Rupert Sheldrake: The Crisis of Science (E07)

Rupert Sheldrake is one of the most thoughtful, lucid people I have ever met. In this conversation we talk about the foundations of science, both as an institution and as a path to knowledge. Like all the institutions of modernity, science faces a crisis that is increasingly recognized within science itself. Part of it is the "replicability crisis," but as Rupert and I discuss, that is but a gateway into deeper epistemological and metaphysical problems.

Here is the cartoon that Rupert Sheldrake spoke of in the podcast:

By David Parkins for Nature

By David Parkins for Nature

From This Episode:

"It's obvious, when you look behind the scenes, that scientists are human like everybody else.
But there's been this facade of objectivity that has been very misleading, both to scientists,
and to other people."

- Rupert Sheldrake

"When I really explore the foundation of the world destroying machine, it's none other than the
idea that we live in essentially a dead universe, devoid of any intelligence, subjectivity, or agency,
that we must therefore project and impose our own meaning, design, and intelligence onto."

- Charles Eisenstein

Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author, is best known for his hypothesis of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory. Find out more on his website.


  1. Dear Charles,
    once again thank you for your work; listening to this conversation has been just wonderful, especially with the upliftingly positive outlook near the end.

  2. Fab!
    Thanx for your excellent work.
    Rupert has also been on my radar for some thirty years now.
    Any chance of a way to subscribe to this blog via RSS? Would appreciate a hint!

    all the best!

  3. This was a wonderful discussion. Thanks so much!

    I wanted to look in to something that was (almost) mentioned in this podcast. Charles made the comment that he knew of a form of dental healing that treated the teeth as living organs, and could allow for reversal of tooth decay. I’ve long been suspect of conventional dental practice, and many practitioners who call themselves alternative or “holistic” fall short of what I hoped was possible in dental health.

    Can anyone provide some references to books, websites, people, etc, that talk about how to practice this? I think if I just did an internet search, it’d take me a lot of time to sift through all the quick-fix scams and “miracle-cures”.

    • Hello…I am not certain what you heard talked about, but you may be thinking of Ozone Dentistry where the decayed tooth is treated with a blast of ozone (O3) within a silicone cup with suction applied, then a mineral solution is painted on daily and the tooth remineralizes?

      It is also utilized against biofilms, for infection, and for root canals to kill all the problematic bacteria even into the miles of tubules before closing, and as a preventive measure to save roots (via painless injection), and for TMJ, gum disease, and for whitening. The gas is flooded into periapical pockets for 30 seconds and dentists are getting better and faster healing than with lasers.

      There are several Dental Ozone Associations for dentists and many now practicing in the USA and elsewhere. This is not a quick fix or miracle cure, but ostensibly, if children were given a treatment via a tray, 2X a year they would not succumb to decay or suffer cavitations.

      There are many, many peer-reviewed articles online as well as Youtube videos.

      Hope this helps!

    • For nutritional approaches to heal cavities and remineralize teeth (and bones) check out Ramiel Nagel’s _Cure Tooth Decay_. Also, look into the Weston A. Price Foundation.

  4. This may not be a popular opinion on this website (I love Charles’ work, by the way, and read some of it at least once a week), but I personally don’t think some of Sheldrake’s ideas stand up to scrutiny – formative causation and morphic resonance in particular. I don’t mean to troll here, and I know that’s not the explicit point of this podcast, but I feel pretty wary of holding him up as some sort of hero when some of his ideas just seem wrong – and here ‘wrong’ largely means ‘not supported by data, even his own experiments’, which seems to me the strongest form of ‘wrong’ possible, at least in a factual sense.

    Does anyone else have any opinions or thoughts about this?

Leave a Reply