Telepathy: Rupert Sheldrake & Evidence from "The Sense of Being Stared At

[sage]

heard of rupert sheldrake? he seems to be a very respectable biologist trying to gather evidence for telepathy. reading his book "the sense of being stared at". must say the evidence he gives is very convincing though the mechanism he proposes to explain the phenomenon is plain wispy.can't debunk the evidence though. would like some feedbacks. find more in www.sheldrake.org

 

[SGT]

Sheldrake is a crackpot. For some commentaries about his work, please read here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"He is one of the growing horde of `alternative' scientists whose resentment at the aspiritual nature of modern scientific paradigms, as well as the obviously harmful and seemingly indifferent applications of modern science, have lead them to create their own scientific paradigms."

This strikes me as something more than crackpottery. It's a kind of parasitic feeding off science. He wants the respect and reputation that mainstrean science has gained for itself but he's using it to promote distinctly unscientific ideas.

 

[sage]

so what they are saying in effect that the experiments are biased due to non random sequencing of trials. that is possible. are there any other examples of skeptics performing ESP experiments and finding negative results? he has also done some experiments with parrots and peoples ability to guess telephone calls- has anybody debunked them?

 

[No-where-man]

"He is one of the growing horde of `alternative' scientists whose resentment at the aspiritual nature of modern scientific paradigms, as well as the obviously harmful and seemingly indifferent applications of modern science, have lead them to create their own scientific paradigms."

This strikes me as something more than crackpottery. It's a kind of parasitic feeding off science. He wants the respect and reputation that mainstrean science has gained for itself but he's using it to promote distinctly unscientific ideas.

I say,also,that Sheldrake is a crackpot,but I want irrefutable proofs for that,are there any proofs that sheldrake is crackpot?
He says that nothing today can explain why every ant knows what is its job when they build those structures,even when there were no neural cells,ants still communicate knew what to do(personally,I say they have missed another ant's neural system.

 

[SGT]

I say,also,that Sheldrake is a crackpot,but I want irrefutable proofs for that,are there any proofs that sheldrake is crackpot?
He says that nothing today can explain why every ant knows what is its job when they build those structures,even when there were no neural cells,ants still communicate knew what to do(personally,I say they have missed another ant's neural system.

Ants communicate by pheromones. Each ant leaves its pheromones in the path and the others follow it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa i can feel when people are staring at me!

only sometimes though :-/

 

[No-where-man]

Ants communicate by pheromones. Each ant leaves its pheromones in the path and the others follow it.

Yes,and why Sheldrake is trying to find God in ants?
Why he doesn't believe that pheromons are responsible for ants' communications?

 

[SGT]

Yes,and why Sheldrake is trying to find God in ants?
Why he doesn't believe that pheromons are responsible for ants' communications?

I suppose the ants worship a god in the form of an anteater. This god punishes the bad ants by eating them. The good ants will be reborn as queens.

 

[PIT2]

This thread clearly shows the fear that some people seem to have of the 'unknown'.

Calling him a crackpot, a parasite, or stating that he thinks God is in ants, just demonstrates this.

 

[SGT]

This thread clearly shows the fear that some people seem to have of the 'unknown'.

Calling him a crackpot, a parasite, or stating that he thinks God is in ants, just demonstrates this.

I don't think anybody here fears the unknown. Science is the search to unravel the unknown.
But not every search into the unknown can be classified as science. What Sheldrake does is metaphysics, not physics. Of course you are free to believe in him and in global consciousness, but that does not make those things science.
By the way, if Sheldrake can reproduce the phenomenons he claims to have observed, he is entitled to the million dollar prize offered by James Randi Educational Foundation.

 

[PIT2]

I don't think anybody here fears the unknown. Science is the search to unravel the unknown.
But not every search into the unknown can be classified as science. What Sheldrake does is metaphysics, not physics. Of course you are free to believe in him and in global consciousness, but that does not make those things science.
By the way, if Sheldrake can reproduce the phenomenons he claims to have observed, he is entitled to the million dollar prize offered by James Randi Educational Foundation.

This isn't about what i believe or not. Its about people running around shouting crackpot and such, as if those are actually arguments against anything.

Oh and btw, the Global Consciousness Project is science at work. Just because it goes against ones personal opinion, doesn't make it non-science.

Also, i suggest to stick to scientific resources instead of debunk sites. It would be useful to stay objective in these kinds of matters.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This thread clearly shows the fear that some people seem to have of the 'unknown'.

Calling him a crackpot, a parasite, or stating that he thinks God is in ants, just demonstrates this.

I am not afraid of the unknown, Pit2, I am annoyed by people who just make stuff up as they go along.

I am very open minded about the existence of telepathy, and that it might have a basis in the known phenomena of physics and biology.

Guys likt this guy, who just make up new, untestable, forms of energy out of the blue, are the ones who make it all sound so silly that no reputable scientist is going to want to seriously study it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Oh and btw, the Global Consciousness Project is science at work.

What science? It isn't physics. It isn't biology.

Don't you realize Sheldrake just made "morphic resonance" up?

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

And don't you realize skeptic sites are science sites?

 

[PIT2]

What science? It isn't physics. It isn't biology.

So what, its still science.

Don't you realize Sheldrake just made "morphic resonance" up?

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

And don't you realize skeptic sites are science sites?

Oh really, well I've got a nice skeptic site for u:

Skeptic about skeptics:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

Theres also a bunch of religious sites which are skeptical of science, are they also science sites?

 

[zoobyshoe]

So what, its still science.

In what way? How are you defining science?

Oh really, well I've got a nice skeptic site for u:

Skeptic about skeptics:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

I'll check it out. I'm skeptical of a skeptic or two.

Theres also a bunch of religious sites which are skeptical of science, are they also science sites?

Are these sites "skeptical" of science or would the more accurate word be "unbelieving"?

Now, back to the question you didn't answer: you do realize that Sheldrake just confabulated the concept of "morphic resonance" don't you? He just invented it out of thin air to account for telepathy. It's useless: you can't measure it, or even detect it. You can't plan experiments with it. It's a made up idea. Take it up to the general physics forum and start a thread asking the real physicists to explain "morphic resonance", why don't ya?

Now if you want to discuss the possibility of telepathy being some hitherto undocumented human ability to sense electric or magnetic fields, or as some quantum "spooky action at a distance," then there would be something that's actually been detected to speculate forward from.

 

[PIT2]

In what way? How are you defining science?

The definition of science can be found in google

Now, back to the question you didn't answer: you do realize that Sheldrake just confabulated the concept of "morphic resonance" don't you? He just invented it out of thin air to account for telepathy. It's useless: you can't measure it, or even detect it. You can't plan experiments with it. It's a made up idea. Take it up to the general physics forum and start a thread asking the real physicists to explain "morphic resonance", why don't ya?

The question of what i realize or know is irrelevant here.
I was merely adressing the point that there is no need to go around calling people 'crackpot'.

Now if you want to discuss the possibility of telepathy being some hitherto undocumented human ability to sense electric or magnetic fields, or as some quantum "spooky action at a distance," then there would be something that's actually been detected to speculate forward from.

Can u tell me how this has been detected?

 

[SGT]

So what, its still science.



Oh really, well I've got a nice skeptic site for u:

Skeptic about skeptics:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

Theres also a bunch of religious sites which are skeptical of science, are they also science sites?

Being skeptical about science is stupid. Being skeptical about pseudoscience is scientific.
If a researcher makes a scientific discovery, any other scientist must be able to reproduce his/her results. If an independent researcher is unable to reproduce the results it's not science. It's pseudoscience.
By the way, all researchers must have an open mind, but not so open that their brains fall to the ground.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If a researcher makes a scientific discovery, any other scientist must be able to reproduce his/her results. If an independent researcher is unable to reproduce the results it's not science. It's pseudoscience.

Okay but not quite. Pseudoscience refers to the methodology. An error in the results of a study does not make it pseudoscience. Nor does the subject or any question asked. Also, I think that we should always remain skeptical of any conclusions reached by science. Above all, scientific paradigms have always evolved or changed over time, and many, most, or all existing scientific paradigms will likely continue to do so. Let's not forget that just a few years ago, the expansion of the universe was slowing down by all accounts. But why? We knew the margin of error in the measurements made. But we couldn't imagine anything else that would make sense. Only a crackpot would have suggested that some magic force was causing the expansion to speed up.

 

[SGT]

Okay but not quite. Pseudoscience refers to the methodology. An error in the results of a study does not make it pseudoscience. Nor does the subject or any question asked. Also, I think that we should always remain skeptical of any conclusions reached by science. Above all, scientific paradigms have always evolved or changed over time, and many, most, or all existing scientific paradigms will likely continue to do so. Let's not forget that just a few years ago, the expansion of the universe was slowing down by all accounts. But why? We knew the margin of error in the measurements made. But we couldn't imagine anything else that would make sense. Only a crackpot would have suggested that some magic force was causing the expansion to speed up.

Yes, scientists make honest mistakes! But those mistakes ar normally corrected by other scientists, specially when those other scientists are unable to reproduce the results of experiments. When shown in error, a real scientist should recognize it, instead of accusing the others of closedmindedness (is there such a word in English?).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, scientists make honest mistakes! But those mistakes ar normally corrected by other scientists, specially when those other scientists are unable to reproduce the results of experiments. When shown in error, a real scientist should recognize it, instead of accusing the others of closedmindedness (is there such a word in English?).

That's true. But I think the objections were from a member, not the scientist doing the work. Perhaps Sheldrake would give an answer that you would find more acceptable.

But most generally, the word "pseudoscience" is often misused when it is applied to fringe topics. That was my only real objection.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The definition of science can be found in google

Go get the definition you subscribe to, bring it here, and post it. Then I will know what you think science means.

The question of what i realize or know is irrelevant here.
I was merely adressing the point that there is no need to go around calling people 'crackpot'.

What you realize is very relevent, becaue if you realized "morphic resonance" was an invented concept, you would also realize that the word "crackpot" fits Sheldrake. My Websters defines "crackpot" as: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions. That fits Sheldrake like a glove.

Can u tell me how this has been detected?

As for "spooky action at a distance" I would direct you to ask Ivan who, IIRC, was the first person to mention it to me, and could explain it better.

As for electric and magnetic fields: I can't believe you don't know how electric and magnetic fields have been detected and still think you are in a position to know what is, and isn't scientific. It's no wonder Sheldrake seems perfectly acceptable to you.

 

[SGT]

Go get the definition you subscribe to, bring it here, and post it. Then I will know what you think science means.

What you realize is very relevent, becaue if you realized "morphic resonance" was an invented concept, you would also realize that the word "crackpot" fits Sheldrake. My Websters defines "crackpot" as: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions. That fits Sheldrake like a glove.

As for "spooky action at a distance" I would direct you to ask Ivan who, IIRC, was the first person to mention it to me, and could explain it better.

As for electric and magnetic fields: I can't believe you don't know how electric and magnetic fields have been detected and still think you are in a position to know what is, and isn't scientific. It's no wonder Sheldrake seems perfectly acceptable to you.

More! Electric, magnetic and gravitational fields decrease with the square of the distance. Crackpot fields are equally strong no matter the distance.

 

[No-where-man]

This isn't about what i believe or not. Its about people running around shouting crackpot and such, as if those are actually arguments against anything.

Oh and btw, the Global Consciousness Project is science at work. Just because it goes against ones personal opinion, doesn't make it non-science.

Also, i suggest to stick to scientific resources instead of debunk sites. It would be useful to stay objective in these kinds of matters.

No,global cosnciuosness project is quasi-science,because it's obvious sheldrake wants to find.I honestly hate ththese kind of scientists.

 

[No-where-man]

Yes, scientists make honest mistakes! But those mistakes ar normally corrected by other scientists, specially when those other scientists are unable to reproduce the results of experiments. When shown in error, a real scientist should recognize it, instead of accusing the others of closedmindedness (is there such a word in English?).

One QUESTION FOR ALL SCEPTICS:JUST BECAUSE AN METHOD FROM EXPERIMENTS DOESN'T APPLY-YOU CAN'T SAY THAT SOMETHING EXISTS OR NOT,OR THAT IT'S UNPROVABLE-an preist told me that(I honestly I don't like much priests).
I mean he was right,just because some scientific method doesn't give results or it's unprovable,it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Was priest right?
Let's take an example(that's what priest told me):
SCIENTISTS WHO ARE TRYING TO PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE FOR EXAMPLE:LET'S suppose you have a scientific method with which you're trying to prove God's existence-if this method doesn't work,God doesn't exist-priest said YOU CAN'T SAY THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST,JUST BECAUSE THIS METHOD DOESN'T WORK,OR IF THERE NO ANY SCIENTIFIC CLUE.
THis guy ALSO GAVE ME AN EXAMPLE FROM PHYSICS:YOU HAVE THE METHODS USED IN NEWTON'S LAWS,BUT THESE METHODS CAN'T BE USED IN QUANTUM PHYSICS-JUST BECAUSE OF THAT IT DOESN'T MEAN LAWS CAN'T BE DIFFERENT,HE ALSO SAID THAT PHYSICAL "CENTIMETER-POUND-SECOND" METHOD CAN'T BE USED TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS-BUT THAT DEOSN'T MEAN GOD DOESN'T EXISTS-HOE TO BEA THIS ARGUENT?
Big thanks!



Again,was preist right about saying that?

 

[SGT]

One QUESTION FOR ALL SCEPTICS:JUST BECAUSE AN METHOD FROM EXPERIMENTS DOESN'T APPLY-YOU CAN'T SAY THAT SOMETHING EXISTS OR NOT,OR THAT IT'S UNPROVABLE-an preist told me that(I honestly I don't like much priests).
I mean he was right,just because some scientific method doesn't give results or it's unprovable,it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Was priest right?
Let's take an example(that's what priest told me):
SCIENTISTS WHO ARE TRYING TO PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE FOR EXAMPLE:LET'S suppose you have a scientific method with which you're trying to prove God's existence-if this method doesn't work,God doesn't exist-priest said YOU CAN'T SAY THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST,JUST BECAUSE THIS METHOD DOESN'T WORK,OR IF THERE NO ANY SCIENTIFIC CLUE.
THis guy ALSO GAVE ME AN EXAMPLE FROM PHYSICS:YOU HAVE THE METHODS USED IN NEWTON'S LAWS,BUT THESE METHODS CAN'T BE USED IN QUANTUM PHYSICS-JUST BECAUSE OF THAT IT DOESN'T MEAN LAWS CAN'T BE DIFFERENT,HE ALSO SAID THAT PHYSICAL "CENTIMETER-POUND-SECOND" METHOD CAN'T BE USED TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS-BUT THAT DEOSN'T MEAN GOD DOESN'T EXISTS-HOE TO BEA THIS ARGUENT?
Big thanks!



Again,was preist right about saying that?

Your priest is right. If you can't prove something exists this does not prove that this something does not exist.
Conversely, if you are unable to prove that something does not exist, this does not mean that this something exists.
But there is an epistemological difference between the two approaches. To prove that something exists you only have to show one instance of this existence. For instance, to prove that UFOs are spaceships you have only to present one UFO with its passengers from outer space. But the fact that nobody have presented it is not proof of the contrary hypothesis.
In the same way, nobody can prove that telepathy does not exist, but the burden of the proof is on the claimant and as Sagan said, extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs.
Until a flawless methodology brings proof of the existence of telepathy the most I can say is that is a highly improbable phenomenon.
Addendum:
Nobody can prove scientifically the existence or nonexistence of God anymore than anyone can prove theologically the existence of the atom. The atom is a physics concept and God a metaphysical one.

 

[No-where-man]

Your priest is right. If you can't prove something exists this does not prove that this something does not exist.
Conversely, if you are unable to prove that something does not exist, this does not mean that this something exists.
But there is an epistemological difference between the two approaches. To prove that something exists you only have to show one instance of this existence. For instance, to prove that UFOs are spaceships you have only to present one UFO with its passengers from outer space. But the fact that nobody have presented it is not proof of the contrary hypothesis.
In the same way, nobody can prove that telepathy does not exist, but the burden of the proof is on the claimant and as Sagan said, extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs.
Until a flawless methodology brings proof of the existence of telepathy the most I can say is that is a highly improbable phenomenon.
Addendum:
Nobody can prove scientifically the existence or nonexistence of God anymore than anyone can prove theologically the existence of the atom. The atom is a physics concept and God a metaphysical one.

SGT,I completely agree with you,with everything you said.You also said God is a metaphysical concept-that proves that METAPHYSICAL God doesn't exist-there is only physical universe,everything is physical.Just think about for a second.If God exists he would already show himself,he wouldn't wait for thousands of years.The other argument is,people used to think that an thunderstorm is an enraged God,and watch there isn't God,more people discover,explain and prove new things in science there is less and less God.That's why religous people work on this way:Nenaderthals thought thunderstorm is God,now that we know there isn't God,religious people try to find God in the universe,hey but look there is no God in the universe,so they invented Theory of the multiverse as a hologram to find God.
My point is whatever you discover,you wouldn't God.If 2 milleniums of searching and scientific explorations couldn't find God anywhere what makes you think God exists?ALSO,EVERY GOD WOULD SHOW HIMSELF TO PEOPLE,IF HE EXISTS.
The other argument is about scientists:Some scientists say "we can't explain this this is God's wonder creation".
When will all people(not just scientists) learn that the biggest mistake of people is faith,because they can't explain on the other way,people are really so I'd say still too small,uncapable to understand the universe better.
God is exchange for "I don't know,i don't understand the universe enough".
Just because you don't know something,it doesn't mean that God had its metaphysical fingers on it,science has proven it's otherwise.
God is a fiction,a stitch for unknown.
Cheers!

 

[PIT2]

No,global cosnciuosness project is quasi-science,because it's obvious sheldrake wants to find.I honestly hate ththese kind of scientists.

Do u truly believe science turns into 'quasi-science', just because u hate some scientist?

Oh btw, Sheldrake isn't involved with the Global Consciousness Project.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

 

[SGT]

SGT,I completely agree with you,with everything you said.You also said God is a metaphysical concept-that proves that METAPHYSICAL God doesn't exist-there is only physical universe,everything is physical.Just think about for a second.If God exists he would already show himself,he wouldn't wait for thousands of years.The other argument is,people used to think that an thunderstorm is an enraged God,and watch there isn't God,more people discover,explain and prove new things in science there is less and less God.That's why religous people work on this way:Nenaderthals thought thunderstorm is God,now that we know there isn't God,religious people try to find God in the universe,hey but look there is no God in the universe,so they invented Theory of the multiverse as a hologram to find God.
My point is whatever you discover,you wouldn't God.If 2 milleniums of searching and scientific explorations couldn't find God anywhere what makes you think God exists?ALSO,EVERY GOD WOULD SHOW HIMSELF TO PEOPLE,IF HE EXISTS.
The other argument is about scientists:Some scientists say "we can't explain this this is God's wonder creation".
When will all people(not just scientists) learn that the biggest mistake of people is faith,because they can't explain on the other way,people are really so I'd say still too small,uncapable to understand the universe better.
God is exchange for "I don't know,i don't understand the universe enough".
Just because you don't know something,it doesn't mean that God had its metaphysical fingers on it,science has proven it's otherwise.
God is a fiction,a stitch for unknown.
Cheers!

I agree with you that the fact that if scientists cannot yet find an explanation for a fact this must be God's creation is a fallacy. This is what is called argument from ignorance.
The real thing is someday scientists will find the explanation for the fact, so the appeal to God is unnecessary.
Anyway, this does not prove that God does not exist, only that he is a superfluous hypothesis in the explanation of the Universe. Perhaps there is a Paradise outside of the Universe, where the existence of God is necessary, but as I said this is metaphysics, not physics.
Before someone distort my words: scientists are able to explain facts! I don't think morphic resonance is a fact.

 

[No-where-man]

I agree with you that the fact that if scientists cannot yet find an explanation for a fact this must be God's creation is a fallacy. This is what is called argument from ignorance.
The real thing is someday scientists will find the explanation for the fact, so the appeal to God is unnecessary.
Anyway, this does not prove that God does not exist, only that he is a superfluous hypothesis in the explanation of the Universe. Perhaps there is a Paradise outside of the Universe, where the existence of God is necessary, but as I said this is metaphysics, not physics.
Before someone distort my words: scientists are able to explain facts! I don't think morphic resonance is a fact.

Yes,but if you accidentally prove that God didn't create the universe,than he doesn't exist.Also,what would create God,metaphysical God only exists in human imagination,metaphysics is wrong approach,meaning God is wrong hypothesis.There is no outside the universe.

 

[SGT]

Yes,but if you accidentally prove that God didn't create the universe,than he doesn't exist.Also,what would create God,metaphysical God only exists in human imagination,metaphysics is wrong approach,meaning God is wrong hypothesis.There is no outside the universe.

Science can't prove such a thing! In reality science does not prove anything. Science observes facts, proposes theories to explain those facts and performs experiments to validate the theories.
If an experiment shows that the theory is not valid, scientists try to improve the theory or substitute it for a new one. If the experiment confirms the theory, this does not prove it, it merely makes it more likely.
If after a great number of experiments all of them verify the theory, the likelihood increases, but it never reaches 1.
Even if scientists where able to show that the Big Bang has likelihood near 1, this would not prove the Big Bang hypothesis and even less the non participation of God. God could have created the Big Bang and all the laws of physics, chemistry and biology so that after 8 billion years after the Big Bang a small planet orbiting a class G star would form and 4.5 billion years after that event evolution (created by God) would allow that intelligent beings would be discussing in this forum.
I don't claim that God exits, I only say that we cannot postulate his/her nonexistence.

 

[fileen]

why must we try to prove it scientificly. experience it and you will know it is true. all my experiences with esp or telepathy have been random and uncontroled. I've never been able to decide when to know something I shouldnt. it just happens. it seems the same with other people I have discussed this with. this makes me a little curious to know how anyone can accomplish controlled experiments turning up any concrete evidence of anything. for example: I know someone who sometimes dreams things that are going to happen. it doesn't mean that everything she dreams is going to happen. she keeps dream journals, and we both find it quite interesting, but its uncontroled. also, same friend, will randomly hear what I am thinking and respond as though I said something out loud. very creepy, but you get use to it. again she doesn't hear all my thoughts, just random ones every once in a while. often she has no clue that I never said anything.

 

[Evo]

How the heck did god get into this conversation? Discussions of god are off topic. Let's get back on topic.

 

[zoobyshoe]

why must we try to prove it scientificly. experience it and you will know it is true.

So long as you can't give a scientific proof, the claim it exists remains in doubt. It is a lot more realistic to suppose that your friend who seems to know what you're thinking about, actually just knows you so well that she has learned to unconsciously sort out the looks on your face, the way you breath, the way your eyes move, and can formulate from this a really good idea of what's going through you mind.

So, someone might design an experiment to figure out if she can still do it if she can't see or hear you. If she can, that's an argument in favor of telepathy. If she can't, that's an argument in favor of telepathy being something else that's mistaken for telepathy.

all my experiences with esp or telepathy have been random and uncontroled.

This is the case with most people, and is why it is still in doubt. You have to remember that for any kind of "telepathic" experience you have, there is probably a reasonable explanation in terms of things we accept as fact. That leaves doubt as to whether or not it really exists, or is a bunch of other things masquerading as telepathy.

 

[Kerrie]

Evo, I agree, this topic has been skewed far from the original intent.

I don't know much about this Sheldrake fellow, but I can say that I experience a sort of telepathic communication with my children consistently. Our current version of science is unable to explain this, but when I am experiencing over and over that "mother's intuition", I am convinced it is a field of knowledge yet undiscovered and that makes it sort of exciting.