Yeah, um, I'm intrigued by this notion of skepticism of telepathy because there's so much acceptance of other things like homeopathy and all the things that are skewed in the bad science column in the Guardian every week. So how come they

get up, they get more play than they should and people will take, you know, scientific from um, homeopathic vendors, but but they won't accept physical results from you. I think a lot of, I mean, it depends who I'm talking to. I give seminars, I'm

giving one in a couple of months' time at Chris French's department at Goldsmiths College, London, which is, he's the main professor of skepticism in Britain. He's professor of anomalous psychology and this, this is one of the main academic hotbeds of skepticism. I give

talks there, people listen, they, we have reasonable discussions um, and they know about the results, and very few of the people there exhibit this kind of prejudiced skepticism that I encounter all too often. A kind of ignorant, bigoted type of skepticism. Um, I think one of the reasons

that there's so much of that is that people who are really skeptical have such a strong belief that they, they know in advance the evidence must be wrong. You say, if you believe it's impossible, then if I come along and say, 'Here's results that show it's possible,' either

it proves I'm a fool, I've done the experiment so badly or incompetently, I've got false positive results and haven't been smart enough to see it, or I'm a fraud, I'm trying to deceive you and the world. And so the instant reaction is one of hostility and

accusing people of being fools or frauds, um Richard Dawkins, who's a very smart man, um is in this area not very smart at all. He's a very bigoted skeptic, and he came to interview me for his most recent TV series in Britain. He had one against

religion, a two-part pmic called The Root of All Evil. And his most recent series was called Enemies of Reason. Uh, it was about research in harisiology and alternative medicine. Um, they didn't tell me it was called Enemies of Reason beforehand when they asked me to take

part, but I've had enough experience of these negative, uh, media treatments and I'd seen his previous series that I was very suspicious, and I said I only agree to take part if it's a genuine scientific discussion about evidence, uh, and uh if he's really open to discussing

the evidence otherwise there's no point. And they gave me a WR, and I said I want it in writing. They gave me a written assurance that this was the case, so I agreed to meet him. And he came to see me, and he's we started off, there was a

handheld camera they put us facing each other, um, and he started off by saying he said, "I dare say we agree about quite a number of things, Rupert," he said, "but let me tell you what worries me about you." And I said, "Okay, what worries me about me?"

And he said, "What worries me about you is you're prepared to believe almost anything, and science should be based on the minimum number of beliefs." So I said, "Well, okay, well let me tell you what why me about you." I said, "You come across as prejudiced and bigoted, and I think you"

give science a bad name so we didn't get very far with that conversation so then he said the trouble with telepathy is that people are he said oh then he said extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof it's a standard skeptical slogan so I said

well what's the extraordinary claim I said the majority of say normal people in Britain believe they've had telepathic experiences in that sense it's not extraordinary it's ordinary most people have had it you're making the claim that most people are deluded about

their own experience where's your extraordinary evidence for that and he couldn't produce any at all you know he just said old people have a very false sense of statistics and probability and stuff generic arguments then I said well look okay why don't we get down to the

evidence and actually discuss the evidence uh which is why we've met he said I don't want to talk about the evidence and I said well why not he said there isn't time and I said well we've got plenty of time he said it's too

complicated I said no it isn't he said anyway it's not what this program is about and so I said well I um he didn't I'd sent him my papers three or four papers two weeks before so he could look at them he hadn't looked at them and he

was just trying to trap me into saying something silly and then put that on TV right so I said um okay well then uh then there's been a misunderstanding because I said I didn't want to take part in yet another low-grade debunking program he said it's not a low-grade

debunking program it's a high-grade debunking program so then the producer said cut and the cameras stopped rolling and so um then I said to the the the the director um is this a debunking program or not he said yes it's another Richard Dawkins pmic

and I said then you're here under false pretenses because you told me it was about evidence he said I didn't I said well your assistant did he said can you prove it and I said yes and I produced the email with this and I said I'm

afraid um there's been a serious misunderstanding he said well I'm afraid I have to agree with you that she should never have told you that that's not what it's about it's a polemic um and um I said well I'm going to have to ask you

to leave my house and I didn't sign a release I wouldn't actually mind if all that was put on the TV but I've written up an account of this it's on my website it's been published in several British journals called there if you want to

read the details it's on an account called Richard Dawkins comes to call um but that that's an example you see of someone with a huge media presence an enormous intellectual prestige because a lot of people think he's an incredibly smart guy who speaks for science in this

area whatever his virtues as a geneticist he he doesn't know anything about it he's speaking from prejudice and ignorance and and that's a very bad thing to do if you are as he is Professor of public understanding of science it doesn't further a public

understanding of science and that I'm afraid is why the debate on this is not often based on evidence and very often based on prejudice, stereotypes, and ignorance

Rupert Sheldrake vs. Richard Dawkins on Psychic Skepticism

Rupert Sheldrake vs. Richard Dawkins on Psychic Skepticism