeast 13y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBIL2sdfoVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBIL2sdfoVc Not all TED talks are worth their weight in bandwidth.