Skip to main content

Home/ Science - Spirituality in Dialogue/ Group items tagged fields

Rss Feed Group items tagged

ken meece

Rupert Sheldrake Online - Homepage - 0 views

  •  
    Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative biologists, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory.
ken meece

Articles and Papers - Scientific Papers - Morphic Resonance - Morphic Fields - 0 views

  •  
    In the hypothesis of formative causation, discussed in detail in my books A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE and THE PRESENCE OF THE PAST, I propose that memory is inherent in nature. Most of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. My interest in evolutionary habits arose when I was engaged in research in developmental biology, and was reinforced by reading Charles Darwin, for whom the habits of organisms were of central importance. As Francis Huxley has pointed out, Darwin's most famous book could more appropriately have been entitled The Origin of Habits.
ken meece

Pharyngula: A baffling failure of peer review - 0 views

  • It's a very strange paper. There is a core that is competently done; it's a review of the various functions of the mitochondrion, and 90% of it is useful, detailed stuff. It's a bit outside my field, but what I could follow seemed reasonable. But then…oh, man. Every once in a while, it just goes cockeyed and throws out these incredible non sequiturs, making bizarre assertions that are unjustified by the evidence. If Norman Bates were the author of this paper, I'd be able to tell you exactly which parts he wrote while wearing a dress. It's that freaky. In addition, the authors are not native English speakers, and occasionally, often at the same time the weird stuff is being trotted out, the language decays into incoherent babble.
  • mitochondria could be the link between the body and this preserved wisdom of the soul devoted to guaranteeing life
  • Is it possible that the bizarre non-sequiturs were inserted after review?- I could imagine a sufficiently dishonest author inserting all kinds of crap at the page-proof stage, which might only be handled by typesetters rather than the reviewers or editors. Which might explain why the weird claims don't connect to the rest of the paper.
  •  
    It's a very strange paper. There is a core that is competently done; it's a review of the various functions of the mitochondrion, and 90% of it is useful, detailed stuff. But then… every once in a while, it just goes cockeyed and throws out these incredible non sequiturs, making bizarre assertions that are unjustified by the evidence. In addition, occasionally, often at the same time the weird stuff is being trotted out, the language decays into incoherent babble.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20 items per page