Home > Philosophy of Science > Metaphors, Assumptions and Dogma in Science (Response to The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake)

Metaphors, Assumptions and Dogma in Science (Response to The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake)

I’ve just finished reading portions of Rupert Sheldrake‘s The Science Delusion. The title is an obvious allusion to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion so you can guess that Sheldrake’s thesis is that scientists have great faith in their craft, elevating it to the level of producing what I call Truth. The problem, Sheldrake points out, is that modern science is based on adhering to a dogmatic assumption that the universe is a machine. He points out that this is a fairly new idea, and worst of all for supposedly empirical science, there is absolutely no evidence for it. It’s a belief. It’s a myth. I’d like to leave aside the readability and scholarship for a proper review (perhaps elsewhere), but here I’ll deal with the real philosophical problem this presents.

Sheldrake points out that the mechanistic worldview, that is seeing the universe and everything in it as a machine, was a fairly radical idea in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries when it was proposed by a minority of scientists and natural philosophers. David Hume dismissed it completely. The universe and its inhabitants were seen as something organic, i.e. something that grows, by most ordinary and learned people. However, the material success of Newton’s Laws and (Sheldrake doesn’t mention!) the Industrial Revolution, and continuing into the computer age, has helped convince most people that they are robots inhabiting a giant clock. This is bad for science, as dogmatism stifles creativity and ideas that could be either helpful for science (like Sheldrake’s own theories of morphic resonance) or helpful to the general population (like “alternative medicine”) are dismissed since they don’t fit in to the mechanistic, materialistic worldview of science.

Rupert Sheldrake is an English biochemist and ...

Rupert Sheldrake is an English biochemist and plant physiologist. He is known for his research into parapsychology. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As an example, many scientists dismiss acupuncture as incapable of anything but a placebo effect, since its “mechanism of action” is not known; therefore it’s a money-making tool for charlatans and shouldn’t be used to try to heal people. Sheldrake points out that’s not a valid criticism since the effect on the health of the patient is the same regardless of the mechanism of action, even if it’s just a placebo. Scientists and materialist physicians, on the other hand, will support many drugs whose mechanisms are poorly understood, simply because they are produced by chemistry. As someone who’s seen the inside of pharmaceutical research, Sheldrake is dead on: we don’t know much more about methylphenidate than we know about acupuncture. The mechanism of action of many psychiatric drugs is completely unknown and that doesn’t stop doctors and scientists from having total faith in them.

Although Sheldrake makes his point somewhat clearly, I’m not sure it’s the biggest problem with the mechanistic worldview and dogmatism in science. The problem I see is not within science, but in how the general public is persuaded to see science as Truth. Just witness how scientific graphics are used in TV commercials to sell running shoes: it’s very convincing even when there’s no actual science behind it. This means that scientists do a very good job of convincing people that science is the only route to Truth, or merely that science is the most pragmatic method of achieving their goals. People either see science as infallible, and they swallow the idea that the current mechanistic worldview of science is It. The big problem, as I see it, is that people are encouraged to deny their own experiences in favor of the findings of science, which are inextricably linked to the dogmatic assumptions of the mechanistic worldview.

I’ll give you an example. Let’s pretend, just for the sake of discussion, that I suffer from terrible migraines up to three times a month that keep me from going to work or enjoying and taking care of my family. Totally hypothetical (not). Let’s also pretend that I’ve been to lots of doctors, been prescribed all kinds of drugs, vitamins, diets and exercise based on “evidence.” I’m still getting headaches. None of this stuff has helped to my satisfaction. I’ve had improvements, and I’m slowly learning to live with it, but the best most doctors have to offer me is “try this, there was a study done…” Science is slow. It’s way too slow to help me with this problem. I’ve been having these headaches for thirteen years and the science has not improved much in that time. The best a headache specialist could offer me was to take large doses of vitamins that were identified to help people with mitochondrial disorders, in a study done over forty years ago. The mechanistic worldview, encouraging me to see my body as a set of pumps and electronic circuits mounted on an armature of primitive calcite crystals tells me to see more doctors until I find the one who’s read the right peer-reviewed study. Why should I deny my own experience in favor of peer-review? No thanks. You bet your ass I’m going to try Chinese medicine before I’m going to wait for science to catch up to what I need in my life. I do science, I know how slow it is, even for the fast people.

My biggest problem with the book is this: scientists play the game of “Who’s right?” I used to believe that being factually correct was the most important thing in life. Most of the scientists I know also believe this and they don’t just apply it to their work. They apply it in all realms of their being, particularly because our language and culture is set up for it. People like to be right. Many see life as a competition. Unfortunately, Sheldrake is also playing this game. He spends most of the book promoting his own scientific theories of morphic resonance and other ideas about psychic phenomena. I see this as more of the problem. We don’t need more science or better science. We need to see science for what it is: a way of learning. When we ask for more science, we are reinforcing the attitudes that lead to the problem in the first place. This is particularly evident in how we teach science.

When we teach science, we play the same game by teaching not methods, but findings. Most often those findings are actually models and metaphors, not experiences. For example, right now I’m helping to teach genetics and molecular biology. Most of the course material is not experimental procedures as it could be, but models of the function of biological molecules. The biggest one is the model of protein synthesis, where DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into polypeptides. This is not anyone’s direct experience. This is a story (you could even call it a myth, due to the dogmatism it attracts) that is supported by clever experiments. Nicholas Maxwell points out that we could come up with a huge number of alternative myths that would also be supported by the same experiments, but that’s not how science works. Science seizes upon the first kinda-plausible idea and runs with it until it runs out of steam. The “findings” or “facts” that are found to support this story are wrapped up in it: we never would have done those experiments and found them to support the story if we didn’t have the story in the first place. When we teach science, we don’t teach method, we teach the mechanistic worldview, which is a myth. I often remind my colleagues that most of science is made up. Surprisingly a lot of them take no issue with that assertion, just as I don’t. The problem comes when we present it as something that’s Right, and don’t present people with the alternative of trusting their own experience. If we were honest about the nature of science, then people would see science as one fun way of learning, rather than The Way of Learning.

Unfortunately we encourage intellectual terrorism (“Who’s right?”) by refusing to be honest with people about the nature of our ideas. Sheldrake points this out, but quickly gets caught up in the same game by proposing alternatives. We don’t need more science, we just need to be honest about what science is. This is Sheldrake’s main point, but he primarily focuses on the danger of it to science, proving that he is, after all, a scientist. I am a lot less skeptical about my overall experience than I used to be. However, I’m still just as skeptical about scientific matters because science is a particular way of doing things and it’s intensely limited. I happen to think the prevailing theories of science are just fine. Swallowing them whole as the key to understanding your own direct experience is not just fine.

My overall point is that I don’t think the abuse of mechanistic metaphors is as big a problem for science as it is for regular people (scientists included). I’m surprised how often I see people who have a problem with science, e.g. adherents to “alternative” medicine, are doggedly scientific. In other words, I often encounter people raising gripes against “science,” and their first response is to propound an alternative scientific theory, i.e. to do more science. I’m also surprised how often I hear people explain their personal experiences (mostly bizarre, inexplicable ones) in terms of science: people usually invoke quantum mechanics because it’s the weirdest scientific thing they’ve heard of. It’s almost like they feel they need to defend their own experiences. That’s sad. Personal experience is not a competition, nor is it subject to peer-review. This just shows how deeply science-as-truth is ingrained in our culture. This probably has to do with the Puritan origins of our country; to understand that I’m reading Paul Feyerabend.

  1. March 31, 2013 at 14:27

    Sheldrake’s alternatives, are not alternatives at all. They are a little more of a scientific and very limited “way of learning”. He fell in the trap. You are right, but with a huge merit.


  2. May 24, 2013 at 04:41

    Great post! I really enjoyed it. I like the phrase intellectual terrorism. It also brings to mind the attitude that the ends justify the means. There are plenty of widely spread beliefs about science that are totally false and everyone knows it, but they continue to teach them with ardent certainty because they are truthy. The attitude is something like, well, this isn’t true, but something like it is true. It’s a just so story. I see this happen a lot with evolutionary theory. I think also you should mention science as a sociological phenomenon. It has come to usurp the place of the medieval church in the modern world. These white coated priests are there to bridge the gap between ourselves and the gods of technology, to tell us what to believe and what rituals will keep us safe. No doubt some of this is to do with atavistic notions of worship and leadership, with the burden of individuality, but it also has to do with power. Science has become a powerful institution. The institution became so powerful, in part, because scientists can make things. In a fascistic environment this appeals to both the ‘capitalists’, who want to sell things, and to the power structure, who want greater tools of control. The institution of science as an institution has it’s own ends, but it is also often bent to the will of these other power structures, either being co-opted or collaborating with these other power structures. The idea that smoking is good for you or harmless, the lipid hypothesis, and water fluoridation are three examples of theories that the institution of science has propounded, but for which the balance of empirical evidence was never in their favor. They were, however theories that were advantageous to certain powerful groups.As you say, there is nothing wrong with science properly understood. There is something wrong with scientism, with a certain philosophy that mascarades as science, with the institution that dogmatically encapsulates these ideas and wraps them in the cloak of humble and philosophically grounded empirical research.


  3. September 26, 2014 at 12:53

    Great article anc comment on Sheldrake. I will however state that Sheldrake is one of few who does indeed propose science as a process towards understanding, as opposed to belief systems, which makes him someone we should support. I agree with you in leaving it open, science should be one way, one process, one way of understanding life and the universe we live in. but all other ways should also be held up. it´s all just different ways of explaining and understanding the same phenomenon, LIFE. Music could be one perspective. Linguistic another. To look at it from an ancient indian point of view would be another. From the hip hop point of view another.

    I think that the reason Sheldrake presents his view, is the fact that the result of believing in his theories would be amazing for humanity. and the earth. and the universe. Say i believe that thinking there will be peace and that change will happen, then there´s a chance that that thought will happen easier next time, is pretty cool. Or that protesting against authorities will make the next protest happen easier, then i´ll do that. If i smile to you, you smile to another person because you like being smiled at, and suddenly the world smiles. This sounds like a societal placebo effect. But why not try? f the result of our beliefs ends in something better than today, why not try it?

    It makes no sense not to believe in something, just because it´s not proven by our currenct scientific standards. I think that´s sheldrakes most valuable point; that things cannot be proven, and that we can change how we look at things, to something more positive, self-enforcing, self-fulfilling prophecies on full scare, just because we believe in it.

    Everyone is right.

    i believe we need less hierarchical ways of looking at things. Everything is connected. Everything is everything.

    One of the most powerful thesis ever stated is W.I. Thomas famous “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”.

    I truly think that one can believe anything. if that´s what you´re borned into, you´ll believe it. The astonishing thing today is that there are so many belief systems. Which is rather exciting if you ask me. More than competing on who´s right, we should explore all our assumptions and get to know things we don´t necessarily comply with immediately. I would think we would be suprised of how fun this process would be. And how we would stop judging like we always do.

    Check out David Bohm Dialogue – a proposal. I know you will like it



    • September 26, 2014 at 13:22


      Thanks for reading. There are many ways of seeing the world. I want to be clear that I’m not saying they are all necessarily correct, or that we would be wise to view things that way. What I am saying is that scientists are often very close-minded when saying the opposite. They trumpet science as the ultimate way of seeing what is really there, but then won’t believe peoples’ own perceptions if it doesn’t fit science. That’s just duplicity.


      • September 26, 2014 at 13:48

        I agree. It was really. A good read when i accidentally bumped into your page. Variety is key for deeper understanding. Have your heard of the philosophy of deep ecology?


      • October 7, 2014 at 11:10

        Let me put it this way: I grew up in Boulder, Colorado


      • October 8, 2014 at 19:25

        Some nature i would guess? 🙂 fantastic to watch the autumn colors nowadays. Just visited west Virginia for a few days. Wow. Amazing!


      • September 30, 2014 at 16:08

        I noticed you like philip glass:) did you watch the qatsi-trilogy by Godfrey Reggio? Fantastic. And Ron Fricke Baraka and Samsara? If not you got some very exciting moments ahead of you!


      • October 7, 2014 at 11:09

        Oh yes, I have seen them 😉 WEll, I haven’t seen Baraka yet, but Samsara was pretty spectacular.


  1. April 9, 2013 at 22:52
  2. April 18, 2013 at 13:05

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: