The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1330
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake

Post by Philosophy Now »

John Greenbank is unconvinced by Rupert Sheldrake’s lively heresies.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/The_ ... _Sheldrake
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake

Post by Greylorn Ell »

Philosophy Now wrote:John Greenbank is unconvinced by Rupert Sheldrake’s lively heresies.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/The_ ... _Sheldrake
Greenbank stands for the opposite of Sheldrake. He is a defender of the status quo, a champion of agreement with authority figures; Sheldrake is a challenger of authority and generalized agreement.

There are lots of Johns showing up in Google searches, so I could not determine what this one does for a living. Is he independent, making his own way despite ostracism from the establishment like Sheldrake, or is he another establishment-paid shmoo who does not dare to bite the hand that feeds him? Some bio information would be helpful.

I admire Sheldrake. Peruse his writings or watch his videos, and while you are unlikely to agree with him on all things, two aspects of him become clear:

1. He is an imaginative, intelligent, and widely-studied individual who finds new ideas worth expressing, despite personal cost.

2. He cares about ideas and is looking for answers to serious questions, not for agreement from his unimaginative peers.

In an earlier time, I can see John as a deputy Inquisitor, defender of the agreed-upon Truth, and Rupert as the man to whom he would have enjoyed playing thumbscrews with-- so long as Rupert was tied down.

So, what is "Philosophy Now" about? Is it a defender of the status quo? I'd hoped otherwise when I bought my subscription. Or does PNow admit an occasional unique or controversial idea on its perceived merits, risking admonition from the establishment shmoos?

My ideal would be that PNow makes a point of hosting at least one radical (but coherently presented) idea per issue. Disclaimers are okay, to protect the publication's reputation with the conventional philosophers. But my ideal is not likely to coincide with those of people who have committed their livelihood to the success of a publication.

Greylorn, past bedtime.
Locked