Dogs can read minds, apparently

[jimmy156]

Saw this report on BBC breakfast, from a "prominent Cambridge scientist"

Surely its complete rubbish... does anyone know if there is any other evidence to support this, brain scans of dogs supposedly reading minds etc.

Must be a slow news day at the BBC as tey are reporting on an albino blackbird in their science/environment section

[Simpo Two]

jimmy156 said:

Must be a slow news day at the BBC as tey are reporting on an albino blackbird in their science/environment section

I don't think journos can manage anything more scientific that that. They're still recovering from trying to say 'Pseudomonas' last week. Hell, I was playing with P. aeruginosa as a student!

Probably a seagull.

[jimmy156]

Simpo Two said:

I don't think journos can manage anything more scientific that that. They're still recovering from trying to say 'Pseudomonas' last week. Hell, I was playing with P. aeruginosa as a student!

I cant believe that they have only just appointed a science editor.

Simpo Two said:

Probably a seagull.

and in other news the "rare white blackbird" seems to have grown, perhaps something to do with its albinism. It has been captured on film below:


IMG_4522 by jimmyb156, on Flickr

[rhinochopig]

I didn't have to open that link to know that the prominent Cam scientist would be Sheldrake. If you liked that story OP, buy his book 7 experiments to change the world as it's an interesting read, whether you believe his theories or not.

[Simpo Two]

jimmy156 said:

and in other news the "rare white blackbird" seems to have grown, perhaps something to do with its albinism. It has been captured on film below:

And from there it's one step to Global Warming. Congratulations, you just won your BBC Trainee Reporter Badge!

(ie from Any Subject to Global Warming in three moves or less)

[R300will]

Sounds a bit far-fetched. I think there can be autistic types of dog but not psychic.

[jimmy156]

rhinochopig said:

I didn't have to open that link to know that the prominent Cam scientist would be Sheldrake. If you liked that story OP, buy his book 7 experiments to change the world as it's an interesting read, whether you believe his theories or not.

Is he respected in the scientific community or his he considered a bit of a loon?

[jjones]

Read minds? They can't even look up!

[Derek Smith]

Rhupert Sheldrake is not a Cambridge scientist. He was educated at Clare college.

In the first example quoted there is a massive leap of faith. The dog ran back to its home. At the same time his mistress was returning from holiday. Yet, according to the article, the dog 'knew' this.

Don't waste brain power on this one.

[rhinochopig]

Derek Smith said:

Rhupert Sheldrake is not a Cambridge scientist. He was educated at Clare college.

In the first example quoted there is a massive leap of faith. The dog ran back to its home. At the same time his mistress was returning from holiday. Yet, according to the article, the dog 'knew' this.

Don't waste brain power on this one.

Not strictly true. He WAS a fellow at Clare and headed up some dept. IIRC.

Jimmy - He is seen as a bit of a crack pot by much of the science community, BUT, I personally think the world of science does need a few like Sheldrake who are willing to look at some of the more fringe areas of science with a bit of scientific rigour. Occasionally a bit of left-field thinking does pay dividends.

The problem is there are too many who are willing to believe fringe science is true without ANY scientific rigour, so he is a bit of a hero to these types, which really doesn't help with his credibility; he ends being seen as king crackpot.

[carmonk]

That's been going on 25+ years (the claims, not the mind-reading). Uncontrolled experiments with dubious results and even more dubious conclusions.

[Halb]

rhinochopig said:

Jimmy - He is seen as a bit of a crack pot by much of the science community, BUT, I personally think the world of science does need a few like Sheldrake who are willing to look at some of the more fringe areas of science with a bit of scientific rigour. Occasionally a bit of left-field thinking does pay dividends.

The problem is there are too many who are willing to believe fringe science is true without ANY scientific rigour, so he is a bit of a hero to these types, which really doesn't help with his credibility; he ends being seen as king crackpot.

I agree. Sometimes one gets the feeling that the science establishment crushes those who might be dabbling in what they consider heresy.
I had a really good book (that I now think is at my exes), can't even recall the title, but it was blue with black lined cover, and dealt with science through the ages, how politicians like to shape it for their ends, as well as the underhand dealings of scientists themselves whether ignoring data or subconsciously supporting their own theories.
Anyone help me?

edit
excellent, found it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/CORRUPTED-SCIENCE-Ideology...
Still at exes though

[uktrailmonster]

rhinochopig said:

Not strictly true. He WAS a fellow at Clare and headed up some dept. IIRC.

Jimmy - He is seen as a bit of a crack pot by much of the science community, BUT, I personally think the world of science does need a few like Sheldrake who are willing to look at some of the more fringe areas of science with a bit of scientific rigour. Occasionally a bit of left-field thinking does pay dividends.

The problem is there are too many who are willing to believe fringe science is true without ANY scientific rigour, so he is a bit of a hero to these types, which really doesn't help with his credibility; he ends being seen as king crackpot.

That's a very measured viewpoint I have to say. My first reaction was horsest! But does Sheldrake actually employ scientific rigour or just manipulate experiments in favour of the results he would like to see? I'm not familiar with his work.

[rhinochopig]

uktrailmonster said:

rhinochopig said:

Not strictly true. He WAS a fellow at Clare and headed up some dept. IIRC.

Jimmy - He is seen as a bit of a crack pot by much of the science community, BUT, I personally think the world of science does need a few like Sheldrake who are willing to look at some of the more fringe areas of science with a bit of scientific rigour. Occasionally a bit of left-field thinking does pay dividends.

The problem is there are too many who are willing to believe fringe science is true without ANY scientific rigour, so he is a bit of a hero to these types, which really doesn't help with his credibility; he ends being seen as king crackpot.

That's a very measured viewpoint I have to say. My first reaction was horsest! But does Sheldrake actually employ scientific rigour or just manipulate experiments in favour of the results he would like to see? I'm not familiar with his work.

Not sure I'm qualified to say TBH. It was years ago when I read "seven experiments..." - I was probably either doing A-Levels or first year undergrad. What struck me was not that he was saying what he proposed was necessarily true, just that what he'd observed from his initial experiments demanded a proper investigation.

It's certainly worth getting out from your local library to see for yourself. If the hypothesis of any of his experiments prove true, then they are certainly worth the small costs of doing the experiments.

Have a read for yourself http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/paper...