Rupert Sheldrake
m |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
This is important because Sheldrake, and his supporters like to [[appeal to authority]] based on these credentials, for example describing him as a "Cambridge University biologist". He proudly described himself as a "Research Fellow of the Royal Society". To someone without an understanding of how science works (for example those without a background education in science), this may seem impressive. Closer inspection indicate however that he had a very short scientific career, and has not published any scientific papers since the mid-1980s. The Royal Society's Research Fellowship - essentially a grant for postdoc research - might easily be confused with the highly prestigious election to the Fellowship of the Royal Society, which Sheldrake got nowhere near. In particular, if we look at his prominent critics, including [[Susan Blackmore]], [[Jerry Coyne]], [[Sir John Maddox]], [[PZ Myers]], [[Steven Rose]], [[Lewis Wolpert]], etc, all have had more illustrious careers than a post-doc drop-out. | This is important because Sheldrake, and his supporters like to [[appeal to authority]] based on these credentials, for example describing him as a "Cambridge University biologist". He proudly described himself as a "Research Fellow of the Royal Society". To someone without an understanding of how science works (for example those without a background education in science), this may seem impressive. Closer inspection indicate however that he had a very short scientific career, and has not published any scientific papers since the mid-1980s. The Royal Society's Research Fellowship - essentially a grant for postdoc research - might easily be confused with the highly prestigious election to the Fellowship of the Royal Society, which Sheldrake got nowhere near. In particular, if we look at his prominent critics, including [[Susan Blackmore]], [[Jerry Coyne]], [[Sir John Maddox]], [[PZ Myers]], [[Steven Rose]], [[Lewis Wolpert]], etc, all have had more illustrious careers than a post-doc drop-out. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== ''A New Science of Life'' - A Book for Burning? == | == ''A New Science of Life'' - A Book for Burning? == | ||
| Line 20: | Line 17: | ||
:''etc | :''etc | ||
| − | However, what was picked up on by many was the title of the review - "A book for burning?", which played into the public's natural revulsion against [[w:en:book burning|book burning]]. Maddox concluded that the book "should not be banned but put firmly in its place among the literature of intellectual aberrations", although he did earlier suggest that it was "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years". This small part of the review provoked some controversy and this publicity opportunity has ever since been exploited by Sheldrake and his publishers. | + | However, what was picked up on by many was the title of the review - "A book for burning?", which played into the public's natural revulsion against [[w:en:book burning|book burning]]. Maddox concluded that the book "should not be banned but put firmly in its place among the literature of intellectual aberrations", although he did earlier suggest that it was "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years". This small part of the review provoked some controversy and this publicity opportunity has ever since been exploited by Sheldrake and his publishers. In fact, the review seemed to propel Sheldrake from being a nobody who had written a nonsensical book that most scientists would ignore to a nobody who could sell many copies of books to the general public. For any prospective future editors of prestigious journals reading this, it is exactly how not to write a hatchet job book review.<ref>Adam Rutherford on Sheldrake http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/evolution</ref> |
== Ideas == | == Ideas == | ||
| Line 28: | Line 25: | ||
According to his 1981 book ''A New Science of Life'', such a field would make it so that once a [[species]] has [[evolution|evolved]], the next species to evolve would look something like it, apparently due to the [[universe]] having a memory as it is alive.<ref>[http://www.sheldrake.org/About/guide/morphicresonance.html Read for yourself]</ref> Or something. | According to his 1981 book ''A New Science of Life'', such a field would make it so that once a [[species]] has [[evolution|evolved]], the next species to evolve would look something like it, apparently due to the [[universe]] having a memory as it is alive.<ref>[http://www.sheldrake.org/About/guide/morphicresonance.html Read for yourself]</ref> Or something. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Influences == | ||
| + | None of Sheldrake's ideas are his own. In his book ''A New Science of Life'' (1981) the reader can get a good understanding of where he has pulled his [[paranormal]] ideas from. He was influenced by the "organismic" philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (p. 17), the [[vitalism]] of the biologist Hans Driesch who proposed the existence of a life-force in organisms called "entelechy" (pp. 48-50) and the [[Lamarckism]] of the psychologist William McDougall (pp. 188-194). | ||
| + | |||
| + | In 1960, Ninian Marshall published a paper titled ''ESP and Memory: A Physical Theory''.<ref>Ninian Marshall. (1960). ''ESP and Memory: A Physical Theory''. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 10, No. 40. pp. 265-286.</ref> In the paper he proposed a hypothesis of "resonance" which basically said there is some kind of mysterious energy in nature that can explain biological mysteries and [[telepathic]] experiences. It's clear that Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" was influenced by this paper. In his book Sheldrake mentions the Marshall paper only in a footnote (p. 210) but admits his own idea is similar to it in "several important" ways. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Another heading == | ||
He has an entire section of his website dedicated to "[[Skeptic]]s," that is, people critical of his ideas.<ref>[http://www.sheldrake.org/About/guide/skeptic.html Links to References on Skeptics] (yes, that's the original page name)</ref> | He has an entire section of his website dedicated to "[[Skeptic]]s," that is, people critical of his ideas.<ref>[http://www.sheldrake.org/About/guide/skeptic.html Links to References on Skeptics] (yes, that's the original page name)</ref> | ||
Revision as of 10:11, 11 October 2013
Rupert Sheldrake is a former scientist who has since 1980s has preferred to spend much of his time promoting his own bizarre pet pseudoscientific theory of everything called "morphic resonance", in several books targeted at the general public. His latest book, "The Science Delusion" is an anti-scientific polemic.
Contents |
Background and credentials
Sheldrake's early career had some promise; a grammar school boy, he went to Cambridge University to study biology. A degree was followed by a PhD, and then some post-doc work. He took some time out to travel to India, spent some time in a monastery, and then wound up doing crop physiology research for an institute in India. Then, with some scientific credit in the bank, he discovered that writing books about woo was much more profitable that doing actual science. He currently has virtually no standing in the scientific community and is largely ignored.
This is important because Sheldrake, and his supporters like to appeal to authority based on these credentials, for example describing him as a "Cambridge University biologist". He proudly described himself as a "Research Fellow of the Royal Society". To someone without an understanding of how science works (for example those without a background education in science), this may seem impressive. Closer inspection indicate however that he had a very short scientific career, and has not published any scientific papers since the mid-1980s. The Royal Society's Research Fellowship - essentially a grant for postdoc research - might easily be confused with the highly prestigious election to the Fellowship of the Royal Society, which Sheldrake got nowhere near. In particular, if we look at his prominent critics, including Susan Blackmore, Jerry Coyne, Sir John Maddox, PZ Myers, Steven Rose, Lewis Wolpert, etc, all have had more illustrious careers than a post-doc drop-out.
A New Science of Life - A Book for Burning?
Sheldrake's first book was published in 1981. Sir John Maddox wrote a review for it which appeared in Nature.[1] Amongst its insights were the following:
- Sheldrake's book is a splendid illustration of the widespread public misconception of what science is about. In reality, Sheldrake's argument is in no sense a scientific argument but an exercise in pseudo-science.
- etc
However, what was picked up on by many was the title of the review - "A book for burning?", which played into the public's natural revulsion against book burning. Maddox concluded that the book "should not be banned but put firmly in its place among the literature of intellectual aberrations", although he did earlier suggest that it was "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years". This small part of the review provoked some controversy and this publicity opportunity has ever since been exploited by Sheldrake and his publishers. In fact, the review seemed to propel Sheldrake from being a nobody who had written a nonsensical book that most scientists would ignore to a nobody who could sell many copies of books to the general public. For any prospective future editors of prestigious journals reading this, it is exactly how not to write a hatchet job book review.[2]
Ideas
Sheldrake has devoted much thought and speculation on trying to find reasons for some of life's more peculiar and spooky occurrences; such as how dogs seem to know their owners are coming home, how separated siblings sometimes seem to experience symptoms of the other's illness despite living in a different continent, and how it takes bloody ages to try and get a protein to crystallise, but once one lab manages it, lots of others seem to be able to with ease. You know - basically things which make you go "hmmmmmm..."
Science generally has no explanation for observations of such happenings, and indeed scientific wisdom would suggest there can be no causal reason for them and they are simply flukes and/or people seeing patterns which are not there. Sheldrake, however, has developed the concept of the "morphic field" in an attempt to "explain" them.
According to his 1981 book A New Science of Life, such a field would make it so that once a species has evolved, the next species to evolve would look something like it, apparently due to the universe having a memory as it is alive.[3] Or something.
Influences
None of Sheldrake's ideas are his own. In his book A New Science of Life (1981) the reader can get a good understanding of where he has pulled his paranormal ideas from. He was influenced by the "organismic" philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (p. 17), the vitalism of the biologist Hans Driesch who proposed the existence of a life-force in organisms called "entelechy" (pp. 48-50) and the Lamarckism of the psychologist William McDougall (pp. 188-194).
In 1960, Ninian Marshall published a paper titled ESP and Memory: A Physical Theory.[4] In the paper he proposed a hypothesis of "resonance" which basically said there is some kind of mysterious energy in nature that can explain biological mysteries and telepathic experiences. It's clear that Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" was influenced by this paper. In his book Sheldrake mentions the Marshall paper only in a footnote (p. 210) but admits his own idea is similar to it in "several important" ways.
Another heading
He has an entire section of his website dedicated to "Skeptics," that is, people critical of his ideas.[5]
His latest book is The Science Delusion (2012) in which he concludes modern science has turned into materialism and is being constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas.[6]
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Maddox on Sheldrake, 1981: http://www.project-reason.org/images/uploads/contest/Maddox1981.pdf
- ↑ Adam Rutherford on Sheldrake http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/evolution
- ↑ Read for yourself
- ↑ Ninian Marshall. (1960). ESP and Memory: A Physical Theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 10, No. 40. pp. 265-286.
- ↑ Links to References on Skeptics (yes, that's the original page name)
- ↑ The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake also see Rupert Sheldrake’s Alternative Science