Critique of Sheldrake's telepathy research

[Garvarn]

I tried to search for a thread about Sheldrake but couldn't find any, so I'm starting one now. I've just translated and posted some criticism I wrote a couple of years ago:

garvarn.blogspot.com

Any of you had any experience with Sheldrake? All input is appreciated.

My main point is that Sheldrake is a methodological imbecill, which I think is evident from reading his research papers. I'm amazed how such a character gets away with everything.

/G

[Mr. Jon Donnis]

Will have a read

[fluffet]

I'm interested Garvan so will give it a proper read at the weekend sometime...had a brief look and I have a lot of the same questions you've already tackled in your part 3 post.
The social group theory he punts seems more an indication of familiarity and expectance than telepathy .
Also in the groups where some were known to each other , if caller display was available to them they could instantly rule out known others as being the caller even if they didnt know their number they may have known their location in the country and been able to tell from the area code .
I can't believe the experimentor wasn't even listening to the calls ?
Surely what was said is vital as you pointed out incorrect first guesses could have been altered by discussion where the receiver says "Damn I actually did think of you first" and the Caller says "Lets call that a hit then".

Countless other things like the daughter mother example where in one test they scored highly then inexplicably "lost" their deep "telepathic" connection and scored badly when filmed seem just far to huge to ignore.

Not sure what his point was anyway if his "telepathy" relies on the caller and reciever being known to each other to have any success rate above chance then the obvious other factors that would enable that are far from evidence of telepathy.