Xref: utzoo sci.skeptic:3861 sci.physics:13155 sci.bio:3118
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!ssbell!weeks
From: weeks@ssbell.IMD.Sterling.COM (John Weeks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Question about Rupert Sheldrake
Summary: Maybe we all look alike to squirls?
Message-ID: <698@ssbell.IMD.Sterling.COM>
Date: 4 Jun 90 21:48:05 GMT
References: <697@netmbx.UUCP> <30291@cup.portal.com> <1990Jun1.051632.5542@tc.fluke.COM>
Organization: Sterling Software, FSG-IMD, Bellevue, NE.
Lines: 19

In article <1990Jun1.051632.5542@tc.fluke.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes:
#In article <30291@cup.portal.com# Murray_R_Pearce@cup.portal.com writes:
#
## Martin Gardner has an article about Rupert Sheldrake in his recent book,
## The New Age - Notes of a Fringe Watcher. I gather the article originally
## appeared in The Skeptical Inquirer. Gardner discusses Sheldrake's book
## A New Science of Life in which "morphogenetic fields" are discussed.
# ...
#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 thef
#appearance of humans?" Sheldrake does not believe it can all be explained by

*Do* all squirls look the same?  To other squirls?  To squirl experts?  My
understanding is that naturalists conducting long term observations of
groups of animals initially have a difficult time telling them apart, but
after weeks of observation their appearance become as varied as people.

                                          -jw-