Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A Heretic for Our Times

By Jay Walljasper, Ode. Posted January 21, 2006.


Biologist Rupert Sheldrake's theories turn everything we know about the universe inside out.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

It Isn't Morning in America Anymore -- It's Dusk on Planet Earth
Bill McKibben, Tomdispatch.com

Nixon's Savage Attack on the Greatest Anti-War Movement in U.S. History
Rick Perlstein, AlterNet

Anti-Feminist Backlash Out in Full Force
Katha Pollitt, The Nation

The Healing Power of Pets
Rebecca Armstrong, The Independent UK

Hillary's Grotesque Insult to African-Americans
Bob Herbert, The New York Times

Sex Work vs. Trafficking: Understanding the Difference
Melissa Ditmore, RH Reality Check

The Human Rights Crime in Gaza
Jimmy Carter, The Guardian

More stories by Jay Walljasper

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Walking to the home of maverick scientist Rupert Sheldrake in Hampstead -- London's cozy but glamorous artistic village that's been home to John Keats, George Orwell, D.H. Lawrence and, more recently, novelist John LeCarre and actress Emma Thompson -- I am not surprised to find that his plain brick house looks out on Hampstead Heath. This famous (and still remarkably wild) expanse of grasslands and groves was the spot where Keats met William Wordsworth for long rambles, discussing the passions and ideas that would be immortalized in their Romantic poetry. Sheldrake, one of the world's leading spokesmen for a more holistic and democratic vision of science, might easily be grouped with the Romantics, except that his insights about the world are based on empirical research rather than poetic feelings.

Sheldrake's bold theories about how the universe works sparked controversy in 1981 with the publication of A New Science of Life. Actually it wasn't the book itself that brought Sheldrake's ideas to prominence but an incendiary editorial by the editor of the respected British journal Nature, Sir John Maddox, who fumed, "This infuriating tract…is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years." That was quite a lot of attention for a young scientist, especially one who at that time was working as a plant physiologist in India.

What so infuriated Maddox was Sheldrake's theory of "morphic resonance" -- a complicated framework of ideas proposing that nature relies upon its own set of memories, which are transmitted through time and space via "morphic fields". The theory holds that these fields, which operate much like electrical or magnetic fields, shape our entire world. A panda bear is a panda bear because it naturally tunes into morphic fields containing storehouses of information that define and govern panda bears. The same with pigeons, platinum atoms, and the oak trees on Hampstead Heath, not to mention human beings. This theory, if widely accepted, would turn our understanding of the universe inside out -- which is why Sheldrake has so often felt the wrath of orthodox scientists.

For the past 20 years, he has pursued further research on morphic fields even though no university or scientific institute would dare hire him. Much of his empirical explorations focus on unsolved phenomenon such as how pigeons and other animals find their way home from great distances, why people experience feelings in amputated limbs, why some people and animals can sense that someone is staring at them. He believes morphic resonance may offer answers to these questions.

His experimentation has been underwritten by freethinking funders like the late Lawrence Rockefeller and the Institute of Noetic Sciences, founded by Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell. Through the years Sheldrake has supported his family largely through lecture tours, which draw curious crowds around the world, and a series of books exploring various aspects of what is often called "New Science." He's written on ecological, spiritual, and philosophical themes, as well as a manifesto on how science could be democratized (Seven Experiments that Could Change the World) and a bestseller on animal behavior (Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home). His current research involves thousands of rigorously empirical tests probing the existence of telepathy. John Maddox nonetheless has continued to accuse him of "heresy," saying he should be "condemned in exactly the same language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo."

'Science is the last unreformed institution'

When Sheldrake answers the door, I find a tall, surprisingly youthful man in a golf shirt and Birkenstock sandals with socks who hardly seems a menacing troublemaker out to destroy civilization as we know it. He welcomes me into his home, which wonderfully fits my expectations of what a slightly bohemian biologist's house should look like: shells, antlers, giant pinecones, fossils and exotic-looking houseplants on display in comfy rooms also filled with books, art, musical instruments, oriental carpets and a few patches of peeling paint. Upstairs is his office, which overflows with scientific journals and papers, and a spacious library room crammed with books on every conceivable subject. A corner of the library houses a small laboratory, which was recently commandeered by his teenage sons as a computer center.


Digg!

Jay Walljasper is the executive editor of Ode magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The intrinsic value of Why.
Posted by: Riverside on Jan 21, 2006 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So much of our knowledge, understanding and benefits from our natural world have come from scientists who are unafraid to ask why regardless of the path taken. Dr. Sheldrake is no exception. Even if all his theories are proven wrong, the process of proving him wrong will produce much new knowledge. On the other hand, should he be proven right, then science has an entirely new domain to fully explore.

We honor heroic explorere such as Lewis and Clark, Marco Polo, etc, but neglect to understand that research scientists are equally important explorers. I say hats off for Dr. Shelgrave.

Let's all visit his website, and sign up to help his research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

can i live there too?
Posted by: menckenman on Jan 21, 2006 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not many fields here in la.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: can i live there too? Posted by: Lizka
This is refreshing! Scientists have sold out over the past 20 years or more!
Posted by: Pepper on Jan 21, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Believe it or not there was a time that an ethic prevailed in science. Due to the power of science to affect all humans, the earth and other life supporting/destroying potential, scientists were ethically prevented (not by law, but by morality) from working or engaging in such nefarious areas as we are seeing today.

Taxpayers supported scientific research so the scientists would not be forced to work for corporations that might use and abuse that research against the best interests of humanity. That has all changed.

They now will engage in bioweapons development to be used against and for killing other humans, drug companies that release drugs that are not safe. All of these are under those same institutionalized research organizations that now support these corporations and their agendas.

Its refreshing to hear about a scientist like this including his call to let the taxpayer have some say in where their money is spent, what a unique idea. LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What bothers me more than anything else...
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jan 21, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is this business about 'books being candidates for burning'. I think Sheldrake's wrong, personally, but there's nothing wrong with looking into this stuff; we may even find something. There's this tendency to disbelieve weird things even before empirical evidence is gathered; we ought to at least perform experiments rather than dismissing people out of hand. Even if Sheldrake's theories are wrong, we might find something we didn't expect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truth.
Posted by: kittynboi on Jan 21, 2006 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Science is about the pursuit of truth, fact, and reality. These things are not determined by the democratic proccess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Truth. Posted by: tkwilson
» RE: Truth. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Truth. Posted by: schnoggi
» RE: Truth. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Truth. Posted by: Lizka
» RE: Truth. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Truth. Posted by: sapatatanka
» RE: Truth. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Truth. Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Truth. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Truth. Posted by: yesman
» RE: Truth. Posted by: davewuxi
» RE: Truth. Posted by: kittynboi
If Sheldrake's ideas were analyzed like Creationism --
Posted by: MPJ on Jan 21, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Sheldrake's ideas were analyzed like Creationism, they would be laughed out of existence at once.

I think the point of the article above must be to find out how many people will swallow any swill that has big words on the label. Except as concept art, the article wasn't funny. Why waste precious electrons on it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A WORLD OF IDEAS
Posted by: zoza on Jan 21, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hats off to Alternet for finally offering up an article about the transcendent value of a man with with ideas. You should be posting an article a day about James Lovelock's ideas alone.

This is a world (including Alternet's) that focuses on wars, mayhem, hatred, greed and the incredibly stupid people who lead us down those roads and not nearly enough on the people who can lead us away from such things. People who live in the world of ideas that are hopeful.

As much as there is a need for a glaring light to be beamed onto the tyrants of the world, there is a great need to shine the light into areas of hope. I personally think that we are all missing the big picture by digging around in the minutia of the horrible and neglecting and overlooking the vast wonders of life.

Give us more stories about great directions to follow... about our possibilities instead of our limitations. We need them now more than ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A WORLD OF IDEAS Posted by: vuturistic
» RE: A WORLD OF IDEAS Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: A WORLD OF IDEAS Posted by: sapatatanka
the poison path
Posted by: schnoggi on Jan 21, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
some people work from the premise that all knowledge is somehow sacred, and that any new knowledge must of course follow from our great and hallowed traditions, or some other mindless backwards-looking fascism. others assume that much new knowledge must of course obviate old knowledge, utterly disprove and discard it. I find Sheldrake's ideas to be a deliberate and refreshing departure from the sort of dull mindset that smugly assumes that if you can't prove something then of course it is grounds for haughty disdain. I would encourage readers to seek out a fine book called "The Body Electric", which is sort of two books, one about remarkable unorthodox research, and another about the ingrown and vicious politicking of the science world, which though supposedly based in empiricism, will not even consider clear data that's too radical. The science world is a fine example of the Peter Principle at work, a lot of hacks that rose one level above their competence, struggling to maintain the mask.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the poison path Posted by: yesman
This was a joke right?
Posted by: LymanAlpha on Jan 21, 2006 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a ridiculous load of B.S. If the left tolerates this kind of New Age crap anti-science then they're just as bad as the christian right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: cyberfactotum
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: LymanAlpha
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: sapatatanka
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: davewuxi
» RE: This was a joke right? Posted by: kittynboi
Hey, cut that Maddox guy some slack
Posted by: Aenor on Jan 21, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me it seems he could well be a hidden supporter of Sheldrake's theory. Maddox accuses Sheldrake of heresy and says he should be "condemned in exactly the same language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo."

Well, we alle know that it wasn't the Pope who turned out to be right in the end, even the Catholic Church acknowledged this a few years ago. By likening Sheldrake to Galileo Maddox actually tells Sheldrake his theories are interesting and deserve to be looked into, but the right time hasn't just come yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Waking Up in Time
Posted by: danjkelly2 on Jan 21, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author mentioned a group called "The Institute of Noetic Sciences." A few years back I came across this organization and I signed up and began receiving their literature. Well, many of the things they posit would indeed be considered "far out" by much of the mainstream...not that that's a reason to automatically tune out everything they have to say. For instance, one of the best things to come out of my subscription to their newsletter (I stopped subscribing long ago) was a book I received as a result of my signing up. It's called "Waking Up In Time" by Peter Russell, who studied under Stephen Hawking at Cambridge and then went to India to study Eastern philosophies and meditation. Although he's better known for writing "The Global Brain," this book is more "readable" and extremely timely to our current situation. I highly recommend it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Sense of Wonder at the World
Posted by: mikespindell on Jan 21, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Modern physics now is dominated by theories that are not only counter-intuitive, but were greeted with disdain when first proposed. Yet science is dominated by corporate neccessity and a stultified academic elite that serve as jealous guardians of their own supposed expertise. Not having read Sheldrakes's book, though now I will, I can't comment on his theories. However, the over the top reaction to them seems familiar and fits in with what I know about science as practiced today.

The scientific method, as we learned it in school, represents an excellent framework for humans to discover the workings of the universe around them. Unfortunately, as practiced today it has become perverted as established theoreticians in their various fields consider their pronouncements dogma and try to beat back any encroachments upon their concepts. New ideas are dismissed out of hand, rather than being vigorously examined.

Sadly, while we have the know-nothing supporters of intelligent design trying to storm the scientific battlements on one side, we also have the "know everything" scientific establishment disparaging creative new thoughts on the other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not A Joke
Posted by: the islander on Jan 21, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not a joke. As long as we think we can build community here on earth while ignoring the natural laws we will go on failing.
For one thing, everything on earth is based upon pulsing. the tide comes in and out. We breathe in and breathe out. The heart beats -- the systole and diastole or whatever it's called.
Life on earth is a pulsing.
The one right way to live that we're living now is on a crash course. Some of us are starting to listen to the other stories.
Every body has a story. Let's listen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting Hypothesis
Posted by: Sturgeon on Jan 21, 2006 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sheldrake's ideas certainly are "out there". The article doesn't indicate that there is any evidence to support them yet. I've yet to see any conclusive proof of telepathy. Maybe he will find some. If he doesn't, so what? No harm in trying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holy moly what an awful article.
Posted by: RandomAction on Jan 21, 2006 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democratic science? What a lovely idea I know how about democratic dentistry, civil engineering and why stop there? Lets have democratic midwifery as well, wouldn't that be great!

FYI a panda bear is panda bear because that's what it's parents were. It really is a simple as that. Unless of course it is a bear because that's just how god likes it.

How do those pigeons do it? Eh? I ask you? Couldn't be using external cues like the Sun and the Earths magnetic field could they? No it's got to be morphic magic. That's the answer.

As for sensations in amputated limbs, wouldn't that just be.. good god Jay I think I'll leave it to your fevered imagination.

Sheldrake is a buffon, he doesn't deserve the sycophantic coverage he has been given here. His theories turn nothing upside down. This is article is one of the worst things I've read in many years. I wonder if it is a sample of what can be found at Ode magazine?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sheldrake's theories don't turn anything inside out at all.
Posted by: IanM on Jan 21, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a vast plethora of theories out there postulating all kinds of possibilities, and so it has ever been. We should all be open to the nuggets of truth that can come up from eclectic sources, but there is no guarantee that simply theorizing is going to produce anything.

I do agree with some of the critiques of corporate sponsored scientific research. Ralph Nader has similar concerns, which is why he established his network of PIRG's - public interest research groups, funded and run by independent citizens rather than by governments or corporations, neither of which Nader trusts to safeguard the public interest.

And it is good to think about the personal mysteries of our daily experience, neglected by the big budget scientific projects. Who is going to do this research, without big profits waiting, in a direction that the accountants recognize? This is why bad movies get endless sequels; the accountants have demonstrated evidence, rather than the high risk of original insight or genius. At the same time, original thinkers are probably more comfortable outside the institutional environment, but will generally benefit from access to hard research data. Einstein was a patent clerk, but he was certainly aware of mainstream science of his time; in particular Michelson-Morley.

But when money is king, rather than the quality of human life itself, we are no longer paying attention to what is important, and it may be non-institutional thinkers like Einstein or Sheldrake that save our bacon.

While I admire Sheldrake's spirit however, I found nothing in this article that constituted new information; just an almost purely semantic musing about the transmission of information within the ecosystem. Good to think about, but it won't upend much without actually coming up with either testable information or a theory that is either simpler, more useful as a predictive tool, or a better and more comprehensive explanation for phenomena than anything we now have, while at the same time having some indication of being true other than wishful thinking.

No matter how many people are democratically doing the wishing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Language of Orwellian Science
Posted by: particle on Jan 21, 2006 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we go. More blurring of the lines between science, mysto-entertainment, and infoganda.

It's the 21st century and this is what it's come to. At the apex of the world's only super power we have an administration boasting that it doesn't need to deal with reality, because it creates reality. Misdirected attacks on science only serve to create a comfortable climate for that sort of nonsense. For as surely as Intelligent Design is religious dogma dressed up as science, this is just Ouija board mysticism dressed up in the same garb. That the Amazing Sheldrake does a better job of it makes it no less pernicious. On the contrary.

Perhaps that one percent of the science buget that he wants to dip in to would be better spent on educating the public on what science actually is and how it works. So do you want more money spent on environmental science? Fine. Fix the political processes that favor other kinds of spending. I'd go for that. But I surely don't want my tax dollars just put up for graps to enable or legitimize the kind of crippled reasoning that supports Creationism or table knocking.

This business of attacking the presumed Evil Priesthood of Science is now such an old favorite of hucksters, that you even see it on tawdry infomercials. "Morphic fields"? Come on. Your bunkum sensors should be flashing red alert on this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I give him credit-sort of & why the devil's in the details
Posted by: Drclaw on Jan 21, 2006 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a practicing scientist (uhh, excuse me, member of the priesthood), I give him a little credit for putting money where his mouth is. At least he purports to test his ideas using rigorous methods. Having read his first book, Seven experiments....I have not seen evidence of credible tests to date, however. I'd like to see the methodology behind his testing the who is going to call experiment he mentions, and to know that it was verified by an impartial observer, and is repeatable by anyone else using the same methodology. That's the standard, and I'll believe it only then. I'd like to see this done if only because it either debunks what seems like a fantastic claim, or will cause us to look at the world quite differently. Its no use rednering final judgement untill then, particularly because many of the findings we regard as basic knowledge were revolutionary in their day. Indeed, as Kuhn argues, this may be the way science works.
A note on methods, though. A friend of mine in grad school told me this, and illustrates why I'll remain skeptical of Shel's claims till I can thoroughly parse his methods, and why his findings to date are suspect. My firends were testing the reflexes of cats in a standard skinner box-the light comes on, the cat presses the bar, cat gets reward (These cats are apparently smarter or more motivated than my own). They tested untill the time lag between the light and the bar press began to plateau. They noticed a continual (but slight) improvement in the reflexes (reduction in time lag) so they continued testing, and eventually the cats would press the bar before the light came on! Cat ESP? Hardly. It turns out the cats could hear the switch that sent power to the light, and learned to associate that sound with the reward-not the light. My private theory is that we are so out of touch with our basic senses, much less can understand the senses of other animals (which often are different from, and far surpass our own), that we fail to realize that we actually unconciously sense a far greater range of stimuli than we knowingly process. I won't b elieve the rather mystical world view untill this possibility is eliminated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Sheldrake a crackpot?
Posted by: nycword on Jan 21, 2006 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like many lay people with a deep interest in science, I was very excited when I first read Sheldrake. His voice and theories seemed fresh and cutting edge. Later, in person and correspondence with very well known writers for a number of major publications, including the NY and LA Times and Science Magazine, I was led to believe that serious scientists do not take him seriously. These opinions, going back almost a decade were unanamous. I would love to hear from credentialed pysicists about Sheldrake. The lay person is really at a total loss here. I had the same question about David Bohm - but a totally different response. Bohm, as I guess everyone knows by now, is very highly regarded by both current writers and his peers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is Sheldrake a crackpot? Posted by: nycword
» LizKa Posted by: RandomAction
Science and democracy
Posted by: eggs on Jan 21, 2006 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd recommend going out and getting a copy of Bruno Latour's _Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy_. It should be required reading for discussions like these; it's a different (and difficult) take on what democracy is (something few of us think about carefully), and what it would mean to democratize science. Puts this controversy in an entirely different light.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 21, 2006 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All depnds on which authorities we quote. We're not usually as quqlified as our opinions would trick us into believing.

That notion humbles me. I'm now a bit more open to a new idea.

Scary times. Some people hang on tighter and others become bold.

I try to be a spiritual person. If science were the answer then lots of our problems woul have followed a certain logic and cured themselves by now. I'm not religious but hey, neither was Jesus.

There's a glitch in the purely scientific philosophy. Bad people keep themselves close to technological advancement in general. The more powerful they become, the more they are seen as absent of a soul.

If there were ever territory to be explored for our own best interest, it's where we fear to tread: "Is it just a Newtonian experiment out there, or do I need to take a leap in understanding about my actual culpability in events? In everythin everywhere?"

History books never found the space or time to document all the millions of people who have tried to do ANYTHING NEW ANYWHERE AT ALL. We didn't get taught THEIR names when we went to school.

How many BREAKTGHROUGH DISCOVERIES, like babies, have been thrown out whith the bathwater?

It's immeasurable.

Along with science has come "Pop-Psyhc".

When we mock so quickly, it looks like we're actually afraid to have the new science turn our expensive educations into a the anthropological topic, rather than being the anthropologist doing the documenting.

What a place to be. All that work and some kid skates by and grabs it. That much fear would make anyone mean. I'd cave in to that much weight.

I would make fun of my successor to impede their progress and prolong my tenure.

However...

The inevitable always lives up to it's definition.

Motion and restisence to motion, back and forth all through time. I suppose it uses us to play that tick tock out.

Nobody can blame the other on those terms.

But someone must venture into the places where we care not, or we will never know for sure. The universe ends wherever we're too tired to go on. No reason to stop someone else from trying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 21, 2006 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religions are based on what we don't know rather than what we do, as a rule. Very little room for upgrading and ultimately they doom themselves by this.

I heed no particular printed document for my beliefs. I'm Pro Choice and Pro-Progress. I love science, but I wonder if certain spiritual pursuits aren't simply a technology within us that we're too primative to fully understand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 21, 2006 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainty of a failure,
is a reume of one's beliefs in general.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wasting money on pseudoscience in the name of Democracy
Posted by: toddaa on Jan 21, 2006 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, let's do that. Let's blow a couple of million on Sheldrake's crackpot theory and confirm once and for all he's a crackpot. But wait, we've already done that. Okay, so we haven't spent a million plus on his idea, but we have tested his little phone call experiment and guess what? The skeptics in the room were interfering with the morphic resonance, thus ruining the experiment. Apparently, according to Sheldrake, skeptics block morphic resonance (the hallmark indicator of a psychic flimflam artist). By all means, let's divert money from real scientific projects to Sheldrakes crackpot theories. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go sit in my orgone box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There should not be ignorance or confusion on what science is.
Posted by: voodoobike on Jan 21, 2006 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story is interesting, but I find these assumptions about the method of science annoying. This appears to be yet another example why so many confuse what science actually is.

This so-called "new science", "democratic science" and so on referred to in this story is not by definition science and would more accurately defined as perhaps metaphysical, supernatural, or other similiar thoeries, yet which I have no problem with.

Having an open mind to these theories may someday allow it to be scientifically understood, yet it's misleading to refer to the scientific method in regard to the understanding of these ideas if hardly any of it can be scientifically understood or even proven to any extent...yet.

This doen't mean that these ideas should be dismissed. I think that the assumption that science is biased against or somehow the definition of science needs to be revised to allow these ideas to be accepted scientifically seems to me a high degree of disrespect and/or ignorance as to how science actually works.

Wikipedia, for instance defines it as such:

"Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism – aimed at finding out the truth. The basic unit of knowledge is the theory, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 22, 2006 12:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prejudice is the exact opposite of research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow! New Age Ignorance and the power of thought
Posted by: errandchild on Jan 22, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's troubling to me that those who sit and think about such unproven things still have the gall to call what they're doing "science." I am all for free thinking and for challenging the current chain of scientific thought, but this just reeks of BS. Perhaps I'm not understanding something. Perhaps science would be better off being used in a democratic fashion, which I disagree with. However, this New Age mysticism which tries to make all things important in some way through various spiritual aspects goes beyond science. Embracing this kind of unproven stuff without question is why I like not being a conservative. We liberals are usually a free-thinking bunch who appreciate intelligent discussion without simply claiming something that is unproven is true. If this gentleman can get a grant and actually prove his hypothesis then I would definitely take another look. After all, the American gov. used taxpayers money to see if there was such a thing as psychics and if they work.

Belief can be a dangerous thing sometimes. It is best to stay on both sides of this argument but hold strong to what we know for sure instead of embracing a creative solution to our existence. Frankly, if you feel the current explanation for humanities existence makes you feel insignificant, then you need to truly find yourself. Do not embrace unproven hypothesis like the creationists and the intelligent design folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Do I look afraid? Posted by: errandchild
rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 22, 2006 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't have any religion. That's someone else's idea of God. Spirituality os my idea of God. No individual book overlaps my curiousity. No doctorine to be forced upon anyone. I just want to explore, it's my nature.

I can undrerstand how oppressive religion could turn one from any notion of something more. A black-and-white view of matters etherial.

It's perfectly understandable that some of us would seek an opposing stance. Then, along comes the quark. Appears and dissappears as we focus on IT in that moment.

The idea that we are molding circumstance with thought, threatens religious status quo far more than it threatens the scientific world.

Religion benefits from non exploration here. A fear that ANY spirituality is not scientific. it's an absolute. Religion is a filter to keep us from spirituality. Pre-Scribed as to keep us from developing the skills to inquire further, without and within. The curiousity killer. How can that benefit science?

To class everyone in with the religious nut cakes looks like what it is. Pre-Judice. Lots of reasons to not look at something, claiming it to be nothing. Not all the research is in yet. Only those who've claimed so.

I'm not actually qualified to say that an indigenous Holyman is wrong just because some guy with OSHA goggles from MONSANTO is occasionally right.

Why can't certain of us explore further into any connections between matter and their formation based on a coded agreement. What coded that aggreememt?

Who coded that agrement? Did we help in that endeavor? Is it actually us controlling way more than we thought? Who, in these times of potential extinction, would want to impede any progress in the area of being in greater control of matter?

Either way, some of us WILL have a deeper look.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 22, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can we build the measuring stick to something we know so little about?

What if previous means are no longer fit to do the job?

We can only pretend to be informed enough to judge this. To keep our status. That's the opposite of science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Empirical Democracy
Posted by: benzene on Jan 22, 2006 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a nascent scientist myself, the idea of democratizing science fascinates me, and at the same time also horrifies me. On one hand, I do find it evident that science has become a field increasingly remote from the general public, abused as a tool solely for generating profits. I find it disgusting that so many of the science projects here at the University of Michigan bear some big company's label (Ford, Pfizer). But at the same time, allowing the general public to decide what science to fund is a bit scary. True, that would be a way to reintroduce science to the interests of the general public. Yet there is also the fact that scientists are experts within their fields, which the general public are not. Therefore scientists are in a better position to know what questions need to be asked and what hypotheses need to be tested. And here is what perpetuates the "priesthood" of modern science.
Ugh.
This seems rather intractible, so I think I'm off to try to make sense of it with a flowchart...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Language of Orwellian Science
Posted by: particle on Jan 22, 2006 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, aonghus36, for responding to this thread.

I think you sort of have a point. Although I'm vaguely insulted since you seem to imply that my brain isn't working in a coordinated fashion. That's OK. I've been told worse. But it should probably be pointed out that brain functioning is more subtle and complex than you're suggesting.

The part I find interesting about your post, however, is the political comment -- sans the bits suggesting that scientists have all gone over to the dark side but for a few noble mavericks (no, you come on!). There is a problem as you rightly suggest.

For starters I recommend Rep. Henry A. Waxman's report "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration" at:
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/
/features/politics_and_science/
index.htm

And yes, there are scientists who I'd say have pretty much sold their souls to the devil. But that hardly covers the situation. I'm sure you'd agree that there are many environmental scientists, for instance, doing important work that you would find valuable and interesting. Would you be surprised to learn that they can do their work without either building bombs or resorting to magical thinking? Yet it is so.

It can be difficult. One of the problems in conservation planning at the local level is how to encourage lots of public input on the one hand, and at the same time prevent the science from being forced to endorse prefabricated conclusions. The approach has been to try and build a kind of firewall to keep the science free of political pressure so that sound and flexible policy can be developed. That is tricky business and often easier said than done.

So you say science has it's limits. I thoroughly agree with that even as the limits change. Some things are completely beyond science. It just means they aren't good subjects for science. What you've failed to acknowledge is that an attractive presentation like Sheldrakes can indeed be bunkum--counter-intuitive though it may seem.

And just for the record, my interests include both art and science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would love say I was being sarcastic.
Posted by: RandomAction on Jan 22, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I can't. Thanks. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sheldrake Article and Why We Progressive Lose
Posted by: mikespindell on Jan 22, 2006 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read the now 100+ responses to the artice on Mr.Sheldrake I became more and more depressed. The anger and virtriol released upon the author of the article and upon Mr. Sheldrake was amazing. This was a relatively inoffensive bit of writing about a man whose commitment to his lifes work is certainly a topic of interest. As to his particular theories the article did not deal with them in depth, nor did it pretend to.

In the wake of this article came a spate of vicious and angry comments that displayed not only raging anger and im many instances a misreading/misunderstanding of the contents, but also a "holier than thou" attitude that would seem quite comfortable to burn books of all who disagree. This is not what I've thought being a progressive is all about.

We as progressives need to be open to people expressing differing points of view by at least letting our minds be open and being able to respond with logic rather than diatribe. This of course does not mean suspending critical judgment, nor does it mean giving silent hearing to bigotry and advocacy of injustice. What it does mean is a least having open minds and the ability to learn something new.

All too often, many progressives have allowed their justified rage at injustice, or the accumulated rage of their life experience, to overtake them in their politics. They care more for "getting off" on their targets, than they do in united political action that will have some effect on bettering the world. Many on our side are so unable to control their inner rage that I fear that if they gained personal power, they would be little different than the right wingers they appear to decry. Hitler and Stalin came from opposite sides of the political spectrum and yet both were monsters.

Injustice, bigotry and human cruelty make me very sad and angry. I have to work to channel those feelings into constructive action to make my own small contributions to changing what's wrong with our Country and world.
We as progressives must convince others to join us and that means persuasion rather than ridicule.

When I see the sarcasm, anger and negativity on a progressive site in response to this mild article, I am reminded of how often we progressives have failed in reaching out and bringing in those more moderate to our cause, by harranguing them with that same sarcasm and anger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More rightside uo than inside out
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 22, 2006 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally another scientist proves out what shamans,medicine people and spiritualists have known for countless millenia. All
forms have pathways to taking shape,and that shape is dependant upon many other types of lifeforms cooperating in the making. Geneologists have shown the truth of all life existing within our own bodies. Our sense of smell comes from a fruitfly gene and our skin is related to cabbage. The cabbageheads have become pretty easy to spot.
The point is ALL LIFE be it rock,gas,liquid,vegetable or animal through countless eaons of time have taken their forms based on their energies blending and working with the multiple layers of consciencness that go into being all that is the Creation. This Energy knows no beginning or end only to give Life to all that is. It is we who decide if this life will be a tree, a polywog,or human.At all levels we have other beings that assist by forming circulatory systems,ecosystems,bio-
spheres,and atmospheres all combining in will to aide in the
maintaining of this infinately small piece the Creation we call
Earth.Because the Energy that moves all Creation never dies,runs out,or has a shortage,niether does anything else in Creation. Including YOU. That's why warfare is pointless bullshit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mighty morphic power rangers
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 22, 2006 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until this guy comes up with a way for me to harness my chi and fly like Goku, I don't believe a word of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 -