Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

Objective writing on wikipedia

Please do not write your opinion just facts. This man really is a scientist: a phd. He wrote books and wrote a theory and even had hypothesistesting with it. There are also counter views and science isnt settled on this issue. However to write someoneis accused f beeing a pseudoscientist: tgere are no scientists on this world tgat have never been accused of doing pseudoscience. Science about new and in this case very broad abstract and fundamental subject matters are by definition debated about and there is no consensus. The term pseudoscientist is an opinion and Wikipedia should be about facts. Facts are he has a theory. Please dont use Wikipedia as a way to cent your opinion, it is ruining this medium. Nobody want toknow the writers opinion on someone, we just want tokniw what bookstgeories where he did his phd etc. there is something written about “new age” but that movement has little to do with this subjectmatter.on wikipedia people should stop ruining things by constantly in the intro saying their personal opinion on so eone; this is an online encyclopedia, its just a statement of facts. We dont want the writers opinion in every intro. Or if histheory is tge “truth” there is no totalitairian truth, there are just people writing books and writing theories and the reader should think We dont need the writers advice what we should think about it. 2001:1C02:2B15:2900:CC2B:6391:F413:2C6 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We document the facts and opinions described by reliable sources. No opinions from editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Please insert neutral header here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am disgusted by the incompetence and arrogance gathered in this article hoping to suffocate progress. This is not what Wikipedia should be for, you dare talk below about facts, but facts are REPRESSED AND REMOVED from the article. Here some BASICS that the article fails to honestly mention:

1. MOST IMPORTANTLY, Sheldrake is a proved high standing SCIENTIST. He studied biology and got his PhD from Cambridge, where he was sharing a house and frequenting some of the most brilliant minds of the time. At the beginning of his career he did way opening "main stream" research, which led to the fact the two of his papers were published in Nature, an achievement that most standing professors still dream of. PLEASE mention this and stop lying about him, as if he was just an "author"

2. Sheldrake decided to go his own way, being interested in phenomena for which there was no funding in academia, but he proceeded to be inventive and extremely cautious in EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. If he talks about evidence for the phenomena -- objective, seriously measured phenomena -- to which the morphogenetic field is just an ad interim PROPOSAL of an explanation, because the phenomena are not explained in present science, and the telephathy belong, his statistical support is so accurate, that I could only dream that the propaganda around covid had been supported by statistical evidence only 10% as accurate as Sheldrake's. I am sure that the ignorant contributors who dare cut explanations in favor of Sheldrake and spread difamation have no slight experience, never read a book or followed a complete conference of Sheldrake. To answer a question raised below by Thinker78 (talk · contribs): the only funding for study of parapsychological pheonomena, to what I know, comes from Koestler's funding of the society for the study of parapsychological phenomena. So yes, there have been empirical studies, but Sheldrake is leading by the extensivity and accuracy of his experiments, as well as the inventivity used. Nobody was abled to find flaws in his empirical studies, which why they go ad hominem directly, precisely as this page does.

3. His empirical facts on the morphogenetic field are impressive enough, for having motivated research by many other main stream scientists, who diversified the realm of observations -- but kept low profile, for understandable reason. He is not alone! I must take the time to present at least the basic of the empirical evidence that lead to the explanation ATTEMPT by the (consciently) vague notion of morphogenetic field. What multiple experiments prove is a SURPRIZING AND UNEXPLAINED non-local spread of knowledge from the experience of solving certain riddles. The typical experiments involve some labor animals who either work their way out of complex labirinths, or succeed to remove their food-reward from an intricate system of containers, achievements which all required many days and weeks for the first experiment subject to SOLVE. What happens is that when repeating the experiment with the same kind of animals, and the same challenge, in various remote locations, the time for solving the riddle dramatically drops, slowly to half or less of the initial time. It never increases. And this despite of the fact that any physical kind of information transmission is totally excluded. So this is a repetitive indication that something happens that goes against probabilities, and suggest a non local "storage of collective information of the species". Now that is empirical science of the best, and it was taken over by more teams -- yet a solid theory is certainly still out of reach. But facts OBLIGE us to accept SOMETHING IS GOING ON. So stop difamating the morphogenetic field explanation, or do your home work and explain what it is and why you feel so self-certain (NOT BY QUOTATIONS, PLEASE, by FACTS).

4. You completely fail to mention a fundamental book of Sheldrake, "The science delusion" in which he individuates and explains 10 fundamental unstated axioms that are hidden behind the main stream sceintific view of life and the Universe. Noone could prove him wrong, this why you preferred not to mention the book, not having base for difamation.

I have not more time to go into detail, but must say that I am appaled by the insiduousness of ignorant contributors who obviously have the say also in REMOVING positive information, in order to maintain the overall difamatory style of the page. I propose to these ignorants to make their own site called WikInquisition, since THIS is what their level of undersanding and intelligence is! Wikipedia initially intended to educate, not to cenzor and difamate -- for this main stream media suffices! —PredaMi (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR. See WP:WOT.

I stopped reading when even after three sentences, I found nothing related to article improvement.

If there is anything that is relevant for this page (meaning: helpful for page improvement), can you please repeat it without all the hate, preaching, and hate preaching around it? If not, please delete the whole thing, it does not belong here because of WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't refactor another editor's discussion heading with a POV replacement. The title was "WikInquisitia" not "Pro-fringe sermon". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

What you obviously mean is "do not replace my pro-fringe POV, however hateful, defaming and vilifying, with a wording more in agreement with Wikipedia rules".

The Inquisition was a murderous organization that tortured people and burnt them alive. Comparing Wikipedia with it is not appropriate, and if you reinstate it again, admins will have to take care of you.

Consult WP:SHOWN and WP:TALKHEADPOV, especially Never use headings to attack other users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consult WP:OWN and WP:NOTCENSORED for some balance. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You should consult WP:NPA (no perhaps about it) - Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor That exactly fits the original header: it equated the editors of this article with mass murderers.

Notorious WP:PROFRINGE editors should stop defending that personal-attack section header.

I repeat: Is there anything in this thread about improving the article without ignoring the Wikipedia rules? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"Notorious pro-fringe editor"? That, in itself, is a derogatory comment, and your edit summaries about "crackpots" and "crackpottery" make your own position eminently clear. As for blatant threats to other editors here, like "if you reinstate [the title] again, admins will have to take care of you", this really does the public perception of your cause no favours, whatsoever. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You may not like the original poster's rant, I might not like it, but from their point of view, they see areas in which the attitudes and stances of editors have been contributing negatively to the article, and they deserve to be heard and not ridiculed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

And, sure, if the original heading of this thread offends you and dishonours the discussion process, then please feel free to take the matter to an admin noticeboard. BTW, my advice would be to avoid the Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition, or else you might become traumatized. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

But amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as an almost fanatical devotion to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: Is there anything in this thread about improving the article without ignoring the Wikipedia rules? Or are you only here to whine about the existence of people who disagree with you? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"Derogatory" I think is only in the context of attacks against minorities or vulnerable groups. It is item 1.b. in the civility policy. Regarding WikInquisitia, I would say it would fit more in 1.a., c., d. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm dedicated to applying the WP:RULES, but I don't consider myself a fanatic. I.e. when proper WP:RS are presented, I am prepared to change my views, or at least allow opposite views in the articles.

But, anyway, we are not here to change basic website policies just because a random editor asks nicely. WP:PSCI has been adopted for a good reason, there is no motivation for dodging it inside this article.

And no, we are not preparing for Sheldrake getting burned at the stake, comparing expressing rational criticism to such crime is risible. Yup, this reminds me of Abd-ru-shin, who complained that he gets crucified through humor. (Mr. Bernhardt proclaimed himself the Son of Man, the Savior of Mankind, so he was duly mocked.)

@Hob Gadling: I think you should read the whole post. Why? Because it is involuntary humor.

I don't agree with Sheldrake's POV, but I find the 10 tenets of The Science Delusion to be enlightening. I just don't agree that the mainstream science and evidence-based medicine would be wrong for upholding these 10 tenets.

Do we know everything there is to know? No, but that isn't a reason to behave epistemically irresponsible.

And, PredaMi, the scientific community is the boss of what we write here. Sheldrake should solve his problem with the scientific community before attempting to fix his article at Wikipedia. We do not follow your opinions, we do not follow my opinions, we follow the broadly shared opinions among the scientific community.

Note that I'm not saying that science is always right, just that Wikipedia has absolutely no reason to endorse the WP:FRINGE. If present-day science has it wrong, then Wikipedia is also wrong. But it cannot be otherwise.

Sheldrake's problem is that scientists who are competent enough to provide the falsifiability of his magic field simply don't bother to perform the experiments (they have no incentive/funding to perform such experiments). So he is in the limbo of not even wrong. E.g. the idea that mice take at first 4 hours to solve a labyrinth, and you train them to do it in 15 minutes, then mice all over the world presented with a clone of that labyrinth would solve it in 15 minutes from the first attempt, sounds like a falsifiable claim. But it sounds so preposterous that serious scientists aren't willing to test it. And even if they would be willing to test it, getting funds for it would be difficult. They would ask grants saying "I want to debunk an idea widely considered preposterous. It has to do with the paranormal." Unlikely to get the grant. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I have read this entire diatribe, and both Sheldrake's education at the University of Cambridge and The Science Delusion are described in the article in extensive detail, so most of the poster's points are bogus. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@PredaMi try discussing the issues without violating the civility policy. You should edit your post to remove the instances of uncollegiality. Propose edits backed by reliable sources. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:REDACT to consider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Challenger

It solidifies Sheldrake as the most serious challenger to materialist philosophy in the modern world. — it's not written inside the article, so not actionable. Just a general reminder: if you keep your metaphysics unfalsifiable (i.e. make no predicaments about medicine and hard sciences), then mainstream science or mainstream medicine can neither endorse nor reject your metaphysics.

What Sheldrake does not get is that philosophy/metaphysics aren't part of science. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"predicaments"? Was that predictive text? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predicament , meaning simply something that gets stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought perhaps it had something to do with predication. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Sheldrake is more than happy to carry out empirical scientific studies (eg in the case of a person's awareness of being stared at, or whether a dog can be aware that their owner is on the way home, or most recently, whether a study involving a cloned Wordle puzzle would show an effect that might be attributable to "morphic resonance" as more and more players find the solution, and to have others attempt to replicate these studies.

As Sheldrake argues in the head-to-head alluded to above and referenced in the Wikipedia article, where he is especially at odds with many mainstream scientists and sceptics is that, in his opinion, their mechanistic materialist beliefs tend to minimise the credibility of such phenomena in their eyes, or even make study of such phenomena something unworthy of consideration, if not to be actively opposed as "cosmic woo". Indeed, their mechanistic materialist beliefs, in his opinion, present a stumbling block for understanding such psychic (or panpsychic) phenomena. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

His claims are technically falsifiable, but they lack biological plausibility (not: metaphysical plausibility), so mainstream scientists are not eager to falsify his claims. In the end, "that time never increases" seems a bit too fanciful to be true. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Those "empirical studies" can be done in a competent way, with blinding and so on, and if they are, the result is negative. Same as with other pseudosciences.

So he calls the logically unavoidable principle of starting from the null hypothesis until one has good reason not to, a "belief"? So what? That just shows once more he does not understand how science can and cannot work.

And he thinks everybody who disagrees with him is a "stumbling block". So what? That just shows once more he does not understand how the scientific community works.

None of all that makes him a "serious challenger". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

After the current text:

Reviewing the book, Susan Blackmore criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.

Add the following text right after:

In response to Susan Blackmore's critique, Rupert Sheldrake re-examined his twelve experiments. He found the percentage of time Jaytee spent by the window in the main period of Pam's absence was lower when the first hour was exluded than when it was included. Sheldrake noted, "Taking Blackmore's objection into account strengthens rather than weakens the evidence for Jaytee knowing when his owner was coming home, and increases the statistical significance of the comparison."

---

I believe I got the reference formatting correct although I'm not sure if '.' are allowed in the 'volume' field. Let me know. Jmancthree (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. — Antrotherkus ^{Talk to me!} 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted it as WP:UNDUE and soapboxing. I'm not sure what would be due without a better reference, nor should Wikipedia's voice be used for Sheldrake's claims. --Hipal (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

May I ask why would this be undue and soapboxing? Also, regarding the quote, there is specific guidance in the fringe theories guideline,

Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The only reference is him. --Hipal (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the info is properly contextualized. It is using neutral language in the form "he found" not "it was proven". Also, when he talks about statements of facts language like, "the objection strenghtens rather than weakens", he is quoting himself in a quote. Therefore, if it is a quote I think it is probably ok. Now if you still object to the statements of facts, maybe as a compromise it could be made a more neutral contextualized paraphrase. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that the text before that criticizes Sheldrake's findings: Reviewing the book, Susan Blackmore criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look., it is only fair that Sheldrake's rebuttal should be provided, in a neutral fashion, otherwise this is just another way for Wikipedia editors to further debunk Sheldrake and deny him redress. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely FALSEBALANCE.

he found: No. That's a claim he's making in his defense, with no independent verification. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The current Susan Blackmore paragraph is confused text. Worse:

Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.

I don't blame the original writer of this paragraph for misunderstanding what Susan said in the article, as it's of very poor quality, but Susan did not 'interpret the results' and she did not 'show that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look'. The article is speculation from Blackmore for how these results could have been produced due to what she thinks might've been design problems. A reader would be left with the impression that Susan has actually done a statistical analysis on the data and has found that the significant result vanishes when her critique is accounted for. Sheldrake's published rebuttal demonstrates this speculative theory is not the cause of the result and leads to a more significant p-value when accounted for.

I appreciate Sheldrake's rebuttal is unlikely to be merged into the article for 'reasons', but I'd like to atleast fix Susan Blackmore being misrepresented. Here's what I'd change it to (and as I don't have write permissions, you'll have to be the one to merge it in):

--------------------

Reviewing the book, Susan Blackmore speculated that the significant result might be coming from a problematic experimental design. She proposed that: 1) Because every test was longer than one hour, and if, 2) Jaytee's animal behavior was to settle down for the first hour its owner was away, then, 3) This could explain why it appears Jaytee is anticipating Pam's return as, in the data, Jaytee would always be resting the first hour and moving the remainder of the time.

--------------------

This text makes it clear Susan is merely proposing what could be a 'solution' for the problem, instead of something based on an actual analysis: as the current text reads. Of course her proposition doesn't actually vanish the significant result, but that's besides the point. Jmancthree (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say it is not about redress at all but about providing a proper balance to the article, which after all is a bio of Sheldrake himself. Only adding info about negative criticism of others against Sheldrake or his theories without including what Sheldrake said about it would certainly be unencyclopedic and more like a biased forum against Sheldrake. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's false balance. Please review the policy. --Hipal (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Per FALSEBALANCE,

Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

I read this as it is stated, that it does not need to be presented along mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. This means not to give the fringe theory equal validity as the mainstream scholarship, it does not preclude inclusion of fringe theory material. The policy does not state, it does not need to be presented along mainstream scholarship, as if they were of equal validity. Notice the comma that is not in the actual policy. This has a different meaning than the current policy, namely, it implies that including fringe theory material would provide for their equal validity with mainstream scholarship, which is not necessarily the case.

Therefore, the quote of the fringe theory policy that I quoted in a previous reply applies. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The article already includes the fringe theory material when it describes what the book is about. It then summarizes the criticism. That is where we ought to stop, we don't need and should not have an additional layer of response to the response, that is when the fringe position gets too much weight. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I only pointed out that FALSEBALANCE doesn't preclude the inclusion of the material at hand. But certainly whether to include it or not is a matter of consensus. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

FALSEBALANCE means that it is only fair that Sheldrake's rebuttal should be provided, in a neutral fashion does not fly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Not having better sources for the material is what precludes the inclusion.

As far as consensus is concerned, let's avoid any WP:CONLOCAL problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

References