Those seem like special abilities merely because we don't note all the times when we don't anticipate those things. We're gazed at constantly without being aware of it. Phone calls take us by surprise every day. And news, good or bad, come without warning. We only think that there's something mystical going on when we think about it first. We dismiss every instance when we don't think about it first.
You're referring to confirmation bias, which is something the study has accounted for. Again, you are dismissing without even looking at the proposed evidence. That makes you a pseudoskeptic.
There is no conspiracy to ignore evidence in the scientific community. The goal of science is to determine the truth.
The heaps and heaps of circumstantial reports on paranormal phenomena world wide which are so numerous that we now have the emerging field of paranormal science to try and examine it proves you wrong.
Yeah, that's not actually true. Our ability to measure such things are refined. I went and looked for evidence of these instances of changes to the speed of light or gravity. I found no credible scientific documents reporting the changes he talked about. The force of gravity, on Earth, at sea level, has not changed in hundreds of years. That it varies based on elevation is something that we likely discovered after Newton, but that is a refinement of existing theories, not complete overhauls.
So Sheldrake is lying about his metrology investigation?
You can throw the word "dogmatic" around all you like. That doesn't make it true. Every scientific theory conforms to the evidence or is discarded. That is the opposite of dogma. And there are theories of resonance dealing with distant pairs of electrons. That doesn't mean electrons are conscious. By all means, show some credible studies. This one guy's ravings are not credible. If his theories were sound, peers WOULD review his work.
It's funny you mention Newton, because he along with Galileo and Darwin were all independent thinkers who published their discoveries outside of the approved processes of the authorities of their times. Their theories, at the time, were ridiculed, but were later vindicated.
The fact that you call the work of someone trained in the scientific method and who has dedicated his life to expanding the field "ravings" just goes to show you are a dogmatist and polemicist underneath your attempted rational veneer.
Peers CAN'T and WON'T review his work because it does not adhere to the material reductionist model. What part of that aren't you understanding? Sheldrake is simply putting forth that there are a lot of other things happening that have potential validity which science CAN'T examine because it refuses to change the model. Peer review pannels consist of scientists trained in material reductionist thought.
See above. The discrepancies he's talking about aren't really there.
Evidence of this claim?
Sheldrake is a PhD who did metrology research. It's time that you start providing evidence for your dismissals.
I get that you want to take this guy at face value, but nobody, not even a scientist, gets that. Everyone is subject to a lot of criticism and review.
His ideas aren't being reviewed, they are being rejected without actually looking at his evidence. Again, this is a point you are totally failing to grasp.
Disagreeing with your pet pseudoscientist is not being closed-minded or dogmatic. If he had compelling evidence, he'd be listened to. But he doesn't.
He is being listened to, by a lot of people worldwide.
Here is the TEDTalk blog page addressing the censorship. Feel free to read through the comments section to see how many scientifically minded people were extremely appalled by how his material was removed from TED.
You're a dogmatist, plain and simple. And you're a pseudoskeptic on top of it. You've just decided that it's not real, without looking at any of the evidence. You've assumed that your doubts mean concrete conclusions.
He's not my "pet", but please by all means continue to troll me with ad homs. It just makes you look even more like a hack.
Why be content to be unable to explain something? Why not go out and find an explanation?
There is already one proposed, you just won't look at it. You are the micro-example of the scientific community.
You're dogmatic, plain and simple. The thing about dogmatists is that they don't think of themselves as holding a "belief". They think they know the truth which is why they keep arguing over and over again. But you can always debunk a dogmatist by going through the list of pseudoskeptic qualities I listed earlier, and point out that they're not actually being rational. So please, do me a favour, stop asking for "proof" when you don't have the authenticity or integrity to even look at it.
There are scientists out there beginning to do the real investigations into different phenomena that mainstream science dogmatically refuses to even LOOK at, yet alone scientifically dismiss. Sheldrake is one of them. He's not my "pet", he's just a respectable scientist who is part of the growing counter-culture that is tired of the current model and know that science could be investigating such a wider variety of other things.