Sheldrake vs. Coyne, Round whatever.

#2
Let him talk.

Subsequently, any science teachers worth their salt (and I'm afraid, to get kids through their exams, the teachers are almost certainly of a materialistic bent) will use the talk to spark critical discussion around the issues (particularly if there is conflict with their syllabus).
 
#3
Let him talk.

Subsequently, any science teachers worth their salt (and I'm afraid, to get kids through their exams, the teachers are almost certainly of a materialistic bent) will use the talk to spark critical discussion around the issues (particularly if there is conflict with their syllabus).
Several people in Coyne's comments section have said this exact thing; they've been shot down on the grounds that Sheldrake's "woo" is "too dangerous."
 
#4
Several people in Coyne's comments section have said this exact thing; they've been shot down on the grounds that Sheldrake's "woo" is "too dangerous."
We've all got to encounter these things and work out where we are with them. Without being specific about Sheldrake, and speaking more generally, we all develop our own BS filters; I suspect talking students through controversial subjects in a school environment, with good teachers (and I suspect this school has good teachers!) is an ideal way to encounter them.

These kids are much more likely to be f**ked up* by their parents than Sheldrake. :) (*Larkin. Philip, not Michael)
 
#5
Sheldrake's scientific qualifications are impeccable, certainly more accomplished than the children's teachers are likely to be. A good tutor will educate the children in the prevailing thought of any discipline, while encouraging the children to question it as much as possible. That leads to critical, capable, well-rounded citizens (and not pre-programed automata).
 
#6
A good tutor will educate the children in the prevailing thought of any discipline, while encouraging the children to question it as much as possible. That leads to critical, capable, well-rounded citizens (and not pre-programed automata).
Yes! Like the participants in this forum!
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#7
Sheldrake's scientific qualifications are impeccable, certainly more accomplished than the children's teachers are likely to be.
Everyone loves to say this, but I'm not convinced. He's never met an experiment that didn't succeed completely. And he doesn't seem to want to take morphic resonance beyond the pseudoscience that it appears to be (again, appears).

~~ Paul
 
#8
Everyone loves to say this, but I'm not convinced. He's never met an experiment that didn't succeed completely. And he doesn't seem to want to take morphic resonance beyond the pseudoscience that it appears to be (again, appears).

~~ Paul
I regard Morphic Resonance as an embracing concept for the hard evidence Sheldrake has acquired via experimentation. MR is easy to knock conceptually, the evidence that lead to it is solid science.
 
#9
I emailed the school giving support to the Sheldrake lecture, I hope it's not needed and the headmaster tells Coyne where to go. Such arrogance !

Even if Sheldrake is an 'out there' thinker, even if he does not conform, I think that is to be admired - not ridiculed ? He has credentials which were as hard earned as any other scientist and more impressive than most.

Even if it turns out Rupert Sheldrake is miles off, his science way out (not saying it will) ,I would rather have my child listen to people like him rather than others. He always seems to display an integrity and a gentleness when he speaks,never stooping to the same level as his detractors.

He may inspire some 'out there' thinking in children . Is that a bad thing ? I really don't think so. I'd rather have my kid turn out like a Sheldrake than a Coyne any day, no contest !
 
#11
Everyone loves to say this, but I'm not convinced.

~~ Paul
That is just not true. For example, I asked him about the Backster Effect, because I thought it might offer an interesting new avenue. He replied that he had in fact explored this a bit, but had failed to get reproducible results (I don't remember his exact wording). Like any scientist, he writes up the stuff that works.

David
 
#12
Everyone loves to say this, but I'm not convinced. He's never met an experiment that didn't succeed completely. And he doesn't seem to want to take morphic resonance beyond the pseudoscience that it appears to be (again, appears).

~~ Paul
Paul my friend, I would just like to know about a time you have been convinced about ANYTHING which wasn't part of your original viewpoint. :D:D:D
(Not meaning to be rude of course.)
 
#15
Let him talk.

Subsequently, any science teachers worth their salt (and I'm afraid, to get kids through their exams, the teachers are almost certainly of a materialistic bent) will use the talk to spark critical discussion around the issues (particularly if there is conflict with their syllabus).
Or alternatively the teachers themselves may be inspired enough to challenge their own POV and consequently re-conceptualise reality in broader theoretical terms. That may lead the teachers to understand the danger of presumptions and encourage their students to be truth seekers and TRUE scientists who challenge academic tradition and power structures which enforce conformity. And the day our schools do that then we will really start to GET SOMEWHERE in understanding the true nature of existence.
 
#16
My wife had a biology teacher who refused to teach Darwinian evolution as more than one theory among many. She was an excellent scientist by all accounts and a good teacher, but had to take a back seat over that part of the syllabus. As far as my wife is aware it was not a religious issue, but a personal conviction. These things are fairly uncommon in the UK, and were even more so back in the 80s.
 
#17
My wife had a biology teacher who refused to teach Darwinian evolution as more than one theory among many. She was an excellent scientist by all accounts and a good teacher, but had to take a back seat over that part of the syllabus. As far as my wife is aware it was not a religious issue, but a personal conviction. These things are fairly uncommon in the UK, and were even more so back in the 80s.
Impressed.
The point to me is that the concept of complex systems evolving from simple ones is underpinned by the embedded principle of creativity in the universe. Darwinian type evolution in my view in probably part of the picture but with all things it depends where you place your lens. The assumption has been that that is the complete story and no other lens is required, That is where I have issues.
 
#18
Darwinian type evolution in my view in probably part of the picture but with all things it depends where you place your lens. The assumption has been that that is the complete story and no other lens is required, That is where I have issues.
Yes, me too. Unfortunately belief in Darwinian evolution has become a litmus test for intelligent modernity vs backward superstition among a large section of the population. You don't have to believe the universe began six thousand years ago to have doubts that consciousness appeared like magic.
 
#19
Or alternatively the teachers themselves may be inspired enough to challenge their own POV and consequently re-conceptualise reality in broader theoretical terms. That may lead the teachers to understand the danger of presumptions and encourage their students to be truth seekers and TRUE scientists who challenge academic tradition and power structures which enforce conformity. And the day our schools do that then we will really start to GET SOMEWHERE in understanding the true nature of existence.
I broadly agree with what you are saying (as long as you are no suggesting promoting your personal view of "truth" and "true scientists").

To balance personal opinions, the importance of the consensus positions (of specialists in their field) should be covered, whilst embracing flexibility, and being wary of certainty/dogma.
 
#20
Yes, me too. Unfortunately belief in Darwinian evolution has become a litmus test for intelligent modernity vs backward superstition among a large section of the population. You don't have to believe the universe began six thousand years ago to have doubts that consciousness appeared like magic.
Who says this?
 
Top