🔒 Human? Slide comment captcha below and wait for the unlock button. (Cookies required)
2 thoughts on “Does Memory Reside Outside the Brain?”
Let’s see some evidence please, for these morphic fields and rats which learn faster because other rats somewhere else learned a trick. His “paper” doesn’t even cite references let alone document experiments; it could be just wishful thinking.
Here are some issues with Sheldrake’s claims about morphic fields and rat learning:
1. Lack of peer-reviewed evidence: Sheldrake’s paper on morphic fields that you mentioned is not a peer-reviewed scientific article, but rather an informal piece without proper citations or experimental documentation.
2. Unsubstantiated rat learning claims: The specific claim about rats learning mazes faster in different locations over time is not supported by published, replicated scientific studies. Sheldrake refers to experiments from the 1920s, but doesn’t provide proper citations or evidence that these results have been independently verified.
3. Scientific criticism: His theories lack a clear mechanism of action and are not supported by empirical evidence that meets standard scientific criteria.
4. Failure to replicate: Attempts to replicate experiments purportedly supporting morphic resonance have failed to produce the claimed effects.
5. Methodological issues: Many of Sheldrake’s experiments have been criticized for poor design, lack of controls, and potential for experimenter bias.
6. Alternative explanations: For observed phenomena that Sheldrake attributes to morphic fields, there are often more conventional explanations supported by established scientific principles.
While Sheldrake’s ideas may seem intriguing, they lack the rigorous scientific evidence needed to be considered valid scientific theories. The claims about rat learning and morphic fields remain unsubstantiated by peer-reviewed research and are not accepted by the broader scientific community.
Let’s see some evidence please, for these morphic fields and rats which learn faster because other rats somewhere else learned a trick. His “paper” doesn’t even cite references let alone document experiments; it could be just wishful thinking.
Here are some issues with Sheldrake’s claims about morphic fields and rat learning:
1. Lack of peer-reviewed evidence: Sheldrake’s paper on morphic fields that you mentioned is not a peer-reviewed scientific article, but rather an informal piece without proper citations or experimental documentation.
2. Unsubstantiated rat learning claims: The specific claim about rats learning mazes faster in different locations over time is not supported by published, replicated scientific studies. Sheldrake refers to experiments from the 1920s, but doesn’t provide proper citations or evidence that these results have been independently verified.
3. Scientific criticism: His theories lack a clear mechanism of action and are not supported by empirical evidence that meets standard scientific criteria.
4. Failure to replicate: Attempts to replicate experiments purportedly supporting morphic resonance have failed to produce the claimed effects.
5. Methodological issues: Many of Sheldrake’s experiments have been criticized for poor design, lack of controls, and potential for experimenter bias.
6. Alternative explanations: For observed phenomena that Sheldrake attributes to morphic fields, there are often more conventional explanations supported by established scientific principles.
While Sheldrake’s ideas may seem intriguing, they lack the rigorous scientific evidence needed to be considered valid scientific theories. The claims about rat learning and morphic fields remain unsubstantiated by peer-reviewed research and are not accepted by the broader scientific community.