Wikipedia

Rupert Sheldrake

(Redirected fromMorphic resonance)
This article is about Rupert Sheldrake and his theory of morphic fields. For the concept in developmental biology, seeMorphogenetic field.

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake(born 28 June 1942) is an English author andparapsychologyresearcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance,[2][3]a conjecture that lacks mainstream acceptance and has been widely criticized aspseudoscience.[4][5][6][7][8]He has worked as a biochemist atCambridge University,aHarvardscholar, a researcher at theRoyal Society,and aplant physiologistforICRISATin India.[2][9]

Rupert Sheldrake
Sheldrake in 2008
Born(1942-06-28)28 June 1942(age 82)
Newark-on-Trent,Nottinghamshire, England[1]
NationalityBritish
EducationClare College, Cambridge(MA)
Harvard University
University of Cambridge(PhD)
Occupation(s)Researcher, author, critic
EmployerThePerrott-Warrick Fund(2005–2010)
SpouseJill Purce
ChildrenCosmo Sheldrake
Merlin Sheldrake
Websitewww.sheldrake.org

Other work by Sheldrake encompasses paranormal subjects such asprecognition,empirical researchintotelepathy,and thepsychic staring effect.[10][11]He has been described as aNew Ageauthor.[12][13][14]

Sheldrake's morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature"[2][15]and that "natural systems... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind."[15]Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms."[16][10]His advocacy of the idea offers idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such asdevelopment,inheritance,and memory.

Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.[a]

Early life and education

Sheldrake was born on 28 June 1942,[33]inNewark-on-Trent,Nottinghamshire,[1]to Reginald Sheldrake and Doris (née Tebbutt).[34]His father was aUniversity of Nottingham-educated pharmacist who ran a chemist's shop on the same road as his parents' wallpaper shop.[35]Sheldrake credits his father (an amateur naturalist and microscopist)[33]with supporting his interests in zoology and botany.[16][36]

Although his parents wereMethodists,[37]they sent him toWorksop College,anAnglicanboarding school.[1]Sheldrake has said:

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 myhigh Anglicanboarding school who refused to get confirmed.[2]

In the nine-month period before starting college, Sheldrake worked at theParke-Davispharmacology research lab in London, an experience he described as formative due to the required destruction of lab animals, which he found deeply unsettling.[37]AtClare College, Cambridge,Sheldrake studied biology and biochemistry. In 1964,[37]he was awarded a fellowship to study the philosophy and history of science atHarvard University.[38]After a year at Harvard, he returned to Cambridge, where he earned a PhD in biochemistry in 1968 for his work in plant development andplant hormones.[39][2][16]

Career

After obtaining his PhD, Sheldrake became afellowof Clare College,[40]working in biochemistry and cell biology with funding from theRoyal SocietyRosenheim Research Fellowship.[41]He investigatedauxins,a class ofplant hormonethat plays a role in plantvascularcell differentiation.[42]Sheldrake and Philip Rubery developed thechemiosmotic modelofpolar auxin transport.[43]

Sheldrake has said that 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.[42]

From 1968 to 1969,[37]Sheldrake worked at theUniversity of Malaya.[2][37]

Having an interest inIndian philosophy,Hinduismandtranscendental meditation,Sheldrake resigned his position at Clare and went to work on the physiology of tropical crops inHyderabad, India,[16]as principal plant physiologist at theInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics(ICRISAT) from 1974 to 1978.[9][16]There he published on crop physiology[44]and co-authored a book on the anatomy of thepigeonpea.[45]

Sheldrake left ICRISAT to focus on writingA New Science of Life,during which time he spent a year and a half in theSaccidananda AshramofBede Griffiths,[16][46]aBenedictinemonk active ininterfaith dialoguewith Hinduism.[1]Published in 1981, the book outlines his concept of morphic resonance,[16]of which he has said:

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.[16]

After writingA New Science of Life,he continued at ICRISAT as a part-time consultant physiologist until 1985.[9]

Sheldrake published his second book,The Presence of the Past,in 1988.[47]In the 1990s and 2000s, he continued to publish books, which included several joint discussions withRalph Abraham,a mathematician, andTerence McKenna,an ethnobotanist and mystic.[48][49][50]Sheldrake also collaborated withMatthew Fox,a priest and theologian, on two books in 1996.[51][52]

Sheldrake was one of six subjects, along withOliver Sacks,Daniel Dennett,Stephen Jay Gould,Freeman Dyson,Stephen Toulmin,who were covered in 1993 by the Dutch filmmaker Wim Kayzer inA Glorious Accident,[53]a documentary series that posed a series of questions aboutconsciousnessand culminated in a roundtable discussion between the participants.[54]The film was shown onDutch public broadcasting systemVPROin 1993, followed by United States PBS member stationWNETin 1994.[54]The bookA Glorious Accident: Understanding Our Place in the Cosmic Puzzlewas produced from the transcripts of the program and published in both Dutch[55]and English.[56]

Since 2004,[57]Sheldrake has been a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute inBethany, Connecticut,[46]where he was also academic director of the Holistic Learning and Thinking Program until 2012.[46]From September 2005 until 2010, Sheldrake was director of thePerrott–WarrickProject forpsychicalresearch for research on unexplained human and animal abilities, funded from Trinity College, Cambridge.[40][58]As of 2014, he was a fellow of theInstitute of Noetic SciencesinCaliforniaand a fellow ofSchumacher CollegeinDevon, England.[59]Since 2014, he has been a fellow of the Temenos Academy, London.[60]

In 2017, Sheldrake published a dialog with science writer and skepticMichael ShermertitledArguing Science: A Dialogue on the Future of Science and Spirit.[33]In 2023, at the How The Light Gets In festival of philosophy in Hay-on-Wye, UK, Sheldrake debated Shermer.[61]In 2023, Sheldrake debated the existence of consciousness outside of brains at the University Aula inBergen, Norway,alongside anthropologistTanya Luhrmannand neuroscientistAnil Seth.[62]

Sheldrake has outlined his spiritual practices in two books:Science and Spiritual Practices(2017)[63]andWays to Go Beyond and Why They Work(2019).[64]

Selected books

Reviews of Sheldrake's books have at times been extremely negative about their scientific content, but some have been positive. In 2009,Adam Rutherford,geneticist and deputy editor ofNature,criticised Sheldrake's books for containing research that was not subjected to thepeer-reviewprocess expected for science, and suggested that his books were best "ignored."[25]

A New Science of Life(1981)

Sheldrake'sA New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance(1981) proposes that through morphic resonance, various perceived phenomena, particularly biological ones, become more probable the more often they occur, and that biological growth and behaviour thus become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events. As a result, he suggests, newly acquired behaviours can be passed down to future generations—a biological proposition akin to theLamarckian inheritancetheory. He generalises this approach to assert that it explains many aspects of science, fromevolutionto thelaws of nature,which, in Sheldrake's formulation, are merely mutable habits that have been evolving and changing since theBig Bang.[citation needed]

John Davy wrote inThe Observerthat the implications ofA New Science of Lifewere "fascinating and far-reaching, and would turn upside down a lot of orthodox science," and that they would "merit attention if some of its predictions are supported by experiment."[65]

In subsequent books, Sheldrake continued to promote morphic resonance.

The morphic resonance hypothesis is rejected by numerous critics on many grounds, and has been labelledpseudoscienceandmagical thinking.These grounds include the lack of evidence for it and its inconsistency with establishedscientific theories.The idea of morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibility because it is overly vague andunfalsifiable.Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject toexperimenter bias.His analyses of results have also drawn criticism.[b]

Alex Gomez-Marin denies that Sheldrake's basic idea is unfalsifiable, but no conclusive experiments have been performed since mainstream scientists do not wish to get involved in such experiments.[71]

The Presence of the Past(1988)

InThe Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature(1988), Sheldrake expands on his morphic resonance hypothesis and marshals experimental evidence that he says supports it.[15]The book was reviewed favourably inNew Scientistby historianTheodore Roszak,who called it "engaging, provocative" and "a tour de force."[72]When it was reissued in 2011 with those quotes on the front cover,New Scientistremarked, "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," adding that ifNew Scientistwere to review the reissue, the book's publisher "wouldn't be mining it for promotional purposes."[73]

In a 1988 review of the book inThe Times,David E. H. Jonescriticised the hypothesis 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 woolly 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 unwieldy and redundant structure of [Sheldrake's] theory falls toOccam's Razor."[22]

The Rebirth of Nature(1991)

Published in 1991, Sheldrake'sThe Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and Godaddresses the subject ofNew Ageconsciousness and related topics.[74][75]A column inThe Guardiansaid that the book "seeks to restore the pre-Enlightenment notion that nature is 'alive'," quoting Sheldrake as saying that "indeterminism, spontaneity and creativity have re-emerged throughout the natural world" and that "mystic, animistic and religious ways of thinking can no longer be kept at bay."[76]The book was reviewed byJames LovelockinNature,who argued that "the theory of formative causation makes testable predictions," noting that "nothing has yet been reported which would divert the mainstream of science.... Even if it is nonsense... recognizing the need for fruitful errors, I do not regard the book as dangerous."[77]

Seven Experiments That Could Change the World(1994)

In 1994, Sheldrake proposed a list ofSeven Experiments That Could Change the World,subtitled "A do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science." He encouraged laypeople to conduct research and argued that experiments similar to his own could be conducted with limited expense.[78]

Music critic ofThe Sunday TimesMark Edwards reviewed the book positively, arguing that Sheldrake "challenges the complacent certainty of scientists," and that his ideas "sounded ridiculous... as long as your thinking is constrained by the current scientific orthodoxy."[79]

David Sharp, writing inThe Lancet,said that the experiments testing paranormal phenomena carried the "risk of positivepublication bias,"and that the scientific community" would have to think again if some of these suggestions were convincingly confirmed. "Sharp encouraged readers (medical professionals) to" at least read Sheldrake, even try one of his experiments—but pay very close attention to your methods section. "Sharp doubted whether" a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs [was] going to persuade sceptics, "and noted that" orthodox science will need a lot of convincing. "[80]

Science journalist Nigel Hawkes, writing inThe Times,said that Sheldrake was "trying to bridge the gap betweenphenomenalismand science, "and suggested that dogs could appear to have psychic abilities when they were actually relying on more conventional senses. He concluded:" whether scientists will be willing to take [Sheldrake] seriously is... [a question] that need not concern most readers. While I do not think this book will change the world, it will cause plenty of harmless fun. "[81]

Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home(1999)

See also:Human–canine bond

Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home,published in 1999, covers his research into proposedtelepathybetween humans and animals, particularly dogs. Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic fields are responsible for it.[82]

The book is in three sections, on telepathy, on sense of direction, includinganimal migrationand thehoming of pigeons,and on animalprecognition,including premonitions of earthquakes and tsunamis. Sheldrake examined more than 1,000 case histories of dogs and cats that seemed to anticipate their owners' return by waiting at a door or window, sometimes for half an hour or more ahead of their return. He did a long series of experiments with a dog called Jaytee, in which the dog was filmed continuously during its owner's absence. In 100 filmed tests, on average the dog spent far more time at the window when its owner was on her way home than when she was not. During the main period of her absence, before she started her return journey, the dog was at the window for an average of 24 seconds per 10-minute period (4% of the time), whereas when she was on her way home, during the first ten minutes of her homeward journey, from more than five miles away, the dog was at the window for an average of five minutes 30 seconds (55% of the time). Sheldrake interpreted the result as highlysignificantstatistically. He performed 12 more tests, in which the dog's owner travelled home in a taxi or other unfamiliar vehicle at randomly selected times communicated to her by telephone, to rule out the possibility that the dog was reacting to familiar car sounds or routines.[83]He also carried out similar experiments with another dog, Kane, describing the results as similarly positive and significant.[82]

Before the publication ofDogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home,Sheldrake invitedRichard Wiseman,Matthew Smith, and Julie Milton to conduct an independent experimental study with Jaytee. They concluded that their evidence did not support telepathy as an explanation for the dog's behaviour,[84]and proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's conclusions, involving artefacts, bias resulting fromexperimental design,andpost hoc analysisof unpublished data.[70][85]The group observed that Sheldrake's observed patterns could easily arise if a dog were simply to do very little for a while, before visiting a window with increasing frequency the longer its owner was absent, and that such behaviour would make sense for a dog awaiting its owner's return. Under this behaviour, the final measurement period, ending with the owner's return, would always contain the most time spent at the window.[70]Sheldrake argued that the actual data in his own and in Wiseman's tests did not bear this out, and that the dog went to wait at the window sooner when his owner was returning from a short absence, and later after a long absence, with no tendency for Jaytee to go to the window early in the way that he did for shorter absences.[86]

Reviewing the book,Susan Blackmorecriticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.[83][unbalanced opinion?]

The Sense of Being Stared At(2003)

Sheldrake'sThe Sense of Being Stared Atexplores telepathy, precognition, and the "psychic staring effect."It reported on an experiment Sheldrake conducted where blindfolded subjects guessed whether persons were staring at them or at another target. He reported subjects exhibiting a weak sense of being stared at, but no sense of not being stared at,[87][88]and attributed the results to morphic resonance.[89]He reported a hit rate of 53.1%, describing two subjects as "nearly always right, scoring way above chance levels."[90]

Several independent experimenters were unable to find evidence beyond statistical randomness that people could tell they were being stared at, with some saying that there were design flaws in Sheldrake's experiments,[11][26][91]such as using test sequences with "relatively few long runs and many alternations" instead of trulyrandomised patterns.[92][93]In 2005,Michael Shermerexpressed concern overconfirmation biasandexperimenter biasin the tests, and concluded that Sheldrake's claim wasunfalsifiable.[94]

David Jay Brown,who conducted some of the experiments for Sheldrake, states that one of the subjects who was reported as having the highest hit rates was under the influence of the drugMDMA(Ecstasy) during the trials.[95]

The Science Delusion(Science Set Free) (2012)

The Science Delusion,published in the US asScience Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery,summarises much of Sheldrake's previous work and encapsulates it into a broader critique ofphilosophical materialism,with the title apparently mimicking that ofThe God Delusionby one of his critics,Richard Dawkins.[96]

In the book, Sheldrake proposes a number of questions as the theme of each chapter that 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 many powerful taboos circumscribe what scientists can legitimately direct their attention towards.[97]: 6–12 The mainstream view of modern science is that it proceeds bymethodological naturalismand does not require philosophical materialism.[98]

Sheldrake questions conservation of energy; he calls it a "standard scientific dogma,"[97]: 337 says that perpetual motion devices andinediashould be investigated as possible phenomena,[97]: 72–73 and has said that "the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak."[97]: 83 He argues in favour ofalternative medicineandpsychic phenomena,saying that their recognition as legitimate is impeded by a "scientific priesthood" with an "authoritarian mentality."[97]: 327 Citing his earlier "psychic staring effect" experiments and other reasons, he says that minds are not confined to brains and that "liberating minds from confinement in heads is like being released from prison."[97]: 229 He suggests thatDNAis insufficient to explaininheritance,and that inheritance of form and behaviour is mediated through morphic resonance.[97]: 157–186 He also promotes morphic resonance in broader fashion as an explanation for other phenomena such as memory.[97]: 187–211 

Reviews were mixed.Anti-reductionistphilosopherMary Midgley,writing inThe Guardian,welcomed it as "a new mind-body paradigm" to address what she called "the unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter."[99]PhilosopherMartin Cohen,a famous critic of esotericism in science, wrote inThe Times Higher Education Supplementthat "[t]here is a lot to be said for debunking orthodox science's pretensions to be on the verge of fitting the last grain of information into its towering edifice of universal knowledge", while also noting that Sheldrake "goes a bit too far here and there, as in promoting his morphic resonance theory."[100]

Bryan Appleyardwriting inThe Sunday Timescommented that Sheldrake was "at his most incisive" when making a "broad critique of contemporary science" and "scientism,"but 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 argues there are 'statistically significant' results. "Appleyard called it" highly speculative "and was unsure" whether it makes sense or not. "[101]

Other reviews were less favourable.New Scientist's deputy editor Graham Lawton characterisedScience Set Freeas "woolly credulousness" and chided Sheldrake for "uncritically embracing all kinds of fringe ideas."[102]A review inPhilosophy Nowcalled the book "disturbingly eccentric," combining "a disorderly collage of scientific fact and opinion with an intrusive yet disjunctive metaphysical programme."[103]

Science and Spiritual Practices(2017)

Reviews for the book were mostly positive.Kirkus Reviewsdescribed it as a "grounded and inspiring approach to appreciating the benefits of both science and religion".[104]Adam Ford, reviewing the book for theChurch Times,describes it as a "useful and very clear introduction to the practice of meditation" combined with a how-to guide on the "healing and happiness-creating power of gratitude".[105]

Publishers Weeklyreviewed the book as having "accessible suggestions" and "clear arguments", while noting that "a few fuzzy moments, including reliance on many...overly speculative accounts" do not prevent the work from being "otherwise convincing" and "a good case for reincorporating bygone spiritual habits."[106]

Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work(2019)

Reviews for the book were mixed. InThe Daily Telegraph,journalistSteven Poolecalled Sheldrake's writing "very engaging" and said his defense of prayer worked "sometimes, but not always" and was "not really good enough".[107]Veterinary surgeon and barristerCharles A. Foster,writing inLiterary Review,called the book "a very mixed bag" but also "funny, wise, [and] full of whimsical weirdness".[108]

Writing in theTimes Literary Supplement,anthropologist Jonathan Benthall called the book "an affable, erudite manual to show how life need not be boring", and Sheldrake's arguments "soft at the edges, sometimes presenting his hypotheses as facts".[109]

Public reception

Sheldrake's ideas have been discussed in academic journals and books. His work has also received popular coverage through newspapers, radio, television and speaking engagements. The attention he receives has raised concerns that it adversely affects the public understanding of science.[3][7][20][25]Some have accused Sheldrake of self-promotion,[25]with Steven Rose 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."[20]

Academic debate

A variety of responses to Sheldrake's ideas have appeared in prominent scientific publications.

Sheldrake and theoretical physicistDavid Bohmpublished a dialogue in 1982 in which they compared Sheldrake's ideas to Bohm'simplicate order.[110]In 1997, physicistHans-Peter Dürrspeculated about Sheldrake's work in relation tomodern physics.[111]

Following the publication ofA New Science of Life,New Scientistsponsored a competition to devise empirical tests for morphic resonance.[72]The winning idea involved learning Turkish nursery rhymes, with psychologist and broadcasterSue Blackmore's entry involving babies' behaviour coming second.[24]Blackmore found the results did not support morphic resonance.[24]

In 2005, theJournal of Consciousness Studiesdevoted a special issue to Sheldrake's work on the sense of being stared at.[26]For this issue, the editor could not follow the journal's standard peer-review process because "making successful blind peer review a condition of publication would in this case have killed the project at the outset."[112]The issue thus featured several articles by Sheldrake, followed by the open peer review, to which Sheldrake then responded.[26]Writing inScientific American,Michael Shermer rated the peer commentaries, and noted that the more supportive reviews came from those who had affiliations with less mainstream institutions.[26]

Sheldrake denies that DNA contains a recipe formorphological development.He and developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert have made ascientific wagerabout the importance ofDNAin 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." The Royal Society will be asked to determine the winner if the result is not obvious.[113]

"A book for burning?"

In September 1981,Naturepublished an editorial aboutA New Science of Lifeentitled "A book for burning?"[2][7]Written by the journal's senior editor,John Maddox,the editorial commented:

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.[7]

Maddox argued that Sheldrake's hypothesis was nottestableor "falsifiable in Popper's sense," referring to the philosopherKarl Popper.He said Sheldrake's proposals for testing his hypothesis were "time-consuming, inconclusive in the sense that it will always be possible to account for another morphogenetic field and impractical."[7]In the editorial, Maddox ultimately rejected the suggestion that the book should be burned.[7]Nonetheless, the title of the piece garnered widespread publicity.[114][25][27]In a subsequent issue,Naturepublished several letters expressing disapproval of the editorial,[115][116][117][118]including one from physicistBrian 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."[115]

In 1983, an editorial inThe Guardiancompared the "petulance of wrath of the scientific establishment" aimed against Sheldrake with theGalileo affairandLysenkoism.[119]Responding in the same paper,Brian Charlesworthdefended the scientific establishment, affirming that "the ultimate test of a scientific theory is its conformity with the observations and experiments" and that "vitalistic and Lamarckian ideas which [The Guardian] seem to regard so highly have repeatedly failed this test. "[120]

In a letter toThe Guardianin 1988, a scientist fromGlasgow Universityreferred 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."[121]In 1999, Maddox characterised his 1981 editorial as "injudicious," saying that even though it concluded that Sheldrake's book

should not be burned... but put firmly in its place among the literature of intellectual aberration.... The publicists for Sheldrake's publishers were nevertheless delighted with the piece, using it to suggest that the Establishment (Nature) was again up to its old trick of suppressing uncomfortable truths.[114]

An editor forNaturesaid in 2009 that Maddox's reference tobook burningbackfired.[25]

In 2012, Sheldrake described his time after Maddox's review as being "exactly like a papal excommunication. From that moment on, I became a very dangerous person to know for scientists."[2]

Sheldrake and Steven Rose

During 1987 and 1988 Sheldrake contributed several pieces toThe Guardian's "Body and Soul" column. In one of these, he wrote that the idea that "memories were stored in our brains" was "only a theory" and "despite decades of research, the phenomenon of memory remains mysterious."[122]This provoked a response bySteven Rose,a neuroscientist from theOpen University,who criticised Sheldrake for being "a researcher trained in another discipline" (botany) for not "respect[ing] the data collected by neuroscientists before begin[ning] to offer us alternative explanations," and accused Sheldrake of "ignoring or denying" "massive evidence," and arguing that "neuroscience over the past two decades has shown that memories are stored in specific changes in brain cells." Giving an example of experiments on chicks, Rose asserted "egregious errors that Sheldrake makes to bolster his case that demands a new vague but all-embracing theory to resolve."[27]

Sheldrake responded to Rose's article, stating that there was experimental evidence that showed that "memories can survive the destruction of the putative memory traces."[123]Rose responded, asking Sheldrake to "get his facts straight," explaining the research and concluding that "there is no way that this straightforward and impressive body of evidence can be taken to imply that memories are not in the brain, still less that the brain is tuning into some indeterminate, undefined, resonating and extra-corporeal field."[124]

In his next column, Sheldrake again attacked Rose for following "materialism,"and argued thatquantum physicshad "overturned" materialism, and suggested that "memories may turn out to depend on morphic resonance rather than memory traces."[125]Philosopher Alan Malachowski of theUniversity of East Anglia,responding to what he called Sheldrake's "latest muddled diatribe," defended materialism, argued that Sheldrake dismissed Rose's explanation with an "absurd rhetorical comparison," asserted that quantum physics was compatible with materialism, and argued that "being roughly right about great many things has given [materialists] the confidence to be far more open minded than he is prepared to give them credit for."[126]

In 1990, Sheldrake and Rose agreed to and arranged a test of the morphic resonance hypothesis using chicks.[127][128]They were unable to agree on the intended joint research paper reporting their results,[128]instead publishing separate and conflicting interpretations. Sheldrake published a paper stating that the results matched his prediction that day-old chicks would be influenced by the experiences of previous batches of day-old chicks— "From the point of view of the hypothesis of formative causation, the results of this experiment are encouraging" —and called for further research.[129]Rose wrote that morphic resonance was a "hypothesis disconfirmed."[20]He also made further criticisms of morphic resonance, and stated that "the experience of this collaboration has convinced me in practice, Sheldrake is so committed to his hypothesis that it is very hard to envisage the circumstances in which he would accept its disconfirmation."[20]Rose askedPatrick Batesonto analyse the data, and Bateson offered his opinion that Sheldrake's interpretation of the data was "misleading" and attributable to experimenter effects.[20]

Sheldrake responded to Rose's paper by describing it as "polemic" and "aggressive tone and extravagant rhetoric" and concluding: "The results of this experiment do not disconfirm the hypothesis of formative causation, as Rose claims. They are consistent with it."[130]

On television

Sheldrake was the subject of an episode ofHeretics of Science,a six-part documentary series broadcast onBBC2in 1994.[131]In this episode, John Maddox discussed "A book for burning?," his 1981Natureeditorial 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."[132]The broadcast repeatedly displayed footage of book burning, sometimes accompanied by audio of a crowd chanting "heretic."[132]BiologistSteven Rosecriticised 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.[133]

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 theBBCpopular science programmeTomorrow's World.In the outcome of the experiment, one set of data yielded positive results and another set yielded negative results.[132]

Public debates and lectures

Sheldrake debated with biologistLewis Wolperton the existence of telepathy in 2004 at theRoyal Society of Artsin London.[134]Sheldrake argued for telepathy while Wolpert argued that telepathy fitsIrving Langmuir's definition ofpathological scienceand that the evidence for telepathy has not been persuasive.[135]Reporting on the event,New Scientistsaid "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."[134]

In 2006, Sheldrake spoke at a meeting of theBritish Association for the Advancement of Scienceabout experimental results on telepathy replicated by "a 1980s girl band," drawing criticism fromPeter Atkins,Lord Winston,andRichard 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."[136]

In April 2008, Sheldrake was stabbed by a man during a lecture inSanta 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.[137]Sheldrake suffered a wound to the leg and has recovered,[137][138]while his assailant was found "guilty but mentally ill."[139]

In January 2013, Sheldrake gave aTEDxlecture at TEDxWhitechapel inEast Londonroughly summarising ideas from his book,The Science Delusion.In his talk, he said that modern science rests on ten dogmas that "fall apart" upon examination and promoted his hypothesis of morphic resonance. According to a statement 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 "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."[140][141]

In November 2013, Sheldrake gave a lecture at theOxford Unionoutlining his claims, made inThe Science Delusion,that modern science has become constrained by dogma, particularly in physics.[142]

Between 1989 and 1999, Sheldrake,ethnobotanistTerence McKennaand mathematicianRalph Abrahamrecorded a series of discussions exploring diverse topics relating to the "world soul"and evolution.[143]These resulted in a number of books based on the discussions:Trialogues at the Edge of the West: Chaos, Creativity and the Resacralization of the World(1992),The Evolutionary Mind: Trialogues at the Edge of the Unthinkable(1998), andThe Evolutionary Mind: Conversations on Science, Imagination & Spirit(2005). In an interview for the bookConversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse,Sheldrake says he believes the use ofpsychedelic drugs"can reveal a world of consciousness and interconnection", which he says he has experienced.[144]Alternative medicine advocateDeepak Choprais a supporter of Sheldrake's work.[145][146]

Sheldrake's work was amongst those cited in a faux research paper written byAlan Sokaland submitted toSocial Text.[147]In 1996, the journal published the paper as if it represented real scientific research,[148]an event that has come to be known as theSokal affair.Sokal later said that he had suggested in the hoax paper that 'morphogenetic fields' constituted a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity, adding that "This connection [was] pure invention; even Sheldrake makes no such claim."[147]

Sheldrake has been described as a New Age author,[12][13][14]but does not endorse certain New Age interpretations of his ideas.[149]

The 2009Zero Escapevideo gameNine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doorswas inspired by Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theories.[150][151]

Origin and philosophy of morphic resonance

Among his early influences Sheldrake citesThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions(1962) byThomas Kuhn.He has said the book led him to view contemporary scientific understanding of life as simply aparadigm,which he called "the mechanistic theory of life." Reading Kuhn's work, Sheldrake says, focused his mind on how scientific paradigms can change.[16]

Sheldrake says that although there are similarities between morphic resonance and Hinduism'sakashic records,[152]he first conceived of the idea while at Cambridge, before his travel to India, where he later developed it. He attributes the origin of his idea to two influences: his studies of theholistictradition in biology, and French philosopherHenri Bergson's 1896 bookMatter 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 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 ancientrishis."Sheldrake thus characterises morphic resonance as a convergence between Western andEasternthought, yet found by himself first in Western philosophy.[15][153]

Sheldrake has also noted similarities between morphic resonance andCarl Jung'scollective unconscious,with regard to collective memories being shared across individuals and the coalescing of particular behaviours through repetition, which Jung calledarchetypes.[15]But whereas Jung assumed that archetypal forms were transmitted through physical inheritance, Sheldrake attributes collective memories to morphic resonance, and rejects any explanation of them involving what he terms "mechanistic biology."

Lewis Wolpert,one of Sheldrake's critics, has described morphic resonance as an updatedDrieschianvitalism.[28][154]

Personal life

Sheldrake is married to therapist, voice teacher and authorJill Purce.[155]They have two sons,[46]biologistMerlin Sheldrakeand musicianCosmo Sheldrake.[156][157]Merlin Sheldrake is a mycologist and author ofEntangled Life: How fungi make our worlds, change our minds and shape our futures.[158]

Sheldrake is a practisingAnglican.[159]He has said that he studied with a Sufi teacher and practisedSufismwhile he was in India.[33]Sheldrake reported "being drawn back to a Christian path" during his time in India.[1]

Bibliography

  • A New Science of Life: the hypothesis of formative causation,Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1981 (second edition 1985, third edition 2009).ISBN978-1-84831-042-1.
  • The Presence of the Past: morphic resonance and the habits of nature,New York: Times Books, 1988.ISBN0-8129-1666-2.
  • The Rebirth of Nature: The greening of science and God,New York:Bantam Books,1991.ISBN0-553-07105-X.
  • Seven Experiments That Could Change the World: a do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science,New York:Riverhead Books,1995.ISBN1-57322-014-0.
  • Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home: and other unexplained powers of animals,New York: Crown, 1999 (second edition 2011).ISBN978-0-307-88596-8.
  • The Sense of Being Stared At: and other aspects of the extended mind,New York:Crown Publishers,2003.ISBN0-609-60807-X.
  • The Science Delusion: Freeing the spirit of enquiry,London: Coronet, 2012.ISBN978-1-4447-2795-1(U. S. Title:Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery).
  • Science and Spiritual Practices,London: Coronet, 2017.ISBN978-1-444-72792-0
  • Ways To Go Beyond, And Why They Work: Seven Spiritual Practices in a Scientific Age,London: Coronet, 2019.ISBN978-1-473-63007-9.

WithRalph AbrahamandTerence McKenna:

  • Trialogues at the Edge of the West: chaos, creativity, and the resacralisation of the world,Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Co. Pub., 1992.ISBN0-939680-97-1.
  • The Evolutionary Mind: trialogues at the edge of the unthinkable,Santa Cruz, CA: Dakota Books, 1997.ISBN0-9632861-1-0.
  • Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness,Rochester, VT:Park Street Press,2001.ISBN0-89281-977-4.
  • The Evolutionary Mind: Conversations on Science, Imagination & Spirit,Rhinebeck, NY: Monkfish Book Pub. Co., 2005.ISBN0-9749359-7-2.

WithMatthew Fox:

WithKate Banks:

WithMichael Shermer:

  • Arguing Science: A Dialogue on the Future of Science and Spirit,Rhinebeck, NY: Farrar, Monkfish Books, 2016.ISBN978-1-939681-57-7.

See also

Explanatory notes

  1. ^Sources:
  2. ^Sources:

References

  1. ^abcdeChartres, Caroline, ed. (June 2006).Why I Am Still an Anglican: Essays and Conversations.Continuum.ISBN9780826481436.
  2. ^abcdefghAdams, Tim (4 February 2012)."Rupert Sheldrake: the 'heretic' at odds with scientific dogma".The Guardian.Retrieved2 November2013.
  3. ^abcWhitfield, J. (22 January 2004)."Telepathic charm seduces audience at paranormal debate".Nature.427(6972): 277.Bibcode:2004Natur.427..277W.doi:10.1038/427277b.PMID14737136.
  4. ^Pracontal, Michel de (2001).L'imposture scientifique en dix leçons: édition du troisième millénaire.Paris: Editions La Découverte.ISBN2-7071-3293-4.
  5. ^Kaufmann, Allison B.; Kaufmann, James C. (2018). Kaufman, Allison B; Kaufman, James C (eds.).Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science.MIT Press.doi:10.7551/mitpress/10747.001.0001.ISBN9780262344814.S2CID240203967.Retrieved19 November2022.
  6. ^Hassani, Sadri (1 September 2015)."'Post-Materialist' Science? A Smokescreen for Woo ".Skeptical Inquirer.Retrieved19 November2022.
  7. ^abcdefghijklMaddox, John (24 September 1981)."A book for burning?"(PDF).Nature.293(5830):245–246.Bibcode:1981Natur.293R.245..doi:10.1038/293245b0.S2CID4330931.Archived fromthe originalon 23 August 2014....Sheldrake's argument is in no sense a scientific argument but is an exercise in pseudo-science.
  8. ^Blancke, Stefaan; Boudry, Maarten; Pigliucci, Massimo (February 2017)."Why Do Irrational Beliefs Mimic Science? The Cultural Evolution of Pseudoscience: Cultural evolution of pseudoscience".Theoria.83(1):78–97.doi:10.1111/theo.12109.S2CID151706584.
  9. ^abcSheldrake, Rupert; McKenna, Terence K.; Abraham, Ralph (2011).Chaos, Creativity, and Cosmic Consciousness.Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. pp.181–182.ISBN9781594777714.
  10. ^abcdHood, Bruce(2009).Supersense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable.HarperOne. p.232.ISBN9780061867934.Sheldrake proposes that the sense of being stared at and other aspects of paranormal ability, such as telepathy and knowing about events in the future before they happen, are all evidence for a new field theory that he calls 'morphic resonance.'... 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.
  11. ^abcMarks, D.; Colwell, J. (September–October 2000)."The psychic staring effect: An artifact of pseudo-randomization".Skeptical Inquirer.24(5): 49.
  12. ^ab"A holistic sense of place in the quagmire of history".The Guardian.19 August 1987. p. 11.
  13. ^abGunther, Carl T. (2006).The Vital Dimension: A Quest for Mind, Memory and God in the Thickness of Time.Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. p. 60.ISBN9780595402977.
  14. ^abFrazier, K., ed. (1991).The Hundredth Monkey and other Paradigms of the Paranormal.Buffalo: Prometheus. p. 171.ISBN9781615924011.
  15. ^abcdeSheldrake, Rupert (2011).The presence of the past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature.Icon Books.ISBN9781848313132.
  16. ^abcdefghiSheldrake, Rupert."Autobiography of Rupert Sheldrake".Sheldrake.org.Retrieved28 May2008.
  17. ^abGardner, M. (1988).The New Age: notes of a fringe-watcher.Prometheus books.ISBN9781615925773.Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash.
  18. ^abSharma, Ruchir(2012).Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles.W. W. Norton & Company.ISBN9780393083835.Despite Sheldrake's legitimate scientific credentials, his peers have roundly dismissed his theory as pseudoscience.
  19. ^abSamuel, L. R. (2011).Supernatural America: A Cultural History.ABC-CLIO.ISBN9780313398995....most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash...
  20. ^abcdefghijkRose, S. (March 1992)."So-called" Formative Causation. "A Hypothesis Disconfirmed. Response to Rupert Sheldrake".Rivista di Biologia.85(3/4):445–453.PMID1341837.Archived fromthe originalon 7 August 2014.Along with parapsychology, corn circles, creationism, ley-lines and "deep ecology," "formative causation," or "morphic resonance" has many of the characteristics of such pseudosciences...
  21. ^abde Pracontal, M. (1986).L'imposture scientifique en dix leçons.Editions La Découverte.
  22. ^abcdefJones, David (4 July 1988). "Books: Captain Morphic – Review of 'The Presence of the Past' By Rupert Sheldrake".The Times.
  23. ^Coyne, Jerry A.(8 November 2013)."Pseudoscientist Rupert Sheldrake Is Not Being Persecuted, And Is Not Like Galileo".The New Republic.
  24. ^abcdBlackmore, Susan(4 February 2009)."An idea with resonance: More than anything, Sheldrake's continuing popularity is rooted in our need to believe".The Guardian.
  25. ^abcdefghRutherford, 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.Retrieved13 July2013.
  26. ^abcdefgShermer, Michael (2005). "Rupert's Resonance".Scientific American.293(5): 38.Bibcode:2005SciAm.293e..38S.doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1105-38.PMID16318024.
  27. ^abcdRose, Steven(13 April 1988). "Some facts that just don't resonate".The Guardian.p. 27.
  28. ^abcdWolpert, Lewis(11 January 1984). "A matter of fact or fancy?".The Guardian.p. 11.
  29. ^Shermer, Michael(1 November 2005)."Rupert's Resonance".Retrieved6 March2019.
  30. ^Horgan, John."Scientific Heretic Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields, Psychic Dogs and Other Mysteries".Scientific American Blog Network.Retrieved6 March2019.
  31. ^Leviton, Mark."Wrong Turn".The Sun Magazine.Retrieved6 March2019.
  32. ^"Sheldrake-Shermer, Materialism in Science, Opening Statements".TheBestSchools.org.1 May 2015.Retrieved6 March2019.
  33. ^abcdSheldrake, Rupert; Shermer, Michael (2016).Arguing Science: A Dialogue on the Future of Science and Spirit.Monkfish Book Publishing.ISBN9781939681584.
  34. ^Contemporary Authors, vol. 127, Susan M. Trosky, Gale Research International Ltd, 1989, p. 398
  35. ^"Reginald Sheldrake Upon his Graduation, Newark, c 1924".Retrieved12 July2021.
  36. ^Sheldrake, Rupert,Family Orchards,The Ecologist,9 October 2013. Retrieved 1 November 2013.
  37. ^abcdeLeviton, Mark (February 2013)."Wrong Turn".The Sun Magazine.Retrieved29 November2022.
  38. ^"Interview with Scientist Rupert Sheldrake".Tricycle: The Buddhist Review.2013.Retrieved20 November2022.
  39. ^Rupert Sheldrake(1968),The production of auxin in plants,OCLC1065310409,WikidataQ124658951
  40. ^ab"Overhyped".Nature.443(7108): 132. 14 September 2006.Bibcode:2006Natur.443..132..doi:10.1038/443132a.
  41. ^Year Book of the Royal Society of London.Vol. 78. Harrison and Sons. 1973.
  42. ^abLemley, B. (2000)."Heresy".Discover.21(8):60–65.
  43. ^Abel, S.; Theologis, A. (2010)."Odyssey of Auxin".Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology.2(10): a004572.doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a004572.ISSN1943-0264.PMC2944356.PMID20739413.
  44. ^Sheldrake, Rupert."Papers on Crop Physiology".sheldrake.org. Archived fromthe originalon 6 October 2013.
  45. ^Bisen, S. S.; Sheldrake, A. R. (1981).The anatomy of the pigeonpea.ICRISAT.
  46. ^abcdSheldrake, Rupert."Biography of Rupert Sheldrake, PhD".sheldrake.org. Archived fromthe originalon 4 December 2013.Retrieved18 March2013.
  47. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (1988).The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature.Collins.ISBN978-0-00-217785-6.
  48. ^Sheldrake, Rupert; McKenna, Terence K.; Abraham, Ralph (1998).The Evolutionary Mind: Trialogues at the Edge of the Unthinkable.Trialogue Press.ISBN978-0-942344-13-4.
  49. ^Sheldrake, Rupert; McKenna, Terence; Abraham, Ralph (1 November 2001).Chaos, Creativity, and Cosmic Consciousness.Simon and Schuster.ISBN978-1-59477-771-4.
  50. ^Sheldrake, Rupert; McKenna, Terence; Abraham, Ralph (2 April 2013).The Evolutionary Mind: Conversations on Science, Imagination & Spirit.Monkfish Book Publishing.ISBN978-1-939681-10-2.
  51. ^Fox, Matthew; Sheldrake, Rupert (1996).Natural Grace: Dialogues on Creation, Darkness, and the Soul in Spiritualiy and Science.Doubleday.ISBN978-0-385-48356-8.
  52. ^"Natural Grace: Dialogs on Creation, Darkness, and the Soul in Spirituality and Science by Mathew Fox and Rupert Sheldrake".Kirkus Reviews.1 May 1996.
  53. ^Goodman, Walter (10 June 1994)."TV Weekend; Serious Entertainment From a Rare Resource".The New York Times.ISSN0362-4331.Retrieved31 January2023.
  54. ^abAngier, Natalie (12 June 1994)."TELEVISION; Six Smart Guys Sitting Around Talking".The New York Times.ISSN0362-4331.Retrieved30 January2023.
  55. ^Kayzer, Wim (1993).Een schitterend ongeluk.Amsterdam: Contact.ISBN9789025403959.OCLC66099260.Retrieved30 October2020.
  56. ^Kayzer, Wim (1997).A Glorious Accident: Understanding Our Place in the Cosmic Puzzle.W.H. Freeman.ISBN978-90-254-0725-4.
  57. ^"ht_faculty".The Graduate Institute. Archived fromthe originalon 30 May 2004.
  58. ^Sheldrake, Rupert."The Perrott–Warrick Project".Sheldrake.org. Archived fromthe originalon 7 February 2007.Retrieved27 August2012.
  59. ^"Biography of Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D."Rupert Sheldrake.Retrieved29 April2014.
  60. ^NA, NA (26 March 2024)."Temenos Academy Fellows".Temenos Academy.Retrieved26 March2024.
  61. ^Shermer, Michael (12 October 2023)."Rupert Sheldrake v. Michael Shermer | On the edges of knowledge | Full discussion".YouTube.Retrieved15 January2024.
  62. ^Malone, David (2 December 2023)."The 2023 Holberg Debate: 'Does Consciousness Extend Beyond Brains?'".Holbergprize.org.Retrieved31 January2024.
  63. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (2 November 2017).Science and Spiritual Practices: Reconnecting through direct experience.Hodder & Stoughton.ISBN978-1-4736-3010-9.
  64. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (24 January 2019).Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work: Seven Spiritual Practices in a Scientific Age.Hodder & Stoughton.ISBN978-1-4736-5342-9.
  65. ^Davy, J. (9 August 1981). "Old rats and new tricks".The Observer.
  66. ^Carroll, Robert Todd."Morphic Resonance".Skepdic.com.Retrieved27 August2012.
  67. ^abBlackmore, S. (27 August 1999)."If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet".The Times Higher Education Supplement.18.
  68. ^Parkin, Alan J. (16 December 1985). "When a little learning is a dangerous thing".The Guardian.p. 12.
  69. ^Alcock, J. E.; Burns, J. E.; Freeman, A., eds. (2003).Psi wars: Getting to grips with the paranormal.Imprint Academic.ISBN9780907845485.Rupert Sheldrake's (1994) popular bookSeven Experiments That Could Change the Worldis 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.
  70. ^abcWiseman, Richard; Smith, Matthew; Milton, Julie (2000)."The 'psychic pet' phenomenon: a reply to Rupert Sheldrake"(PDF).Journal of the Society for Psychical Research.
  71. ^Gomez-Marin, Alex (9 March 2021). "Facing biology's open questions: Rupert Sheldrake's" heretical "hypothesis turns 40".BioEssays.43(6). Wiley: e2100055.doi:10.1002/bies.202100055.hdl:10261/267559.ISSN0265-9247.PMID33751607.S2CID232323375.
  72. ^abRoszak, Theodore(21 July 1988)."Habits of nature"(PDF).New Scientist:63.
  73. ^Lawton, Graham (14 June 2011)."Sheldrake book: Did we really say that?".New Scientist.
  74. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (1991).The Rebirth of Nature: The greening of science and God.New York: Bantam Books.ISBN978-0-553-07105-4.
  75. ^Sheldon Ferguson, Duncan (1993).New Age Spirituality: An Assessment.Westminster John Knox Press. p. 204.ISBN9780664252182.
  76. ^Schwartz, Walter (7 January 1991). "The rebirth of mother earth".The Guardian.p. 7.
  77. ^Lovelock, J. E. (1990). "A danger to science? (review ofThe Rebirth of Natureby Rupert Sheldrake) ".Nature.348(6303): 685.doi:10.1038/348685a0.S2CID46012105.
  78. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (1995).Seven experiments that could change the world: a do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science.New York: Riverhead Books.ISBN9781573225649.
  79. ^Edwards, Mark (15 May 1994). "Knowing what to think; Science".The Sunday Times.p. 11.
  80. ^The Lancet. 343.8902 (9 April 1994): p. 905.
  81. ^Hawkes, Nigel (9 April 1994). "Tricks of the tongue; Books".The Times.p. 14.
  82. ^abSheldrake, Rupert (1999).Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home: and other unexplained powers of animals.New York: Crown.
  83. ^abBlackmore, Susan (30 August 1999)."If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet".Times Higher Education.Retrieved19 February2015.
  84. ^Sheldrake, Rupert; Smart, Pamela (2000)."A Dog That Seems To Know When His Owner is Coming Home: Videotaped Experiments and Observations".Journal of Scientific Exploration.14:233–255.Retrieved18 February2015.
  85. ^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.doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1998.tb02696.x.hdl:2299/2285.PMID9734300.
  86. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (1999)."Commentary on a paper by Wiseman, Smith and Milton on the 'psychic pet' phenomenon".Journal of the Society for Psychical Research.63:306–311.Retrieved18 February2015.
  87. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At Part 1: Is it Real or Illusory?Journal of Consciousness Studies,12(6):10–31.Reprint.SeeTests under ‘real life’ conditions,pp. 21–22.
  88. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (2003).The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind,London: Hutchinson.ISBN0-09-179463-3.
  89. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (2003).The Sense of Being Stared At: and other aspects of the extended mind.New York: Crown Publishers.ISBN9780609608074.
  90. ^Rupert Sheldrake (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At, and open peer commentary.Journal of Consciousness Studies,12:6, 4–126.Ref..Accessed 28 May 2008.
  91. ^Baker, R. A. (2000)."Can We Tell When Someone is Staring at Us?".Skeptical Inquirer.24(2):34–40.
  92. ^David F. Marks and John Colwell (2000). The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization,Skeptical Inquirer,September/October 2000.Reprint.Accessed 28 May 2008.
  93. ^"Sheldrake, Rupert." Skeptical Inquirer (2000), "March/April, 58–61".March 2001.
  94. ^Michael Shermer (October 2005). Rupert's Resonance: The theory of "morphic resonance" posits that people have a sense of when they are being stared at. What does the research show?Scientific American,October 2005.Reprint.Accessed 27 May 2008.
  95. ^Brown, David Jay(6 April 2015). Graham Hancock (ed.).The Divine Spark: Psychedelics, Consciousness and the Birth of Civilization.Hay House, Inc. pp. 114–.ISBN9781781805749.Retrieved28 June2015.
  96. ^In an interview withFortean 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 United States asScience Set Free... Dawkins is a passionate believer in materialist dogma, but the book is not a response to him. "Marshall, Steve (April 2012)."The Science Delusion".Fortean Times.286:38. Archived fromthe originalon 16 April 2012.
  97. ^abcdefghSheldrake, Rupert (2012).Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery.New York: Deepak Chopra Books.ISBN9780770436711.
  98. ^Pigliucci, Massimo(2010).Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk.University of Chicago Press. p. 192.ISBN9780226667874.
  99. ^Midgley, Mary (27 January 2012)."The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake – review".The Guardian.
  100. ^Cohen, Martin(8 March 2012)."The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry".The Times Higher Education Supplement.
  101. ^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.
  102. ^Lawton, Graham (31 August 2012)."Science's greatest critic is no mood to recant".New Scientist.
  103. ^Greenbank, John (July–August 2013)."The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake".Philosophy Now.
  104. ^"Science and Spiritual Practices by Rupert Sheldrake".Kirkus Reviews.15 June 2018.
  105. ^Ford, Adam (24 August 2018)."Science and Spiritual Practices by Rupert Sheldrake".Church Times.Retrieved13 December2018.
  106. ^"Science and Spiritual Practices by Rupert Sheldrake".www.publishersweekly.com.11 June 2018.Retrieved1 December2022.
  107. ^Poole, Steven (5 April 2019)."Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work review: Can science and spirituality mix?".The Telegraph.Retrieved1 December2022.
  108. ^Foster, Charles A."More Morphic Resonances".Literary Review.
  109. ^Benthall, Jonathan (12 April 2019)."Rupert Sheldrake" Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work ".Times Literary Supplement.p. 31.Retrieved1 December2022.
  110. ^Sheldrake, R.; Bohm, D. (1982). "Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order".ReVision.5:41.
  111. ^Dürr, H. P., ed. (1997).Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion.Scherz.
  112. ^Anthony Freeman."The Sense of Being Glared At- What Is It Like to be a Heretic?"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 28 July 2013.Retrieved12 December2013.
  113. ^Wolpert, L.; Sheldrake, R. (8 July 2009)."What can DNA tell us? Place your bets now".New Scientist.
  114. ^abMaddox, J. (1999)."Dogs, telepathy and quantum mechanics".Nature.401(6756):849–850.Bibcode:1999Natur.401..849M.doi:10.1038/44696.
  115. ^abJosephson, B. D. (1981)."Incendiary subject".Nature.293(5833): 594.Bibcode:1981Natur.293..594J.doi:10.1038/293594b0.
  116. ^Clarke, C. J. S. (1981)."Incendiary subject".Nature.293(5833): 594.Bibcode:1981Natur.293..594C.doi:10.1038/293594a0.
  117. ^Hedges, R. (1981)."Incendiary subject".Nature.293(5833): 506.Bibcode:1981Natur.293..506H.doi:10.1038/293506d0.
  118. ^Cousins, F. W. (1981)."Incendiary subject".Nature.293(5833):506–594.Bibcode:1981Natur.293..506C.doi:10.1038/293506e0.
  119. ^Being more than sorry about Galileo,The Guardian,14 May 1983, p. 10
  120. ^Charlesworth, Brian,The Holy See—but it takes a long time to admit it,The Guardian,19 May 1983, p. 12.
  121. ^Leader, David P. (20 April 1988). "Letter to the editor".The Guardian.
  122. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (6 April 1988). "Resonace [sic] of memory: Body and soul".The Guardian.p. 21.
  123. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (20 April 1988). "The chick and egg of morphic resonance".The Guardian.p. 23.
  124. ^Rose, Steven (27 April 1988). "No proof that the brain is tuned in".The Guardian.p. 23.
  125. ^Memory over matter: Body and Soul The Guardian 4 May 1988, p 21
  126. ^Alan Malachowski, A bum note in morphic resonance, The Guardian 11 May 1988
  127. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (1 July 2011).The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature.Icon Books Ltd.ISBN978-1-84831-313-2.
  128. ^abRose, Steven (9 October 2003).Lifelines: Life beyond the Gene.Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-803424-7.
  129. ^Sheldrake, Rupert (1992)."An experimental test of the hypothesis of formative causation"(PDF).Rivista di Biologia.85(3–4):431–43.PMID1341836.Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 27 July 2013.
  130. ^"Rose Refuted".Rivista di Biologia.Archived fromthe originalon 21 September 2013.
  131. ^"Heretics of Science".episodecalendar.com.
  132. ^abc"Rupert Sheldrake".Heretics of Science.19 July 1994. BBC.
  133. ^Rose, Steven(8 September 1994). "Heresy at stake".The Guardian.p. B11.
  134. ^ab"When science meets the paranormal".New Scientist.2438.13 March 2004.
  135. ^"The RSA Telepathy Debate – Text".sheldrake.org. Archived fromthe originalon 1 November 2013.
  136. ^Highfield, Roger; Fleming, Nic (6 September 2006)."Festival attacked over paranormal 'nonsense'".The Telegraph.Archivedfrom the original on 12 January 2022.
  137. ^abSharpe, Tom (20 September 2008)."Alleged assailant says he's not crazy".The Santa Fe New Mexican.Archived fromthe originalon 30 January 2012.Retrieved25 March2012.
  138. ^Sharpe, Tom (5 December 2008). "Judge orders mental-health help for man who insists his mind is being controlled".Santa Fe New Mexican.
  139. ^"Jury Finds Japanese Attacker Guilty, Mentally Ill".Albuquerque Journal.8 November 2008. Archived fromthe originalon 12 November 2013.Retrieved6 November2013.
  140. ^"The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk".TED. 19 March 2013.
  141. ^Bignell, Paul (7 April 2013)."TED conference censorship row".The Independent.Independent Print Limited.
  142. ^Gillett, George,The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?,28 November 2013,The Oxford Student.Retrieved 25 December 2013.
  143. ^"The Sheldrake–McKenna–Abraham Trialogues".sheldrake.org. Archived fromthe originalon 28 November 2013.
  144. ^Brown, David Jay (6 June 2005).Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse: Contemplating the Future with Noam Chomsky, George Carlin, Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, and Others.Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 75–.ISBN9781403965325.Retrieved13 December2013.
  145. ^Baer, Hans A. (2003). "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra—Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements".Medical Anthropology Quarterly.17(2):233–50.doi:10.1525/maq.2003.17.2.233.PMID12846118.S2CID28219719.
  146. ^Chopra, Deepak(2 November 2012)."Science Set Free – Good News for Lumbering Robots".San Francisco Chronicle.
  147. ^abSokal, A. D., ed. (2000).The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy.University of Nebraska Press.ISBN978-0803219243.
  148. ^Will, George,Smitten with Gibberish,The Washington Post,30 May 1996. Republished inThe Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy,edited by Alan Sokal. University of Nebraska Press (2000). Retrieved 10 November 2013.
  149. ^Hanegraaff, Wouter Jacobus (1995).New Age religion and Western culture: esotericism in the mirror of secular thought.Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Godgeleerdheid. p. 352.ISBN9780791438541.
  150. ^Somerdin, Melissa (2016)."The game debate: Video games as innovative storytelling".The Oswald Review.18(1): 7.Retrieved5 November2022.
  151. ^"999: 9 Hours, 9 Persons, 9 Doors Interview Gets Philosophical, Then Personal".Siliconera.3 September 2010.Retrieved5 November2022.
  152. ^Leviton, Mark,Wrong Turn,The Sun,February 2013. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
  153. ^Ebert, John David (Spring 1998)."From Cellular Aging to the Physics of Angels: A Conversation with Rupert Sheldrake".The Quest.Archived fromthe originalon 22 October 2013.
  154. ^Cape, Jonathan (18 June 1986). "The believer and the sceptic".The Guardian.p. 11.
  155. ^May, Meredith (30 September 2012)."Esalen Institute turns 50 this year".SFGATE.Retrieved18 August2022.
  156. ^"Merlin Sheldrake's research works | University of Cambridge, Cambridge (Cam) and other places".
  157. ^"Cosmo Sheldrake".Cosmo Sheldrake.
  158. ^Kerridge, Richard (27 August 2020)."Entangled Life by Merlin Sheldrake review – a brilliant 'door opener' book".The Guardian.Retrieved7 January2024.
  159. ^Benthall, Jonathan (April 12, 2019)."Rupert Sheldrake: Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work."TLS. Times Literary Supplement,no. 6054, p. 31.Gale Academic OneFile.Accessed 27 Nov. 2022.
Wikiquote has quotations related toRupert Sheldrake.
Wikimedia Commons has media related toRupert Sheldrake.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&oldid=1267802770#Origin_and_philosophy_of_morphic_resonance"