Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Telepathy and Sheldrake

  1. Jun 9, 2005 #1
    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
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 9, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    Sheldrake is a crackpot. For some commentaries about his work, please read here.
  4. Jun 9, 2005 #3
    "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.
  5. Jun 9, 2005 #4
    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?
  6. Jun 17, 2005 #5
    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.
  7. Jun 17, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

    Ants communicate by pheromones. Each ant leaves its pheromones in the path and the others follow it.
  8. Jun 17, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Whoa i can feel when people are staring at me!!!

    only sometimes though :-/
  9. Jun 17, 2005 #8
    Yes,and why Sheldrake is trying to find God in ants?
    Why he doesn't believe that pheromons are responsible for ants' communications?
  10. Jun 24, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    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.
  11. Jun 25, 2005 #10
    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.
  12. Jun 25, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    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.
  13. Jun 25, 2005 #12
    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. :rolleyes:

    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.
  14. Jun 26, 2005 #13
    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.
  15. Jun 26, 2005 #14
    What science? It isn't physics. It isn't biology.

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


    And don't you realize skeptic sites are science sites?
  16. Jun 26, 2005 #15
    So what, its still science.

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

    Skeptic about skeptics:
    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: May 2, 2017
  17. Jun 26, 2005 #16
    In what way? How are you defining science?
    I'll check it out. I'm skeptical of a skeptic or two.
    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: May 2, 2017
  18. Jun 26, 2005 #17
    The definition of science can be found in google :wink:

    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'.

    Can u tell me how this has been detected?
  19. Jun 26, 2005 #18


    User Avatar

    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: May 2, 2017
  20. Jun 26, 2005 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  21. Jun 26, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    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?).
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook