Changes

84,906 bytes added , 09:30, 22 March 2022

Import from wikipedia

{{Short description|English author and parapsychological researcher}}
{{Pp-protected|reason=Persistent [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] - restoring indefinite semi that was overridden by timed full protection.|small=yes}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2020}}
{{Use British English|date=January 2014}}
{{Infobox person
|name = Rupert Sheldrake
|image = Sheldrake TASC2008.JPG
|image_size =
|alt =
|caption = Sheldrake in 2008 at a conference in [[Tucson, Arizona]]
|birth_date = {{Birth date and age|1942|6|28|df=y}}
|birth_place = [[Newark-on-Trent]], Nottinghamshire, England<ref name=bio-anglican/>
|nationality = British
|education =
*PhD (biochemistry), [[University of Cambridge]]<ref name=maddox2/>
*[[Frank Knox Memorial Fellowships|Frank Knox Fellow]] (philosophy and history of science), [[Harvard University]]
*MA ([[Natural Sciences (Cambridge)|natural sciences]]), [[Clare College, Cambridge]]
|employer = The [[Perrott-Warrick Fund]] (2005–2010)
|occupation = Researcher, author, critic
|years_active =
|awards =
|website = [http://www.sheldrake.org www.sheldrake.org]
}}

'''Alfred Rupert Sheldrake''' (born 28 June 1942) is an English author,<ref name=TimAdams/> and researcher in the field of [[parapsychology]],<ref name=whitfield/> who proposed the concept of '''morphic resonance''', a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as [[pseudoscience]].<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref>{{cite journal |title=Who's calling? |journal=The Quest |year=2001 |volume=89–90 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_bpAAQAAIAAJ}}</ref> He worked as a biochemist at [[Cambridge University]] from 1967 to 1973<ref name=TimAdams/> and as principal [[plant physiologist]] at the [[International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics]] in India until 1978.<ref name=chaos/>

Sheldrake's morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature"<ref name=TimAdams/><ref name=presencepast/> and that "natural systems ... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind."<ref name=presencepast/> Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms."<ref name=bio2/><ref name=hood/> His advocacy of the idea offers idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as [[biological development|development]], [[biological inheritance|inheritance]], and memory.

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the [[scientific community]] and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. 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.{{efn|Sources:
* pseudoscience<ref name=gardner/><ref name=sharma/><ref name=samuel/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=impostures/><ref name="Jones"/><ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/115533/rupert-sheldrake-fools-bbc-deepak-chopra |magazine=The New Republic |title=Pseudoscientist Rupert Sheldrake Is Not Being Persecuted, And Is Not Like Galileo |last=Coyne |first=Jerry A. | author-link = Jerry Coyne|date=8 November 2013}}</ref>
* lack of evidence<ref name=hood/><ref name="Blackmore 2009"/><ref name=Rutherford/><ref name=sciam/><ref name="Rose 1988"/>
* inconsistency with data from genetics and embryology<ref name="Wolpert 1984"/>
* inconsistency with consensus in neuroscience and biochemistry<ref>{{cite news |last1=Shermer |first1=Michael |author-link=Michael Shermer |title=Rupert's Resonance |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruperts-resonance/ |access-date=6 March 2019 |date=1 November 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Horgan |first1=John |author-link=John Horgan (journalist) |title=Scientific Heretic Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields, Psychic Dogs and Other Mysteries |url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/ |access-date=6 March 2019 |work=Scientific American Blog Network }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Leviton |first1=Mark |title=Wrong Turn |url=https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/446/wrong-turn |access-date=6 March 2019 |work=The Sun Magazine}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Sheldrake-Shermer, Materialism in Science, Opening Statements |url=https://thebestschools.org/sheldrake-shermer-materialism-in-science-opening-statements/ |website=TheBestSchools.org |access-date=6 March 2019 |date=1 May 2015}}</ref>
* undermines the public's understanding of science<ref name=whitfield/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=Rutherford/>
}}

Other work by Sheldrake encompasses paranormal subjects such as [[precognition]], [[empirical research]] into [[telepathy]] and the [[psychic staring effect]].<ref name=hood/><ref name=MarksColwell/>
He has been described as a [[New Age]] author.<ref name="Guardian holistic"/><ref name=gunther/><ref name=frazier/>

==Life and career==
===Education===
Sheldrake was born on 28 June 1942,<ref name="Arguing Science 2016, p. 1">Arguing Science: A Dialogue on the Future of Science and Spirit, Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Shermer, Monkfish Book Publishing, 2016, p. 1</ref> in [[Newark-on-Trent]], Nottinghamshire,<ref name=bio-anglican/> to Reginald Alfred Sheldrake and Doris (née Tebbutt).<ref>Contemporary Authors, vol. 127, Susan M. Trosky, Gale Research International Ltd, 1989, p. 398</ref> His father was a [[University of Nottingham]]-educated pharmacist who ran a chemist's shop on the same road as his parents' wallpaper shop;<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.inspirepicturearchive.org.uk/image/9690/Reginald_Sheldrake_Upon_his_Graduation_Newark_c_1924 |title=Reginald Sheldrake Upon his Graduation, Newark, c 1924 |access-date= 12 July 2021}}</ref> he was also an amateur naturalist and microscopist.<ref name="Arguing Science 2016, p. 1"/> Sheldrake credits his father with encouraging him to follow his interest in animals, plants<ref name=bio2/> and gardens.<ref>Sheldrake, Rupert, [http://www.theecologist.org/magazine/features/2111379/family_orchards.html ''Family Orchards''], ''[[The Ecologist]]'', 9 October 2013. Retrieved 1 November 2013.</ref>

Although they were [[Methodist]]s, Sheldrake's parents sent him to [[Worksop College]], a [[Church of England]] [[boarding school]].<ref name=bio-anglican/> Sheldrake says,

<blockquote>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|Dawkins]] is today, you know: 'If Adam and Eve were created by God, why do they have navels?' That kind of thing.<ref name=TimAdams/></blockquote>

At [[Clare College, Cambridge]], Sheldrake studied biology and biochemistry, and after a year at [[Harvard University|Harvard]] studying philosophy and history of science, he returned to Cambridge where he gained a PhD in biochemistry for his work in plant development and [[plant hormone]]s.<ref name=TimAdams/><ref name=bio2/>

===Career===
After obtaining his PhD, Sheldrake became a [[research fellow|fellow]] of Clare College,<ref name=overhyped/> working in biochemistry and cell biology with funding from the [[Royal Society]] Rosenheim Research Fellowship.<ref>{{cite book |title=Year Book of the Royal Society of London |year=1973 |volume=78 |publisher=Harrison and Sons |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Nn47AQAAIAAJ}}</ref> He investigated [[auxin]]s, a class of [[phytohormone]]s that plays a role in plant [[vascular cell|vascular]] [[cell differentiation]].<ref name="Discover2000" /> Sheldrake and Philip Rubery developed the [[Polar auxin transport#Chemiosmotic model|chemiosmotic model]] of [[polar auxin transport]].<ref name="Abel2010">{{cite journal|last1=Abel|first1=S.|last2=Theologis|first2=A.|year=2010|title=Odyssey of Auxin|journal=Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology|volume=2|issue=10|pages=a004572|issn=1943-0264|doi=10.1101/cshperspect.a004572|pmid=20739413|pmc=2944356}}</ref>

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

{{blockquote|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.<ref name="Discover2000" />}}

Having an interest in [[Indian philosophy]], [[Hinduism]] and [[transcendental meditation]], Sheldrake resigned his position at Clare and went to work on the physiology of tropical crops in [[Hyderabad, India]],<ref name=bio2/> as principal plant physiologist at the [[International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics]] (ICRISAT) from 1974 to 1978.<ref name=chaos/><ref name=bio2/> There he published on crop physiology<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/cropphysio/index.html |title=Papers on Crop Physiology |publisher=sheldrake.org |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131006065504/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/cropphysio/index.html |archive-date=6 October 2013 }}</ref> and co-authored a book on the anatomy of the [[pigeonpea]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bisen|first1=S. S.|last2=Sheldrake|first2=A. R.|year=1981 |title=The anatomy of the pigeonpea|publisher=ICRISAT}}</ref>

Sheldrake left ICRISAT to focus on writing ''A New Science of Life'', during which time he spent a year and a half in the [[Saccidananda Ashram]] of [[Bede Griffiths]],<ref name=bio2/><ref name=bio1/> a [[Benedictine]] monk active in interfaith dialogue with [[Hinduism]].<ref name=bio-anglican/> Published in 1981, the book outlines his concept of morphic resonance,<ref name=bio2/> about which he remarks,

{{blockquote|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.<ref name=bio2/>|sign=|source=}}

After writing ''A New Science of Life'', he continued at ICRISAT as a part-time consultant physiologist until 1985.<ref name=chaos/>

Since 2004,<ref>{{cite web |title=ht_faculty |url=http://www.learn.edu/ht/ht_faculty.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040530000342/http://www.learn.edu/ht/ht_faculty.htm |archive-date=30 May 2004 |publisher=The Graduate Institute}}</ref> Sheldrake has been a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute in [[Bethany, Connecticut]],<ref name=bio1/> where he was also academic director of the Holistic Learning and Thinking Program until 2012.<ref name=bio1/> From September 2005 until 2010, Sheldrake was director of the [[Perrott-Warrick Fund|Perrott–Warrick]] Project for [[psychical]] research for research on unexplained human and animal abilities, funded from Trinity College, Cambridge.<ref name=overhyped/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/About/biography/pwfund.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070207231747/http://www.sheldrake.org/About/biography/pwfund.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=7 February 2007 |title=The Perrott–Warrick Project |publisher=Sheldrake.org |access-date=27 August 2012 |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert }}</ref> As of 2014, he was a fellow of the [[Institute of Noetic Sciences]] in [[California]] and a fellow of [[Schumacher College]] in [[Devon, England]].<ref name="current bio">{{cite web|url=http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/biography|title=Biography of Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D.|publisher=Rupert Sheldrake|access-date=29 April 2014}}</ref>

===Personal life===
Sheldrake reported "being drawn back to a Christian path" during his time in India, and self-identifies as [[Anglican]].<ref name=bio-anglican/> Sheldrake is married to therapist, voice teacher and author [[Jill Purce]]. They have two sons,<ref name=bio1/> the biologist [[Merlin Sheldrake]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2113347781_Merlin_Sheldrake|title=Merlin Sheldrake's research works | University of Cambridge, Cambridge (Cam) and other places}}</ref> and the musician [[Cosmo Sheldrake]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cosmosheldrake.com/|title=Cosmo Sheldrake|website=Cosmo Sheldrake}}</ref>

==Selected books==
Reviews of Sheldrake's books have at times been extremely negative over their scientific content, but some have been positive. In 2009, [[Adam Rutherford]], geneticist and deputy editor of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', criticised Sheldrake's books for containing research that was not subjected to the [[peer-review]] process expected for science, and suggested that his books were best "ignored."<ref name=Rutherford/>

=== ''A New Science of Life'' (1981) ===
Sheldrake's ''A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance'' (1981) proposed 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 suggested, newly-acquired behaviours can be passed down to future generations − a biological proposition akin to the [[Lamarckian inheritance]] theory. He generalised this approach to assert that it explains many aspects of science, from [[evolution]] to the [[Physical law|laws of nature]] which, in Sheldrake's formulation, are merely mutable habits that have been evolving and changing since the [[Big Bang]].

John Davy wrote in ''[[The Observer]]'' 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 that they would "merit attention if some of its predictions are supported by experiment."<ref>{{cite news |last=Davy|first=J.|date=9 August 1981 |title=Old rats and new tricks |work=The Observer}}</ref>

In subsequent books, Sheldrake continued to promote morphic resonance.

The morphic resonance hypothesis is rejected by numerous critics on many grounds, and has been labelled [[pseudoscience]] and [[magical thinking]]. These grounds include the lack of evidence for it and its inconsistency with established [[scientific theories]]. The idea of morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibility because it is overly vague and [[unfalsifiable]]. Furthermore, Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject to [[experimenter bias]]. His analyses of results have also drawn criticism.{{efn|Sources:
* pseudoscience<ref name=gardner/><ref name=sharma/><ref name=samuel/><ref name="Wolpert 1984"/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=impostures/><ref name="Jones"/>
* magical thinking<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name=skepdic/>
* lack of evidence<ref name=hood/><ref name="Blackmore 2009"/><ref name=Rutherford/><ref name=sciam/><ref name="Rose 1988"/>
* inconsistency with established scientific theories<ref name="Wolpert 1984"/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name="Blackmore 1999"/>
* overly vague<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name="Parkin"/>
* unfalsifiable<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=sciam/>
* experimental methods poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias<ref name=MarksColwell/><ref name="Blackmore 1999"/><ref name=alcock/>
* analyses of results have also drawn criticism<ref name=rose/><ref name=wiseman2/>
}}

=== ''The Presence of the Past'' (1988)===
In ''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.<ref name=presencepast/> The book was reviewed favourably in ''[[New Scientist]]'' by historian [[Theodore Roszak (scholar)|Theodore Roszak]], who called it "engaging, provocative" and "a tour de force."<ref name="Roszak"/> When the book was re-issued in 2011 with those 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," adding that if ''New Scientist'' were to review the re-issue, the book's publisher "wouldn't be mining it for promotional purposes."<ref name=newscientist>{{cite journal |journal=New Scientist |url=https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/did-we-really-say-that.html |last=Lawton|first=Graham |date=14 June 2011 |title=Sheldrake book: Did we really say that?}}</ref>

[[David E. H. Jones|David Jones]], reviewing the book in ''[[The Times]]'', criticised 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 to [[Occam's Razor]]."<ref name="Jones"/>

=== ''The Rebirth of Nature'' (1991) ===
Published in 1991, Sheldrake's ''The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God''<ref name=rebirth/> addressed the subject of [[New Age]] consciousness and related topics.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sheldon Ferguson |first=Duncan |year=1993 |title=New Age Spirituality: An Assessment |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aGqPXnDtnzwC&pg=PA204 |page=204 |isbn=9780664252182}}</ref> A column in ''The Guardian'' said 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."<ref>{{cite news|title=The rebirth of mother earth|last=Schwartz |first=Walter |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=7 January 1991|page=7}}</ref> The book was reviewed by [[James Lovelock]] in ''Nature'', 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."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Lovelock | first1 = J. E. | year = 1990| title = A danger to science?'' (review of ''The Rebirth of Nature'' by Rupert Sheldrake) | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 348 | issue = 6303| page = 685 | doi = 10.1038/348685a0 | s2cid = 46012105 }}</ref>

===''Seven Experiments That Could Change the World'' (1994) ===
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 conduct research and argued that experiments similar to his own could be conducted with limited expense.<ref name=seven-exp/>

Music critic of ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' Mark 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."<ref name="Edwards"/>

David Sharp, writing in ''[[The Lancet]]'', said that the experiments testing [[paranormal]] phenomena carried the "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 (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."<ref>The Lancet. 343.8902 (9 April 1994): p. 905.</ref>

Science journalist Nigel Hawkes, writing in ''The Times'', said that Sheldrake was "trying to bridge the gap between [[phenomenalism]] and science," and suggested that dogs could appear to have psychic abilities when they were actually relying on more conventional senses. He concluded by saying, "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."<ref name="Hawkes"/>

=== ''Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home'' (1999)===
''Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home'', published in 1999, covered his research into proposed telepathy between humans and animals, particularly dogs. Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic fields are responsible for it.<ref name=dogs/>

The book is in three sections, on telepathy, on sense of direction, including [[animal migration]] and the [[Homing pigeon|homing of pigeons]], and on animal [[precognition]], 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 highly [[Statistical significance|significant]] statistically. Sheldrake performed 12 further 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.<ref name="the">{{cite web | url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/if-the-truth-is-out-there-weve-not-found-it-yet/147748.article | title=If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet | work=Times Higher Education | date=30 August 1999 | access-date=19 February 2015 |last=Blackmore|first=Susan}}</ref> Sheldrake also carried out similar experiments with another dog, Kane, describing the results as similarly positive and significant.<ref name=dogs/>

Before the publication of ''Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home'', Sheldrake invited [[Richard Wiseman]], Matthew Smith, and Julie Milton to conduct an independent experimental study with the dog Jaytee. They concluded that their evidence did not support telepathy as an explanation for the dog's behaviour,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sheldrake|first1=Rupert|last2=Smart|first2=Pamela |title=A Dog That Seems To Know When His Owner is Coming Home: Videotaped Experiments and Observations |journal=[[Journal of Scientific Exploration]] |date=2000 |volume=14 |pages=233–255 |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-seems-to-know-when-his-owner-is-coming-home-videotaped-experiments-and-observations |access-date=18 February 2015}}</ref> and proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's conclusions, involving artefacts, bias resulting from [[experimental design]], and [[post hoc analysis]] of unpublished data.<ref name=wiseman2/><ref name=wiseman1/> 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 that 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.<ref name=wiseman2/> 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.<ref name="Commentary99">{{cite journal | last=Sheldrake | first=Rupert | title=Commentary on a paper by Wiseman, Smith and Milton on the 'psychic pet' phenomenon | journal=Journal of the Society for Psychical Research | date=1999 | volume=63 | pages=306–311 | url=http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/commentary-on-wiseman-smith-and-milton | access-date=18 February 2015}}</ref>

Reviewing the book, [[Susan Blackmore]] criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration – which were all less than an hour in duration – 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.<ref name="the"/>

===''The Sense of Being Stared At'' (2003)===
Sheldrake's ''The Sense of Being Stared At'' explores 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. Sheldrake reported subjects exhibiting a weak sense of being stared at, but no sense of not being stared at,<ref name="sheldrake">Sheldrake, Rupert (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At Part 1: Is it Real or Illusory? ''Journal of Consciousness Studies'', '''12'''(6):10–31. [https://web.archive.org/web/20071027063028/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/staring/pdf/JCSpaper1.pdf Reprint]. See ''Tests under ‘real life’ conditions'', pp. 21–22.</ref><ref>Sheldrake, Rupert (2003). ''The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind'', London: Hutchinson. {{ISBN|0-09-179463-3}}.</ref> and attributed the results to morphic resonance.<ref name=stared/> Sheldrake reported a hit rate of 53.1%, describing two subjects as "nearly always right, scoring way above chance levels."<ref name=JCS>Rupert Sheldrake (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At, and open peer commentary. ''Journal of Consciousness Studies'', '''12''':6, 4–126. [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2005/00000012/00000006 Ref.]. Accessed 28 May 2008.</ref>

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,<ref name=MarksColwell/><ref name=sciam/><ref name=baker/> such as using test sequences with "relatively few long runs and many alternations" instead of truly [[Randomized controlled trial|randomised patterns]].<ref name=MC>David F. Marks and John Colwell (2000). The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization, ''Skeptical Inquirer'', September/October 2000. [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_staring_effect_an_artifact_of_pseudo_randomization/ Reprint]. Accessed 28 May 2008.</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/research_on_the_feeling_of_being_stared_at/|title=Sheldrake, Rupert. "Skeptical Inquirer (2000)," March/April, 58–61}}</ref> In 2005, [[Michael Shermer]] expressed concern over [[confirmation bias]] and [[experimenter bias]] in the tests, and concluded that Sheldrake's claim was [[unfalsifiable]].<ref>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. [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ruperts-resonance Reprint]. Accessed 27 May 2008.</ref>

[[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 drug [[MDMA]] (Ecstasy) during the trials.<ref name="Hancock2015">{{cite book|editor=Graham Hancock|last=Brown|first=David Jay|author-link=David Jay Brown|title=The Divine Spark: Psychedelics, Consciousness and the Birth of Civilization|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=39KlBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT114|access-date=28 June 2015|date=6 April 2015|publisher=Hay House, Inc|isbn=9781781805749|pages=114–}}</ref>

=== {{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 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.{{r|ssf|page1=6–12}} 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=72–73}} and has stated 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 being 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 stated that minds are not confined to brains and remarks 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=157–186}} He also promotes morphic resonance in broader fashion as an explanation for other phenomena such as memory.{{r|ssf|page1=187–211}}

Reviews were mixed. [[Anti-reductionist]] philosopher [[Mary Midgley]] writing in ''The Guardian'' welcomed it as "a new mind-body paradigm" to address what she thought was "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 Educational 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=July–August 2013 |last=Greenbank|first=John}}</ref>

===''Science and Spiritual Practices'' (2017)===
Adam Ford, reviewing the book for the ''[[Church Times]]'', says that Sheldrake "takes issue with the [[new atheism]] of many scientists, which arises out of a mechanical and materialist view of the universe," arguing that "consciousness and the Spirit are the true fundamental realities of everything."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ford |first1=Adam |title=Science and Spiritual Practices by Rupert Sheldrake |url=https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/24-august/books-arts/book-reviews/science-and-spiritual-practices-rupert-sheldrake |website=Church Times |access-date=13 December 2018}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=whitfield/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=Rutherford/> Some have accused Sheldrake of self-promotion,<ref name=Rutherford/> 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."<ref name=rose/>

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

Sheldrake and theoretical physicist [[David Bohm]] published a dialogue in 1982 in which they compared Sheldrake's ideas to Bohm's [[implicate order]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sheldrake|first1=R.|last2=Bohm|first2=D.|year=1982 |title=Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order |journal=ReVision |volume=5 |page=41}}</ref> In 1997, physicist [[Hans-Peter Dürr]] speculated about Sheldrake's work in relation to [[modern physics]].<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Dürr|editor-first=H. P.|year=1997 |title=Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion |publisher=Scherz}}</ref>

Following the publication of ''A New Science of Life'', ''[[New Scientist]]'' sponsored a competition to devise empirical tests for morphic resonance.<ref name="Roszak"/> The winning idea involved learning Turkish nursery rhymes, with psychologist and broadcaster [[Sue Blackmore]]'s entry involving babies' behaviour coming second.<ref name="Blackmore 2009"/> Blackmore found the results did not support morphic resonance.<ref name="Blackmore 2009"/>

In 2005, the ''[[Journal of Consciousness Studies]]'' devoted a special issue to Sheldrake's work on the sense of being stared at.<ref name=sciam/> 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."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=12 December 2013 |archive-date=28 July 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728012154/http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> The issue thus featured several articles by Sheldrake, followed by the open peer-review to which Sheldrake then responded.<ref name=sciam/> Writing in ''Scientific American'', Michael Shermer rated the peer commentaries, and noted that the more supportive reviews came from those who had affiliations with less mainstream institutions.<ref name=sciam/>

Sheldrake denies that DNA contains a recipe for [[Morphogenesis|morphological development]]. He 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." The Royal Society will be asked to determine the winner if the result is not obvious.<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://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 |last1=Wolpert|first1=L.|last2=Sheldrake|first2=R. }}</ref>

===="A book for burning?"====
In September 1981, ''Nature'' published an editorial about ''A New Science of Life'' entitled "A book for burning?"<ref name=TimAdams/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/> Written by the journal's senior editor, [[John Maddox]], the editorial commented:

{{blockquote|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.<ref name="Maddox 1981"/>}}

Maddox argued that Sheldrake's hypothesis was not [[testable]] or "falsifiable in Popper's sense," referring to the work of philosopher [[Karl 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."<ref name="Maddox 1981"/> In the editorial, Maddox ultimately rejected the suggestion that the book should be burned.<ref name="Maddox 1981"/> Nonetheless, the title of the piece garnered widespread publicity.<ref name=maddox2/><ref name=Rutherford/><ref name="Rose 1988"/> In a subsequent issue, ''Nature'' published several letters expressing disapproval of the editorial,<ref name=josephson>{{cite journal |last=Josephson|first=B. D.|year=1981 |title=Incendiary subject |journal=Nature |volume=293 |page=594 |doi=10.1038/293594b0 |issue=5833|bibcode=1981Natur.293..594J|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Clarke|first=C. J. S. |year=1981 |title=Incendiary subject |journal=Nature |volume=293 |page=594 |doi=10.1038/293594a0 |issue=5833|bibcode=1981Natur.293..594C |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Hedges|first=R. |year=1981 |title=Incendiary subject |journal=Nature |volume=293 |page=506 |doi=10.1038/293506d0 |issue=5833|bibcode=1981Natur.293..506H |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Cousins|first=F. W. |year=1981 |title=Incendiary subject |journal=Nature |volume=293 |pages=506–594 |doi=10.1038/293506e0 |issue=5833|bibcode=1981Natur.293..506C |doi-access=free }}</ref> including one from physicist [[Brian 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."<ref name=josephson/>

In 1983, an editorial in ''The Guardian'' compared the "petulance of wrath of the scientific establishment" aimed against Sheldrake with the [[Galileo affair]] and [[Lysenkoism]].<ref name="Galileo">''Being more than sorry about Galileo'', ''[[The Guardian]]'', 14 May 1983, p. 10</ref> Responding in the same paper, [[Brian Charlesworth]] defended 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."<ref name="Charlesworth">[[Brian Charlesworth|Charlesworth, Brian]], ''The Holy See—but it takes a long time to admit it'', ''[[The Guardian]]'', 19 May 1983, p. 12.</ref>

In a letter to ''The Guardian'' in 1988, a scientist from [[Glasgow University]] 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."<ref name="Leader"/> In 1999, Maddox characterised his 1981 editorial as "injudicious," saying that even though it concluded that Sheldrake's book

<blockquote>... 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."<ref name=maddox2/></blockquote> An editor for ''Nature'' said in 2009 that Maddox's reference to [[book burning]] backfired.<ref name=Rutherford/>

In 2012, Sheldrake described his experiences after publication of Maddox's editorial review as being "exactly like a papal excommunication. From that moment on, I became a very dangerous person to know for scientists."<ref name=TimAdams/>

====Sheldrake and Steven Rose====
During 1987 and 1988 Sheldrake contributed several pieces to ''The 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."<ref>{{cite news|title=Resonace (sic) of memory: Body and soul|last=Sheldrake|first=Rupert|work=The Guardian|date=6 April 1988|page=21}}</ref> This provoked a response by [[Steven Rose]], a neuroscientist from the [[Open 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."<ref name="Rose 1988"/>

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."<ref>{{cite news|title=The chick and egg of morphic resonance|last=Sheldrake|first=Rupert|work=The Guardian|date=20 April 1988|page=23}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|title=No proof that the brain is tuned in|last=Rose|first=Steven| date=27 April 1988|work=The Guardian|page=23}}</ref>

In his next column, Sheldrake again attacked Rose for following "[[materialism]]," and argued that [[quantum physics]] had "overturned" materialism, and suggested that "memories may turn out to depend on morphic resonance rather than memory traces."<ref>Memory over matter: Body and Soul The Guardian 4 May 1988, p 21</ref> Philosopher [[Alan Malachowski]] of the [[University 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."<ref>Alan Malachowski, A bum note in morphic resonance, The Guardian 11 May 1988</ref>

In 1990, Sheldrake and Rose agreed to and arranged a test of the morphic resonance hypothesis using chicks.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SyeKFT9hPTUC&dq=rupert+sheldrake+steven+rose+chicks&pg=PT204 |title=The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature |date=2011-07-01 |publisher=Icon Books Ltd |isbn=978-1-84831-313-2 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Rose |first=Steven |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9SM3lw_4wTcC&dq=rupert+sheldrake+chicks&pg=PA49 |title=Lifelines: Life beyond the Gene |date=2003-10-09 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-803424-7 |language=en}}</ref> They were unable to agree on the intended joint research paper reporting their results,<ref name=":0" /> instead publishing separate and conflicting interpretations. Sheldrake published his 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |journal=Rivista di Biologia |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/formative.pdf |title=An experimental test of the hypothesis of formative causation |year=1992 |volume=85 |issue=3–4 |pages=431–43 |pmid=1341836 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130727181657/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/formative.pdf |archive-date=27 July 2013 }}</ref> Rose published, stating that morphic resonance was a "hypothesis disconfirmed."<ref name=rose/> 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."<ref name=rose/> Rose asked [[Patrick Bateson]] to analyse the data, and Bateson offered his opinion that Sheldrake's interpretation of the data was "misleading" and attributable to experimenter effects.<ref name=rose/>

Sheldrake responded to Rose's paper by describing it as "polemic" and "aggressive tone and extravagant rhetoric" and concluding that "The results of this experiment do not disconfirm the hypothesis of formative causation, as Rose claims. They are consistent with it."<ref>{{cite journal|title=Rose Refuted|url=http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/Rose_refuted.html|journal=Rivista di Biologia|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921153139/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/morphic/Rose_refuted.html|archive-date=21 September 2013}}</ref>

=== On television ===
Sheldrake was the subject of an episode of ''Heretics of Science'', a six-part documentary series broadcast on [[BBC Two|BBC2]] in 1994.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.episodecalendar.com/show/heretics-of-science |title=Heretics of Science |publisher=episodecalendar.com}}</ref> In 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."<ref name=heretics/> The broadcast repeatedly displayed footage of book burning, sometimes accompanied by audio of a crowd chanting "heretic."<ref name=heretics/> 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.<ref name="Rose 1994"/>

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]]''. In the outcome of the experiment, one set of data yielded positive results and another set yielded negative results.<ref name=heretics/>

===Public debates and lectures===
Sheldrake debated with biologist [[Lewis Wolpert]] on the existence of telepathy in 2004 at the [[Royal Society of Arts]] in London.<ref name=new-scientist-wolpert/> Sheldrake argued for telepathy while Wolpert argued that telepathy fits [[Irving Langmuir]]'s definition of [[pathological science]] and that the evidence for telepathy has not been persuasive.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/RSA_text.html |title=The RSA Telepathy Debate – Text |publisher=sheldrake.org |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101173044/http://www.sheldrake.org/D%26C/controversies/RSA_text.html |archive-date=1 November 2013 }}</ref> 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."<ref name=new-scientist-wolpert/>

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."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=Festival attacked over paranormal 'nonsense' |date=6 September 2006 |work=The Telegraph |last1=Highfield|first1=Roger|last2=Fleming|first2=Nic}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

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.<ref name=SFNM/> Sheldrake suffered a wound to the leg and has since recovered,<ref name=SFNM/><ref>{{cite news |last=Sharpe|first=Tom|date=5 December 2008 |title=Judge orders mental-health help for man who insists his mind is being controlled |work=Santa Fe New Mexican}}</ref> while his assailant was found "guilty but mentally ill."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/state/apguilty11-08-08.htm |title=Jury Finds Japanese Attacker Guilty, Mentally Ill |work=[[Albuquerque Journal]] |date=8 November 2008 |access-date=6 November 2013}}</ref>

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 stated 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."<ref name=tedblog/><ref name=independent>{{cite news |last=Bignell|first=Paul |work=The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ted-conference-censorship-row-8563105.html |title=TED conference censorship row |publisher=Independent Print Limited |date=7 April 2013}}</ref>

In November 2013, Sheldrake gave a lecture at the [[Oxford Union]] outlining his claims, made in ''The Science Delusion'', that modern science has become constrained by dogma, particularly in physics.<ref name=OxStu>Gillett, George, [http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/11/28/the-science-delusion-has-science-become-dogmatic/ ''The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?''], 28 November 2013, ''[[The Oxford Student]]''. Retrieved 25 December 2013.</ref>

===In popular culture===
Between 1989 and 1999, Sheldrake, [[ethnobotany|ethnobotanist]] [[Terence McKenna]] and mathematician [[Ralph Abraham (mathematician)|Ralph Abraham]] recorded a series of discussions exploring diverse topics relating to the "[[Anima mundi|world soul]]" and evolution.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=sheldrake.org |title=The Sheldrake–McKenna–Abraham Trialogues |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/Trialogues/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131128060018/http://www.sheldrake.org/Trialogues/ |archive-date=28 November 2013 }}</ref> These also resulted in a number of books based on these 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), and ''The Evolutionary Mind: Conversations on Science, Imagination & Spirit'' (2005). In an interview for the book ''Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse'', Sheldrake states he believes the use of [[psychedelic drugs]] "can reveal a world of consciousness and interconnection" which he says he has experienced.<ref name="Brown2005">{{cite book|last=Brown|first=David Jay|title=Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse: Contemplating the Future with Noam Chomsky, George Carlin, Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, and Others|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uCF5SBj0EmUC&pg=PA75|access-date=13 December 2013|date=6 June 2005|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=9781403965325|pages=75–}}</ref> Alternative medicine advocate [[Deepak Chopra]] has been a notable supporter of Sheldrake's work.<ref name=baer>{{cite journal|doi=10.1525/maq.2003.17.2.233|title=The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra—Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements|year=2003|last1=Baer|first1=Hans A.|journal=Medical Anthropology Quarterly|volume=17|issue=2|pages=233–50|pmid=12846118|s2cid=28219719|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/bafa58f0a7f706304c2505fe53cf3739436a984a}}</ref><ref name=chopra-review/>

Sheldrake's work was amongst those cited in a faux research paper written by [[Alan Sokal]] and submitted to ''[[Social Text]]''.<ref name=Hoax>{{cite book |editor=Sokal, A. D. |year=2000 |title=The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy |publisher=University of Nebraska Press.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QkcuQFBXLFQC&q=Sheldrake |isbn=978-0803219243}}</ref> In 1996, the journal published the paper as if it represented real scientific research,<ref name=Will>Will, George, [https://books.google.com/books?id=QkcuQFBXLFQC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=George+Will+Gibberish+Sokal&source=bl&ots=8mitxAmL1i&sig=nEzqNVIwHeLajbLs6ohqjrhq8wQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RoF_UvLjNIrwkQemsoH4DQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=George%20Will%20Gibberish%20Sokal&f=false ''Smitten with Gibberish''], [[The Washington Post]], 30 May 1996. Republished in ''The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy'', edited by Alan Sokal. University of Nebraska Press (2000). Retrieved 10 November 2013.</ref> an event which has come to be known as the [[Sokal 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."<ref name=Hoax />

Sheldrake has been described as a New Age author<ref name="Guardian holistic"/><ref name=gunther/><ref name=frazier/> although he does not endorse certain New Age interpretations of his ideas.<ref name=hanegraaff/>

==Origin and philosophy of morphic resonance==
Among his early influences Sheldrake cites ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'' (1962) by [[Thomas Kuhn]]. Sheldrake says that the book led him to view contemporary scientific understanding of life as simply a [[paradigm]], which he called "the mechanistic theory of life." Reading Kuhn's work, Sheldrake says, focused his mind on how scientific paradigms can change.<ref name=bio2/>

Sheldrake says that although there are similarities between morphic resonance and Hinduism's [[akashic records]],<ref name=Leviton/> 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 morphic resonance idea to two influences: his studies of the [[holistic]] tradition in biology, and French philosopher [[Henri Bergson]]'s 1896 book ''[[Matter and Memory]]''. He says that 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 world|Eastern]] thought, yet found by himself first in Western philosophy.<ref name=presencepast/><ref>{{cite journal |last=Ebert |first=John David |title=From Cellular Aging to the Physics of Angels: A Conversation with Rupert Sheldrake |journal=The Quest |date=Spring 1998 |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/interviews/Quest.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131022014635/http://www.sheldrake.org/D%26C/interviews/Quest.html |archive-date=22 October 2013 }}</ref>

Sheldrake has also noted similarities between morphic resonance and [[Carl Jung]]'s [[collective unconscious]], with regard to collective memories being shared across individuals and the coalescing of particular behaviours through repetition, described by Jung as [[Jungian archetypes|archetypes]].<ref name=presencepast/> However, 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 being an updated [[Hans Driesch|Drieschian]] [[vitalism]].<ref name="Wolpert 1984"/><ref>{{cite news|last=Cape|first=Jonathan|title=The believer and the sceptic|date=18 June 1986|page=11|work=The Guardian}}</ref>

== Books ==
* ''A New Science of Life: the hypothesis of formative causation'', Los Angeles: 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: Times Books, 1988. {{ISBN|0-8129-1666-2}}.
* ''The Rebirth of Nature: The greening of science and God'', New York: [[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: [[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: 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: [[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}} (U. S. Title: ''Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery'').
* ''Science and Spiritual Practices'', London: Coronet, 2017. {{ISBN|978-1-444-72792-0}}
* ''Ways To Go Beyond, And Why They Work: Seven Spiritual Practices in a Scientific Age'', London: Coronet, 2019. {{ISBN|978-1-473-63007-9}}.
With [[Ralph Abraham (mathematician)|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 (priest)|Matthew Fox]]:
* ''Natural Grace: dialogues on creation, darkness, and the soul in spirituality and science'', New York: [[Doubleday (publisher)|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}}.
With [[Kate Banks]]:
* ''Boy's Best Friend'', New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015. {{ISBN|9780374380083}}.
With [[Michael Shermer]]:
* ''Arguing Science: A Dialogue on the Future of Science and Spirit'', Rhinebeck, NY: Farrar, Monkfish Books, 2016. {{ISBN|978-1-939681-57-7}}.

==See also==
* [[Fritjof Capra]]
* [[Hundredth monkey effect]]
* [[Noosphere]]
* [[Philosophy of science]]
* [[Synchronicity]]
* [[Lyall Watson]]

== Explanatory notes ==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist|30em|refs=



<ref name=presencepast>{{cite book |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |year=2011 |title=The presence of the past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature |publisher=Icon Books |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SyeKFT9hPTUC&pg=PT13 |isbn=9781848313132}}</ref>

<ref name=seven-exp>{{cite book |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |title=Seven experiments that could change the world: a do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781573225649 |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=Riverhead Books |year=1995|isbn=9781573225649 }}</ref>

<ref name=dogs>{{cite book |title=Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home: and other unexplained powers of animals |location=New York |publisher=Crown |year=1999 |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert}}</ref>

<ref name=stared>{{cite book |title=The Sense of Being Stared At: and other aspects of the extended mind |url=https://archive.org/details/senseofbeingstar00shel |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=Crown Publishers |year=2003 |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert|isbn=9780609608074 }}</ref>

<ref name=ssf>{{cite book |title=Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery |publisher=Deepak Chopra Books |location=New York |year=2012 |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q13qPII2VDUC|isbn=9780770436711 }}</ref>

<ref name=bio1>{{cite web|url=http://www.sheldrake.org/About/biography/|title=Biography of Rupert Sheldrake, PhD|publisher=sheldrake.org|access-date=18 March 2013 |last=Sheldrake|first=Rupert|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131204222558/http://www.sheldrake.org/About/biography/ |archive-date=4 December 2013}}</ref>

<ref name=bio2>{{cite web |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/autobiography |title=Autobiography of Rupert Sheldrake|publisher=Sheldrake.org |access-date=28 May 2008 |last=Sheldrake|first=Rupert}}</ref>

<ref name=bio-anglican>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Doijy63RIgAC&pg=PA119 |editor=Chartres, Caroline |title=Why I Am Still an Anglican: Essays and Conversations |publisher=Continuum |date=June 2006 |isbn=9780826481436}}</ref>

<ref name=chaos>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EViCc75ndV4C&pg=PA182 |last1=Sheldrake|first1=Rupert|last2=McKenna|first2=Terence K. |last3=Abraham|first3=Ralph |title=Chaos, Creativity, and Cosmic Consciousness |publisher=Inner Traditions / Bear & Co |year=2011 |pages=181–182 |isbn=9781594777714}}</ref>

<ref name=rebirth>{{cite book |last=Sheldrake |first=Rupert |title=The Rebirth of Nature: The greening of science and God |location=New York |publisher=Bantam Books |year=1991 |isbn=978-0-553-07105-4 |url=https://archive.org/details/rebirthofnatureg00shel }}</ref>



<ref name=SFNM>{{cite news|url=http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Trial-planned-for-alleged-assailant |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20120130051112/http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Trial-planned-for-alleged-assailant |url-status=dead |archive-date=30 January 2012 |title=Alleged assailant says he's not crazy |last=Sharpe|first=Tom |work=The Santa Fe New Mexican |date=20 September 2008 |access-date=25 March 2012}}</ref>

<ref name=Leviton>Leviton, Mark, [http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/446/wrong_turn ''Wrong Turn''], [[The Sun (magazine)|The Sun]], February 2013. Retrieved 17 November 2013.</ref>



<ref name=hanegraaff>{{cite book |last=Hanegraaff |first=Wouter Jacobus |title=New Age religion and Western culture: esotericism in the mirror of secular thought |publisher=Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Godgeleerdheid |year=1995 |page=352 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xnrT97nXzgQC&pg=PA352 |isbn=9780791438541}}</ref>

<ref name=frazier>{{cite book |editor-last=Frazier|editor-first=K.|title=The Hundredth Monkey and other Paradigms of the Paranormal |publisher=Prometheus |location=Buffalo |year=1991 |page=171 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iJ1v3bggyr8C&pg=PA171 |isbn=9781615924011}}</ref>

<ref name=gunther>{{cite book |title=The Vital Dimension: A Quest for Mind, Memory and God in the Thickness of Time |year=2006 |last=Gunther |first=Carl T. |publisher=iUniverse |location=Lincoln, NE |page=60 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ecKk3JMVVNQC&pg=PA60 |isbn=9780595402977}}</ref>

<ref name="Guardian holistic">{{cite news |title=A holistic sense of place in the quagmire of history |work=The Guardian |date=19 August 1987 |page=11}}</ref>



<ref name=heretics>{{cite episode |series=Heretics of Science |title=Rupert Sheldrake |network=BBC |date=19 July 1994}}</ref>



<ref name=whitfield>{{cite journal |last=Whitfield|first=J.|date=22 January 2004 |title=Telepathic charm seduces audience at paranormal debate |journal=Nature |volume=427 |page=277 |bibcode=2004Natur.427..277W |issue=6972 |doi=10.1038/427277b |pmid=14737136|doi-access=free }}</ref>

<ref name=overhyped>{{cite journal |journal=Nature |date=14 September 2006 |volume=443 |page=132 |title=Overhyped |doi=10.1038/443132a |issue=7108 |bibcode=2006Natur.443..132. |doi-access=free }}</ref>

<ref name=new-scientist-wolpert>{{cite journal |journal=New Scientist |title=When science meets the paranormal |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124380.200-when-science-meets-the-paranormal.html |date=13 March 2004 |volume=2438}}</ref>

<ref name=tedblog>{{cite web |url=http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/ |title=The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk |publisher=TED |date=19 March 2013}}</ref>

<ref name=TimAdams>{{cite news |last=-Adams|first=Tim |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion |title=Rupert Sheldrake: the 'heretic' at odds with scientific dogma |work=The Guardian |date=4 February 2012 |access-date=2 November 2013}}</ref>



<ref name="Maddox 1981">{{Cite journal|journal=Nature|volume=293|pages=245–246|date=24 September 1981|title=A book for burning?|doi=10.1038/293245b0|issue=5830|bibcode=1981Natur.293R.245. |quote=...Sheldrake's argument is in no sense a scientific argument but is an exercise in pseudo-science. |url=http://www.project-reason.org/images/uploads/contest/Maddox1981.pdf |last=Maddox|first=John|s2cid=4330931}}</ref>

<ref name=Rutherford>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/evolution|last=Rutherford|first=Adam|author-link=Adam Rutherford|title=A book for ignoring: Sheldrake persists in his claims, despite the fact that there's no evidence for them. This is bad science |work=The Guardian |date=6 February 2009 |access-date=13 July 2013}}</ref>


<ref name="Rose 1988">{{cite news|last=Rose|first=Steven|author-link=Steven Rose|work=The Guardian|date=13 April 1988|page=27|title=Some facts that just don't resonate}}</ref>
<ref name=rose>{{cite journal |journal=Rivista di Biologia |last=Rose |first=S. |date=March 1992 |title=So-called "Formative Causation." A Hypothesis Disconfirmed. Response to Rupert Sheldrake |volume=85 |issue=3/4|pages=445–453 |pmid=1341837 |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/Rose_response.html |quote=Along with parapsychology, corn circles, creationism, ley-lines and "deep ecology," "formative causation," or "morphic resonance" has many of the characteristics of such pseudosciences... |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140807105012/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/morphic/Rose_response.html |archive-date=7 August 2014 }}</ref>
<ref name="Rose 1994">{{cite news|last=Rose|first=Steven|author-link=Steven Rose|work=The Guardian|date=8 September 1994|title=Heresy at stake|page=B11}}</ref>

<ref name=maddox2>{{cite journal |last=Maddox |first=J. |year=1999 |title=Dogs, telepathy and quantum mechanics |journal=Nature |volume=401 |pages=849–850 |bibcode=1999Natur.401..849M |doi=10.1038/44696 |issue=6756 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

<ref name=gardner>{{cite book|last=Gardner|first=M. |year=1988 |title=The New Age: notes of a fringe-watcher |publisher=Prometheus books |quote=Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2ECKIASfKa8C&pg=PA112 |isbn=9781615925773}}</ref>

<ref name=alcock>{{cite book |year=2003 |title=Psi wars: Getting to grips with the paranormal |publisher=Imprint Academic |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JyfbUvuJbbYC&pg=PA231 |quote=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. |editor-last1=Alcock|editor-first1=J. E.|editor-last2=Burns|editor-first2=J. E.|editor-last3=Freeman|editor-first3=A.|isbn=9780907845485}}</ref>

<ref name=wiseman1>{{cite journal |last1=Wiseman|first1=R. |last2=Smith|first2=M.|last3=Milton|first3=J.|year=1998 |title=Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the 'psychic pet' phenomenon |journal=British Journal of Psychology |volume=89 |pages=453–462 |url=http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/2285/902380.pdf?sequence=1 |format=PDF |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.1998.tb02696.x |issue=3|pmid=9734300 |hdl=2299/2285 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

<ref name=wiseman2>{{cite journal |last1=Wiseman|first1=Richard|last2=Smith|first2=Matthew|last3=Milton|first3=Julie|title=The 'psychic pet' phenomenon: a reply to Rupert Sheldrake |journal=Journal of the Society for Psychical Research |year=2000 |url=http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/2282/902377.pdf?sequence=1 |format=PDF}}</ref>

<ref name=sciam>{{cite journal|last=Shermer|first=Michael|title=Rupert's Resonance|journal=Scientific American|volume=293|issue=5|pages=38|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican1105-38|pmid = 16318024|year=2005|bibcode=2005SciAm.293e..38S}}</ref>

<ref name=baker>{{cite journal |last=Baker|first=R. A.|year=2000 |title=Can We Tell When Someone is Staring at Us? |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |volume=24 | issue = 2 |pages=34–40 |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/can_we_tell_when_someone_is_staring_at_us/}}</ref>

<ref name="Discover2000">{{Cite journal |last=Lemley|first=B.|year=2000 |title=Heresy |journal=Discover |volume=21 | issue = 8 |pages=60–65 |url=https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/heresy}}</ref>

<ref name=impostures>{{cite book |last=de Pracontal|first=M.|year=1986 |title=L'imposture scientifique en dix leçons |publisher=Editions La Découverte}}</ref>

<ref name=skepdic>{{cite web|url=http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html |title=Morphic Resonance |publisher=Skepdic.com |last=Carroll|first=Robert Todd |access-date=27 August 2012}}</ref>

<ref name=samuel>{{cite book |last=Samuel|first=L. R. |year=2011 |title=Supernatural America: A Cultural History |publisher=ABC-CLIO |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Tg4RNh0XREgC&pg=PA163 |quote=...most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash... |isbn=9780313398995}}</ref>

<ref name="Blackmore 1999">{{cite journal |last=Blackmore|first=S.|title=If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet |journal=The Times Higher Education Supplement |date=27 August 1999 |volume= 18 |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/147748.article}}</ref>

<ref name="Blackmore 2009">{{cite news |last=Blackmore|first=Susan|author-link=Susan Blackmore|title=An idea with resonance: More than anything, Sheldrake's continuing popularity is rooted in our need to believe|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/morphic-paranormal-science-sheldrake|date=4 February 2009|work=The Guardian}}</ref>

<ref name=sharma>{{cite book|last=Sharma|first=Ruchir|author-link=Ruchir Sharma
|title=Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |year=2012 |quote=Despite Sheldrake's legitimate scientific credentials, his peers have roundly dismissed his theory as pseudoscience. |isbn=9780393083835|title-link=Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles}}</ref>

<ref name="Wolpert 1984">{{Cite news|title=A matter of fact or fancy?|last=Wolpert|first=Lewis|author-link=Lewis Wolpert|work=The Guardian|date=11 January 1984|page=11}}</ref>

<ref name=MarksColwell>{{cite journal |last1=Marks|first1=D.|last2=Colwell|first2=J.|date=September–October 2000 |title=The psychic staring effect: An artifact of pseudo-randomization |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |volume=41 |page=49 |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_staring_effect_an_artifact_of_pseudo_randomization/}}</ref>

<ref name=hood>{{cite book|last=Hood|first=Bruce|author-link=Bruce Hood (psychologist)|title=Supersense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable |publisher=HarperOne |year=2009 |page=[https://archive.org/details/supersensewhyweb00hood/page/232 232] |url=https://archive.org/details/supersensewhyweb00hood |url-access=registration|quote=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. |isbn=9780061867934}}</ref>

<ref name="Jones">{{cite news|last=Jones|first=David|work=[[The Times]]|date=4 July 1988|title=Books: Captain Morphic – Review of 'THE PRESENCE OF THE PAST' By Rupert Sheldrake}}</ref>

<ref name="Leader">{{cite news|last=Leader|first=David P.|work=The Guardian|date=20 April 1988|title=Letter to the editor}}</ref>

<ref name="Parkin">{{cite news|last=Parkin|first=Alan J.|title=When a little learning is a dangerous thing|work=The Guardian|date=16 December 1985|page=12}}</ref>





<ref name="Edwards">{{cite news|last=Edwards|first=Mark|title=Knowing what to think; Science|work=[[The Sunday Times]]|date=15 May 1994|page=11}}</ref>

<ref name="Midgley 2012">{{cite news|last=Midgley|first=Mary| title=The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake – review|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jan/27/science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake-review| date=27 January 2012 |work=The Guardian}}</ref>





<ref name="Appleyard">{{cite news|last=Appleyard|first=Bryan|author-link=Bryan Appleyard|title=Dogmas under the microscope; The rogue scientist who dares to challenge the idea that science alone explains everything in the world|work=[[The Sunday Times]]|date=19 February 2012|page=38}}</ref>

<ref name="Roszak">{{cite journal|journal=New Scientist|url=https://www.newscientist.com/data/doc/teaser/blog/201106/nsreview.pdf|date=21 July 1988|title=Habits of nature|last=Roszak|first=Theodore|author-link=Theodore Roszak (scholar)|page=63}}</ref>

<ref name=chopra-review>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/Science-Set-Free-Good-News-for-Lumbering-Robots-3834730.php |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=2 November 2012 |last=Chopra|first=Deepak|author-link=Deepak Chopra|title=Science Set Free – Good News for Lumbering Robots}}</ref>





<ref name="Hawkes">{{cite news|title=Tricks of the tongue; Books|work=[[The Times]]|date=9 April 1994|page=14|last=Hawkes|first=Nigel}}</ref>



}} 

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{Commons category}}
* {{Official website|http://www.sheldrake.org/}}
* {{IMDb name|0791102}}
* {{cite web|title=The speed of light and a banned TED talk|publisher=YouTube|date=30 May 2017|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhLlr25RvJI| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211118/PhLlr25RvJI| archive-date=2021-11-18 | url-status=live|postscript=; "Rupert Sheldrake made several points in his (in)famous banned talk."}}{{cbignore}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Sheldrake, Rupert}}
[[Category:1942 births]]
[[Category:Alumni of Clare College, Cambridge]]
[[Category:British biologists]]
[[Category:British male writers]]
[[Category:British non-fiction writers]]
[[Category:English Anglicans]]
[[Category:English writers on paranormal topics]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Male non-fiction writers]]
[[Category:Parapsychologists]]
[[Category:People educated at Worksop College]]
[[Category:People from Newark-on-Trent]]
[[Category:Pseudoscientific biologists]]
[[Category:Telepathy]]
{{SourceWikipedia}}

Christoph Holtermann

Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, developer, Editors, Interface administrators, Reviewers, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, Widget editors

14,157

edits

Changes

Rupert Sheldrake (view source)

Revision as of 09:30, 22 March 2022

Navigation menu

Search