The Science Delusion is Rupert Sheldrake’s latest book. I found this book
to be an excellent and very readable presentation of some of the problems
facing frontier science. All in all it is a great read. It’s a definite five
stars in my book.
Let me
begin with the only major criticism I have with the book: the title. The name “The Science Delusion” is obviously a
response to Richard Dawkins’ book The God
Delusion. I think it is the title more than anything which has offended
many in mainstream science, or those members of the public who have a strong
atheistic or skeptical mindset – i.e. those who like to read Dawkins’ books.
Rupert Sheldrake
An
article about Sheldrake’s book in The Guardian
online attracted some savage criticism, bordering on hatred. It was clear from
many of the comments that many of the critics have never read The Science Delusion or any of Sheldrake’s
other books, simply because their criticisms were so far off the mark. One poster
simply wrote “What the fuck is this shit, and what is it doing in The Guardian?” Another comment lambasted
Sheldrake for being a non-scientist writing about science, and having never
conducted experiments. In fact Sheldrake has a PhD in biology from Cambridge,
and has designed and conducted some of the most ingenious experiments
imaginable. His telephone telepathy experiments are simply ingenious in their
simplicity.
My
point here is that the title appears to have set up Sheldrake and The Science Delusion as being
anti-science. In fact, as Sheldrake himself argues, he is neither. The book
simply addresses key issues in the philosophy of science. Its key target is the
philosophy of materialism, and the rigid scientism which so often emerges from
it. There is nothing that says that science has to conduct itself within a
worldview where materialism is a founding ideology, and where the machine
universe is its founding presupposition.
So
there are better titles that could have been chosen.
Instead
of being anti-science The Science
Delusion pries open ten founding presuppositions of scientific materialism –
each with a chapter of its own - and identifies key problems within all of
them.
1. Is
Nature Mechanical? 2. Is the Total Amount of Matter and Energy Always the Same?
3. Are the Laws of Nature Fixed? 4. Is Matter Unconscious? 5. Is Nature
Purposeless? 6. Is All Biological Inheritance Material? 7. Are Memories Stored
as Material Traces? 8. Are Minds Confined to Brains? 9. Are Psychic Phenomena
Illusory? 10. Is Mechanistic Medicine
the Only Kind that Really Works?
At the
end of each chapter Sheldrake asks several open questions to materialists. Each
question is designed to gnaw away at the delusion that these founding
principles of scientism are part of an immovable bedrock; instead Sheldrake
attempts to loosen their iron grip on unthinking practitioners and advocates of
science by implying that each of them is more uncertain than is often taken for
granted.
Rupert Sheldrake
makes reference to his hypothesis of morphic resonance periodically throughout
the book. This hypothesis states that nature/life operates within fields of
intention which operate ‘above’ the simplistic reductionism/genetic fixation
which dominates so much of mainstream and popular science. Whether morphic resonance
will pass the test of time remains to be seen. But the success of the book does
not rest on the validity of the idea of morphic fields. This is not a book
seeking certainty. Instead it seeks to acknowledge the ambiguity which lies
behind business-as-usual science and education.
I agree
with Sheldrake that morphic resonance fits the evidence better in certain
fields of enquiry, especially in terms of the nature of consciousness. There is
simply too much data and evidence that is currently dismissed or explained away
as “paranormal” in mainstream cognitive science (it doesn’t fit our worldview,
so we can ignore it). The extended mind – mind which is not merely contained in
localized skulls, but is entangled with others minds and the environment –
simply must be accounted for. It is too important a part of life, nature and
the human condition to be dismissed any longer.
I find The Science Delusion to be very
thought-provoking and entertaining. It is, I believe, a book that should be
read by all science students – and in fact anybody with a high school
education. Readers may not agree with all of it, but the questions it asks are
too important to be ignored.
Marcus
Sheldrake,
Rupert (2012-01-05). The Science Delusion . Hachette Littlehampton.
Part of the problem is that Sheldrake - though is is a scientist - doesn't regard science as completely value-free. I think he sees it as in the service of a higher, ultimately spiritual or transcendent goal - which is one reason for pursuing in as ego-free a way as possible. This is impossible for most rationalists and positivists to accept, or even comprehend.
ReplyDeleteOf course he is also a Christian, which is a red flag to a bull for many with a science background. I was browsing through dawkins' The God Delusion last night, and it is full of derision, ridicule and misrepresentation. In comparison, Sheldrake is far more balanced and 'rational' writer. he's also, ironically, far more 'scientific'.
ReplyDelete