Xref: utzoo sci.skeptic:3839 sci.physics:13130 sci.bio:3108
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!boulder!binkley
From: binkley@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jon Binkley)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Question about Rupert Sheldrake
Message-ID: <21783@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 1 Jun 90 19:21:57 GMT
References: <697@netmbx.UUCP> <30291@cup.portal.com> <1990Jun1.051632.5542@tc.fluke.COM>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: binkley@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jon Binkley)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 21

In article <1990Jun1.051632.5542@tc.fluke.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM
(Gary Benson) writes:
 
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that the theory takes issue
>with the standard explanation for the answers to questions like "why do all
>squirrels look the same when there are so many vast differences in the
>appearance of humans?"

I don't know what the standard explanation is, but my explanation is that
Rupert Sheldrake is doing the looking, and he is human.  If you were to
ask a squirrel, I imagine you'd get the converse observation.

>No flames please from the crypto-skeptics. I am just as unbelieving as
>anyone about all this, but if you just automatically discount something you
>*personally* do not believe, you may be shutting your mind to a world of
>possibilities. As the bumper sticker says, "Minds are like parachutes. They
>only work when they are open".

Yes, but neither work very well when they're full of holes.

-jon