I was willing to give this a shot, but at 6:00 I'm out. I'll not down vote, because I can't be bothered to watch an hour and a half of drivel. But if this guy has anything to say beyond his well refuted, poorly constructed, psy-biased "studies", then he really should lead with that.

Making absurd statements about pictures in your head (as if you are a little green man in there looking at a screen) don't do much to help his credibility.

Does this guy really think that some kind ESP-related pre-cognizance of someone looking at your back imply that what's going on is not happening in the brain?

I think he has a valid hypothesis and it is worth a watch. At 8:15 he reviews experimentation on the topic. Thin, but not absurd.

52:40-5512 is where he loses credibility with me. I was listening hard for experiemental verification of the "field" model he proposes in the beginning, but he obviously has nothing.

He seems to think that despite the lack of a falsifiable theory/model of the world, he is a scientist. One could argue he is a scientist that is in the early stage of working out his hypothesis. But he seems stuck on statistical study, probably because he is not a physical scientist.

pffff....yes...special forces, dtectives, security guards are all trained not to stare at their targets...right.

wow....so i guess snipers are trained to aim at their targets for 10 mins with their eyes closed.

Ok "Quantum Anomaly" is where he starts to get it right. But quantum physics is its own beast which would basically trump anything he has to say especially with his extended mind thing. Basically...if t happens, it happens due to quantum mumbo jumbo, not due to whatever he has to say.

Moving this video to kulpims's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Hi, first post, loooong time lurker. Awesome vids on here, everywhere on this site.

I thought this video was incredible. It's so obvious to me who has watched and understood the video vs someone with a closed mind to scientific experimentation in this area.

If you watched/understood the video you would see that he gave us a "laymans" description of his ideas. His theory wasn't even explained, just mentioned due to time.

What he is advocating is more credible, real, science done on a phenomenon that clearly seems to exist in many populations on the planet.

Science starts with a guess.

It's always possible for some of his claims to be true, but his decisions undermine his professional credibility. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence required. Since he has thin, disputed evidence, he needs to start with small claims, not grand theories that would overturn hundreds of years of consensus science.

Academics sometimes need to do a lot of complex problem-solving to figure out how to get their ideas accepted. It can sometimes be like working in marketing. Sheldrake hasn't succeeded at that problem-solving, and that's a red flag regarding his ideas. For every fringe idea that became mainstream, there were thousands of fringe ideas that turned out to be as unrigorous as they looked.

I used to believe stuff like this when I was younger, but after a while I got more academic experience and all this fringe stuff just seemed too much for Occam's razor.

>> ^chilaxe:
It's always possible for some of his claims to be true, but his decisions undermine his professional credibility. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence required. Since he has thin, disputed evidence, he needs to start with small claims, not grand theories that would overturn hundreds of years of consensus science.
Academics sometimes need to do a lot of complex problem-solving to figure out how to get their ideas accepted. It can sometimes be like working in marketing. Sheldrake hasn't succeeded at that problem-solving, and that's a red flag regarding his ideas. For every fringe idea that became mainstream, there were thousands of fringe ideas that turned out to be as unrigorous as they looked.
I used to believe stuff like this when I was younger, but after a while I got more academic experience and all this fringe stuff just seemed too much for Occam's razor.


I was trying to think of a rebuttal but I agree with your post. I guess my main point is that some of these "phenomenon" seem to clearly happen to even a small percent of the population,throughout history. (and some who won't publicly admit personal connections to these phenomenon for fear of being ridiculed/burned at the stake) Lets think as scientists and look at that. Peoples experience, and test it. Some things might be explained easily, some not. Won't know till we try right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Disputes_concerning_experimental_results

the point of the question is dull,
but the answer is intimate.
how many persons hearing it will open their eyes?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8164060.stm

10 years away. Problem... solved?

My first post....

Really? Really? I mean....REALLY? No seriously.......REALLLLY?????

I mean, this guy might’ve convinced me if he called while I watched this video and said, "See? I totally sensed that you figured out that I'm a douche-bag".

I love it when "scientists" portray skeptics as the evil villains that bully anyone from taking them seriously.

Skeptics are the good guys. They're the ones who say everybody is probably full of it until they can prove otherwise. This guy has soooo totally not proved otherwise.

Also, if impalas can sense the lion’s stare, why do they get eaten?

Likewise, if women are so keen on this mental telepathy, how could I have gathered a pit full of ‘em under my basement?