Editing Rupert Sheldrake (section)

=== ''A New Science of Life'' (1981) ===
Sheldrake's ''A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance'' (1981) proposes that through morphic resonance, various perceived phenomena, particularly biological ones, become more probable the more often they occur, and that biological growth and behaviour thus become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events. As a result, he suggests, newly acquired behaviours can be passed down to future generations—a biological proposition akin to the [[Lamarckian inheritance]] theory. He generalises this approach to assert that it explains many aspects of science, from [[evolution]] to the [[Physical law|laws of nature]], which, in Sheldrake's formulation, are merely mutable habits that have been evolving and changing since the [[Big Bang]].{{citation needed|date=July 2022}}

John Davy wrote in ''[[The Observer]]'' that the implications of ''A New Science of Life'' were "fascinating and far-reaching, and would turn upside down a lot of orthodox science," and that they would "merit attention if some of its predictions are supported by experiment."<ref>{{cite news |last=Davy|first=J.|date=9 August 1981 |title=Old rats and new tricks |work=The Observer}}</ref>

In subsequent books, Sheldrake continued to promote morphic resonance.

The morphic resonance hypothesis is rejected by numerous critics on many grounds, and has been labelled [[pseudoscience]] and [[magical thinking]]. These grounds include the lack of evidence for it and its inconsistency with established [[scientific theories]]. The idea of morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibility because it is overly vague and [[unfalsifiable]]. Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject to [[experimenter bias]]. His analyses of results have also drawn criticism.{{efn|Sources:
* pseudoscience<ref name=gardner/><ref name=sharma/><ref name=samuel/><ref name="Wolpert 1984"/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=impostures/><ref name="Jones"/>
* magical thinking<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name=skepdic/>
* lack of evidence<ref name=hood/><ref name="Blackmore 2009"/><ref name=Rutherford/><ref name=sciam/><ref name="Rose 1988"/>
* inconsistency with established scientific theories<ref name="Wolpert 1984"/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name="Blackmore 1999"/>
* overly vague<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name="Parkin"/>
* unfalsifiable<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=sciam/>
* experimental methods poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias<ref name=MarksColwell/><ref name="Blackmore 1999"/><ref name=alcock/>
* analyses of results have also drawn criticism<ref name=rose/><ref name=wiseman2/>
}}

Alex Gomez-Marin denies that Sheldrake's basic idea is unfalsifiable, but no conclusive experiments have been performed since mainstream scientists do not wish to get involved in such experiments.<ref name="Gomez‐Marin 2021 p. 2100055">{{cite journal | last=Gomez-Marin | first=Alex | title=Facing biology's open questions: Rupert Sheldrake's "heretical" hypothesis turns 40 | journal=BioEssays | publisher=Wiley | volume=43 | issue=6 | date=9 March 2021 | issn=0265-9247 | doi=10.1002/bies.202100055 | page=e2100055| pmid=33751607 | hdl=10261/267559 | s2cid=232323375 | hdl-access=free }}</ref>