I don't agree.

First, I didn't see proof in your "attack", other than the mention of one person with a similar attitude who dismissed Sheldrake's statements about dogs -- but no published paper showing the work. Ad hominem statements are not proof of anything other than grade school antics. And "explanations" are not proof either, if it is not necessarily true, 1+1=2, for example.

But you know this.

Personally, I see Sheldrakes depiction of 'morphic fields' to be suggestive of a possible avenue of exploration, given all the "epi-" nonsense going on in science of late.