Thank you for pointing out that this paper of Sheldrake's was indeed peer reviewed. That paper also mentions that three independent scientists were invited to a

Thank you for pointing out that this paper of Sheldrake's was indeed peer reviewed. That paper also mentions that three independent scientists were invited to attempt to replicate Sheldrake's work. In this paper by one of those scientists http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf one of the scientists (Wiseman) reports that they were in fact not able to confirm Sheldrake's findings, that Sheldrake had criticized their criteria for measurement _after_ they had led to failure, and badgered them into arbitrarily establishing other criteria for success. Wiseman also complains that he and his colleagues were badly misrepresented in Sheldrake's paper, and that Sheldrake tried to present excuses for the failed trials. This post hoc selection of evaluation criteria is one way in which crackpots massage experimental data to substantiate their claims. Honest scientists usually do their best to avoid it. In conclusion, in the one instance where an attempt was made to verify Sheldrake's strongest results, he was seen to be acting in a manner suspiciously characteristic of trying to introduce a bias in the direction he preferred. Even if he isn't intentionally dishonest, this man is almost certainly a crackpot.