Rupert Sheldrake’s Controversial TEDxWhitechapel Talk and the Critique of Established Scientific Dogmas
Introduction
Rupert Sheldrake's talk at TEDxWhitechapel faced significant scrutiny and was not prominently featured on the official TED platform due to its controversial content. Initially, it was withdrawn by TED under the guise of not meeting their standards, but the underlying issues were deeper than just factual inaccuracy.
Understanding the Disconnect
The core of the controversy lies in how TED viewed Sheldrake's critique of established scientific dogmas. Sheldrake's talk challenged fundamental assumptions within the scientific community, a move that some found to be a misleading straw man argument.
Analyzing the Stance
Ted's position was partly justified by the presence of numerous factual errors and an apparent misrepresentation of scientific positions. Sheldrake’s talk was a critique built on ten dogmas, each of which was either a misguided or outdated assumption about science, without fully addressing the complexity of contemporary scientific thought.
The Ten Dogmas of Science
Nature is Mechanical or Machine-Like
Sheldrake referred to Richard Dawkins' phrase about humans being lumbering robots. While Dawkins indeed uses this metaphor to describe cellular organization, his broader context encompasses the complexity of gene function rather than a reductionist view of human biology. Sheldrake’s simplified interpretation misses the dynamical systems approach increasingly adopted by modern scientists.
Matter is Unconscious
Sheldrake’s claim that matter is never consciously interacting is accurate in the sense that current scientific understanding does not support conscious interactions at fundamental particle levels. However, his extension to morphic resonance for everything from plants to stars oversteps the bounds of empirical evidence. The concept of consciousness remains elusive, with both soft and hard definitions debated in philosophy and neuroscience.
The Laws of Nature Are Fixed and Constants Are Also Fixed
Sheldrake’s assertion that the laws of nature are constant over time ignores the emerging understanding of time-variable fundamental constants, as well as the complexity of how these laws apply in different contexts (e.g., General Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics).
The Total Amount of Matter and Energy Is Always the Same
While Sheldrake’s point about the conservation of energy is true, his dismissal of the transformation of matter into energy through radioactivity overlooks Einstein's Emc2.
Nature Is Purposeless and the Evolutionary Process Has No Purpose or Direction
This is a common oversimplification of complex evolutionary processes, which have yielded emergent complexity without external design. The Gaia hypothesis provides an example of planetary systems self-organizing.
Biological Heredity Is Material
Sheldrake mischaracterizes the nature of biological inheritance by ignoring factors such as non-coding DNA, epigenetics, and microbiota's influence on genetic expression.
Memories Are Stored Inside Your Brain as Material Traces
The Hebbian theory of synaptic plasticity encapsulates our current understanding of how memories are formed and stored rather than hardwired fixed structures.
Your Mind Is Inside Your Head
Sheldrake’s outlandish theory that we project images affecting surrounding objects is not supported by empirical evidence. Experiments on the sense of being stared at have produced results aligning with statistical randomness.
Psychic Phenomena Like Telepathy Are Impossible
Sheldrake dismisses psychic phenomena without addressing that credible research and experiments have yet to definitively disprove them.
Mechanistic Medicine Is the Only Kind That Really Works
Sheldrake’s skepticism towards holistic and alternative medicines misses the interdisciplinary nature of modern medicine, which often integrates these practices.
Conclusion
Sheldrake’s critique, while provocative, falls short due to its oversimplification and logical fallacies. What emerges from this assessment is a call for intellectual honesty and a deeper engagement with the complexities of contemporary science.