Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

The articles credibility

This article discredits its own credibility from the very first sentence.

"Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4]"

what happened to "Biologist" (PhD) ?

To Criticize one's work. is legitimate, but to "revoke" one's academic credentials to belittle him, is despicable and unacceptable LarryTheShark (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

When did he last do any biology? or any science at all come to that? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) - the last of his approx. 40 scientific papers were published in 1986/87, AFAIK. Also, the article doesn't try to hide his previous career in scientific research. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And finally, LarryTheShark (talk · contribs), is quacking, IMHO, as opposed to being an inexperienced newby. Vzaak (talk · contribs) can no doubt add him to the appropriate sockpuppet investigations. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a little hostile Barney. I was going to come to this talk to discuss why the word "concept" was being used instead of "theory", but I found my answer in the archives. On this issue of PhD Biology credentials I think it's a little weird to give a guy a thousands of words article and not note his academic qualifications fully. That said, Sheldrake is in fact slightly significant for his small contribution to biology some decades ago in any case. There is no reason to remove his credentials. For some people it's the only thing significant Sheldrake has ever done. I'm confident people would want to know that he is a PhD in Biology at least somewhere in the article. Imagine if someone else uses Wikipedia as a source for writing an article about Sheldrake and failing to mention his formal qualifications. They really would have egg on their face for failing to do their research. So leaving the information out just makes Wikipedia look like a poor source. I'm also confident that this article is better to be labelled biased as long as the credentials are absent. The better question is why are we hiding Sheldrake's credentials? I welcome my ip number being investigated by whatever arbitration is going on. I have no interested or time in getting involved in wiki politics. I hardly ever talk on wikipedia these days but I do think this article needs some fresh blood on the editing crew. It doesn't come across as even-handed. Since there is arbitration going on I will happily reveal that I used to be a user named Metta Bubble and haven't edited wikipedia in 6 years. Please consider getting some fresh blood to even this article out. If the current state of the article was off-kilter enough to bring me out of a 6 year hiatus I hope that's food for thought to start getting more opinions from people disinterested in the topic. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In the "background" section it says "where he gained a PhD in Biochemistry". Imagine if someone claimed the article didn't mention his PhD without reading the article. (I don't believe he has a PhD in Biology, he certainly doesn't claim one on his website.) They really would have egg on their face for failing to do their research. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that. Thanks for saying. I've struck out the mistake I made above. My position overall still stands. It's really quite odd to put someone's primary credentials at the end of a section like that as an afterthought. It comes across as though the article is hiding his credentials and as such is a little too paranoid of giving too much credence to Sheldrake. I say let his views speak for themselves. It's wrong to hide his credentials and hiding like that will just give fuel to the idea that there is an anti-Sheldrake editorial faction rather than simply openness in the article. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing is about Rupert, is that we have to consider what he is notable for. He hasn't done much notable science at all, and none for many years, see upthread. If he was notable as a scientist, perhaps the PhD would be given more prominence, but as he is only notable as a writer/author/personality on fringe subjects where his PhD isn't really pertinent, then I feel the article gives it sufficient weight. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So I think what you're saying is that because he works in fringe pseudoscience we shouldn't show his actual credentials? Kind of like barring a lawyer for improper conduct. I think you're making a mess of trouble for wikipedia with this view. It would be better to just say he's a biologist with a well-known hypothesis that most scientists consider to be pseudoscience. Why should we obscure his actual credentials in order to sway the wiki audience to an opinion? The article shouldn't convey this feeling of us having an opinion on Sheldrake like that from the get go. It's the first thing I noticed when I read the article. That we were calling his hypothesis a "concept" and that we were omitting his credentials as a scientist. When we put his credentials at the bottom it makes it look like what we really want to say is "look, admitted that this guy is a PhD biologist but we don't hold much stock in his credentials because we don't agree with the books we writes." Is that the message you would rather convey? I think you had better cite someone saying that his credentials as a scientist are actually not valid in order to justify putting it right at the bottom like that. I think it's a bad message for an encyclopedia that values neutrality. It's is far better to say Sheldrake has actual real credentials AND most scientists think he is publishing rubbish. That seems to be the actual truth of the matter. The article is not presenting truth. It's presenting a censored version of the man. The argument of undue weight is quite absurd. He has the credentials of a scientist. It's totally relevant to the article. It is in fact perhaps the most interesting thing about Sheldrake. That he actually has the credentials of a scientist AND he is publishing stuff that is almost completely rejected by other scientists. Why would you want to hide that? Seems really really biased. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You see the thing is, the reason so many organisations and media commentaries are calling Sheldrake a heretic is precisely because he IS a scientist. It makes no sense that The Guardian calls him a heretic if they aren't referring to him being notable as a scientist (albeit it a heretical one). This Guardian article is written in 2012. It's NOT something from Sheldrake's distant past. His scientific qualifications are entirely relevant today to the media and other scientists. I would really like to invite another wiki editor to put the biologist credentials into the opening sentence of the article. I believe I have completely answered Roxy's notability issue with the link above and unless there actual sources to provide a reason to exclude Sheldrake's credentials as a scientist it should in fact be included in the opening. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The second and third sentences of the article bring attention to his career as a biologist in just the way you describe, it seems to me.

As with any other biography, the infobox on the right shows the PhD and the article describes the educational background, including the PhD. Roxy is kind of making a red herring out of credentials and prominence. The lead is not about listing credentials, no matter who it is and no matter how prominent. The Massimo Pigliucci article isn't is ploy to denigrate Pigluicci because the article lead fails to mention that he has three PhDs. The lead is about notability, and people aren't notable for getting PhDs. Filling the lead with credentials does not serve the reader and is not what Wikipedia is about. I haven't found any Wikipedia articles with "so-and-so has a PhD" in the lead; look at Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example.

Another aspect of this is that Wikipedia does not describe fringe views from the perspective of their adherents, but rather from the perspective of mainstream experts. This requires some judgement in identifying what is the fringe view and what is the mainstream view. Joseph Newman once garnered much attention from newspaper and televion outlets, many of which reported his claims credulously (he even made it to congress!). Wikipedia doesn't take the approach of "news guy said it, we report it". Rather, we look at what mainstream experts in the relevant field have to say about particular fringe claims.

Rupert Sheldrake holds a fringe view of what comprises biology. He believes that telepathy and morphic resonance, for instance, are part of the field of biology. When studying those topics, he believes that he is acting as a biologist. He tells the journalists that interview him that he is a biologist, and it gets reported as such. But what do mainstream experts say? They do not hold the view that dog telepathy belongs to the field of biology. They refer to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist or a pseudoscientist or, as the source in the lead says, a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. vzaak 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Vzaak. I think the PhD focus actually is a red herring. I couldn't really care whether he's a PhD or whatever level. The point is, he IS a biologist. Biology is his area of research, his area of publishing, and the area with which everyone is making comment on his work. In short, he is notable in reference to biology. Let's do exactly as you say and NOT describe Sheldrake from his own perspective but let's describe him from the perspective of those writing prominent articles about him. Um, so that would be that he is a heretical scientist (or similar labels).

You made my point for me really. The article and the journos are describing Sheldrake as a scientist by your own admission. So we have Sheldrake calling himself a scientist and we have what seems like ALL major press also calling him a scientist. In fact, Wikipedia is the only prominent information source we can find that isn't citing Sheldrake as primarily a scientist. So the argument against listing him as a scientist really does boil down to "we don't agree with his views."

In summary, Vzaak's and Roxy's only argument for excluding Sheldrake's most relevent credential is that they don't like his science and would like to ignore all the mainstream media about Sheldrake's science in favour of a strictly skeptical view of Sheldrake. I'm sorry but is not an NPOV view at all. There are 2 cited sources here for Sheldrake being considered a prominent scientist by all mainstream publishing and press (albeit for all the wrong reasons, nonetheless Sheldrake is still prominent). We really need to address all these sources and how they could possible be considered irrevelent and then add our own sources for Sheldrake not being a scientist in order to satisfy my point. Otherwise Vzaak and Roxy need to concede the point. In lieu of this happening I again invite ANY editors to please add the "biologist" credential back into the header section or at list a note that this article is biased. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Anon, you are demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the sociology of science and what WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE mean.

• Scientists would demonstrably interact with Sheldrake as a colleague, a biologist, if they were accepting his papers into mainstream journals, citing his publications, working on morphic resonance research, or even as a first step suggesting that his ideas were partially credible. They're not - I've looked.
• It's not a case of Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) and Vzaak (talk · contribs) "not liking Sheldrake's science", quite simply because he's not doing any science.
• Journalists are not experts on science; scientists are.
• Sheldrake exaggerates the importance of his credentials. Wikipedia does not repeat half-truths.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

49.183.3.68, in your first message you wrote, "There is no reason to remove his credentials...I'm confident people would want to know that he is a PhD in Biology at least somewhere in the article." When people use the word "credentials", they are referring to things like PhDs, just as you did. As has been covered, the PhD is already mentioned in two places in the article (the infobox and the first section), and putting it into the lead text is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia does. It is very confusing that you now seem to be using "credentials" and "title" interchangeably. As I understand your position, you want the title "biologist" to be in the first sentence instead of the second sentence, where it is now. For the sake of preventing confusion, please don't call that "credentials", just say you want the title "biologist".

The lead text brings attention to his career as a biologist in the second and third sentences, using the title "biologist". This already addresses the issue of Sheldrake's background as a scientist, and does so prominently.

It is often construed as rude when newcomers are asked to read such-and-such policy, but in this case some reading on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views really is needed. Wikipedia is not written from the perspective of fringe views. Articles must clearly distinguish the fringe view from the mainstream view; it is the job of Wikipedia editors to do that. This is not a robotic task of source counting, but requires judgement and a sense of proportion.

Dog telepathy is part of the field of biology. Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view? Sheldrake's work on morphic resonance is simply a continuation of his work at Cambridge (as he says). Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view?

The source, cited in the lead, describing Sheldrake as a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology is Nature, a prestigious scientific journal that is qualified to discern whether or not dog telepathy falls within the field of biology. See the archives for other expert mainstream sources. vzaak 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Barney and Vzaak. thanks for the replies. I am happy with the reference that Sheldrake is "an English author, lecturer, former biochemist and researcher in parapsychology, known for his largely disfavored morphic resonance hypothesis." Thanks for the suggestion on using the Nature reference. Are you okay with that then? Does that look neutral enough?

• I would not approve "taken up parapsychology" as it is derisive language of a living person. See WP:BLP
• I would not approve "known for advocating" because what hypothesis creator doesn't advocate their own hypothesis? It's derisive language. Again see WP:BLP.
• Also on this point thanks Barney for reminding us to reread WP:FRINGE. It says "it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." So, if you want to use the word "concept" can you please provide some references for it. It seems to me that almost universally it is called a "hypothesis" or a "theory" by both critics and fans.
• Barney. You said "Journalists are not experts on science; scientists are." This is not a purely science article. This is a biography of a living person article. The appropriate reference is WP:BLPFRINGE. To say you are only going to present the scientific view of Sheldrake's life story is complete ridiculous. He's also known for being a lecturer. His lectures are well received by the public and the media. We are obliged to present the scientific view and also a view of him as a man in the media. I think you are mixing these two together and have created a coatrack article that purports to be about Sheldrake but is actually focused on scientifically criticising his views. Even in the media section the whole thing is focused on scientific criticism. It needs a lot of work there.
• I would also encourage you to read WP:BITR. Specifically "The contents of this type of coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?"
• Our article straight away gives the impression that Rupert Sheldrake is not to be taken seriously. "advocate" "concept" "defending". Etc. But what are we saying here? If Sheldrake is defending his ideas then other people MUST be attacking his ideas? How else can we say he is defending? So the word "defending" is presented without the context of what attacks are being made. It is deriding Sheldrake. Please remove this word for a more neutral tone.
• Reading further and wholly into the article you'd get the impression Sheldrake is actually criticised absolutely everywhere he goes. As a first time reader I would wonder why he gets invited anywhere at all. In fact almost every single section of our article reads as a criticism of Rupert Sheldrake. The media section goes straight into criticism after the first sentence and then into questioning his motives in the third sentence. This is hardly the structure of a section presenting a neutral viewpoint. A better approach would be for the opening paragraph of that section to state what activities Rupert Sheldrake has undertaken in the media and public and then move the criticism of his actions into an appropriate response below and another section balancing his relative popularity with media outlets and the public. There is nowhere I can find in our article that addresses why Rupert Sheldrake is popular except a brief mention that he manipulates the media and an allusion here and there that the public is stupid enough to follow him.

The article really isn't good enough IMHO. Are you willing to work to address the issues I raised? Are you willing to use the sentence I suggested above? 49.183.36.24 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Largely disfavored" really doesn't work. The reality is that Sheldrake is the only believer and there are several other people saying something like "well, maybe there's something there, but not enough for me to actually work on it". "Almost universally rejected" would be closer to the mark. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We've been through all of this before:

• The problem here is that the Sheldrake's oeuvre has three responses; ignorant ignorance (scientists have never heard of it, and are unlikely to be introduced to it via the scientific media (journals, lectures, conversation with colleagues)), deliberate ignorance (scientists who've looked at MR and concluded that it's completely bonkers and not worth wasting their time with), and thirdly quite robust attacks on what he's said. None of these positions accepts MR as valid science. Don't confuse a meta-response to the third response, that of supporting Sheldrake's right to free speech, with advocating support of his hypotheses.
• As you've suggested Sheldrake is not "taken seriously" by the scientific community. If by "taken seriously" you meant that "his work is accepted as being valid science", that seems to be a fair and accurate assessment. We cannot lie to the reader and claim otherwise for WP:BLP.
• In science-related articles, we don't use the word theory to refer to anything other than a scientific theory. MR has not reached this level of acceptance.
• I do however take your point about unconscious biases, and wording. We're trying our best to bend over backwards for WP:BLP. Believe it or not some of the more personal responses have been ignored.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone. Could you all please have another go at addressing my request for a single credible reference that Rupert Sheldrake has come up with a "concept" rather than a "hypothesis". This word "concept" seems to be complete fabrication by us. There are countless scientific and/or media articles refering to his hypothesis in our own citations. Even the Nature article vzaak provided referred to it as a "hypothesis". How can we possibly selectively pick from an article like we have? Please address this question. I have not suggested the word "theory" so please stop addressing that issue, I have suggested the word hypothesis and I have stated our own references and citations use the word "hypothesis". It's a disingenuous article introduction to say "concept". I have read through the archives and have seen the discussion on the issue of concept versus hypothesis and I'd like to remind you that wikipedia is not a vote. Discussion improves articles.

I understand you may think that "Almost universally rejected" captures MR, but does it? The reason I don't think it does is because most scientists simply wouldn't bother going that far with it. To say "rejected" suggests that MR has been peer-researched (or is peer researchable) and that these peer scientists have then gone on to say the hypothesis is rejected now. I prefer "unfavored" because it suggests to me that scientists don't even give it much credence to even discuss, research or reject it. I am open to other suggestions. Could someone else please make suggestions too? How about "unconsidered"? I think "unfavored" is better. How about "fringe hypothesis"? How about something a little more explanatory? "Concept" is simply wrong as far as I'm concerned. "Largely rejected" would be an improvement (if we can cite someone saying that it has been rejected scientifically, which I don't think we can).

Hey Barney. I am glad we are bending over backwards. Me too. It's a hard article to write. No one doubts it. You could always move onto another article if it's too much. I don't really have the time for wikipedia in general but I'd like to see a better article here that is neutral and interesting also. Honestly, if my goal was to make an article that helped people realise Rupert Sheldrake's theories are pseudoscience I'd have to concede that the current article doesn't serve that purpose very well. It simply looks and sounds so biased. Like the "spends his time defending himself" comment. Do we seriously think our readers are so stupid as to miss the bias in sentences like that? Let's give them a good article on this topic instead. 49.183.102.46 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I know of no reliable sources, i.e articles in peer-reviewed journals, that discuss "morphic resonance" as a serious scientific hypothesis. In science, hypotheses should be testable, otherwise they're unscientific. Given the comments from numerous sources that MR isn't basically testable, I'm not sure hypothesis is the best word to use. Concept isn't original research, its just another word in the dictionary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a conjecture, not a hypothesis. But we have already been round that loop half a dozen times. I suggest the IP reads the archives before wasting further time on rehashing prior debates. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Negative Propaganda Campaign

There has been an extremely well organized and forceful ongoing propaganda campaign here on Wikipedia against any and all scientific work (and those scientists associated with the work) regarding parapsychology or psi or however else you would like to label the phenomena. Even the very label of "pseudoscience" promotes a negative judgement on the scientific research that has been conducted now in psi for many many decades now - with quite a large amount of accumulated records and evidentiary material that currently reside within a large library at England's Society for Psychical Research or the American Branch SPR. Decades of publications in both societies "Proceedings", that the editorial control here on Wikipedia, and the organizers of this negative propaganda (most likely fundamentalists for the Skeptics society) here on Wikipedia, would have everyone who visits these very public pages believe is of no consequential value at all.

It is unfortunate, that the best and brightest of scientists (such as Rupert Sheldrake) are subject to this kind of fundamentalist assault by the Skeptic's society. It very much reminds me of the kind of persecution Copernicus and Galileo suffered with the bitter irony that they helped free humanity from the shackles of an over-bearing mainstream church. We now have the same thing taking place, but now with an over-bearing mainstream Skeptic's society who has been given free reign to publish at will their dogma on the Wikipedia pages, while silencing any and all contrary views.