From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 23:19:56 BST
Jonathan,
> Jonathan replies:
> Please note that Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Fields idea has failed to gain
> serious credence.
> The observations Sheldrake cites are controversial (conventional
> explanations work just as well as Sheldrake's) and Sheldrake has been
unable
> to provide an acceptable means of testing his ideas. A quick Google search
> will throw up plenty of material on Sheldrake, from which it quickly
becomes
> apparent that contrary to 20 years ago, few scientists now take him
> seriously - the ideas just didn't pan out.
On the other hand, work in seeking mechanistic explanations for such things
as instinctual behavior, how language is learned and used, or how memory
works, haven't panned out either, and this in spite of getting most all the
grant money and holding most all the research positions. Conventional (read
materialist) explanations do not work just as well in these areas, for
reasons I have given in the past (roughly, trying to explain perception
through the products of perception).
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 23:20:45 BST