Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Mind  I am not unhappy with that hypothesis, it is worthy of testing IMHO however it is Sheldrake's theory, it is up to him to define the limits of his theory and possibly wrong for me to stamp extra interpretations upon it. |
A real theory makes predictions not because the author says they do but because the predictions transparently follow from the theory itself.
This is exactly the problem with morphic resonance. It has no substance. Nobody can formulate it in a manner in which it can transparently make predictions.
It should be possible for me to look at the theory and design an experiment which could falsify the theory. It should be possible for me to say that morphic resoance predicts A, my experiment found B therefore morphic resonance is false. Do think Sheldrake would accept that or do you think he's going to say well morphic resonance is my theory and it doesn't predict A it actually predicts B therefore your experiment supports morphic resonance?