From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed 04 Dec 2002 - 19:04:18 GMT
>
> > From: Ray Recchia <rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com>
> >
> > Ted Dace wrote:
> >
> > >Why do I wish to insult him? Because he refuted Sheldrake!
> > >While plenty of people on this list have offered thoughtful,
> > >constructive criticism of Sheldrake, Joe is not among them. The
> > >most exhaustive discussion came from Derek Gatherer, who wisely
> > >dropped the subject after it became clear that he wasn't able to
> > >offer any kind of clear-cut refutation. Like any sensible person,
> > >Gatherer declared his disagreement and let it go at that.
> > >Intelligent people can agree to disagree. If
> anyone
> > >ever does conclusively refute holistic biology, it'll certainly be
> > >news. No doubt Skeptical Inquirer will feature the story on its
> > >cover.
> >
> > Much as I hesitate to respond to this post, as a point of
> > clarification, Gatherer's last word on Sheldrake referred to the
> > theory as an elaborate delusion comparable to Velikovsky's 'Worlds
> > in Collision', a work from
> the
> > 1950s which claimed to show that Venus was ejected from Jupiter 3500
> > years ago.
> >
> > Ray Recchia
>
> Ray,
>
> You really should check your facts before posting something like this.
> Derek Gatherer made no such statement. He was respectful toward me
> throughout our discussion. In our final exchange, we discussed
> signalling of DNA polymerase, the difficulty of finding mechanisms to
> account for every feature in the body, the requirements for
> demonstrating genetic reductionism, complexity theory in biology,
> whether or not there's a crisis in contemporary science, and the role
> of genes in eye morphogenesis. He agreed with me that we can't simply
> discount, a priori, the possibility of action-at-a-distance applying
> to biology as well as physics. In short, it was a varied and lively
> discussion. At no time did he ever resort to anything remotely
> resembling ad hominem, such as this reckless and bizarre comparison of
> holistic theory to Velikovsky.
>
> By the way, Joe alleged, in his latest rebuttal, that I deny the
> existence of time. Sheldrake's whole point is that conventional
> holists, such as Brian Goodwin, rely on timeless mathematical
> equations to govern organic development, while "formative causation"
> relies on the influence of past organic behavior on present behavior.
> As I've made clear whenever this issue has come up (usually at Joe's
> prodding) Sheldrake offers a time-based theory. Joe imagines he's
> refuted something about which he lacks even the most basic
> understanding.
>
> > From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com>
> >
> > In numerous posts many of us have pointed out the fact that you
> > can't
> argue
> > with memes of faith.
>
> I'm afraid you've misread the situation. Please look into the topic
> of personality disorders. Aside from a wealth of material on the
> Internet, there's a very readable account by M. Scott Peck called
> *People of the Lie.* This will give you a very good understanding of
> what's going on here.
>
> Ted
>
Ted is superglued to his pet fantasy, and therefore must believe that no
one can 'truly' understand it without agreeing with it, since for him it is
the religiously absolute "Truth". Obviously, many on this list fully
appreciate its patent absurdities and self-contradictions, and therefore,
quite rationally and reasonably, reject it.
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 04 Dec 2002 - 19:06:36 GMT