(Another banned ted talk that is very significant)
There is a video I will come across sometime that shows R. Sheldrake in dialogue with Dr. David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti. Sheldrake is known (infamously) for putting forth a theory that groups of animals are connected always, even if not within each others physical presence, in such a way that if a group on one side of the world or on a different continent learns a new skill, then animals on the other side of the world or on a separate continent will also inherit this trait.
We can understand how science would harshly reject such an idea in an unforgiving fashion. It is, at this point at least, pseudo-science to suggest we are all connected in such an unobservable way.
Sheldrake did in fact lose credibility for this, if not because of his own proposals perhaps from having any connection with the works of Bohm, a very highly respected physicist who’s vast majority of his works is ignored and often ridiculed.
In the spirit of re-solutance however, I think I can re-solve Sheldrakes work in a way that would leave scientists with the same unforgiving distaste but without the rejection.
No scientist wants to be on record, refuting what is obvious logic and reason. More specifically to the points in this article, no scientist wants to be on record, rejecting what the future of propriety will see as logic and reason. Especially if the eye of society might change within the scientists lifetime.
So there is pressure at least for public honesty when it comes to rational theories.
I propose that Sheldrakes theories run in parallel to what science today deems acceptable (without arguing what acceptable really is). That is to say that if Sheldrake’s theory is not valid, and even laughable, it still runs completely parallel to that which is not laughable but solid and useful.
There is the suggestion that Sheldrakes theories are complete, whether that are testable or not. Testability might only be a possibility with science and not that complete theory or theories that run parallel to it.
It is interesting to think that perhaps one could develop a parallel theory that itself is deemed not useful, but might somehow highlight the direction of good theories. This is probably absurd to the scientist, but its not so absurd to suggest to Bohm, and probably not to Sheldrake.
But we can take this further and in relation to conflict. Perhaps it is those people and experiments that prove and explain Sheldrake to be wrong that are the true value he levates. We are a society that arose out of natural order and that order was what we call conflict.
We are a violent society and we see attempts of any kind to change our culture as a threat.
We attempt to fight back and justify our own traditional beliefs and systems, but as the strength and power of propriety grows we also must be wary of our public image which is far more important to ourselves than anyone else.
For this people like to be right, and don’t like being wrong. There is a propensity to fight for this and when a certain tipping point of the population is certain on an issue the arguments tend to move on.
For this, it is the relationship between opposing arguments that is important, and that they are allowed to function freely, in as many reasonable ways we can define “free” (I suggest Bohmian Dialogue).
Now there is something more about Sheldrake’s works.
Thewealthofchips shows that the pyramids arose out of natural economic order. Sheldrake may have missed this rational point, that is well backed by economic science. Yet we now have a theory that is not discredited or disproved by accepted science, but also DOES include Sheldrakes intention which seems to be to levate the concept of spontaneous order, or to suggest that is a hidden underlying connection between, at least, related things or beings.
Re-solutance in regards to Sheldrakes work then would be to suggest anytime there is simultaneous spontaneous order perceived we might look for the underlying natural cause. This cause is not proof there is no hidden underlying connection but rather the path by which we might ultimately find and define the connection.
Understanding these connections allows us to explore different perspectives and see the connectedness of the universe rather than only the useful divisions of it.