oobisan reviewed The science delusion by Rupert Sheldrake
Review of 'The science delusion' on 'Goodreads'
1 star
Having recently read several posts by Jerry Coyne in the New Republic, criticizing Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, and the various incoherent posts by Chopra in the Huff Post, I decided to buy a used copy of 'The Science Delusion' by Sheldrake I came across at Half-Price Books. There is a considerable ongoing debate happening now on the Talk section of the Wikipedia page about Sheldrake and now that I've made it through most of this book it's clear to me why there is so much argument. The main problem with this book is that Sheldrake presents himself as a legitimate scientist (he begins the book by touting his credentials and experience so the reader might accept his authority on what follows) but presents straw man arguments, distorting what he refers to as the militant materialist position using a plethora of cherry-picked references and quotations. At first, it's rather comical …
Having recently read several posts by Jerry Coyne in the New Republic, criticizing Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, and the various incoherent posts by Chopra in the Huff Post, I decided to buy a used copy of 'The Science Delusion' by Sheldrake I came across at Half-Price Books. There is a considerable ongoing debate happening now on the Talk section of the Wikipedia page about Sheldrake and now that I've made it through most of this book it's clear to me why there is so much argument. The main problem with this book is that Sheldrake presents himself as a legitimate scientist (he begins the book by touting his credentials and experience so the reader might accept his authority on what follows) but presents straw man arguments, distorting what he refers to as the militant materialist position using a plethora of cherry-picked references and quotations. At first, it's rather comical but after awhile, it's sad.
This book is aimed at a specific audience of course, one that may believe in cosmic consciousness, the gaia hypothesis, free energy devices, vitalism, and various other new age beliefs. Sheldrake harshly criticizes mainstream science as indoctrinated dogma controlled by militant atheists and cold-hearted mechanistic materialists although admitting that the scientific method has been "fruitful". There is a big difference between religious and/or supernatural beliefs versus the materialist/naturalist worldview. To say that each of these views are simply different belief systems is silly and disingenuous. Sheldrake is not making any epistemological arguments by claiming that science is another kind of indoctrination. Sheldrake characterizes scientists as having already figured it all out, including so-called "Laws" of nature.
The scientific method has been the most fruitful achievement by humans to attempt to understand the universe and improve the human experience. The paradigms shift, with new evidence. Scientists are still working because there is still so much that is yet unknown. his method has provided a reasonable way to differentiate between "science" and "pseudoscience". This is not to say that scientists have been perfect or that various developments have not been harmful or problematic but isn't it really harmful to encourage people to believe in things for which there is no method of study, no experimental evidence? Isn't is wrong to seel snake oil? Sheldrake mischaracterizes a lot of ideas leading a gullible reader to believe that science is evil and that any supernatural or wacky idea should be suitable for serious scientific research. People may believe what they want but let's be honest and let the evidence support the claims.