Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism

Hmmm, so you seem to be saying that because scientists apparently do not recognise the existence of telepathy or precognition, that there's nothing to investigate?Maybe many of them aren't aware of the "Dogs that Know" experiments. Probably a number of them have dismissed them without really looking into them -- a phenomenon I expect we'll see more of on this thread as the discussion progresses.I'm not saying that science can't explain this, and there are some scientists who do similar paranormal research but not many. It seems to me that experiments such as Sheldrake's should be publicised and treated with the seriousness that they deserve. Let's see more scientists opening their minds to the possibility of telepathy and attempting to replicate Sheldrake's experiments, or take them further.What else do you think we should do -- conveniently ignore genuinely positive experimental results? I'm pretty amazed at your claim that this should be done simply because an unspecified group of scientists hasn't given the subject its seal of approval for study. This ambiguous group of people have a monopoly on what we should investigate, do they?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This may be a side note to what I'm saying, but my point is that you have no reason to claim: "What I do know is that there is currently no scientific explanation for the "Dogs that Know" results."What I'm saying is that there is currently no investigation into the assertion that dogs have telepathy, therefore it is unnecessary to say that there exists no scientific evidence to explain those results. Maybe many of them are aware of it. Probably a number of them dismissed it having looked into it. Well, I would say that that's up to the person(s) doing the experiment to establish the seriousness of what they're doing via the scientific method. To include peer-review, etc. Why? Because you (or a handful of people) feel they should?That's not how one establishes credibility for assertions, Linda. We aren't doing anything. I looked at it, as you asked. What more could we do?One person conducted an experiment based on the belief that dogs are telepathic...now what?Have you looked into Dolphins ability to cure humans via sonar?I started a thread on it Dolphin assisted therapy, and I provided some research on it. Not enough to conclude that they do, but enough to at least say that science has looked into it. Now, what I feel is going on is different to what the evidence points to, is it not? And I'm even more amazed (by my standards of judging amazement) that you feel it should done just because some dog owners believe their dogs are telepathic.It's up to the one doing the experimenting to provide substantial evidence to turn heads onto any phenomenon they claim exists. Investigate away. Just don't be upset if no one pays any attention to it.It's up to the one doing the experimenting to provide substantial evidence to turn heads onto any phenomenon they claim exists.- Oni

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that there is currently no investigation into the assertion that dogs have telepathy, therefore it is unnecessary to say that there exists no scientific evidence to explain those results.

---

Well it would be easy to rephrase if you wish and say something like, "This experimental result has emerged (because there is investigation into the assertion, by Sheldrake, with positive outcome) and science now needs to provide an explanation for it." Or does Sheldrake not count for some reason?

quote:

---

Maybe many of them are aware of it. Probably a number of them dismissed it having looked into it.

---

I would hazard a guess that many scientists are not aware of it, because most of them take no notice of studies of the paranormal, no matter how rigorously scientific. The current paradigm is to dismiss such things out of hand as nonsense, and to attempt to give them scientific validity is career suicide. Look at how many people on this forum alone really, really don't want to entertain the notion that something like telepathy might be real.As for scientists having "looked into it," no one has found any flaws in Sheldrake's "Dogs that Know" research. Wiseman tried hard because he didn't want his results to be held up as replications of the successful experiments, but that is what happened. If you can find any valid criticism of the experiments by anyone, anywhere, please share it here.

quote:

---

Well, I would say that that's up to the person(s) doing the experiment to establish the seriousness of what they're doing via the scientific method. To include peer-review, etc.

---

Sheldrake used the scientific method in his experiments.
The Journal of Scientific Exploration is peer reviewed.
I suppose the next attempted argument will be that the journal is not prestigious enough or mainstream enough, and the goalposts will continue to be moved . . . because the prejudice against paranormal research is so very pervasive, it's hard for many people to imagine taking it seriously. There will be 1,001 reasons why successful experimental results in this field are somehow unacceptable. The question I find myself asking is, why? What are people so afraid of, that they end up using creationist-style cognitive dissonance strategies in order to dismiss the possibility of anything paranormal being real?

quote:

---

Let's see more scientists opening their minds to the possibility of telepathy and attempting to replicate Sheldrake's experiments, or take them further.
-------
Why? Because you (or a handful of people) feel they should?

​

That's not how one establishes credibility for assertions, Linda.

---

Beg pardon but these aren't assertions, they are positive experimental results; results which you said you found no fault with. You seem to be demanding extra proof, or Rrhain's chocolate sprinkles. Are they assertions in your mind, possibly, because you don't want to accept the possibility that dogs might actually be telepathic -- or that telepathy might exist at all?

quote:

---

One person conducted an experiment based on the belief that dogs are telepathic...now what?

---

We've got solid evidence that time after time, under tightly controlled and randomised conditions, this dog seemed to be able to sense when its owner was setting off to come home. That's not just a belief, it's experimental evidence which is difficult to explain unless the phenomenon of telepathy (or precognition) is real. "Now what" means that this is potentially a very important discovery, and the experiments should be publicised, replicated and expanded on. IMO this is not happening because we are programmed to believe that such phenomena have no part in our rational world and so they can't be true, no matter how many well designed, successful experiments show otherwise. If I may be honest, look at how hard you yourself are trying to make the "Dogs that Know" experiments seem inconsequential, even though (or because?) they suggest the existence of a phenomenon that is new to mainstream scientific study.

quote:

---

Have you looked into Dolphins ability to cure humans via sonar?

---

That's interesting. Something is obviously going on there, though precisely "what" is open for debate. But I'm not sure how that compares to Sheldrake's carefully designed and controlled "Dogs that Know" experiments that yielded definite results -- the dog waiting at the window 4% of the time when its owner was not coming home, and 78% of the time when she was, is a pretty unambiguous fact. It seems to me that if denial continued here, you'd have to pull the old creationist card of "It's all lies," because it's hard to see where else you could go.

quote:

---

Investigate away. Just don't be upset if no one pays any attention to it.

---

So that's OK in your book even if such studies continue, are replicated, and get positive results? Still not worthy of attention? Perhaps Sheldrake will need to tap dance on the wall singing "What a Wonderful World" first? Or give it all up and devote his life to studying fruit flies, because then he's not stirring up anyone's prejudices?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I think they are being treated with the seriousness that they deserve. Sheldrake is not entirely obscure, is certainly more famous than most biologists like those that have to make do with investigating less sexy things like the mechanisms behind HIV or onco-genes or the like. I'll attempt to replicate his experiements and take them further. Whose going to pay my wages to do this?I suppose I could fudge the results to make it look like something is going on - or just obfuscate the results with complex language, and try and convince the untrained masses to buy my books and videos. I'm fairly sure that's within my capabilities.
I could sell my good name by claiming that I am one of the world’s most innovative biologists or something.But - on topic. Do you think that, assuming that the phenomena are real, Sheldrake has any reason to jump to 'morphic fields' as an explanation? Or is he just making up clever sounding but ultimately meaningless phrases?

Hi Modulous. I was hoping you'd join the discussion, but I was also hoping for a better post than this one. I mean, really. Intimations that Sheldrake is unduly hogging publicity; that he's fudging his results; and that he's doing it all to get attention and to sell books. And no actual mention of any aspect of the "Dogs that Know" experiments. I didn't think someone as intelligent as you would feel a need to stoop to ad hominem.He obviously wants to explain his experimental results using his morphic fields hypothesis. If you read what I've said elsewhere here, I am "agnostic" or neutral on the subject, partly because I don't know much about it and partly because there's little evidence in support of it. The point I was making was that the experiments are valid regardless of the interpretation he or anyone else gives them, and this in itself is important. If Pavlov could break new ground by experimenting with dogs drooling over their food, then why not "dogs that know when their owners are coming home"?

Hey Linda,I took a look at the study findings. It's an interesting experiment, and I think it warrants more investigation, but the data as presented is not very convincing.If you read the study, the data concerning much of Sheldrake's reason for believing Jaytee was telepathically sensing his owner's return is from logs kept by Jaytee's owner and her parents. This is a bit suspect, in my mind, if they wanted to show that Jaytee was telepathic, they may, consciously or unconsciously fudge the numbers a bit.The second part, where Sheldrake records Jaytee's responses, I see a time correlation for Jaytee's going to the window, and with only 4 hours in the tape recorder, it severely limits good statistical data. Most of the graphs show Jaytee starting to look at the window after about 100 ten minute time periods has passed...specifically:16
12
16
12
14
13
12
16
10
none
11
12 and 20That's a pretty tight cluster...including the false positive on the last trial. I think, for this to have really good statistical data, they need to get some better equipment and set up recording times that can last at least over night, and have his owner come home after 5 minutes (maybe walking) and at random times between there and 12 hours later, or more. If Jaytee seems to sense his owner returning during more randomized returns (these don't seem all that random, the "late beeps" window watching isn't much different from the "early beeps"), then Sheldrake will have more reason to claim the ability. At this point, it's not clear, and needs better statistical data, IMHO.

Do they? Well, I'll inform them, but I don't think I'll do much with my request.As long as you concede that "science has no explanation for this phenomenon" was an unnecessary comment to make, my original question to you has been answered. Linda, while I think some of this stuff can be interesting, I also feel you approach this similar to how Christians approach miracles. You want it to be real and a single experiment that sort of gives YOU some convincing results helps settle the questions of "can it be real."But if it had any merit, science would be looking into it, just like they look into everything else in our world. I mean, they built the LHC to look for sub-atomic, almost non-existent, particles. Telepathy in dogs would be nothing to investigate.Telepathy has been researched, and sadly there's not much there. You take that how you like, as for me, I'm cool knowing it's science fiction. Or, maybe you need to see it for what it really is and allow for the possibility that there is really no phenomenon, just humans looking for patterns.That's just my opinion though. My main issue was settled.Thanks,- Oni

I think you read all the wrong things into my post.Of course, Sheldrake might be personally involved in shenanigans, I don't know. My main point was that in order to do research, there needs to be money. Unfortunately, there isn't a great deal of funding in funding research into the paranormal. It has been the subject of testing for centuries and nothing conclusive has come out of it, and a lot of people think its a dead end and won't pay the salary of someone who continues to research it.There is a market, however, for books that give credibility to mystical ideas such as precognition and telepathy and we should be aware of this when looking at this subject. I'm more inclined towards believing in the impartiality of researchers who don't have a reasonable financial motive for reporting findings in a certain direction.That isn't just on paranormal research, but any research. Global warming research, the health impact of smoking tobacco research, fossil fuels and the environment, medical research, anything. The experiments are technically off topic here. The topic isn't really about the experiments or the results but in the explanations provided for the results and whether they are pseudoscientific flim-flam. Do you agree that he has no evidence that morphic fields actually exist? As far as I can tell he doesn't describe how they actually work, how they cause the effect he hypothesises they cause. In fact, it isn't really hypothesis since it doesn't actually explain anything. He might as well say that telepathy/precognition is caused by garulachambra.From what I can tell - Sheldrake postulates there is a phenomena. And his explanation is essentially 'something is the cause of these phenomena above and beyond experimenter effect, poor control mechanisms, predictable tests etc etc'. I'd be more open-minded than that and say the experiments are valid or invalid regardless of the explanation he or anyone else comes up with.But this thread is about the validity of the the explanations not the experiments. I'm not saying that one shouldn't perform experiments to learn about the world. I'm just saying that proposing explanations that don't explain anything but use sciencey sounding words is misleading and dishonest.I used to be a fervent believer in Ouija boards. I have a small collection of them here at home. My favourite was The psychic circle board. But nowadays its the Parker bros one.Anyway - we used to use this all the time and were thoroughly convinced it gave us spiritual guidance about our lives. But then I heard a hypothesis about the ideomotor effect and so I controlled for that effect (blindfolded participants and had a nonparticipant randomly select a board and randomly orientate it) and suddenly the board starting spelling out gibberish.Maybe the spirits were angry that they were being tested. So we started asking the board to identify where things had been hidden by a non participant in another room. And it failed. And so on and so forth.I concluded that I had spent a lot of money on a load of nonsense, but I still kind of liked the boards ascetically and played with them from time to time still.The point - I'm all for performing experiments around paranormal subjects. And I'm not entirely against small scale informal experiments being performed to see if things are worth investigating further. Right now - I don't think the experiments Sheldrake has put forward show that there definitely is something 'spooky' going on. There is something going on, but without being able to rule out more common explanations, it is wildly premature to accept the result is as a result of undetectable 'fields' that transmit information using some undefined method.Now, undetectable 'fields' are minimally counterintuitive. They take a concept we're all aware of, fields and gives it a minor tiny twist by making them undetectable fields that convey information from one mind to another.However, this theory has precisely as much evidence as 'undetectable beams' or 'undetectable waves' or 'undetectable particles' or maybe even 'undetectable telegrams'. So why has he specified they are some kind of 'information field'? Why can he not just say it is as the result of an 'undetectable something'?

I think Linda has a point in that sometimes it seems scientists do tend to dismiss out of hand the paranormal simply because it is classified as the paranormal.I feel scientists are more willing to believe in multiple universes and multiple dimensions than in the paranormal even though multiple universes and dimensions have no evidence supporting them either (as far as I know). So why should those concepts have more merit than telepathy?

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

What would you suggest classifying it as?I think the problem starts when someone assumes they have been witness to an unnatural, or paranormal, or miraculous, event. In this particular case, she (Linda) is suggesting people assumed the dogs had telepathy, and an experiment showed what seems to be anomalous patterns.Is that enough to conclude this should be classified as a paranormal phenomenon? In my opinion (and this is only my opinion) it is not. However, for those who feel it does, well, the skies the limit as far as the research you can do. Enjoy, have fun, and let the rest of the natural world know when you found something substantial. If one of the experts wishes to weigh in on this issue then they'll trump whatever I'm about to say. But as far as I've read, multiverse systems, multi-dimensional theories, string/M-theory, has plenty of math to support it. In fact, string theory predicts gravity which, if it can make predictions that can be verified, seems to be much more substantial than "I think this dog knows when I get home."- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

No one is assuming anything. Someone made an observation, made a hypothesis, and tested that hypothesis. That's how science is done. Sheldrake observed that dogs seemed to be aware of when their owners would be going home, and so he made a hypothesis that this was due to telepathy and performed an experiment to test that hypothesis. Results of the hypothesis aside, you can't fault his adherence to the scientific method. He randomized the times, had a control, and did everything he could to ensure that the data could not be faulted. Could he have done more? Maybe. But the fact that he was testing a hypothesis on telepathy immediately makes him the ridicule of the scientific community simply because of the stigma attached to it. Mathematical models do not make a hypothesis true. If mathematical models were needed, then Germ Theory would be a hypothesis because how do you use mathematics to model Germ Theory? Theories ultimately require observable data. If your model predicts a particle, then physicists need to be able to test for that particle, not see the effects of the particles. That's why dark energy and dark matter are hypothetical, because as of yet, no one has been able to verify their existence. That's why String Theory* is considered by many physicists as pseudoscience, because it is unfalsifiable at this time due to the high energy requirements to even begin to test for strings. And the MWI is unfalsifiable because the many worlds are non-communicative. That means they cannot communicate with each other. So how do you test for it? But String Theory, dark matter, dark energy, and MWI are accepted by a number of physicists and theoretical physicists around the world simply because there is no stigma attached to them (except maybe String Theory.) Sure the math supports the theories, but in science, math only makes models; observations and experimental data are needed to support or disprove the models.Since no one can make observations or do experiments to verify any of those concepts, and since mathematical models aren't fully accepted by science without corresponding data, why are those concepts given more weight than the concept of telepathy?*Note: As far as I know, there are many mathematical models of String Theory so one of the criticisms of String Theory is that there are so many models, it's difficult to know which one is correct and which one to test for.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

Hi Perdition,I'm looking at Sheldrkae's analysis graphs and they show that Jaytee was at the window, on average, very little compared to when his owner decided to come home. He said that there was usually a settling-down period of 10 minutes or so after she left. It's interesting to see that when every visit to the window is included, even when it was obvious that Jaytee was distracted with something outside, the results on the graph are still clear.I am uncertain what you mean by "after about 100 ten minute time periods has passed"?Also, if you look at the paper, you will see that Sheldrake was not reliant on anyone's logs. The experiments were videotaped, as you know, and he explains how the tapes were analysed blind by people who were not involved with other parts of the experiments and didn't even know what was going on outside of their tasks. He placed controls on these analyses too.I'd be in support of further experiments and I don't see why they couldn't try your suggestions, though I think based on the data, the owner would need to be absent more than 5 minutes for any chance of a positive result to become obvious. I guess my question to you and some others here would be, just how many trials with how many permutations would you want before you were satisfied that this was a real phenomenon? Why is what Sheldrake has already done, not enough to merit any serious interest?

Hi Onifre,

quote:

---

As long as you concede that "science has no explanation for this phenomenon" was an unnecessary comment to make, my original question to you has been answered.

---

This seems to be very important to you. I take it that this is because you are still insisting that there is no phenomenon for science to explain? Same question to you as above then: if Sheldrake did more experiments, with more permutations, or if others did them, how much would it take to satisfy you? Looks to me like you are setting the bar very high.If Sheldrake did decide his time was better spent studying fruit flies, I feel certain that no one would be making such demands before they accepted the validity of his work.

quote:

---

I also feel you approach this similar to how Christians approach miracles. You want it to be real and a single experiment that sort of gives YOU some convincing results helps settle the questions of "can it be real."

---

I don't want anything other than the truth. I feel that people are having problems, for whatever personal reasons, with accepting that these experiments -- which, to remind you again, you said you see no fault with -- produced successful results. The graphs are unambiguous.You seem to be telling me that despite all that, I'm guilty of wishful thinking, and that "one little experiment" is insignificant and should be ignored.Does this make any kind of logical sense to you?To repeat another point I made recently, Pavlov's dog studies are taught in high schools across the world. He is heralded as the father of behavioural psychology. All he did was ring bells at certain times and put food out for the dogs, or not. Can you tell me how this is so very different from what Sheldrake did, and why Pavlov's name should be in so many science books while Shelrdake's experiments should be ignored?

quote:

---

But if it had any merit, science would be looking into it, just like they look into everything else in our world.

---

You seem to have a lot of faith that this unidentified body of scientists you mentioned earlier can claim a monopoly on what is worthy of study. Since when did science become something that only an educated elite performed, off limits to everybody else? One thing you probably noticed Sheldrake doing is trying to take science back to the public, getting them involved. While he conducts rigorous experiments of his own, he also wants to popularise the things he studies. The experiments are easy to replicate and these subjects catch people's interest. I think this is an innovative approach, though the established elite will be horrified at the idea of the ignorant public getting their hands dirty with such things. Notice I've used the word "elite" several times. While I think it is right and proper for experts to be foremost in their fields, I think there is no reason why public participation in science should not also occur. (By the way, Sheldrake is an expert in his field.)

quote:

---

Telepathy has been researched, and sadly there's not much there.

---

Can I see some evidence of these failed experiments?
Also, can you explain why previous failed experiments by other scientists or by Sheldrake himself should somehow nullify the "Dogs that Know" experiments? Do those past experiments have some kind of effect on the results?

quote:

---

Or, maybe you need to see it for what it really is and allow for the possibility that there is really no phenomenon, just humans looking for patterns.

---

Well, there are a few occasions when the patterns in graphs are significant, don't you think?Listen to what you are saying Oni:
-- Sheldrake's results aren't really positive; somehow they just appear to be that way.
-- It's just one insignificant set of experiments and they don't really mean anything.
-- "Real" scientists, the ones who run the show, aren't paying attention to this, so there's no reason why anyone else should.
-- Unspecified past failed experiments nullify the results of these and render further study of this so-called phenomenon moot.I repeat: do you think these are all logical claims to make?

Hi Modulous,Not sure how much I can say here. Straggler seemed determined to debate with me, which is why I brought in the "Dogs that Know" experiments. If you'd rather not talk about them that's fine, but I won't debate morphic fields with you. I do agree that there is little evidence for them and it's entirely possible that Sheldrake is wrong. He does seem to have the right open-minded skeptical mindset at least, considering that this is his pet idea. I contacted him at one point, suggesting that the phenomenon of flying ants swarming across a large area or an entire city at about the same time, could be evidence of his morphic resonance idea. He said that this was interesting but he gave me a list of possible ordinary causes that would need to be considered and researched first.However, I don't think that has any bearing on his telepathy experiments; establishing the existence of a phenomenon is not the same thing as determining its cause. You will also recall the recent pseudoskepticism thread, which explains the reason why I am "agnostic" or neutral about morphic fields. With little evidence one way or the other, I think there's not much to be said at the moment. That's why Sheldrake designs experiments that don't cost a lot of money. It would be a fairly simple thing to replicate the "Dogs that Know" experiments. What would be more at a premium is time rather than money. Sheldrake has designed other inexpensive experiments that he hopes will be performed by suitable parties at some point; see Seven Experiments that could Change the World. There have been successful studies, though that would seem to be a subject for another thread. At the moment I'm content with sticking with the "Dogs that Know" experiments; it's been fascinating to see what people who don't want to accept their results are doing here to get around that.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Gosh thanks for continually attempting to redefine my topic in order to evade the entire point of this thread. Namely pseudoscientific quantum explanations for paranormal phenomenon. But having said that lets look at your example in more detail. I will take any genuine evidence seriously.There are numerous flaws with this experiment and all sorts of opportunities for false positives but the most glaring problem is the post-hoc nature of the analysis and associated bias in interpretation. In short the experimenters are looking for correlation post result rather than making predictions of correlation pre-result. I would attempt to overcome this by making the following significant change:Give the dog owner a sealed electronic randomised time generator. When it alarms she and she alone knows. There is no need for the experimenters to have this information. At this point she sets off home. The device logs the time internally but the experimenters do not know when the device went off.The behaviour of the dog is recorded over a period of time. At the end of this period the footage is provided to Sheldrake and his team in 1 hour blocks that are ordered in random sequence. They can apply whatever criteria they want and whatever statistical analysis they want to the bahaviour of the dog alone (although this should still be decided upon and stated before the experiment). But at the end they must provide a list of the 1 hour samples that they think relate to the time that the owner set off home based on the behaviour of the dog only. This list of samples is compared with the log from the randomised time generator by independent adjudicators to see if the times predicted by Sheldrake are more accurate than would be expected by chance alone.Now I don't claim this is perfect but if a wally like me can think off the top of my head of ways to attempt to force prediction of results that avoid post-hoc attempts to find biased correlation then I fail to see why the highly qualified Dr Sheldrake is incapable of such measures.Throw in the need for independenet corroboration of results in repeated experiments and the addition of controls that avoid other external stimuli that might affect the dog's behaviour and then you might have yourself a valid experiment. This thread is specifically about quantum mysticism and how this is used to explain paranormal phenomenon. You can keep attempting to redefine my topic to suit your own needs all you like but that ultimately is what this is about. Sheldrake's morphic field "hypothesis" is prime example of this quantum quackery whether you like it or want to comment on it or not Message 66Er no. I don't know what your personal investment in this Sheldrake guy is but you seem to have taken my attacks on his morphic fields nonsense in this thread as some sort of personal challenge to you. I am not sure why. I would dearly love telepthy to be real. I also suspect that physicists and neuroscientists etc. etc. etc. would leap on the opportunity to investigate something that interesting and unknown if it was genuinely there. I know I would given the chance. But there really is no evidence for the phenomenon in question. No evidence that does not involve incredibly poor experimental design and what seems to be an almost wilful desire to encourage false positives on the part of the experimenter.Throw in Sheldrake's undeniable quantum mysticism and abuse of technical terminology to disguise "the divine" in his explanations for said phenomenon and it is little wonder his conclusions are not taken seriously outside of the paranormal community.