Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

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".[1] 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..."[2] 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.[3] 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[4] 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 Law of Conservation is directly observed via Noether's Theorem to be a factual aspect of our reality. Any claim to the contrary is simply ignorant. jps (talk) 02:59, 7 December 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)

Nothing wrong with deleting inaccurate material. If another editor wants to restore it, that's fine by me so long as it's been fixed. While telepathy falls under the heading of parapsychology, to portray the study of ordinary memory, perception and cognition as parapsychology is simply bizarre and reflects badly not just on the Sheldrake article but on Wikipedia in general. Same goes for reducing the status of the conservation of energy from a law to a mere fact. This is a simple issue of competence. Are you competent to edit articles on science? Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing innaccurate in the article, despite these assertions, Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs). Please stop pretending you have consensus here when the consensus is that WP:FRINGE applies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion before commenting. Vzaak agrees the Jung and Rutherford references were incorrect but says I should have fixed them instead of deleting them. As to WP:FRINGE there's no consensus here for the very simple reason that it doesn't apply. According to WP:FRINGE, "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea..." This is not an article about a mainstream idea. It's an article about Sheldrake and his idea, which must be presented fairly in accord with WP:NPOV.

In pargraph 3, the article says "Sheldrake .. advocates questioning various underlying assumptions and modern scientific facts"[5] I can't see the references mentioning him question any "facts". The first reference [12] is to Sheldrake's own book, but no page number is provided, so it is difficult to check, and the second reference [13] doesn't mention Sheldrake at all. Can you help clarify? --Iantresman (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Energy which is measurably conserved in a closed system is not a law but a simple fact. Sheldrake does not question that conservation of energy has been observed many times in many different settings. What Sheldrake questions is specifically the lawfulness of energy conservation, the idea that it must be conserved in every instance, past, present and future. He is not questioning observable facts, and the disputed sentence needs to reflect that. This is exactly the sort of problem that crops up when editors unfamiliar with the subject-matter try to impose their view. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This is just plain wrong. The fact that energy must be conserved in every instance past, present, and future is the result of deep symmetries in nature that exist (specifically, time symmetry). To the extent that microphysical laws work the same forward and backward in time, energy is conserved. That is the essence of Noether's Theorem. If anything is a fact, this is something that is. To deny it is to deny something fundamental about all of physics: that is to say to deny the lawfulness of the Law of Conservation of Energy is to claim either that the models of physics are wrong or that there is an aspect of microphysics which is not time reversible (note that you cannot hang your hat on the Boltzmann H-theorem for this because that is an emergent quality of macroscopic systems: it does not work for the fundamental laws of physics). Those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of physics. And that's all there is to say about that. jps (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo, you continue to war, imposing your edits without consensus. The article has been fairly stable, and it's your job to convince others of your changes on this talk page. The article text is properly supported by the sources, and you must explain where you disagree, citing sources, without providing interpretive original research. You have not participated in the RfC; the "hypothesis" argument is still blank. Changes described in the RfC should only be done after the RfC is completed. I strongly suggest we follow Guy's advice in Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#The_way_forward, items 1 to 7 in particular. vzaak (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, there is no consensus for your preferred version, and the only reason it appeared "stable" was because of the ongoing blanket reverts without discussion for any change at all. I made a significant number of changes today, and yet, without discussion, you simply undid all of them. Please explain what you take issue with as regards my edits. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

For you to say there is no consensus it bordering on dishonesty. I welcome Vzaak returning the page to some sort of balance. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:06, 2 December 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.[6] 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)

On the contrary, I have already compromised. I rewrote the passage to give a fairer impression of Sheldrake's lack of substantive involvement in the issue. Here [7] As for your black mark stuff, you really should retract that now given that it is based on a simple error. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear not to understand what compromise means. You inserted different wording, others then tweaked that, you want to revert to your own wording. That's not compromise, that#'s ownership, which is the opposite. Do feel free to suggest a quote which provides the necessary context without offending our beliefs. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is of no consequence whether your beliefs are offended. That's the first point. The second point is that I did put in a compromised version that you have failed to even comment on. The fact is that the negative quote is misleading inasmuch as it looks like Sheldrake is being criticised when it was those who published the article that were being criticised. And this kind of misrepresentation of sources appears throughout the article which is, at present, appalling (possibly due to the lack of knowledge of the subject matter of those who have taken it upon themselves to control the article). 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs)

I have no beliefs to offend here. You are the one advocating a non-standard view of the world. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You said "Do feel free to suggest a quote which provides the necessary context without offending our beliefs" and then you said "I have no beliefs to offend here". Seems both can't be right. You also suggest I am advocating a non-standard view of the world in my reading of the Sokal affair. One can only guess what kind of fantastic view of the world you have if you think the Sokal affair, and all commentary on it, is about Sheldrake. It isn't, he is a very peripheral figure, and that's pretty much a stonewall fact. Thus the use of disparaging remarks about the incident as if they refer to Sheldrake is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The quote says that "the journal published the paper as if it represented real scientific research". But Wills says the magazine published it as "serious scholarship"[8] (unless there is a more specific quotation). That is not the same thing. We shouldn't be saying anything about Sokal's parody, which gives the impression that it refers to Sheldrake, unless Sheldrake is specifically mentioned. I have no problems mentioning the Sokal affair in principle. --Iantresman (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sokal himself borrowed some of Sheldrake's terminology and invented a view which he acknowledges Sheldrake does not hold, and attributed that view to Sheldrake for the purposes of the hoax article. He also referenced numerous other people. Thus the criticism of those who published Sokal's article has nothing to do with Sheldrake even though the article here clearly implies it does. The Sokal affair, then, should indeed feature in the article, but only as a brief additional fact, and certainly not as any kind of stick with which to beat Sheldrake.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Have put my proposed compromise version in the article. Before adding the criticism about the Sokal affair itself, please explain it's relevance to Sheldrake whose ideas were not presented genuinely and thus the (previously included) criticism in no way relates to anything Sheldrake has actually done.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your "compromise" is obdurate refusal to compromise. You are now on notice. As a single purpose account, your tendentious editing of this article is a problem. Portraying removal (yet again) of the text as a "compromise" instead of suggesting a better quote to illustrate the problem is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I offered two different versions of the article, as well the complete removal of one sentence, as an offer of compromise. You have refused to even acknowledge the existence of these suggestions. Thus you appraisal of the situation is inaccurate. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:34, 7 December 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)

@Guy TED, originally called his work pseudoscience, but then retracted.[9] Since you seem to be basing your opinion on the original TED source, there is now doubt. I have no problem including TED's original opinion, and retraction. There are more sources that also described some of Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience (I included one in the article myself)[10], and we should include them, but to suggest that this is WP:TRUTH is not reflected by other sources, which do not concur (many reliable secondary sources provided above). Also for your own benefit, I do not support morphic resonance (I'm not aware of suffient evidnece supporting it), and I am not aware of any evidence that sufficiently supports telepathy. --Iantresman (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, science it ain't. So, to get tot he substantive point, the article as-is more or less correctly reflects the facts, and changes should be focused, organic and based on references to independent sources. The existing debate that goes to fundamental disputes over whether his views are valid science or nonsense is sterile and unproductive, becaue the ocnsensus is clearly that his views are nonsense. Read the comment from quantum flapdoodler par excellence Deepak Chopra. Sheldrake's ideas are mysticism dressed up as science, and that's how scientists view them. Actually scratch that: most scientists completely ignore him because his ideas have no explanatory power, are unfalsifiable, and provide nothing that scientists can use in any context. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Guy, when you say, "science it ain't" there are a large number of reliable scientific sources that disagree with you. And when you say it is unfalsifiable, there are a large number of scientific sources that disagree with you. And when you say it is of no use in any context, there are a large number of sources that disagree with you. How does your opinion get to override all these solid scientific, and other, sources? Barleybannocks (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no dispute that some scientists have criticised Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, non-scientific, lacking evidence, etc, and there is no doubt that we should include these facts in the article. I am sure we are in agreement there. But we have reliable secondary sources that do not concur. That is not my opinion. It does not mean I support Sheldrake, or his work, or that I think the other sources are correct. But the demarcation problem tells us that it is not necessarily clear cut, WP:NPOV tells us to describe these views neutrally, and not as WP:TRUTH. --Iantresman (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman, and that's pretty much my view. I have always said that the fact some have called his work pseudoscience should be in the article, but I also think that other sources, which dispute this, should be covered. There is no dispute that Sheldrake's work has not been received well, but the further point about pseudoscience is clearly not simply a matter of fact. This contrasts with, eg, Sheldrake being a biologist, which is a fact, and a fact supported by around 30 sources of every conceivable type. Yet that, I notice, is still excluded from the article's introductory line in a way that clearly breaches wikipedia precedent. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

But these are not scientific sources, they are philosophical. That is the important point. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Guy, which sources are you referring to? --Iantresman (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are six scientists who argue Sheldrake is doing science rather than pseudoscience.

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder [11]

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 [12]

Stuart Hameroff, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona [13]

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 [14]

Neil Theise, MD, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York [15]

Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

And there are about ten more listed above at various places on this talk page. Why are these sources being overridden by editors' opinions? Barleybannocks (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We know about Josephson. Most of the rest seem to be Deepak Chopra's alternative medicine buddies; that's OK, but it isn't mainstream. Berkoff is more on the weird environmentalist perspective, but he doesn't support Sheldrake's ideas either, just argues that they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Let's not be silly and pretend that these sources are mainstream, or say he's doing science. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming these scientists support the veracity of Sheldrake's ideas. The point, which has been made over 20 times now, is that they reject the accusation of pseudoscience against Sheldrake. Thus the article should reflect the sources on this point and not merely the opinions of editors here. Also, whether these people are friends of Chopra is of no consequence - they have excellent scientific credentials, and thus they count clearly, easily, without dispute, as scientists (your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding). Barleybannocks (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And, Barney, your claim that these people are all primarily altmed supporters (who can therefore be dismissed) would seem to have been cut from whole cloth. Sigh. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, changing tack Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - going back to the start of this thread. Jzg (talk · contribs) says (paraphrasing) "do not be so stupid as to attempt to dispute that this article is Fringe". Your response? "But please, it isn't fringe, here's a sidetrack". It is really begging for the inevitable topic ban. So some "scientists" sign a letter. Answer this question: Where is the research they are doing with respect to this groundbreaking theory? Science is a collective process, where's the research? Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your last post is complete fiction from start to finish. Barleybannocks (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the research, Iantresman produced a list of academic books and articles that discuss Sheldrake's theories in a srious academic manner. But, even if there were no sources like that, all that would show is that scientific community have not taken on board Sheldrake's ideas. It in no ways shows it is pseudoscience. That, as has been noted numerous times, is just your refusal to distinguish between ignored/rejected/not-accepted and pseudoscience. Thus you have to twist the sources you do have to make them say something they don't and ignore completely all the sources that contradict your vision for the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's all in the sources, Guy. You and several other editors are totally convinced that morphic resonance is unscientific, but that's not the consensus in the secondary material. As long as certain editors impose a view of Sheldrake that does not match what the sources actually say, this conflict will continue. If you're going to try to fix this problem, take the time to do it right and familiarize yourself with the source material. Iantresman has kindly put together the following list: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Academic books: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Sources describing him/his work as a pseudodscience: [39][40]

Bottom line: widespread rejection of Sheldrake's findings does not equate to a consensus that his work amounts to pseudoscience. Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with the opening statement in this section:

• "...the scientific consensus view, because in science that is the neutral point of view" - few people really believe there is no momentum in what is considered correct amongst scientists. I doubt that any veteran scientist would serious argue that the scientific community is neutral and does not have "sacred cows" on which some have based their reputation.
• "The sources robustly support the fact that morphic resonance is pseudoscientific and lacks rigor." only the sources that state this are being allowed. All others are not accepted because they are not considered reliable by some editors.
• "...conservation of energy and thermodynamics are scientifically accepted as facts." Conservation of energy is a useful principle when considered in a closed system, but anyone who is familiar with the Hypothesis of Formative Causation will know that it includes the assumption that one must consider an open system, or at least a system in which entropy is influenced by conscious intention. This is a hypothesis that only makes sense if the research in psi functioning and the influence of intentionality on a hypothetical subtle energy field is considered--which is not allowed here because it is 'fringe." The arguments posed here by the skeptical editors ignores the context of the hypothesis. Without the psi research, editors here are probably right in scoffing at they hypotheses ... but then, Sheldrake probably would not have developed the hypothesis without that prior research.

I submit that most of the editors here are simply insufficiently informed to do anything more than to report the facts in a neutral way. Statements about the validity of the hypothesis are simply not appropriate, as this is not a peer-reviewed journal and we are not peers.Tom Butler (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia has continually rejected the idea that articles are written from the Scientific Point of View(q.v.). That doesn't imply that Wikipedia/editors are anti-science, or support alternative points of view, only that we properly describe the scientific point of view, and point out the consensus scientific point of view, and other points of view if appropriate. The Neutral Point of View is a writing style, not any specific point of view. Describing any particular point of view does not imply support, veracity or credibility. That applies equally to significant points of view like the Big Bang, and to lesser points of view, such as morphic resonance. --Iantresman (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it make sense to say something like, "Within the context of psi research ..."? I would have to go looking for references, and then I would probably need to start an arbitration to get them used here, but all that aside, is there a way to couch discussion of Sheldrake's work in terms that limit their applicability? Tom Butler (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that the very reason we attribute contentious information, as it frames it? For example, stating that "morphic resonance is inherent in nature" is contentious, and would require multiple secondary sources. But as soon as we say that "Sheldrake states that morphic resonance is inherent in nature", that is not contentious, especially when we also state that Maddox, the then-editor of Nature, has called it pseudoscience. --Iantresman (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is like the Enlightenment never happened. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed

No rational observer would ever think the neutrality of this article is not being disputed. So please leave the tag up until more consensus has been established. Tom Butler (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Tom Butler (talk · contribs), you're not being rational - that's exactly the point. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney, this statement towards a fellow editor is inappropriate. --Iantresman (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment of what's going on here. A few fans of Sheldrake claim the article is biased. This is not rational in two ways. Firstly, it is not rational with regard to Wikipedia policies. Secondly, Sheldrake's work is not rational with regards to rationality. Those who believe that pseudoscientific nonsense is true - a group which seems identical to those that think this article is disputable, are not being rational because they are not accurately assessing Sheldrake's work in its claimed scientific context. This isn't a personal attack, it's an observation. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Sheldrake's theories are true, yet I think the article is very unbalanced. For example, the section on the book, The Presence of the Past, has over 80% of the total words devoted to critical reviews and less than 8% of the total words devoted to covering what the book is actually about. It hard to imagine one would have to be a "Sheldrake fan" to understand the problem with that. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:VALID. Yes, the nonsense of the contents of the book receives little ink in the article. Precisely as the NPOV policy REQUIRES. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is about Sheldrake and his views. This is the subject matter. Sheldrake's views therefore, if discussed at all, should be explained clearly. Something that can be done easily without lending them any more credibility than they have. That's the skill of writing a balanced article, as opposed to the nonsense that's currently there. (I also think you should read/reread WP:VALID yourself since it's perfectly obvious you don't understand it in the slightest.) Barleybannocks (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom according to WP:NPOV, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." Sheldrake's views, regardless of what you or any other editor thinks of them, must be presented alongside critical response to those views. Right now the section on Presence of the Past is badly skewed in favor of the anti-Sheldrake POV, and this is just one more bias that needs to be corrected in the article. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

ABSOFUCKINGLUELTY NOT. - pseudoscientific nonsense believed by a non-measurable portion of the mainstream academic community must be presented as pseudoscientific nonsense with the mainstream views presented in appropriate proportion: "describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." Sheldrakes pipedreams do NOT get to be artificially promoted so they "must be presented alongside" the criticism. no no no no no no no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is about Sheldrake and his pipe-dreams. Thus they must feature so people at least know what particular pipe-dreams are being criticised. What you are advocating is possibly correct for an article called "Pipe Dream" where you can go to town. This is not that article. Moreover, established scholarship on the question of morphogenesis - the established mainstream scientific view that conflicts with Sheldrake and which appears in dozens of textbooks and journal articles - is nowhere to be seen in the article at present. I have argued it should be included alongside, and often instead of, what we currently have.Barleybannocks (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Two things. First, "morphogenetic fields" have bugger all to do with the valid scientific concept of morphogenesis, second, feel free to come up with a good source discussing the difference, that would be helpful. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

When the subject of a sentence is "you", then it is personal. WP:NPA describes this quite well. I don't know any editor here who has said that they "believe" in either pseudoscientific nonsense, or even accept some of Sheldrake's more contentious hypotheses, so I don't know why you would even suggest it. --Iantresman (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA provides some guidance: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Lou Sander (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Iantresman there is no doubt that there are those who believe in pseudoscientific nonsense editing this page. You obviously haven't been paying attention to what is written here. I second Barney's accurate assessment of what is going on. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In which case you'll have no problems providing diffs. --Iantresman (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me make it easy for Barney and Roxy since they seem to prefer to snipe at editors rather than addressing the issue. I have a great deal of respect for any scientist who is willing to put his or her carrier on hold to propose what is unavoidably a controversial hypothesis. I am not a scientist, and at my age, have no dog in the fight for the veracity of his hypothesis. Even so, I have attempted to see if his Hypothesis of Formative Causation can help clarify concept associated with the Survival Hypothesis. The hypothesis does help. I also know that Sheldrake, himself, is seeking ways of testing they hypothesis.

With that said, as an engineer, it is deeply engrained in my psyche to base belief on objective understanding, and as of this moment, Sheldrake's hypothesis can only remain a conjecture for me. The idea has legs and I will only know if it has merit if more good minds feel safe enough in their careers to study it.

Below, is a statement I think any honest scientist would agree to as a guiding principle. All I am asking here is that editors accept the same view of open inquiry. As it stands now, Wikipedia is seen as a public forum which, intentionally or not, effectively stops scientists from publicly exploring novel concepts.

Sheldrake's hypothesis is an attempt to make sense out of an observed phenomena, which to this day, mainstream scientists have failed to explain. As far as I can tell, all of the efforts to explain cellular morphogenesis have been poorly received or simply proven inadequate. In such an theoretical vacuum, one must consider more novel explanations. This, Sheldrake has done and no one here is in the position to say he is sienctifically out of line. From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, In THE NATURE OF SCIENCE: Scientific Ideas Are Subject To Change "Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on making careful observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for making sense out of those observations. Change in knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. No matter how well one theory explains a set of observations, it is possible that another theory may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of observations. In science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories, whether new or old, go on all the time. Scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works." Tom Butler (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete or separate theory from biography

I think it is time to seriously consider making this into two articles. There is precedence for this. Future history will either ignore Sheldrake or at least mention him amongst the people contributing to our understanding of evolution. In fact, I am a little shocked his Hypothesis of Formative Causation is not included in the Lamarckism article. Two of the main players in evolution are of course Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin. Both of their biographical articles appear to be balanced, even though for a time, Lamarck was discredited.

In the same way, both the Evolution and Lamarckism articles appear to be well-balanced, again, even though Lamarckism is not considered valid today.

Treatment of the Sheldrake article is confused by the conservative editor's desire to show that the Hypothesis of Formative Causation is wrong, resulting in a very probable defamatory treatment of the still-living man. This is an untenable situation for Wikipedia, which all of this edit warring should prove.

I propose that we take a different tack:

1. Delete the article and do no more
2. Move Sheldrake's hypothesis and research into new articles and away from his biographical article.
3. Continue as is
4. Delete the biography article and keep the hypothesis article

I further propose that we give this a week and then close the vote and either go with #3 or act on #1 or #2. I would caution that a new article for the hypothesis should be titled Hypothesis of Formative Causation with Morphic field and Morphic resonance redirected to Hypothesis of Formative Causation.

Please vote on this here:

Number 2 - It is time to align this subject with the treament of similar subjects in Wikipedia. Tom Butler (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not happening Tom Butler (talk · contribs). Although Sheldrake is not notable as a scientist, the coverage he received his is notable as something else, so he'll fail AFD (try WP:AFD if you like). Meanwhile, morphic resonance might have its own article if there is as a bare minimum a small number of peer reviewed scientific articles testing the hypothesis. I am not aware of any. My prediction, btw, is that future history will ignore Sheldrake, mostly because they're ignoring him now. As Jzg (talk · contribs) says above this is a red line that you shouldn't be arguing. Also, WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE.

Please feel free however to perhaps draft in your sandbox, the two separate articles you propose, one on Sheldrake's personal life and religious beliefs, and the other on his big "scientific" idea. If you think it will work, try to demonstrate how you think it can work, rather than just arguing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Separate. Trying to lump the idea and the creator into one article is ridiculous. It's like handling the theory of relativity in the article about Albert Einstein, or more appropriately, describing the plot of Carrie in the article about Stephen King. The status of the ideas as pseudoscience, how to describe them, can be discussed at that article. I think it is pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it and take it seriously. This is the Age of Bitcoin, when things don't have to have value to be valuable. Just like homeopathy, people will be passing this idea on and making money on it in centuries to come, long after Sheldrake is out of the picture. (There may be more than one article spun off handling different ideas he's espoused separately, though some might go in discussions of other things like perpetual motion) Wnt (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If Morphic Resonance and Theory of Relativity were in any way comparable you might have a point. But they are not. TOR was pretty quickly recognized and accepted into mainstream science and studied and written about by multiple other eminent scientist. Morphic Resonance, on the other hand in over 30 years has not. In fact, some of the other original proponents now state "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. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom do you really think Sue Blackmore is a reliable source to talk about such things as science, pseudoscience, telepathy and morphic resonance etc? Barleybannocks (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Sue Blackmore is an excellent source. She understands telepathy and the psychology of it very well, and she represents the scientific mainstream. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that Blackmore is a perfectly reasonable source Barney, and that you think she "represents the scientific mainstream". I just wanted to make sure of that so there would no arguments after citing the first sentence from her article on Sheldrake: "Sheldrake is scientific – at least in many respects – but his theory is wrong." (my emphasis) And so here we have a representative of the mainstream making exactly the point we've been making (scientific but wrong), and which you've been rejecting. I trust we need labour this point no further. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I presented Blackmore purely to show how the analogy of MR to TOR was not a good analogy. While TOR started with a single individual, it gained rather quickly a following amongst the mainstream of the scientific community. MR on the other hand in thirty years has not gained followers in the scientific community, but lost some of the initial followers who thought for a time at its inception it might be a promising idea. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't think the analogy with TOR was much good. My point here though is that Blackmore acknowledges Sheldrake is scientific, even if wrong. And, fwiw, Blackmore hasn't been a supporter of MR and then turned away, she's talking about psi powers. In any event, at least we have one acknowledged representative of the mainstream saying exactly what we've been arguing. I'll add her to the list of people who think Sheldrake is doing science. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Honestly, I don't see how belief/nonbelief in Sheldrake's ideas makes any difference. I made a point above to give an example for both clear fact and clear fiction to make it clear we split articles in both cases. If you need a closer interpolation, consider that Samuel Hahnemann is separate from homeopathy (an article which covers mostly his notion), Scientology is separate from L. Ron Hubbard, and even MMR vaccine controversy is separate from Andrew Wakefield!

In case you are curious - my vote is not based on this - I should note that I am pretty heavily skeptical of Sheldrake because I am open-minded to all sorts of things: for example I am open minded toward obvious rational (recognize infrasound from far away - after all I know I do) and paranormal (perhaps dogs experience precognition) alternatives to Sheldrake's ideas; and while it is quite unlikely, in broad outline his concepts can be an interesting philosophical exercise since we have reason to suspect physics as we see it is not the 'ultimate truth' (holographic event horizons, etc.) Wnt (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But in all of your examples the "concept" itself has received widespread coverage without specific identification with the creator/lead cheerleader, and the creator has received significant notability outside of that "concept". Not really the case here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it gets loose; in any case, that's too strict a standard. I mean, we have articles on Kzin and Pierson's Puppeteers! This is absurd - there's no excuse needed to split an article if its contents are starting to get cramped, as long as there's some rational line of division so people can figure out which article is most appropriate to add a new fact to. Wnt (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That WP:OTHERCRAP has not been appropriately dealt with is not convincing and this article reached the length where spinning off because of length is required. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, actually, looking over [41], it's not all technically pseudoscience. The claim that a person crystallizing a compound in one laboratory for the first time will make it easier for anyone anywhere to crystallize it afterward is absolutely falsifiable, and however unlikely the experiment should be, at least, entertaining, for the sheer audacity of the claim that humans can tromp their muddy boots in the realm of Platonic form. Rival protein crystallographers should love this one, and might be a source of useful data! Wnt (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• we don't need two articles about the same thing - there is no one doing morphic resonance other than Sheldrake and there is nothing that Sheldrake is notable for other than his books pimping morphic resonance. "separate" articles will just result in the same content twice with the same WP:VALID placement of Sheldrakes morphic resonance as ludicrous pseudoscience by mainstream academia twice. Pointless duplication. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A quick search finds a paper at the University of Northampton that suggests otherwise,[42][43] and a researcher at the University of Newcastle,[44] --Iantresman (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Aside from how much I detest TRPod and Barney's tone, I think this thread is worth continuing. I have, however, added Option 4: to delete the article titled Rupert Sheldrake and only have articles about the theory articles.

It is clear some editors here only want the article so that they can discredit Sheldrake, so as you vote, please be sure you are voting for the best solution for Wikipedia. Tom Butler (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we are not here to "discredit Sheldrake" - he has done that himself. And per WP:BLP we report on the reaction of his continued pimping of his pseudoscience has brought from the mainstream academia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

we're trying to re;pport on that. But you keep refusing to acknowledge that many in mainstream academia regard his work as scientific. Even your source above, Sue Blackmore, said it right up front at the start of her article. I should also point out that the article is primarily an article about Sheldrake and his work. That is, the title is not: "Critical Responses from the Academy to A.R. Sheldrake".Barleybannocks (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

did you read her article? or even the whole sentence? "Sheldrake is scientific – at least in many respects – but his theory is wrong." "This analysis [of data that Sheldrake says supports MR] was far from clear-cut and the results did not, in my opinion, support the theory. Nor have results since then. ... 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." That is not an endorsement of Sheldrake as a scientist. It is the complete opposite identifying how scientists are persuaded by the evidence and Sheldrakes complete immunity to being persuaded by the lack of evidence even after 30 years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did read her article. It makes the point that many here have been making and you have been vehemently disagreeing with. That is, many here have been arguing that, even if wrong, Sheldrake's work is scientific. That's what Blackmore says too. She says it in one of the sentences you quoted. No mention of pseudoscience in her entire article. Just a rejection of his theory. And we already know his theory is not-accepted/rejected by the mainstream - nobody, not even Sheldrake, is arguing otherwise.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, in toto she says that he dresses up his parapsychology work on telepathy in scientific garb - attempts to give scientific credence to non scientific work - pseudoscience, not actual science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, she doesn't say that at all. That's just your (mis)interpretation of the article. Blackmore was free to use the word "pseudoscience" and she did not. She used the word "scientific" instead (see above). And while she thinks the evidence is not clear cut, and while she changed her mind about psi, there is no requirement for every scientist in the world to agree on how best to proceed from evidence that is "not clear-cut". And it's not just Blackmore, we have dozens of sources saying Sheldrake's work is scientific. These should be included in the article rather than suppressed.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs)- trying to claim a difference between really bad science and pseudoscience is just splitting hairs. They are essentially indistinguishable. 23:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim that difference (although there is one - bad science is still science - pseudoscience isn't). But even if we accept your claim to the contrary, there are plenty sources (including now Blackmore - an "excellent source" according to you, and a "representative of the mainstream" according to you) which say that Sheldrake is doing science. I listed many of them above for you, but you stopped commenting on them. They're still there.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no real issue with one article or more. My main concern is the quality. The article could, imo, be made into a very good one quite easily since Sheldrake is a very interesting character with some very interesting ideas. We just need to accurately reflect the sources and balance the article a bit more so it is in line with them whilst covering Sheldrake's work in addition to the criticisms of it (so readers will know, rather than have to guess, what his ideas are all about). Barleybannocks (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Point of order: it isn't actually up to the talk page of this article to figure out whether a hypothetical new article is a good idea or not. We can't evaluate an article that doesn't exist. If someone wants to take on the task of splitting out an article about one of Sheldrake's concepts, people will have to go there and see it before they decide on AfD or merge discussions. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, in a perfect world, I would agree with you, but the reality of it is that the contested interpretation of NPOV is going to assure this article will remain unstable. We can all go away, and sooner or later, someone will come along and make changes one way or another to either further discredit the man or make the article more neutral. There are just too many people out there with strong feelings about the idea (and I hope, therefor, about the man). In my opinion, this would not be the case if we separate the man from the theory. In that case, the skeptical community would likely not feel the need to discredit the man as a way of making his ideas look silly.

Wnt, again, in an ideal world, that makes sense. The problem is that this article has become a bone of contention which is going nowhere without some agreement of the editors. Consensus is always what some editors insist we need to make changes, so this is an effort to make a consensus. Sandboxes are awfully lonely places if no one cares about them. Tom Butler (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The article as it stands now is a travesty. I never thought I could align myself with Tom, but I cannot see the article becoming stable with it being a BLP. Split the article into two, one for Shelly's ideas and the other a biography. The bio would soon become a stub for deletion without the ideas in it for notability, and the pseudoscience guff could be given the treatment it deserves. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditch the 'notes'

One item that jumps out on the WP:BLP front is the "notes" section which lists various derogatory phrases and references for each. On closer examination it is apparent that many of these numbers are actually repeated, but it exaggerates the appearance that the whole world is condemning the guy. Come on! I say replace the "notes" with an ordinary, simple list of the references, once citation for each. Include a Wiki source comment string citing the original notes table in case future editors want to wade into the dispute. The thing must be the scar of some past epic battle, and it's ugly. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's just a cheap shot intended to do unchallenged rhetorical work.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The "notes" are in part an legacy of a previous version of the lead when a succinct description of the mainstream analysis of his work stated something along the lines of "Morphic resonance has been rejected by scientists and sceptics as pseudoscience and magical thinking because of the lack of evidence, its inconsistency with established scientific theories, being overly vague and unfalsifiable, having been conducted with experimental methods that were poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias." Being potentially contentious content about a living person, the multiple sources for each portion of the claim were clearly laid out without the link clutter of 20 cites in one sentence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That was a particularly good version of the lede IMHO. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom Simple lack of evidence does not make a hypothesis pseudoscience. Lack of evidence doesn't even mean a theory is wrong, much less incoherent or untestable. "Inconsistency with established scientific theories" is simply vacuous. There's literally nothing there. The charge of being vague and unfalsifiable is itself vague and unfalsifiable. And the final charge is just whining from researchers who don't like the results of certain experiments. The notes are indeed yet another indicator of how the article has degenerated under the influence of editors emotionally committed to a pseudoscientific materialist ideology. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The assessment is correct. "Morphic resonance" (or magic) as an explanation contradicts theories in genetics and developmental biology that explain how an organism develops from the turning on and off of its genes, by other genes. These are very well supported theories, and it's in Sheldrake's modus operandi to claim that they're not supported. This is in the critical commentaries. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea that genes constitute a blueprint or developmental program was overturned by the discovery that a wide variety of organisms, from insects to people, share roughly the same set of developmental genes. The key factor isn't so much the genes themselves but when they are activated and deactivated, a process controlled by proteins known as epigenetic tags. There's currently no testable hypothesis in mainstream science for what determines the behavior of epigenetic tags (though it's generally assumed that genes somehow regulate the proteins regulating them). For all we know, epigenetic tags operate on the basis of morphic resonance, mimicking the activity of their counterparts in ancestral organisms. In other words, there's no conflict. That said, if a secondary source claims a conflict, we are free to include that in the article. As to devoting a section of notes to sources critical of Sheldrake, I think it contributes to the appearance of bias. It's especially inappropriate in a biography. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Or on the same level of plausibility as morphic resonance, fairies could be popping in and waving their magic wands or aliens from the planet Gizunthobar are sending plytoplaszomic rays via the phogensophere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's this kind of bias that makes you unsuitable to edit the Sheldrake biography. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thats not bias, thats responding to the incessant nonsense on this page with the level of snark it deserves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) - please, if you want to start commenting on scientific theories, please go and first read a basic primer in biology, in particular genetics and developmental biology. Epigenesis does not contradict theories in genetics and developmental biology - it is part of them. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Again with the insults. As I stated above, despite the elimination of genetic reductionism in its original form, theorists generally assume that genes are somehow still in control. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at getting rid of the section here. I can't really reduce the reference lists more than that because so many of the sources are inaccessible, but my feeling is that more of them could be struck from the second section as marginal with some examination. Wnt (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

War over the POV tag

I was originally intended to protect the article for a day or two due to the war over the POV template but given User:Barleybannocks' latest edits I'm going to AGF and hope that you can move past the POV template conflict and actually discuss and address the issues. However a general warning, if edit warring continues (whether there are also other edits or not) there will be sanctions, such as full protection, blocks or revert restrictions under discretionary sanctions. Please talk about the issue, not about the template. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am very much just a sideline observer of this page right now. IMHO, it would help greatly if editors would more carefully stick to commenting on the content, not the contributor, per WP:NPA. Lou Sander (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The POV tag is amply justified, for now. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How many scientists and critics?

Further to our previous discussions above (permalink) on the numeric ambiguity of the clause starting the third paragraph, "Scientists and sceptics..."[45] I brought this up at WP:RS Noticeboard "How many scientists and critics?" (permalink). I am now happy to fully agree with Barney that (a) "the majority of authorities on a particular subject will simply ignore it", (b) "a small number of authorities have spoken against a particular view, and yet a small number of others have also spoken in favour of it."

It seems quite proper to prefix our clause "A small number of scientists and sceptics..." to reflect our joint understanding of this view.--Iantresman (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not my understanding. You're deliberately ignoring the ignorers in order to try to present a misleading view of the scientific consensus on this issue. This is disingenuous and not compatible with policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If the majority have ignored it, and a small number have been heavily critical, and a small number somewhat supportive, then why don't we just say that. Why pretend we know what the ignorers think/would think and attribute out intuitions/desired position to them as if it's fact? Barleybannocks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Barney is not claiming to know the opinion of a group of people, about something they are unaware (because they ignore it)? --Iantresman (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this before Iantresman (talk · contribs) - the hypothesis would begin to show wider acceptance by scientists citing Sheldrake's work in their peer-reviewed papers, or by permitting Sheldrake's papers through peer review. This is WP:REDFLAG on WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the extraordinary claim supposed to be here? All we're talking about is many people ignoring Sheldrake's theories (that's not extraordinary), some people being heavily critical of Sheldrake (that's not extraordinary), and some people being somewhat supportive (that's not extraordinary). What's REDFLAG got to do with any of this? Nobody is suggesting the articles suggest Sheldrake's theories are true and/or widely accepted - quite the contrary.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) but did you actually read WP:REDFLAG? (hint it's #4). Sheldrake has made several extraordinary claims. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Barney, I did read it, did you? There are no extraordinary claims being put forward with respect to this particular issue. See my comment above for details. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Hypothesis", yes good word. I actually disagree with you here. There are always going to be some hypotheses which people just ignore, or whose time is not right. A good example, is Kristian Birkeland's 1908 theory that auroral currents are derived from solar charged particles. Birkeland's ideas were generally ignored in favour of an alternative theory from British mathematician Sydney Chapman.[46] It took over 70 years for satellites to find evidence that was actually consistent with Birkeland. Imagine if Wikipedia has dismissed Birkeland, and incorrectly gave the impression that this was unanimous, when it was just some British scientists. Likewise Hannes Alfven was largely ignored,[47] despite going on to win the Nobel Prize in physics. --Iantresman (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In which case, Iantresman (talk · contribs) we have to wait until an idea is accepted by the scientific community before giving the impression to readers that it is actually accepted. Before then it's misleading, and you know it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney, absolutely nobody is saying we should give the impression to readers that Sheldrake's views are accepted. See virtually every section above (including this one) and in the archives. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree totally, and have never said otherwise. We do not pretend that Sheldrake's hypotheses have any more credibility, veracity or verifiability, than we a attribute to sources. Just because we state that he has a hypothesis, has done tests, have had his results published, is not to imply any of these. It is our basic use of prose that allows to state these facts neutrally per WP:NPOV. That dogs are telepathic: very contentious and subject to all the requirements for multiple reliable source. That Sheldrake suggests that dogs are telepathic, not contentious, because we're not claiming any veracity for his hypothesis. Isaac Newton believe in the occult. No big deal. --Iantresman (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Scientists with unconventional beliefs unreliable source?

The question: "How do we determine if we can use a scientist with unconventional beliefs, as a reliable source, or is this just an Association fallacy?" by Barnabypage (talk)

The last, and to the point reply was:

"I'll try answering the original question in a slightly different way. The beliefs of authors are not things we should judge on Wikipedia. We know we can cite an author about subject X when that author is considered reliable outside Wikipedia for subject X. But concerning subject Y, we have nothing to say unless we are talking about subject Y, and then we also look at what people outside Wikipedia think of the author and subject Y. We try to reflect what is in publications. It is possible for a person to be considered a lunatic by experts in one field and a genius in another, at the same time. It is not for us to judge that, just to work out what the published experts say in each field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC"

This should provide guidance in reevaluating the reliability of sources, especially the numerous psychologists, mathematicians and physicists commenting on a subject in biology. Tom Butler (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This makes sense, otherwise we could claim prejudice because someone "believes in a god", or argue that no republican or democrat could edit the article on democrats, because they would both have beliefs to prejudice the article. As has been mentioned Isaac Newton believe in the occult, but it doesn't prejudice our views on his work on gravity. --Iantresman (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. What none of you is considering is that the sources quoted are effectively acting as spokespeople for the scientific community. Iantresman (talk · contribs)'s original proposal is a pathetically transparent attempt to represent these views as individual views rather than the prevailing mainstream consensus. The latter requires per WP:FRINGE that it is properly identified as the mainstream view. No pretending that it isn't, or that there isn't a mainstream view. Last time I checked, Brian Charlesworth, Steven Rose and Lewis Wolpert were all biologists. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Sheldrake published his hypotheses. We simple frame this fact in context. Rose said he repeated the experiments but did not come to the same conclusion. Other scientists rejected Shreldrake's hypotheses. Josephson disagreed with some of them. Maddox wrote in Nature that he thought it was pseudoscience. Nobody would think we are trying to promote Shreldrake, or claim any credibility or veracity. --Iantresman (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If so, why do you insist on trying to create the impression that these scientists aren't presenting a mainstream view despite the WP:REDFLAG that indicates they are? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That Rose did experiments and published in peer review is part of the mainstream. Other scientists are part of the mainstream, and give their views. The views they offer must all be mainstream. If you want to be sure, state "The then editor of Nature, John Maddox wrote....", and the "prof. of biology, Rose stated...". --Iantresman (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney, now you must show where someone like Gardner, M. (1988). The New Age: notes of a fringe-watcher. Prometheus books. "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash." [48] has been voted as a spokesman.

Gardner was a well-known skeptic and had a vested interest in being right as one (COI). he was also trained as a mathematician and holds no apparent qualifications as a biologist. Yet, his 1988 comment about what other scientists thought of Sheldrake's work is used as one of the many references to discredit the still-living man.

Some of the references are obviously appropriate, but some also need to be removed as being unreliable sources base don the admin's comment. Tom Butler (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG the burden is on those who wish to imply that the extraordinary claims of Sheldrake have any type of measurable support in the mainstream academic world. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we can see through our own policies that WP:REDFLAG, that Gardner's assessment is clearly correct, and no reasonable person could deny it. Note that Gardner isn't stating his own personal view, he's stating an observation of the reaction of the scientific community. He could be a supporter of Sheldrake and make the same, accurate, observation. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You are both just expressing opinion. Show me where the burden of proof is on one party or another. in fact, the admin made it clear that the content of the statement and training of the speaker was the test of reliability.

Show me! Tom Butler (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Er Tom Butler (talk · contribs), you might have missed it but I think TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) and I both referenced the policies at length they're at WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. If you disagree with those policies, arguing about them here isn't the place to get them changed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Er Barney, neither of those apply unless you are referring to Gardner as a fringe source. Tom Butler (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Erm Tom Butler (talk · contribs), the policies are quoted with regards to "morphic resonance" which is Sheldrake's big idea. As a clear statement of fact, it doesn't really matter how Gardner is viewed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No-one is claiming that morphic resonance is true. We are stating the verifiable fact that Sheldrake has put forward a hypothesis concerning morphic resonance is true. There are dozens of sources, from both critics and a few supporters that ALL agree that he has done so. This has nothing to do with WP:REDFLAG. There is no contentious claim. --Iantresman (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Iantresman's point. Consider the moon-cheese theory. Most scientists completely ignore it. A few people advocate it, a few rebut it. We write a biography of a* proponent. According to Iantresman's theory, our treatment of the casein theory of lunar geology in that article should say "a few scientists and skeptics dispute it".

The sources we now have establish the fact that Sheldrake's ideas are comprehensively rejected. They reflect the consensus. If there were evidence of significant independent study of morphic resonance among biologists or any other scientists then Iantresman's argument might stand. In science, a valid idea is one which can be tested and developed by others. Ian, do you have evidence of any significant publications building on Sheldrake's work in the peer-reviewed biological literature? Independent replications of his proposed experiments in high-impact journals, for example? Guy (Help!) 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the moon cheese theory was not put forward by an expert on the moon, nor supported in various ways by multiple moon experts and other scientists. There are no solid sources suggesting, for example, that the moon cheese theory is the "life's blood of science". There are no Nobel Laureates who support it. There are not regular articles offering some support for the theory or the person who put forward that theory. In this and many other ways, then, the analogy fails, and as such should not determine how we treat the theory that forms one part of this article, nor indeed the remainder of the theories/views by the person who the article is about and which are not specifically related to the theory for which the moon cheese theory was a (dis)analogy. Also, nobody is saying the theory is valid. We are saying that it has some small degree of support in addition to the criticism which dominates a huge chunk opf the current article. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You know what, Brian Josephson would probably support that as well, he's supported pretty much every other piece of pseudo-scientific crackpottery going. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the fallacy of appeal to authority. How do you know my moon-cheese proponent was not a former NASA geologist? Do you want me to find examples of eminently qualified people advancing bonkers ideas? There's no shortage. How about a professor of biology who advocates biblical creationism? Guy (Help!) 21:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but since he's Nobel Laureate, I'm more inclined to give weight to what he says than I am to someone who has very little familiarity with the issue under discussion. That's not to say he is right, but he's also not the only one. David Bohm, eg, did some work with Sheldrake, and above there are a list of multiple experts who feel Sheldrake's work is worth paying attention to. Be that as it may, this is not the place to discuss our own views of the merits of Sheldrake's work. Here we are supposed to go with what the sources say and not with our own particular take on the issue. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, the appeal to authority. Ever heard of the "Nobel disease"? Nobel laureates have advocated all manner of batshit craziness, including eugenics. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they have. But some As have been wrong, therefore this particular A is wrong, is far more fallacious than the appeal to authority you imagined I made. Moreover, Wikipedia content is absolutely based on authority. That's what all the stuff about reliable sources is about. Thus to reject an authority if one doesn't like what they say (and to reject inclusion of the mere fact they said it) is to reject the core principle of the encyclopaedia. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how science works. It's never about who says a thing, always about how well supported their idea is. Josephson has an extensive history of advocating complete nonsense, to the point that if he did advocate Sheldrake's ideas (I haven't checked) it would be a point against, not for, Sheldrake. But we don't even need to have that discussion: we have no need to head off down the rabbit hole yet again. I refer you to my points made earlier: propose specific changes and the sources that support those changes, minimising your personal opinion, or you're wasting everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing about how science works. I was arguing about how Wikipedia works. It works on the basis of sources. And we have multiple reliable sources, and their content, being suppressed because some editors here dislike what those sources say. Thus I think you should revert your edit which seriously misrepresents Sheldrake's support as only coming from those in the new age movement - something you know, from the many sources cited here, to be false. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If Sheldrake were promoting ideas related to superconductivity, you might have a point, Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So we should throw out Maddox's views then? We also have Bekoff (biologist) and numerous neuroscience experts, consciousness experts etc etc., offering a degree of support for Sheldrake's theories in those fields. Th article really should cover what the sources say and not what you'd like them to say. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I can cite a professor of biochemistry who advocates biblical creation. I can cite several others who discuss his advocacy in calm tones. His views remain lunatic fringe. With ideas as wide ranging and (if valid) profound as Sheldrake's, the fat that only a tiny handful of people even discuss them is significant in itself. Their discussion is useful in describing Sheldrake's views, no more. We have good sources for the insignificance of support for his views. So, instead of arguing that we've got it all wrong, an assertion for which you've failed to attract meaningful support, instead suggest specific and actionable changes, with good sources. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that you have it all wrong. I'm citing sources which show you are wrong, and which show your edit changed information which is true to information which is false. In BLPs this should concern you, but clearly your own views on the matter are taking precedence over everything else. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that Gardner is not qualified to say anything about Sheldrake's hypothesis other than as his opinion which carries no weight in this article. Unless someone can show me where he has been elected as a spokesperson for people who do have the authority, he needs to be removed as a reference. Tom Butler (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You are joking, aren't you? Martin Gardner was one of the best-known authorities on fringe and crank ideas, his book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science is a foundational text of the rational skeptic movement, and he was a contributor to the Skeptical Inquirer for years. This is one of the least contentious sources in the article! Guy (Help!) 12:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the disputed passage so that it matches what the sources say. The sources cited are Lewis Wolpert and Adam Rutherford. Neither explicitly labels morphic resonance pseudoscience. They both bring up the term but in reference to other beliefs. However, I think it's reasonably clear that they regard morphic resonance as pseudoscientific, so I think it's okay to say that this view is implied. Neither of them says anything about Sheldrake contributing to public misunderstanding of science, so I've deleted that part of the passage. Now the problem is that even though we now have a fully sourced statement, it might be too detailed for the opening section. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

For values of "corrected" that encompass the incorrect. Don't do that again, please. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Morphogenesis v. morphogenetic fields

Up there ↑ it's stated that we should have more on the concept of morphogenesis, which conflicts with Sheldrake, and less about his imagined concept of morphogenetic fields. I think it would be interesting to contrast the valid with the nonsensical in this way, but obviously we cannot blaze the trail. My Google-fu is clearly weak as I am having a great deal of difficulty finding any reliable sources where experts in morphogensis point out hos it conflicts with Sheldrake, or indeed mentioning him at all in conjunction with the valid concept. Anyone have any suggestions for content here? Guy (Help!) 20:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have very strong opinions on the matter, but your opinion is in conflict with many notable scientists and multiple reliable sources. Does your status as an administrator on Wikipedia allow you to overrule sources in this way? The scientists in question are listed above, as are many articles discussing Sheldrake's ideas in a way far more reasonable that the article currently has it. Grateful if you could explain what the role of sources are re wikipedia if not to determine content? Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is due to sampling error. See my comment above re the moon-cheese theory. When virtually the entire relevant professional community completely ignores an idea, it tends to be because it is abject nonsense. Morphic resonance is exactly that. Reliable sources reviewing the reaction to it, establish that beyond doubt. The few people who don't reject it out of hand as completely lacking any valid basis in fact, are useful for describing the theory, but not to establish its legitimacy.

Remember, if morphic resonance were true, it would necessitate a wholesale revision of all of biology and also of significant areas of physics. It has much in common with psychic phenomena: the existence of scientific discussion and open-minded investigation is asserted by believers to be evidence of validity, but it isn't. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the issue under discussion here. Nobody is trying to claim the theory is legitimate, or has been accepted widely. This point has been made literally dozens of times at almost every stage of almost every discussion. The point is simply that it does have a small degree of support - as you acknowledge above - and yet you have just edited that fact out of the article contra multiple reliable sources.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I understand the issue. I have read through the debate and archives, it took me a long time. The pro-Sheldrake editors want to minimise the degree of marginalisation of Sheldrake's ideas and advance his attempts to use philosophical rhetoric in place of scientific rigour. I have seen this may times before in other fields where absolute self-belief collides with empirically testable fact. Any reference to Kuhn is a dead giveaway! Guy (Help!) 21:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. The neutral editors (eg, me) want to include a brief statement in the introduction detailing what we know to be the case in virtue of multiple reliable sources and other are intent on keeping that well-sourced information out of the article for some reason. And the part you specifically misunderstand is the difference between the theory being widely considered valid and it having a small degree of support. Thus you argue against the former as if it was the same point as the latter. It isn't. As the above, and the archived, discussion, and multiple reliable sources clearly show. Thus the article currently has false information, where previously it had true information, and all without any consensus here either. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As long as you are determined to portray your own bias as neutrality, you are wasting everybody's time. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any great bias as regards Sheldrake. This can be seen, eg, in the way I am able to talk about him in a clam manner without each post being charged with emotion and full of invective. I perfectly well understand that his ideas have gained almost no traction in the scientific community and that a few people have issued strong denunciations. This seems to contrast me with others here who cannot speak about him without abusing him, and cannot even admit that a number of top-quality scientists have supported his ideas in one way or another, and are editing the article so that it excludes that support entirely and/or misrepresents it.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So you say. But you're a single purpose account whose edits all seem to get reverted, and I'm an admin and email response volunteer with a long history of working on contentious biographies and dealing directly with article subjects' concerns.

You could always try, as I keep saying, suggesting specific changes with the reliable independent secondary sources that support them. You don't seem to have quite got the hang of that: saying that text noting limited scientific support for Sheldon can be supported by primary sources and the woo-monger Chopra is a case in point. If you can find a sentence in the MAddox commentary that says he has limited support among scientists, that would be completely acceptable. Can you see the difference? In one case you're deciding who is reliable and counting them to see if they are many or few, in the other an authority in the field of science is presenting a conclusion about the level of support within science. And of course if someone else reliable says there's massive support for Sheldrake we can use that too, but I am pretty confident that isn't the case. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with trying to achieve consensus here is that all the neutral editors have been bullied away and will no longer participate. See here [49], here [50], here [51], and here [52]. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So you admit to not being neutral then Barleybannocks. I suppose that growing self realisation is a start. Also worth noting that the claims of bullying were not supported by the Powers here either. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't admit to that. I have likewise been bullied away inasmuch as I am no longer allowed to edit the article. And the claims of bullying were neither supported nor rejected - it was felt that the current powers were sufficient to deal with the problem. Be that a it may, your lack of concern that four editors with no axe to grind feel they were bullied away with constant attacks on their motives etc, by a small element fiercely opposed to Sheldrake, tells us all we need to know about your neutrality. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"The pro-Sheldrake editors ... Any reference to Kuhn is a dead giveaway!" Usually I hate txteze, but the only thing I can say to that is LOL. Oh yes, that evil pseudoscientist Thomas Kuhn, promoting his woo. Anybody who has an understanding of philosophy-of-mind, Chalmers thru John McCarthy, they are ALL WOO-MEISTERS! Guy, you have seen this all before, you say. Did it ever occur to you, that the world is not as full of woo-meisters around every corner as you might think? Did you ever consider that maybe NPOV means sticking to the RS, that maybe UNDUE means sticking to the RS, and that maybe when Barleybannocks says they see neutrality problems here, and I say the same, and David_in_DC says the same, and in response *you* tell us that only the skeptic POV is truly neutral, that possibly *you* might be mistaken?

  I note that Vzaak is also a one-purpose-account, just like Barleybannocks, but I don't see you giving him trouble about it. Please recall that we welcome people here that are just interested in one topic-area, they tend to be experts. "As long as you are determined to portray your own bias as neutrality, you are wasting everybody's time." That is excellent advice, Guy, please take it yourself... or explain how following what the Reliable Sources say is Bad And Wrong And Offensive, without referencing WP:MAINSTREAM please. Anyhoo, apologies you feel alone Barleybannocks, but as you point out, neutrality has left the building. But it's not dead, it hasn't left the county; do your best to stick to the sources, and keep to the moral high ground, follow pillar four like a rock. Correction: be WP:NICE you dern woo-meister sheldrake-fanboi, you, is what I mean to say.  ;-)   Sigh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  p.s. Roxy, and Barney (and welcome back TRPoD), since you are all largely convinced that JzG and jps are correct, and that anybody who believes the currently article is non-neutral must be a Sheldrake-fanboi, I'll keep this short and sweet. By lumping good BLP-oriented perfectly-NPOV editors like David_in_DC into the same pile as *actual* Sheldrake fanbois, you are shooting yourselves in the foot. Make sense? I hope so. p.p.s. By the same token, the longer the war goes on, to pretend that SPOV==NPOV in at least the Sheldrake mainspace if not the rest of the project, the more famous Sheldrake gets out in the real world. Is scepticm best served, by downplaying the man's credentials, and his ever-so-mild amount of success, here on wikipedia? WP:RS==NPOV, and Barleybannocks is trying to stick to the WP:RS, not wiggle out of them by using "adminstrative experience" to divide them into two piles, one "serious" and the other "virtually". HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Normally, morphogenesis has a number of mechanisms, some really weird. For example, a protein might be produced at one end of a cell, the cell divides into many, and the different cells know they have various fates based on how much is present. That's the classic Drosophila egg model, but it is actually a very unusual system even for insects. More commonly, a factor (morphogen) is secreted into the space around the cells, different cells see different amounts, and react to it. But why doesn't it wash around randomly and lead to random results? Well, there's some very careful chemistry going in in the extracellular matrix - cells are coated with strands of heparin and similar sugars, and some factors seem to stay stuck within them. Others stay anchored to one cell and only affect those it touches. But is that all? Not hardly. It turns out that cells produce narrow little filopodia that can reach around and poke others, or exosomes that carry little bits of the cytoplasm around. And they stick to other cells by gap junctions that let proteins move back and forth communicating information. And then there's the weird stuff from the literature you don't know what to make of, like homeobox transcription factors somehow making it through cell membranes on their own by some quirk of protein chemistry. Sometimes something mechanical matters - it turns out that situs inversus is avoided by some aspect of the current flow around a primary cilium that rotates always in one direction, letting the organism figure out which way is 'left'. And cells each have cell polarity so they know which way they themselves are facing. And... well, anyway, here's the real point: all these mechanisms are really, really, really specific. Morphogenesis doesn't work on platitudes, it needs a plan. I'm not familiar with Sheldrake's work, but he really has some explaining to do to communicate to us how one specific instruction to bend this way or that, divide or not, gets to one specific cell, not its neighbors that are supposed to do something else. As you search, look for these specifics (something akin to his claim that a new crystal would affect crystallization rates anywhere in the world - cosmos??) and then you'll get more direct comparisons. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in a blp

I propose we change the current text in the intro which misrepresents Sheldrake support as only coming from followers of the new age, when we know, given multiple reliable sources, that Sheldrake has received support from some within the scientific community. I therefore suggest we say something like, "despite the largely critical reception to his work from the mainstream scientific community, Sheldrake has received a small degree of academic support for his ideas, as well as attracting a following from supporters of the new age movement." The main advantage this has over the current version is that: a) it is true whereas the current version is false, or deceptive, or both; and b) we can source it to multiple reliable sources rather than having to suppress them. All important stuff, I feel, in a BLP.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a list of sources (once again) which support the above edit.

These are a number of scientists who have offered support for Sheldrake in various ways.

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. [53]

These four all signed an open letter to TED that was published in the Huffington Post [54] (Links to their credentials can be found above on a previous post.)

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.

Here's one who also explicitly rejects the accusation of pseudoscience in a letter published in nature:

Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics.[55]

And here's an academic who argues, amongst other things, that books such as Sheldrake's, whatever you ultimately think about morphic resonance, are the "life's blood of Science" (thus not pseudoscience).

Theodore Roszak, Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay [56]

Here's a scientist who worked with Sheldrake in developing some of his theories.

David Joseph Bohm FRS - "American theoretical physicist who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, philosophy of mind, and neuropsychology. He is widely considered to be one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century." [57]

Here's [58] an entire issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted exclusively to Sheldrake's work. That would appear toi fulfil the requirement for academic discussion of his work. Especially when taken in tandem with all the other academic books and article Iantresman and others have cited above. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And here's the list of sources that support the current version

Barleybannocks (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

its covered under "The move and framing prompted accusations of censorship," probably overcovered as 4 voices represent a non measurable fraction of the scientific community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't covered by that at all. There are multiple ways that particular policy/guideline would have to be misread to suggest that it does. And, given the article is actually about Sheldrake, and the specific section is about his support, it clearly warrants mention. Plus there are more than 4 - there are 6 listed above, and there are numerous others in many posts in the talk page and archives. I do note, though, that there probably only about 4 who have called his work "pseudoscience" yet that minority view is currently portrayed, falsely, as the view of almost every scientist in the world, while the mainstream science view is completely absent.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The mainstream view is thus: "Rupert who?". Guy (Help!) 23:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Those who say "who" can't have been engaged in any criticism as the article currently falsely claims/implies, otherwise they would know who. In any event, we now have even more reliable sources including a whole issue of a peer-reviewed journal devoted to his work, which shows the current article to be even more obviously false than it already was. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Barleybannocks' point is that this is not an argument about the validity of the hypothesis, but it is about a balanced representation of the hypothesis. If you insist on including a critique of the hypothesis in this BLP, then it is necessary to be very careful not to be seen as pilling on. Observers of this editing fiasco have expressed dismay on a number of occasions that the hypothesis is not separated from the BLP in the first place.

I see a lot of authoritative pronouncements about the validity of the hypothesis from editors here. Unless you are willing to submit your statement as a verifiable reference in the article, it has no standing.

Finally, please stop insisting that anyone who does not agree with you is ignoring the need for NPOV. What many of us are saying is that your understanding of it is simply incorrect (we can read the policy too). It is reasonable to say that the hypothesis has received some support but has been generally rejected by the majority of scientists who have evaluated it. Then provide one or two references for both side ... end of subject. Once you begin a list of pro and con references there really is no end to what will need to be added with each new study. Tom Butler (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at all the citations up above. I previously only really looked at those in the article. I have to say that my view of The Rupester is changing from "he's a whacky-thinking outlier, but he deserves a fair article" to "hey, some serious people have praised and are praising his work, and he still deserves a fair article."

Who here would object to a draft of an addition to the article that reported and summarized the views represented in those citations? Lou Sander (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am getting a bit tired of what appears to be a willful ignorance of the archives, but suffice to say that the list of supporters of Rupert Sheldrake ranges from known pseudoscientists and alternative medicine practitioners, emergent ecologists and psychologists who have been criticized for being pseudoscientific themselves, and two physicists who are caught in the Roger Penrose trap of thinking that consciousness is not well-understood by neuroscience (a trap that also entices many philosophers). The point is that this list of scientists being repeated on these pages who support Sheldrake does not indicate that there is any movement whatsoever by the mainstream community to take Sheldrake's claims any more seriously. In polling, it's almost axiomatic that you can find a few examples that will support any position. That's what we have here (similar to those lists that creationists push out on scientists who reject Darwinism). Now, someday lurker may start a Project Steve to show that the vast majority of scientists dismiss Sheldrake out-of-hand, but, fortunately, he doesn't have enough traction outside of TEDx events to require such wastes of time. Wikipedia, however, can identify that these scientists are not reliable sources for demarcating mainstream understanding (since they are all on a whole, themselves, out on limbs) and further can rely on WP:ITA not to use this tiresome list as evidence that there is some level of disagreement as to what the mainstream understanding of Sheldrake's nonsense actually is. jps (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree Lou, the situation with regard to Sheldrake is very well know - mostly ignored, widely criticised, but narrowly supported. A situation which is substantially different, fwiw, with regards to his philosophical critique of scientism in Science Set Free which is quite widely supported in academia (more inasmuch as people agree with the basic idea rather than explicitly agreeing with Sheldrake's recent work which they may not have seen). I therefore think the article desperately needs some additional commentary covering these things, and would welcome any draft you can provide. Barleybannocks (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And for the record, for the umpteenth time, I do not believe in telepathy. --Iantresman (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wooly thinkers eh!. Can't live with 'em, the world would be a duller place without 'em. Thank goodness for WP:FRINGE Oh yes, and the ruling on Pseudoscience here on wiki. Can't get away from it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As you note above, Sheldrake's ideas are generally dismissed or ignored. I have nothing against including a short sentence on the limited support he does have, provided it's worded neutrally. Can you identify a suitable quote from a reliable secondary source that makes this point? Listing individuals is WP:SYN and not allowed. The problem here is that, for example, the Bekoff page is a primary source and Chopra is a new-religionist crackpot, not a scientist or a reliable commentator on matters of science. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The short statement - neutrally worded - was what was in the article before. I suggest "a small degree of academic support". Barleybannocks (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on what reliable independent secondary source that states there is a small degree of academic support? Remember, we cannot infer this from digging up the few supporters ourselves. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How about "that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.", in a book by David F Haight [59], published by the University Press of America [60]Barleybannocks (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And then there's this from Bryan Appleyard, which appeared in the Sunday Times. "Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported." [61] As I said, these are well known facts, that are covered in one sense or another virtually everywhere Sheldrake is discussed except, currently, Wikipedia. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And you could pick any number from here [62]. For example, "of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise." Barleybannocks (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence of the "highest praise". The key problem with all of these statements is that they are overemphasising the acceptance of Sheldrake's work, apparently in order to create a sense of controversy in the article. However, and rather dully, there is no controversy - the true level of acceptance amongst scientists is so small as to be negligible, and those that do support have their own credibility issues. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, that is obviously your opinion, but it is contradicted by multiple reliable sources. And your claim that all his supporters have their own credibility issues is, of course, invented (see above for the impeccable credentials and lofty mainstream positions occupied by many of his supporters). Barleybannocks (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

From the sidelines: I agree with Guy that we can't infer degrees of support from digging up individual references. I agree with Barley that the nature and level of support for Morphic is not properly revealed in the article (I only learned of it from reading this talk page). I have a concern that the lead, when talking about support or criticism, maybe isn't summarizing material that is in the body of the article. I do not think that any of the posts under this heading, with the exception of one, are disruptive or unhelpful. They seem to me to be proper discussions of serious matters, held among editors with differing views. Lou Sander (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - physicists "believe Josephson richly deserved his 1973 Nobel prize, few believe he has done work of any merit since [NB: remember what we said about doing science] , while some argue that his flirtation with transcendental meditation and the paranormal has been intellectually disastrous." [Royal Mail's Nobel guru in telepathy row, the Observer]. Let's not get started on Chopra as we'll be here all week. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't an article about Josephson. Secondly, it isn't an article about Chopra. Thirdly, the impeccable credentials and lofty academic posts held by many supporters of Sheldrake are detailed and linked to above. Fourth, the articles just cited clearly support the edit under discussion since they are virtually verbatim. So, we have reliable secondary sources saying there is support and we even have many examples of the support listed. I don't see the need for continued debate amongst editors, and about the views of editors, on this straightforward issue. Sheldrake has a small degree of support from within the scientific community. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Frame it properly Barleybannock. Sheldrake has a homeopathic, rather than small, level of support from within the scientific community. Frankly, that level of support shouldn't even be mentioned. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin watching, Roxy the dog there are sources which suggest Sheldrake has a small amount of (serious, not homeopathic) support, do you have sources to present which show that the support is homeopathic? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think what s/he means Callanecc, is that Sheldrake's support is metaphorically homeopathic (ie, diluted to nothing). Thus we should not use the sources I cited because they are mistaken, the truth being known to editors here by mean/sources unknown. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

However as has already been established in this section the information should be included in the article, and sources have been suggested, so rather than a general comment, a comment needs to be made directly on the sources presented or the presentation of other sources which support that point of view. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that, and I know that is how it is supposed to work. But that doesn't happen here. Sources are requested; multiple sources are provided; sources are even provided demonstrating the truth of the claims made in the sources that were requested/provided; and then all of that is rejected by editor argument. That's why almost all the neutral editors left (as detailed on the recent arbitration request by at least four people no longer really involved due to exactly this kind of thing).Barleybannocks (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc (talk · contribs), I'm honestly not aware of any true support which would involve scientists seriously attempting "morphic resonance"-related research, coming to similar conclusions, publishing that research in a peer-reviewed journal, and have their peers cite and build on their work and so on. The closest we have are a few who demand "more research" without actually conducting any themselves (this is a bit akin to criticising a Wikipedia article and not fixing it), a few who apparently believe in things such as parapsychology that most scientists don't (yet before confirming this with research, see point 1), and finally a few who support Sheldrake's right to free speech. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok so before we move on any further Barleybannocks have you found a quote which meets the requirements above? Barney (I assume it's ok to call you Barney?) while not breaching WP:SYN do you have an objection to something like "a small degree of academic support" or the quote which Barley finds, as long as it is reliable? The main point which has been expressed regarding this is that something should be included, because it is strange and might leave something missing for the reader. So assuming we can find a source so that it isn't WP:OR is that ok with you, or do you have another suggestion? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the "small degree of academic support", which is supported by all three sources cited above. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not going to fly without a proper source to support it. Here's why: the few scientists who have defended Sheldrake to a limited degree, have primarily defended his right to debate the scientific process and how science decides what is fact and what is hypothesis. This is being portrayed as support for his conjectures, but this is not necessarily true. That's why we can't use primary sources, we need a reliable secondary source that analyses the degree of support his conjectures have, as opposed to the degree of support for his right to advance his conjectures. Even the Chopra piece on the TEDx debacle makes it plain that most of the support he has received has been on this latter basis. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the first source says more physicists than biologists have supported his theory of morphic resonance; the second says morphic resonance has been widely derided and narrowly supported; and the third says that New Scientist has published papers supportive of formative causation. Thus the three sources cited above (at your request) all make statements about the support for his scientific work within the scientific community, and do not, as you suggest, focus on his freedom of speech. 16:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs)

Bannocks: Help us here... which three sources? ("Above" includes a LOT of territory, some of it very far away.) Lou Sander (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

These were the three sources I offered in response to Guy's request. He says they deal with freedom of speech, whereas I say they refer to Sheldrake's theories.

"That Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.", in a book by David F Haight [63], published by the University Press of America [64]

And then there's this from Bryan Appleyard, which appeared in the Sunday Times. "Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported." [65]

And you could pick any number from here [66]. For example, "of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise." Barleybannocks (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that here we have a clear proposed statement that seems well supported by suitable sources. --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the proposed phrase should be added to the existing sentence in the lede, as proposed in the first post in this section. Regarding the lede covering material that is not in the body of the article, an expanded version of this phrase, covering the material from all four sources should IMHO be added as a new third paragraph in the section 'In scientific and popular culture', above the existing paragraph about the New Age response. That last paragraph there, incidentally, should be expanded to provide coverage of the Deepak Chopra statement from the lede. Doing these things would greatly improve the NPOV of this article within the context of WP:FRINGE, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nigelj (talk · contribs) - I know the title is "Misrepresentation in a blp", but to which particular wording of Barleybannock (talk · contribs)'s attempts to misrepresent the WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG obvious conclusion "Sheldrake enjoys virtually no support in the scientific community" are you referring? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement is a negative. Turn it around and explain what support he does enjoy. We could equally say that Sheldrake has had little criticism from the scientific community, based on the handful of vociferous comments out of the hundreds of thouands of scientists worldwide, but that would be misleading. --Iantresman (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with "Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported" as cited, since this speaks directly to MR and does not conflate support for Sheldrake's right to write nonsense with validation of the nonsense he writes. It also appears to be an accurate reflection of the state of scientific acceptance of MR, as far as I can tell from my still continuing reading. I have also ben reading "The Science Delusion". It is self-serving and fallacious. I am quite angry I bothered; Kuhn it is not. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Focus

It is proposed that the existing sentence in the lede as follows:

While the response to his work from the scientific community is largely critical, Sheldrake has a following among supporters of the New Age movement.

be changed to read

Despite the largely critical reception to his work from the mainstream scientific community, Sheldrake has received a small degree of academic support for his ideas, as well as attracting a following from supporters of the New Age movement.

with sourcing based on a selection from

• "That Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.", in a book by David F Haight [67], published by the University Press of America [68]
• This from Bryan Appleyard, which appeared in the Sunday Times. "Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported." [69]
• From here [70]. For example, "of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise."

Please comment only on the proposal, preferably by suggesting better wording or better sources. --Nigelj (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with your suggested wording. It is well sourced, appropriately written for an encyclopaedia, and demonstrably true.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Iantresman (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You would. --Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Philosophers opining on science are not particularly reliable sources. For exampe, the academia.edu link describes New Scientist as a "journal". There is no peer review in New Scientist last I checked. jps (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer:

Despite the largely critical (and even derisive) reception to his work from the scientific community, Sheldrake has received a small degree of academic support for his ideas, as well as attracting a following from supporters of the New Age movement.

The reason is that (a) Appleyard is pretty clear that derision is the main spur for Sheldrake venturing off into criticism of science itself and (b) there is, for all intents and purposes, no relevant scientific community other than the mainstream. There's no evidence that criticism of his ideas is restricted to mainstream scientists, for wall we know cranks in the cold fusion community or some other such backwater may also deride him. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are several problems with that. Firstly, it's not a very encyclopaedic, nor scientific, way to put it. Secondly, a lot of the derision has been roundly condemned (eg, Chris French said much of it was "uninformed and unfair"). Thus I think it is better to stick with less emotive wording which also covers the more appropriate criticisms from the scientific community. I have no issue with removal of the word mainstream. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a very accurate reflection of what the sources say, and as such is entirely encyclopaedic. The condemnation is not of morphic resonance, but of Sheldrake's pariah status. MR is generally accepted to be bunk, the condemnation of Sheldrake for his anti-science and anti-atheist rhetoric is generally accepted to be an over-reaction. Chris French is somewhat conflicted, he knows and likes Sheldrake and has worked on testing many of his claims - albeit, as he says, withotu finding any evidence they are correct. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems logical Jzg (talk · contribs). It plays the ball not the man, as some of the other quotes do, and it doesn't pretend that there's any greater acceptance (as previously described) than what we can see. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer "members of the scientific community" to "the scientific community". The critics are individuals, not representatives of the Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences, or other groups that might be said to speak for a community. I agree with the undesirability of "derisive." Lou Sander (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

True up to a point, but it's important to remember that MR is basically entirely ignored by the relevant academic community, and that is significant. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should say it has been mainly ignored, but the problem is that people can't deride something and ignore it at the same time. Thus a better way of dealing with this whole thing might be to say it has been ignored, while some have been very critical of it and others supportive. We could also possibly add in the mainstream science view of morphogenesis which is currently excluded entirely in favour of the views of a few scientists. Doing this would also mean readers would get a better impression of why Sheldrake is rejected. That is, because the scientific community feels it will solve the problems Sheldrake identifies by reference to genetics pretty much as currently understood. Maddox makes this point so we have a source also. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It is significant that it is insignificant? ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander (talk · contribs) - yes, per WP:REDFLAG. And it is significance (no research papers). Meanwhile, scientists continue to ignore his ideas where they would matter (in peer reviewed journals), and attack and deride Sheldrake's ideas in letters to newspapers. So we get ignoring and attacking in different media. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

and also per WP:ITA-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"see the Notes section in [71] to verify this"

I'm sure you guys know what this means, but can I suggest that this is never how we cite controversial statements in any article text, let alone in the lede of a BLP article. I see it has been reverted back in, and it is wrong to do so. If a single statement requires 14 citations (in a lede!), then it is probably WP:SYN. Please use one cite per statement, and one that covers the content of the actual statement. --Nigelj (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Iantresman (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The text that the 14 references (which we are meant to go and look up in some old version of the WP article) support begins "Scientists and sceptics have labelled morphic resonance a pseudoscience..." If that weasel-worded statement is to be made, then I'm sure editors here know that we are meant have a single secondary or tertiary source at hand that actually says words along the lines of "Scientists and sceptics have labelled morphic resonance a pseudoscience." The present text is so unsupported by WP policy that I would normally revert it straight out of a BLP article. However it was edited in under the admonition, "Please stop edit warring", and I would hate to end up at AN/I over it. --Nigelj (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources. The weasel words are only there because Sheldrake supporters insist on trying to down-play the extent to which Sheldrake's ideas are rejected. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the weasel word statement with a precise statement backed by the cited sources. Barney has already reverted it twice. He has also reverted corrections to inaccurate, unsourced material on parapsychology and the conservation of energy. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that we don't have many sources that actually say "pseudoscience" and we have many more sources that say his work is scientific (even if wrong). The Guardian actually ran a series of four articles asking the question, science or magic, with regard to Sheldrake's work, and some of those listed above who supposedly said pseudoscience (eg, Sue Blackmore) actually said "scientific" and at no point suggested his work was pseudoscience (none of the four articles said that, fwiw). That being said, it is clear a number of people have made this point and others have used other terms that are almost synonymous, so the claim should definitely be in the article. The extent to which it is claimed, though, is something that needs proper discussion, with sources suitable to the issue at hand, so we may accurately characterise this accusation given BLP. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Guy (1) Nonsense. There are no editors that are unhappy stating that some scientists have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience. (2) Even if it were so, that would not be justification to use the weasel words. (3) If the extent to which Sheldrake's ideas are rejected, you'll have not problems providing reliable secondary sources you say exist. (4) I still agree with Barney:[72] (a) "the majority of authorities on a particular subject will simply ignore it" (b) "a small number of authorities have spoken against a particular view, and yet a small number of others have also spoken in favour of it." --Iantresman (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

that is only an issue because you wish to ignore WP:ITA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented the suggested change with the word "derisive" because many of the reactions to Sheldrake from scientists are exactly that. I've also included the term "scientific community" because the statement specifies that this is largely the reaction, not the reaction of every individual scientist. Incidentally, Barney once again reverted my clarification of the pseudoscience charge, this time with the claim that Sheldrake has more than two critics. Okay, great. But the sources list only two critics. If Barney or any other editor wishes to make a generalized statement that Sheldrake's work is viewed as pseudoscience by scientists, we'll need a source that makes exactly that claim. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is plain tendentiousness. There are a huge number of sources already in the article that identified Sheldrake's proposals with pseudoscience or descriptions synonymous with pseudoscience. It is not anyone's job to put them on a platter for you. The fact that the enormous list of them was removed from the lede does not in any way excuse this kind of pretended bafflement about the plain fact that most people who consider Sheldrake's proposals consider them downright wacky. jps (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that a number of the sources cited for "pseudoscience" have plainly said no such thing, and a number of other sources have been "interpreted" beyond interpretation to give that impression. It is therefore reasonable, I think, that such criticism in a BLP be supported with precise quotes here so that we can judge whether the author actually said anything like what is being claimed. Another example is the media section where sources are used that don't really support the point they are used to support at all. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is only a problem in your evaluation. The "interpretation" of a source that uses synonymous descriptions for a pseudoscience is not unreasonable unless you're being pedantic, which it seems is the sort of default mode for many in these discussions. Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist in that he promotes pseudoscience. Others who support pseudoscience disagree with that characterization. It's as simple as that. jps (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When the source explicitly says "scientific" and the interpretation is "pseudoscientific" then that is a cause for concern. And while such interpretations agree with your opinion on the matter, they don't agree with the source, nor the many other sources that say "scientific", nor the other sources which say there is some debate about the issue. And so while you clearly believe Sheldrake's work is pseudoscientific, your view is firstly irrelevant (unless published in a reliable source), and secondly, it is contradicted by multiple sources from every conceivable type of reliable source. Thus the article should cover the fact that there is a dispute, and that some have said pseudoscience and some have said science. That's how simple it is. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a false equivalence and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia that covers WP:FRINGE subjects by paying most attention to the mainstream evaluation of them. The only "controversy" that is here is the one that comes from Sheldrake being upset for being criticized. We are able to describe that fairly without taking sides and by being explicit that he is generally considered a pseudoscientist by those in the know. To try to accommodate other editorial slants (e.g. that those people criticizing Sheldrake aren't really "in the know") is an abrogation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. An amazing feat of policy avoidance. jps (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

new edits

Barney, it would be helpful if you could seek consensus on the talk page for your edits. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney has added the following paragraph to the Rose section:

In his next column, Sheldrake again attacked Rose for following "materialism", and argued that quantum physics had "overturned" materialism, and suggested that "memories may turn out to depend on morphic resonance rather than memory traces". Philosopher Alan Malachowski of the University of East Anglia responding to what he called Sheldrake's "latest muddled diatribe", defended materialism, argued that dismissed Rose's explanation with an "absurd rhetorical comparison", asserted that quantum physics was compatible with materialism and argued that "being roughly right about great many things has given [materialists] the confidence to be far more open minded than he is prepared to give them credit for"

I appreciate the attempt to deepen the discussion, but this passage muddies the section, which primarily addresses the experiment they designed and which Rose eventually carried out. The disputed results of this experiment are far more important than a philosophical disagreement they had along the way. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I think that the Rose section is now too long, and the added information seems to have been added mainly to allow more critical commentary into the article with little in the way of added value. Indeed, the issue of adding in criticism after criticism is one of the main problems with the article imo. Looking at policy/guidelines, it seems more appropriate to have statements of the fact Sheldrake has been criticised rather than trying to impart this point to the reader by lengthy demonstrations. Thus we have various sections where Sheldrake's views are covered in a few words and then the vast bulk of the section (over 80%) is just one quoted criticism after another, often on subjects where the critics are not expert (eg, Rose's criticism of Sheldrake's media appearances). 23:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs)

Or we could pretend he's had received no criticism. And some support from the scientific community. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I know full well that Sheldrake has received a lot of criticism and agree that fact should be well covered in the article. I just don't think we need to write the article in such a way as to facilitate the inclusion of a quote from the vast bulk of it. It seems enough to say that the ideas are rejected with brief reasons, the odd quote, and references. As things stand the article is more a demonstration of the criticism (with apparent full Wikipedia backing even where the criticism has been widely criticised and/or is from a non-expert) rather than a report about it. One can say, eg, that Sheldrake's media appearances have drawn some criticism without taking up 80% of the section to quote it all. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Which criticism is from a "non-expert"? I see don't really see any that is not from a reputable academic. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the criticism at the start of the media section seems to be from media experts. These are sociology of communication issues and yet people like Rose are quoted, and given massive coverage, as if their views represent the mainstream, or are from experts, within that discipline. On issue like this, people like Rose are just disgruntled scientists whose own views may well be subject to criticisms from experts in that field. Moreover, very few of the sources cited (whitfield appear to be) actually seem to be about Sheldrake's coverage in newspapers, radio, television and his speaking engagements which is what the section is supposed to be about. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

i dont think "media experts" are the sole reliable voice on impact of media on public understanding of science. In fact, scientists would be the experts on that concept. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Scientists do not, qua scientists, study the effects of media on people's understanding of science. Some may, and their views, if backed by research etc, should count as expert. But that is not what we have. We just have some scientists who are not media experts complaining. And where media experts have spoken on such issues they have sometimes been critical of the scientific community's attitude to mavericks for a disdainful attitude towards science by the public.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the height of tendentiousness. Scientists are equipped to evaluate claims in the media when they are about science. We are discussing claims in the media that are about science. Ergo scientists are qualified to evaluate such claims. Indeed, scientists are more qualified than anyone else to evaluate whether the media is being accurate in its descriptions of science. Some scientists have even made part of their careers out of it. jps (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say scientists aren't equipped to evaluate claims IN the media ABOUT science. I said that scientist are not expert in the sociological analysis of the effects of, or the societal rights and wrongs of, media coverage of science. That is, they may be experts in terms of appraising the scientific content of any scientific claims made, but they are by no means expert in assessing the societal impact of such claims. Thus when Rose et al grumble about the media coverage Sheldrake receives they are just disgruntled scientists grumbling, and their views about the societal effects of such coverage should not be considered anything like on a par with their scientific assessment of scientific claims in their area of expertise. Thus there is no need to allocate 80% of the space in an introduction to a section on Sheldrake's media coverage to the non-scientific, non-expert, views of a few disgruntled scientists.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs in asinine ways. When scientists "grumble" about attention being paid to pseudoscientists like Sheldrake, they are absolutely evaluating the claims of the media in supporting the errors and/or lies of Rupert Sheldrake. They are equipped to determine that Sheldrake is misconstruing, misrepresenting, and generally making incorrect statements about the subjects in which they are experts. They do not need to be media experts to judge the media for allowing him space to do that. jps (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree both in terms of your conclusion and your assessment of what the criticism was about. At no point in the cited criticism was there any real scientific content of note. It was all just general non-expert grumbling that the world of the media was not the way they would like it to be. As such their non-expert views should be given a line, at most, in the introduction which notes their concerns but does not massively cover it as if it amounted to anything of consequence or as if it had some accepted scientific validity. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't competent enough to see where a scientist is judging content for the lack of its scientific basis, then you should probably not be in this conversation. Scientists are expert at what is and isn't science. They grumble when people promote pseudoscience. That's all that's happening here. jps (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When someone accuses someone of "self-promotion" he is not engaging in any kind of scientific analysis. To claim otherwise is just arguing for the sake of it. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Balderdash. The scientist is simply pointing out that Sheldrake's self-promotion is a means to scientific miseducation. Sagan was criticized for being somewhat self-promoting, but no one had a problem with his effect on scientific understanding. See the issue? jps (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not what the source says at all. And if that really was what it meant then that is what it should say, rather than asking the reader to divine that point from the term "self-promotion". But then if the article said that it would be as different from the source as many of the other critical points made in the article are. It seems a huge amount ion "interpretation", euphemistically speaking, is being done to sources in order to use them to support things they plainly do not say. This is highly problematic in a BLP. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a tortured reading of what a scientist means when they criticize the media for paying attention to someone who is a pseudoscientist. jps (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

1RR restriction on this article

Due to continued edit warring after warnings all editors of the article currently at Rupert Sheldrake are restricted to making one revert in any twenty-four hour period on the article expiring at 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC). Violating this restriction may lead to a block or topic ban, as an arbitration enforcement action. Please note that editing reverting just outside the 24 hour period will be considered gaming the system and may result in the same sanction. This action is undertaken as Arbitration enforcement per the discretionary sanctions authorised by the Arbitration Committee in this decision and is logged here. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And to add a bit more, the discussions on this talk page (especially in the two sections above) are exactly what this article needs. Consensus and discussion driven conclusions. What the article doesn't need is people reverting each other: Alfonzo and Barney you almost saw yourselves blocked for a couple of days for edit warring. If each section needs to be closed and archived top and bottomed before an edit is made then I am willing to do that (or post it to WP:ANRFC linking to this section), but let's see if the seeming new found willingness and 1RR will work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you looked very closely at the two sections above here you are praising. There isn't a lot of reasonable dialogue going on, really. What we have are a lot of truculent claims and not a lot of plain speaking. The denigrating of excellent sources solely on the basis of them being critical of Sheldrake is particularly problematic. jps (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about that? Lou Sander (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do be more specific if you can point to specifics of where that is happening (give me a diff and an explanation) and we might be able to do something. The reason I praised it is because we actually have constructive discussion on changes to the page based on sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded to the points above where I feel that people are beginning to adopt the model of WP:Civil POV pushing. There are certain individuals insisting that WP:ITA be ignored below. This is certainly not constructive dialogue. jps (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the constructive dialogue has stopped. Lou Sander (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your perception that the "constructiveness" stopped when people other than Sheldrake supporters entered the discussion? hmmm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of edits

Please talk about each issue in turn. [73]

"sometime"

Rupert Sheldrake was a biologist. He no longer works in biology. The normal way to describe this is that he was a "sometime" biologist. There are others. We must be clear. jps (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is no longer a materialist. He continues to promote and call for testing of his formative model of the organism. However, that's beside the point. We're not here to impose our views. We're here to report how Sheldrake is described in secondary sources, and those sources overwhelmingly describe him as a scientist or biologist. If you can find sources that describe him as a one-time or former biologist, then we can include that perspective in the article. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly extremely controversial to claim that someone can be a scientist while not adhering to methodological materialism. Simply claiming someone is a scientist who denies this basic operational condition is not something that Wikipedia should do, IMHO. jps (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea we should ignore what reliable sources by the dozen say (biologist) on the basis of the potted philosophy of some editors here is ludicrous. There is a long debate to be had about the connection between materialism and science, but this is not the place. Suffice to say you are quite wrong on the issue in any event. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources that claim he is a currently active biologist are reliable, and the reliable ones that claim he is a "biologist" make no mention of whether he is actively working in the field. jps (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost every sources offered for this is reliable. And the demand that these should now note that he is currently working in the field is just another ad hoc attempt to reject dozens of solid sources in favour of your own opinions. Sheldrake is a biologist. Nobody outside this talk page disputes it, and many, many sources outside this talk page state it plainly. Thus the article should state it plainly too. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think "former" is preferable to "sometime", but his 35-paper pre-1987 academic career is not notable for WP:PROF and we should describe him in terms of why he's notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He's notable as a biologist. He's notable as the biologist who wrote a book that caused a stink and led to him being called the most controversial scientist on earth. And given that and the fact that a huge numbers of reliable sources call him a biologist, Wikipedia should too - your attempts to right what you see as a great wrong notwithstanding. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he's not really notable as a biologist. He's notable as a book writer. The book is related to his career in biology and we should figure out how to write this properly. "Former" biologist doesn't quite do it, though. He dropped out of biology to pursue his dream of what he thinks biology should be. I'm not sure how to succinctly describe that. jps (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he's notable as a biologist. It was his biology book being reviewed by Nature that led directly to his notoriety. Not only that, dozens of reliable sources call him that, including one that is so reliable it is currently used in the introduction to support something it doesn't say (parapsychologist) instead of what it actually does say ("well-known biologist"). So, just move the citation back a few words in the opening sentence to where the intro says "biologist" and that should take care of both problems - the incorrect use of the source for parapsychologist becomes the required source for biologist.[74]Barleybannocks (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You really aren't paying attention, it seems. The other editors dispute that he is notable as a biologist, and his previous career as such needs to be characterized in light of his notoriety for writing a book 'relevant to biology, but isn't a "biology book". jps (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I know very well that other editors dispute it here. But this dispute extends nowhere beyond this talk page. There simply is no such dispute in the wider world. That's why dozens of reliable sources call him a biologist and no reliable sources explicitly dispute it. Here's one that not only says he's a biologist but says he's a "well-know biologist" (ie, notable as a biologist). [75] Have you a problem with Marc Bekoff, or Psychology Today? If so then you should know the source is already used in the lede (it's number three).Barleybannocks (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Go into your local university's biology department and ask them their opinion of Sheldrake's baloney. To claim that the dispute is confined to this talkpage is ludicrous, and perhaps indicative of an extremely blinkered understanding of what is mainstream. jps (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is whether he's a biologist. And the answer is a resounding yes from dozens of reliable sources such as highly respected academics and highly respected academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals and mainstream high-quality media. This is the point there is no dispute about anywhere outside this talk page. Thus I will not address your attempt to change this very specific question into yet another debate about the veracity of his work (there, there obviously is a debate). Barleybannocks (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change the subject: we're trying to figure out how to appropriately describe Sheldrake. You claimed that Sheldrake is notable as a biologist uncontroversially. That's nonsense. Sheldrake is notable for writing something that essentially almost every biologist who looks at rejects. That is the sense in which we should describe him. Now how to do that is the issue. jps (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We're looking for how to describe in the first line of a BLP. Thus the dozens of sources that say "biologist" should suffice. Especially given there is nothing external to this talk page which explicitly questions this well-known fact.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, if we wrote, "Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist" as the first linke that would not be enough. jps (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

parapsychologist

Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychologist. We should be up front about that. jps (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

probably should be footnoted with one of the many sources that make that analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He is a biologist and parapsychologist. We should be upfront about both. Biologist is sourced to over 20 sources and I seem to remember sources were offered above for parapsychologist. Thus we should say both. At present though we have the ridiculous, and meaningless, suggestion that he is a "sometime English biologist". What does that mean - sometimes he's a French biologist, or a German one, or that he's only sometimes a biologist (ie, when he's not sleeping, or eating dinner). It seems to me, then, that in their desire to do down Sheldrake, some editors here are (unwittingly) making a mockery of Wikipedia with the introduction of farcical phrases. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternative suggestions that indicate that he was once this and now is that would be most welcome. jps (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Biologist" would appear to be the best choice. It is true, it is well-sourced (to dozens of sources), and it is completely in line with Wikipedia guidelines, policies and precedents. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't indicate that he is no longer doing research in biology. jps (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is firstly no such requirement, and secondly, even if there was, he meets it. He is still researching morphogenesis, for example. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked for a specific alternative. You don't have to respond if you don't agree to it. Also, Sheldrake hasn't published in a legitimate journal in decades, so he's obviously not doing meaningful work in biology any more. Credible journal publications are the currency of research. jps (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

scientific facts

The Law of Conservation of Energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion machines are scientific facts. I linked to the appropriate section so you can learn about that. jps (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have already learned quite a bit about it. In my experience, the common ways to speak of COE are as a "law" or "principle". There are dozens or hundreds of references to it as a law or principle, for example this one. It would be helpful if you could provide a reference or two defining COE as a "fact". I've tried, but I can't find any.

Until such references surface, one can look at the articles Laws of science and Scientific laws for information about these matters, as well as for specific references to COE. The article section on scientific fact is pretty non-specific, and doesn't mention COE. Maybe it's not such a good thing to link to, at least compared to the other two. Lou Sander (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the conservation of energy is a direct result from the observed time symmetry in nature makes the conservation of energy a fact if anything can be said to be a fact. [76] [77] [78] [79]

I'll leave you to find the thousands if not millions of other examples (these were just the few that took me seconds to locate). jps (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that energy is conserved is due to the principle of conservation of energy. Lou Sander (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that energy is conserved is due to physics conforming to reality. The principle, law, and fact of energy conservation is not an assumption: it is a feature of time symmetry. What you are saying/implying is as nonsensical as saying "the fact that 1+1=2 is due to the principle of 1+1=2". jps (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see a lot to be gained from a lengthy discussion of the exact nature of the law of conservation of energy. This is because the way the current introduction has it - "and advocates questioning the scientific facts of conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices" - is a gross misrepresentation of Sheldrake's overall view. That is, it is true in a sense, but it is only one tenth of the story and far from the most important tenth. If this is supposed to be a one line summary of Science Set Free then it is an awful attempt and should be changed to something more general that accurately covers the gist of what Sheldrake is saying. As it stands, it seems to me, it is just another example of Sheldrake's views being presented in the most unflattering light imaginable. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be that this particular tenth of Sheldrake's ideas are over-emphasized, but I see no alternatives being proposed that emphasize something else. If we're going to talk about his questioning/denial of the conservation of energy, we need to make it clear that he disagrees with a fact. jps (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One alternative would be to say he advocates questioning what he calls ten dogmas of science - dogmas which he feels have been elevated above the status of provisional knowledge to the extent that some claim they are facts which must not be doubted/questioned. It is also worth noting that some of the criticisms of Sheldrake reject his claim that scientists take these dogmas as facts - thus the irony of this discussion. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit head-spin-y, but there is an extreme consistency here that you seem to have missed. There is nothing, in principle, non-scientific about questioning basic facts. Question the facts of the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion all you want: that's not a problem. These are, perhaps, unfortunate ideas to start out with, though, and the motivation for why Sheldrake thinks these are reasonable things to be questioning is rather absurdly lacking to the point of it being mistakable for farce. I think this is why some people here think we are criticizing Sheldrake by pointing out this simple point that he advocates questioning facts even though there is nothing in principle wrong with questioning facts.

More broadly, I think Sheldrake's poor choice of questions may be related to his documented illiteracy in matters of physics. I somehow doubt that he would have said something like, "I think we should question the existence of the cell" on the basis of reasonable skepticism of microscopes(!). It's that level of absurdity we're talking about here with this rhetoric -- nearly to the point of a kind of middle school solipsism and protestations of 14 year olds that "we can't really ever know anything!" Still, in principle, there is nothing that is not up for grabs in our investigations of the Universe, so the critique that Sheldrake thinks there is no flexibility is certainly misplaced. The larger point that is perhaps more visible, however, is that you cannot question facts without first understanding why the facts exist. In the case of Sheldrake's streams of consciousness about energy and perpetual motion, it's pretty clear he is out of his element. Questioning the *fact* of the conservation of energy is fine (and de rigeur!), but he is not doing this in a serious way at all. There is a difference, of course, between being open-minded and letting your brain fall out. jps (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a place for your philosophical opinions in the article. Facts can't be amended; facts can be amended (but only if they're questioned seriously). If you have a non-contradictory non-your-own-opinion point about how we should improve the article I'd love to hear it.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

These aren't philosophical opinions at all. This is an evaluation of the sources you seem to have misunderstood. Try to keep up. jps (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between a fact, law, and principle. As someone who studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, Sheldrake will not only know the difference, but have used the term he felt was most appropriate. I can not think of any reason why anyone would want to force their own interpretation on what they THINK Sheldrake meant, or claim he said something different to what he actually wrote. There are enough book reviews on Sheldrake to use as secondary sources for use as interpretation and analysis. --Iantresman (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You claim that there is a difference, but don't show any sources that indicate that Sheldrake thinks there is a difference. And even if he does, he denies the fact of the conservation of energy, or, at the very least, advocates that it should be okay to question whether the conservation of energy is a fact. As I've said previously, I don't really care if we discuss the conservation of energy in the lede, but if we do, I'm not going to stand by while people construe it as a "principle" or a "law" simply because it makes it seem like it is easier to amend. Principles and laws can be amended. Facts cannot. jps (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironically Sheldrake would entirely approve of your statement. He brings up the issue on page 56 of Science Set Free, specifically disputing the "law of conservation of matter and energy" which "guarantees fundamental permanence in an ever-changing world." He argues that laws of nature are really habits that can be amended, and he applies this approach to conservation of energy among other laws. This is in stark contrast to the standard view, which holds that all laws of nature are immutable. Keep in mind that a fact, by definition, can be directly observed. Sheldrake isn't denying that the conservation of energy has been observed at various times in closed systems. He's denying the inference that conservation of energy must always be obeyed. What he disputes is the lawfulness of energy conservation, not the fact of this or that observation. (As an aside to jps, time symmetry follows from mathematical analysis, not observation. What we observe is time asymmetry, i.e. the forward movement of time. Only in the math is time allowed to flow backwards.) Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is not a physicist and so may not understand that questioning the conservation of energy is about as rigorous as questioning the idea that one thing added to another thing makes two things. It's that fundamental. He's questioning a basic fact. jps (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is clear that what he questions is the law inferred from observations of energy conservation, not the fact of those observations. We cannot list Sheldrake as a source for a claim he does not make. Incidentally, plenty of physicists, including heavyweights like Dirac, Wheeler and Feynman, have questioned the belief that laws of nature are eternal and immutable. In other words, what is factual today may not be factual tomorrow. See Lee Smolin's Time Reborn. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no facts in science so secure that they cannot be amended given further observations. That, I believe, is philosophy of science 101.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a shell game. Not philosophy. Competent philosophers do not claim that we can never know anything because everything is up for grabs. jps (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about doubting there are any facts. Some things are clear facts. But in discussions about philosophy of science, using words in a sloppy manner is not helpful, and there is no requirement for Wikipedia to engage in such sloppiness just so we can take a cheap shot at Sheldrake. That sentence needs to go, then, for a variety of reasons, not least because it is a hopeless summary of Sheldrake's actual point, as well as for the reasons highlighted just above. 21:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs)

Philosophy of science is irrelevant to the fact that energy is conserved. jps (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Principles, laws and facts, you acknowledge and state a difference in your last sentence, so I don't know why your make it my "claim". It is not for editors to provide sources that support interpretation from editors. If you want to imply that Sheldrake claims that physical facts can be broken, then the onus is on you to provide a source that says. I have not seen one. Indeed, if you want to say anything about Sheldrake and what he says about the Conservation of Energy, then tell us your source, and we'll all look over it. For all we know, he is discussing it in the same way that radioactivity was discussed, when scientists thought that it violated the law of the Conservation of Energy. [80] --Iantresman (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake questions the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy is a fact. Therefore Sheldrake questions the fact of the conservation of energy. The end. jps (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think some people will be able to repeat their same old inane refuted arguments over and over again and over again and over again and over again and then some more. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's exactly what jps is doing. Sheldrake questions the lawfulness of energy conservation, not the fact that it's been observed at various times. To attribute to Sheldrake a claim he does not make is to violate WP:Source. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I note this from the link to Isolated system from the definition in the Conservation of Energy page: "In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange... Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature... and they are thus hypothetical concepts only" (my emphasis). Thus, when Sheldrake argues that "perpetual motion" devices may work, he need not even dispute law of the conservation of energy to do it, and need only point out that there is no such thing in reality as a closed system. Thus he may be saying that we should investigate so-called perpetual motion devices to see if they work rather than just dogmatically dismiss them by illicitly treating them as closed systems (which are impossible). This also raises issues about the status/use of a purported scientific fact that cannot apply to, or have been observed in, anything we have ever encountered, or will likely ever encounter, in the history/duration of human existence. Thus such devices being ruled out a priori is possibly, for Sheldrake, the dogmatic misapplication of a law for a hypothetical system to a real/different type of system. Best just test the devices, then, says Sheldrake, to see if they do in fact work.Barleybannocks (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is silly nonsense. The extent to which the conservation of energy is a law is a fact of nature. The end. Crocodile tears over the impossibilities of "isolated systems" are not going to help rehabilitate Sheldrake's (or his supporters') illiteracy in matters relating to physics. jps (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of silly nonsense in this section. It is here for all the world to see. Lou Sander (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, a quote I'm seeing is “The universe is now like a perpetual-motion machine, expanding because of dark energy, and creating more dark energy by expanding... Skeptics claim that all these devices are impossible and/or fraudulent, and some promoters of ‘free energy’ devices may indeed be fraudulent; but can we be sure that they all are?” This isn't immediately guaranteed to be a pseudo-scientific statement, even though we know full well what the reputation of the "field" is now. I mean, what would happen if we did design a device that creates dark energy? (I'm not sure if this has any relationship with the equally controversial idea of extracting zero-point energy) If we ignore the invisible dark energy in our calculations, could we see it give the appearance of producing free power? (I think I should take this one to the Science Refdesk, actually - meet you there) Wnt (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Dark energy is a form of vacuum energy (essentially a false vacuum), so the stuff is unextractable in essentially the same way zero-point energy is unextractable with the added problem that the energy density of dark energy is impossibly small on human scales. jps (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So far the Refdesk discussion seems to have been that either we don't know what it is, if it exists, let alone whether we can extract it, or else that it is a mathematical abstraction to explain the cosmological constant. I'd welcome if you would comment further there (or here if you want). It is vacuum energy in the sense that it pervades what we know as a vacuum freely, but is its level truly invariable, or does it just happen to be pretty uniform? When you say it is a false vacuum (which our article doesn't address) that would seem to imply that there is a way to tap that energy after all, but how, when we know so little about it, do we know that you can neither create nor destroy it short of some cosmic catastrophe? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion may be a bit far afield, but basically it is "unextractable" in the normal sense (see work (physics)). The level may be variable (that's what quintessence is), but even if it is, it must take on a scalar form in the Einstein Equations to have the properties necessary to cause the accelerating universe. This basically prevents it from being extractable in even the remotely plausible sense (for example, as in an Alcubierre drive). The "tap into" the dark energy idea of a false vacuum would lead to an end to cosmic inflation with the attendant problems associated with that. If we were to, for example, create a true vacuum that decayed from the false vacuum in a lab or something, this would probably have the effect of destroying the universe at the speed of light. I don't think this is exactly relevant to this article, however interesting it may be. jps (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You know, it doesn't seem fair when professional physicists can talk about some mysterious hypothetical stuff, beyond our ability to test for, that might be a constant or a scalar and might rip the universe apart altogether or blow it up at the speed of light - but Sheldrake gets blasted as a pseudo-scientist for saying that we shouldn't give up looking for a way to detect it experimentally by making free energy. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

then you should lodge a complaint of unfairness with the peer review journals for their refusals to publish his work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor is it fair that students are taught by teachers who can't grok the difference between elementary descriptive terms. Lou Sander (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

complaints about the education system go thataway.=> Facebook -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, journals do publish his work. [81] I mean, the guy has been published in Nature.[82] True, it wasn't for science, but still, not everyone does. I fully understand the feeling against it, I really do, but there's a no true Scotsman aspect to saying that no "scientific" journal publishes the works listed about telepathy. Besides, my aggravation is not really directed at the journals who snub Sheldrake, more at the physicists who have wasted veritable days of my time on "dark energy" without me feeling like I have any sense that it has any meaning at all beyond "the universe keeps expanding, duh I wonder why". Wnt (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You want to learn the difference between perpetual motion and dark energy? Take a few classes. I can't help your ignorance on this website. I don't get paid nearly enough. jps (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

ITA

WP:ITA forbids us from using in-text attribution to imply that Rupert Sheldrake is only considered to be problematic in his claims by two isolated critics. We can mention what each critic says but, per WP:SUMMARY, we MUST describe the general reaction to him which is that he is promoting pseudoscience and generally nonsense. jps (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ITA is a guideline, it does not forbid anything. There is no problem including in the summary, that some scientists have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience. --Iantresman (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:VALID is a policy which ITA clarifies the application. How is the encyclopedia improved by ignoring the guideline's application of policy in this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Maddox source specifically says it's pseudoscience but that has been edited out. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is still there in the section "A book for burning?" (in the quote). I added it, and I don't know any editors who would want it removed. --Iantresman (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Only a few people have charged him with pseudoscience, which is tantamount to heresy. That's very different from widespread rejection of his claims, which is already in the article. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The people who have charged him with pseudoscience are those who are most able to judge, not being supporters of other known pseudoscientific endeavors, for example. jps (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Academic support

There seems to be this idea that Rupert Sheldrake has a small amount of "academic" support. I think what people are trying to say is that there are academics who have expressed support of Sheldrake. However, simply saying he has "academic support" can be confused for a claim that there is "academic work" in support of him, which there is not. The academics who have supported Sheldrake, almost to a name, have not done so in the usual places of academic discourse. There has been no Nature or Science article announcing the discovery of evidence for morphic fields. jps (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a small amount of academic work in support of him - more by physicists than biologists, as one source explicitly says. David Bohm, eg, has done some work with Sheldrake, and Stuart Hameroff acknowledged in the letter published in the Huff Post that he has made use of Sheldrake's work in the cutting edge theory of consciousness he has developed with Roger Penrose. We also have an entire issue of the Journal for Consciousness Studies (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) devoted to a discussion of his theories. Thus the article should deal with the mainstream academic/scientific support/interest and should mention the fact in the introduction. As things stand we have the article making the ludicrously skewed (and false) point that support for Sheldrake's work has come only from new age devotees. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you got citations for these Barleybannocks (talk · contribs)? Genuinely interested to see this scientific support. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we were discussing them yesterday in this section.[83] I believe this is now the fifth time you have asked me, and the fifth time I have provided them.[84]Barleybannocks (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Barleybannocks (talk · contribs). Which papers specifically support Sheldrake and provide validatory tests of his hypotheses? Or it this just more pathological science published in a journal that publishes highly speculative ideas? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the point here is that we have secondary sources stating that there has been support, and we have peer-reviewed journal issues devoted to his work, as well as positive discussion of his theories in academic books, and support offered for his theories in various places by a number of scientists and philosophers. The issue of some academic support is now therefore exceptionally well-sourced and demonstrated, even if some still think there is one hoop or other that needs to be jumped through. Secondly, the issue is not about whether his theories have been validated - they have not. The issue is whether there is interest in them and support for them from within academia. The answer to the last question is a clear yes, and therefore given it is all sourced it should be in the article, your arguments against his work, and the sources, notwithstanding.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any peer-reviewed journals of high quality. We'd like to see top journals in biology, physics, psychology, etc. That, so far, has not been forthcoming. WP:REDFLAG is, essentially, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The extraordinary claim that Sheldrake's ideas are taken seriously should be accompanied by extraordinary evidence in the form high-quality journals (since his contention is essentially Nobel Prize worthy if it is true). Since there is no evidence that Sheldrake has received such notice, we are under an obligation not to mislead the reader into thinking that such has occurred. jps (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That Sheldrake enjoys some academic support is in no way an extraordinary claim. Not everyone is committed to the materialist interpretation of the world. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake only receives support from those sympathetic to pseudoscience. If he had scientific evidence for his ideas, he would be published in the top journals and talked about. He doesn't, so he's not, and he has no support in the relevant academic disciplines. jps (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No WP:FRINGE-exception

Try as I might, I can find no WP:FRINGE exeception to this WMF board resolution of last month: [85]. I do find this: "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by:

Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;

Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest;

Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess contributions , particularly when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report problems;

Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same."

Yes, I see NPOV in there. We've argued ad nauseum about what NPOV means in relation to this article. But please notice the emphasis. It's mostly about "human dignity" and "[t]reating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same."

Food for thought
David in DC (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Try as I might, i do not see that the foundation has proclaimed that we should whitewash the article and ignore or misrepresent how the academic consensus sees the very non private Sheldrake and his work. If he is concerned about being represented as a promoter of pseudo scientific hokum then it is very simple for him to stop promoting pseudo scientific hokum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If Dr. Sheldrake would like to join the discussion on this page, I know I would extend to him patience, kindness, and respect. jps (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Some months ago, I suggested that we should include the phrase "******* ****** (redacted per request from an admin)" to adequately describe Shelly's ideas. I haven't changed my personal views, but I withdraw the suggestion now. Instead, as an olive branch to woolly thinkers, perhaps TRiPOD's suggestion, "pseudo scientific hokum" is a little more encyclopaedic and less inflammatory. I think the pandering of the article towards Sheldrake's world view in the last few days shames us all. Meh. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem including the phrase ""pseudo scientific hokum", if you have multiple reliable secondary sources that say this. I have no problem attributing this phrase, if you have good reliable source that includes it. Do you have either, or is this just WP:SYNTH? --Iantresman (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed a potentially WP:BLP violating phrase from my comment above, though it has not actually been demonstrated to me that I have violated that policy. I am happy to comply with policy. I do not wish to be the victim of arbitrary sanctions. I also note that it has been requested that good refs are supplied for assertions here on the Talk page. Accordingly, my refs for the phrase "pseudo scientific hokum" are all of Shelly's published works, broadly construed, since he stopped doing science. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem saying "psuedoscientific hokum" if we have sources saying this, and if it is attributed. The problem, though, is that we have over twenty top-quality sources for all types of scientists and commentators who say Sheldrake's work is scientific (even if wrong). Thus we cannot treat a small vocal band of critics speaking on behalf of themselves as the voice of the scientific community at large, while ignoring all the opposite view from similar individuals - as some here wish to do. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources saying this. They might not use the word "hokum", but still, let's stop pretending otherwise. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is pretending you have no sources. But a number of the sources offered simply did not say it, and some actually said the opposite (Sue Blackmore, eg). Thus while the accusation of psuedoscience should clearly be in the article, we shouldn't attribute it to people who never said, nor anything like it. We should be clear that many disagree and the exact status of Sheldrake's work, re this question, is a matter of debate. Numerous sources make this very point, and the commissioned articles in the Guardian (and their commissioning) demonstrate it. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - please stop trying to interpret sources as saying things that they don't say. Again, your idea of a distinction between "terribly bad science" and "pseudoscience" is absolute nonsense, and it's clearly intended to hammer a wedge into the multitude of sources that basically say the same thing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We have been over this. Blackmore calls him a parapsychologist. "He is scientific - to a point." She then goes on to say his science is wrong and that he refuses to acknowledge lack of evidence for his proposal. To take from Blackmore only the first three words is completely unacceptable misuse and misreading her work. And to do so repeatedly is WP:TE-- -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is an informal fallacy. See "You're either with us, or against us" --Iantresman (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. The sources offered in many case don't say what one would expect them to given their use in the article, while others, eg, Blackmore, says the opposite. She says, for example, "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects" and never uses the word pseudoiscience, or anything like it, and yet this is used as a source for pseudoscience. There is interpretation going on as regards this source, then, but not by me. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You're both very persistent at it, even when you're told you're wrong. That some sources do not mention the word pseudoscience, usually by describing characteristics of pseudoscience while not mentioning the word, cannot be reasonably interpreted to say that they endorse Sheldrake's work as scientific. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess the problem is, eg, when someone says "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects", it is difficult to buy your arguments that they really meant pseudoscientific, and that that's what we should take from their article. Presumably Blackmore was free to write what she wanted and did so, and what she wrote was "scientific" albeit with some qualification. Thus it takes an enormous amount of "interpretation", euphemistically speaking, to yield the claim you want. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because you have refused to read beyond those 8 words to see what she says in the rest of the article. And what she describes is exactly pseudo science - scientific overlay masking parapsychology and utter nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Barney . It is not for you, or any other editor, to tell us that we are wrong. You are at liberty to disagree. Just because someone describes the characteristics of a duck, doesn't make something a duck. This is a basic induction fallacy and WP:DUCK "The duck test does not apply to article content". --Iantresman (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@RPoD I have read the rest of the article. At no point does she say Sheldrake's work is peudoscience. Her main criticism is that Sheldrake still believes things which she changed her mind about many years ago. But that in no way equates to the charge that all, or even any, of his work is pseudoscience. Blackmore should therefore be removed from the list of people who have said his work is PS unless another source can be found. @Iantresman, she doesn't even really list any main duck characteristics either as far as I can see. She just thinks he should have changed his mind, but since he knows his own experiments far better than she does he is entitled to argue his corner. This kind of thing is completely normal in science even in cases where some have gone to the grave hanging on to things that evidence rendered unlikely at best many years prior, and some have even been thereafter vindicated. All normal scientific stuff. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Her main point is that Sheldrake appeals to peoples desire to for faith in unproven claims dressed up in science rather than actual facts. That is NOT science - that is pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A correction TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom - Susan Blackmore does not say that his science is wrong, she says his theory of MR is wrong. She clearly clarifies this at the top of the article. And that is her opinion, and it's written in an opinion article, not a scientific journal. She claims Sheldrake does not review the evidence, but Sheldrake makes the same claim for her. I don't feel comfortable about the article taking sides in an argument between two colleagues. And yes they are colleagues they both served as chair for Perrot Warrick. A theory might be wrong, but that does not make the theory, or the scientist who proposes it, pseudoscience. Going through the sources provided here, I've only seen two quotes so far that directly say it's pseudoscience. I might be missing one or two, but Is the status of this whole article resting on those two quotes? That seems like somewhat of a stretch. If Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist because of his work in parapsychology, then Blackmore is also a pseudoscientist. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist because of the specific content and of his claims not because of the subject matter. jps (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking what an editor believes to be true, I am asking about the sources that support that belief. I'm not seeing anything special about the sources specifically mentioned that support the belief that Sheldrake performs pseudoscience. I found two so far. I'll ask the question again, is the entire status of this article resting on those sources? To an outsider, it looks like this article is resting on the assumptions of editors more than the sources provided. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You're assessment is correct. Some editors here have a very different view from the sources and want to include only those which support them and ignore the others altogether. Sheldrake's work has been called pseudoscience by a few people (including some scientists) but his work has been characterised as science by many more people (including many more scientists). Barleybannocks (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The list of "scientists" who support Rupert Sheldrake is full of alternative medicine practitioners, known pseudoscience apologists, and outright cranks. These are not reliable demarcators at all. In contrast, the sources who have plainly and simply dismissed the pseudoscience of Sheldrake are reliable, accomplished, and well-known scientists. This isn't a "he-said/she-said" game. We rightfully exclude the beliefs of crackpots as WP:UNDUE in spite of the nonsense credentialism of Sheldrake and his supporters on this page. jps (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your spurious attack on many top-quality scientists is no reason to reject anything, let alone three sound sources which explicitly state he has received scientific support. It is not Wikipedia's job to right what you regard as a great societal wrong. These people are scientists, many are listed in Wikipedia as scientists, and for many of them, your previous comment, and similar ones above by others, will be the only time their status as scientists has ever been questioned. It's clear you don't like these facts, but facts they are. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The "attack" is simply an evaluation that your favorite sources are unreliable. Just because a scientist says you are a scientist doesn't make you a scientist especially not when your reputation is to swoon over pseudoscience. jps (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources are perfectly reliable. David F Haight [86], for example, writing in an academic a book published by the University Press of America. What is you problem with him and the publisher? Barleybannocks (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The publisher? That's not who is the source. The source is the author and who the hell is David F. Haight? Why should we believe him? jps (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He's a highly respected academic (that's who he is), and he's writing in an academic book. That's the kind of thing Wikipedia rules regards as a reliable source. Thus Wikipedia believes him. We should also believe him because two other reliable sources say the same thing and the evidence that what they say is true has been presented numerous times on the talk page. For example, The Journal of Consciousness Studies, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, devoting an entire issue to Sheldrake's scientific work, etc, etc.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He is absolutely not a highly respected academic. He's a philosophy professor who is trying unsuccessfully to dabble in mathematics and science and promoting pseudoscience along the way. The Journal of Consciousness Studies is a pseudoscience magnet! It's laughable that you'd trumpet that as a standard of reliability. jps (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you sources for these defamatory attacks on Haight or is it all your own work? Likewise the appraisal of the JoCS Journal_of_Consciousness_Studies Barleybannocks (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, Barleybannocks! This isn't a discussion of Haight or of the Journal. This is a discussion of Sheldrake. That you chose poor sources doesn't need to be sourced. We can simply identify that these are poor sources because the Journal in question is poorly considered in the academic community and Haight is simply not a well-known academic who has, additionally, been documented to have supported pseudoscience. Since we aren't writing articles about either of those two subjects, your Russian-nesting doll demand for more sources is just plainly tactics and willful ignorance of the reality that people who believe in the magic of consciousness are considered pseudoscientific yammerers by the wider mainstream community. Now, we can get back to figuring out how to describe this calmly and fairly or we can continue the WP:GAMEs. I bet I know which one you're in favor of. jps (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You got nothing, let alone me. You made this into a discussion of Haight by asking why we should believe him. My answer was that he is a highly respected academic (I linked to his university page, which speaks of him in a very respectful tone). Your response was to attack a man you hadn't even heard of ten minutes ago. Thus, I am asking if there is any external source for the defamatory remarks you make about him, or whether they issue only from you, here, now.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Figure it out, you can stamp your feet in protest that Haight is awesome, but he's simply not a very good source for what you're trying to do. You can ask about sourcing on the talkpage for David F. Haight. jps (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Haight is awesome - haven't met the man. What I do know is that he is exactly the type of source, writing in exactly the type of source, Wikipedia requires, and that to reject him as a source we need a lot more than some apparently unfounded defamatory remarks thought up by an editor here in the last half hour. If you have sources suggesting Haight is untrustworthy for come reason then please cite them, if not, then just inventing more defamatory stuff to go along with the first batch is pointless.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

How it works is you suggested a source. I pointed out problems (obscurity of the author, problematic promotionalism, lack of expertise). You must provide us with some reason that we should use an obscure professor from a minor institution who doesn't have any degrees in scientific fields; the onus is on you to make your case. It's not my responsibility to provide you with sources proving unreliability. That's the silly Russian-nesting dolls sourcing. Are you going to question the sources I dig up about Haight? No... this is essentially WP:CHEESE at this point. Get better sources is the name of the game. Haight's a bad source. jps (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I suggested three sources + around 10 sources that demonstrated the truth of those sources, and you invented some defamatory stuff about one person/source you've never heard of (with no source, and no basis in fact for your invention), and then demanded we reject the sources because you shouted some invented bad stuff often and loudly. Let's at least tell it how it is.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You were the one who (problematically) chose Haight as your ace in the hole and then complained when I impeached the source. jps (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Parapsychology Source is Conflicting

In the lead section Sheldrake is described as a parapsychologist with two sources only. One source is a review of a lecture and does not claim Sheldrake is a parapsychologist, but just that he is now researching parapsychology, and the other source states specifically that Sheldrake is a well known biologist. If these are the only sources provided, they are vague and contradictory and should be either removed with proper ones supporting or the title of parapsychologist should be removed, as it's conflicting with primary and secondary sources. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think Sheldrake is if not a parapsychologist? jps (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake's belief in the possibility of telepathy follows directly from his theory of ontogeny. The man is a biologist, pure and simple, and that's how he's generally identified in secondary sources. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not how the study of biology works. jps (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

biologists do not study telepathy. parapsychologists study telepathy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not according to every source I could find, where there is no such academic position as "parapsychologist". At the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh University, there are no parapsychologists. Almost all the main staff are qualified psychologists. None of them identify as a "parapsychologist". The European Journal of Parapsychology, which was affiliated with the University of Derby, also included no staff that identified as a "parapsychologist". In related fields, such as consciousness research, the PEAR at Princeton University staff included aerospace scientists, psychologists, electrical engineers, and theoretical physicists. Again, not one identified as a "parapsychologist". The Division of Perceptual Studies at the U. Viginia also has staff qualified as psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors, and no "parapsychologist". There also appears to be parapsychology research in at least a dozen universities in at least 6 countries, at which I found one "psychophysicist" in Hungary. I could find no parapsychologists, though many academic qualified across the spectrum, who do research in parapsychology. --Iantresman (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Parapsychology researcher" would be acceptable. jps (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Sheldrake isn't or is a parapsychologist, jps (talk), but I do believe the two sources that are being used to justify a Wikipedia article do not make that claim and are improperly sourced. I do believe that Sheldrake believes himself to be a biologist, as well as a number of secondary sources. It seems like an extraordinary leap and extraordinary claim to contradict a primary and secondary source with something as flimsy as those two references. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake cannot be used as a source for promotional claims about himself. So you can just factor those out of your calculations for what we should call him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but we do begin by looking at a primary source and see if it's supported by secondary sources, and if so, use the secondary sources. The primary source is a guide, the secondary source is a reference. Since secondary sources support a primary source - it would appear we would need an extraordinary argument to up seat that. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that one of the sources [87] used for "parapsychologist" at no point refers to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist and instead refers to him as a "biologist", and yet it is used as a source for something it doesn't say and is not allowed to be used as a source for something it actually does say! Barleybannocks (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The actual term of art is up for grabs. Obviously, his stuff is categorically parapsychology. Whether that makes him a parapsychologist or not is semantics. jps (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And since it's semantics, it's confusing and contradicts primary and secondary sources which are not confusing at all. This matter is easily fixed - 'Rupert Sheldrake is an x, y, and z - notable for his concept of morphic resonance and his research into telepathy in animals.' 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The resolution described contributes nothing here: we should never call something scientific just to be nice. The issue here concerns contributors trying to reach a neutral draft despite strong differences in their own perspective. Any impermissible nastiness is only a side effect of the difficulties in doing so. I should emphasize that loaded terms like pseudoscience and parapsychologist need to be used only if well sourced, since they typically can only be determined post hoc. For example, it was long known that elephants could communicate with one another somehow over a distance of miles; then finally a researcher got involved who could hear the infrasound. If morphic resonance did turn out to be some kind of real thing, then the animal telepathy would be like the elephant telepathy. Otherwise, if it is not a real thing, people will say pseudoscience with confidence. I haven't done the reading to discuss the idea productively in relation to Sheldrake's publications, but some of the questions I've asked at the recently featured Talk:AdS/CFT correspondence may be related. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A fair point Wnt (talk). I believe the sources show, Rupert Sheldrake is researching 'claims' of unusual abilities in animals, such as homing pigeons or dogs that know when their owners are coming home. Investigating animal behaviors, even peculiar ones, would appear to be what biologists would do. I may be mistaken, I personally am not familiar too much with Sheldrake's work with animals, but his research is meant to show that the phenomenon of 'dogs knowing when their owners are coming home' is a bona fide phenomenon, not a claim that proves 'telepathy exists' or a claim that supernatural forces are at work. His theory may, or may not account for this phenomenon I have no idea, but to refer to him as a parapsychologist appears, on this page, as a way to discredit the man and present him as somewhat flakey. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And one of the sources (Bekoff) used to support "parapsychologist" at no point mentions "parapsychology", or "parapsychologist", and instead call him a "well known biologist". As I understand the arguments of those who want to use this source for "parapsychologist": Bekoff (a biologist) isn't well enough qualified to be believed when he calls him a biologist, but his article can be used to support "parapsychologist" because that's what some here want to say (Bekoff not saying it, and saying "biologist" instead, being of no consequence).Barleybannocks (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Psychedelics

I think this explains a lot [88] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that this may be part of the game. There are a number of academics who are interested in psychedelics who support similar sorts of "spiritualist" ideas. Sheldrake never was at the Esalen_Institute, but many of his supporters were and his ideas strike me as being very similar to those that are associated with that. On the physics end, the Fundamental Fysiks Group has a number of psychedelic promoters who adopt extremely similar ideas to those of Sheldrake. Whether he is simply feeding off of their support or is actively engaged with their idea of taking LSD before you work on research is hard for me to say. I'd like to see more sources on this. jps (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, did I say that Sheldrake was never at Esalen? That's not right: [89], [90], [91]. Hmm... the plot thickens. jps (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Ashram of Bede Griffiths publicly seem to prohibit the use of drugs (including Cigarettes and Alcohol) [92] Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rules posted in the 2010's do not necessarily reflect the rules and norms in the 70s. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should include details of Sheldrake's use/advocacy/interest in psychedelics, as long as accurate sources can be found. What we should avoid, however, is moralising on this point and/or trying to score rhetorical points by insinuation. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

the above is Sheldrake himself speaking, in a dialogue with a friend published by a major publishing house. i dont think you can get any more "accurate" than that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So what would you like to include in the article? At one point Sheldrake lived somewhere which prohibited the use of alcohol/tobacco. To what end?Barleybannocks (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

of course not. but something along the lines of Sheldrake believes the use of psychedelic drugs "can reveal a world of consciousness and interconnection" which he says he has experienced. (http://books.google.com/books?id=uCF5SBj0EmUC&pg=PA75&dq=Rupert+psychedelics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_xmjUtrOLsSEyAHJ74DwAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=snippet&q=%22Rupert%20%20I%20think%20that%20psychedelics%22&f=false) Voilà ! the essence of morphic fields.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Sheldrake quote, but your interpretation of its relevance is highly problematic. That is, we need to very careful here because, as I am sure you are aware, there is no mainstream view on psychedelic insights because with the exception of a only a few studies in recent years (which would be quite supportive of Sheldrake actually - eg, Rick Strassman, Roland Griffiths, and some work done in the 50s and 60s) psychedelic effects on consciousness have been completely off the scientific agenda for the last 50 years for legal reasons. Thus we should be very careful to avoid "war on drugs" moralising especially if it represented as some kind of informed scientific opinion.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

oops this was supposed to be in the section above

We have been over this. Blackmore calls him a parapsychologist. "He is scientific - to a point." She then goes on to say his science is wrong and that he refuses to acknowledge lack of evidence for his proposal. To take from Blackmore only the first three words is completely unacceptable misuse and misreading her work. And to do so repeatedly is WP:TE-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been corrected on this issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Not sure what Blackmore has to do with this issue. I know she has said that drug taking (cannabis) has been very beneficial to her thinking, but I don't think she has made this point in connection with Sheldrake, and/or his use of drugs, and/or psychedelics in general.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I feel VERY uncomfortable if this is used to frame the article one way or another. If Shelrake has published something on psychedelics or their usage, that's fair game. But to make an assumption that somehow 'This explains a lot' - is clear interpretation and personal research. If it does explain a lot, then it must also explain a lot about the success of the Apple Computer, or the discovery of the DNA molecule, or the success of Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. Please, no interpretations here. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we will need good sources on this if it is to be included. Let's see what people come up with. jps (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

PCR was also "discovered" by its inventor on LSD. People seem to forget that in the late 1950s and into the early 1970s, professionals from many different disciplines experimented with psychedelics in an attempt to gain insight into their work. This was legal into the mid 1960s. Furthermore, the connection between the dream state and scientific discovery is well established in the history of science literature, so this is nothing new or shocking. Legal creativity research in the late 1960s made use of psychedelics and this is covered in detail by many reliable sources. I'm not entirely sure what the consensus of the research results were, but I recall someone saying something along the lines of the drugs merely eliciting what the subjects already had in mind and allowing them to bring it to the surface. Huxley and others were opposed to Leary for this reason–they believed that only the most intelligent and accomplished could benefit from it, and it would be wasted on the unwashed masses. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As this 2012 article shows, managed use of psychedelics may have value:Psychedelic Drug May Have a Role in Psychotherapy This does not appear to be far out of line from Trpod's [93] reference.

I do hope you all include in the article that he was a druggie so that there will be no remaining doubt to the public that Wikipedia editors are doing all they can to smear Sheldrake's name. Tom Butler (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

because repeating Sheldrakes self admission of the relevance of Psychedelics to his concepts is somehow an attack? get fucking real. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

fixed that for you. let's be civil. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There are phenomena such as contact high and shared hallucination that are very much real, and quite interesting, so anything you can extract to help explain Rupert's ideas is worthwhile. (myself, I got a "restricted page" following that link - I gotta go spend an hour and write a proxy to put someplace, this is ridiculous) Wnt (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Grammar Error?

Part of the article states:

"Sheldrake debated biologist Lewis Wolpert on the existence of telepathy..."

It should read:

"Sheldrake debated with the biologist Lewis Wolpert on the existence of telepathy..."

or

"Sheldrake debated with biologist Lewis Wolpert on the existence of telepathy...

One debates a subject, not a person. One debates "with" or "against" a person. Baby English even to a Swede!

Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

debate 11) to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/re+debate 89.110.2.152 (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of edits 2

The RfC proposal has been archived; some text below has been lifted from it.

There are a significant number of sources that support intelligent design, some written by professors from respected institutions. Why doesn't the Evolution article mention that evolution has a rival called intelligent design that "enjoys a small handful of academic support"? According to WP:NPOV, shouldn't this significant minority viewpoint be expressed in the article? No, because ArbCom has decided that Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia with a scientific focus.

• Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
• Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Intelligent design does have significance as a social phenomenon (it is mentioned in the Social and cultural responses section of the Evolution article), but it has no scientific significance.

It seems to me that the present conflicts with the Sheldrake article are solved by asking: What is the view of mainstream science? Is it the view of mainstream science that "morphic resonance" has some "academic support"? This is not the case. Is it the view of mainstream science that telepathy, "morphic fields", and the "sense of being stared at" are part of the field of biology? This is not the case either.

Playing source-counting games is poor practice. The article on Evolution was not informed by counting the number of reliable sources, in scorecard fashion, that either support or deny evolution. But even if we play these counting games, the claim that more sources call Sheldrake a biologist is a questionable one. 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".[94][95] (The ratio is much higher for regular Google web hits, though these results are not as interesting.) 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.

Morphic resonance falls under

• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories 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.

The article should therefore contain this information and be so categorized.

Using in-text attribution of quotes from specific scientists to suggest that an idea is less marginal than it actually is in the scientific community runs afoul of WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL, which are part of WP:NPOV.

Repeated violations of the aforementioned ArbCom decisions -- which seems to have happened already -- should be taken up with Arbitration Enforcement (WP:AE). vzaak 05:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

vzaak, we do in fact have sources stating that Sheldrake has limited academic support. You appear to have removed those sources from the article along with the statement they supported. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. Please do not repeat this action. With the newly added sentence sourced to Gardner and Sharma followed by the one on Wolpert and Rutherford, there's too much anti-Sheldrake sentiment clogging his biography. It's unbalanced, and it won't stand. As to WP:PSCI, citing this here assumes that morphic resonance is pseudoscience, but we don't know that. It's certainly not the opinion of the overwhelming majority of secondary sources, most of whom refer to Sheldrake as a legitimate scientist even if they think his hypothesis is wrong. WP:GEVAL would apply only if we were discussing a mainstream scientific topic, as opposed to the biography page of the originator of a radical hypothesis. This is why the evolution article has no bearing on this discussion. Alfonzo Green (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the old citations are now gone, I should point out sources such as

• Nature -- "former biochemist and plant physiologist at the University of Cambridge who has taken up parapsychology"[96]
• Nature -- "parapsychologist"[97]
• New Scientist -- "biochemist-turned-parapsychologist"[98]
• New Republic -- "pseudoscientist"[99]

If the counting game is employed to argue that Sheldrake should be called a biologist in the first sentence instead of the second sentence, then I will point to the counting method above which favors the opposite. If we rightfully abandon the counting game and look to ArbCom principles, then we find the strongest and most prestigious sources representing mainstream science, in which case Nature wins. (Remember, again, that he's called a biologist in the second sentence.) vzaak 07:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You've clearly done the work to cite him as a parapsychologist according to sources, though a step of indirection analogous to the sources ("has taken up parapsychology") may still be appropriate. That does not, however, refute him as a biologist assuming there are some sources lying around for that. Just as a person can be a Muslim and a physicist, someone can be a parapsychologist and a biologist; there is (or should be) no loyalty test. Wnt (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Again with the circular discussion, so I'll put in the requisite comment. If he is a scientist, show us his scientific work. The publications, the criticism (meant in its classic sense) the collaborations, the citations, the discussions, the follow-up work, the other scientists in the field, the awards, the acclaim of peers etc. etc. I point you to the huge gaping and above all - empty - vacuum. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any peer reviewed journal articles, despite Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) noble but ultimately baseless attempt to pretend that pseudojournals are peer reviewed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please try to gain consensus for the edits. The arguments above are absurd. We have multiple reliable sources for each of the claims which, in addition, are clearly true. Removing this well sourced biographical information to do down Sheldrake is not appropriate for a BLP. If you have problems with the sources, then please explain what they are here. Barleybannocks (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The problems with your arguments. The first argument above above intelligent design and how it should feature in the evolution article is of no consequence here, because to continue the analogy, this is the article about ID and not evolution. Therefore it is wholly inappropriate to note in the article about evolution that ID has academic support. That is, it would be inappropriate to cite Sheldrake's academic support in the article on morphogenesis, but absolutely appropriate here. With regard to counting sources to see how many times he's called a biologist as opposed to not being called a biologist, so what? Unless Sheldrake changed his name to Rupert Sheldrake Biologist, it would be extraordinary for this word to appear every time his name does. I note you apply no such counting rule with regards to any of the other things you want to call Sheldrake and so this seems like an ad hoc criterion dreamed up to justify the exclusion of dozens of very reliable sources in favour of the opinions of editors here. Barleybannocks (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the repeated request for the evidence that Sheldrake's work has had some scientific impact in virtue of further work by other scientists, I will once again, eg, cite the fact that the peer-reviewed Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted an entire issue to the work of Sheldrake. This is a plain fact. And it, in addition to the other sources cited above about the interest in his work by, eg, David Bohm, and Stuart Hameroff, means the other sources that talk of a small degree of academic support are not only good enough to be included in virtue of being reliable sources making a claim, but also because the claim they make is obviously true. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted an entire issue to the work of Sheldrake in which it specifically DROPPED any formal peer review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true (source/evidence?), it still shows Sheldrake's work having generated interest within the academic community which is what the journal having done that was evidence for. There are also the numerous academic books, and the supporting articles/letters/reviews etc, all cited above, which demonstrates the truth of the claim that the three supplied sources state plainly: that Sheldrake's work has garnered a small amount of support from within academia (rather than simply being confined to new-age devotees as the article currently misleads the reader).Barleybannocks (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

[[100]] / beginning on page 8 "[http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf Given the situation described in the previous few pages, it was clear to me before I even read Rupert Sheldrake’s submission that if I submitted it to peer review under the usual conditions, it would be rejected. " ..."It was somewhat like the situation facing the editors some years ago over submissions to the parapsychology special issue of JCS. Had we held them to the same standards that apply in mainstream science, they would all have been rejected. Since the object of the exercise was to expose readers equally to parapsychologists’ and sceptics’ views of the field, and let them judge the merits of each side, such a result would have been self-defeating. So we agreed, on that one occasion, to allow certain assumptions and claims to stand that most in the scientific community would not accept, with the proviso that the parapsychologists were representing ‘the mainstream views of their community reasonably well’. Critiques by other parapsychologists served as an appropriate form of quality control, in the circumstances. In the present case I could not apply quite the same solution, because Rupert Sheldrake is a one-off and represents only himself. So the only alternative to outright rejection was to publish his work with open peer commentary to provide balance and criticism." The issue dropped its standard peer review because his work had not the slightest chance of passing through. AND identifies the ideas as even less accepted than general parapsychology, where they were able to put together a set of reviewers from the "mainstream of parapscychology" - Sheldrakes work does not have even that type of following. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the "peer-review" was published in the journal alongside Sheldrake's articles. secondly, and in any event, you seem to be confused about the claims being made here. The claim is not that Sheldrake's work was peer-reviewed in this particular instance in the normal way. The claim here is that the existence of the Journal issue devoted to Sheldrake, along with things like the editorial comment "The willingness of fourteen respected commentators to join this discussion of Rupert Sheldrake’s papers and offer a variety of reflections — most of them a robust mixture of criticism and encouragement...", shows some degree of support and interest from within the academic community. In that respect, then, it is just one more piece of supporting evidence demonstrating the truth of the point made in the three sources which you removed from a BLP because you don't like this fact being made known to readers.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What I dont fucking like and will not stand for is a misrepresentation in the article that presents Sheldrakes nonsense as having any measurable level of support in the mainstream academic community. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that mainstream academia supports his magic theories and requires extraordinary sources to be present to support such content.. And I dont fucking like is you making assumptions about what I fucking like. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is support as documented in multiple reliable sources. Thus, whether you like it or not is of no real consequence (I only mention it because that's what your argument appears to amount to and nothing more). I'd also be grateful if could refrain from the constant swearing at people, it doesn't make your arguments any better and it just raises the temperature here when we are only discussing the biography of a scientist - not some life or death issue.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not have extraordinary sources supporting the extraordinary claims, you have some off-hand comments cherry picked and being used out of context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It shows that 14 people were interested. Not even a negligible portion of the academic mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Easily enough, though, given the other sources, to show that there has been a small degree of support for Sheldrake rom academia - as was stated in the reliably sourced claim you removed from a BLP because you don't want people to find out about these facts.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

THERE ARE NOT EVEN ENOUGH SHELDRAKINS FOR THERE TO BE A "MAINSTREAM" SET OF BELIEVERS FROM WHICH TO PULL A PEER REVIEW TEAM FOR THE SPECIAL ARTICLE!!!!!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You still miss the point. The point is that we have solid reliable sources which say Sheldrake has received a small degree of support from within academia, and we have incontrovertible evidence of the existence of that support. Thus, there is no reason, other than you don't like this fact, to exclude it from the article about Sheldrake. It is clearly relevant, and clearly necessary to the accurate portrayal of the man and his work (which is, after all, what an encyclopaedia article about the man and his work should aim to be). Barleybannocks (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep up your WP:TE pushing to suggest there is any measurable level of academic support and you are headed for AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out what reliable sources say. That's the gold standard on Wikipedia. Even more important in a BLP. As for measurable - it is a small degree, which is well sourced and obviously true. No one is trying to pretend the mainstream scientific community has endorsed it - it hasn't. But it has garnered a small degree of interest and support as noted in the sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

to pretend that the dozen or so people identified are a measurable enough even identify as a "small set of followers" particularly in the lead is a gross and unacceptable misrepresentation . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, regarding intelligent design it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the Evolution article or the intelligent design article. Both articles must reflect the ArbCom principles above. But taking your point anyway, the article on intelligent design does not have words in the lead to the effect of "intelligent design enjoys a small handful of academic support", despite the significant number of sources that support intelligent design, some written by professors from respected institutions.

Arbitration principles and arbitration enforcement were designed to address this very situation. For an idea that falls under generally considered pseudoscience, repeatedly attempting to subvert that designation goes against arbitration principles and should trigger arbitration enforcement. vzaak 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, you couldn't be more wrong. Here's why: if what you say is true then we should give Sheldrake and his views the same amount of space in this article as he/it gets in the article on morphogenesis. But if we did there would be no Sheldrake article at all. That is, we would have an article about Sheldrake and his work that doesn't mention Sheldrake and his work. That's a ludicrous idea and it shows how wayward your reading of policy is. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) None of the sources above stating "former biochemist" "parapsychologist", etc, are peer-reviewed. The Maddox quote calling Sheldrake's work "an exercise in pseudo-science"[101] is also not peer-reviewed, and neither are any of the sources calling Sheldrake's work pseudoscience, except Rose in Riv. Biol./Biol. The point is that peer-review is not essential for a view to be described.

(2) While the Journal of Consciousness Studies did not peer review Sheldrake's article before publication, it subjected them to public "open peer review" after publication, where 14 people acted as referees, instead of the usual two. The journal did not "drop formal peer reviewed", it used a different peer review process, "open peer review".

(3) WP:DUE tells us that "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint .. these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". Undue weight has nothing to do with how much space we give views, but how we use prose to frame them. --Iantresman (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. The "open peer review" in that special issue is as much pseudo peer review as morphic resonance is pseudo science. ie. 110%. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's clearly your opinion, but the scientific status, or at the very least the arguably scientific status, is supported by reference to dozens of reliable sources. in any event, again you miss the main point, which is that this Journal issue demonstrates the truth of the well-sourced claims about academic (nothing about peer-reviewed) support that you removed from a BLP because you don't want readers to know about these facts. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Even Nature has trailed "open peer review", who do not share your views.[102] --Iantresman (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

show me a source that says the "open peer review" in the Sheldrake JoC issue is anything but a sham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, I'm trying to understand your above comment, but I'm honestly unable to do so. To revisit the overall point, we may document the curiosity and social support that Sheldrake attracts, but this does not amount to scientific support for morphic resonance, which is what "academic support" suggests. We may also include responses to what some consider over-reactions, for instance even Sheldrake's nemesis Steven Rose expressed dislike of the book-burning reference. vzaak 15:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, we have three reliable sources stating plainly that there is a small degree of academic/scientific support for Sheldrake's ideas - specifically, in the case of the three sources in question, morphic resonance. Thus it doesn't matter one iota if you disagree - the sources are what (should) count here. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the degree of academic support for Sheldrake's morphic resonance is similar to the number of people who call it pseudoscience? Is that a small degree, or is that more significant? --Iantresman (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's non-existent. Let's stop trying to pretend otherwise. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it does exist. And its existence is noted in multiple reliable sources. Thus we have both the claim (well sourced) and the evidence the claim is true. By contrast, against these sources we have your very poor argument. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Can you guess where this is headed Barleybannocks (talk · contribs)? I ask you for peer reviewed sources. You complain about having answered this question before and produce a list of "supporters", thus failing to address the question), and point to a very small number of articles in some psuedojournals. We point out they aren't peer reviewed. You try to argue that they are, and fail, but always must have the last word, because the person who says the last word wins regardless of whether or not what they said was insightful. Right? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered who gets the last word. On Wikipedia, the last word should really go to the sources, and we have multiple reliable sources that are being excluded from a BLP because you and others don't want readers to know the facts they detail about the subject of the article and his work. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted an open peer reviewed issue to Shreldrake's work[103] that included contributions for academics. I know of no source that suggests this is a "pseudojournal". Unfortunately I don't have access to their papers, so can't assess them. I suggests that Rose is one of the only peer-reviewed papers that suggests his work "has many of the characteristics of such pseudosciences"[104] (refuted by Sheldrake)[105], but do we have any more peer reviewed sources that suggest his work is either pseudoscience of rejected? --Iantresman (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, there are many more sources supporting intelligent design than morphic resonance, so why doesn't the article on intelligent design mention in the lead that "intelligent design enjoys a small handful of academic support"? According to WP:NPOV, this significant minority view must be expressed, right? Please review the ArbCom principles above and think about those questions. vzaak 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I should emphasize again that Sheldrake certainly has support from those disillusioned with the current state of science -- New Agers, even some scientists, etc. -- and the article should certainly mention that. This is distinguished from the scientific support for morphic resonance, for which there is none. The Adam Lucas article you are touting says that "the actual 'scientific' response" to Sheldrake's work "has been virtually zero", which is exactly the point. vzaak 16:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On ID: it's unclear whether there are mainstream sources which say ID has garnered a small degree of academic support (we have three such sources for Sheldrake). It's also, as a movement with prominent proponents almost all from academia, not so clear such a point needs to be made, not so clear there are any outside the movement itself. Neither are the scientific credentials of its proponents being suppressed the way Sheldrake's are. All in all it's a completely different article subject and what goes for one need not go for the other. Nonetheless, while were in 'let's compare articles' mode, I note that Sam Harris is an American author, philosopher and neuroscientist. Academic philosophy posts/qualifications? Neuroscience posts?

On New Age devotees only, that's yout opinion about everyone who supports him, but it's not at all clear it's true by any stretch of the imagination (eg, Paul Davies to name but one we have a source for). Re Lucas, you're twisting the source. The source says there has been virtually zero in the way of government funded research efforts, but clearly states in numerous places a small degree of support from scientists and other academics.

One might also say that the article currently gives the impression that the scientific community have rigorously examined Sheldrake's theories in the normal scientific manner when nothing is further from the truth. That is, Sheldrake's ideas have been rejected largely a priori. The article should, imo, make this distinction lest people think that the critical views are actually the result of the scientific method as opposed to what is largely armchair criticism. Many sources make something like this point. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. I said "New Agers, even some scientists, etc.", which you transmogrified into "New Age devotees only". I was in fact referring to Davies, Gribbin, etc. there. I also said that should "certainly" be mentioned. Again, this is distinguished from scientific support for morphic resonance, for which there is none.

Re "rigorously examined Sheldrake's theories", this kind of argument has been brought up many times on this talk page. There are no research grants awarded to determine if something is pseudoscience. In some cases people have come close to demanding that a vote must be convened among all the scientists in the world in order to determine whether something is pseudoscience. If that were the case then nothing could be called pseudoscience.

Please review the ArbCom principles above, and it can't hurt to read WP:ARB/PS as well. Repeatedly subverting the status of morphic resonance as generally considered pseudoscience should cause sanctions. Arbitration enforcement was tailor-made for this problem. vzaak 17:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the text that way removed from the article was "academic support" and not "scientific support". I have no objections to changing this to "garnered some support from scientists and academics". With regard to "new agers" versus "new age devotees" I doiubt there is much difference. Secondly, it also seems highly disingenuous to be talking about people like Brian Josephson (a physics Nobel Laureate), Paul Davies and John Gribbin as New Agers. Their articles make no such claim. Unsure why we should portray them in that way in this article. Finally, it's also made more disingenuous by following up the false claim with the quote from Deepak Chopra, the "new age guru", about religion that refers to nothing discussed in the body of the article except the repetition of that quote. Hardly a suitable point, then, for the lede.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, what? I guess you misinterpreted my statement that tried to undo your misinterpretation. I was taking umbrage that you transmogrified "New Agers, even some scientists, etc." into "New Age devotees" not because of the distinction between "New Agers" and "New Age devotees" (hardly any), but because you clipped the "even some scientists" part. I was not saying the scientists were New Agers. Those are separate things. New Agers. Scientists. This misinterpretation is frankly weird to me.

The Chopra point is weird to me as well, since it's a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation. The addition of Chopra's support to the lead was seen as positive. This is the first time I've seen it called "disingenuous". I don't know what that means in this context. Similarly, the addition of the "Notes" section was considered very good by all parties, but now is a "cheap shot". vzaak 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, until "scientists" is in the article rather than only on the talk page, and until you stop removing it and replacing it with "new age" only, every time someone adds it, it seems disingenuous to claim that your view supports/takes account of this fact. That is, in this case your actions on the article speak much more loudly, and much more clearly, than your words on talk. Re Chopra, who would you rather have as your supporter - a Nobel LKaureate in Physics or a "new age guru". And following on from the point about his support being new age only, it's clear what the insinuation is here. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, what? When did I replace "scientists" with "new age"? And I did so repeatedly? And you are really accusing me of calling Paul Davies a New Ager? This is all extremely weird, and I advise you to stop making unfounded allegations and start focusing on the article. vzaak 19:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, this edit here [106] is where you most recently removed from the introduction the well-sourced mention of academic support for Sheldrake and retained only the false claim that his support has only come from the new age movement. It's also the edit where you removed the extraordinarily well-sourced fact that Sheldrake is a biologist.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not replacing "scientists" with "new age", and you haven't told me about the repeated times. In any case, please drop the accusations and focus on content, not individuals. As is well-explained above, "academic support" is misleading, which was why it was removed. In our discussion here, I've already indicated that it may be fair to mention support from individuals like Lovelock (who doesn't necessarily think morphic resonance is real but seems to appreciate Sheldrake's general outlook), as distinguished from the non-existent scientific support of morphic resonance. It's only a matter of deciding how to do that appropriately. vzaak 20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's removing all mention of any academic support (including that of scientists) and replacing it with the claim that his support coming only from those in the new age movement. That is, you know Brian Josephson, David Bohm, Paul Davies, and others have offered some support for Sheldrake's idea, and you know the sources that you removed from the article were referring to this scientific/academic support (or did you remove them without reading them or the extensive discussion about them above). Thus, in the context of this discussion, it's very clear what I was referring to (the section is about your edits after all): it is you removing, regularly, any reference, however well-sourced, which gives any indication of support for Sheldrake from non new age devotees. If you took me to be saying you were going through the article replacing the word "scientists" with "new age" then I apologise for any confusion. My point was about your removal of multiple reliable sources from the article referencing Sheldrake's academic support - sources which show your favoured version to be false. I trust all is now clear. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - you are right, and wrong. It is probably a fault to characterise all Sheldrake's supporters as new agers, and this should be avoided. However, your insistence that there is academic support for Sheldrake's key idea is just very, very, wrong. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney, you appear not to be able to distinguish me from multiple reliable sources. It's not my insistence, it's what's written in those sources. Three different sources all saying effectively the same thing. And when we check the world, we see it matches their description of it in this respect (thus Bohm, Davies, Josephson, Bekoff etc). An thus we have the phrase "a small degree of academic support" to summarise this important point in an encyclopaedic manner. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - I can easily tell "you" apart from a handful of poor quality and therefore irrelevant sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

One of them is already used in the article, perhaps you should remove it if you really believe it's not up to Wikipedia standards. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, after all this discussion it's still not clear whether you understand the reason for removing "academic support". At least you seem to continue arguing as if you don't understand. This is particularly apparent in your saying that my reference to "actual 'scientific' response" in the Lucas article was twisting the source. Government-sponsored research is exactly the kind of thing which would indicate that morphic resonance is being taken seriously. Any kind of significant research with scientific articles in mainstream journals would do, actually.

We have to make the distinction between (a) actual, nonfictional, impactful scientific support for morphic resonance and (b) Ecologists and Templeton-prize-winning physicists who unsurprisingly liked Rebirth of Nature. If (a) were true then Sheldrake would be one of the greatest discoverers in the history of all humankind. We have to distinguish between (a) and (b). Do you understand why that is important? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just want to get everyone on the same page here. vzaak 23:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So you think "a small degree of academic support" surrounded by lengthy caveats including terms like "pseudoscience" and immediately preceded by "Sheldrake has received a largely critical, even derisive, reception from the scientific community" will leave anyone thinking "Sheldrake would be one of the greatest discoverers in the history of all humankind". Seriously? Not sure which page you're on. Not sure which book.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You've failed to gain consensus for any version thus far. Time to work productively with those whose views are not your own, or drop the stick. If you have not done either within 7 days, I will ask for a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, where's the consensus for the current version? There is none. And I'm not the only one who objects. There are three here who object (and there's only three because most of the other neutral editors claimed they were were bullied off the article). Secondly, just so I can be sure about Wiki policy: how many editors' opinions does it take to override multiple reliable sources? Barleybannocks (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake has been the victim of a vicious and sustained attack. So I guess the witch hunt against those who would treat him fairly on Wikipedia shouldn't be any surprise. Alfonzo Green (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since cutting and pasting my previous responses would seem rude, I had taken the liberty of using inventive phrases to describe the same thing. Sheldrake being "one of the greatest discoverers in the history of all humankind" is a stand-in for morphic resonance having no scientific support. It is yet still unclear whether or not the basic point has been successfully communicated. Do you understand that the scientific status of morphic resonance should not be misrepresented? vzaak 02:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is forcing an absolutely black/white distinction onto things. Consider: Sheldrake's ideas have zero support from scientists and nobody thinks any aspect of them is any good; Sheldrake's ideas have garnered some support from a few scientists but only in a very limited sense; Sheldrake's ideas have garnered some support from some scientists who think some aspects of what he is saying may prove valuable; Sheldrake's ideas have garnered some support from scientists who think his work will be ground-breaking; Sheldrake's work has garnered moderate support from scientists even though they feel the idea lacks evidence at present; and then 100 more along the way before we get to, Sheldrake's ideas are universally accepted and he is considered a giant of science. Now, if the only options are the first and last, then the last is nearer to the mark, but we are not confined to those options. We can pick the most appropriate from a spectrum of possible views. Thus the situation we actually have regards Sheldrake seems to me to be between the second and third option offered above. And a similar spectrum of views is possible for both the psuedoscience/science question, and the question of support, or lack thereof, for Sheldrake even by those who think his ideas are probably wrong. No need for the article to misrepresent any of this by enforcing false dichotomies and then picking a winner and only allowing that one viewpoint to feature.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

From the sidelines, I have seen no consensus for any edits to the article in a long, long time, if ever. I HAVE seen a lot of name calling, condescension, bullying, questioning of sources, etc. that impede any progress toward consensus. There is absolutely none of "I propose this edit; what do people think?", followed by polite rational discussion and formation of consensus. Lou Sander (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lou. It would be nice if Sheldrake supporters would stop this type of thing --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a time limit?

Somehow the above has gotten kind of heated, discussing his recent non-scientific publications. The question I'd ask is, is there any kind of support for the idea of a "former" biochemist? Has someone set a time limit where his status expires? Is there some rule that says he can only say so many outrageous things before they throw him out? Because I'm not aware of any such, the point as it stands now is that he is a biochemist who publishes (according to some good sources) about parapsychology. That's not a contradiction. A person can believe much crazier things than that, even common religious dogmas, and still remain a scientist. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is 30 years not long enough for you? Moreoever why would we choose to deliberately mislead the reader? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

But Barney, dozens of reliable sources contradict your non-sourced opinion about Sheldrake's status as a scientist (it's over 25 sources at my last count - zero explicitly against). The zero against being hardly surprising since no such distinction exists in the wider world. The distinction, and the arguments, being entirely limited to this talk page. I think this explains Wnt's perplexity at the things he is seeing here.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, there are several that identify him as a confirmed former botanist. We've told you why newspaper editors go for 1-word descriptions, we have a little bit more room to be accurate. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources?Barleybannocks (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are straying into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Now would be a good time to cease this obdurate refusal to demand proof of the obvious majority view to your satisfaction. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It will all be settled before the WP:DEADLINE. Sheldrake fans of course want is to please him 'right now but that won't happen. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"We've told you why newspaper editors go for 1-word descriptions, we have a little bit more room to be accurate." Ummmmm, isn't that kinda the opposit of our WP:RS policy and more akin to the folly described in our WP:TRUTH essay? I'm just sayin'. David in DC (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The subject of "Sheldrake fans" or, less politely, "fanbois" keeps coming up. One wonders how a person identifies a Sheldrake fan. Lou Sander (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Its easy, they're the ones that think he's a scientist. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This polarization is unnecessary. I mean, consider something like his current Ten Dogmas claim that "Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or physical. There is no reality but material reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Evolution is purposeless. This view is now undergoing a credibility crunch." Why doesn't he deserve fair credit for calling out the mainstream on its own pseudoscientific beliefs? The fact is, there's not one bit of evidence, anywhere, explaining why chemical reactions in a brain matter more than chemical reactions in a stale beer. That's not to say the two are the same, but ... we don't have a theory to explain it. And if we don't have a theory to explain it, why be in such a rush to shut somebody up who wants to maunder on about it? Maybe he'll hit on something interesting. There's a balance between creativity and rational thought, and he's got it turned up more than a bit high, but you never know. There are people who play Lotto - I'd rather listen to stuff like this now and then and see if anything sticks out. Wnt (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he does have something. But you know what, you can bet on his crazy ideas maybe coming up with something but I am going to bet on the actual scientists. But neither of our beliefs have anything to do with the article. What matters there is that we WP:VALIDly represent what the mainstream academics think (and they are placing their bets with me)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I just think it will improve the tone here if people remember that he doesn't have to be biologist or parapsychologist, and his ideas don't all have to be uniformly pseudoscience or science or something in between. We should be sure to feature both commentary that is positive and that is negative wherever both exist, without choosing between one and the other. Wnt (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:VALID again. what we need to do is show how his ideas are received by the mainstream academia- as a hot gooey mess.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and that can be dealt with in about one hundred rather than thousands of words. There is nothing that says we have to devote almost the entire article to critical commentary, nor that we need to try to demonstrate, rather than merely state, the view of the mainstream. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what would be the benefit to the encyclopedia or the reader not to present the full picture? I have never seen an article where the goal of the editing team was to make the article less informative.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be representing the full picture. It would be representing, eg, the mainstream view by describing the mainstream view accurately and succinctly (thus leaving no reader in doubt and leaving some room for Sheldrake) rather than by merely re-enacting the most hostile reactions over and over again to the point where the subject of the article barely features (thus leaving the reader hopelessly uninformed about the real subject of the article). Barleybannocks (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

HUH? how the fuck is providing LESS information about how the mainstream views the proposals as complete hooey and why they do presenting the FULL picture???? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting you do that. But the first editing I did on the article was to get rid of the 'Notes' section, which was an unnecessary copy of those arguments. Even so, what I left behind was still just another duplicate section in the sense that every single reference was of the <ref somename /> format. We really could get rid of some of that; much of the time in these articles it is sufficient to cite a source one time in one place, suck all the content we want from it right there in a couple of sentences, and move on. By all means, cite every source that says his arguments are flawed but you don't have to hit us over the head with it. Wnt (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - we are not asking for "one hundred" "thousands" of words. We are asking for about four; "author", "parapsychologist", "former" and "biologist", or suitable and appropriate variations thereon. You want to use a single word which misrepresents both (1) what he's notable for and (2) endorses his activities as scientific. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't want to use a single word. I'm happy with "biologist, parapsychologist and author" because the first and the last are exceptionally well sourced and the middle term can, I believe, be well-sourced although the sources have not yet been provided. Anyway, on the point of this discussion, it's about the appropriate way for an article about a particular subject to be structured. If you have any comments on that then there is space below for them. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I fear my comments will be better received and better in line with policy than yours Barleybannocks (talk · contribs). But anyway, you don't want to use the word "former". Let's get to the heart of this matter - why is this? Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it's largely without a source or is poorly sourced (the sources I've seen are in some cases making a slightly different point, eg, "former Cambridge biologist", and others can't be read so we don't know what's in them), whereas "biologist" is massively well sourced (we have dozens already, form every conceivable kind of source, and it's not too much of a stretch to think 100 could be produced if necessary). For example, "Rupert Sheldrake, (a) biologist" gives 126,000 hits on Google whereas "Rupert Sheldrake, (a) former biologist" returns zero. Rough and ready I grant you, but nonetheless... Barleybannocks (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Another search for "Rupert Sheldrake" returns 684,000 results - what is your point? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is clear: Wikipedia shouldn't be about the only source in the world that describes Sheldrake in this singular fashion.Barleybannocks (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean apart from the others that do so, which Vzaak (talk · contribs) has pointed out? This is surely the most egregious case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU around, don't you think Barleybannocks (talk · contribs)? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources I have seen so far cited are either unsupportive (at best ambiguous) inasmuch as they say "former biologist/biochemist at Cambridge" or "former Cambridge biologist", which suggests that "former" is as much, or possibly more, about him being no longer associated with the institution (Cambridge University) in that capacity than it is about him no longer being a biologist. And when this is contrasted with the literally dozens of sources that say "biologist" there seems no reason, none given so far, to make Wikipedia the only googleable source that uses this singular phrase with regard to Sheldrake and being a biologist. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A reminder

For something to be included in the article it must be:

• verifiable
• Supported by reliable independent sources.

To be included in the lede, it must also be judged to be significant by those sources.

A few scientists support morphic resonance, that is true and can go in the article. If you want the fact that a few people support it to go in the lede, you need a reliable independent source that not only says it, but says that it is a generally accepted fact that a few scientists support it.

That's all you need. A reliable independent source, of recognisable stature, that makes the claim that minority scientific support is a significant fact. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since as you say, "a few scientists support morphic resonance", and this is, by your own admission "true and can go in the article", and since others above have been disputing this or days after sources were provided with all sorts of tortuous arguments, perhaps you should caution them rather than me. Also, with regards your second point about a source saying something is significant, where does that requirement come from? It certainly doesn't seem to apply to any of the other things in the lede. Is this part of some policy or guideline? The point under discussion would seem to be clearly significant, no? Barleybannocks (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE it is inappropriate to present as a major aspect of Sheldrake the very remote and minor "support" he has received from a very small handful of actual scientists in the mainstream by calling it out in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As TRPoD points out, the issue is not whether it can go in the article, but whether it can go in the lede as you insist. I have shown you how to persuade people, now all you need to do is produce the required sources. Or, you know, drop it. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The lede is a summary

Arguably, putting references in the lede is not a good idea. The references should be in the article and the lede, like the abstract of a paper, should be a summary of the article. Putting references in the lede is not objectionable, per se, but it is poor form to argue that every sentence in the WP:LEDE should be cited. As long as there is a citation in the body of the work, we're up to snuff. jps (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Things that should be in the article

I note from Roszak's review [107] (second paragraph), that on the publication of A New Science of Life, "many" scientists took an interest in Sheldrake's ideas and proposed/ran experiments to test the idea, including New Scientist which "sponsored a contest, offering a prize, to anyone who could devise a solid, empirical test to prove or refute Sheldrake." The results were all apparently "inconclusive". This seems a fairly important point and I think it deserves mention in the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The more recent views of those who at the time "took an interest in Sheldrake's ideas " This analysis was far from clear-cut and the results did not, in my opinion, support the theory. Nor have results since then. Any use of dated content must be placed in its current context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about Rupert Sheldrake and his ideas. One notable fact about Sheldrake and his ideas is detailed in my post above. This is not a point about the validity of his views or otherwise but simply a noteworthy thing that happened. That is, a major scientific publication ran a competition and offered a prize relating to testing a theory of his. The article should mention this fact. It should probably also mention the fact that the Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted an entire issue to his work. Again, this is an interesting and notable aspect of his professional life and as such should be mentioned in the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That there was "interest" when it first came out and the "interest" has morphed to skepticism with the lack of actual evidence might be appropriate. Anything else is misrepresentation.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And since this is an article about Sheldrake and his ideas, and is not confined to stuff that happened in the last few years, we can and should note notable things that have happened throughout his (working) life. New Scientist running a competition, and the Journal of Consciousness Studies devoting a whole issue to his work, are clearly notable events from his life and thus suitable for inclusion in this work-focused biography. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, the "interest" that may have existed, MUST be placed in appropriate current context. Yes he may have caused a stir, but that has passed and there has been no swell of support or more specifically no actual science supporting it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well we can quite easily frame some of these sections in those terms. But the point stands that these are important events and should be covered in his biography. No need to turn everything into a black/white overloaded discussion about the truth or otherwise of Sheldrake's work to the point that basic facts about it are kept out of the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There are hints of this in the sources, there appears to have been some kind of competition run in New Scientist. However, NS doesn't have online archives from this period, so it'll have to involve library work. Are you up for that? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to say a tremendous amount about it. There are various sources which mention it and Blackmore says a bit more about it in her Guardian article (she mentions the winner and discusses the findings and her take on them). Barleybannocks (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the reason we "dont need to say a tremendous amount about it" because according to the participants "the results did not, in my opinion, support the theory. Nor have results since then. " ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I already noted Blackmore's summary, and I think that it, with attribution, should be included alongside the facts she cites, such as the existence of the competition, it's nature and, I think, the winner. The reason for not going into too much detail is partly the difficulty of tracking down all the stuff from 30 or so years ago, and partly the nature of a general biography.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

There is a perennial argument on this talk page that goes something like this: "Show me the scientific consensus that morphic resonance is pseudoscience! We only have opinions!" This is not how science works. Research grants are not awarded to investigate whether something is pseudoscience. Scientific journals do not invite papers on which newest things are determined to be pseudoscience. There is no annual scientific conference to decide which topics are pseudoscience. There is no global poll among the scientists of the world to determine what is pseudoscience. If any of these criteria were required for something to be called pseudoscience then nothing could be called pseudoscience and the word would cease to have meaning.

It is inescapable that morphic resonance is generally considered pseudoscience per WP:ARB/PS. The references in the lead have since been deleted, but that is no excuse to feign ignorance of the many supporting references in the body of the article (last paragraph here). This is one thing that must remain firm in the article. Proponents of pseudoscience have a history of inappropriately using Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience, which had culminated in the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience (WP:ARB/PS). This road is well-trodden. The remedy for this abuse of Wikipeida is Arbitration Enforcement. vzaak 14:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that specifically say Sheldrake's work is science rather than pseudoscience, and many reliable sources that say this particular point is debatable. Many of these are cited above. Indeed, the Guardian recently commissioned a series of 4 article (links above) asking this very question and not one of the resulting articles used the term "pseudoscience, with some explicitly stating his work was scientific (again, links are above). The issue, then, is nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest, and accurately portraying it should present little difficulty, unless we try to force a single, absolute answer onto an issue that clearly has no single, absolute answer in the wider world/sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You are presenting passing usage of the word "science" as if the sources that use the term are doing so in the context of whether or not Sheldrake's work is "science" or "pseudoscience". That is not the context and attempting to misuse them to forward your bizarre and extraordinary claim is not acceptable. Without any mainstream academic sources that say "Sheldrakes work is not pseudoscience" we are done here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing that. There are many sources (often written by academics) which, while dealing with the question of whether Sheldrake's work is science or pseudoscience come to the conclusion that it is science. There are many others that describe his work in a very positive light regarding it's scientific status (even if it does turn out to be wrong). And there are others still which provide an overview of this whole issue and say the issue is undecided. We can just present this honestly rather than trying to answer the question here. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Where are these sources that in the context of real science or pseudoscience say "not pseudoscience"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well Blackmore, in response to the question, said "Sheldrake is scientific, at least in many respects". That would put her in the debatable camp with a slight lean towards science. Roszak said books/ideas such as Sheldrake's were "the life's blood of science" which would put him firmly in the science camp. The article by Adam Lucas, Rupert Sheldrake: Shaman, Scientist or Charlatan, addresses this very issue and highlights the polarised reactions to Sheldrake. This would put that article as a whole in the debatable camp. There are various others all listed numerous times above. Thus there are many sources that deal with this specific question and say science, or debatable, rather than pseudoscience.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"pseudoscience (ˌsjuːdəʊˈsaɪəns) — n a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science" Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009. As you know when you read the full Blackmore article and not just those first 8 words, she also calls Sheldrakes work parapsychology etc etc etc and cannot in any way be considered an Extraordinary source which is supporting Sheldrake as "science" and not "psuedoscience". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Willfully ignoring WP:REDFLAGs - if you like WP:REDFLAGBLINDNESS isn't a great idea. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be an extraordinary (REDFLAG) claim to claim that Sheldrake's work is true, or supported by the majority of scientists, but it is in no way extraordinary (REDFLAG) to claim many say it is science (even if false). And that's because many of the sources do just that. Blackmore, eg, does discuss Sheldrake's work in parapsychology, but it's not clear that she regards that, or any of Sheldrake's other work, as pseudoscience. Presumably if she thought it was she would have said that straight out, but she didn't, she said "scientific - at least in many respects". Thus she is at worst in the debatable camp slightly leaning towards science. Again, then, you are using a false dichotomy with the only options being true or pseudoscience. There are many more options than that as the sources clearly show. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You were asked "Where are these sources that in the context of real science or pseudoscience say "not pseudoscience"? " As you state above, while it may not be crystal clear that Blackmore considers it "pseudoscience" it is equally clear that she is not "in the context of 'real science or pseudoscience' saying 'not pseudoscience'". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well when people are directly asked if something is science or pseudoscience, or when they are explicitly addressing that question, and they answer "science", we can take it they reject the idea it is "pseudoscience". And that's what we have a lot of. Some have said, eg, in response to this issue and the TEDx talk (which included a short segment on morphic resonance), that "there wasn't a hint of bad science in it". Thus there's five right away who address the question and clearly reject the idea it is pseudoscience. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra is not mainstream academic. So you do have support as "science" from the mainstream of the woo community, but that is more of an indication that it is pseudoscientific woo than science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The list of the others who jointly wrote this letter is produced above several times with links to their impeccable scientific credentials/positions included. To claim this is Chopra alone is just not true. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it has been linked, but it the signers "credentials" have in fact been pecced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think unfounded defamatory attacks by editors on a Wikipedia talk page actually have some bearing on the real-world credentials of scientists then you are mistaken.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking informally someone might say that "Sheldrake's work" is pseudoscience, but to be rigorous a person says a particular idea is pseudoscience. An all-out beginning to end denunciation of everything the man has ever written requires, from a responsible scientist, that he has at the least read it all, and, well, I doubt many want to. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lucas 21 C 1992 I am not seeing anything in here that specifically says "not psuedoscience". Can you point out what specifically you are drawing from here? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

For example, where it says "Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise" it is clear that some (those who expressed the highest praise) do not agree that his work is pseudoscience. And the article makes many such claims that show there is a debate on this question - that's what the title of the article means. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how that is "in the context of 'science or pseudoscience?'- not pseudoscience". We have someone in 1992 stating that some identified person had praised a book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

note: the above should read "some un-identified person" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article - Shaman, Scientist or Charlatan - frames the discussion in those terms. And it is full of statements showing a mixture of criticism and support for Sheldrake from scientists. It is therefore clear from the context, and the words, that some do not consider Sheldrake's work pseudoscience. This isn't the be all and end all, but it is one more source detailing, in this case, the debate surrounding the status of Sheldrake and his work. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to go so loosy goosy, from the title of the piece "Shaman, Scientist or Charlatan?" the unspecifid "praise" coming from unidentified persons can just as easily be from the Shamans and the Charlatans as the scientists, and it is clearly not the extraordinary sourcing for the extraordinary claims that any significant portion of mainstream academia sees this as "science" rather than magical hooha dressed in a labcoat. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not an extraordinary claim. We have many sources that note that it is science. Perhaps gloriously and hopelessly wrong, but science. You're back to using a false dichotomy between true/massively well supported and "magical hooha dressed in a labcoat". Many in the scientific community, and many outside it, who are far more sophisticated in their thinking and thus take a view somewhere in between. And if the four articles commissioned by the Guardian are any guide, nearly everyone takes a view somewhere in between. Given this, there's no need for Wikipedia to portray everything in terms of the crudest false dichotomy one can dream up. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM TO STATE THAT THERE IS ANY TYPE OF SUPPORT IN THE MAINSTREAM ACADEMIA TO SEE SHELDRAKES WORKS AS ACTUAL SCIENCE. Yes there may be handful of individuals who do. But there are a handful of individuals who think aliens came to Area 51. We have been going through the sources that you claim and they are being shot down one after the other.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't, because we have multiple reliable sources which contradict your view directly, and others which discuss the very issue of whether Sheldrake's work is science and cover a wide array of viewpoints (thus contradicting your view directly). Again, you appear to be using a false dichotomy to force a choice between true/widely accepted as true and pseudoscience. There are, as noted, and as supported by multiple reliable sources, many more options than that. And the sources are not being shot down. The sources are clear and they don't support your take on things. For example, there are the four articles in the Guardian specifically about this question and where none explicitly stated his work was pseudoscience. If what you say is true, that fact is hard to explain. And it's not as if all the articles were glowing endorsements. They were note. They were just far more sophisticated takes on the question than anything some here will countenance. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is overwhelming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I heard your point. I'm pointing out that the sources don't support either it or the unsophisticated false dichotomy you are using to argue it. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, Robert Todd Carroll says that Sheldrake "has clearly abandoned conventional science in favor of magical thinking" and that Sheldrake's "continued pose as a scientist on the frontier of discovery is unwarranted".[108] Yet in that article the term "pseudoscience" does not appear. Following your argument, the Skeptic's Dictionary would be listed among the sources you are marshalling to support the claim that morphic resonance is not pseudoscience. Does that sound reasonable?

On the other hand, we have sources that say "Despite Sheldrake's legitimate scientific credentials, his peers have roundly dismissed his theory as pseudoscience", "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash", and "most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash". Do you have sources which support the contrary? Citing a few individuals will no do. The article says "generally regards morphic resonance as pseudoscience", which allows for individuals to disagree.

In our earlier conversation I was apparently unable to communicate the difference between (a) real, actual scientific support for morphic resonance and (b) individuals who like Sheldrake and his general outlook. Even supposing there are individuals who explicitly say that morphic resonance is not pseudoscience (which I haven't seen that in your sources), that would still be consistent with the article text of "generally regards morphic resonance as pseudoscience". vzaak 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No Vzaak, I would not be marshalling that source because it clearly makes statements calling into question Sheldrake's status as a scientist. The sources I am marshalling say things like Sheldrake's work is "the life's blood of science" and "it should be said that Sheldrake is totally committed to the scientific method". Thus while I accept that a good number of critics have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience, I am also aware of a good number of others who have said quite the opposite. And I am aware of (and marshalling) other sources which discuss this very issue and come to a different conclusion from you. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"totally committed to the scientific method" would be contradicted by Sheldrake's own dumping of the 10 scientific principles as expressed in his recent book and TEDx talk. He is "totally committed except for the parts that he doesnt like". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

When it's sources versus opinions of editors, sources win. also, the dogmas of science Sheldrake critiques have nothing to do with the scientific method. To think so is to conflate the method of science with some of it's findings, or underlying assumptions. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am impressed by how the bar has been raised from "Did they say it was pseudoscience" to "did they say it is not pseudoscience."

In fact, the sentence: "The scientific community generally regards morphic resonance as pseudoscience[12][13] for reasons that include a lack of evidence supporting the idea[14] and its inconsistency with data from genetics and embryology." is grossly misleading.

• Reference 12 is an opinion stated by a mathematician.
• Reference 13 is an "emerging market portfolio manager."
• Reference 14 is a statement by a science journal editor. They do not indicate if he has any college.
• Reference 15 is a person qualified to make such a statement but the 1984 reference is way too far out of date for such a dynamic science. I see that Wolpert debated Sheldrake in 2004 so there must be a newer reference.

The idea of pseudoscience is supported by people who have a reason to know since they are scientists. In no way can you seriously argue that the sources of reference 12, 12, 14 are qualified to judge the an idea science or pseudoscience.

You have to find a better reference. Tom Butler (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it was inconsistent with knowledge of 1984. Since then Sheldrake's pre-scientific ideas have stood still while science in these areas has advanced rapidly - it is even more inconsistent now. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom, your argument is what my initial comment in this thread addresses. I don't understand the point about whether Adam Rutherford "has any college". And you missed this part of my initial comment: "The references in the lead have since been deleted, but that is no excuse to feign ignorance of the many supporting references in the body of the article (last paragraph here)." vzaak 20:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, you said, "For example, there are the four articles in the Guardian specifically about this question and where none explicitly stated his work was pseudoscience." One of those articles makes a recommendation regarding the reissue of A New Science of Life: "don't read this book, it will make you stupider".[109] Why are you touting this Guardian article but not The Skeptic's Dictionary?

You haven't mentioned any sources which contest the generally considered pseudoscience status of morphic resonance. That a few individuals like Sheldrake's books is consistent with the article text. vzaak 20:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comments and do not agree. I do not doubt that some reputable scientists in that field of study have called Sheldrake's ideas pseudoscience. I also agree that they can be represented here in a balanced way. Look again at the opinion expressed by Andrew Lancaster:

"I'll try answering the original question in a slightly different way. The beliefs of authors are not things we should judge on Wikipedia. We know we can cite an author about subject X when that author is considered reliable outside Wikipedia for subject X. But concerning subject Y, we have nothing to say unless we are talking about subject Y, and then we also look at what people outside Wikipedia think of the author and subject Y. We try to reflect what is in publications. It is possible for a person to be considered a lunatic by experts in one field and a genius in another, at the same time. It is not for us to judge that, just to work out what the published experts say in each field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC" [110]

I think balance is being argued here and not an attempt to exclude the classification. There are many references in the article using people who have no standing based on lancaster's opinion. If you are not going to allow sources such as the peer reviewed Journal of the Society for psychical Research or the peer reviewed Journal of Parapsychology, then certainly you cannot allow a mathematician, a portfolio manager or a magazine editor ... one can only hope you were not serious about The Skeptic's Dictionary. Tom Butler (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Vaaak, the sources that say the things the sources I provided do - eg, totally committed to the scientific method, and the life's blood of science etc - completely contradict, and thus contest, the point you make. It's not really reasonable to expect sources to start taking account of your misreadings of Wikipedia policies/guidelines and wording their claims accordingly so that people might use them to contest things here in the manner you imagine. The simple fact is that multiple reliable sources say Sheldrake's work is scientific. More say this than say pesudoscience, fwiw, and some summary articles clearly say that the status is debated with some top quality scientists on both sides. I know you feel strongly that Shedlrake's work is pseudoscience, but when it's a case of sources versus the opinions of editors here, the sources win.

Tom, you're right that nobody is disputing the fact that some people have said Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience, nor that that view should be in the article. What is being argued here is that many other people take a completely different view (it is science) and that should feature as well since we have multiple reliable sources for it including summary articles and articles from informed people dealing with that very question who say Sheldrake's work is scientific. It is the suppression of these other sources, then, that is at issue. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to double-check -- the sources to which you are referring are Haight, Lucas, and Appleyard? I'm trying to figure out what 21 C Magazine is about. "THE FUTURE IS HERE". The magazine doesn't have a Wikipedia page. The website has an article about psychonaut Terence McKenna and another about a book written by a channeled alien. vzaak 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are the the sources. But remember what they say is already verified as true since we know a number of the scientists offering support etc. Some are even mentioned in the article, and so including this brief statement of fact in the lede should be unproblematic. Btw, here's the author Lucas' profile [111] Barleybannocks (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is problematic in that it WP:UNDUEly represents the miniscule handful of individuals in comparison to the vast majority of the mainstream academia. Do I need to remind you again that he doesnt even have a big enough following that for their special issue the JoC could pick a peer review committee from those who are in the "mainstream of Sheldrakian thought" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, thus stuff fails for the reasons TRPoD and jps have already mentioned. Adam Lucas wrote the article during grad school, so I don't know why you are seemingly touting him as an academic. Do you have the source for Haight? What comes after "field phenomena are necessarily connected"? Do you really think this book on theology is appropriate?

The lead summarizes the article. If you want to mention, say, Lovelock in the lead, then there should at least be coverage of Lovelock in the body of the article. And even then it needs to have some significance. In addition, it's not at all clear that Lovelock would support morphic resonance; I would presume he just likes the slant of Rebirth of Nature -- ecology, New Age consciousness, and the like. You're probably right that Chopra doesn't belong in the lead; that was just inserted for some positivity.

Be sure to check out the alien channeling article on the 21C site, it's a good one! vzaak 02:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered which scientist we mention in the lede, if any, but if the lede summarises the article then Chopra's quote should really be removed because there is no real discussion of the point he makes in the article - just its repetition. As noted though, at various places in the article we describe the interest and support Sheldrake and his ideas have had from the scientists/academics thus the lede should summarise that, and since we have sources that are already used in the article which mention this interest and support, we have everything we need: sources, evidence that it is true, and coverage of it in the article. Josephson and Bohm are mentioned in the article in this specific respect, maybe put one of them in the lede. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the minuscule amount of support Shelly has had from academia generally, as demonstrated by his supporters here, I can't see that a change in the lede to indicate this support is needed. Leave Chopra there, as a more suitable supporter, as I don't think anybody would want Josephson noted amongst their supporters, given his strange ideas. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's just use Josephson then. This is because: Chopra's quote has no bearing on anything on anything in the article; Josephson's support, and the support/interest of other scientists/academics is in the article so Josephson can stand for them; and since Josephson is such a dubious character, there will be no suggestion we are trying to falsely portray Sheldrake's support as more legit than it is. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we definitely should put Chopra in the article. He's a lot more famous than Brian Josephson and practically everyone else mentioned in the article including Sheldrake himself. jps (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is though, that the lede is supposed to summarise the article, yet Chopra's quote is only repeated in the article and there is nothing further discussion about the issue. As such the lede at the moment excludes lots of stuff that is covered fairly extensively in the article, while it's not clear what the Chopra quote is doing there. I have no objection to Chopra per se, but the way he is presented seems pointless and irrelevant. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

his livelihood has depended upon the new age community- thats where his support is -and so it makes sense to have the quote from someone from that perspective. Perhaps the issue is that we are not covering his new age supporters sufficiently. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should do that then. But until it is done the Chopra quote should not be in the lede because it has nothing to do with the content of the article. The continued demands for inclusion of this irrelevant quote also contrasts with the constant removal of well sourced statements of fact about the small degree on interest in and support for Sheldrake's theories by scientists and academics which does feature quite prominently in the article. My point is that the lede should reflect the current article and not some potential future version that may or may not ever come to exist.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not found any reliable sources discussing and commenting on the support from the New Age community that have not already been included in the article. Are you aware of any others? --- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but until such time as the article discusses Chopra's point in some detail his quote about religion should be removed from the lede as irrelevant. I also added a citation needed flag to the stuff you added about Midgley saying Sheldrake's book had been ignored since it isn't in the Midgley article and no details have been given about where in Sheldrake's book (which is cited for this claim) Midgley is reported as having said this.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

oops, I copied the wrong ref name. Its now fixed. Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Information from the essay

I tried adding some more information about "The Sense of Being Stared At" and was immediately reverted. Since Barney³ didn't discuss I guess I will. What's the matter with this? The point of the article is to explain the subject, and I tried to touch on a few of the main headings from Part 2 (the practical experiments already having been covered more).

I'll admit, I find an unusual fondness for these arguments since despite not having known Sheldrake had such ideas I've made all four of them at one point or another over on the Science Refdesk (excluding the concept that consciousness has something to do with entanglement, that I should try to track down). Still, I didn't think I was far from neutral about it, and there's nothing "fringy" about explaining the main topics of a piece of writing. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you made a reasonable first attempt to cover some of Sheldrake's work in a section supposedly about Sheldrake's work, but some here want the entire article to deal with Sheldrake in a few words while giving over 80% of the space to criticism. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, per WP:PSTS the content of the article should be based on reliable sources assessment of the works of Sheldrake, not our regurgitation of his work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree to a certain extent TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - we do need to cover what his ideas say, and might very carefully use primary sources. However, we have a big problem with WP:SUMMARYSING nonsensical fringe, i.e. arguments that do not make sense, and this is where WP:SUMMARYSTYLE just falls apart. (where's the essay on that?)

Instead of going into too much detail, it might be briefly to comment that Sheldrake argues that quantum mechanics and support his proposals, which I think is in the article anyway.

It's also, as we point out, an essay on a website, not peer reviewed, not even published in a newspaper, and given Sheldrake's known propensity for "muddled diatribes", it's clearly not very reliable. We can't go into details on fringe theories, because they don't make sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is about how Wikipedia articles relate to each other, not external content. It would only apply to this article if we determine that there is too much content to reasonably cover in one article and spin off daughter articles about specific content, such as a book or morphic resonance, into stand alone articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What I meant TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) is that we have to summarise sources, but this assumes that arguments presented are broadly coherent, but if those arguments are incoherent, they are very difficult to explain. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have to judge whether it makes sense, but actually it does make sense, quite good sense. It really is established quantum theory, so far as I know, that the stars were all smeared together in a superposition of vast numbers of quantum states, until the first man on Earth looked up and they resolved into their places. No? Wnt (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought you were joking with this, and then, remembering previous conversations, realized you probably weren't. The answer is emphatically, "no". jps (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the basic cat in a box. Until you open the box, there are bits of live cat and dead cat in a billion different positions all mixed up together in a superposition. Well... nobody can look into the box until there is somebody, right? Wnt (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Only if you think that Quantum decoherence is a "somebody". (And starlight is not in a quantum state of superposition, obviously.) jps (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Compare [112]: "We created the universe. ... this strong anthropic principle asserts the universe is hospitable to us because we could not create a universe in which we could not exist. While the weak anthropic principle involves a backward-in-time reasoning, this strong anthropic principle involves a form of backward-in-time action.

"Quantum cosmologist John Wheeler back in the 1970s drew an eye looking at evidence of the Big Bang and asked: 'Does looking back "now" give reality to what happened "then"?' His provocative sketch has not lost impact..." [The sketch is of an eye, at one end of a grey U representing the world-line from a little "big bang", with an arrow from the eye back to the bang] Wnt (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Skirting the edges of the out-on-a-limbs of these physicists' flights of fancy is not a good way to build your physical understanding. The anthropic principle is not causal in the sense of causality and Wheeler's question in context is a similar game. Fred Hoyle's use of the anthropic principle to discover the resonance state of carbon-12 does not imply that we caused that state to exist. Cart before horse and all that. jps (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be right in being skeptical of the anthropic principle - it does tend to verge into solipsism. But my point here isn't really to argue what is good physics; my point is to refute the contention, still being made above, that Sheldrake's ideas are too incoherent for it to be possible to summarize them. When they closely resemble other publications by other people - including ideas I myself have expressed - they are certainly possible to summarize, and it is appropriate here to do it. Sheldrake differs, of course, from other sources in arguing that it is possible some of these effects lead to testable predictions such as telepathy. Even so, when you're the king of Strong Anthropicland and the whole world has been made so that you exist, why shouldn't their thoughts be predictable a little more often than chance? It's not really that far of a stretch from established "scientific" ideas about quantum mechanics. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

To summarize what I think you're saying, I think your opinion that Sheldrake's views are indistinguishable from a kind of solipsism and anthropocentrism that posits cognition as the central feature of the universe, rather in contradiction to Copernican ideals. I think that's a fine thesis, but we'll need some sources making this kind of analysis to be able to include such a summary here. In other words, I think the connection you are trying to make is a valid one, but I don't think we have the sources necessary to make it. Just because logical extensions to Roger Penrose's thoughts could be seen as similar to Sheldrake's proposals does not mean we are empowered at Wikipedia to make such connections, sadly. jps (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I should disclose that I have expressed closely related ideas previously. [113][114] Of course, there are many pseudoscientific ideas that many people arrive at independently, but at the very least you can't say an idea is meaningless when different people can arrive at aspects of it independently. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Many people make similar typos and misspellings. That doesn't mean that the typo itself is meaningful (it is, by definition, an obfuscation of meaning). There is a sociological, perhaps even psychological (or maybe even pharmaceutical!) meaning behind fringe theories, but Barney, I believe, wasn't talking about these. He's talking about the substance of the claims. I know it's popular on Wikipedia to deal entirely syntactically, but we do have some responsibility to keep inaccurate information out of the encyclopedia or at least explain that it is inaccurate and only being included for completeness sake. jps (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Well, it's legit "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." I thought I was sticking to that pretty well - heck, I was really only trying to cover the headings of the source with a few extra words for flow. Per WP:IAR it is better for the article to convey that he was making an argument about quantum physics than giving the impression he just ran some numbers on pet owners. Wnt (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To me, the 80%/20% seems to be a reasonable proportion so that the article is based on third party interpretations and assessments. The problem with going into more detail of his work based on what his work says is that there is so little reliable secondary sourced material critiquing it to keep the based on percentages appropriate and not swing to the point where the article becomes based on Sheldrake's primary source material. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers, please

I see some six citations to The Science Delusion which lack page numbers. In a three hundred-plus page book (at least in the US edition) it is unreasonable to put in such citations. These are being used to back up some strong claims, so if someone wishes to defend these it seems to me that the references need to fixed. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Jzg (talk · contribs) is reading it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the Notes section

I don't understand why a load of consecutive refs [12][43][13][44][45][46][47] in the article text is better than a Notes section. The addition of the Notes section was praised by all parties, so I don't understand the sudden change.

The many references served a purpose: some editors were unaware of the status of morphic resonance in the scientific community, seeming to think it was just another theory alongside other theories. This misunderstanding is presumably shared by readers.

A line of refs like this [12][43][13][44][45][46][47] should not be in the lead. Putting a few select refs in the lead has brought confusion and re-arguments again, as reflected in this talk page. Until all refs are removed from the lead, the Notes section is the only solution to the problem. I would support removing all refs from the lead, but it has to be an all-or-nothing situation.

Restoring the Notes section also brought my attention to the bit about the public understanding of science. This is a significant section in the body of the article and should be reflected in the lead. vzaak 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support the bundling -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. The public understanding of science is the crux of this article. Sheldrake's ideas are so silly that nobody in science takes them seriously. However, he does have a lot of people who are fans of his books, and seem to be under the mistaken impression that he's the greatest scientist who ever lived. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The public understanding of Sheldrake is surely the crux of this article. That's what it's supposed to be about after all, and not some great mission to use this article as a means of forwarding some sociological agenda. As regards Sheldrake being the greatest sceintist who ever lived, I don't see anyone here advancing that or who has even said they suspect/support such a thing. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not restore the note -- You clearly have ownership of the notes. In fact, only skeptical editors praised you. I for one frequently condemned the notes. Please do not restore them, as they tend to hid the piling on. Tom Butler (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Butler (talk · contribs) - we go by consensus here. Despite ordering us you are not part of the consensus builders on this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney, there is no consensus for restoring the notes. There was not even any attempt to gain consensus before restoring them. The issue was discussed above a few days ago and most thought they should go. Vzaak, however, did not join that discussion and just, as per usual, reverted to his preferred version so that that's what's there while the discussion takes place. Bad form in every respect. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The notes need to stay. Part of the reason is certain users liking to pretend that criticism doesn't exist when it clearly and specifically does. It's hard to argue with the sourcing, although somehow I think you might try. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against most of your sourcing. That is, while it is clear that sources are being systematically misrepresented throughout the article (something that desperately needs to change in a BLP), I fully accept that some sources support the claim that Sheldrake's work has been called pseudoscience. I must have had to say this over ten times now. The problem I have is with all the conflicting sources which say Sheldrake's work is scientific, more than you have for pseudoscience, and from as solidly reliable sources as you have, being excluded from the article because they conflict with the opinions of some editors here.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's partly right, but your argument is basically because a source doesn't use the word "pseudoscience" but does use the word "science" then it must be endorsing Sheldrake's work as scientific, despite whatever criticism the article contains. This is just plainly absurd. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing that Barney. I am saying that when an article says, eg, "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects" then that is in the "debate" camp (on account of the qualification) but leaning towards saying Sheldrake's work is science. Your reading, however, is that this supports the idea Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience despite that being directly contradicted by the explicit statement quoted. That is what is "interpretation", euphemistically speaking. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney there is no consensus and there is no neutrality in this article. You can bluster at me all you wish, but the reality of it is that this article is under the control of skeptic ideologues who represent a small minority of Wikipedia editors, yet are pretty much by themselves dragging Wikipedia into even more disrespect from the larger community. If you were a rational editor, you would see this and at least try to be agreeable for a change. Tom Butler (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You can scream NPOV ISSUES! NPOV ISSUES! NPOV ISSUES!!!!!!!! all day long and that will not fix anything. If you want to fix anything rather than just fill another 10 archive pages with bloated whining, identify particular content that WP:UNDUE does not accurately represent the mainstream academic views and we can discuss and fix (if there is actually any issue). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That has been done, probably hundreds of time. The reason it sounds like I "scream" and "whine" is that what I have said is not what you want to hear. You exhibit a serious sense ownership in this article and editors like Barney are just trying to support you. My irritation is at the stonewall you and others are putting up here and at the admin's complacency. Of course I am going to complain. Do you really think I ... and others will just surrender and go away with further actions? Are you that insulated here?

It is unfortunate you do not have the courage of your convictions to use your real name so that we can see your credentials. Tom Butler (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. its unfortunate that you are resorting to personal attacks rather than discussing sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenofDoom (talk · contribs) - I have to tell you that Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is an expert on metaphysics and etheric studies so we'd better accept his knowledge of these issues, especially the existence of psi. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You know that is a reflection ... right? Tom Butler (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please point out where a specific discussion has been made about "This content from this particular source stated in this particular way is an NPOV violation because..." There have been lots of claims about NPOV violations! that when reviewed are actually NOT NPOV violations because the content and the sources are in fact following the NPOV guidelines as identified in WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID and WP:PSCI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The NPOV issue is less about any particular source (although there are many misrepresentations of sources in the article that editors refuse to allow to be corrected) and more about the mass suppression of sources/viewpoints which some editors here don't like. For example, the article still does not say Sheldrake is a biologist when we have dozens of sources for this (and could probably get hundreds) because some editors here don't want it to be true. It's that kind of thing going on throughout the article (eg, your recent removal of the well-sourced point about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature) that many here feel means the article is very one sided and unbalanced. Thus the three main problems as I see it are: a) misrepresentation of sources; b) suppression of conflicting sources/viewpoint; and c) the refusal to allow anything other than a very brief, and often false/strawman, explication of Sheldrake's views into the article.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, when every time editors attempt to keep utilizing sources that violate WP:VALID / WP:UNDUE / WP:PSCI and they are "suppressed"; that is the proper application of NPOV and not a symptom or evidence of NPOV issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly told why we can't call him a biologist or scientist, and respond with WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Pick another issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources being misrepresented in the article

I note that in this edit [115] TRPoD added "Midgley also noted that scientists mostly ignored the book", but nowhere in the cited source does Midgley say this or anything like it. Grateful for clarification here.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

fixed. I copied the wrong refname. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't sorted because the article you cited doesn't make this point. Grateful for some clarification of where this comes from.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is: "scientists mostly ignored it " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not about any book (as you falsely claim both here and with your addition to the article), but about a particular piece of research into apparent human/animal telepathy. Grateful if you could remove the misrepresentation from the BLP or find a source that says something like what you put in the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

in an article called "The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake - review" its going to take some wild interpretation to say that her comments are about some other content than the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, no, you only need read what she says. She is talking about some very particular research into some very particular things (human/animal telepathy). It is this research that is the "it" she says scientists have ignored. Secondly, the section you added this to is about A New Science of Life and not The Science Delusion. Thus, even if she was talking about the Science Delusion, which she clearly isn't, her comments about that book would still not be relevant where you added them. Grateful if you could remove your misplaced misrepresentation of the source from the article without further ado. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I incorrectly assumed that you had added her book review content in the appropriate place. I have removed both of our edits that were about different subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the content I added as it is about habits versus laws of nature, which is precisely what Midgely was talking about in her article, and what the article here was talking about where I added it. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No. As you pointed out, she is reviewing a different book and her reviews of that book cannot be misapplied as referring to a different book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

She may be talking about a different book but she is talking aboutn exactly the same point - laws of nature being better thought of as habits rather than laws.

I also note, TRPoD, that you have now misrepresented in the lede as being about Sheldrake's research in toto when it is clearly about one aspect of his research. This also shows that even you don't buy your own argument about this being solely about Science Set Free otherwise why would you add it to the lede as a general point rather than a point about that book - the clearly false reason you gave for removing my content. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF has clearly gone out the door. I take your claim that her statement is not about the book and you accuse me of using the statement in a manner that shows it is not about the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because one of her comments in an article is not about one specific book, does not mean it is about everything else Sheldrake has ever done (as the lead now falsely suggests by way of your recent edits). Nor does that fact mean that every other comment she makes in that article is or is not about one specific book or one specific point. She makes many points in the article about many things. In the cases under discussion here: her comment about stuff being ignored is about some of Sheldrake's work on apparent human/animal telepathy and not about all of his work; and her comment about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature is about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature, and not solely about Science Set Free. Thus, your edit which misrepresents her quote should be removed from the lede, and my edit about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature which accurately reflects her quote should be restored. In both cases the reasons are ultimately the same and concern using sources to support the specific things they actually about.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)