Why Does Trinity College Give Rupert Sheldrake Funding?

[Kaylee]

This is a split from the Telephone Telepathy Thread.

Per Wikipedia, Rupert Sheldrake was educated at Cambridge University and currently receives funding (via the Perrott-Warwick Scholarship for psychical research and parapsychology) from Trinity College. Since I"m on the other side of the pond, I thought I'd double check my hunch that these institutions have excellenat academic reputations. Following the Wikipedia links I found out that indeed they do. Trinity College is a division (constituent college as they put it) of Cambridge and Cambridge is considered one of the most selective schools in England. Also that is was rated number 1 internationally in the sciences by the Times Higher Education Supplement and that it has more affiliates with Nobel Prizes than any other university in the world. Trinity College has 31 affiliates with Nobel Prizes and counts Isaac Newton among its alumni.

But I'm a little puzzled -- I've learned from older threads at this forum about Sheldrake that he has a reputation for being inaccurate and sloppy in his research methods -- so why has a division of Cambridge College given him funding? Is it possible that they don't consider Sheldrake a poor researcher? Or perhaps they do consider him a poor researcher and despite their reputation, they are not above being affiliated with a popular mass media author? Opinions?

 

[drkitten]

This is a split from the Telephone Telepathy Thread.

Per Wikipedia, Rupert Sheldrake was educated at Cambridge University and currently receives funding (via the Perrott-Warwick Scholarship for psychical research and parapsychology) from Trinity College.

But I'm a little puzzled -- I've learned from older threads at this forum about Sheldrake that he has a reputation for being inaccurate and sloppy in his research methods -- so why has a division of Cambridge College given him funding? Is it possible that they don't consider Sheldrake a poor researcher? Or perhaps they do consider him a poor researcher and despite their reputation, they are not above being affiliated with a popular mass media author? Opinions?

A better way to ask the question is "who are the Perrott-Warwick Scholarship and why are they so incompetent?" The faculty of Trinity College may not have that much direct control over how the funds are spent; it appears to be a semi-independent, self-governed fund.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is probably the whole people are free to research what they want type of thing.

 

[Tez]

It is probably the whole people are free to research what they want type of thing.

Sure - but that freedom is a privelige, one that cannot be given to everyone. So the question is more "why him?".

Then again Josephson is a nobelist at Cambridge who is even whackier...

 

[tkingdoll]

Trinity College just do the administration of the Perrott-Warwick Scholarship, they are not attached to the money itself or who it goes to.

Perrott and Warwick were, I have been informed, two spiritualists from the 1930s.

 

[Iamme]

I've learned from older threads at this forum about Sheldrake that he has a reputation for being inaccurate and sloppy in his research methods - Opinions?

You are using the opinions of forum members to denounce the reputation of a noted researcher? Based on what? That's like believing there is no God just because some forum members say so.

 

[Mercutio]

You are using the opinions of forum members to denounce the reputation of a noted researcher? Based on what? That's like believing there is no God just because some forum members say so.

Much better to do what I did--read his books (and see his movie). Then denounce his reputation.

I agree, Iamme--taking someone's word for it is the easy way out. If you actually read "the sense of being stared at", you have earned the right to denounce Sheldrake.

I note that you say "noted" researcher....a tad ironic to use that adjective, as it is also based on the opinions of others, not all of whom are even known to you. That's just like believing in god because some unknown author told you to.

 

[tkingdoll]

You are using the opinions of forum members to denounce the reputation of a noted researcher? Based on what? That's like believing there is no God just because some forum members say so.

Huh? That's not what Shera said. Shera said he/she had learned that Sheldrake has a certain reputation, and asked for clarification/confirmation on the situation.

It's absolutely, 100% correct that Sheldrake has a reputation for sloppy research methods. However, Shera didn't say that he/she believed that he is guilty of sloppy research methods, just that given that reputation, and if it is true, why is he funded by a reputable university. Which is a perfectly fair question.

Now, as it happens, he isn't funded by that university at all, but that doesn't mean Shera denounced Sheldrake.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is probably the whole people are free to research what they want type of thing.

So, you support scientific research of whether fairies and goblins exist?

 

[Kaylee]

Huh? That's not what Shera said. Shera said he/she had learned that Sheldrake has a certain reputation, and asked for clarification/confirmation on the situation.

It's absolutely, 100% correct that Sheldrake has a reputation for sloppy research methods. However, Shera didn't say that he/she believed that he is guilty of sloppy research methods, just that given that reputation, and if it is true, why is he funded by a reputable university. Which is a perfectly fair question.

Now, as it happens, he isn't funded by that university at all, but that doesn't mean Shera denounced Sheldrake.

Thanks Teek, that's a great summary and a great defense! Can I take you with me where ever I go?

Plus I'll just add that we already have a lot of threads about Sheldrake's findings and research methods. Iamme, if you like, just do a search on Sheldrake. You can also do a search on Sheldrake and my user name too if you prefer.

Back to this thread's topic --

I still find it puzzling that Sheldrake received funding from the Perrott-Warwick Scholarship because although Trinity College didn't fund it, it does administer it. Its my understanding that generally administers are able to choose, within the restrictions of the original donation's terms, whom to fund. Specifically I think that's the case for Trinity College because as per Drkitten's link to the description of the fund on Sheldrake's web site* the original bequest was made to the Master and Fellows of Trinity College.

This Trinity College link describes who the Masters and Fellows are:
http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/index.php?pageid=6

There are many links on the side which give additional information about them.

In general it seems that the Master must be a graduate of Cambridge University and that the Fellows are all professors (or perhaps retired professors) of Trinity College.

In addition per this Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow

The Colleges of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and Trinity College, Dublin, use the term "fellow" in a more specific sense. The fellows of a College form the governing body of the College, although they may elect a Council to handle day-to-day management.

So I think its fair to conclude that the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, the ones who received the bequest from Perrott and Warwick, have a great deal of actual as opposed to symbolic power.

I'm sure they are restricted by the terms of the bequest, but the restriction seems only to be that the funds be used for psychical research as Perrott defined it:

Frank Duerdin Perrott made a bequest to the masters and Fellows of the college "absolutely for the purpose of psychical research". He defined psychical research as:
"The investigation of mental or physical phenomena which seem prima facie to suggest (a) the existence of supernormal powers of cognition or action in human beings in their present life, or (b) the persistence of the human mind after bodily death".

Sheldrake is not the only one who does research in this area.


Also, the funding Sheldrake received was for the Perrott--Warwick Scholar at Trinity College (100,000 pounds over 3 years starting in Sept. 2005).

(links: http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/BCcontrov_reply.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/cambridgeshire/content/articles/2005/11/16/dr_robert_sheldrake_feature.shtml)

I'm not an academic, but that sounds like a college staff position. So now I not only question why Trinity College as an administrator chose to fund Sheldrake but why they chose to have him affiliated with their school as an employee.

Shera said he/she had learned

PS. I'm a "she".


* Note: Except for the last two sentences, it is the same description, word for word, as the one on Susan Blackmore's web site. http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/perrott.htm

I think at least one person owes a citation…

 

[Iamme]

Much better to do what I did--read his books (and see his movie). Then denounce his reputation.

I agree, Iamme--taking someone's word for it is the easy way out. If you actually read "the sense of being stared at", you have earned the right to denounce Sheldrake.

I note that you say "noted" researcher....a tad ironic to use that adjective, as it is also based on the opinions of others, not all of whom are even known to you. That's just like believing in god because some unknown author told you to.

My use of the word " noted" was used only in the sense that I wasn't going to slap on more highly decorated credentials, because I haven't really researched him too deeply. "Noted", because he is listed on the internet in various studies, like those conducted on the mental powers of African gray parrots?...if my memory serves me?

 

[Iamme]

Huh? That's not what Shera said. Shera said he/she had learned that Sheldrake has a certain reputation, and asked for clarification/confirmation on the situation.

It's absolutely, 100% correct that Sheldrake has a reputation for sloppy research methods. However, Shera didn't say that he/she believed that he is guilty of sloppy research methods, just that given that reputation, and if it is true, why is he funded by a reputable university. Which is a perfectly fair question.

Now, as it happens, he isn't funded by that university at all, but that doesn't mean Shera denounced Sheldrake.

You are right. I re-read the post. I stand corrected.

 

[Ririon]

My use of the word " noted" was used only in the sense that I wasn't going to slap on more highly decorated credentials, because I haven't really researched him too deeply. "Noted", because he is listed on the internet in various studies, like those conducted on the mental powers of African gray parrots?...if my memory serves me?

The word you are looking for is "infamous". Not "noted".

 

[Soapy Sam]

Much better to do what I did--read his books (and see his movie). Then denounce his reputation.

I agree, Iamme--taking someone's word for it is the easy way out. If you actually read "the sense of being stared at", you have earned the right to denounce Sheldrake.

I note that you say "noted" researcher....a tad ironic to use that adjective, as it is also based on the opinions of others, not all of whom are even known to you. That's just like believing in god because some unknown author told you to.

I have read it.
He's a nutter, but a noted nutter. I quite like Sheldrake- some academics are supposed to be nutters. It's traditional.

 

[tkingdoll]

Interestingly, his Wikipedia entry has now been amended to reflect the fact that the fund is administered by Trinity College, and not awarded by them directly. It was very misleading before, I...er...the wiki editor...felt that the distinction was important.

Apparently, the committee which awards the funds is made up of Trinity and non-Trinity persons, so it really isn't the college's endorsement, although I do think his reputation will start to rub off on them, as evidenced by this thread.

 

[Mojo]

The word you are looking for is "infamous". Not "noted".

Maybe the word should be "notorious"?

I would have thought that "infamous" is putting it a bit strongly, but then I've not read any of his books.

 

[Mojo]

I quite like Sheldrake- some academics are supposed to be nutters. It's traditional.

Or an old charter, or something.

 

[Lothian]

I am afraid you are all wrong it is spelt Pierrot and it is awarded to the biggest clown.

 

[Kaylee]

Interestingly, his Wikipedia entry has now been amended to reflect the fact that the fund is administered by Trinity College, and not awarded by them directly. It was very misleading before, I...er...the wiki editor...felt that the distinction was important.

Apparently, the committee which awards the funds is made up of Trinity and non-Trinity persons, so it really isn't the college's endorsement, <snip>

Linky? Both Sheldrake's and Blackmore's web site description of the Perrott-Warwick Scholarship Fund say that the original bequest was made to Trinity's College Master and Fellows. I didn't see any mention of any other non-Trinity organizations or people.

I just find it amazing (not sure what the right word is) that someone who has a poor reputation for doing research was given 100,000 pounds to do ... more research. I personally like many of Sheldrake's ideas, but IMHO at this point if any more money is awarded to investigate his ideas it would be far more effective to give it to others with reputable lab and statistical skills to see if they can replicate his findings. So if there are other people/organizations involved in rewarding grants from the Perrott-Wilkes Fund, I would love to know who they are.

I have to say that I'm not a scientist nor do I have a good understanding of statistics. And since Sheldrake did get this award -- one of the first things that occurred to me is perhaps he got a bad rap and maybe he does has some decent lab/statistical skills after all.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

His wikipedia article seems pretty unquestioning. There is some general acknowledgment of critics, but the bits about his conclusions are left unchallenged. Does anyone know of a handy critical look at his work (particularly the telephone telepathy "experiment" that could be added as a reference?