aka "The Banned TED Talk", which I guess is supposed to be a marketing thing where we're supposed to wonder "Golly! Why was it banned?" and that will make all of us more likely to watch it. Which sorta falls flat with me: I guess TED Talks were initially interesting and informative, but their standards fell rapidly until it was like any girl scout with an interesting science fair project could do a TED Talk.
But I digress. Marketing shite aside, Sheldrake is a very good speaker, and while I don't hold with some of his more extreme claims, I think he has some interesting ideas. The idea that natural 'laws' are really more like 'habits', and that physical 'constants' may actually be 'variables' depending on factors such as time, location, etc - I've wondered about it myself. It's really not even as zany as the entire Schrodinger's Cat thing (which is pretty seriously goddamn zany, if you really think about it).
Leaving aside the specifics of which RS speaks, I am bothered by the notion that what he calls 'science dogmas' might actually be inhibiting certain lines of inquiry. If you've ever read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions, you know that every so often, Science takes it in the shorts. Like: around the beginning of the 20th century, everyone thought that the entire universe was contained within what we nowadays call the Milky Way Galaxy; we now know that it is vastly larger. And, more recently, Science was kind enough to let us all know that, hey, 95+% of all of creation consists of "dark matter" and "dark energy". And Science isn't real clear on exactly what those are. My point here is that yeah, every so often Science takes one in the yarbles ... but Science manages to recover. It bothers me to think that there might be people out there who are intentionally trying to prevent some kind of revolution because they're paranoid that their grant money will dry up.