[Taxacom] Rejoinder to a monster review

[Richard Jensen]

Thanks, Fred.  I am familiar with these cases.  But, while refutation may
be part of the process of science, refutation is not suppression.  And,
Sheldrake's ideas are quite well-known.  While others may not agree, and
may work to refute his ideas, that is not suppression.

In the development of "science" as a way of knowing, is there explicit
commentary arguing that scientists should work to suppress ideas?  The fact
that there are many instances of suppression of ideas does not mean that
scientists should be actively working to suppress ideas.  That, to me, is
an abuse of the scientific paradigm.

Dick J

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Fred Schueler <bckcdb at istar.ca> wrote:

> Quoting Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>:
>
>  Can you please cite references for your claim that the "process of science
>> is...to suppress".  While I know that there are numerous instances of
>> movements to suppress information, I wasn't aware that such suppression
>> was
>> part of the process, at least not as I understand the process of science.
>>
>
> * http://www.sheldrake.org/ - Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author,
> is best known for his hypothesis of morphic fields and morphic resonance,
> which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own
> inherent memory. He worked in developmental biology at Cambridge
> University, where he was a Fellow of Clare College. He was then Principal
> Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the
> Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), in Hyderabad, India. From 2005 to 2010 he was
> Director of the Perrott-Warrick project, funded from Trinity College,
> Cambridge.
>
> fred.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>           Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
> Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
> Vulnerable Watersheds - http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
>     study our books - http://pinicola.ca/books/index.htm
>           RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
>    on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
>     (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
> "[The] two fundamental steps of scientific thought - the conjecture and
> refutation of Popper - have little place in the usual conception of
> intelligence. If something is to be dismissed as inadequate, it is surely
> not Darwin [, whose] works manifest the activity of a mind seeking for
> wisdom, a value which conventional philosophy has largely abandoned."
> Ghiselen, 1969. Triumph of the Darwinian Method, p 237.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>



-- 
Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556