Re: Joe

From: Dace (
Date: Wed 04 Dec 2002 - 18:41:05 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: Ted"

    > From: Ray Recchia <>
    > 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
    > >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
    > 1950s which claimed to show that Venus was ejected from Jupiter 3500 years
    > ago.
    > Ray Recchia


    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" <>
    > In numerous posts many of us have pointed out the fact that you can't
    > 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.


    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 04 Dec 2002 - 18:41:15 GMT