#SheldrakeVsShermer #ParanormalDebate #ScienceVsSpirituality #MorphicResonance #Telepathy #AnimalIntuition
Can Science Explain the Paranormal? breaking down their differences for my podcast
Rupert Sheldrake
British biologist and author of several books on the paranormal, including The Presence of the Past (1988) and Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999).
Proposes the theory of morphic resonance, which suggests that there are fields of information that connect all things in the universe.
Believes that morphic resonance can explain a variety of paranormal phenomena, such as telepathy, animal intuition, and synchronicity.
Michael Shermer
American science writer, skeptic, and author of several books on skepticism, including Why People Believe Weird Things (1997) and The Skeptic's Handbook (2002).
Argues that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of paranormal phenomena.
Believes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that the burden of proof is on those who claim that paranormal phenomena exist.
Key Differences
The existence of morphic resonance: Sheldrake believes that morphic resonance is a real phenomenon that can explain paranormal phenomena. Shermer does not believe that morphic resonance exists.
The nature of evidence: Sheldrake believes that anecdotal evidence can be used to support the existence of paranormal phenomena. Shermer believes that anecdotal evidence is not reliable and that only scientific evidence can be used to support the existence of paranormal phenomena.
The burden of proof: Sheldrake believes that the burden of proof is on those who claim that paranormal phenomena do not exist. Shermer believes that the burden of proof is on those who claim that paranormal phenomena do exist.
Implications
The debate between Sheldrake and Shermer has important implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. If Sheldrake is correct, then our understanding of the universe is incomplete and there are forces at work that we do not yet understand. If Shermer is correct, then our understanding of the universe is complete and there is no such thing as the paranormal.
The debate is also important because it raises questions about the nature of evidence and the burden of proof. If anecdotal evidence is not reliable, then how can we ever know for sure whether something is real or not? And if the burden of proof is on those who claim that something is real, then how can we ever prove the existence of something that is not immediately apparent to the senses?
Conclusion
The debate between Sheldrake and Shermer is a complex and fascinating one. There is no easy answer to the question of whether or not science can explain the paranormal. However, the debate is important because it forces us to think critically about the nature of reality and the limits of our knowledge.
Later, at my podcast, I will continue with explaning holographs, premonitions, and the like,my way of simplifying what works for me utilizing Magnetic Memory Methods and Memory Palaces in tandem with or without my holographs. Holographs for me at this juncture in my life ,are geared toward heart brain coherence i.e Robert Dispenza, Gaia, Freedomsnap.org and the like. Hope his will help to clarify?
Comments