Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance

[Joseph Tracy]

Gould just has a knack for evading the gaps in his cosmology with nasty smartass repetition of his shtick.  Could it be that he is arrogant and dismissive because he is the best at selling books to others who want equivalent ego thrills of explaining everything? My own take is that anyone that arrogant is not really a scientist with the spirit of inquiry but a fundamentalist high priest of current theory.

 I t is one thing to be uninterested based on a review, and another to dismiss an idea without hearing its substance as though you had yourself investigated it.

On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:10 PM, bandwraith at aol.com wrote:

> Sheldrake's a crackpot, but a lovable crack-
> pot. I first encountered him in the perennial
> pbs pledge week favorite  "A Glorious Accident"
> 
> " ... guests included Daniel Dennett,
> Freeman Dyson, Stephen Jay Gould,
> George Page, Oliver Sacks, Rupert
> Sheldrake, and Stephen Toulmin..."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Glorious_Accident
> 
> In which he took a drubbing from the
> obnoxious S.J. Gould, who was right, but
> unnecessarily arrogant and dismissive.
> 
> The dithering Dyson told of an amusing
> encounter with Wittgenstein at Cambridge.
> 
> Dyson is interesting, as well,  because he
> is a world class mathematician/physicist
> with literary pretensions, who occasionally,
> like Stephen Weinberg (electro-weak
> unification), makes a fool oh himself in the
> pages of the NYRB- the most current issue
> in fact. In which, he, Dyson, explains how
> even first rate scientists are not immune
> from Sheldrake-like flights of wishful
> thinking:
> 
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/apr/05/science-rampage-natural-philosophy/
> 
> "The fringe of physics is not a sharp
> boundary with truth on one side and
> fantasy on the other. All of science is
> uncertain and subject to revision.."
> 
> You might take a peek.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: malignd <malignd at aol.com>
> To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Thu, Mar 29, 2012 7:17 pm
> Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance
> 
> 
> Sheldrake's a quack.  So was Jung.
> 
> 
>