Reviews of Sheldrake's books have at times been extremely negative about their scientific content, but some have been positive. In 2009,
Adam Rutherford, geneticist and deputy editor of
Nature, criticised Sheldrake's books for containing research that was not subjected to the
peer-review process expected for science, and suggested that his books were best "ignored." 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. 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.
The Presence of the Past (1988) In
The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature (1988), Sheldrake expands on his morphic resonance hypothesis and marshals experimental evidence that he says supports it. In a 1988 review of the book in
The Times,
David E. H. Jones criticised the hypothesis as magical thinking and pseudoscience, saying that morphic resonance "is so vast and formless that it could easily be made to explain anything, or to dodge round any opposing argument ... Sheldrake has sadly aligned himself with those fantasists who, from the depths of their armchairs, dream up whole new grandiose theories of space and time to revolutionize all science, drape their woolly generalizations over every phenomenon they can think of, and then start looking round for whatever scraps of evidence that seem to them to be in their favour." Jones argued that without confirmatory experimental evidence, "the whole unwieldy and redundant structure of [Sheldrake's] theory falls to
Occam's Razor." A column in
The Guardian said that the book "seeks to restore the pre-Enlightenment notion that nature is 'alive'," quoting Sheldrake as saying that "indeterminism, spontaneity and creativity have re-emerged throughout the natural world" and that "mystic, animistic and religious ways of thinking can no longer be kept at bay". The book was reviewed by
James Lovelock in
Nature, who argued that "the theory of formative causation makes testable predictions," noting that "nothing has yet been reported which would divert the mainstream of science. ... Even if it is nonsense ... recognizing the need for fruitful errors, I do not regard the book as dangerous."
Seven Experiments That Could Change the World (1994) In 1994, Sheldrake proposed a list of
Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, subtitled "A do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science." He encouraged laypeople to conduct research and argued that experiments similar to his own could be conducted with limited expense. In
The Times, Science journalist Nigel Hawkes wrote that Sheldrake was "trying to bridge the gap between
phenomenalism and science" and suggested that dogs could appear to have psychic abilities when they were actually relying on more conventional senses. He concluded: "whether scientists will be willing to take [Sheldrake] seriously is ... [a question] that need not concern most readers. While I do not think this book will change the world, it will cause plenty of harmless fun." He also carried out similar experiments with another dog, Kane, describing the results as similarly positive and significant. and proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's conclusions, involving artefacts, bias resulting from
experimental design, and
post hoc analysis of unpublished data. Reviewing the book,
Susan Blackmore criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window" and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look. and attributed the results to morphic resonance. Several independent experimenters were unable to find evidence beyond statistical randomness that people could tell they were being stared at, with some saying that Sheldrake's experiments had design flaws, In 2005,
Michael Shermer expressed concern over
confirmation bias and
experimenter bias in the tests, and concluded that Sheldrake's claim was
unfalsifiable.
David Jay Brown, who conducted some of the experiments for Sheldrake, said that one of the subjects who was reported to have the highest hit rates was under the influence of the drug
MDMA (Ecstasy) during the trials.
The Science Delusion (Science Set Free) (2012) The Science Delusion, published in the US as
Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery, summarises much of Sheldrake's previous work and encapsulates it into a broader critique of
philosophical materialism, with the title apparently mimicking that of
The God Delusion by one of his critics,
Richard Dawkins. In the book, Sheldrake asks a number of questions to elaborate on his central premise that science is predicated on the belief that the nature of reality is fully understood, with only minor details needing to be filled in. This "delusion" is what Sheldrake argues has turned science into a series of dogmas grounded in philosophical materialism rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. He argues that many powerful taboos circumscribe what scientists may study. The mainstream view of modern science is that it proceeds by
methodological naturalism and does not require philosophical materialism. Sheldrake questions conservation of energy, calling it "standard scientific dogma"; says that perpetual motion devices and
inedia should be investigated as possible phenomena; and says "the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak". He argues in favour of
alternative medicine and
psychic phenomena, saying that a "scientific priesthood" with an "authoritarian mentality" has impeded their recognition as legitimate. Citing his earlier "psychic staring effect" experiments and other reasons, he says that minds are not confined to brains and that "liberating minds from confinement in heads is like being released from prison". He suggests that
DNA is insufficient to explain
heredity and that inheritance of form and behaviour is mediated through morphic resonance. He also promotes morphic resonance more broadly to explain other phenomena, such as memory. Reviews were mixed. In
The Guardian,
anti-reductionist philosopher
Mary Midgley welcomed the book as "a new mind-body paradigm" to address what she called "the unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter." In
The Sunday Times,
Bryan Appleyard wrote that Sheldrake is "at his most incisive" when making a "broad critique of contemporary science" and "
scientism" but that "morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported. Most of the experimental evidence is contested, though Sheldrake argues there are 'statistically significant' results." Appleyard called it "highly speculative" and was unsure "whether it makes sense". A review in
Philosophy Now called the book "disturbingly eccentric", combining "a disorderly collage of scientific fact and opinion with an intrusive yet disjunctive metaphysical programme".
Science and Spiritual Practices (2017) Reviews of
Science and Spiritual Practices were mostly positive.
Kirkus Reviews called it a "grounded and inspiring approach to appreciating the benefits of both science and religion". In the
Church Times, Adam Ford called it a "useful and very clear introduction to the practice of meditation" combined with a how-to guide on the "healing and happiness-creating power of gratitude".
Publishers Weekly wrote that the book has "accessible suggestions" and "clear arguments" and that "a few fuzzy moments, including reliance on many...overly speculative accounts" do not prevent it from being "otherwise convincing" and "a good case for reincorporating bygone spiritual habits".
Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work (2019) Reviews of
Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work were mixed. In
The Daily Telegraph, journalist
Steven Poole called Sheldrake's writing "very engaging" and said his defense of prayer worked "sometimes, but not always" and was "not really good enough". In
Literary Review, veterinary surgeon and barrister
Charles A. Foster called the book "a very mixed bag" but also "funny, wise, [and] full of whimsical weirdness". In the
Times Literary Supplement, anthropologist Jonathan Benthall called the book "an affable, erudite manual to show how life need not be boring" and Sheldrake's arguments "soft at the edges, sometimes presenting his hypotheses as facts". == Public reception ==