Zitat des Tages von Rupert Sheldrake:
Right now, any opinion anyone has about whether dogs can or cannot really tell when their owner is coming home by some unknown means... nobody knows. The weight of evi dence suggests they can.
I think hard work is what gets most people to the top.
I'm talking about science on the leading edge, where it's not clear which way things are going be cause we don't know, and I'm dealing with areas which we don't know about.
Most of nature is inherently chaotic. It's not rigidly determined in the old sense. It's not rigidly predictable.
Because a truly skeptical position would be a very uncertain one.
I do vote but I don't think that any political party represents my point of view.
Now the whole point about machines is they are designed not to be random. When you call up a word processing program on your computer, you don't want it to be different every time you call it up. You want it to stay the same.
I have been a scientist for more than 40 years, having studied at Cambridge and Harvard. I researched and taught at Cambridge University, was a research fellow of the Royal Society, and have more than 80 publications in peer-reviewed journals. I am strongly pro-science.
Of the seven experiments, the ones that have been most investigated so far have been the pets. The dogs who know when their masters for coming home, and the sense of being stared at.
Physics is based on the assumption that certain fundamental features of nature are constant.
The idea is that there is a kind of memory in nature. Each kind of thing has a collective memory. So, take a squirrel living in New York now. That squirrel is being influenced by all past squirrels.
Contemporary science is based on the philosophy of materialism, which claims that all reality is material or physical.
To describe the overwhelming life of a tropical forest just in terms of inert biochemistry and DNA didn't seem to give a very full picture of the world.
Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system.
