Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Rupert Sheldrake
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== {{anchor|The Science Delusion}} {{anchor|Science Set Free}} ''The Science Delusion'' (''Science Set Free'') (2012)=== ''The Science Delusion'', published in the US 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]], with the title apparently mimicking that of ''[[The God Delusion]]'' by one of his critics, [[Richard Dawkins]].<ref>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 United States as ''Science Set Free'' ... Dawkins is a passionate believer in materialist dogma, but the book is not a response to him."{{cite journal |last=Marshall |first=Steve |journal=[[Fortean Times]] |date=April 2012 |volume=286 |page=38 |url=http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/6421/the_science_delusion.html |title=The Science Delusion |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416035555/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/6421/the_science_delusion.html |archive-date=16 April 2012 }}</ref> 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.{{r|ssf|page1=6โ12}} The mainstream view of modern science is that it proceeds by [[methodological naturalism]] and does not require philosophical materialism.<ref>{{cite book |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |last=Pigliucci|first=Massimo |author-link=Massimo Pigliucci |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2010 |page=192 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aC8Baky2qTcC&pg=PA192 |isbn=9780226667874}}</ref> Sheldrake questions conservation of energy; he calls it a "standard scientific dogma,"{{r|ssf|page1=337}} says that perpetual motion devices and [[inedia]] should be investigated as possible phenomena,{{r|ssf|page1=72โ73}} and has said that "the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak."{{r|ssf|page1=83}} He argues in favour of [[alternative medicine]] and [[psychic phenomena]], saying that their recognition as legitimate is impeded by a "scientific priesthood" with an "authoritarian mentality."{{r|ssf|page1=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."{{r|ssf|page1=229}} He suggests that [[DNA]] is insufficient to explain [[heredity|inheritance]], and that inheritance of form and behaviour is mediated through morphic resonance.{{r|ssf|page1=157โ186}} He also promotes morphic resonance in broader fashion as an explanation for other phenomena such as memory.{{r|ssf|page1=187โ211}} Reviews were mixed. [[Anti-reductionist]] philosopher [[Mary Midgley]], writing in ''The 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."<ref name="Midgley 2012"/> Philosopher [[Martin Cohen (philosopher)|Martin Cohen]], a famous critic of esotericism in science, wrote in ''[[The Times Higher Education Supplement]]'' that "[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."<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The Times Higher Education Supplement]]|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-science-delusion-freeing-the-spirit-of-enquiry/419245.article|title=The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry|last=Cohen|first=Martin|author-link=Martin Cohen (philosopher)|date=8 March 2012}}</ref> [[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]]," 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."<ref name="Appleyard"/> 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."<ref>{{cite journal |journal=New Scientist |last=Lawton|first=Graham|title=Science's greatest critic is no mood to recant |date= 31 August 2012 |url=https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/08/the-science-behind-our-weirdest-behaviours.html}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake |url=http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/The_Science_Delusion_by_Rupert_Sheldrake |journal=Philosophy Now |date=JulyโAugust 2013 |last=Greenbank|first=John}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)