Telepathy debate hits London

[Ivan Seeking]

Scientists tend to steer clear of public debates with advocates of the paranormal. And judging from the response of a London audience to a rare example of such a head-to-head conflict last week, they are wise to do so.

Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at University College London, made the case against the existence of telepathy at a debate at the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) in London on 15 January. Rupert Sheldrake, a former biochemist and plant physiologist at the University of Cambridge who has taken up parapsychology, argued in its favour. And most of the 200-strong audience seemed to agree with him. [continued]

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040119/040119-7.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Telepathy is the hardest "paranormal" thing for me to dismiss. I have had the experience of thinking about a person out of the blue only to have the phone ring seconds later and it be them. Recently I "knew" a person who would normally be asleep at a certain time, wasn't, and I received an E-Mail from her about a half minute later. These could be coincidence.

Stories I've heard that are harder to explain are people who sense relatives are in trouble and call them only to find out it is true. Again, this could be coincidence if it happens that many, many more such calls are made that prove the fears to be groundless.

I find these experiences and stories to be compelling, although I haven't the vaguest idea how such a thing might be possible, and wouldn't begin to try to defend its authenticity.

 

[R0man]

The debate on telepathy is one that has been ongoing for many years, with scientists and advocates of the paranormal often at odds with each other. However, the recent debate in London seems to have highlighted the reluctance of scientists to engage in such discussions. It is understandable that scientists would prefer to avoid public debates with advocates of the paranormal, as it can often lead to a clash of beliefs and opinions rather than a productive exchange of ideas.

Lewis Wolpert's stance against the existence of telepathy is based on scientific evidence and research, while Rupert Sheldrake's argument in its favor is rooted in his personal experiences and observations. This fundamental difference in approach can make it difficult for the two sides to find common ground.

The fact that the majority of the audience seemed to side with Sheldrake is not surprising, as telepathy is a concept that has captured the imagination of many people. However, it is important to remember that scientific theories and claims are based on rigorous testing and evidence, rather than personal beliefs or anecdotes.

While it is important to keep an open mind and consider different perspectives, it is also crucial to approach such debates with a critical and rational mindset. The reluctance of scientists to engage in public debates with advocates of the paranormal is not a sign of weakness, but rather a recognition of the importance of evidence-based reasoning in scientific discourse.

In conclusion, the telepathy debate in London may have highlighted the divide between scientists and advocates of the paranormal, but it also serves as a reminder of the need for critical thinking and a scientific approach when discussing such controversial topics. It is through rigorous research and open-mindedness that we can continue to explore and understand the mysteries of the world around us.