Rupert Sheldrake's Controversial Views on Science and Scientists
Written on
Rupert Sheldrake's book, The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God, contains a segment that encapsulates his significant concerns regarding science and scientists. This section is rife with caricatures and exaggerated claims.
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake, born in 1942, is a highly contentious figure. He is an English author and a researcher in parapsychology, primarily recognized in scientific circles for his theory of morphic resonance, which has faced substantial criticism from the scientific community and others. In fact, it is often dismissed as mere pseudoscience.
Despite this, Sheldrake is a scientist at heart. He has held positions as a biochemist at Cambridge University, been a scholar at Harvard, worked as a researcher at the Royal Society, and has experience as a plant physiologist. His research interests also extend to precognition, telepathy, and the psychic staring effect, leading some to label him a “New Age” theorist.
The Rebirth of Nature is an engaging read, well-articulated and accessible, notably devoid of pretentiousness, which is a refreshing contrast to works by others with similar viewpoints. Its intriguing historical narratives and concise summaries of various scientific concepts contribute to its appeal.
The book's contentious nature arises from its philosophical additions and its frequent use of unusual analogies, along with its often postmodern interpretations of religion and history. Sheldrake draws on “postmodern theologians” to support some of his perspectives.
A broader context for this essay is Sheldrake's self-identification as a scientific “heretic.” While this term was initially used critically by others, Sheldrake has embraced it.
The term "heretic" was coined by John Royden Maddox, a theoretical chemist and science writer, in response to Sheldrake's A New Science of Life, published in 1981. Maddox’s editorial in Nature, titled "A Book for Burning?", while extreme, concluded that the work should not be destroyed.
However, I take issue with Maddox's somewhat authoritarian statements. For instance, he remarked in 1994 that it is "dangerous that people should be allowed by our liberal societies to put that kind of nonsense into currency," which is a troubling assertion.
Sheldrake's negative perception of science likely stems from critics like Maddox. This essay will dissect the quoted passage from Sheldrake, examining each component individually.
To fully appreciate Sheldrake's perspective, consider this quote in its entirety:
“Scientists pretend to be like disembodied minds. Unlike other human activities, science is uniquely objective. Scientific papers are typically impersonal, lacking emotions, with conclusions drawn from facts through a logical reasoning process akin to what a computer might follow if advanced artificial intelligence were possible. Methods are employed, phenomena observed, and measurements recorded, often in passive voice. Even students are taught to adopt this style: ‘a test tube was taken...’”
“All research scientists recognize this process is artificial; they are not disembodied minds, uninfluenced by emotion.”
Are Scientists Pretending to Be Disembodied Minds?
I have yet to find any scientist who claims to be a disembodied mind. While Sheldrake may imply this reflects an implicit belief among many scientists, it seems more accurate to say that it stems from what they explicitly assert.
Many scientists navigate this by distinguishing between science itself and the (physical) scientists conducting it. Critics of science and postmodern philosophers often argue that this distinction is a façade, viewing it as an idealization.
Philosophers similarly distinguish between the context of discovery and the context of justification. It is likely that Sheldrake is aware of these distinctions but remains skeptical of them.
Is Sheldrake merely interpreting scientists' beliefs? Even if a subset of scientists believes they have a monopoly on "objective facts," this does not imply they think their minds need to be disembodied to access those facts.
If scientists' minds were genuinely disembodied, obtaining data and experimental results would be exceedingly complicated.
Thus, Sheldrake's assertion that scientists "pretend" to be disembodied minds may simply be rhetorical flourish.
Continuing, Sheldrake states:
“All research scientists know that this process is artificial; they are not disembodied minds, uninfluenced by emotion.”
Some may concur with Sheldrake to an extent, acknowledging the artificiality inherent in academic writing and science. This artificiality, however, can be beneficial in certain contexts.
It is not about pretense; rather, this artificiality serves a purpose. Displaying emotions in scientific papers would not be advantageous. While it could be useful in psychology or for those interested in others' feelings, it has no place in scientific discourse.
Outside of science, emotions are frequently expressed, especially in areas like religion and politics. However, the necessity of such expression in science is debatable.
Sheldrake addresses scientific papers directly, commenting:
“Scientific papers are conventionally written in an impersonal style, seemingly devoid of emotions. Everything is reported in the passive voice.”
Isn't this true for nearly all academic writing? Most academic papers are indeed written in an impersonal manner, often for valid reasons.
Would it truly be beneficial for emotions to be front and center in scientific literature? Sheldrake's stance on how much emotion should be conveyed remains unclear.
What alternative style does Sheldrake propose for scientific papers?
He remarks that:
“Even schoolchildren learn this style, and practice it in their laboratory notebooks: ‘a test tube was taken…’”
Would Sheldrake prefer a more expressive approach, such as:
"I placed the sample into the test tube with great care, feeling a sense of wonder about how this act could advance my career and transform our mechanistic society."
While I acknowledge the existence of academese, I wonder what Sheldrake would suggest as an alternative.
Sheldrake's Critique of Scientists' Philosophy of Science
“Conclusions should logically follow from facts, akin to what a computer might achieve with sufficient artificial intelligence.”
This is a caricature of what Sheldrake perceives to be scientists' beliefs about science. While some defenders of science may articulate similar ideas, they too are likely relying on caricatures, and I doubt that many scientists genuinely subscribe to such simplistic notions.
Few scientists would phrase it as "follow from facts." They might refer to “data,” “evidence,” or “experiments.” The term "fact" is not typically used in scientific jargon but is more common among philosophers or laypersons.
Moreover, many scientists acknowledge that what are considered “facts” emerge from theoretical frameworks and prior reasoning processes.
If scientists truly saw science as merely deductive logic, what would be the purpose of experimentation, falsification, or verification? If everything were to follow logically from "the facts," then science would merely be a deductive system.
Yet, few scientists view science in this manner.
Is this simply Sheldrake's oversimplified portrayal?
He further critiques the notion that scientists view science as a deductive system:
“Nobody is ever seen doing anything; methods are followed, phenomena observed, and measurements made, preferably with instruments.”
Certainly, methods are employed in science; however, there is a variety of methods that are often scrutinized and sometimes entirely dismissed.
While Sheldrake acknowledges that phenomena are observed, he seems to imply that scientists treat phenomena as simply given, which contradicts the reality that most scientists understand phenomena as not merely given.
Sheldrake's assertion that “measurements are made, preferably with instruments” suggests he believes scientists dismiss the role of theory. This perspective is astonishing, given that "theory" is a cornerstone of scientific discourse across all disciplines.
Sheldrake's depiction appears to reflect a layperson's understanding of science rather than that of actual scientists.
Notes
- Sheldrake appears to draw significantly from American postmodern theologian David Ray Griffin, whose works are referenced in the bibliography. Griffin sought to bridge modernity and postmodernity, proposing solutions to conflicts between science and religion.
- "A book for burning" was not originally Maddox's title, but rather a concept discussed in Martin Gardner's work on Spontaneous Human Combustion. Maddox's editorial on Sheldrake is notably brief.
- Quotes from Sheldrake’s The Rebirth of Nature include:
“Everywhere we look in the realm of nature, we find polarities, such as electrical and magnetic polarities. These can, if we like, be modeled in terms of gender.”
“If the fields and energy of nature are aspects of the Word and Spirit of God…”
“Even crystals, molecules, and atoms are organisms.”
“Mythic, animistic, and religious ways of thinking can no longer be kept at bay. Nothing less than a revolution is at hand.”
“The fields of modern physics play many of the same roles as souls in animistic, pre-mechanistic philosophies of nature.”