# Telepathy and Sheldrake

## Main Question or Discussion Point

heard of rupert sheldrake? he seems to be a very respectable biologist trying to gather evidence for telepathy. reading his book "the sense of being stared at". must say the evidence he gives is very convincing though the mechanism he proposes to explain the phenomenon is plain wispy.can't debunk the evidence though. would like some feedbacks. find more in www.sheldrake.org

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
SGT

"He is one of the growing horde of alternative' scientists whose resentment at the aspiritual nature of modern scientific paradigms, as well as the obviously harmful and seemingly indifferent applications of modern science, have lead them to create their own scientific paradigms."

This strikes me as something more than crackpottery. It's a kind of parasitic feeding off science. He wants the respect and reputation that mainstrean science has gained for itself but he's using it to promote distinctly unscientific ideas.

so what they are saying in effect that the experiments are biased due to non random sequencing of trials. that is possible. are there any other examples of skeptics performing ESP experiments and finding negative results? he has also done some experiments with parrots and peoples ability to guess telephone calls- has anybody debunked them?

zoobyshoe said:
"He is one of the growing horde of alternative' scientists whose resentment at the aspiritual nature of modern scientific paradigms, as well as the obviously harmful and seemingly indifferent applications of modern science, have lead them to create their own scientific paradigms."

This strikes me as something more than crackpottery. It's a kind of parasitic feeding off science. He wants the respect and reputation that mainstrean science has gained for itself but he's using it to promote distinctly unscientific ideas.
I say,also,that Sheldrake is a crackpot,but I want irrefutable proofs for that,are there any proofs that sheldrake is crackpot?
He says that nothing today can explain why every ant knows what is its job when they build those structures,even when there were no neural cells,ants still communicate knew what to do(personally,I say they have missed another ant's neural system.

SGT
No-where-man said:
I say,also,that Sheldrake is a crackpot,but I want irrefutable proofs for that,are there any proofs that sheldrake is crackpot?
He says that nothing today can explain why every ant knows what is its job when they build those structures,even when there were no neural cells,ants still communicate knew what to do(personally,I say they have missed another ant's neural system.
Ants communicate by pheromones. Each ant leaves its pheromones in the path and the others follow it.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Whoa i can feel when people are staring at me!!!

only sometimes though :-/

SGT said:
Ants communicate by pheromones. Each ant leaves its pheromones in the path and the others follow it.
Yes,and why Sheldrake is trying to find God in ants?
Why he doesn't believe that pheromons are responsible for ants' communications?

SGT
No-where-man said:
Yes,and why Sheldrake is trying to find God in ants?
Why he doesn't believe that pheromons are responsible for ants' communications?
I suppose the ants worship a god in the form of an anteater. This god punishes the bad ants by eating them. The good ants will be reborn as queens.

This thread clearly shows the fear that some people seem to have of the 'unknown'.

Calling him a crackpot, a parasite, or stating that he thinks God is in ants, just demonstrates this.

SGT
PIT2 said:
This thread clearly shows the fear that some people seem to have of the 'unknown'.

Calling him a crackpot, a parasite, or stating that he thinks God is in ants, just demonstrates this.
I don't think anybody here fears the unknown. Science is the search to unravel the unknown.
But not every search into the unknown can be classified as science. What Sheldrake does is metaphysics, not physics. Of course you are free to believe in him and in global consciousness, but that does not make those things science.
By the way, if Sheldrake can reproduce the phenomenons he claims to have observed, he is entitled to the million dollar prize offered by James Randi Educational Foundation.

SGT said:
I don't think anybody here fears the unknown. Science is the search to unravel the unknown.
But not every search into the unknown can be classified as science. What Sheldrake does is metaphysics, not physics. Of course you are free to believe in him and in global consciousness, but that does not make those things science.
By the way, if Sheldrake can reproduce the phenomenons he claims to have observed, he is entitled to the million dollar prize offered by James Randi Educational Foundation.
This isnt about what i believe or not. Its about people running around shouting crackpot and such, as if those are actually arguments against anything.

Oh and btw, the Global Consciousness Project is science at work. Just because it goes against ones personal opinion, doesnt make it non-science.

Also, i suggest to stick to scientific resources instead of debunk sites. It would be useful to stay objective in these kinds of matters.

PIT2 said:
This thread clearly shows the fear that some people seem to have of the 'unknown'.

Calling him a crackpot, a parasite, or stating that he thinks God is in ants, just demonstrates this.
I am not afraid of the unknown, Pit2, I am annoyed by people who just make stuff up as they go along.

I am very open minded about the existence of telepathy, and that it might have a basis in the known phenomena of physics and biology.

Guys likt this guy, who just make up new, untestable, forms of energy out of the blue, are the ones who make it all sound so silly that no reputable scientist is going to want to seriously study it.

PIT2 said:
Oh and btw, the Global Consciousness Project is science at work.
What science? It isn't physics. It isn't biology.

Don't you realize Sheldrake just made "morphic resonance" up?

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

And don't you realize skeptic sites are science sites?

zoobyshoe said:
What science? It isn't physics. It isn't biology.
So what, its still science.

Don't you realize Sheldrake just made "morphic resonance" up?

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

And don't you realize skeptic sites are science sites?
Oh really, well ive got a nice skeptic site for u:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm [Broken]

Theres also a bunch of religious sites which are skeptical of science, are they also science sites?

Last edited by a moderator:
PIT2 said:
So what, its still science.
In what way? How are you defining science?
Oh really, well ive got a nice skeptic site for u:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm [Broken]
I'll check it out. I'm skeptical of a skeptic or two.
Theres also a bunch of religious sites which are skeptical of science, are they also science sites?
Are these sites "skeptical" of science or would the more accurate word be "unbelieving"?

Now, back to the question you didn't answer: you do realize that Sheldrake just confabulated the concept of "morphic resonance" don't you? He just invented it out of thin air to account for telepathy. It's useless: you can't measure it, or even detect it. You can't plan experiments with it. It's a made up idea. Take it up to the general physics forum and start a thread asking the real physicists to explain "morphic resonance", why don't ya?

Now if you want to discuss the possibility of telepathy being some hitherto undocumented human ability to sense electric or magnetic fields, or as some quantum "spooky action at a distance," then there would be something that's actually been detected to speculate forward from.

Last edited by a moderator:
zoobyshoe said:
In what way? How are you defining science?
The definition of science can be found in google

Now, back to the question you didn't answer: you do realize that Sheldrake just confabulated the concept of "morphic resonance" don't you? He just invented it out of thin air to account for telepathy. It's useless: you can't measure it, or even detect it. You can't plan experiments with it. It's a made up idea. Take it up to the general physics forum and start a thread asking the real physicists to explain "morphic resonance", why don't ya?
The question of what i realise or know is irrelevant here.
I was merely adressing the point that there is no need to go around calling people 'crackpot'.

Now if you want to discuss the possibility of telepathy being some hitherto undocumented human ability to sense electric or magnetic fields, or as some quantum "spooky action at a distance," then there would be something that's actually been detected to speculate forward from.
Can u tell me how this has been detected?

SGT
PIT2 said:
So what, its still science.

Oh really, well ive got a nice skeptic site for u:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm [Broken]

Theres also a bunch of religious sites which are skeptical of science, are they also science sites?
Being skeptical about science is stupid. Being skeptical about pseudoscience is scientific.
If a researcher makes a scientific discovery, any other scientist must be able to reproduce his/her results. If an independent researcher is unable to reproduce the results it's not science. It's pseudoscience.
By the way, all researchers must have an open mind, but not so open that their brains fall to the ground.

Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
SGT said:
If a researcher makes a scientific discovery, any other scientist must be able to reproduce his/her results. If an independent researcher is unable to reproduce the results it's not science. It's pseudoscience.
Okay but not quite. Pseudoscience refers to the methodology. An error in the results of a study does not make it pseudoscience. Nor does the subject or any question asked. Also, I think that we should always remain skeptical of any conclusions reached by science. Above all, scientific paradigms have always evolved or changed over time, and many, most, or all existing scientific paradigms will likely continue to do so. Lets not forget that just a few years ago, the expansion of the universe was slowing down by all accounts. But why? We knew the margin of error in the measurements made. But we couldn't imagine anything else that would make sense. Only a crackpot would have suggested that some magic force was causing the expansion to speed up.

SGT
Ivan Seeking said:
Okay but not quite. Pseudoscience refers to the methodology. An error in the results of a study does not make it pseudoscience. Nor does the subject or any question asked. Also, I think that we should always remain skeptical of any conclusions reached by science. Above all, scientific paradigms have always evolved or changed over time, and many, most, or all existing scientific paradigms will likely continue to do so. Lets not forget that just a few years ago, the expansion of the universe was slowing down by all accounts. But why? We knew the margin of error in the measurements made. But we couldn't imagine anything else that would make sense. Only a crackpot would have suggested that some magic force was causing the expansion to speed up.
Yes, scientists make honest mistakes! But those mistakes ar normally corrected by other scientists, specially when those other scientists are unable to reproduce the results of experiments. When shown in error, a real scientist should recognize it, instead of accusing the others of closedmindedness (is there such a word in English?).

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
SGT said:
Yes, scientists make honest mistakes! But those mistakes ar normally corrected by other scientists, specially when those other scientists are unable to reproduce the results of experiments. When shown in error, a real scientist should recognize it, instead of accusing the others of closedmindedness (is there such a word in English?).
That's true. But I think the objections were from a member, not the scientist doing the work. Perhaps Sheldrake would give an answer that you would find more acceptable.

But most generally, the word "pseudoscience" is often misused when it is applied to fringe topics. That was my only real objection.

PIT2 said:
The definition of science can be found in google
Go get the definition you subscribe to, bring it here, and post it. Then I will know what you think science means.
The question of what i realise or know is irrelevant here.
I was merely adressing the point that there is no need to go around calling people 'crackpot'.
What you realize is very relevent, becaue if you realized "morphic resonance" was an invented concept, you would also realize that the word "crackpot" fits Sheldrake. My Websters defines "crackpot" as: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions. That fits Sheldrake like a glove.
Can u tell me how this has been detected?
As for "spooky action at a distance" I would direct you to ask Ivan who, IIRC, was the first person to mention it to me, and could explain it better.

As for electric and magnetic fields: I can't believe you don't know how electric and magnetic fields have been detected and still think you are in a position to know what is, and isn't scientific. It's no wonder Sheldrake seems perfectly acceptable to you.

SGT
zoobyshoe said:
Go get the definition you subscribe to, bring it here, and post it. Then I will know what you think science means.

What you realize is very relevent, becaue if you realized "morphic resonance" was an invented concept, you would also realize that the word "crackpot" fits Sheldrake. My Websters defines "crackpot" as: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions. That fits Sheldrake like a glove.

As for "spooky action at a distance" I would direct you to ask Ivan who, IIRC, was the first person to mention it to me, and could explain it better.

As for electric and magnetic fields: I can't believe you don't know how electric and magnetic fields have been detected and still think you are in a position to know what is, and isn't scientific. It's no wonder Sheldrake seems perfectly acceptable to you.
More! Electric, magnetic and gravitational fields decrease with the square of the distance. Crackpot fields are equally strong no matter the distance.

PIT2 said:
This isnt about what i believe or not. Its about people running around shouting crackpot and such, as if those are actually arguments against anything.

Oh and btw, the Global Consciousness Project is science at work. Just because it goes against ones personal opinion, doesnt make it non-science.

Also, i suggest to stick to scientific resources instead of debunk sites. It would be useful to stay objective in these kinds of matters.
No,global cosnciuosness project is quasi-science,because it's obvious sheldrake wants to find.I honestly hate ththese kind of scientists.

SGT said:
Yes, scientists make honest mistakes! But those mistakes ar normally corrected by other scientists, specially when those other scientists are unable to reproduce the results of experiments. When shown in error, a real scientist should recognize it, instead of accusing the others of closedmindedness (is there such a word in English?).
One QUESTION FOR ALL SCEPTICS:JUST BECAUSE AN METHOD FROM EXPERIMENTS DOESN'T APPLY-YOU CAN'T SAY THAT SOMETHING EXISTS OR NOT,OR THAT IT'S UNPROVABLE-an preist told me that(I honestly I don't like much priests).
I mean he was right,just because some scientific method doesn't give results or it's unprovable,it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Was priest right?
Let's take an example(that's what priest told me):
SCIENTISTS WHO ARE TRYING TO PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE FOR EXAMPLE:LET'S suppose you have a scientific method with which you're trying to prove God's existence-if this method doesn't work,God doesn't exist-priest said YOU CAN'T SAY THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST,JUST BECAUSE THIS METHOD DOESN'T WORK,OR IF THERE NO ANY SCIENTIFIC CLUE.
THis guy ALSO GAVE ME AN EXAMPLE FROM PHYSICS:YOU HAVE THE METHODS USED IN NEWTON'S LAWS,BUT THESE METHODS CAN'T BE USED IN QUANTUM PHYSICS-JUST BECAUSE OF THAT IT DOESN'T MEAN LAWS CAN'T BE DIFFERENT,HE ALSO SAID THAT PHYSICAL "CENTIMETER-POUND-SECOND" METHOD CAN'T BE USED TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS-BUT THAT DEOSN'T MEAN GOD DOESN'T EXISTS-HOE TO BEA THIS ARGUENT???
Big thanks!

Again,was preist right about saying that?