Member-only story
Pseudoscience
Profiles in pseudoscience: Rupert Sheldrake
An unabashed purveyor of nonsense keeps getting invited to international conference on science and philosophy
“Sheldrake’s book [A New Science of Life] is a splendid illustration of the widespread public misconception of what science is about. In reality, Sheldrake’s argument is in no sense a scientific argument but an exercise in pseudo-science.” (John Maddox, then editor of Nature magazine)
Next week I will once again take part in the “How the Light Gets In” festival, a gathering of philosophers, scientists, poets, and musicians, to celebrate human knowledge and understanding. The upcoming version will take place in Hay (Wales), but the event is also sometimes held in London.
I’m very much looking forward to give a talk on “How to be a skeptic,” and to participate as a panelist in two discussions, one on “Getting Everything, Losing Everything” (about Zuckerberg-style virtual reality) and the second on “The Good and the Evil” (on whether these moral categories make sense, or are useful).
Unfortunately, I’m not looking forward to another regular feature of the HTLGI events: running into pseudoscience purveyor Rupert Sheldrake, who keeps being invited year after year by the organizers for perverse reasons that are beyond my understanding. I’m sure he will take this essay as yet more evidence that there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists against him, because Sheldrake is not just the source of wide-ranging nonsense, he is also paranoid.
Don’t believe me? Years ago he became convinced that someone was after him on Wikipedia, constantly modifying the page devoted to his activities in nefarious ways. He even identified the culprits: a “commando squad of skeptics” known as “Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia” (GSoW) and headed by one Susan Gerbic.
Now, the GSoW is a thing, and it is, indeed, Susan’s brainchild. As her own Wikipedia page states: “In 2010, Gerbic founded ‘Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia’ (GSoW), a group of editors who create and improve Wikipedia articles that reflect scientific skepticism. The New York Times Magazine reported in February 2019, in an interview with Gerbic, that GSoW had 144…
