New Scientist has very little credibility in the scientific world. They are in business to make money and paranormal material sells.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > New Scientist has published work by Sheldrake. > But we'll have to wait for the materialist trolls > which decide what can be published die off. > Materialism cannot be justified scientifically. > That journal will be an obsolete curiosity. > > > [Roger Clough], [[email protected]] > 1/4/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-03, 13:46:20 > Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: >>> >>> Hi Telmo Menezes >>> >>> Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results >>> (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply >>> trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are >>> untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. >>> Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. >>> >>> >> >> I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts >> may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, >> it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There >> does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of >> awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is >> such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically >> minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an >> important direction for science to investigate fully. >> > > While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish > them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives > arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last > person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian > Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. > > Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where > almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my > last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf > Richard > >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
