Comments on New Life From Old: The Science Delusion, Rupert Sheldrake - An Intere...

Hi Gavin, I have read the book and your post is ri...

2012-01-09T14:56:15.237Z

Hi Gavin, I have read the book and your post is right on the button.
The book contains a great many assertions that are really opinions that are not backed by any evidence.
I find Rupert's discussion full of straw scientists - most of his 'dogmas' are really mis-statements of scientific concepts. To pick just one, his description of the big bang model is woefully inaccurate, as is his criticism of the model.
This could have been a thought-provoking book, but it is weakened by serious inaccuracies. I would expect a reviewer at the Independent to comment on such shortcomings, rather than accept the writer's hypothesis uncritically. Cormac

For anyone involved in scientific research it is g...

2012-01-07T15:56:05.215Z

For anyone involved in scientific research it is glaringly clear that such top (or even mediocre) publications are extremely lacking here. It is clear that he understands the peer review process, has used it before (on his plant research) but has simply either 1) stopped using it for his other ideas (in which case how does he justify doing that and still claim to be a 'paid up' member of the scientific community to the public?) and/or 2) he has tried it and his ideas have been reviewed and rejected (in which case either gather more data, run more experiments or move on).

Also a quick internet search of "Sheldrake peer review" generates many pages of discussion on his attitude to it. That in itself is questionable as it doesn't tend to happen with most scientists.

A interesting article you might like to read is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/evolution

Thanks for your comments.

Certainly not. Scientists have a duty to communica...

2012-01-07T15:55:59.787Z

Certainly not. Scientists have a duty to communicate their work responsibly to the public (the ultimate funders and beneficences of the science enterprise) and doing so is often enjoyable for all sides and culturally enriching.

However to present ideas that are unsubstantiated and/or rejected by the scientific community due to a lack of convincing evidence or rigour is (as Sheldrake does) not only unethical as a scientist but irresponsible as an individual from a broader societal perspective. Others who have done this in recent decades are responsible for creating anti-vaccine backlashes and opposition to curtailing global warming, the consequences of which are harmful and negative for individuals and societies who are trusting the opinion of experts in these matters. I don't think Sheldrake is (or wants) to be as dangerous as these other folk, but he is stocking the fires of the rise in anti-science perspectives.

To promote your work directly to the public as valid science when it has yet to be credited so is the last thing a scientist should be doing. In Sheldrake's case his work has been dis-credited already and yet he still persists in stoking anti-science fires in an effort to make it appear we must turn to his ideas as a valid alternative and show those annoying scientists who is really right.

That kind of behaviour is unacceptable and we shouldn't be rewarding it by giving him the attention he demands.

Thanks for your link. I'm sad to say though that such a list of papers is exactly another technique of fringe science seeking to give themselves undue scientific credit.

Other than his plant work in the 1970s (which as a non-botanist I will take as good stuff based on the journals it appears in) the journals he has chosen to publish his other work in are not exactly overwhelming in terms of scientific credentials. After failing to find his work in the ISI Journal Citation Reports catalogue (where I would expect to find reputable science journals) I searched more broadly online for them.

Highlighting two:

- 'Biology Forum' (or Rivista di Biologia) appears have an editorial board headed by someone with strong links to the Intelligent Design movement and to publish articles discussing biology more loosely rather than technical details, experiments and study results.

- Psychological Perspectives sounds like a grand title for a science journal, but is not a science journal but rather a collection of thoughts and expressions on Jungian ideas. Not bad in itself, but hardly where you would be expecting to find serious scientific publications.

Etc.

Some of his work on observer effects in experiments etc might have some validity (if not his explanations) if only he would accept genuine criticism and adjust his work accordingly. But he refuses to do so because he is as fixated on his own ideas as he accuses others of being.

To justify selling the public a totally new scientific paradigm along with condemning what has gone on before Sheldrake highlights his papers in these journals to give himself and his ideas scientific credence in the public eye. If his ideas are that well validated or revolutionary they should be appearing in the top scientific journals in the world! In fact such journals would be falling over themselves to publish such research and lord it over their rival journals!

But if you've not read the material where did ...

2012-01-07T11:36:37.491Z

But if you've not read the material where did you get the information that the author by passes peer reviewed research or publications? The tiniest online search shows a prolific amount of scientific papers by him. http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/

Unless you mean scientists writing books about their theories or research for the general public at all is suspect?

No, I haven't reviewed the book and never inte...

2012-01-07T10:26:11.914Z

No, I haven't reviewed the book and never intended to.

I've made broader comment on the author's known ideas in general. I then looked at it in a wider context of how it parallels attempts by religious advocates of 'fringe' science to become mainstream by bypassing standard scientific publication routes and how the media has a tendency to unjustly (if not favour) equate this to peer reviewed research.

The book and the Independent's (rather gushing) review of it are used as specific examples of this.

Have you just given a detailed review of a book yo...

2012-01-07T08:30:02.263Z

Have you just given a detailed review of a book you haven't read? That's quite a talent!