Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

BBC and WP:SUBJECT on his wikipedia article

It does not yet seem to me that Sheldrake's concern over his Wikipedia page entry is defining enough in the context of Sheldrake to meet the threshold that we would include it in the article ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm inclined to agree - is it just because it's about WP that we find it interesting? Not sure. Has it been picked up elsewhere? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, his web page by itself would not be sufficient to include mention, but the BBC World Service interview on on 1 Nov 2013 increased its notability.[1] (at 8m02s) --Iantresman (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I hadn't seen that. That's quite significant - certainly worth a mention I'd think. Actually, I've starting to think this biography needs a Controversy section. It's sort of covered by some of the other headings, but not as cleanly as if we had something like that. What do you think? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE "controversy" sections are by their very nature not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As we have an inevitable conflict of interest here, is it worth keeping it a disclosure? The problem with that is that by complaining to the media, with complaints about a conspiracy that doesn't exist, Sheldrake hasn't given anyone a right of reply. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is: Has Sheldrake's public complaining about conspiracy theories on Wikipedia reached the point where it is a notable aspect of his profile or is it just navel gazing by Wikipedians thinking that anything involving Wikipedia must be important? To me it currently seems UNDUE. If he is still in the media about this in another six months or a year, then it would seem more appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it´s not worth mentioning at this point. We could put one of those "This article has been mentioned in media"-things on the talkpage, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECT says, "A mention of Wikipedia by a notable person is unlikely to justify a mention in their Wikipedia article. To avoid self reference, a mention needs to reflect its importance in their overall body of work." I don't think that's happened yet.

In the BBC interview alone he said there is a "systematic attempt to distort hundreds of pages on Wikipedia" and "they've got about five people banned so far". In making such fringe claims, WP:PARITY comes into play, allowing the claims to be debunked by self-published sources.[2][3] The article's own history page contradicts many of the claims. It's quite a curious case of self-reference. vzaak (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that Coyne has responded in the New Republic, and Chopra in some newspaper out of San Francisco, we have *more* than passed the WP:NOTEWORTHY standards, and are coming close to the controversy over bias in Sheldrake's wikipedia page being qualified to have a dedicated article per WP:N. Suggest a new talkpage-section be started, in which the additional sentence-or-two that will now have to be added, to the Sheldrake BLP mainspace article, is hotly debated. As for this talkpage section, please do not suggest sentence-wording here... if possible, restrict comments in this section to attempts to elide three-and-counting reliable sources from mainspace. p.s. Oxygen of publicity; think about it please. Backfire. Unintended consequences. Insert further shooting-oneself-in-the-foot metaphors here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

in english, por favor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm learning to speak Seventy-fourish. I think he's urging care in discussion and editing because of the potential for what intelligence-types call blowback. The effects of observation observer effect referred to in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could also prove problematic. David in DC (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

David gets the gold star. Blowback is part -- not the entire -- but part of the reason why jihadists *particularly* hate the USA. See for instance Iran and Iraq of the 1950s, and the billions in military funding to Israel today, cf stuxnet. For a similar problem, impacting other nations, see the Suez Canal in the 1960s. For the same effect in fiction, see what princess leia says to the empire -- the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through you fingers.

    Plain english: TRPoD, if you want The Sheldrake Media Phenomenon to be deprived of the oxygen of publicity, do exactly what David says, and if David makes an edit, never revert it, and if somebody else dares revert David, *you* revert them. This is a suggestion not an order, but David's been on the BLP circuit for years, and if he sees a problem, there is a problem, so trust him. WP:REDFLAG does not apply to whether or not Sheldrake is a biologist. It only applies to whether or not morphic resonance is, or is not, mainstream science. Period. Full stop. No hopping the field-of-inquiry-fences into BLP violations. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have commented out the "incident". There is still no evidence that Sheldrake being upset about the Wikipedia article about Sheldrake has become in anyway a defining aspect of Sheldrake or of any importance outside of Sheldrake being upset. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

No one has presented any rationale for why Sheldrake's whining about the coverage of him in Wikipedia is at the WP:SUBJECT threshold. Yes, Sheldrake has whined about it on his blogs. Yes the BBC had an interview where he whined about it (where they did not interview any other parties to get other views) and Sheldrake's friend Chopra whined on Sheldrakes behalf on Huff Po attacking the same "militant atheist skeptics" that he is whining about on his own blog about the Wikipedia article about Chopra because whining about a friend does not look as bad as whining about yourself. But its all just a nonsense blip. Sheldrake will get over the fact that he cannot have Wikipedia be a platform for promoting his ideas. Or he will maintain a new pointless crusade against conspiracy theories of militant atheist skeptics Wikipedia for the next six months or a year and then we can consider his obsession to be a worthy aspect to cover. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The BBC defines WP:NOTEWORTHY, not wikipedians. Reliable Sources define pillar two, not wikipedians. WP:UNDUE is not a license for wikipedians to delete Reliably-Sourced-materials. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong on all points

WP:UNDUE is PRECISELY a "licence" to delete sourced content that does not appropriately belong in an encyclopedia article because of its triviality.

BBC does NOT define whether or not filler on a slow news day is an important encyclopedic aspect of an article, se WP:NOTNEWS . per your As your WP:NOTEWORTHY , it specifically points out "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content .... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies ... Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." So, from a neutral point of view, and Wikipedias other policies such as WP:SUBJECT, I still fail to see that Sheldrake and his friends making bizarre conspiracy claims about the Wikipedia article are at this point important enough to Sheldrake to include. If he is still squawking and getting covered about his whining in 6 months, then come back but otherwise this is just calling out a pimple on his nose and not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

removed "decidedly psuedoscientific " as it's not a true statement but a personal opinion

I have removed the above as not only is it personally damaging, but it's not actually a true statement the word 'decidedly, smacks of biased, warped opinion. I am also dismayed to see how much further these arguments have got and how little consensus has been reached. It's a sad, sad day for wikipedia editing when there are such forceful opinions, that aren't actually shared by Mr/Ms/Mrs General Public Veryscarymary (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that "decidedly pseudoscientific" should only be used in a quotation. However, if it is in a quotation and we attribute it to the people who said it, I don't see the issue. jps (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And now "widely"

The introduction now says that "morphic resonance .. is widely considered pseudoscience"[4][5]. The use of the adjective "widely" is clearly a weasel word. Editors have been pushing for good peer reviewed sources, yet the reference provided for the "pseudoscience" assertion is a book on Foreign Policy[6] by economist Ruchir Sharma. It does not appear to be a reliable source, let alone an independent reliable secondary source.--Iantresman (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Cricket Iantresman (talk · contribs) - you do really know how to creative interpret sources don't you? How is "widely" given the views held by the following:

• Prof. Peter Atkins FRSC
• Sue Blackmore
• Robert Todd Carroll
• Prof. Brian Charlesworth FRS
• Prof. Jerry Coyne
• Prof. Richard Dawkins FRS
• Martin Gardner
• Prof. Barry Keverne FRS
• Sir John Maddox FRS
• Prof. Michael J. Morgan FRS
• Prof. P.Z. Myers
• Prof. Alan J. Parkin
• Prof. Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow OM Kt FRS
• Dr Adam Rutherford
• Prof. Steven Rose FSB
• Michael Shermer
• Prof. Lewis Wolpert CBE FRS
• The Rt Hon. Prof. Robert Winston, Baron Winston FMedSci FRSA FRCP FRCOG FIBiol FREng(Hon)
• Prof. Richard Wiseman
• etc?

The sources back up the assertion. You know it, but you're trying to wriggle out of it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since they don't want widely, just include the FULL LIST of those that consider it psuedoscientific. That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

With WIKILINKS all round. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The source provided did not support "widely". A list of names is not a list of sources, there is nothing for editors to check. Please provide sources, you would expect no less. --Iantresman (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• It seems that Prof. Peter Atkins acknowledged in a live radio debate that he hadn't actually studied Sheldrake's evidence.[7][8] Which part of the scientific process do you think Atkins was using, or perhaps he is psychic? I couldn't find a source suggesting that Atkins thinks that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience, let alone that we should consider him a reliable source. Leg before wicket or are you playing fantasy cricket? --Iantresman (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "widely" is a bit of a word to avoid if, for no other reason than it's slightly question begging (widely in relation to what group?). I would prefer something like what we have in the third paragraph of the lede, "scientists and skeptics have labeled it pseudoscience", but have to admit to not being too concerned about the current phrasing and am certainly not bothered enough by it to change it myself. jps (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Addendum: Immediately after writing this, I have decided that I actually can be bothered. [9]. jps (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should look at the sources first. --Iantresman (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've all read your opinion to that effect. jps (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

are there any sources that say or in any way give any impression it is NOT widely regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream academic community? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is my initial analysis of the names:

• Sheldrake:"if he’s actually read the evidence?". "No" - Prof. Peter Atkins.[10]
• "Sheldrake is scientific" - Sue Blackmore.[11]
• "Granted its scientific" - Prof. Steven Rose.[12]
• "Sheldrake is a sort of "God of the gaps" scientist" - Dr Adam Rutherford.[13]
• "admitted that he had not even seen the book" - Michael Shermer [14]
• "the patterning in my studies are the same as the patterning in Rupert’s studies" - Prof. Richard Wiseman.[15]
• "Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist" - Robert Todd Carroll.[16]

Two hadn't read Sheldrake's evidence/book, four say he is scientific, and Wiseman said his study saw the same results. This is not looking very good. --Iantresman (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

are you purposefully trying to present things out of context? "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects ... [Sheldrakes ideas] did, indeed, appear completely scatty. ...And as for the paranormal, I spent the best part of 30 years trying to find evidence of paranormal phenomena and failed. My initial belief was wrong, I concluded, and so I changed my mind and became sceptical. Sheldrake has not changed his mind, and goes on believing in telepathy."- Sue Blackmore.[17]--

"Granted its scientific and philosophical implausibility " - Prof. Steven Rose.[18]

"Sheldrake is a sort of "God of the gaps" scientist. He sees gaps in knowledge, and inserts supernature as an explanation. There are three basic flaws with use of this tool. First is that it's just not scientific." - Dr Adam Rutherford.[19]

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I provided more context than a list of names, and a citation so you can check the context. None of them say or imply that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscientist (they say the opposite). Blackmore disgrees, Rose's "philosophical" is not about science, and Rutherford is discussing a "supernatural tool". But let's not distract ourselves from the anticipated reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You false context in a manner that displays either severe lack of WP:COMPETENCE or a deliberate attempt to mislead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think if we want to say these people have said Sheldrake's ideas are "pseudoscientific" (quite a specific complaint) then we had better have them actually saying that. Most of the quotes above not only don't say it (none of them say it explicitly in fact), but don't even come close. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Found two (in addition to Maddox):

• Jerry Coyne, on his blog.[20]
• PZ Myers on his blog.[21][22]
• Maddox opinion piece in Nature.[23]

Total pseudoscience sources to date: 3. --Iantresman (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't use any word that matches pseudo[-]scien* doesn't mean they don't mean it is. Rose for example gives a very good definition of how matches pseudoscience without actually mentioning the word. Morgan says he is "very wrong". They all broadly agree and show a deep consensus that it's not scientific.

I really can't believe we're having this argument. In the words of Stephen Fry: "Are you incapable of rational thought? You cannot be that stupid" [24] . Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to libel someone you really should have a good source. No?Barleybannocks (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

By conducting an experiment designed to falsify morphic resonance, Rose demonstrated that Sheldrake is proposing a scientific hypothesis. This applies to Wiseman as well. The implication of testing morphic resonance is that it's testable and therefore scientific. The opinions expressed by a handful of critics cannot overturn the fact of testability. If this fact goes unreported, the Sheldrake page cannot be considered neutral. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Barney Not according to:

• per WP:SYNTH "Do not [..] reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• per WP:LABEL "The prefix pseudo- [..] Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt."
• per WP:GRAPEVINE (WP:BLP): "Remove immediately any contentious material [..] that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"

--Iantresman (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

that they think it is "not science" dressed up in science clothes is most certainly "implied " and is many cases stated even if not using the specific term "pseudoscience"; so your SYN argument is off the table. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the quote specifically contradict your claim, they specifically tell us that they think Sheldrake is "scientific". And then you are drawing your own opposite conclusions which is WP:SYNTH. And it still fails WP:LABEL and WP:GRAPEVINE. --Iantresman (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, Ian, you're arguing that we should not call the idea of morphic resonance a "pseudoscience", right? jps (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem stating that there are sources which state that morphic resonance is pseudoscience. But I have a problem when editors claim that some sources are describing something that sounds to them like pseudoscience, but the author is not saying that it is pseudoscience. Just because it lays eggs, has a bill, webbed feet, and lives in water, doesn't mean its a duck, when it turns out to be a Platypus. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like duck, it can still be a goose. --Iantresman (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

QTip, Just because Iantresman can't tell the difference between a duck and a goose doesn't mean we shouldn't call MR pseudoscience. That has to be one of the most specious points made on this page recently. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we need to decide how to write the article. Arguing over arcane interpretations of sources is missing the point, in my humble opinion. We are in agreement that there are sources which characterize morphic resonance as a pseudoscience. Therefore, it should be uncontroversial to include this in the article. The exact wording can be discussed. jps (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone actually oppose inclusion in the article, as long as the sources are clear and the extent of that view is not misrepresented or misattributed. It is also worth noting, however, that there are a significant number of scientists (at the moment not far off a match in terms of numbers with those who say pseudoscience) who say it is not pseudoscience (irrespective of whether it is right or wrong).Barleybannocks (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Significant number"? The only ones I see are Hans-Peter Dürr and David Bohm, neither of which are really considered to be on the up-and-up when it comes to matters of fringe interpretations of quantum mechanics upon which Sheldrake seems to desperately want to hang his hat. jps (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, Nobel laureate in Physics

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder

Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University

Stuart Hameroff, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital

Neil Theise, MD, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York

That'll be 8 so far, counting your two. Iantresman also provided a set of links to a number of academic works referencing Sheldrake and his ideas which I don't think were from any of the above named scientists. Thus we'll almost certainly be over ten once those are taken into account.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Differentiating between a duck and goose would be a species point. --Iantresman (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) and Iantresman (talk · contribs) - could you please provide us with these references as a list with full titles of the papers, etc? I suspect many of these are psychology-based which is a science that hasn't yet moved away from prescientific and quasi-philosophical (i.e. nonsensical) ideas, in which the ghost of Freud looms large, but if they have positive comments and aren't published in pseudojournals then we might be able to include them. Also important is what they say rather than just citing him as they may be citing him negatively. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC) - PS books on spirituality in horses, which is the best I found, don't count. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The main source for 4 of them is the letter signed by all at the Huffingotn Post in which they, amongst other things, defend Sheldrake from charges of pseudoscience. The link is above where this list is repeated. It's nothing much, just an opinion piece in HuffPo, but it's in line with the other sources currently used for the contra Sheldrake views. Bekoff's article is also cited above. Josephson's is, I think, in the article already. And Iantresman has, below I think, provided a list of academic books in which Sheldrake and his theories are discussed in terms of being science.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that you're correct, Barney. Brian Josephson is a fairly famous pseudoscientist in his own right. Marc Bekoff is an ecologist who doesn't really seem qualified to judge this particular matter of physical import, and the remainder are just signatories of a letter to TEDx (along with Chopra) who are all related in one way or another to pseudoscientific speculation on consciousness or alternative medicine. Yes, scientists can support pseudoscience. Yes, these people are somewhat notorious for doing so. Shall we move on? jps (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to rule out everybody, including Nobel laureates because they disagree with you then you would appear to making a mockery of the very idea of a scientist. I don't think it's up to wikipedia editors to try to change the world through these pages. These people are scientists plain and simple. More so than a good number on the list of critics. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether they are scientists or not isn't really the issue. The issue is whether morphic resonance is a pseudoscience. I do not consider this list of pseudoscience-supporters to be a good list on which to determine that morphic resonance actually isn't a pseudoscience. jps (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So a list saying yes is a good list but a list saying no is bad one. Not quite sure I follow your reasoning. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

While we don't really write Wikipedia on the basis of listing people who say this or that, it's nice to know precisely who the people are who do say such things. That there are certain scientists who support pseudoscience is rather unremarkable. Further, I do not think this particular list demonstrates that there are a significant number of scientists who think morphic resonance is not a pseudoscience, especially considering that many of those on the list are notorious supporters of pseudoscience (Josephson, Hameroff, etc.). jps (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Josephson has somewhat of a reputation for supporting "fringe science" but he should be included of course. Deepak Chopra has worse issues (alt med kills, at least MR doesn't). Please though, anyone else? Anyone? Please, the key is sourcing, let's get these sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources are there - links above where the list first appears. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sources that describe Brian Josephson as a fairly famous pseudoscientist. --Iantresman (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss the (lack of) existence of such sources at Talk:Brian Josephson. jps (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of OR going on here interpreting certain scientists who support Sheldrake. Barney the barney barney (talk) - are editors allowed to interpret in this manner? Clearly we have conflicting sources that say conflicting things. It would make sense to show both sides if that is the case, would it not? Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a leading question Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) - and I guess you know the answer. There is no OR going on, only WP:COMMONSENSE (from some of us at least). Please provide solid sources, and we'll include them. We already have a small number, but WP:GIVAL applies, i.e. we shouldn't be pretending that the views of Josephson, Tudge and Chopra are mainstream or giving them undue prominence. Josephson is a well known for his unorthodox academic activities. Let's not pretend he isn't, like we're not pretending that this page isn't WP:FRINGE. I keep asking for sources. Please provide sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we could go through the above list of Sheldrake's critics and make some observations about the particular reasons for notability of around half, and it isn't for their science. That is, a significant number of them are involved in various, but in many cases the same, non-scientific advocacy groups. Groups which advocate science be pressed into the service of a singular religio-socio-political agenda. Many others are very outspoken atheists - a view on religion which may by held by a majority of scientists but which in no way can be construed as the view of mainstream science. It is therefore unclear which particular hat those particular commentators were wearing when they critiqued Sheldrake. Indeed, the responses by some of those supportive of Sheldrake make reference to this situation. Thus, I think, it is clear we do not simply have a group of scientists qua scientists on either side here, as opposed to a significant amount of scientists qua religio-socio-political activists. It's also far from clear the we as editors should turn a blind eye to this since it will almost certainly have been mentioned regularly throughout Sheldrake's career, and has definitely been mentioned prominently with regard to the TEDx controversy. A groups of random scientists saying sciencey things with nothing but science on their mind this is not.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

what nonsense. whether someone is an atheist or not has zero relevance on their ability to critique science or in this case pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said that whether someone is an atheist necessarily has relevance in that way. What I said, and if you want sources there are dozens, is that when someone is a high profile member of a non-scientific group (and is notable only as a member of that non-scientific group) and critiques science that seemingly run counter to the non-scientific aims of that non-scientific group, in a manner that is clearly related to the aims of that non-scientific group, then it is not immediately clear that we can treat their critiques as primarily coming from scientists qua scientists as opposed to scientists qua members of a non-scientific group. The same obviously goes for positive reviews if they come from members of another non-scientific group with aims seemingly supported by the science in question. Are you suggesting that, eg, it is a coincidence that almost everyone on the list of detractors is either a member of such a non-scientific group or allied with some of the aims/beliefs of those groups through widely known non-scientific commentary? Barleybannocks (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, utter nonsense. People get professorships and fellowships of learned societies for doing science that is considered excellent by their peers, not for sociopolitical advocacy of religious viewpoints. While good scientists are usually good sceptics, because scientific scepticism is part of the scientific process. It does seem that statistically, if you're a good scientists, you are likely to be an atheist too. But you get known for your science, and this works both ways - Brian Josephson is notable for his pre-Nobel work in physics, not his post-Nobel dalliances with the supernatural. Furthermore, Lord Rees is a Christian, winner of the Templeton Prize - and as master of Trinity, he's disowned Sheldrake. Steven Rose and Richard Dawkins mutually disagree with each other on other things. WP:GIVAL we have to go back to relying on credentials. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but many on that list have no professorships nor fellowships of learned societies. And many others on the list are best known for their non-scientific religio-political activism. These point are made in a number of our sources and so to say, eg, Richard Dawkins speaks only as always as a scientist is fairly ridiculous. He sometimes speaks as a scientist, but more commonly speaks as a high-profile New Atheist. As such, and since numerous source mentions facts like this, we should not, imo, simply pretend it isn't true. As I also said though, the same is obviously true for some scientists who support Sheldrake. Thus we might say that the scientific community qua scientific community has largely ignored Sheldrake (his views have certainly not been taken up by that community in its work on morphogenesis), an additional dispute has arisen in the wider world primarily over the perceived metaphysical implications of his theories. Some see this as trying to introduce magic into science, while others see this as an attempt to remove immaterial Platonic entities from the heart of science. These and other issues drag the discussion into areas of philosophy, philosophy of science, religion, and politics, and I don't think we should simply shut our eyes an pretend these issues don't exist. They do, and are frequently referred to in reliable sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophers and sociologists of science with academic credentials would be good sources too. We have one, Mary Midgley, and I believe this is covered in the article. Again, more pro-Sheldrake sources would be welcome. Dawkins is not one of our sources for this article, although I have no doubt as to what his views are, I don't think the extrapolation is too hard. Let's not get too bogged down with that. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Editors are not allowed to make their own interpretation. WP:RS is a core policy that warns us against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

• WP:BLP: "information about living persons .. must adhere strictly to .. Wikipedia's three core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR"
• WP:SYNTH: "Do not [..] reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• WP:GRAPEVINE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"
• WP:LABEL: "The prefix pseudo- [..] Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt."
• WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources"

Just to be clear, I have no problem attributing some scientists describing some of Shreldrake's work as pseudoscience, if that is indeed what they say (ie. not what editors think they mean). --Iantresman (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

none of that applies as "morphic resonance" is not a living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Really??? (1) WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY apply to all Wiki content. (2) Calling "morphic resonance" pseudoscience, or called Sheldrake a pseudoscientist, may be affected by the fact that this is a biography of a living person. --Iantresman (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

reconsidering "widely"

per Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories the use of "widely considered pseudoscience" is probably ill considered. WP:SPADE, we just call the spade the spade without any of the accusations of "weasel" and use "morphic resonance is a pseudoscientific concept"]]-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no problem attributing some scientists describing some of Shreldrake's work as pseudoscience, if that is indeed what they say (ie. not what editors think they mean). This is not the same as saying that Sheldrake's work IS pseudoscience, as is evidenced by all the other sources that disagree. --Iantresman (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, WP:SPADE applies to the behaviour of editors, not content. --Iantresman (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably. Considering Iantresman (talk · contribs)'s tireless efforts to point this out, I'm in favour of a WP:LEAD summary that contains a summary of the quite numerous criticisms, of not only that it is pseudoscience, but why it is pseudoscience, with appropriate mentions of vagueness, falsifiability/testability, and contradiction of existing scientific theories. This is pretty much what we have at the moment, anyway. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And in contradiction of the many reliable secondary sources which tend to describe Sheldrake as a biologist/scientist,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] compared to the odd blog which describes him as a pseudodscientist.[38][39] --Iantresman (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You know Ian, just repeating your point over and over doesn't make your assessment any more intelligent or correct. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a very straightforward assessment. Here are some sources that say P, and here are some fairly equal and opposite sources that say not-P. The question being why should we completely ignore the sources that say not-P. Surely not simply on the grounds that the scientific community has not accepted Sheldrake's work since that point is consistent with both P and not-P. That Sheldrake could simply be wrong, even wildly wrong, but scientifically wrong nonetheless, does not seem to have been considered as even a possibility by the pro-P advocates. And yet a number of sources make this point.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You know Barney, just repeating your point over and over again... The difference is that I provide a rationale and back it up with over a dozen sources, whereas you back up your statement by insulting my intelligence. --Iantresman (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Iantresman (talk · contribs). I really don't want to repeat myself but some people are clearly incapable of understanding the first, second, or indeed third time. Your intelligence is very good - you are very capable of misrepresenting and creatively interpreting sources. That requires some intelligence. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I need you to walk me through this Barney the barney barney (talk), because I am not seeing the common sense you suggest. You say: There is no OR going on, only WP:COMMONSENSE (from some of us at least). It doesn't appear your being forthcoming here and let me explain why it looks that way. Using the latest source as an example. Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He not only says Sheldrake is a well known biologist, but that his work needs to be reconsidered in addition to acknowledging that it has been peer reviewed. You ask to provide "solid sources", and if so "we'll include them". Well that's a pretty solid source. You mentioned this source should be dismissed because he is professor of ecology, failing to mention he is professor emeritus of ecology AND evolutionary biology. Why should this source not be considered again? And since this, like a number of other sources, conflict with other sources, why is it we should only consider one batch and not the other? Doesn't common sense suggest that to say neutral, we must provide both? I'm failing to see your argument here, but if you provide one, especially one that I cannot refute, I'll be happy to accept your claim. Philosophyfellow (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Barney the barney barney (talk) - I am still waiting an answer to my query above. This is a very relevant question and without a proper answer that is consistent, there is no support for your editing decisions. Why are you rejecting Marc Bekoff as a reliable source when he is professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology? Is it because we have conflicting sources and Wikipedia policy is clear how to approach this issue and you're uncomfortable with the outcome? Please, a reasoned argument supported with sources only. No ad hom, no references Fringe, no opinions and no interpretations. Straight answers only. Thank you. Philosophyfellow (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Berkoff is a good source and should be included. Note however what he says - he says that Sheldrake's ideas "deserve more attention" rather than "Sheldrake is right". We can include that. he also says that "Sheldrake is publishing in peer-reviewed journals" - this is plainly not true, so it does present more of a problem with how to deal with it. I wonder why Berkoff himself isn't doing any MR-related experiments? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again you display your ignorance of the subject at hand. Since 2000 Sheldrake has published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Theoretical Biology Forum, Anthrozoos, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, Psychological Reports, Perceptual and Motor Skills and Journal of Parapsychology. All are peer reviewed. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney the barney barney (talk). Thank you for identifying Berkoff is a qualified source for use in this article. Now that we have qualified sources and valid academic peer reviewed journals that publish the research of a *known* biologist which is supported by primary and secondary sources, I assume this matter is now resolved. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, dilemma but those sources are clearly from pseudojournals (i.e. not peer reviewed). But now what do we do? Do we go with the opinion of misguided scientist, or do we go with that as you suggest, or do we apply WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMONSENSE? We cannot present this as fact, especially since we have another source (Rutherford) who points out that he hasn't published his work in peer reviewed journals. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please list all of the active threads...

About this article or editors' behavior in editing this article that are ongoing on the noticeboards? I know about the current BLP noticeboard thread, which is properly noted on the top of this page. But if there are others, it would be nice to know just how many BATTLEGROUNDS this thing is being fought out upon. Especially because it was just suggested that one of my edits might be seen as an attempted "suicide by cop". David in DC (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is under dispute at neutral point of view and fringe theories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_.28again.29 Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the following (editors are welcome to add missing discussions):

Active threads

• (Oct 2013) WP:FTN   "Sheldrake again" (P) (Barney)
• (Nov 2013) WP:BLPN  "Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP_mess" (P) (Philosophyfellow)
• (Nov 2013) WP:NPOVN "Bias in the Rupert Sheldrake article" (P) (Alfonzo Green)

Inactive threads

• (Oct 2013) WP:BLP "Rupert Sheldrake" (David in DC)
• (Oct 2013) WP:AN/I Conspiracy theories - Rupert Sheldrake (user: IRWolfie-)
• (Nov 2013) WP:AN/I Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake (User:Mangoe)
• (Aug 2013) WP:DR  "TALK:Rupert Sheldrake" (Tumbleman)
• (Jul 2009) WP:FTN "Rupert Sheldrake" (Hrafn)
• (Aug 2013) WP:FTN "Rupert Sheldrake" (Barney))
• (Oct 2013) WP:FTN "Conveying_the_acceptance_level_of_a_fringe..." (Vzaak)
• (Oct 2013) WP:FTN "Fringe_squared:..." (Vzaak)
• (Oct 2013) WP:FTN "Fringe theorists" (Dan skeptic)

• (May 2008) WP:RS "Are_the_writings_of_Rupert_Sheldrake..." (Hrafn)

Other threads

• (Oct 2013) User:Vzaak/Sheldrake response
• (Jan 2012) User:I am not a dog/Sheldrake
• (various) Discussions on user talk pages

User related / Blocks

• (Oct 2013) WP:AE user:198.189.184.243 (One month block per AE) (Vzaak)
• (Oct 2013) WP:AE User:Tumbleman (indef block per AE) (User:IRWolfie-)
• (Nov 2013) WP:AN User:Bbb23 (jps)
• (Nov 2013) WP:AE Alfonzo Green (P) (User:Mangoe)

--Iantresman (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not Pseudoscience??? Has anybody got evidence that Shelly's ideations are anything but Pseudoscientific?

Currently, woolly thinkers on this page are trying to suggest that Shelly isn't doing pseudoscience. Is there any evidence for such assertions? Could it be outlined by anybody here? Lets see links to all this science that Rupe is engaged in? Thank you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Popperian concept of pseudoscience involves proposing theories that have high explanatory power and which are not falsifiable. So far I haven't come across any serious analysis that suggests Sheldrake is proposing such a theory. MR is falsifiable in that it makes predictions that can be tested - you will find many such tests cited already. This, arguably, is the crux of the scientific endeavour. Obviously there is a vast political dimension to science, but by any serious measure Sheldrake is proposing a theory he aspires to test - he isn't making the kind of claims Popper tagged as pseudoscientific viz. Marxism, or Adlerian psychotherapy that can accommodate every conceivable outcome from a test as confirming the theory. And while there are obvious disputes over interpretation of data, there is data that may/may not show MR to be false. This is not the case with pseudoscience. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of what Sheldrake does isn't pseudoscience. For example some pieces on the likes of science funding, using the first person in descriptions of experiments, are not pseudoscience. Also, some of the criticisms of the scientific community as set out in Science Set Free are known to sociologists of science (e.g. the file draw effect).

Contrary to what Blippy (talk · contribs) tries to suggest, we're not allowed to do original research. The biggest prediction of MR is that fields of embryology, developmental biology, genetics and animal behaviour should be getting very confusing results. That we know a lot more about about all of these areas 2013 than we did in 1981, and our basic scientific theories in these areas haven't changed, implies that science is on the right track, after all, and Kuhnian paradigm shifts are overrated (as Maddox alluded to way back in '81). The truth is that MR hasn't been tested in depth largely because it's contradicted by existing evidence. But we're not allowed to say the obvious because it's "OR"

Meanwhile, we have numerous scientific sources saying that MR is not falsifiable, which is what we have to rely on. That some people have tried to test MR only implies that versions of the hypothesis are testable. The Rose experiments are a case in point in which Sheldrake changed his prediction about what MR would do when he saw the results.

You've got it exactly backwards. Sheldrake never changed his prediction. It was Rose who had to figure out a way around the finding that day-old chicks seemed to be influenced by the experience of previous day-old chicks. Sheldrake was happy to publish the results, but Rose reneged on his agreement to publish them jointly. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also struggling to find a scientific source, other than Brian Josephson, as an actual scientist in favour of Sheldrake's work. I'd really like to include such source if possible. Chopra has his own credibility problems. If not "real" scientists then sociologists and philosophers are the next best thing, e.g. Mary Midgley, we got her. Anyone else at all? Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder

Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University

Stuart Hameroff, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital

Neil Theise, MD, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York Barleybannocks (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

An article on Sheldrake by Bekoff can be found here

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201311/why-dogs-hump-and-rupert-sheldrakes-morphogenic-fieldsQuotes

And a letter from the others can be found here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dear-ted-is-it-bad-scienc_b_3104049.html

In the letter I note the following

"Sheldrake's talk was on "The Science Delusion" and covered ten dogmas in mainstream science that need to be examined; there wasn't a hint of bad science in it." And,

"Quantum entanglement could account for Rupert Sheldrake's findings"

Now, whatever one thinks of this, it seems clear that there is at least some support for Sheldrake within the scientific community, and there are scientists who do not regard his work as pseudoscience. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly did I suggest we should violate WP:OR? If you read RTD's question and my response you will see I was answering that question. I did not deny there are scientists who have characterised MR as pseudoscience, however I pointed out that these aren't any serious analyses (as far as I'm aware), Maddox's editorial and subsequent interview are clearly nothing of the sort. Rose and Wiseman are critical of the theory based on their attempts to falsify it - by definition the antithesis of characterising it as pseudoscience. If a theory is testable, and if the results of those tests can demonstrate the theory to be wrong, then that theory is falsifiable. MR is such a theory, and there are many attempts to test it by Sheldrake and other scientists - not least Rose & Wiseman. Disagreements over the results is standard scientific dialogue, not pseudoscience. And just to be clear for those unwilling to see, all of this is my analysis in response to RTD's original question, I'm not making edits, merely attempting to move the conversation beyond the superficial name calling that seems to have dominated proceedings to date. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blippy (talk · contribs) - Maddox was entirely serious, and if you read the piece, he does identify several features that are characteristic of pseudoscience. So not only does he make the allegation, he explains why as well (it is vague, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not testable, it doesn't sit with existing theories). If this isn't "serious", I don't know what is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A serious analysis isn't just a sequence of claims but explanations of those claims. How is a theory that's been put to the test in a variety of ways not really testable after all? This has to be explained. How is it vague? Without an explanation, the charge itself is vague. Doesn't sit with existing theories? Science is a competition of theories. To banish a theory because it conflicts with a pre-existent theory, such as genetic reductionism, is to stop all theoretical progress in science. Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blippy. Indeed, the mainstream scientific view of morphogenesis is what is supposed to be set against and above Sheldrake's theory for balance but that mainstream scientific view is being excluded almost entirely in favour of a hodge-podge of criticism of Sheldrake and/or his ideas from a small number of people who may or may not speak for anyone other than themselves. One would expect the mainstream view to be supportable by literally hundreds of very solid peer-reviewed articles and biology textbooks. That's what makes it the mainstream scientific view after all. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand " the mainstream scientific view of morphogenesis is what is supposed to be set against and above Sheldrake's theory for balance" ? What are you trying to say there?

I'm saying that the mainstream scientific view (ie, the view found in countless peer-reviewed journals and textbooks) is what policy/guidelines say should be presented so that Sheldrake's views are not mistaken for a/the accepted theory. What we have at the moment, by contrast, are a few criticisms of Sheldrake and his theories from sundry individuals speaking on behalf of themselves.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blippy here. First, this section is really inviting OR to the article - which is a big tsk tsk on Wikipedia. Secondly, if a notable author claims Sheldrake's work in MR is pseudo science, is that evidence that it is? hardly - it just makes for a notable critique of Sheldrake's theories. I think the more reasonable question is 'What quality of sources do we use to adopt a PS claim to a BLP page?' If Sheldrake is testing and publishing his research, which resources show he is doing, that seems like disqualify the PS claim. If editors are suggesting that Sheldrake is doing pseudoscience for the sole reason that he is researching telepathy which automatically defaults to PS because of the subject matter and not the quality of research Sheldrake is doing, then Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman and James Randi are also pseudoscientists. Roxy the dog (resonate) - why so angry at Sheldrake? I'm concerned that editors here have to many personal feelings about Sheldrake. Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Angry? Astonished that people are trying to make a case that he's doing "Good Science". If that case gets made, then his notability goes out of the window, with this article, and we wont be discussing AfC but AfD instead. If he's a "scientist and Author" then he is as notable as Trulyscarymary, and deserves a wiki article just as much. If he's doing science, where are his fellow scientists citing his work alongside him in decent journals? If he's doing science, he isn't notable for it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It just occurred to me to check that Mary doesn't have a mainspace page about her, after all she is a published author. She doesn't. Phew. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with an angry editor, they cannot see the forest for the trees. Not one person here is suggesting or arguing that he is doing *good* science. The argument is simply that he is doing scientific research and is a scientist. Philosophyfellow (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

thing is, hes NOT doing "scientific" research. He is doing paranormal "research" and is therefore a parapsychologist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive. Scientists regularly carry out scientific research (tests and papers in peer reviewed publications) into parapsychology, as is evidenced by Princeton's now closed Princeton Engineering Anomalies ResearchPEAR, (U. Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies and U. Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit and U.Arizona's Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health. They are all staffed and run by scientists with academic credentials, qualifications and experience. --Iantresman (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem much reason to think Sheldrake's ideas are, in actual fact, pseudoscience. What we do know is that scientific community has not accepted his ideas, and that a handful of scientists and others have said it is pseudoscience, and another handful of scientists and others have said it isn't. Thus his theories have not been accepted by the scientific community and there has been a very small, but lively, debate about whether his ideas are scientific. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur, as do may reliable sources, eg. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] and academic books.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] compared to some sources describes him/his work as a pseudodscience.[63][64]--Iantresman (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC work in progress

This needs some filling-in and other editing before being proposed for real. David or someone should fill in the "TO DO" parts. Anyone is free to edit any section below, provided that care is taken to be concise as possible. After this is hashed out, it may turn out that an RfC isn't needed. vzaak (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

David won't be filling in anything. David in DC (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

can we cover both Pt 1) AND Pt 2) in the same (or even concurrent) RfC, or does that just get too messy? Take one and weigh the community consensus on that and then address the other (if needed)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes looking at this again it seems messy. The biochemist question seems the most important. Trimming. vzaak (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of the controversy has been over calling him a biochemist (or any sort of scientist) in the lead, not whether he should be called one at all. Calling him one in the lead implies that the work for which he is best known is his biochemistry work, which is obviously false.

The question of whether to call him one in the middle of the article raises different issues, about exactly what it means to be one. Is "non-practicing biochemist" a type of biochemist, or a type of non-biochemist? Does biochemist status stick around even if you no longer act as one? Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the main point of contention about the "biochemist" appellation is the use in the lead, particularly in the lead sentence. (at least that is MY major concern.)

I am now wondering however, if it might be a better first step to get the community to address whether WP:FRINGE/PS "2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Proposals which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." applies to morphic resonance. If that is settled once and for all, I think that shapes the other discussions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The body of the article doesn't pause to comment on how Sheldrake is contemporaneously viewed by others. Sheldrake is called "Sheldrake" in the article, not "the biochemist" or "the former biochemist". I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I just don't see this being an issue.

I can't imagine "2. Generally considered pseudoscience" being in contention. The question is how that informs other issues. vzaak (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

see Iantresman et al contesting of the descriptor "widely considered pseudoscience", but, i was just throwing it out there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are arguing about a phrase that is no longer in the article, but que sera, sera. vzaak (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, you are misunderstanding something. It is already stipulated that, "From a raw tally of sources, it is likely that Sheldrake is more often called a biochemist or a biologist." The RfC needs to be as concise as possible; there is no need to list websites and such. You've also repeated the same information already in the RfC. vzaak (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, you are also misunderstanding "Findings of fact". It's absurd to put "he is a biochemist" there, as you did. The point of the RfC is to address what Sheldrake should be currently called. Additionally, I had separated them into point/counterpoint, but you combined them again. Please don't do that again.

If you read what this particular finding of a fact is supposed to be about, it is about what he has been called by scientists, science journals (and academic institutions), and not what he definitely is. It is therefore preposterous to say that it is not a fact that he has been called a biologist etc, since the sources (the ones you deleted) call him that. Even more preposterous though, is to include all the other negative descriptions and list them as facts. That is, they are either all facts, and should all be listed, or none of them are facts and they should all be deleted. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at #2? It stipulates everything you want: "Sheldrake is often called a biochemist or biologist in popular media, including in scientific magazines, websites, and other publications. From a raw tally of sources, it is likely that Sheldrake is more often called a biochemist or a biologist." vzaak (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the Findings of Fact should show (a) which are primary/secondary sources (b) the approximate numbers of such sources (ideally it should give links to all that we are aware of, and dates (c) There should also be a link to the ArbCom decision, so editors can ascertain whether there are conditions. --Iantresman (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether there is one RfC with two questions or two RfCs with one question is something to be decided after the positions are hammered out. The 3 to 1 ratio mentioned below is this to this. vzaak (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

vzaak, because Sheldrake explicitly rejects biochemistry as a means of obtaining a general understanding of ontogeny, to label him a biochemist would be misleading. "Former biochemist" is adequate. As to his status as a biologist, I think part of the confusion here is that Sheldrake is acting more like a physicist. As physicist Walter Elsasser pointed out, biologists never propose high-level theories, and this failure, according to Elsasser, has stifled progress in biology. Imagine if Newton had tried to explain the movements of planets according to the properties of their constituent particles. Instead he proposed that gravity is a general property of nature, and all those planetary movements were explained in one fell swoop. Sheldrake proposes that memory is a property of nature that, like gravity, operates at a distance, though of course over time rather than space. Morphic resonance is a well-defined, testable mechanism of natural memory. In conjunction with this proposal, he adopted the field concept to explain coordination of the parts of an embryo and the members of a hive. Sheldrake's boldness in bypassing traditional channels of biological theory goes a long way toward explaining resentment toward him among other biologists. Nonetheless he's a biologist promoting a testable theory, even if that theory is way too high-level for most biologists to stomach, and this is his prime source of notability. The fact of its testability means it should be described as a theory or hypothesis rather than merely a concept. I favor "hypothesis" for the simple reason that "theory" implies a large body of supporting evidence, and the evidence in favor of morphic resonance, while interesting, falls well short of the evidence supporting, say, evolution by natural selection. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions

1. Should Sheldrake be called a biochemist, or should his status be that of a former biochemist (which is currently stated implicitly in the article, "until 1978 he was a biochemist at Cambridge")?
2. Should "morphic resonance" be called an "hypothesis", or should this term be avoided?

Argument: former biochemist

This position is based upon the policy Neutral point of view: Fringe theories and pseudoscience as well as the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience,

The ArbCom decision on pseudoscience grants editors discretion in identifying pseudoscience and characterizing it as such. Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia with a scientific focus. Scientific opinion and expertise found in high-quality scientific journals are afforded special importance. The degree to which dog-human telepathy relates to the field of biochemistry is a scientific question.

Scientists and scientific journals have called Sheldrake a parapsychologist, a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology, a biochemist-turned-parapsychologist, and a pseudoscientist. Taking these views seriously -- which includes the view of Nature, arguably the most prestigious scientific journal -- is consonant with Wikipedia's policies on science and pseudoscience.

By a ratio of 3 to 1, the number of Google Scholar hits of "Rupert Sheldrake" that mention neither "biologist" nor "biochemist" outnumber the hits that mention either "biologist" or "biochemist". (The ratio is much higher for regular Google web hits, though these results are not as interesting.) In any case, I would argue that such source-counting is a questionable practice, especially when it comes to scientific matters. The article on Evolution was not informed by counting the number of reliable sources, in scorecard fashion, that either support or deny evolution.

Further, the lead is about describing why Sheldrake is notable. Overwhelmingly, he is notable for being an author, lecturer, and proponent of "morphic resonance". Calling Sheldrake a biologist would be misleading since biologists are understood to be WP:PROFs or otherwise involved in biology. Sheldrake is neither.

Remember that this is only about what Sheldrake is presently called in the first sentence of the article. No effort has been or will be made to erase Sheldrake's position as a Cambridge biochemist until 1973, as described in the second sentence of the article.

Argument: biochemist

Scientists, scientific journals and magazines, academic institutions, popular media and websites have referred to Sheldrake as a biochemist or biologist.

Sheldrake's Ph.D. has not been revoked, so he should be called a biochemist.

Argument: avoid the term "hypothesis" to describe "morphic resonance"

The status of "morphic resonance" falls under 2. Generally considered pseudoscience in the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience. As such there is no requirement to use scientific language in describing it.

Argument: use the term "hypothesis" to describe "morphic resonance"

Not calling "morphic resonance" an hypothesis is a BLP violation. (TO DO: explain why.)

Science set free

Barney, any particular reason for removing the accurate description of what Sheldrake's book is about?Barleybannocks (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Materialism here: "Besides making a strong argument for the reinvigoration of science through relaxing the firm grip materialism has on scientific practice" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/31/book-review-science-set-free/ Barleybannocks (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mechanism here: "Sheldrake offers an alternative to the mechanistic dogma" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/31/book-review-science-set-free/

And a lot more here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rupert-sheldrake/why-bad-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.htmlBarleybannocks (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And here from the Guardian source already in the article - the quote is Sheldrake, quoted in the article. "I think if people in the realm of science and medicine came out and talked about the limitations of purely mechanistic and reductive approaches it would be much more fun" Barleybannocks (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

‎:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, I agree that simple statements are simply better, but the sense of Sheldrake's point is currently lost. His point is that it is the certainty with which materialism and mechanism are believed that leads to and is a symptom of "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience". These are the general principles that Sheldrake feels are taken to be known without question and these then dictate what kind of answers science looks for. Thus, he thinks, by relinquishing these centuries old metaphysical "certainties" science can be free to look at problems with fresh eyes. Not saying any of this correct, but this is Sheldrake's view. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, statements in the article must be sourced (WP:NOR). The source given for the quote "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience"[65] does not explicitly connect it to the material you added. The quote "fantasy of omniscience" (without "recurrent") does appear in Science Set Free, however adding that source would still not be sufficient to support the "Citing ..." clause.

There is also another problem with launching into Sheldrake's characterization of science as philosophical materialism; if that is done then the mainstream view must be stated (WP:PSCI). See the Science Delusion section for how that is accomplished.

Until the matter is worked out, removing unsourced material in a BLP is a typical action and I support Barney (and anyone else) doing so. vzaak (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not connected to dark matter either. That's from the previous paragraph. I have, however, cited various sources which support this reading of what Sheldrake is saying so while neither version is actually supported by the one source offered in terms of leading into the "omniscience" stuff, my version has the advantage of being correct.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The source says: Despite this, he suggests, scientists are prone to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience". The "this" in "Despite this" is referring to the point about dark matter.

Correct, unsourced statements in the article should be removed. Correct, sourced statements which violate policy should be removed. There is no easy fix to your edit. It's not clear how to include your material in the lead yet, if it should be done. vzaak (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what the source says, you're butchering it, and Sheldrake's view.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

First five minutes should help clarify what Sheldrake is saying so we can try to provide sources that support that rather than the peculiar readings currently on offer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE Barleybannocks (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happier with QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV's edit. Leave the discussion of the finer points for the appropriate section.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see there has been a further change back to the old misleading version. This is simply not what Sheldrake is saying, The article is a bit misleading that it is sourced to, but Sheldrake absolutely does not use dark matter in that way. His discussions of dark matter are on a completely different point. The myth of omniscience is about the understanding the basics and is not attacked by a "what about dark matter" argument. It's just not what he's saying. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Adams article is foolish in other ways, like taking Maddox's 1994 quote and falsely stating that it's from the 1981 book-burning editorial. It's wrong, but it makes for a nice narrative when combined with Sheldrake's quote of being "excommunicated". Journalists sometimes string unrelated/wrong things together for "flow". I would guess the same is going on with the dark matter thing, too. vzaak (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if people watched the banned talk posted above. This is because there is a lot of mischaracterisation of Sheldrake going on (TED's first stab at a complaint had to be completely crossed out!). And while I know we can't use it as a source, we could at least use it to be alive to what he is saying so that when we summarise sources etc. we can try to bear in mind what his points actually are and try to capture that from the sources we have. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you have gotten the wrong impression. It's not that I lack understanding of Sheldrake's position. Wikipedia is the wrong place for original research or synthesis. You inserted material which you "knew" was right, but which lacked sources to support it. That's not how Wikipedia works. Sheldrake may well have made the dark matter connection in his interview with Adams -- in fact Sheldrake makes such a connection in his conspiracy blog post. The point is that we report what the source says. When the source seems foolish or when an editor objects, it can't hurt to pull less from the source while still maintaining fidelity to it. vzaak (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I inserted material and provided several sources above for my change and even the one in the article supported it. It's also a very widely known fact about Sheldrake's book and it could no doubt be sourced to dozens of sources had the need arisen. It would therefore only appear as original research to someone who had no idea what Sheldrake was talking about. Thus the standing offer to watch the video above.Barleybannocks (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has to be sourced. Sources have to be in the article. Sources on the talk page count for nothing. And as I pointed out above, even putting the sources in the article would not work in this case. as it would result in original research because of the direct quote. Even if we "know" that Sheldrake would probably not object to the quote being co-opted to refer to something else, that's not how Wikipedia works. And lastly, there is the WP:PSCI issue explained above. Normally one would try to fix up a change, but it was not clear how to fix this one.

I've been involved with the Sheldrake article for a while; I have a good memory of each source in the article, and I have watched the TEDx video several times. I remembered Sheldrake's conspiracy blog post that made the same point about dark matter, so adding the reference via the Adams article made sense. I don't care that it's removed now, I'm just saying that its inclusion in the article was not a sign that people need to watch videos. vzaak (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And I'm pointing out that the source in the article already supported my version about as much as it did yours and so sourcing was never really an issue. That's the first point. The second is that it's clear from comments here and above that people editing the article have very little knowledge of the subject matter. For example, there was the stuff you, and others, were trying to insert about dark matter which missed the real point of what Sheldrake was saying (an essential feature in a one sentence summary); some don't appear to know that Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance is primarily a theory of morphogenesis; and there are various other sections of the article that are likewise wide of the mark on fairly basic matters). Thus I thought this lack of knowledge of the subject matter would make editing difficult and so suggested the above video as at least a starter (possibly leading to reading his books), and in this way we could then try to ensure that Sheldrake's views were accurately reported in the first instance rather than just inserting stuff loosely based on sources which may or may not accurately represent Sheldrake. Attaining such an understanding of the basic subject matter being written about being less original research and more simply good solid editorial best practice without which it is hard to pick which stuff from sources should be included and which should not (as the example currently under discussion clearly shows).Barleybannocks (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

as for reading his books, no thank you. I have a feeling that they would only make me sick or dumber. What we do need to know is what the reliable sources have said about the subject. See WP:OR and WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not the least bit surprised. As an aside, my last topic ban came about because two editors claimed a book I had used as a source was about one thing, when all the reviews about the book disagreed, and the book itself specifically said otherwise. They hadn't even read the book, and claimed that having to provide a source to back up their claim was Wikilawyering. --Iantresman (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Misconceptions of WP:REDFLAG & WP:FRINGE

BoldItalicSignature and timestampLinkEmbedded fileAdvancedSpecial charactersHelp One of the biggest justifications for limiting input on this page (and for countless reverts) has been WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, largely by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. The standard argument has been that WP:REDFLAG requires extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, while WP:FRINGE says that WP should not make a fringe theory seem notable . Therefore, since Rupert Sheldrake is a fringe theorist discussing extraordinary concepts, any source that legitimizes him is subject to nearly insurmountable scrutiny and even if it is a valid source, violates the WP:FRINGE policy by... wait for it... legitimizing his fringe theory.

Does that seem a little ridiculous to you? That's because this is NOT how WP:REDFLAG or WP:FRINGE actually works.

The section on WP:REDFLAG is in Verifiability, which is about sourcing the content going into articles, not the subject of the article. Therefore WP:REDFLAG's clause on an extraordinary burden of proof applies only to EDITORS making extraordinary claims, not to BLP's about people who have made extraordinary claims.

EXAMPLE

• If I were editing the page on Earth and cited a statement in the lead that said "Many people state the Earth is flat," that would require extraordinary evidence, because it's a new claim.
• If I were editing the page of Flat Earth Society and cited the statement "This organization states the Earth is flat," that would require ordinary evidence, because the article is reporting on the statements of another entity, not a statement of fact. (side note: the Flat Earth Society article doesn't have a disclaimer in the lead about the organization being scientifically disreptuble, so why does this one?)

In other words, WP:REDFLAG does not apply to the Sheldrake page because we're discussing the fact that a man has views that are fringe, not fringe views about a man. This can be understood by the fact that every single clause on Verifiability relates to editors being in line with general community conceptions, not to whether the subject of an article is popular in their respective community.

WP:FRINGE, on the other hand, does not state that fringe theories should be repressed out of some bizaare threat to the public's grasp of science, but simply that fringe theories should not be presented as more notable than they are. It also says:

"...all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately..."

There's nothing about extraordinary sources, just reliable ones for both sides. In the Sheldrake article it's clear that the proportionately larger perspective would be the scientific community's dismissal of Morphic Resonance. Fine, great. Almost no version of this article has disputed that. But as WP:FRINGE references, minority opinions still have to be represented, especially when they're proposed by the actual subject of the BLP, and they can be presented without including perjorative disclaimers every other sentence.

This post has gone on a while, I know, but the consistent misuse of these terms has been bothering me. Virtually no editors here are making fringe statements about Rupert Sheldrake, but rather trying to accurately report on a figure who himself makes fringe statements. It's unreasonable and detrimental to place a higher burden of proof on editors who are trying to cite legitimate sources on an aspect of the subject one happens to dislike.

Long story short; whether you agree with what Rupert Sheldrake says or not, you can't deny the fact that he's said it. Therefore objectivly writing about what he's said is citing facts, not extraordinary claims. Please read WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE and correct me if you think I'm out of line. I don't think I am. The Cap'n (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is necessary to follow REDFLAG here to avoid portraying fringe views as plausible. Of course it's fine to say that Sheldrake believes certain things, but the article must not present those views as if they were an accepted. I don't know exactly what you have in mind, but I see the following from this talk page:

It is a WP:REDFLAG claim to assert that there is not near universal unanimity within academic world that morphic fields as anything other than pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That is perfectly correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an extraordinary claim to state that morphic resonance is an acceptable, credible theory. We don't. It is not extraordinary to state than Sheldrake has a hypothesis called morphic resonance. That statement is a matter of verifiable fact. Sheldrake has carried out tests, some in collaboration with other scientists (eg. Rose) and published the results in peer reviewed journals, where they have been criticised and rejected by many scientist. All accurate and matter of fact, and not in the least bit misleading to the average reader. --Iantresman (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If it was true that there was "near universal unanimity" in the academic world that morphic fields are pseudocscience then dozens of textbooks, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, and a vast volume of other writings should be available to source this extraordinary claim. As things stand we have a small number of newspaper and magazine articles and the odd comment from an opinion piece, but nothing in the way of solid scientific sources for this claim. Something we also have for the claim it is not pseudoscience (not necessarily true or accepted) but not pseudoscience. It's unclear why the article should not reflect this fact more honestly rather than make intuited claims about the mainstream view absent any real evidence/sources.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. Look at WP:PARITY. Many pseudoscientific ideas are not mentioned in "dozens of textbooks, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles" simply because they are so nonsensical that scientists don't care about them. This does not mean there is not unanimity that they are pseudoscience. That's why WP:PARITY explicitly does not require textbooks or peer-reviewed articles for pseudoscientific topics. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you are wrong. That is, if there is near unanimity then why are there about the same number of sources on either side of this debate. That is, currently we have a small number of sources saying pseudoscience and a small number of at least equally impressive sources disputing it. Where does the certainty on this very specific point come from as opposed to the mere lack of acceptance?Barleybannocks (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a "small number" of sources calling it pseudoscience because most scientists consider morphic resonance to be so unscientific and nonsensical that they don't even bother discussing it. If most of them don't discuss it, it's not going to be in many sources. There are a huge number of scientists who consider it to be pseudoscience, there are just a small number who bother saying so, because the rest of them have better things to do with their time. That's why we have WP:PARITY. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's clearly your opinion, but the sources would suggest otherwise. That is, we have a small number of sources saying pseudoscience and a small number of sources saying it isn't and the mainstream community not yet accepting it. There is therefore no reason to suppose that the vast majority of scientists have even heard of the theory and no reason to suppose those who have all think this same very specific thing about it. Indeed, the opposing sources suggest than a number of those who have heard of it regard it as science, irrespective of whether it is right or not. You seem to be operating on the basis of a false dichotomy.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The idea that many more scientist would call his works pseudoscience if given the chance, is no different to arguing that they might say otherwise in the same proportion as the sources currently reflect. We have many reliable sources that mention Shreldrake, from well-qualified individuals, which are more than capable of ascertaining whether his work is considered pseudoscience, based on exactly the same sources that we have access to. Rather than ignore him, or repeat the "pseudoscience" claim, they generally describe him as scientific, but wrong. That is not an opinion, but reflects the view of a wide range of reliable sources. eg. [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] and academic books.[79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88] compared to some sources describes him/his work as a pseudodscience.[89][90]--Iantresman (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this Cap'n. I have a question for Johnuniq (talk) - I still do not see your claim that there is universal unanimity that Morphic Resonance is a pseudoscience. Can you, or anyone - please list these sources that specifically make the claim that there is universal unanimity on this? Remember, it does not have to be pseudoscience for Morphic Resonance to be rejected. Many hypothesis are rejected without being pseudoscience. That Morphic Resonance is rejected or ignored seems likely - that there is universal unanimity that it is pseudoscience, based on all the sources I have seen presented, seems unlikely and a result of bias. Please show me where I am mistaken and I will support your edit. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ken Arromdee (talk) You make this claim: Many pseudoscientific ideas are not mentioned in "dozens of textbooks, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles" simply because they are so nonsensical that scientists don't care about them. Applying that to MR - This is a very circular argument. Can you please do better than that? I think this is why some of us who really would not care so much about Sheldrake's ideas are having issues with the editing decisions here. Sheldrake presents a scientific hypothesis derived from a scientific argument. If scientists don't bother to consider his hypothesis because it's too ridiculous to consider, then there is no way they can consider it to determine if it is pseudoscience. If anyone needs to use a circular argument to support something that they believe to be factual I would not be surprised when neutral editors appear shocked at such a lack of intellectual integrity. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ken Arromdee (talk · contribs) is correct, and people won't or can't understand basic sociology of science and WP:FRINGE then this demonstrates a lack of basic WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ARB/PS should be applied. There is a lack of clear thinking here, or pretty much any thinking at all. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

PS I suggest if anyone has a problem with this as a general policy, they take this to WP:FRINGE/N. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Insulting other editors and questioning their competence is a very weak "argument". The same argument can be applied to all those scientists who would be sympathetic to Sheldrake, but also don't appear in print. Oh wait a minute, I just provided over 20 sources that do state their views! --Iantresman (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear that MR can just be lumped in with every other fringe idea such that what goes for one goes for MR. Many fringe theories have zero support from anyone in mainstream science whereas Sheldrake's theories clearly have some. In many other cases the vast majority of scientists who have spoken all say the same thing, whereas in this case, of those who have spoken, the split looks roughly 50/50 on pseudoscience (with most accepting the basic point about rejection). There are few fringe theories that are unanimously considered pseudoscience that have issued from highly credentialled scientists working in their own specialist field, whereas in this case that is exactly what we have. Many fringe theories offer explanations for long-resolved scientific issues, whereas in this case the central issue is still a profound scientific mystery. In these, and other ways, then, MR stands out as different, and its treatment in the article should surely reflect this. Not least because we have many sources making these very points. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have these sources that specifically call Sheldrake, or his work, pseudoscience (feel free to add to the list):

• Jerry Coyne, on his blog.[91]
• PZ Myers on his blog.[92][93]
• John Maddox opinion piece in Nature.[94]
• Ruchir Sharma, an economist in his book on Foreign Policy.
• Lewis Wolpert, in an article (or letter?) in the Guardian, 11 Jan 1984
• TED, originally called his work pseudoscience, but then retracted.[95]

--Iantresman (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And the request has been for any evidence that shows the mainstream as considering his work in anything other than pseudoscience and fringe? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

About twenty sources to the effect that it is not pseudoscience (even if not right) have been provided above. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not one of them says "this is not Fringey pseudoscience" and/or "most mainstream academics do not consider it fringey pseudoscience" - while they may not specifically say "this is pseudoscience" they are certainly not endorsing it as actual science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well of course the don't say "this is not Fringey pseudoscience" quote unquote, but some do specifically say that it is science, and some do specifically say it isn't pseudoscience. Moreover, there are numerous sources which simply discuss the theory in scientific terms and thus clearly show that there is no near universal unanimity on this specific point.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is there mainstream academic saying it isnt pseudoscience? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources are above and have been posted numerous times (Iantresman recently posted a whole batch of them again in this thread [96]). Barleybannocks (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman has been known to post "sources" claiming they say one thing when in fact they say pretty much the exact opposite. Specifically which source(s) state that it is NOT pseudoscience? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This letter, published in the Huffington Post and signed by a number of eminent scientists refers to his TEDx talk, which included a discussion of MR, and says "Sheldrake's talk was on "The Science Delusion" and covered ten dogmas in mainstream science that need to be examined; there wasn't a hint of bad science in it." Barleybannocks (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

[97] are you talking about this? Deepak Chopra is certainly NOT "eminent" mainstream academia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the people who wrote/signed the article. It is a letter from 5 different people (not just Chopra) and includes a number of eminent scientists. Here are their names (you can read them in the section of the article which tells you the authors and if you click on their names you will see their credentials). Stuart Hameroff, Menas C. Kafatos, Rudolph E. Tanzi and Neil Theise . Barleybannocks (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing eminent parapsychologists, but not eminent scientists. And even if they were all stellar mainstream academics, if all he can round up are 5, that is pretty good evidence that it is NOT a widely held position about his work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's about the same as you've got, and in many cases your sources are not even scientists of any kind, yet you're claiming there is near universal unanimity within the scientific community on this very specific question. The letter itself shows this to be false, and these people are eminent scientists - check out their credentials at the bottom of the letter they wrote. And that's not the only source we have. Numerous others were posted above and one below. Thus we clearly have a number of sources on both sides of the pseudoscience debate. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Credentials here [98], [99], [100], [101]. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And here's [102] another article from the same source which, in discussing Sheldrake, frames the whole debate, including the one on this talk page, and the wider issue as: "The real nexus of the TED controversy therefore lies not between "science" and "pseudoscience." It lies between skepticism and scientism; i.e., scientific fundamentalism. Skepticism is necessary and healthy for science. Fundamentalism is neither." Thus, according to this columnist (and scientist), it is Sheldrake's critics who are engaging in pseudoscience when he rejecting his ideas out of hand due to a misconceived notion of what science is. This is a fairly common view and that debate itself should really feature somewhere in the article. As things stand the "fundamentalists" are being misrepresented as having the full eight of the scientific community behind them without any real support for this from the usual mainstream scientific sources.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We are once again straying into the wilderness of trying to determine whether or not MR is pseudoscience or not. That's precisely my point; it doesn't matter in terms of the sources cited! Unless someone is making the claim that MR is a widely accepted fact OR that it was never uttered by Rupert Sheldrake, all we need are reasonable, reliable sources to make points, either for or against Sheldrake. The main point is that every perspective is equally valid on this page if it's backed by a source and presented in its proper context. There's no disproportionate burden of proof to establish that MR is NOT pseudoscience in order to report on the fact that Rupert Sheldrake came up with the idea. Let's take a deep breath and think about this.

Oh, and Barney the barney barney's habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him incompetent and ignorant is disrespectful and counterproductive. Seriously, get it together, bucko. The Cap'n (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The alternative is to repeat basic points of fact over and over because they are not understood. This is clearly either stupidity or incompetence. I have tried to remain respectful but some "editors" are demonstrating such an astonishing lack of basic WP:COMPETENCE that in all good faith I have to suggest that it's best that they don't disrupt the talk page. I think you'll also find that I've done more than anyone else to add pro-Sheldrake sources to the article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there are several editors that disagree with you, who have provided explanations and extensive sources, and your only response is to be uncivil to them, or try and get them banned, would suggest otherwise. Further, none of these editors have refused to include any specific facts in the article, only the way you want to interpret some of them. Most scientists reject Sheldrake, no problem. Some scientists call his work pseudoscience, no problem. Disagreement is not a competency issue. --Iantresman (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Iantresman hits the nail on the head. I accept fully that some have called Sheldrake's work [pseudoscience (and that should be in the article). I accept fully that some have said his theories lack evidence, and that they are inconsistent with other established hypotheses (and that should all be in the article). I just don't accept that anyone has made the point that his theories are pseudoscience BY CITING a lack of evidence and inconsistency, and I think it should be changed (especially if it can't be sourced) because it doesn't really make sense. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, I think it's clear we now have sufficient sources showing scientific support for at least the idea that Sheldrake is doing science (even if wrong) and that should feature more prominently. As things stand this point is omitted almost entirely from the article and the most extreme views of a handful of Sheldrake's critics is presented as if it was the view of the whole of science. The issue is much more complex than that, as Dave Pruett's article shows, [103], with that scientist's assessment of the debate being, "the real nexus of the TED controversy therefore lies not between "science" and "pseudoscience." It lies between skepticism and scientism; i.e., scientific fundamentalism. Skepticism is necessary and healthy for science. Fundamentalism is neither." I think something about this needs to be in the article. Indeed, I think Bekoff makes similar points and so it is important to let the reader know about these critiques of the critics. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Baleybannocks (talk · contribs) - the sources clearly say it's pseudoscience, and why it's pseudoscience (the issues you mention). The link between these in the sources cannot be disputed by anyone with any basic competence. Meanwhile, "I accept fully that some have called Sheldrake's work [pseudoscience (and that should be in the article)" is not the position you've taken before. Likewise "Most scientists reject Sheldrake, no problem. Some scientists call his work pseudoscience, no problem." for Iantresman (talk · contribs). Please stop switching positions and pretending to be reasonable one minute and then revealing your true intentions in another, in which you try to question the basic foundations of such criticisms. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, if the sources say what you say they do in the way you say they do then post them here (with details of how to find the supposed claims) so we can see for ourselves. Secondly, my stance hasn't changed. I have never argued that Sheldrake's work has not been called pseudoscience, nor that the other criticisms don't exist (my complaint below is about a very specific jumbled claim), and instead I have argued that given the dearth of sources, pseudoscience is not obviously the view of entire scientific community and should not be misrepresented as such (specially when others have said it isn't pseudoscience (that should be noted) and others have also critiqued the critics for a "fundamentalist" mentality antagonistic to science (that should be covered)). My apparent change of stance, then, is entirely a function of your misreading of what I am saying (Iantresman understood no problem) and so there is little I can do to combat that. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney I too would like to see a specific source, with reference to the specific text that your say supports your position, "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation" per WP:FRINGE.--Iantresman (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs) - the sources are in the article. They are fairly represented and quoted from. If you can't read them I don't know what I can do for you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You can provide a specific source and a quote. I can't read your mind. --Iantresman (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

stuff that doesn't make much sense

There are various passages in the article that don't make much sense. This, eg:

"Scientists and skeptics have labelled morphic resonance a pseudoscience, citing a lack of evidence to support the concept and its inconsistency with established scientific theories."

This is like saying 'critics have labelled X a burglar, citing red shoes and a packet of cigarettes'. Do we have a source making this specific claim or has this been cobbled together out a variety of sources making a variety of points?

Also this:

"However, where Jung had assumed a physical explanation for the collective unconscious, Sheldrake rejects any such explanation involving what he terms "mechanistic biology""

This is sourced to A New Science of Life - which passages, page numbers etc, are being cited here? Can the source material for this be presented please.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it makes sense if this article were written as an opinion piece - but considering it's supposed to be an encyclopedic article I believe you are correct - it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and makes it look like some editors are slipping personal commentary and OR into the article. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop pretending sources don't say what they plainly say. They say it's pseudoscience. They explain why it's pseudoscience. Pretending they don't say this won't make them stop saying it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, you miss the point. I am not complaining about the word "pseudoscience" above, I am asking for clarification for the nonsensical reasons given in the remainder of the sentence. Is there a source for this or is this simply (very bad) OR by editors here. I suspect the latter, this I request a source. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney. Another editor said it quite well: "The "pattern" on my clothing may match the "pattern" on your clothing but to assign any type of meaning to that is ridiculous because I am wearing a plaid shirt to imitate Elmer Fudd hunting and you are wearing a plaid kilt because you are a member of Clan Campbell." ( TRPoD)[104] In other words, just because people describe something that looks like pseudoscience to YOU, is not reason to force your interpretation on everyone else. Just because an idea is rejected, doesn't make it pseudoscience. --Iantresman (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's a remarkable example of illogic. You are trying to argue that it shouldn't be seen as pseudoscience; though the relevance of the bizarre analogy to support this particular claim is obscure to me, it is nevertheless irrelevant to the legitimacy of the quoted passage in question, which merely says that it is 'has been construed as such by "scientists and skeptics", and gives their reasons why. You would need another source to say that these reasons are incorrect. The second passage about Jung is, however, different. One could make a case that it is SYNTH to link to a primary source to disprove an interpretation of that source. This is a moot point, since it depends on the extent to which the use of the primary source in this way constitutes an interpretation in itself. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you likewise miss the point. I am not disputing that some have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience. Nor am I disputing that people have said that it is inconsistent with other established theories. Nor am I saying that they haven't said it lacks evidence. What I am saying is that I'd like to see sources for the view expressed roughly the way the article currently has it because the way the article currently has it is nonsensical. Thus I suspect that the cobbling together of these views into one is the work of editors here which likely misrepresents the sources. I may be wrong, and will happily accept the point if sources can be found in which these reasons are offered for saying Sheldrake's ideas are pseudoscience. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wowzy wow, you don't get the point of indentations, do you. My comment replies to Iantresman's statements, not yours, so your reply doesn't even address the specific point, let alone miss it. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor's quote I mentioned, suggests to me, that just because something looks like X, it doesn't mean it is X, and could be Z. ie. even though it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lives in water, it doesn't make it a duck, it could be a goose. My argument is that, although a few scientists have described Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, it is misleading to suggest that "scientists and skeptics" do. Does it mean ALL scientists and skeptics, or a FEW scientists and skeptics. The phrase is misleading. I have provided several sources to scientists that have described Sheldrake's work as such, and we should include attributable inline citations. --Iantresman (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to discuss two things at once (I wish people would start two threads if they want to discuss two things), but I'll talk about the first quote. This is a quote from the WP:LEDE, which is meant to summarise points made in the body of the article. The lede does not need citations, as they are given when the points are made in full in the body. There are three main parts to the quoted passage: (a) pseudoscience, citing (b) lack of evidence and (c) inconsistency with established science. (a) appears only twice in the body of the article. The first time, we hear David Jones, in The Times, link it with (b). The second time we hear Jerry A. Coyne, in The New Republic, talking about this very article but not really (c). So the points I think worth making about this passage in the lede are, (1) Is this a fair summary of a significant part of the article? (2) Are the two quotes sufficient to warrant the phrase "Scientists and skeptics"? (3) Is the part (c) really a summary of any actual, well-cited, part of the article? I think there is room for improvement in all three areas. Perhaps someone who knows the topic better than I would like to suggest a better summary about the leading claims of pseudoscience to replace the one quoted? Note: Saying that other stuff exists, but it's not in the article will not work, as the lede only gets let off citing sources if it is summarising things that are in the article. I hope this analysis helps focus this discussion onto improving the article. --Nigelj (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

comment from the peanut gallery: in general, non-contentious content in the lead does not need citations if it is cited in the body. However given the subject matter and the participants, EVERYTHING is considered contentious and cites in the lead help everyone make sure that we are all at least blathering about the same content and the same sources etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's contentious inasmuch as it is nonsensical, and I therefore doubt anyone, except some of the editors here, has ever said such a thing. Is there a source for these claims and their particular connection as portrayed in the article? Barleybannocks (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

yes it is nonsensical to try and present him as anything but a psuedoscientific huckster, but that hasnt prevented his fans from filling up 9 archive pages trying to do otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just the sources saying the nonsense in the particular was it appears in the article will suffice. This is not the place to air your irrelevant opinions about the subject matter of the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Scientists and skeptics" is a "Numerically vague expression" per Weasel word. No dispute that a handful of people may believe it, but I'm sure I could find a handful of scientists that believe in UFOs or even telepathy. I think we need multiple reliable secondary sources, before we give the impression that "Scientists and skeptics" have a particular point of view. "Particularly harsh criticism should be attributed" per WP:FRINGE, and "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation" also per WP:FRINGE --Iantresman (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

if you have any evidence that "numerically vague representing nearly all" is not an appropriate representation please bring it forth. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I did, in the link to weasel words. I could also ask several editors for their estimates, and see whether they all agree on teh same magnitude. --Iantresman (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD, it's clear from your vitriolic language ('psuedoscientific [sic] huckster' etc.) you have a strong anti-Sheldrake personal point of view. Are you quite sure you are able to edit this article objectively, without imposing your own opinions on it? Ben Finn (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) is an excellent editor. His "anti-Sheldrake" bias isn't anti-Sheldrake it's pro-wP:NPOV pro-Wikipedia, pro-WP:FRINGE. Your views and views of certian other editors are pro-Sheldrake, anti-WP:NPOV and anti-WP:FRINGE and anti-Wikipedia. One "side" has policy on their side, the other doesn't. What do you expect, Wikipedia to not highlight criticism of every piece of nonsensical crap someone thinks up? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see these "Sheldrake fans" and "pro-Sheldrake editors" you refer to constantly. I don't see, eg, anyone arguing MR or MF are true, and that Sheldrake and his ideas should be accepted by all right-thinking people. Instead, I see people who have explicitly stated they don't accept Sheldrake's views, but who are nonetheless trying to provide a reasonable summary of the man and his views. What I also see, however, are people so against Sheldrake that they are unable to discuss the man in non-abusive terms, and often engage in defamatory attacks on Sheldrake and anyone who supports him to the extent that they won't even acknowledge the scientific credentials of either Sheldrake or anyone who offers him any support in any way whatsoever. Moreover, some of these editors have stated that they are even afraid to read his work in case it affects their physical/mental health! I think with regard to all this Bfinn makes a reasonable point.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I echo Barleybannocks in expressing irritation at being labeled a "Sheldrake fan" or "pro-Sheldrake." I do not endorse Sheldrake's theories nor do I feel they should be portrayed as fact, and I feel that trying to craft a balanced page is being "pro-WP" more than anything. The editing of this page is not a matter of 2 sides warring, but a group of relatively intelligent people working to find a rational consensus. My participation is a matter of following the principles of WP, not promoting my personal opinions (which are as skeptical as anyone's on this page). The Cap'n (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph two---why is panpsychism not mentioned?

To be more fair to Sheldrake I think the second paragraph should include his endorsement of panpsychism, otherwise it leads the reader to assume morphic resonance isn't compatible with any more widely known philosophies, whether you agree with them or not. I propose something like this "Sheldrake also argues that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena,[10] and questions the idea that all reality can be explained by materialism. Sheldrake is a proponent of panpsychism, the view that mind or soul is a universal feature of all things. This philosophy is gathering more attention because of recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness. Sheldrake also questions accepted scientific assumptions with respect to the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices.[10][11] He accuses scientists of believing that the nature of reality is essentially understood and suggests they are susceptible to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience".[7] Shaynekori (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is to be in the lead, it first must be in the main article, properly sourced. Lou Sander (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've not come across panpsychism. I have come across animism, mysticism (Eastern mysticism and Western mysticism) which would all be better high value links. Doesn't mean it's wrong of course. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Panpsychism and Sheldrake. It's only MIT Press though, rather than a blog, so unsure if it can be used here.[105] It's also in a chapter entitled "Scientific Perspectives", and in the section entitled "Recent Scientific Interpretations" but, as noted, it's only MIT Press. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Shaynekori (talk) for making this distinction. I believe this was raised before. Panpsychism as well as Extended Mind are two philosophical concepts Sheldrake basically seeks to create a scientific framework for - and I absolutely agree, his criticisms of Scientific Materialism reflect a centuries old philosophical debate. I think the issue on this page specifically is that discussion of these philosophical ideas in a scientific setting is raising issues of pseudoscience - putting editors in an awkward position of actually taking philosophical sides using Wikipedia policy. It makes the page look uninformed otherwise, misleading to interested readers. While there is no scientific evidence ( I assume) for panpsychism, it's quite a mainstream academic concept these days. I support this edit. Philosophyfellow (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"philosophical concepts" which Tumbleman (talk · contribs)/Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) thinks are "quite a mainstream academic concept these days", he should note that others think his philosophical views are based on "someone [taking] a philosophy text book, cut it into lots of tiny little pieces, and then [sticking] them back together at random", which seems to be a fairly accurate representation of this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, where does that description of Sheldrake's work come from? Barleybannocks (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a description of Tumbleman (talk · contribs)'s views (see rationalwiki). Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What's its relevance here in a discussion of Sheldrake?Barleybannocks (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I read elswhere here that it is normal to strike through edits by socks on talk pages, but I've not seen it done. Thoughts? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Sheldrake and panpsychism - http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307%2813%2900110-9/abstract The URL is subscription based, but Sheldrake has a copy on this website http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/articles/pdf/explore-Materialism.2013.pdf for anyone wishing to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaynekori (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Did Another Editor Get Blocked/Banned On This Cursed Page?

Not related to improvement of this article. vzaak (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I saw that Philosophyfellow has been blocked as being a sockpuppet of Tumbleman. For one thing, I am still uncomfortable with the way that Tumbleman's banning went down, but is this case I'm more than a little uneasy with how this most recent blocking was justified, considering the slew of warnings of blocking to various people editing this page. Was there a Checkuser done or are we blocking people based on hunches now? I'd normally take these procedures for granted, but there've been threats of banning for a lot of people (including myself) who have been arguing for some of things that Philosophyfellow was espousing. I'm concerned there's a pattern developing that punishes participation on the Rupert Sheldrake page. The Cap'n (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC) What troubles you Cap about the way Tumbleman got dealt with? In my opinion, it should have happened about a month sooner, and for being a troll rather than a sockpuppeteer, but what troubles you? Do you think he should still be around to disrupt? I agree that it would be a nice to actually know what the checkuser finding was, rather than just "I have banned" Phillopopososophy fellow the sock. Was it based on the comparison provided, or on technical goings on. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC) It was the same factors in Philosophyfellow's banning that I disliked in Tumbleman's, which were finding the most expedient, if not entirely supported method to ban someone. If Tumbleman was being disruptive that's what he should have been banned for, but it seemed like that was too hard to prove so the charge of sockpuppetry was pursued. Even the arbitrators acknowledged it was not a clear case of disruptive sockpuppetry, but he was banned anyway with a split decision. That's fine, I'm not getting into the decision here, but I feel that if someone is so disruptive as to be a troll it should be easy to present that disruption as evidence. If there's not enough evidence then perhaps they aren't disruptive enough to ban. As far as Philosophyfellow, the reason I feel uneasy about this case is that it comes closely on the heels of almost a half-dozen threats of banning against a variety of editors, the only commonality between them being that they've advocated a minority perspective on the Sheldrake page (with the sole exception of barney). I get uncomfortable when there are a bunch of anonymous threats to stop editing the page or else, then see the people editing the page getting banned. The fact that he was banned for the same easily levelled/difficult to disprove charge that ran Tumbleman out of town is enough to make a man curious. The Cap'n (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous. The sockpuppetry evidence is voluminous, which alone was more than enough for Tumbleman's block. The Philosophyfellow evidence is even more extensive (probably too much WP:ROPE). Even putting the sockpuppetry aside, additional behavioral problems lead to the WP:SOUP ban, which was with the unanimous consent of six administrators. vzaak (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC) As a naive user, how enforceable is the do not modify warning on the above section, as placed by vzaak? Genuine question. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Overview of outstanding issues

The recent BLPN thread was initiated by a sockpuppet of a user that was previously blocked for sockpuppeting as well as other problems. The NPOVN thread lacked a credible case and has since been ignored. This leaves us with:

The alleged Dawkins quotes

The reason given for including the alleged quotes involves the fact that the quotes were reproduced in a newspaper editorial, and therefore some kind of reliability status is conferred upon them. This appears to reflect a confusion between a newspaper editorial and a hard-news article held to journalistic standards. The fact that alleged quotes appear in an editorial do not make them any less alleged or any more suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Moreover, it is not even clear what "It's not a low-grade debunking exercise; it's a high-grade debunking exercise" is supposed to mean.

Wikipedia self-reference

There still appears to be no argument proffered to sufficiently overcome WP:SUBJECT, "A mention of Wikipedia by a notable person is unlikely to justify a mention in their Wikipedia article. To avoid self reference, a mention needs to reflect its importance in their overall body of work."

Mentioning "biochemist" in the first sentence instead of the second sentence

An RfC was proposed to specifically address this matter, but no supporters of putting "biochemist" in the first sentence stated their case in it.

Conclusion

The discussion has become dormant in all cases, and further, for some it still remains unclear what the issue is. According to the {{NPOV}} instructions, the tag may be removed under these conditions, as it "is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article".

In the past there have been problems with editors not following the {{NPOV}} instructions. Here they are:

Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.

vzaak (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The case for calling Sheldrake a biologist/biochemist has been made numerous times. The basic reasons are: a) it's true; b) it's extraordinarily over-sourced to high-quality reliable sources; c) the precedent from the rest of wikipedia clearly shows this should be included; and d)there are no counter sources at all. Thus it should be in.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But it's not true is it Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - show us where Sheldrake has either (a) published anything biochemistry-related in the past 20 years (b) held any biochemistry-related academic position within the last 20 years. Apart from not being true, the insertion of "biochemist" is an attempt to give him a false air of legitimacy, which he patently lacks, and thus violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. How many times do these facts have to be repeated to you before you'll get this? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, your arguments are irrelevant. There are copious top-quality sources that call Sheldrake a biologist. It's not up to you to right what you see as a great wrong. Just go with the sources or find some significant sources that specifically say Sheldrake is not a biologist.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A further issue is the problem, noted above, of misrepresenting the views of a very few scientists and other commentators as the overall view of the academic community, while at the same time not acknowledging or downplaying the academic/scientific support for Sheldrake (more in terms of the scientific integrity of his work than in its truth) which is based on an almost equal number of sources.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

edit conflict multiple times The word biochemist is in the second sentence, I'm sure I've seen it there. Isn't that enough? I'd also be very happy to consign the rest of this talk page, apart from this thread, to the archives. Further discussion ought to centre around the areas identified by Vzaak, though I agree there is little further to say atm. I've volunteered to remove the NPOV tag in the past, and even done so, only to have it restored by woolly thinkers. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, you have just replaced "researcher" with "biologist" in the first sentence, and made "biologist" the first descriptor. A wide-open offer to state your case has been standing for a week, but you have not participated. Nobody wanting "biochemist" in the first sentence has participated in the RfC proposal. The proper route to getting the changes you want is to engage with the discussion offered to you, not warring. vzaak (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I did insert biologist for the reasons stated above numerous times including the copious sources supporting it. Have you sources suggesting it should be removed that refer beyond this page?Barleybannocks (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney. I am not familiar with your description for being a biochemist/chemist. Per the template above, "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary source", and per WP:FRINGE "it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."

Using reliable secondary sources, we find that The University of Binghamton refers to him as a biochemist.[106] He is also referred to as a biologist by the University of London,[107] the University of Arizona,[108] the Open University,[109] Institute of Noetic Sciences, [110] the University of Reading,[111] the BBC,[112][113][114][115][116][117] the Daily Telegraph,[118][119][120][121] National Geographic,[122] Discover magazine,[123] The Independent newspaper,[124] Scientific American,[125][126] Science,[127] Financial Times,[128] New York Times,[129] and in various academic/university textbook,[130][131][132] peer-reviewed journals, Trans. Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2012)[133] --Iantresman (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the argument against is based on a news item in Nature[134] (which doesn't say he is not also a chemist/biochemist/scientist) and also a New Scientist article.[135] Coyne[136] et al are primary sources. While Nature certainly has weight, I think the consensus is in favour of him being described as a (bio)chemist. I have no problem including attributed descriptions from others elsewhere in the article in order to satisfy all sides. --Iantresman (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming number of secondary sources that describe Sheldrake as a biologist or biochemist, he must be labeled as one or the other in the opening sentence. I think we should go with biologist for the simple reason that he no longer researches in the field of biochemistry. In fact morphic resonance is specifically designed to bypass biochemistry, to explain ontogeny without recourse to the chemical properties of the egg. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that 19-year-old Taylor Wilson is described as a "nuclear scientist". No degrees. No papers. But one assumes he is doing research in good faith with those goals in mind. --Iantresman (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps Taylor Wilson is following the scientific process? How can you endorse someone as a "scientist" when it is clear that he isn't doing science? No matter how many sources you dig up, this simply isn't true. And demonstrably so. What you are suggesting is we lie to the reader in order to soften the tone of the article. This isn't compatible with WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE. It's also not the case that he's doing biochemistry now, and he's not notable for the biochemistry he did in the past (failing WP:PROF). He's notable for the new age woo. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be clear to you Barney, but a huge number of reliable sources from actual scientists, to scientific journals and magazines, to academic texts, to academic institutions, to reputable media, to websites all agree that he is a scientist. Perhaps the wider world (beyond this page) is the place to make your argument and then, if made successfully, we can adopt your thoughts on the matter via some sources that actually make the point. Until then I say we go with the dozens of sources.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake's work is at odds with ideological materialism, not science as a metaphysically noncommittal methodology for obtaining knowledge. Setting aside whether or not morphic resonance is real, that it's logically coherent and testable is a simple fact. We can describe it as a hypothesis or a theory, but "concept" will not suffice. Also, only a few scientists and "skeptics" have referred to it as pseudoscience. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) - do you think you could squeeze any more understatements, misconceptions and plainly demonstrable untruths in three four sentences? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There are actually sources that make that very point. That is, eg, "Rupert Sheldrake is a robust and eloquent defender of science and the crucial role it plays in modern society. " [137] Barleybannocks (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Managed to dig this up: a 1988 review (written 7 years after Sheldrake's book was published) from New Scientist on A New Science of Life. A couple of quotes caught my eye. "Sheldrake's continued emphasis on empirical proof has helped to keep him scientifically respectable, despite the radically unorthodox character of his thought." and "Whatever one's conclusions about morphic resonance, however, books such as this are the life's blood of science." [138] Barleybannocks (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Another biologist reference. "Dr Rupert Sheldrake, the biologist, author and parapsychological researcher" - The British Psychological Society, 2012 [139] It also includes this: "Sheldrake remains committed to science and wants to see it liberated from current dogmas: “I am in favour of scientific reason as long as it is scientific and reasonable.” When he suspects that science is neither, he has the intellect and the courage to question it." Barleybannocks (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lots of interesting quotes if one looks for them:

• "The kind of controversy that Sheldrake’s ideas bring is healthy for biology,” adds Janis Roze, biology professor at the City University of New York."[140]
• "he is a scientist himself, through and through: a botanist with a double first from Cambridge"[141]
• "Rupert Sheldrake is a robust and eloquent defender of science and the crucial role it plays in modern society."[142] --Iantresman (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Some recent edits

Alfonzo Green, I have to bring attention to some recent edits.

1. In this edit, you removed sourced material about Jung while asserting "No source cited for claim about Jung". If you had clicked on the link in the citation, you would have found the Jung reference.
2. Your removal of "various parapsychological claims involving" in the lead, with your comment, "Memory, perception and cognition do not fall under the heading of parapsychology".[143] But the article text does not say they fall under the heading of parapsychology. Sheldrake's parapsychological claims involve memory, telepathy, perception and cognition, as the article text says and as the refs support. For instance the Tomorrow's World experiment on perceiving hidden pictures.
3. You changed "Scientists and skeptics have labelled morphic resonance a pseudoscience" to "A few scientists..."[144] This grossly misrepresents the status of morphic resonance in the scientific community. Please see WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE.
4. Your removal of the point that Sheldrake is criticized for publishing scientific results outside of peer review.[145] Your edit comment says, "Rutherford does not claim Sheldrake is avoiding peer review", but in the source Rutherford is making the point. One could argue that the article text could be phrased differently, but that is no excuse for outright removal of important sourced material.

There are still more edits to look at. vzaak (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The article currently grossly misrepresents the views of a few people as the views of the scientific community at large. That is, Sheldrake's ideas have been rejected/not accepted by the scientific community, this is a clear fact, but the further point that it has been rejected as pseudoscience is based on taking only a handful of sources that make that particular claim and ignoring completely a greater number of similar quality sources that, while often fully acknowledging the lack of acceptance, have explicitly stated that Sheldrake's work is scientific, if unorthodox. Barleybannocks (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

vzaak, thanks for your input. The first edit corrected a factual error. Jung did not claim that collective memory has a physical basis. Though the source for this claim was Sheldrake, what Sheldrake actually said was that Jung believed the archetypes have a genetic basis. With your help, we now have a clear and accurate passage. This shows what editors can do when we work together to improve an article. The second edit removed a reference to parapsychology from a sentence sourced to Sheldrake despite the fact that Sheldrake does not use that term in conjunction with memory, perception and cognition. Though he mentions in passing that parapsychology involves telepathy, memory of past lives, clairvoyance and precognition, he deals only with telepathy, and his treatment of ordinary memory, perception and cognition is strictly in the context of morphic resonance, not parapsychology. The third edit reflects the fact that only a handful of scientists and "skeptics" have accused him of pseudoscience. The vast majority of cited scientists dispute only the theory itself, not its scientific status. To characterize scientists in general as viewing his work as pseudoscientific is inaccurate and reveals clear anti-Sheldrake bias, which is unsuitable for an editor working on his biography page. The fourth edit corrected the false impression that Rutherford accuses Sheldrake of avoiding peer review. First of all, Sheldrake has published extensively in peer reviewed journals, including many in the last ten years. So even if Rutherford did say this, he's simply wrong. To Rutherford's credit, however, he does not make this claim, merely noting that books are not peer reviewed prior to publication. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo,

• You say "Jung did not claim that collective memory has a physical basis". The source says, "Jung tried to explain the inheritance of the collective unconscious physically". If you had thought the wording was wrong, the natural step would be to fix it. Instead, you deleted the entire thing, claiming, "No source cited for claim about Jung". If in fact you looked at the source and found Jung, then you shouldn't have written in the edit comment that no source was cited for Jung.

• The Parapsychology section in A New Science of Life mentions not only telepathy but memories of past lives and other psychic phenomena. I understand Sheldrake's view that paranormal should eventually be called normal, and supernatural be called natural, but in terms of communicating to the reader what these claims entail, in a single sentence, the use of "parapsychological" is the best descriptor. We can't describe the nuances of Sheldrake's philosophy in the lead. It's also difficult to be the Perrott-Warrick director while disavowing the terms associated with it. The deletion of "parapsychological" is not a big problem, just one that leads to less clarity and potential confusion.

• The sentence in the lead about pseudoscience was carefully crafted and has been stable for a while. Please look at the sources backing it up. Additionally, see WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, and Arb/PS.

• Rutherford makes an important point about peer review, and if you thought it was worded improperly, the natural step would be to fix it. Outright deletion of sourced criticism is unlikely to be beneficial to the article. Deletion of any sourced material should usually be discussed first.

• I've only looked briefly at the Rose edits, which appear to be more deletion of sourced criticism.

• In my last edit I linked to the RfC proposal regarding "hypothesis" and "biologist", and asked you to make your case there. You have not yet done so. These issues have been ongoing, and the RfC proposal aims to address them. Please participate in the process that has already been laid out.

• You made some bold changes. I explained the problems I saw in those changes in this thread, and linked to the explanation in my revert. The article has been fairly stable, and significant changes require discussion. Please read WP:BRD. Instead of pursing the bold-revert-discuss cycle, you are now warring again. This is contrary to how Wikipedia was intended to function. Please use this talk page to convince others that your changes should be made, instead of warring to get them in.

vzaak (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• The key word is inheritance. Jung proposed a physical basis for the inheritance of archetypes within the collective unconscious. The passage I deleted had Jung asserting a physical basis for the collective unconscious, something Jung would never have claimed, nor did the source (Sheldrake) attribute this claim to him. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• The Parapsychology section does not mention ordinary memory, perception or cognition. To imply that Sheldrake considers these things paranormal is misleading in the extreme. Sheldrake states that any real phenomenon should be called normal not paranormal. He has never claimed that supernatural be called natural. His work has no basis whatever in supernatural claims. I have no problem with referencing parapsychology in the article, so long as it doesn't encompass topics that nobody, including Sheldrake, considers paranormal. If you want parapsychology in the lead, you'll have to figure out another way to work it in. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• To state that scientists view his work as pseudoscience is to imply consensus among scientists. For that claim, you need a source. Instead the only sources we have that specify pseudoscience are people expressing their own individual view, not asserting a consensus. Therefore without a modifier such as "a few" or "some," the material is unsourced and cannot stand. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• The passage looks fine it's now written. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• The Rose section had way more of Rose than Sheldrake. I hope I've brought balance to it, and I'd like to know if you agree. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Who's warring? I would say neither of us. We have disagreements, and through the process of editing and discussing, we're beginning to make progress. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the sentence in the third paragraph[146] on "pseudoscience" is "carefully crafted", and we need to pay more attention to WP:FRINGE:

• "Scientists and skeptics have labelled" is numerically vague. It gives the misleading impression that ALL "Scientists and skeptics have labelled". Since the vast majority of scientists and skeptics have not commented, I think we have to qualify it as "Some scientists and skeptics have labelled". See WP:FRINGE/IPA
• "citing a lack of evidence" suggests to me a reference to a peer-reviewed paper. The only peer-reviewed paper I am aware of is that by Rose, in which case we should provide attributions and inline citation, in order to provide the appropriate context. See WP:FRINGE "Sourcing and attribution" and WP:FRINGE Inline attribution --Iantresman (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

These indications are in the references that have been given to you. By trying to claim that "only some" of the scientific community rejects him, you're trying to weasel out of the undeniable fact that his work has not achieved scientific consensus, and attempting to mislead readers that this isn't the case. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, you are using a false dichotomy. You are treating rejected/not-accepted as being the same as pseudoscience. It isn't. Thus, while Sheldrake has certainly not been accepted by the scientific community (nobody disputes this), there is no reason to make the further claim that the vast majority consider it pseudoscience. Indeed, we have numerous sources that, as you must be aware, make this very point/distinction. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not true. The sources show it's pseudoscience, and explain why it's pseudoscience. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, let's not pretend it isn't a duck by pretending that "not enough" sources claim it is. This is patently absurd. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously true. We have unanimous agreement that Sheldrake's ideas have been rejected/not accepted but significant disagreement about whether it is pseudoscience. That is, a small group of people (including some scientists) have said it is pseudoscience and a small group of people (including some scientists) who say it is not. Thus the article should reflect the rejection/non-acceptance as the view of the scientific community and not misrepresent the further views of a tiny number of people as the universal view while altogether ignoring an equal number of (similar quality in terms of sources) further views to the contrary. As I said, you are using a false dichotomy, and you are then ignoring all the sources which demonstrate the falsity of your answer to that false dichotomy. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - because a few sources don't explicitly call it "pseudoscience" but either describe pseudoscience without using the word, or use alternative wording such as "bad science", "nonsense" "completely wrong" or similar, doesn't mean that those authors think that Sheldrake's work is "science", or that they think Sheldrake's work isn't pseudoscience. You are trying to weasel the sources and attempting to get the article to deny what the sources plainly say. This isn't conducive to Wikipedia and it isn't in line with policy or common sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, firstly, I am not denying that some sources call it pseudoscience. I fully accept that point. As does everyone here. However, you are ignoring, and denying the existence of, and refusing to allow the article to reflect the views expressed in, numerous high-quality sources that explicitly say that Sheldrake's work is not pseudoscience. The New Scientist review, cited above eg, says that books/ideas such as Sheldrake's are the "life's blood of science". Thus, as noted, you are using a false dichotomy, and giving a misleading answer to that false dichotomy by ignoring all the sources that disagree with your particular take on this issue. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney: Every editor supports noting that some scientists have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience, and most scientist reject it. But I utterly reject that because YOU interpret a rejection as worded in such a way that MAY be consistent as pseudoscience, then that is what was meant.

• WP:FRINGE: "Wikipedia is not a forum for original research... it is of vital importance that [editors] simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."
• WP:FRINGE: "articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis"
• WP:SYNTH: "Do not [..] reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• WP:GRAPEVINE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"
• WP:LABEL: "The prefix pseudo- [..] Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt."
• WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources"

--Iantresman (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What amazes me Iantresman (talk · contribs) is your constant citing of these (ignoring the inconvenient WP:FRINGE), while applying exactly what it says not to do to these sources to try to minimise criticism in this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a look at one example above, WP:SYNTH. If we consider any source which rejects Sheldrake, WP:SYNTH tells us not reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated. Concluding that rejection, for whatever reason, amounts to pseudoscience would clearly fail WP:SYNTH, and contradicts your comment. Please spell it out for me, with specific examples and quotes if you wish to make a case. --Iantresman (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The most egregious case is the attempt to claim that "just" because "only a few" sources explicitly say it's pseudoscience, while others express views that are essentially indistinguishable by any plain reading, then we should not mention the p-word. In other words, what the sources directly say. Yet, this is the most important link in the entire article. Without it we cannot explain the background to what is and isn't science. The key to this is pretending that the sources don't support what they plainly do support. No amount of whining about the sources will get you out of this. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the contents of the article. Summarising, i.e. compressing, is allowed. Lying about sources isn't. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the problems, Barney, is your "essentially indistinguishable! claim that you are using to allow you to use a very specific term "pseudoscience" to stand for any number of other claims such as "lacking evidence" or inconsistent with other hypotheses" or "rejected" and such like. Moreover, even if we granted that false equivalence (which we should not), there are just as many other sources, equal in authority, which explicitly say Sheldrake's work is not psuedoscience. Thus you are misrepresenting various views as one view and ignoring all the contradictory views completely. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No. These claims are also made (check the sources), and they explain why this is pseudoscience. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all of the critical sources say it is pseudoscience at all. And even if many/most of the critical sources did say that (they don't), we still have an at least equal number of sources that explicitly disagree. Thus the article does not accurately represent the diverse views on the scientific status of Sheldrake's work. All agree it has been rejected/not-accepted, but there is significant disagreement whether it is pseudoscience. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

None of the reliable, critical sources deny that it is pseudoscience. That is the heart of the matter; your wishful thinking that a source that doesn't use the word "pseudoscience" but uses some alternative description (such as "bad science" "not scientific" "very wrong" etc), while maintaining the same general opinion, by way of a false dichotomy therefore describes Sheldrake's work as not being pseudoscientific and therefore being scientific. Wave your magic wand and poof! A source which is clearly critical by any fair reading now turns into a positive endorsement! Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Plenty reliable sources explicitly say that Sheldrake's work is scientific. Thus, firstly, we should not pretend, as you wish to do, that these sources don't exist; and, secondly, only go with those sources that say pseudoscience (or something that could be construed as pseudoscience if one construes sloppily). And I'm not saying the negative sources are positive. I fully accept they are negative. They just don't say explicitly what you imagine they do. Moreover there are plenty sources, as noted, that while acknowledging the lack of acceptance praise Sheldrake for remaining true to science. These are the sources I am saying are positive about the scientific status of his work, and these are the sources you are pretending don't exist. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green, don't split up people's comments; it needs to be clear who said what. I've moved your comments below mine.

• You've misunderstood my point about Jung. Your edit comment said, "No source cited for claim about Jung", however there was in fact a source cited for Jung. If your problem was with the wording in the article, then you should have changed the wording instead of deleting the material entirely. You haven't responded to the point I made: If in fact you looked at the source and found Jung, then you shouldn't have written in the edit comment that no source was cited for Jung.

• A similar thing happened with the Rutherford comment. You found a place where you disagreed with the wording, and instead of making an appropriate fix, you deleted the material.

• Both the Jung part and the Rutherford part have now been changed to your satisfaction. The process of arriving at this result should have not involved you repeatedly deleting material.

• There is no question that the claims Sheldrake makes fall into the field of parapsychology. He was the Perrott-Warrick director. He has published in parapsychology journals. The purpose of the article is to communicate to the reader what kind of claims these are. The article can later explain the nuances of how Sheldrake wants terminology to be used, but that level of detail is not necessary for the lead. Re supernatural, I was merely referring to the "natural, not supernatural" statements that Sheldrake makes with regard to psychic phenomena.

• Re pseudoscience, please see WP:FRINGE. Under the requirements you appear to be imposing on calling something pseudoscience, it would seem that nothing could be called pseudoscience. The references in the article provide more than enough support for the article text.

• Re "Who's warring?", you are continuing to war, imposing your changes without convincing others of them. This is not the normal editorial process or the expected standard of behavior. Please read WP:BRD, and use this talk page to convince others that your changes should be made, instead of warring to get them in.

vzaak (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The source cited for the Jung claim did not make that claim. Therefore no source was cited for the Jung claim. The attribution to Rutherford was also inaccurate, so I deleted it. You have now changed the wording so that it's no longer inaccurate, and that's fine. Sheldrake's primary claim is about biology. Where his central claim is extended to include telepathy, then this and only this also falls under the heading of parapsychology. This has no bearing on his treatment of memory, perception and cognition. Sheldrake does not argue that these phenomena fall under the heading of parapsychology, so using him as a source is flat-out wrong. For you or any other editor to place these phenomena under the heading of parapsychology is a clear example of WP:OR. Please stop reverting my attempts at correcting this passage. As to pseudoscience, I recognize that a few people have accused Sheldrake of pseudoscience, and I see no reason why this can't be included in the article. I merely insist that we make it clear that only a few scientists apply this label to him. We have no sources for the claim that the scientific community in general views his work as pseudoscience, only that the scientific community believes Sheldrake's hypothesis is wrong. I've made no attempt to determine what can and cannot be called pseudoscience, as this would obviously be WP:OR. I am trying to eliminate inaccurate, unsourced material. You are persistently restoring it without convincing anyone. Again, who's edit warring?

One more point. The conservation of energy is a law, and if you don't believe me, look it up on Wikipedia. It cannot be referred to simply as a fact because it cannot be directly observed. Conservation of energy means that energy is always conserved in the course of transactions, and we cannot observe every single instance of this law, past, present and future. To label it a fact is to imply that at certain times the conservation of energy has in fact been observed. In other words, you're trivializing this principle. This is a disservice to science, and it will not stand. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• The point about Jung and Rutherford is that you took what you considered a technical inaccuracy as a license to delete sourced material. If you think criticism in the article is not properly worded then you should change it rather than delete it. Removing criticism is not a good practice and, especially with repeated removals, is disruptive.
• There's no doubt that Sheldrake knows that he studies phenomena that are classified as parapsychology, and there's no doubt that that's the most accurate category to communicate to readers. If I understand your argument correctly, we merely need more citations explicitly mentioning parapsychology, such as his papers published in parapsychology journals.
• Have you looked at the sources regarding pseudoscience? Also see WP:FRINGE.
• You are still continuing to war, even after I twice asked that you follow WP:BRD and discuss these edits. The current article has been relatively stable, and you should focus on convincing others of these changes instead of warring.

vzaak (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

sokal affair

I removed some commentary on the sokal affair because it has nothing to do with Sheldrake. The criticisms etc are about the publication of the article and have no bearing on anyone mentioned in passing therein. Barleybannocks (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

David added that commentary. I removed it.[147] David added it again, citing something about original research, which I never understood. vzaak (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see Barney has added the commentary again. This isn't about Sheldrake and seems to be included only to get some very negative statements into the article as if they are about Sheldrake when they are not. Please explain the relevance of the commentary here.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• As the cited sources clearly show, others consider this to be relevant. We should reflect what the sources say, not what we personally believe. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree the Sokal affair is relevant, and that's why I left the reference to it, and a brief description of it, in the article. What is not relevant is to take the genertal commentary (in the form of criticisms) about the Sokal affair and imply they have anything much to do with Sheldrake per se. They do not. But hey, any chance to get some negative words into the article, eh.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The current veriosn as of now is:

Sheldrake's work was amongst those cited in a faux research paper written by Alan Sokal and submitted to Social Text.[104] In 1996, the journal published the paper as if it represented real scientific research,[105] an event which columnist George F. Will described as "a hilarious hoax which reveals the gaudy silliness of some academics"[105] and which has come to be known as the Sokal affair.

This seems to me to be perfectly acceptable. But see below... Guy (Help!) 12:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with "which reveals the gaudy silliness of some academics" and "as if it represented real scientific research" which are both about the Sokal affair and not about Sheldrake in any meaningful way. Thus to include them in the Sheldrake article is to imply that in some way they are a commentary on Sheldrake when they are not. This is misleading and completely wrong in a BLP since it represents a disingenuous attempt to misdirect the criticism from its intended target onto the subject of this article.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You and I are familiar with the Sokal hoax. Readers may well not be. The comment is a direct quote about the Sokal hoax and is valid in framing it. Feel free to suggest a better quote that sums up the hoax and what it means. In context, the inclusion of Sheldrake's ideas was deliberate, was intended to highlight a credulous approach to a certain sort of argument, so was directly relevant to the purpose and nature of the hoax, yes? Guy (Help!) 13:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

IU think the first sentence does the job reasonably well. It was a hoax paper that got published that mentions Sheldrake and coopts some of his terminology. The further views about that hoax have no bearing on Sheldrake and have no place in the article - especially not in a way that implies some negativity with regard to Sheldrake and/or his views. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many forms of hoax. The specific point of the Sokal hoax was to highlight the credulous nature of those participating in sciencey-sounding but unscientific disciplines. That's what we need to explain. Feel free to suggest an alternative quote that makes this point. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is a completely peripheral character in the hoax. Sokal simply borrowed some terminology and wrote a load of ruubbish. The commentary on that hoax therefore has nothing to do with Sheldrake's actual work, and the criticisms of particular academics mentioned has nothing to do with Sheldrake. Thus the quote that some here want to include is being included to impugn Sheldrake by the slightest of associations.Barleybannocks (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

He is indeed. But the reference to Sheldrake was nonetheless calculated, and is relevant to this article according to independent sources. What other quote would you substitute in order to maintain the necessary context, while being less offensive to your beliefs? Guy (Help!) 15:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have already written my preferred version - it removed the slur by association about academics other than Sheldrake, and accurately characterises the deliberate mischaracterisation of Sheldrake by Sokal as part of his hoax. You probably didn't see it because it was only up for a few minutes as Barney appears to have carte blanche to undo changes any number of times (4 at the moment) in one day. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So, you refuse to even countenance compromise by suggesting an alternative quote that provides the context without offending your beliefs, and this is somehow everybody else's problem. Except that it isn't, it's one more black mark against you. See how this works? Guy (Help!) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The way forward

I think we should establish some points of common ground, and some ground rules.

My thoughts are thus:

• WP:BLP is important. When writing a biography we must be accurate and fair. That does not mean we must be sympathetic. See Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a biography that is scrupulously accurate, but clearly not sympathetic.
• WP:FRINGE is important. In matters of science, Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus view, because in science that is the neutral point of view - it necessarily and by definition encompasses all significant views.
• This article covers two subjects: Rupert Sheldrake and his conjecture of morphic resonance.
• The sources robustly support the fact that morphic resonance is pseudoscientific and lacks rigour.
• The sources robustly support the fact that concepts such as conservation of energy and thermodynamics are scientifically accepted as facts, to the point that any observation seemingly contradicting them will be investigated until the inevitable experimental error is located.

My personal view is that Sheldrake's insistence that these are mere dogmas springs from his own dogmatic refusal to accept that the contradiction of his own conjectures by these facts, indicates that his conjectures are wrong. But that is my personal view.

To make progress the following seems to me to be necessary:

1. Proposed changes should be discussed before implementation, to reduce the edit warring.
2. Proposed changes should be specific:
   1. What is wrong
   2. What change should be made
   3. On what basis, by reference to reliable independent sources
3. The basis for changing content should be how we would represent these facts in the absence of Sheldrake's conjectures. For example, in our articles on conservation of energy and perpetual motion, how do we describe them? Do we represent any significant dissent from the consensus view?
4. Discussion should be specific and not based on the abstract.
5. The scientific consensus is that Sheldrake's ideas are wrong. If your argument begins from the premise that Sheldrake is right, then do not make that argument because it will not be accepted and will only stoke the fires.
6. The consensus of independent sources is that Sheldrake is wrong. If your argument begins from the premise that he is insane, a fraud, a liar or whatever, then do not make that argument because I will personally wield the banhammer.
7. A valid Wikipedia biography about Sheldrake will be seen as fair by any dispassionate observer. Sheldrake is, by definition, not a dispassionate observer. Whether or not he likes the article is, and must be, irrelevant, what is important is that we are accurate and fair.

That's my view. For the record I think David in DC has made some sensible suggestions and has sound instincts, I know he has said he has left this article but if people can work with him and reach agreement then that indicates that things are being done right. Some other editors are not helping. I invite them to find something else to do and leave this to others. Anybody whose edits relate solely or primarily to this article, should be careful. We know that there is off-wiki solicitation to promote a particular POV, we have been there many times. Single-purpose advocacy accounts face a low bar to removal. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Above you say "The sources robustly support the fact that morphic resonance is pseudoscientific and lacks rigour". This is wrong. The sources support the idea that morphic resonance has not been accepted by the scientific community and that some have gone further and said it is pseudoscience, while (an equal number of) others have said that it is science, some have said good science, even if wrong. This distinction seems not to be understood, and thus the constant conflation of wrong/rejected/not-accepted with pseudoscience is one of the main stumbling blocks to progress. That is, there are at least three views of Sheldrake's work: right, wrong and science, wrong and pseudoscience. Nobody is arguing the first, many are arguing the second, while others see no difference between the second and the third.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You also suggest that morphic resonance is the only aspect of Sheldrake's work this article is about. That is false. Thus we must be careful not to lump all the views of Sheldrake and his work together as if, eg, Science Set Free, was a book primarily about morphic resonance and any criticisms of one automatically carry over into every aspect of any of his other work.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The first time I heard of Sheldrake was in relation to this discussion. There is no real room for doubt that morphic resonance is pseudoscience. That particular ship has already sailed. It's not god science because it is unfalsifiable and because the reslts apparently depend on how Sheldrake decides to interpret them. The test of good science is explanatory power, and the insights obtained when others build on it. There is no explanatory power and few if any have built on it.

So, you're arguing about The Truth™, and that is not going to help. I don't care how passionately you believe in Sheldrake's theories, they are bunk, as far as the scientific community is concerned. We won't change what we say about that until the scientific consensus changes, and that won't happen because instead of trying to persuade them through science, Sheldrake instead chooses to cast doubt on conservation of energy - an approach which more or less guarantees ridicule.

All this is perfectly normal in a new editor who has arrived solely to Right Great Wrongs, but it's not going to work, I'm afraid.

Any specific errors of fact you'd like to point out in the article? Guy (Help!) 15:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

When you say there is no real room for doubt, that's your opinion, and as such, irrelevant. The sources, are split on the question of pseudoscience wjile agreeing that Sheldrake's ideas have not been accepted. Unclear why this is so difficult a point to grasp. As for your appraisal of my purpose here, you are quite wrong. I am endeavouring to improve the article by accurately representing the sources (ie, Sheldrake not accepted but dispute over the scientific status of his work), as opposed to ignoring them. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It's my judgment of the facts, speaking as a seasoned Wikipedian, administrator, email response volunteer, and long time WP:BLP patroller. And your opinion is yours as a single purpose account whose only input to Wikipedia has been in support of a fringe point of view. I think I know whic of us has a better grasp of how this fits with Wikipedia policy and practice. But you miss the point - see above. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)