Sometime in the 1980's (I don't recall exactly, but I recall the experiement was done on an early home computer, so that dates it) they did a "debunking" of Sheldrake. Now I don't think Sheldrake's morphic resonance makes any sense, and I'm pretty confident that it's false, but the "debunking" they did was as follows:
Briefly, if morphic resonance were true, then, Sheldrake claims, once a particular substance has been successfully crystallized for the first time, it would be easier to crystallize that same substance in the future. So some S.I. "scientist" makes the claim that writing data into a memory chip is exactly like crystallization. Therefore, if he wrote a computer program to write the same data into the same computer memory location over and over, that the writing of the data would get faster and faster.
So they wrote a program to write the same data over and over and the program didn't get any faster as they let it run, therefore Sheldrake was falsified.
That was such unbelievable garbage junk science that I couldn't even believe that they had published it. I realized that S.I. is not at all interested in truth. They are only interested in debunking. That is my justification for using the term. Junk science used in the interest of supporting a particular dogma is not following the evidence. It is debunking. Susan Blackmore falls into that category of debunkers. I've read her stuff and it doesn't hold up to objective scrutiny. Her conclusions are made before the fact and her "evidence" cherry picked to "prove" her a priori "conclusions".
= new reply since forum marked as read
