There's a reason modern scientists don't take paranormal stuff seriously. It's not because they just unanimously hate paranormal ideology....it's because it's paranormal. It is, essentially by definition, inexplicable by science and/or reason. Otherwise it would just be science. I'm not trying to perpetuate the image of "science is better than religion" or whatever, I'm just saying, there is a reason behind this mentality.
All that being said, I do think Sheldrake is right on one aspect (to be clear, my only exposure to him is a TED presentation -- the one where he's barefoot on a fake platform of grass). He mentions, in some fashion, that modern scientists tend to think of modern scientific theories as being "scripture" (I'm using that analogy independently, I don't think he used it himself). I do believe that there's value in questioning even the most seemingly basic of popular concepts. This is, after all, the foundation of skepticism, which may be the philosophy I adhere to most dearly. As Bakker himself says, certainty is bullshit. Nothing is certain. Even the sky being blue...well, hey, the sky isn't really blue -- color is just something our ape-brains create in order to categorize the interactions of light upon matter. I mean, the Western analogy for obvious shit is, in itself, open to interpretation. That should tell you something.
But, when we've had decades -- millennia really -- without any meaningful evidence of telepathy, souls, ghosts, etc...well, there's a reason to assume it doesn't exist. For science to work, we have to accept certain basic principles. If we allow every free-radical inclusion, then we're not going to get anywhere. And, perhaps most importantly, the scientific method works. This is why we have modern medicine. This is why I'm able to write this post here and now.