Rupert Sheldrake: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Blippy (talk | contribs)
1,330 edits
→‎Public and media appearances: added verdict re: mentally ill.
Blippy (talk | contribs)
1,330 edits
Line 142: Line 142:


Sheldrake and [[David Bohm]] published a dialogue in 1982 in which they compared Sheldrake's ideas to Bohm's [[implicate order]].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Sheldrake, R., & Bohm, D. |year=1982 |title=Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order |journal=ReVision |volume=5 |pages=41}}</ref> In 1997 Physicist [[Hans-Peter Dürr]] speculated about Sheldrake's work in relation to [[modern physics]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Dürr, H. P. (Ed.) |year=1997 |title=Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion |publisher=Scherz}}</ref>
Sheldrake and [[David Bohm]] published a dialogue in 1982 in which they compared Sheldrake's ideas to Bohm's [[implicate order]].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Sheldrake, R., & Bohm, D. |year=1982 |title=Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order |journal=ReVision |volume=5 |pages=41}}</ref> In 1997 Physicist [[Hans-Peter Dürr]] speculated about Sheldrake's work in relation to [[modern physics]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Dürr, H. P. (Ed.) |year=1997 |title=Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion |publisher=Scherz}}</ref>
In a different vein, Sheldrake's work featured prominently in a ''faux'' scientific paper written by [[Alan Sokal]]. The paper was submitted to ''[[Social Text]]'' and published there in 1996 as if it represented true scientific research, an event which became known as the [[Sokal hoax]].<ref name=Hoax>{{cite book |editor=Sokal, A. D. |year=2000 |title=The Sokal hoax: the sham that shook the academy |publisher=U of Nebraska Press.|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=QkcuQFBXLFQC}}</ref>


Sheldrake and developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert have made a [[scientific wager]] about the importance of [[DNA]] in the developing organism. Wolpert bet Sheldrake "a case of fine port" that "By 1 May 2029, given the genome of a fertilised egg of an animal or plant, we will be able to predict in at least one case all the details of the organism that develops from it, including any abnormalities." Sheldrake denies that DNA contains a recipe for [[Morphogenesis|morphological development]]. The Royal Society will be asked to determine the winner if the result is not obvious.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327161.100-what-can-dna-tell-us-place-your-bets-now.html |title=What can DNA tell us? Place your bets now |journal=New Scientist |date=8 July 2009 |author=Wolpert, L.; Sheldrake, R.}}</ref>
Sheldrake and developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert have made a [[scientific wager]] about the importance of [[DNA]] in the developing organism. Wolpert bet Sheldrake "a case of fine port" that "By 1 May 2029, given the genome of a fertilised egg of an animal or plant, we will be able to predict in at least one case all the details of the organism that develops from it, including any abnormalities." Sheldrake denies that DNA contains a recipe for [[Morphogenesis|morphological development]]. The Royal Society will be asked to determine the winner if the result is not obvious.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327161.100-what-can-dna-tell-us-place-your-bets-now.html |title=What can DNA tell us? Place your bets now |journal=New Scientist |date=8 July 2009 |author=Wolpert, L.; Sheldrake, R.}}</ref>

Revision as of 13:39, 4 November 2013

Rupert Sheldrake
photograph
Born (1942-06-28) 28 June 1942 (age 81)
Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire[1]
NationalityBritish
Education
Occupation(s)Biochemist, parapsychologist, writer
EmployerThe Perrott-Warrick Fund (2005–2010)
Websitewww.sheldrake.org

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942)[2] is an English author,[3] lecturer, and scientist.[4][5][6] From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge,[3] after which he was principal plant physiologist at International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978.[7] Since then, his work has largely centred on what he calls "morphic resonance", his idea that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind."[8] Sheldrake says that morphic resonance is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".[9] As such, his advocacy of the idea encompasses subjects such as animal and plant development and behaviour as well as various parapsychological claims involving memory, telepathy, perception and cognition.[8][10]

Sheldrake argues that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena,[11] suggesting that scientists are susceptible to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience".[3] He questions several of the foundations of modern science including such facts as the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices.[11][12]

Scientists who have examined the idea of morphic resonance have called it pseudoscience, citing a lack of evidence supporting the concept and its inconsistency with established scientific theories. Some critics express concern that his books and public appearances attract popular attention in a way that has a negative impact on the public's understanding of science.[a]

Background

Sheldrake was born in Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire,[1] to Doris (née Tebbutt)[28] and Reginald Alfred Sheldrake (1903–1970) on 28 June 1942.[29][30] His father graduated from Nottingham University with a degree in pharmacy[31] and was also an amateur naturalist and microscopist. Rupert Sheldrake credits him with encouraging him to follow his interest in animals, plants[9] and gardens.[32]

Although Methodists, Sheldrake's parents sent him to Worksop College, a Church of England boarding school.[1] Sheldrake says,

I went through the standard scientific atheist phase when I was about 14.... I bought into that package deal of science equals atheism. I was the only boy at my high Anglican boarding school who refused to get confirmed. When I was a teenager, I was a bit like [Richard] Dawkins is today, you know: 'If Adam and Eve were created by God, why do they have navels?' That kind of thing.[3]

He went on to study at Clare College, Cambridge (with a year at Harvard University).[3] At Cambridge he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree and continued there to earn a Ph.D. in biochemistry for his work in plant development and plant hormones.[9]

In 1974 Sheldrake left Clare and began working in Hyderabad, India. For a year and a half he lived in the ashram of Bede Griffiths during which time he wrote A New Science of Life. He reports finding himself "drawn back to a Christian path" and currently identifies himself as Anglican.[1]

Sheldrake is married to Jill Purce, and they have two sons.[33]

Academic career

Sheldrake began his post-doctoral studies in biochemistry and cell biology at Clare College as the Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellow.[33] He investigated auxin, a phytohormone which plays a role in plant vascular cell differentiation,[34] and published a number of papers related to the topic.[35][36] His development with Philip Rubery of the chemiosmotic model of polar auxin transport in the 1970's has been described as "astonishingly visionary" and was later confirmed in the 21st Century.[37]

Sheldrake says he ended this line of research when he concluded,

The system is circular, it does not explain how [differentiation is] established to start with. After nine years of intensive study, it became clear to me that biochemistry would not solve the problem of why things have the basic shape they do.[34]

Sheldrake resigned his position at Clare College and went to work on the physiology of tropical crops in Hyderabad, India as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) from 1974 to 1978, retaining an affiliation with the institute as a consultant physiologist until 1985.[7][9] There he published a number of papers on crop physiology[38] and co-authored a book on the anatomy of the pigeonpea.[39] In 1981 he published A New Science of Life[9] which marked a dramatic change in his career, captured by a 2012 profile in The Guardian entitled Rupert Sheldrake: the 'heretic' at odds with scientific dogma but within which the Sheldrake of that era is described as "one of the brightest Darwinians of his generation, winner of the university botany prize, researcher at the Royal Society, Harvard scholar and fellow of Clare College."[3]

Sheldrake used A New Science of Life to outline his theory of morphic resonance, of which he says,

The idea came to me in a moment of insight and was extremely exciting. It interested some of my colleagues at Clare College – philosophers, linguists, and classicists were quite open-minded. But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs. Not that they were aggressively hostile; they just made fun of it. Whenever I said something like, "I've just got to go and make a telephone call," they said, "Ha, ha, why bother? Do it by morphic resonance!"[9]

Since 2004[40] Sheldrake has been a Visiting Professor at The Graduate Institute[41] in Bethany, Connecticut,[33] where he was also academic director of the Holistic Learning and Thinking Program until 2012.[42] From September 2005 until 2010, Sheldrake was a Senior Researcher in psychical research and Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project administered by Trinity College, Cambridge.[43]

Books

Sheldrake's books have received both positive and negative reviews, often accompanied by controversy. Some reviewers are critical of the scientific content of his works with his first book being famously the subject of a critical editorial in the journal 'Nature. Sheldrake described this experience as being "exactly like a papal excommunication. From that moment on, I became a very dangerous person to know for scientists."[44] More recently the deputy editor of Nature accused Sheldrake of publishing books to avoid the peer-review process, and suggested that his books were best "ignored" by scientific journals.[24]

A New Science of Life

In Sheldrake's A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance (1981) he proposed that through "morphic resonance" various perceived phenomena, particularly biological ones, become more probable the more often they occur, and therefore biological growth and behaviour become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events. As a result, he suggested, newly acquired behaviours can be passed down to future generations − a biological proposition akin to Lamarckian inheritance. He generalised this approach to assert that it explains many aspects of science, from evolution to laws of nature; in Sheldrake's formulation, laws of nature are merely mutable habits, evolving and changing since the Big Bang.[45]

John Davy in The Observer wrote that the implications of A New Science of Life were "fascinating and far-reaching, and would turn upside down a lot of orthodox science" and would "merit attention if some of its predictions are supported by experiment".[46]

In subsequent books Sheldrake continued to promote his morphic resonance hypothesis; several of these books present experimental evidence that he says supports the hypothesis, including a revised and expanded edition of A New Science of Life published in 2009 in the United States under the title Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation.[10]

Morphic resonance is discredited by numerous critics on many grounds. These grounds include the lack of evidence for the hypothesis[23][24][25][26] and the inconsistency of the hypothesis with established scientific theories.[17][27] Morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibility for being overly vague[18][19] and unfalsifiable.[18][25] Further, Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias,[27][47][48] and his analyses of results have also drawn criticism.[19][49]

"A book for burning?"

In September 1981, Nature published an editorial about A New Science of Life entitled "A book for burning?"[18][3] Written by the journal's senior editor John Maddox, the editorial said

...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 is an exercise in pseudo-science... Many readers will be left with the impression that Sheldrake has succeeded in finding a place for magic within scientific discussion – and this, indeed, may have been a part of the objective of writing such a book.[18]

Maddox argued that Sheldrake's hypothesis was not testable or "falsifiable in Popper's sense", and said Sheldrake's proposals to test his hypothesis were "time-consuming, inconclusive in the sense that it will always be possible to account for another morphogenetic field and impractical".[18] In the editorial Maddox ultimately rejected the suggestion that the book should be burned,[18] however the title of the piece nonetheless garnered widespread publicity.[24][26][50]

In a subsequent issue, Nature published several letters expressing disapproval of the editorial,[51][52][53][54] including one from physicist B. D. Josephson who criticised Maddox for "a failure to admit even the possibility that genuine physical facts may exist which lie outside the scope of current scientific descriptions."[51] In 2009 an editor for Nature said that Maddox's reference to book burning backfired.[24] Still, since the publication of A New Science of Life Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance continues to be widely regarded as pseudoscience.[15][17][19][20]

Writing on the affair years later, one scientist referred to the title "A book for burning?" as "posing the question to attract attention" and criticised the "perpetuation of the myth that Maddox ever advocated the burning of Sheldrake's book".[55]

The Presence of the Past

In his next book, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature (1988), Sheldrake expanded on his morphic resonance hypothesis and marshalled experimental evidence which he said supported the hypothesis.[8] The book was reviewed favourably in New Scientist by historian Theodore Roszak who called it "engaging, provocative" and "a tour de force".[56] When the book was re-issued in 2011 with these quotes on the front cover, New Scientist remarked, "Back then, Roszak gave Sheldrake the benefit of the doubt. Today, attitudes have hardened and Sheldrake is seen as standing firmly on the wilder shores of science", and added that if New Scientist were to review the re-issue, the book's publisher "wouldn't be mining it for promotional purposes."[57]

David Jones, reviewing the book in The Times, criticised it as magical thinking and pseudoscience, saying that morphic resonance "is so vast and formless that it could easily be made to explain anything, or to dodge round any opposing argument... Sheldrake has sadly aligned himself with those fantasists who, from the depths of their armchairs, dream up whole new grandiose theories of space and time to revolutionize all science, drape their wooly generalizations over every phenomenon they can think of, and then start looking round for whatever scraps of evidence that seem to them to be in their favour". Jones argued that without confirmatory experimental evidence, "the whole unweildy and redundant structure of [Sheldrake's] theory falls to Occam's Razor".[21]

Seven Experiments That Could Change the World

In 1994 Sheldrake proposed a list of Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, subtitled "A do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science". He encouraged lay people to contribute to scientific research and argued that scientific experiments similar to his own could be conducted on a shoestring budget.[58]

David Sharp, writing in The Lancet, said the experiments tested for paranormal phenomena with "risk of positive publication bias", and that the scientific community "would have to think again if some of these suggestions were convincingly confirmed". Sharp encouraged readers to "at least read Sheldrake, even try one of his experiments—but pay very close attention to your methods section". Sharp doubted "a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs...is going to persuade sceptics" and noted that "orthodox science will need a lot of convincing".[59]

Dogs That Know Their Owners are Coming Home

Seven Experiments included the seed of Sheldrake's next book, Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999), which covered his research into purported telepathy between humans and animals, particularly dogs. Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic resonance is responsible for it.[60]

Sir John Maddox also reviewed this book in Nature, describing Sheldrake as "incorrigible" for "persist[ing] in error".[50]

Richard Wiseman, Mathew Smith, and Julie Milton independently conducted an experimental study with Jaytee, a purportedly telepathic dog mentioned in the book, and concluded that the evidence gathered did not support telepathy. They also proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's positive conclusions, and questioned whether laypeople had the ability to conduct experiments without inadvertently introducing artefacts and bias due to inexperience with rigorous experimental design.[49][61]

The Sense of Being Stared At

In 2003 Sheldrake published The Sense of Being Stared At which explored telepathy, precognition, and the "psychic staring effect". It included an experiment where blindfolded subjects guessed whether persons were staring at them or at another target. He reported that in thousands of trials, around 60 percent of subjects reported being stared at when being stared at; around 50 percent (even chance) of subjects reported being stared at when they were not being stared at. Sheldrake attributes this effect to morphic resonance.[62] Several independent experimenters were unable to duplicate these results, with some citing design flaws in Sheldrake's experiments.[25][47][63]

The Science Delusion / Science Set Free

The Science Delusion, published on 1 January 2012 in the UK and in the US on 4 September 2012 as Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery, summarises much of Sheldrake's previous work and encapsulates it into a broader critique of philosophical materialism,[11] with the title apparently mimicking that of The God Delusion by one of his critics, Richard Dawkins. In an interview with Fortean Times, Sheldrake denied that Dawkins' book was the inspiration for his own, saying, "The title was at the insistence of my publishers, and the book will be re-titled in the USA as Science Set Free... Dawkins is a passionate believer in materialist dogma, but the book is not a response to him".[64]

In the book Sheldrake proposes a number of questions as the theme of each chapter which seek to elaborate on his central premise that science is predicated on the belief that the nature of reality is fully understood, with only minor details needing to be filled in. This "delusion" is what Sheldrake argues has turned science into a series of dogmas grounded in philosophical materialism rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. He argues that there are many powerful taboos that circumscribe what scientists can legitimately direct their attention towards.[11] The mainstream view of modern science is that it proceeds by methodological naturalism and does not require philosophical materialism.[65]

Sheldrake questions conservation of energy; he calls it a "standard scientific dogma", says that perpetual motion devices and inedia should be investigated as possible phenomena, and claims that "the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak". He argues in favour of alternative medicine and psychic phenomena, saying that their recognition as being legitimate is impeded by a "scientific priesthood" with an "authoritarian mentality". Citing his earlier "psychic staring effect" experiments and other reasons, he claims that minds are not confined to brains and remarks that "liberating minds from confinement in heads is like being released from prison." He suggests that DNA is insufficient to explain inheritance, and that inheritance of form and behaviour is mediated through morphic resonance. He also promotes morphic resonance in broader fashion as an explanation for other phenomena such as memory.[11]

Reviews in broadsheet newspapers were often positive. Philosopher Mary Midgley writing in The Guardian welcomed it as "a new mind-body paradigm" to address "the unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter".[66] Writer and former Anglican priest Mark Vernon also positively reviewed the book,[67] as did Colin Tudge in The Independent.[68] In another review, Deepak Chopra commended Sheldrake for wanting "to end the breach between science and religion".[69] Philosopher Martin Cohen in The Times Higher Educational Supplement wrote that "Sheldrake pokes enough holes in such certainties [of orthodox science] to make this work a valuable contribution, not only to philosophical debates but also to scientific ones, too", although Cohen noted that Sheldrake "goes a bit too far here and there".[70]

In a mixed review, Bryan Appleyard writing in The Sunday Times commented that Sheldrake was "at his most incisive" when making a "broad critique of contemporary science" and "scientism", however on Sheldrake's "own scientific theories" Appleyard noted that "morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported. Most of the experimental evidence is contested, though Sheldrake claims there are 'statistically significant' results". Appleyard said "it is certainly highly speculative" and "I simply can't tell whether it makes sense or not".[71]

Other reviews were less favourable. New Scientist's deputy editor Graham Lawton characterised Science Set Free as "woolly credulousness" and chided Sheldrake for "uncritically embracing all kinds of fringe ideas".[72] A review in Philosophy Now called the book "disturbingly eccentric", combining "a disorderly collage of scientific fact and opinion with an intrusive yet disjunctive metaphysical programme".[73]

Public and media appearances

Rupert Sheldrake in 2008 at a conference in Tucson, Arizona.

Sheldrake has received popular coverage through newspapers, radio, television and speaking engagements.

An experiment involving measuring the time for subjects to recognise hidden images, with morphic resonance being posited to aid in recognition, was conducted in 1984 by the BBC popular science programme Tomorrow's World.[10] In the outcome of the experiment, one set of data yielded positive results and another set yielded negative results.[74]

Sheldrake was the subject of an episode of Heretics of Science, a six-part documentary series broadcast on BBC 2 in 1994.[75] On this episode, John Maddox discussed "A book for burning?", his 1981 Nature editorial review of Sheldrake's book, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. Maddox said that morphic resonance "is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned with exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy."[74] The broadcast repeatedly displayed footage of book burning, sometimes accompanied by audio of a crowd chanting "heretic".[74] Biologist Steven Rose criticised the broadcast for focusing on Maddox's rhetoric as if it was "all that mattered". "There wasn't much sense of the scientific or metascientific issues at stake", Rose said.[76]

Sheldrake debated biologist Lewis Wolpert on the existence of telepathy in 2004 at the Royal Society of Arts in London.[5] Sheldrake marshalled evidence for telepathy while Wolpert argued that telepathy fit Irving Langmuir's definition of pathological science and that the evidence for telepathy has not been persuasive.[77] Reporting on the event, New Scientist said "it was clear the audience saw Wolpert as no more than a killjoy... There are sound reasons for doubting Sheldrake's data. One is that some parapsychology experimenters have an uncanny knack of finding the effect they are looking for. There is no suggestion of fraud, but something is going on, and science demands that it must be understood before conclusions can be drawn about the results".[5]

In 2006, Sheldrake spoke at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science about experimental results on telepathy replicated by "a 1980s girl band", drawing criticism from Peter Atkins, Lord Winston, and Richard Wiseman. The Royal Society also reacted to the event saying, "Modern science is based on a rigorous evidence-based process involving experiment and observation. The results and interpretations should always be exposed to robust peer review."[78]

In April 2008, Sheldrake was stabbed by a man during a lecture in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The man told a reporter that he thought Sheldrake had been using him as a "guinea pig" in telepathic mind control experiments for over five years.[79] Sheldrake suffered a wound to the leg and has since recovered,[79][80] while his assailant was found "guilty but mentally ill".[81]

In January 2013, Sheldrake gave a TEDx lecture at TEDxWhitechapel in East London roughly summarising ideas from his book, The Science Delusion. In his talk, Sheldrake claimed that modern science rests on ten dogmas which "fall apart" upon examination and promoted his hypothesis of morphic resonance. According to a statement issued by TED staff, TED's scientific advisors "questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions" and believed that "there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake's more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance". The advisors recommended that the talk "should not be distributed without being framed with caution". The video of the talk was moved from the TEDx YouTube channel to the TED blog accompanied by the framing language called for by the advisors. The move and framing prompted accusations of censorship, to which TED responded by saying the accusations were "simply not true" and that Sheldrake's talk was "up on our website".[82][83]

The attention Sheldrake receives has raised concerns that it adversely affects the public understanding of science.[6][18][19][24] Scientists have accused Sheldrake of self-promotion,[18][19][24] with one commenting, "for the inventors of such hypotheses the rewards include a degree of instant fame which is harder to achieve by the humdrum pursuit of more conventional science."[19]

In November 2013, Sheldrake was interviewed on the BBC World Service about his Wikipedia page, stating that it had recently been taken over by a group of people who were intent on altering it so as to create a distorted and factually inaccurate impression of him and his ideas.[84]

Interactions with other scientists

Sheldrake and David Bohm published a dialogue in 1982 in which they compared Sheldrake's ideas to Bohm's implicate order.[85] In 1997 Physicist Hans-Peter Dürr speculated about Sheldrake's work in relation to modern physics.[86]

Sheldrake and developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert have made a scientific wager about the importance of DNA in the developing organism. Wolpert bet Sheldrake "a case of fine port" that "By 1 May 2029, given the genome of a fertilised egg of an animal or plant, we will be able to predict in at least one case all the details of the organism that develops from it, including any abnormalities." Sheldrake denies that DNA contains a recipe for morphological development. The Royal Society will be asked to determine the winner if the result is not obvious.[87]

Origin and philosophy of morphic resonance

Among his early influences Sheldrake cites The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Sheldrake says the book led him to view contemporary scientific understanding of life as a paradigm, which he called "the mechanistic theory of life". Reading Kuhn's work, Sheldrake says, fixed his focus on how scientific paradigms can change.[9]

Although there are similarities between morphic resonance and Hinduism's akashic records,[88] Sheldrake says he first conceived of the idea while at Cambridge, before his travel to India where he would later develop it. He attributes the origin of his morphic resonance idea to two influences: his studies of the holistic tradition in biology, and French philosopher Henri Bergson's book Matter and Memory. He says he took Bergson's concept of memories not being materially embedded in the brain and generalised it to morphic resonance, where memories are not only immaterial but also under the influence of the collective past memories of similar organisms. While his colleagues at Cambridge were not receptive to the idea, Sheldrake found the opposite to be true in India. He recounts his Indian colleagues saying, "There's nothing new in this, it was all known millennia ago to the ancient rishis." Sheldrake thus characterises morphic resonance as a convergence between Western and Eastern thought, having originated in the West and developed in the East.[8][89]

Sheldrake has also noted similarities between morphic resonance and Carl Jung's collective unconscious with regard to collective memories being shared across individuals and to the coalescing of particular behaviours through repetition, described by Jung as archetypes.[8] However, where Jung had assumed a physical explanation for the collective unconscious, Sheldrake rejects any such explanation involving what he terms "mechanistic biology".[10]

Sheldrake has been described as a New Age author[90][91] and is popular among many in the New Age movement who view him as lending scientific credibility to their beliefs,[92][74] though Sheldrake does not necessarily endorse certain New Age interpretations of his ideas.[92]

Bibliography

  • A New Science of Life: the hypothesis of formative causation, Los Angeles, CA: J.P. Tarcher, 1981 (second edition 1985, third edition 2009). ISBN 978-1-84831-042-1.
  • The Presence of the Past: morphic resonance and the habits of nature, New York, NY: Times Books, 1988. ISBN 0-8129-1666-2.
  • The Rebirth of Nature: the greening of science and God, New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1991. ISBN 0-553-07105-X.
  • Seven Experiments That Could Change the World: a do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science, New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 1995. ISBN 1-57322-014-0.
  • Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home: and other unexplained powers of animals, New York, NY: Crown, 1999 (second edition 2011). ISBN 978-0-307-88596-8.
  • The Sense of Being Stared At: and other aspects of the extended mind, New York, NY: Crown Publishers, 2003. ISBN 0-609-60807-X.
  • The Science Delusion: Freeing the spirit of enquiry, London: Coronet, 2012. ISBN 978-1-4447-2795-1.
  • Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery. Deepak Chopra, 2012. ISBN 978-0770436704.

With Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna:

  • Trialogues at the Edge of the West: chaos, creativity, and the resacralisation of the world, Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Co. Pub., 1992. ISBN 0-939680-97-1.
  • The Evolutionary Mind: trialogues at the edge of the unthinkable, Santa Cruz, CA: Dakota Books, 1997. ISBN 0-9632861-1-0.
  • Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness, Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, 2001. ISBN 0-89281-977-4.
  • The Evolutionary Mind: conversations on science, imagination & spirit, Rhinebeck, NY: Monkfish Book Pub. Co., 2005. ISBN 0-9749359-7-2.

With Matthew Fox:

  • Natural Grace: dialogues on creation, darkness, and the soul in spirituality and science, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1996. ISBN 0-385-48356-2.
  • The Physics of Angels: exploring the realm where science and spirit meet, San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. ISBN 0-06-062864-2.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Sources:

References

  1. ^ a b c d Chartres, Caroline, ed. (June 2006). Why I Am Still an Anglican: Essays and Conversations. Continuum.
  2. ^ McGrath, K. A. (1999). World of biology. Gale.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Adams, Tim (4 February 2012). "Rupert Sheldrake: the 'heretic' at odds with scientific dogma". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
  4. ^ "Overhyped". Nature. 443: 132. 14 September 2006.
  5. ^ a b c "When science meets the paranormal". New Scientist. 2438. 13 March 2004.
  6. ^ a b c Whitfield, J. (22 January 2004). "Telepathic charm seduces audience at paranormal debate". Nature. 427(6972): 277.
  7. ^ a b Sheldrake, Rupert; McKenna, Terence K.; Abraham, Ralph (2011). Chaos, Creativity, and Cosmic Consciousness. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. p. 181-182.
  8. ^ a b c d e Sheldrake, Rupert (2011). The presence of the past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature. Icon Books.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Sheldrake, Rupert. "Biography of Rupert Sheldrake, PhD – Part II". Sheldrake.org. Retrieved 28 May 2008.
  10. ^ a b c d Sheldrake, Rupert (2009). Morphic resonance: the nature of formative causation. Inner Traditions/Bear & Co.
  11. ^ a b c d e Sheldrake, Rupert (2012). The Science Delusion: Freeing the spirit of enquiry. London: Coronet.
  12. ^ Spellman, F. R.; Price-Bayer, J. (2011). In Defense of Science: Why Scientific Literacy Matters. Government Institutes. p. 81.
  13. ^ Gardner, M. (1988). The New Age: notes of a fringe-watcher. Prometheus books. Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash.
  14. ^ Samuel, L. R. (2011). Supernatural America: A Cultural History: A Cultural History. ABC-CLIO. ...most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash...
  15. ^ a b c Sharma, Ruchir (2012). Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles. WW Norton & Company. Despite Sheldrake's legitimate scientific credentials, his peers have roundly dismissed his theory as pseudoscience.
  16. ^ a b Hood, Bruce M (2009). Supersense: Why we believe in the unbelievable. HarperOne. p. 232. The trouble is that, whereas electric and magnetic fields are easily measurable and obey laws, morphic resonance remains elusive and has no demonstrable laws. No other area of science would accept such lawless, weak evidence as proof, which is why the majority of the scientific community has generally dismissed this theory and the evidence.
  17. ^ a b c d e Wolpert, Lewis (11 January 1984). "A matter of fact or fancy?: SECOND OPINION". The Guardian. p. 11.
  18. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Maddox, John (24 September 1981). "A book for burning?" (PDF). Nature. 293 (5830): 245–246. Bibcode:1981Natur.293R.245.. doi:10.1038/293245b0. ...Sheldrake's argument is in no sense a scientific argument but is an exercise in pseudo-science.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h Rose, S. (1992). "So-called "Formative Causation". A Hypothesis Disconfirmed. Response to Rupert Sheldrake" (pdf). Riv. Biol./Biol. Forum. 85: 445–453. Along with parapsychology, corn circles, creationism, ley-lines and "deep ecology", "formative causation", or "morphic resonance" has many of the characteristics of such pseudosciences... {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  20. ^ a b de Pracontal, M. (1986). L'imposture scientifique en dix leçons. Editions La Découverte.
  21. ^ a b c d Jones, David (4 July 1988). "Books: Captain Morphic - Review of 'THE PRESENCE OF THE PAST' By Rupert Sheldrake". The Times.
  22. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd. "Morphic Resonance". Skepdic.com. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  23. ^ a b Blackmore, Susan (4 February 2009). "An idea with resonance: More than anything, Sheldrake's continuing popularity is rooted in our need to believe". The Guardian.
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h Rutherford, Adam (6 February 2009). "A book for ignoring: Sheldrake persists in his claims, despite the fact that there's no evidence for them. This is bad science". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
  25. ^ a b c d Shermer, Michael. "Rupert's Resonance". Scientific American. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
  26. ^ a b c Rose, Steven (13 April 1988). "Some facts that just don't resonate: Second opinion". The Guardian. p. 27.
  27. ^ a b c Blackmore, S. (27 August 1999). "If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet". The Times Higher Education Supplement. 18.
  28. ^ Marriage record registered in September 1934, @ FreeBMD Images ref 1934M3-T-0308
  29. ^ "Birth record". findmypast.co.uk.
  30. ^ Marriage record registered in September 1934, @ FreeBMD Images ref 1934M3-S-0193
  31. ^ "Reginald Sheldrake Upon his Graduation, Newark, c 1924". Picturethepast.org.uk. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
  32. ^ Sheldrake, Rupert, Family Orchards, The Ecologist, 9 October 2013. Retrieved 1 November 2013.
  33. ^ a b c Sheldrake, Rupert. "Biography of Rupert Sheldrake, PhD". sheldrake.org. Retrieved 18 March 2013.
  34. ^ a b Lemley, B. (2000). "Heresy". Discover. 21(8): 60–65.
  35. ^ "Papers on Auxin Transport in Plants". sheldrake.org.
  36. ^ "Papers on Hormone Production in Plants". sheldrake.org.
  37. ^ Abel, S. (2010). "Odyssey of Auxin". Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2 (10): a004572–a004572. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a004572. ISSN 1943-0264. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  38. ^ Sheldrake, Rupert. "Papers on Crop Physiology". sheldrake.org.
  39. ^ Bisen, S. S.; Sheldrake, A. R. (1981). The anatomy of the pigeonpea. ICRISAT.
  40. ^ "ht_faculty". The Graduate Institute. archive.org.
  41. ^ http://www.learn.edu/
  42. ^ Sheldrake, Rupert. "Biography of Rupert Sheldrake, PhD". archive.org.
  43. ^ Sheldrake, Rupert. "The Perrott-Warrick Project". Sheldrake.org. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  44. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion
  45. ^ Sheldrake, Rupert (1981). A New Science of Life: the hypothesis of formative causation. Los Angeles, CA: J.P. Tarcher.
  46. ^ Davy, J. (9 August 1981). "Old rats and new tricks". The Observer.
  47. ^ a b Marks, D., & Coiwell, J. (September/October 2000). "The psychic staring effect: An artifact of pseudo-randomization". Skeptical Inquirer. 41: 49. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  48. ^ Psi wars: Getting to grips with the paranormal. Imprint Academic. 2003. Rupert Sheldrake's (1994) popular book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World is more of a collection of seven deadly sins of science and, from a philosophy of science standpoint, a documentation of the reasons why parapsychology is regarded as pseudoscience. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  49. ^ a b Wiseman, Richard; Smith, Matthew; Milton, Julie (2000). "The 'psychic pet' phenomenon: a reply to Rupert Sheldrake" (pdf). Journal of the Society for Psychical Research.
  50. ^ a b Maddox, J. (1999). "Dogs, telepathy and quantum mechanics". Nature. 401(6756): 849–850. Bibcode:1999Natur.401..849M. doi:10.1038/44696.
  51. ^ a b Josephson, B. D. (1981). "Incendiary subject". Nature. 293: 594.
  52. ^ Clarke, C. J. S. (1981). "Incendiary subject". Nature. 293: 594.
  53. ^ Hedges, R. (1981). "Incendiary subject". Nature. 293: 506.
  54. ^ Cousins, F. W. (1981). "Incendiary subject". Nature. 293: 506–594.
  55. ^ Leader, David P. (20 April 1988). "Letter to the editor". The Guardian.
  56. ^ Theodore Roszak (21 July 1988). "Habits of nature" (PDF). New Scientist: 63.
  57. ^ Lawton, Graham (14 June 2011). "Sheldrake book: Did we really say that?". New Scientist.
  58. ^ Sheldrake, Rupert (1995). Seven experiments that could change the world: a do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
  59. ^ The Lancet. 343.8902 (Apr. 9, 1994): p905
  60. ^ Sheldrake, Rupert (1999). Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home: and other unexplained powers of animals. New York, NY: Crown.
  61. ^ Wiseman, R.; Smith, M.; Milton, J. (1998). "Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the 'psychic pet' phenomenon" (pdf). British Journal of Psychology. 89(3): 453–462.
  62. ^ Sheldrake, Rupert (2003). The Sense of Being Stared At: and other aspects of the extended mind. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
  63. ^ Baker, R. A. (2000). "Can We Tell When Someone is Staring at Us?". Skeptical Inquirer. 24(2): 34–40.
  64. ^ Marshall, Steve (2012). "The Science Delusion". Fortean Times. Vol. 286. p. 38. {{cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  65. ^ Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. University of Chicago Press. p. 192.
  66. ^ Midgley, Mary (27 January 2012). "The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake – review". The Guardian.
  67. ^ Vernon, Mark (28 January 2012). "It's time for science to move on from materialism". The Guardian.
  68. ^ Tudge, Colin (6 January 2012). "The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, By Rupert Sheldrake". The Independent.
  69. ^ Chopra, Deepak (2 November 2012). "Science Set Free – Good News for Lumbering Robots". San Francisco Chronicle.
  70. ^ Cohen, Martin (8 March 2012). "The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry". The Times Higher Education Supplement.
  71. ^ Appleyard, Bryan (19 February 2012). "Dogmas under the microscope; The rogue scientist who dares to challenge the idea that science alone explains everything in the world". The Sunday Times. p. 38.
  72. ^ Lawton, Graham (31 August 2012). "Science's greatest critic is no mood to recant". New Scientist.
  73. ^ Greenbank, John (July/August 2013). "The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake". Philosophy Now. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  74. ^ a b c d "Rupert Sheldrake". Heretics of Science. 19 July 1994. BBC.
  75. ^ "Heretics of Science". episodecalendar.com.
  76. ^ Rose, Steven (8 September 1994). "Heresy at stake". The Guardian. p. B11.
  77. ^ "The RSA Telepathy Debate - Text". sheldrake.org.
  78. ^ Highfield, Roger; Fleming, Nic (6 September 2006). "Festival attacked over paranormal 'nonsense'". The Telegraph.
  79. ^ a b Sharpe, Tom (20 September 2008). "Alleged assailant says he's not crazy". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  80. ^ Sharpe, Tom (5 December 2008). "Judge orders mental-health help for man who insists his mind is being controlled". Santa Fe New Mexican.
  81. ^ http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/state/apguilty11-08-08.htm
  82. ^ Bignell, Paul (7 April 2013). "TED conference censorship row". The Independent. Independent Print Limited.
  83. ^ "The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk". TED. 19 March 2013.
  84. ^ World Update, BBC World Service, 1 November 2013
  85. ^ Sheldrake, R., & Bohm, D. (1982). "Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order". ReVision. 5: 41.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  86. ^ Dürr, H. P. (Ed.) (1997). Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion. Scherz.
  87. ^ Wolpert, L.; Sheldrake, R. (8 July 2009). "What can DNA tell us? Place your bets now". New Scientist.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  88. ^ Leviton, Mark (February 2013). "Wrong Turn: Biologist Rupert Sheldrake On How Science Lost Its Way". The Sun Magazine. Vol. 446.
  89. ^ Ebert, John David (Spring 1998). "From Cellular Aging to the Physics of Angels: A Conversation with Rupert Sheldrake". The Quest.
  90. ^ Gunther, Carl T. (2006). The Vital Dimension: A Quest for Mind, Memory and God in the Thickness of Time. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. p. 60.
  91. ^ Frazier, K., ed. (1991). The Hundredth Monkey and other Paradigms of the Paranormal. Buffalo: Prometheus. p. 171.
  92. ^ a b Hanegraaff, Wouter Jacobus (1995). New Age religion and Western culture: esotericism in the mirror of secular thought. Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Godgeleerdheid. p. 352.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Rupert Sheldrake.

Template:Persondata

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&oldid=580153822"