46. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and the Skeptics (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Guest: Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is abiologist and author of more than 75 scientific papers and ten books. As a former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a

Click here to read more ...

[David Bailey]

Another nice interview with Rupert. Rupert always impresses me because he is always on the lookout for possible conventional explanations for phenomena. For example, he comments in that interview that when he realised that many dogs that had passed on were described as having anticipated their owner's return while alive, he suspected that the phenomenon might just be a rosy recollection of an ex-pet.

I also think his idea of a (presumably anonymous) survey of scientists on their view about the paranormal would be very interesting.

David

[mcairo]

I also enjoyed the interview, but I think it was a bit light on new information.

I also think Alex missed an opportunity to question Dr. Sheldrake about the one theory that made the scientific and skeptical community excommunicate Dr. Sheldrake for life - his theory of morphic resonance.

Any experiment that Dr. Sheldrake does will always be reviewed in the shadow of this controversial theory.

I was hoping throughout the interview that Alex might ask Dr. Sheldrake "do you still believe morphic resonance is a viable theory for cellular diversity and can morphic fields possibly explain how dogs might know when their owners are coming home?

Overall, though, it was an entertaining interview.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by mcairo

I also think Alex missed an opportunity to question Dr. Sheldrake about the one theory that made the scientific and skeptical community excommunicate Dr. Sheldrake for life - his theory of morphic resonance.

I have a strong suspicion he would have been excommunicated even without that theory!

The very idea that a Cambridge educated biologist would test potential paranormal links with animals was enough, I suspect. Rupert has Maddox's clip on his website, and it is interesting that he didn't try to fault Rupert's results, merely condemn him for "re-introducing magic into the explanation of physical and biological phenomena".

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I have a strong suspicion he would have been excommunicated even without that theory!

The very idea that a Cambridge educated biologist would test potential paranormal links with animals was enough, I suspect. Rupert has Maddox's clip on his website, and it is interesting that he didn't try to fault Rupert's results, merely condemn him for "re-introducing magic into the explanation of physical and biological phenomena".

David

Completely agree, David. I get the sense that Sheldrake is continually surprised at just how out-of-whack the Skeptical community has distorted the science in this area.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by mcairo

I also enjoyed the interview, but I think it was a bit light on new information.

I also think Alex missed an opportunity to question Dr. Sheldrake about the one theory that made the scientific and skeptical community excommunicate Dr. Sheldrake for life - his theory of morphic resonance.

Any experiment that Dr. Sheldrake does will always be reviewed in the shadow of this controversial theory.

I was hoping throughout the interview that Alex might ask Dr. Sheldrake "do you still believe morphic resonance is a viable theory for cellular diversity and can morphic fields possibly explain how dogs might know when their owners are coming home?

Overall, though, it was an entertaining interview.

Light... maybe... but I really wanted to talk about Skeptics and DogsThatKnow. Hope to cover more ground next time.

[Open Mind]

Another good interview Alex. I always enjoy listening to Sheldrake. Sheldrake is outspoken yet civilized, eccentric yet logically sound, serious yet witty.

Not that I entirely agreed with Sheldrake on one minor detail on telepathy but on the whole I did.

I would have liked to have heard Sheldrake respond to Wiseman's nitpicks in the article he produced a few months ago but Sheldrake probably hasn't had time to dig out old notes and videos after touring, recovering from being stabbed etc.

[scomsjw]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Rupert always impresses me because he is always on the lookout for possible conventional explanations for phenomena. For example, he comments in that interview that when he realised that many dogs that had passed on were described as having anticipated their owner's return while alive, he suspected that the phenomenon might just be a rosy recollection of an ex-pet.

I must admit that this is the thing that troubles me most about the Dogs that Know experiments. If you speak to dog owners and say something like "there is this theory... blah blah... have you ever noticed anything like that with your pet?" You are likley to get a lot of false positives as people buy into the suggestion. Its the same with the anecdote about telephone telepathy. If you address a group by first telling them that something exciting might be going on and then ask them if they have experienced it you will get a positive response but I'm not sure that it means anything. It reminds me of some of the tricks Uri Gellar used to get up to on tv in the seventies where he would stare into the camera and then ask people to phone in if they had a broken watch that suddenly started working again by the power of his suggestion. I recall some people testifying that they had watches with missing parts that had miraculously regenerated and they sounded very sincere.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

I must admit that this is the thing that troubles me most about the Dogs that Know experiments. If you speak to dog owners and say something like "there is this theory... blah blah... have you ever noticed anything like that with your pet?" You are likley to get a lot of false positives as people buy into the suggestion. Its the same with the anecdote about telephone telepathy. If you address a group by first telling them that something exciting might be going on and then ask them if they have experienced it you will get a positive response but I'm not sure that it means anything. It reminds me of some of the tricks Uri Gellar used to get up to on tv in the seventies where he would stare into the camera and then ask people to phone in if they had a broken watch that suddenly started working again by the power of his suggestion. I recall some people testifying that they had watches with missing parts that had miraculously regenerated and they sounded very sincere.

Well of course, if this research consisted in surveying dog (and cat) owners as to whether they observed this behaviour, it would be of very little value - except perhaps that if they answered no, there would be no point in investigating further!

The whole point is that Rupert and then Alex went on to do controlled experiments! Isn't that the way science is supposed to work?

David

[scomsjw]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

The whole point is that Rupert and then Alex went on to do controlled experiments! Isn't that the way science is supposed to work?

Yes and I think that part of the work is great. But there were references to ruddy-faced Swiss farmers and rooms full of "unsophisticated" people who couldn't see the point in controlled experiments to test something that they already know to be true. I thought there was a suggestion that this also counted as evidence. I'm not sure it does.