Xref: utzoo sci.skeptic:3799 sci.physics:13057 sci.bio:3096
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!ira.uka.de!smurf!gopnbg!tmpmbx!netmbx!sanio
From: sanio@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,sci.bio
Subject: Question about Rupert Sheldrake
Message-ID: <697@netmbx.UUCP>
Date: 26 May 90 17:45:11 GMT
Reply-To: sanio@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio)
Organization: netmbx, Berlin, West Germany
Lines: 17

I just read a critique about a book of Rupert Sheldrake, "The Memory of Nature"
(Title of the German edition, retranslated). The author postulates that struc-
tures of living and other nature are determined by "morphic fields" rather
than or in addition to genetic information or laws of nature.
The critique cited was a bit annoying, as Sheldrake's hypotheses were abused
for one of the well-known New-Ageian attacks on "established science".

Anyway, I would be interested whether Sheldrake gives some evidence (or not)
for his hypotheses (from that critique, I learnt that he did some word recog-
nition tests, which can easily explained otherwise and even forced poor wave
function into his services - which makes me suspect for a quack case). Further
on, I would appreciate some expert comments on his theory (I'll treat them
with the same skepsis as Sheldrake's theory, btw).

Thanx in ahead.

regards, es