“The Science Delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake: A Book Review

Rupert Sheldrake is a British biologist and author known for his unconventional scientific stance. Having received a classical education—he studied biochemistry at the University of Cambridge, earned a PhD there, and worked as a research fellow of the Royal Society; he also held a fellowship at Harvard and led plant physiology research in India—Sheldrake eventually turned to the study of anomalous phenomena and philosophical questions of consciousness.

As early as 1981, he published A New Science of Life, where he proposed his radical hypothesis of morphic resonance—the existence of special morphogenetic fields responsible for the formation of structures in living nature. This idea was immediately met with resistance: Nature magazine published an editorial titled “A book for burning?” in response to Sheldrake’s work, which only drew more attention to his views.

Despite skepticism from his peers, Sheldrake continued his research and went on to publish several more books at the intersection of science and philosophy. His most recent, published in 2012, is titled The Science Delusion (released in the U.S. as Science Set Free). Below, we will explore the main ideas of this book, its content, as well as Sheldrake’s alternative hypotheses and how his ideas are perceived today.

Core Ideas: Science and Its “Dogmas”

---

In his book “The Science Delusion”, Rupert Sheldrake presents a sharp critique of the modern scientific worldview. He argues that science has become the hostage of a set of dogmas—beliefs taken on faith and not subject to questioning, much like religious doctrines. According to him, the main “scientific delusion” lies in the belief that science already knows all the fundamental answers and only needs to refine the details. Sheldrake believes this overconfident attitude has turned the scientific method into a kind of faith, based on outdated assumptions.

In particular, the author identifies ten core “dogmas” of modern science that, in his view, limit the free pursuit of truth:

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Living organisms are seen as complex machines (as Richard Dawkins put it, “lumbering robots”) without intrinsic purpose or autonomy.
2. Matter is unconscious. The entire material world is devoid of subjective experience; even human consciousness is just an illusion created by brain activity.
3. The amount of matter and energy is constant. It is assumed to remain the same (except at the moment of the Big Bang).
4. The laws of nature are fixed. Fundamental physical laws and constants were set at the beginning of the universe and never change.
5. Evolution has no purpose. Nature does not pursue any goals, and the evolutionary process lacks direction or design.
6. Inheritance is entirely material. All biological traits are passed through material carriers (like DNA), without any non-material factors.
7. Memory is stored in the brain. All memories are encoded in the physical structures of the brain and are destroyed at death.
8. Consciousness is confined to the brain. Our mind is solely brain activity. For example, when a person sees a tree, the image is in their brain, not outside.
9. Paranormal phenomena are illusory. Events like telepathy or premonition are considered unreal simply because science cannot explain them.
10. Only mechanistic medicine works. Conventional (materialistic) medicine is the only effective form of healing; alternative methods are ineffective.

Here is the English translation of your text:

---

In his book “The Science Delusion”, Rupert Sheldrake presents a sharp critique of the modern scientific worldview. He argues that science has become the hostage of a set of dogmas—beliefs taken on faith and not subject to questioning, much like religious doctrines. According to him, the main “scientific delusion” lies in the belief that science already knows all the fundamental answers and only needs to refine the details. Sheldrake believes this overconfident attitude has turned the scientific method into a kind of faith, based on outdated assumptions.

In particular, the author identifies ten core “dogmas” of modern science that, in his view, limit the free pursuit of truth:

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Living organisms are seen as complex machines (in Richard Dawkins’s words, “lumbering robots”), devoid of inner purpose or autonomy.
2. Matter is unconscious. The entire material world lacks subjective experience; even human consciousness is just an illusion generated by brain activity.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same. It is assumed to be constant (with the exception of the Big Bang).
4. The laws of nature are fixed. The fundamental laws of physics and the constants of nature are believed to have been set at the beginning of the universe and never change.
5. Nature has no purpose. Evolution is seen as directionless and without any inherent goal.
6. Hereditary information is entirely material. All biological inheritance is assumed to occur through material carriers such as DNA, with no room for non-material influences.
7. Memory is stored only in the brain. All memories and information are believed to be encoded in brain structures and are lost at death.
8. The mind is confined to the brain. Our consciousness is assumed to be nothing more than brain activity. For example, when a person sees a tree, the image of the tree is said to be inside their brain, not in the external world.
9. “Paranormal” phenomena are illusory. Phenomena such as telepathy or premonitions are dismissed as non-existent because they cannot be explained by current scientific models.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only effective kind. Conventional (materialist) medicine is considered the only valid form of treatment; alternative methods are assumed not to work.

Sheldrake deliberately calls these tenets “dogmas” to draw a parallel with religious faith, emphasizing their unquestionable status in the eyes of orthodox science. In his view, many scientists have accepted these beliefs “on faith” and built around them a comprehensive worldview—materialism, in which nothing exists beyond matter. According to Sheldrake, this perspective stifles scientific thinking and hinders progress.

He calls for these tenets to be treated not as unshakable truths, but as hypotheses that should be critically examined. By freeing science from dogmatism, Sheldrake believes, we can make it truly open, creative, and ready for new discoveries.

Book Structure: From Dogma Critique to New Hypotheses

The Science Delusion is structured in such a way that each of the ten mentioned dogmas is examined in detail in a separate chapter. Sheldrake frames the chapter titles as questions—thus turning dogmas into problems that are yet to be solved, rather than ready-made answers. Below are some of the central themes and arguments of the book:

• The Mechanistic Nature of Reality Questioned
  In the first chapter, Sheldrake asks: “Is nature a machine?”—and explores the limitations of the view that reduces animals and humans to biological robots. He argues that in reality, living systems exhibit self-regulation, spontaneity, and goal-directedness, which cannot be explained by simple mechanical processes. Instead, the author suggests viewing nature as an organism full of creative processes, rather than as a soulless clockwork. This approach opens the door to acknowledging purposes and meanings in nature, which strict materialism tends to reject.
• Laws of Nature or Habits?
  One of the boldest theses of the book is the idea that the laws of nature may evolve. In the chapter on the constancy of natural laws, Sheldrake points out that traditional science assumes all fundamental constants and laws were fixed at the moment of the Big Bang—as if encoded in a “cosmic legal code” once and for all. However, in a developing universe, the laws themselves may also change over time—just as habits form. Sheldrake proposes that the universe possesses some kind of collective memory, and the regularities we call laws have in fact emerged gradually through the repetition of processes. For example, when a substance crystallizes into a new form for the first time, morphic fields then help facilitate this formation in the future, making such crystals easier to form. In other words, nature learns from experience. This radical idea makes the evolution of the world far more creative than is usually assumed.
• Consciousness Beyond the Brain
  In several chapters, Sheldrake addresses the problem of consciousness and argues that the mind is not confined to the skull. He presents data from experiments he conducted himself—such as studies on the “sixth sense” in humans and animals. Sheldrake is known for experiments suggesting that dogs can sense when their owners are returning, people can guess who is calling them before picking up the phone, and many have felt they were being stared at from behind. These phenomena are difficult to explain under the dogma that consciousness is locked inside the brain. However, they make more sense if we accept the existence of a consciousness field that connects living beings. Sheldrake claims that phenomena like telepathy are real and observable—we simply need the courage to study them, rather than dismiss them a priori. He criticizes the fact that mainstream science tends to label extrasensory experiences as illusions (in line with Dogma #9), and thus does not even attempt to investigate them. Instead, he urges scientists to test the incredible. In his view, there is already evidence that the mind can extend beyond the brain, and that living beings are linked by invisible channels. This concept is called the extended mind, and it challenges the strictly individualistic view of the psyche.
• Matter, Life, and Memory
  The book also addresses biological questions: are all hereditary traits truly encoded only in DNA? And is memory stored solely in the brain? Based on his theory of morphic fields, Sheldrake offers a different picture. Morphogenetic fields are hypothetical, invisible structures that guide the development and behavior of living systems. According to this hypothesis, each life form draws information from the collective experience of its species. Thus, heredity includes not only genes but also inherited species memory. For instance, animal instincts—like spiders weaving webs or birds knowing migratory routes—are the result of accumulated experience transmitted via morphic resonance, not just genetic instructions. Memory in nature is not localized solely in neurons—it is distributed through fields and resonance between the present and the past. This perspective explains various phenomena (e.g., why rats in different labs around the world learn faster what others have already mastered) and challenges the reductionist understanding of heredity.

Each chapter of The Science Delusion systematically deconstructs a particular “cornerstone” of the materialist worldview and offers an alternative perspective. Sheldrake supports his reflections with references to empirical data and experimental results—either his own or from the literature—which cast doubt on the accepted dogmas. For example, he points to anomalous fluctuations in physical constants, unexplained placebo effects in medicine, and findings from parapsychology. At the end of each chapter, the author discusses how science might look if it allowed a broader interpretation of the phenomena in question. Sheldrake’s approach, in his own words, “liberates the spirit of inquiry”: instead of denying mysterious facts, science should study them without prejudice.

What Sheldrake Proposes Instead of Materialism

Criticizing dogmatism does not mean rejecting science – on the contrary, Rupert Sheldrake positions his book as pro-science and calls for the restoration of genuine curiosity within scientific inquiry. As an alternative to the dominant scientific materialism, he offers a number of bold hypotheses that aim to expand the boundaries of scientific understanding of reality.

• First, Sheldrake develops the previously mentioned concept of morphogenetic fields. If we abandon the dogma of the immutability of natural laws, these laws can instead be seen as habits acquired by the universe. Morphic fields provide a kind of memory of nature. Every natural phenomenon occurs not in a vacuum, but in the context of similar past experiences. This means that patterns can change over time. In traditional science, such an idea is considered heretical, but Sheldrake argues that it makes the worldview more flexible and alive. His hypothesis of morphic resonance suggests we should experimentally test whether, for instance, crystals begin to form more easily around the world once a similar structure has formed repeatedly somewhere else — in other words, whether there is a global “learning effect” in nature. If such effects are confirmed, this would support the existence of morphic fields and challenge the materialist understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.
• Second, Sheldrake proposes an expanded concept of consciousness. Rejecting the dogma that consciousness is solely produced by the brain, he introduces the idea of an extended mind. According to this view, the brain is merely a receiver or transformer of consciousness, which is not confined within the skull. Thought processes may extend beyond the body through fields of consciousness that connect people (and animals) with each other. This radically departs from the notion of a human being as an “isolated thinking machine.” In support of his hypothesis, Sheldrake points to a vast range of human experiences (telepathic communication, intuitive premonitions, the sense of being stared at) which materialism either ignores or dismisses as coincidences. If these phenomena are acknowledged as real, science would need to expand its study of consciousness to include non-material connections. Sheldrake emphasizes that such ideas do not diminish the greatness of science — on the contrary, they offer a deeper view of mind and nature to a future science. He urges rigorous experimentation even with “uncomfortable” topics — such as the ability of people to acquire information beyond the five senses — and asserts that the results he has already obtained (though controversial) point to the reality of such abilities.
• Finally, Sheldrake calls for a broader methodology. He is not suggesting replacing one dogma with another, but rather advocates for pluralism in science. The materialist approach works well for some problems, but should not exclude other approaches where it proves ineffective. In medicine, for example, besides mechanistic interventions on the body, we must also study the influence of consciousness, belief, and suggestion — the placebo effect clearly demonstrates the body’s self-healing potential beyond direct material impact. In cosmology, instead of claiming that today’s science has explained the origin of the universe, we should be open to alternative hypotheses (including the idea that the Big Bang is not a unique creation of something from nothing). Sheldrake urges scientists to reclaim their freedom to explore: to make bold assumptions, allow for the possibility of consciousness beyond matter, and test phenomena that have previously been dismissed. His ideal is a science that does not become a dogmatic religion, but remains a method of discovery — open to investigating any aspect of reality without prejudice.

Thus, instead of rigid materialism, Sheldrake proposes a post-materialist science, which makes room for the memory of nature, for the elusive aspects of consciousness, and for the search for purpose in evolution. These ideas lie at the boundary of science and philosophy, expanding the conversation around fundamental questions: what is life, consciousness, the universe? The author does not claim to have all the final answers, but he points to the direction in which science could evolve if it frees itself from self-imposed limitations.

Support and Relevance of Sheldrake’s Ideas

Support and Relevance of Sheldrake’s Ideas

The question of the acceptability of Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas within the scientific community remains controversial. Official science has mostly responded to his theories with skepticism. Many critics classify Sheldrake’s concepts as pseudoscience, pointing to the lack of rigorous evidence for his boldest claims. Since the publication of his first book in the 1980s, Sheldrake has been accompanied by a reputation as a scientific heretic—an attitude exemplified by Nature magazine’s call to condemn the book as heresy. Over the years, skeptics have repeatedly accused Sheldrake of undermining the scientific method and promoting mysticism. Most mainstream scientists view his experiments on morphic resonance or telepathy critically: attempts to replicate them often yield ambiguous results, leaving the evidential basis weak. As opponents note, revising fundamental theories requires a substantial accumulation of reliable data—not isolated anomalies. Until then, his hypotheses remain on the fringe of science. Indeed, as of today, morphogenetic fields and extended mind theories are not part of academic textbooks or mainstream science but appear mostly in discussions about the boundaries of scientific knowledge.

Nevertheless, Sheldrake’s ideas do have support—though more often outside the academic establishment. His books have become bestsellers among readers interested in unconventional perspectives on reality. The fact that some of his works have been translated into various languages (including Russian) indicates a broad public interest. One notable example is Sheldrake’s TEDx talk in 2013, where he presented ideas from The Science Delusion. The video was soon removed by organizers, who deemed its content too controversial for scientific standards. However, this controversy only fueled public interest—the recording spread across the internet and gained millions of views. Sheldrake has been invited into dialogue by philosophers and spiritual leaders (Deepak Chopra, for instance, has written about him), and some scientists have expressed willingness to at least partially acknowledge the validity of his questions. In recent years, even within the scientific world, there has been a renewed interest in previously taboo topics: consciousness studies have intensified, panpsychist theories (which attribute proto-consciousness to elementary particles) are emerging, and there is growing interest in placebo effects, psychosomatics, and the role of the observer in quantum physics. These trends echo many of Sheldrake’s criticisms, though they may not have arisen directly from his influence.

For philosophically minded readers and movements such as Deconstruction of Reality, Sheldrake’s ideas hold particular appeal. His work encourages a critical reexamination of the supposedly unshakable foundations of the scientific worldview. Sheldrake demonstrates that even science—the main provider of objective knowledge—is built upon a series of assumptions that can be deconstructed. In this sense, The Science Delusion is a timely manifesto for intellectual openness: the book urges readers not to blindly accept the authority of science, but to understand its limitations and take an active role in searching for a new paradigm. Even if one does not agree with all of Sheldrake’s conclusions, engaging with his arguments enriches one’s understanding of the philosophy of science. The book combines accessible language with deep philosophical issues—from questions of consciousness and free will to discussions on the nature of laws and constants. For this reason, it continues to spark discussion years after its publication.

Conclusion: In The Science Delusion, Rupert Sheldrake boldly challenges the scientific worldview, inviting readers to look beyond materialist frameworks. His review of ten “scientific dogmas” and the proposed alternatives highlight that science is a developing project—not a finished picture. The book is relevant for anyone interested in the limits of knowledge: it raises uncomfortable questions, encourages independent thought, and may serve as a step toward deconstructing familiar reality in pursuit of a deeper understanding.

Source: Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, 2012. (Translation of fragments, quotes, and summary based on the Hodder & Stoughton edition; supplemented by Wikipedia materials and interviews with the author)