Dr. Rupert Sheldrake talks about his collaborations with Dr. Chris French

[veracityfilms]

I think Sheldrake would be more than interested to see my first uploaded video "Witness a miracle.". I swear the footage is absolutely genuine. It is best seen full screen and the key moment to pay attention would be as soon as the film comes into focus. I have personal evidence which may support his theories. If it hadn't had this first had evidence I may doubt it my self, but I swear on all that is good and innocent in this world that it is true. This is only one small example of many.

[benthejrporter]

Thanks. I'd like to hear the rest of this interview.

[benthejrporter]

Along with bias, ego and falacy I should add that Skeptics can also be influenced by the hidden hand of political pressure.

[benthejrporter]

Goog vid. Thanks. It's quite correct for scientists to test the claims of people like Sheldrake, but we should be aware that Skeppies are not immune to fallacy, bias or ego and more than paranormal-belivers are. The Skeptic Movement should not be considered the final and ultimate arbiter of truth, even when it promotes itself as such.

[kimbo99]

Excellent video. The signature personal dishonesty and denialism of pseudoskeptics needs to be publicised widely. Skeptics destroy data while begging to be believed....... a recurrent dysfunction. The list goes on.

[ProudToBLoud]

great videos alex

[mounthydra]

JeanMichael:

Read Dr. Sheldrakes response from the Skeptico blog. Dr. French did not set up the experiment "exactly" as Dr. Sheldrake.

Independent verification is the key, not from professional skeptics or believers, they need impartial observers to verify these experiments. Sooooo, Dr. French, Wiseman, Hyman, Randi, etc... are out of the question

[mounthydra]

The entire Sheldrake response to French is available on the Skeptiko site. Its interesting how before Dr. French started to replicate the experiment, they both told each other their views if the experiment succeeded or failed

[JeanMichelAbrassart]

What Rupert Sheldrake says is a perfect exemple of the point of Chris was making: when the results failed to be replicated, Rupert just comes up with excuses to explain away the failure, instead of considering that maybe the phenomena doesn't exist. It's a win-win situation for him: Chris replicate the result (win) or Chris doesn't replicate the result but for Sheldrake it doesn' t prove that the phenomena doesn't exist because x (excuses), then win again.

[MetaphysicsAddict]

hang on now. It seems that it goes both ways. "instead of considering that maybe the phenomena doesn't exist"

But likewise, Chris French doesn't seem to consider that *maaybe* these things really do exist. Instead, when people publish positive results, French comes up with all sorts of ways of explaining away the results.

Rupert suggests that the problems occurs on both sides, and I agree with him.

Perhaps we can all agree that we need independent verification... right?

peace

[wearechangenorwich]

Chris French is, in short, a completely flawed thinker.

[JeanMichelAbrassart]

Rupert Sheldrake is, in short, a completely flawed thinker.

[wearechangenorwich]

I don't doubt it, what interesting discussions they must have..