Back then, Roszak gave Sheldrake the benefit of the doubt. Today, attitudes have hardened and Sheldrake is seen as standing firmly on the wilder shores of science.
Sheldrake is so wild. He believes that dogs are telepathic...
I just realize now that it was normal for us to know that dad was coming home because the dog would always stand 5 minutes in advance in the window, even if my father was never coming back at the same time, and could come back several times during the day...
I found that very rude, agenda biased, and whoever wrote it didn't explain much why 'Sheldrake is seen as standing firmly on the wilder shores of science'
It's annoying to hear Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris whine about people criticizing their books without reading them, whoever wrote this childish article obviously didn't read Rupert Sheldrakes book and has already made up his/her mind that it's a terrible book.
It is standard practice for a publisher to request a renewal of an endorsement for a new edition of a book. The reasons are obvious. It sounds like Icon Books did not do that.
Meanwhile, New Scientist believes that Sheldrake's work over the past 23 years is such that they would not endorse the book today. Presumably some of that work is included in the new edition of the book.
I think it's obvious what the big deal is. Sheldrake, in the eyes of some people stands above reproach in his methodologies and conclusions which should never be questioned in a negative light like other researchers would that espouse extraordinary controversial claims.
I've read his book. His work stands up to scrutiny. Have you read his book? Or are you just telling us about your belief system again?
Here's some quotes so far just from this thread.
Quote:
I found that very rude, agenda biased,
The lengths some people will go to try and paint Sheldrake in a negative light.
Sheldrake is so wild. He believes that dogs are telepathic
There's not a positive general consensus within the scientific community regarding the validity and thoroughness of Sheldrakes work. Don't tell me folks don't get upset when critics are critical of Sheldrake.
You just can't seem to stop with the little personal jabs can you ?
Look Sandy I know you don't like and frankly I couldn't care less but the bold part really gets to be boring. Even more so when you are as guilty of the same as I. So do you think it's within the realm of the possible for you to exercise some self discipline and keep your mouth shut ? A simple YES or No reply will suffice.
New Scientist, on the other hand, says that they haven't reviewed the re-issue, but have already decided that if they did, they would not give it a good review.
(Odd News) New Scientist slams Sheldrake over something THEY said 
), and so far, all seem critical of NS.
Linear Mode
