No scientist would argue that it is impossible that there is a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter,, and nor would I.  But the fact is that there is no repeatable observation (like looking through a telescope and taking a photo of it) that should lead us tothe conclusion that there is a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.  Logie Baird, for example, did design his equipment because repeatable observation and experimentation had led him to design it.

but yet some scientists would not believe it possible. That still happens today Martin.

Again, your examples are drawn from a time when science, and scientific method, were in their infancy. Things don't tend to work that way these days. For example,only a few years ago there was the claim that cold fusion had been achieved in the laboratory.  It turned out to be an erroneous claim, but scientists around the world waited for a long time, until many other labs had attempted to repeat the experiment, before it was declared to be bogus.

My examples were meant to show human nature Martin - and even today, that could still be described as 'in its infancy' when dealing with some types of phenomenon.

But the fact is that I have been prepared to be critical of all sides of the argument.  Only you have not.  That isn't an assumption, it's a fact.  Provable, because we have thread after thread that shows you presenting stuff as evidence that clearly doesn't measure up to the standard it would have to, to be considered good evidence.

lol - I think the mirror broke didn't it Martin 

 I can understand that it can be difficult for some people to take on board that there is so much going on around them - yet probably through fear (certain phenomenon being out of their 'comfort zone') they are unwilling to actually believe any form of evidence even if it bashed them on the head! From what I have read of your responses over the years on the myriad of topics I add on a similar line to this one, you don't really come across as someone 'prepared to be critical of all sides of the argument' at all. You go straight into the 'oh you are talking a lot of nonsense again aren't you' mode. It has become quite predictable really (and doesn't need a psychic to predict it either - lol)

I won't convince you of course.  But that isn't because I'm closed minded, it's because you are.

lol - did you just pull my pigtails? OK then I will have to pull your ears (that means that this is rather like being in a school playground)

Crikey - if you could actually know how critical I can be (regarding mediums etc) lol .... but then you have assumed so much of me already - and without really knowing me too (without proper 'evidence' etc etc), I don't think your mindset would be able to change even on that.

Anyway - the OP was about 'the science of life' - how there is more to life, and how Dr Sheldrake was trying to illustrate that with his work - regardless of those who would call him a 'heretic'. He is more like a visionary or a pioneer (IMO) in the fact that he is willing to investigate this further and to hopefully ignore those who think what he is doing is rubbish. I hope we have more like him who are not afraid to dig deeper.