# Morphic Resonance: Promising Theory or Pseudoscience? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706 "2014-10-08T00:27:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/21 "2014-10-10T00:29:25Z")
Also why do you seem to think that it is not logical to realize that there is little science coming from the proponents of Morphic Resonance? When it was found that very dubious experiments and very old studies continue to be “copy pasted” while the counter studies that were done are deftly ignored? By experience I can tell you that many times many experts authors had other conclusions rather than thinking that there was ESP in animals, I would not be surprised that many cases here, like in the tits case, the original makers of the studies had other conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/22 "2014-10-10T14:11:56Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Well, what I was most interested in was how morphic resonance could relate to evolution. So if you’ve already decided it’s a real thing and want to discuss possible related ideas, why did you title the thread “Morphic Resonance: Promising Theory or Pseudoscience?” From all I’ve read on Sheldrake’s methods, reported results and chosen method of publication and response to critisism I’ve concluded he’s a poor scienctist who, like various adherents to various pseudosciences, has decided that the scientific method just doesn’t work to examine his particular ideas. It goes like this for him and others: A. Do research on marginal and possibly non-existing phenomena. Get the occasional weak result and over-interpret those as solidly significant. B. Get criticised for poor science, statistical malfeasance, cherry-picking and ignoring file-drawer effects. C. Double down and claim your brain children can’t be examined by the stodgy old scientific method adherents and their dogma. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/23 "2014-10-11T04:33:34Z")
Yeah, the moment someone claims that their theory can’t be examined by the scientific method (especially if their theory is medical in nature), they deserve to be bitch-slapped so hard that the letters after their name falls off. [_Especially_ in medicine](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/10/10/sht-naturopaths-say-part-2-naturopathic-education-and-science/). ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/24 "2014-10-11T14:52:04Z")
[QUOTE=Budget Player Cadet] …they deserve to be bitch-slapped so hard that the letters after their name falls off. [/QUOTE] Careful, all those falling letters could injure innocent bystanders (for example, [Leonard Coldwell](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leonard_Coldwell) (he of the 92.3% cancer cure rate) boasts at least ten separate degrees. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/25 "2014-10-12T20:19:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > He don’t know me really well huh folks? 🙂 > > I did that on purpose. > > Indeed it was the same source and it shows just about the opposite of you claimed to be. Now why was that? > > And BTW most of what the authorities (that you are still ignoring really) used logic too, so I have no idea why this point could be missed: I would not give much value to this issue, it is indeed just pseudo-science. Okay the only one that is ignoring anything is you. I thought I was pretty clear in my last post. I am seeking an explanation of the SPECIFIC experiments that Sheldrake cited. Not some dismissal of his work in general. Those experiments are what were intriguing to me in the first place, that’s why I’d like to know more about them. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Also why do you seem to think that it is not logical to realize that there is little science coming from the proponents of Morphic Resonance? When it was found that very dubious experiments and very old studies continue to be “copy pasted” while the counter studies that were done are deftly ignored? > > By experience I can tell you that many times many experts authors had other conclusions rather than thinking that there was ESP in animals, I would not be surprised that many cases here, like in the tits case, the original makers of the studies had other conclusions. What are you talking about? I basically dismissed morphic resonance in my last post… Or maybe you didn’t catch that. “Shelfake,” however corny it is, was not a typo in my post. Again, I was simply asking for an “alternative and logical explanation” TO morphic resonance relating to the specific experiments that Sheldrake uses to support his theory. What do you _think_ I’ve been asking this whole time??? > [@naita](#): > > So if you’ve already decided it’s a real thing and want to discuss possible related ideas, why did you title the thread “Morphic Resonance: Promising Theory or Pseudoscience?” Do you people have a reading comprehension deficiency? All I asked was how this topic “_could_” relate to evolution. That doesn’t mean I’ve decided anything about it’s validity. I was simply trying to steer people away from the hocus pocus of the telepathy portion of Sheldrake’s theory as I wasn’t buying into that being plausible anyways. It just seemed as though genetics does not explain everything as it has not panned out to be the end-all be-all that it was supposed to be. How could high percentages of our DNA be labeled as “junk DNA,” for example. Out of curiosity, could someone explain to me what “fruits” genetics and epigenetics have yielded? And if anyone is capable, could they explain to me what the data is saying in the “naive chick” experiment that I cited in my OP? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/26 "2014-10-12T20:36:11Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Okay the only one that is ignoring anything is you. I thought I was pretty clear in my last post. I am seeking an explanation of the SPECIFIC experiments that Sheldrake cited. Not some dismissal of his work in general. Those experiments are what were intriguing to me in the first place, that’s why I’d like to know more about them. Missing the point, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as pointed before and acknowledged too, Sheldrake is not doing science nor bringing supporting evidence for his claims or he continues to resort to debunked evidence. These reasons alone are enough to keep him in the dismissal file. Until he comes with published evidence in a scientific journal this will remain the state of affairs, and please note that since by your own protestations you agree that he has failed to do so many times before, the take point is this one: life is short, and I will not start now to give the time of day to a fellow like Sheldrake **that continues** to depend with his wrong information that he uses to continue his “work”. You say that he may have some interesting items? That may be so, but it was reproducible there would me many current scientists involved on this, that is not the case. I think we should look at other proponents with better backgrounds than him. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/27 "2014-10-12T21:00:06Z")
Correction, I meant to say that: You say that he may have some interesting items? That may be so, but if it was reproducible there would be many current scientists involved on this, that is not the case. I think we should look at other proponents with better backgrounds than him. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2014, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/28 "2014-10-12T21:21:11Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Do you people have a reading comprehension deficiency? All I asked was how this topic “_could_” relate to evolution. That doesn’t mean I’ve decided anything about it’s validity. I was simply trying to steer people away from the hocus pocus of the telepathy portion of Sheldrake’s theory as I wasn’t buying into that being plausible anyways. > > It just seemed as though genetics does not explain everything as it has not panned out to be the end-all be-all that it was supposed to be. How could high percentages of our DNA be labeled as “junk DNA,” for example. > > Out of curiosity, could someone explain to me what “fruits” genetics and epigenetics have yielded? And if anyone is capable, could they explain to me what the data is saying in the “naive chick” experiment that I cited in my OP? Do you seriously wonder what we’ve discovered through genetics and epigentics? How about rewriting parts of the tree of life, genetic testing, genetic modification, and tons of modern biology. That we’re adding to the knowledge of how genes are expressed and suppressed does not mean basic genetics isn’t still one of the most important and central parts of all of modern biology. I have a hard time figuring out exactly what Sheldrake is comparing in his description of the naive chick experiment, but I don’t need to try to understand it since Sheldrake has kindly published his lab-partner’s rebuttal: [Rose Responds to "An Experimental Test of the Hypothesis of Formative Causation"](http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/Rose_response.html) As I wrote before, statistics malfeasance and cherry-picking. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2014, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/29 "2014-10-12T23:20:44Z")
I tried something with a naïve chick once… :o ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/30 "2014-10-13T04:23:19Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > It’s clear now that at least some of his hypotheses have been tested and failed. I don’t automatically dismiss his entire theory but I am skeptical. Sheldrake’s theories are probably wrong, but they could lead to something that’s right and yet undiscovered. Sheldrake’s ideas could lead to something that’s right, in the same way that a monkey with a dart board _could_ correctly predict the stock market. If he happens to ever say something that’s right, it’s not because he used valid ways of thinking to get there - he consistently uses bad methods to come up with his ideas. I’ve heard him give talks and be interviewed on a few occasions, and what’s clear is that his epistemology is completely fucked up - he doesn’t use evidence and logic to reach his conclusions, he just thinks up some crazy idea and goes with that. Then he bleats when he’s not taken seriously. Sheldrake was at the center of the TedX controversy a year or two ago. Go listen to the talk he gave that prompted that - he’s a pseudoscientific crank. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/31 "2014-10-13T04:29:48Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > I tried something with a naïve chick once… :o Did you replicate the experiment? ---
**Author:** ![cid\_arthur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dbc845/32.png) [@cid\_arthur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cid_arthur)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/32 "2016-06-10T19:54:50Z")
hello all, i hope you haven’t gotten tired of this discussion because i feel it hasn’t quite been settled. [Fourth (Final) Report on a Test of McDougall'S Lamarckian Experiment on the Training of Rats | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists](http://jeb.biologists.org/content/31/3/307) take a look here, apparently the only experiments that support sheldrake’s idea (from what i can recall him talking about), where they’ve mentioned that the effect’s somehow carried over across species. their conclusion was that they hadn’t found evidence for lamarckianism, but it suggests another conclusion at the same time doesn’t it? sheldrake’s conclusion, that these memories aren’t held in neurons or genes but in the ‘morphic field’ (or whatever the term is that sheldrake uses), and that might explain the effect and why it can be transferred between animals belonging to different species. Have there been more strictly controlled attempts at verifying this since this experiment was done? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/33 "2016-06-10T20:04:48Z")
> [@cid\_arthur](#): > > hello all, i hope you haven’t gotten tired of this discussion because i feel it hasn’t quite been settled. [http://jeb.biologists.org/content/31/3/307](http://jeb.biologists.org/content/31/3/307) take a look here, apparently the only experiments that support sheldrake’s idea (from what i can recall him talking about), where they’ve mentioned that the effect’s somehow carried over across species. their conclusion was that they hadn’t found evidence for lamarckianism, but it suggests another conclusion at the same time doesn’t it? sheldrake’s conclusion, that these memories aren’t held in neurons or genes but in the ‘morphic field’ (or whatever the term is that sheldrake uses), and that might explain the effect and why it can be transferred between animals belonging to different species. Have there been more strictly controlled attempts at verifying this since this experiment was done? Why do you dispute the actual scientists’ conclusion? “in reality correlated with the health of the laboratory colony, which is subject to periods of decline and recovery.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/34 "2016-06-10T21:05:04Z")
If you want to know whether something is pseudoscience or not, the very first place you should look, even before Wikipedia, is [RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706/35 "2016-06-10T21:45:24Z")
> [@cid\_arthur](#): > > hello all, i hope you haven’t gotten tired of this discussion because i feel it hasn’t quite been settled. [http://jeb.biologists.org/content/31/3/307](http://jeb.biologists.org/content/31/3/307) take a look here, apparently the only experiments that support sheldrake’s idea (from what i can recall him talking about), where they’ve mentioned that the effect’s somehow carried over across species. their conclusion was that they hadn’t found evidence for lamarckianism, but it suggests another conclusion at the same time doesn’t it? sheldrake’s conclusion, that these memories aren’t held in neurons or genes but in the ‘morphic field’ (or whatever the term is that sheldrake uses), and that might explain the effect and why it can be transferred between animals belonging to different species. Have there been more strictly controlled attempts at verifying this since this experiment was done? I thought the whole point of morphic resonance was that it was meant to be transferred between individuals _because of their similarity_. Isn’t it just opening up the door wide to selection bias otherwise? I mean, if you train rats to hide from sunlight, then you go looking everywhere for other animals that hide from light, and you find some flatworms hiding under a rock, you can’t just say that the flatworms acquired the behaviour from the Rats _because reasons_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/morphic-resonance-promising-theory-or-pseudoscience/700706.md?page=1)