Scientists don't dislike his work because it goes against their theories. They dislike his work because there is no experimental support for it. If anyone could prove this stuff there would be nobel prizes galore for them. They can't prove it because he has the wrong type of theories and no possibility of proof.
Here's a video of Richard Feynman explaining what it takes for something to be real science, and why the letters from amateurs he keeps getting are incorrect. Sheldrake is no different from the people who wrote to Feynman:
There is also the issue of how much of their career a scientist needs to spend examining the theories of cranks. They have, after all, got their own jobs to do.
Perhaps it could be a tithe, in which scientists are ordered to spend one half day a week debunking perpetual motion machines before they are allowed to practice actual science?
Or perhaps the onus ought to be on Sheldrake to prove his theories rigorously first?
Here's a video of Richard Feynman explaining what it takes for something to be real science, and why the letters from amateurs he keeps getting are incorrect. Sheldrake is no different from the people who wrote to Feynman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
There is also the issue of how much of their career a scientist needs to spend examining the theories of cranks. They have, after all, got their own jobs to do.
Perhaps it could be a tithe, in which scientists are ordered to spend one half day a week debunking perpetual motion machines before they are allowed to practice actual science?
Or perhaps the onus ought to be on Sheldrake to prove his theories rigorously first?