Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

Controversial scientists

The scientists interviewed for this film, by and large, are remarkable for the controversial nature of their theories. That is, what is remarkable about them is not that they are experts, but that they are at the center of controversy. They may be construed as experts, but not in the mainstream way presumed by the use of "expert". Antelan ^talk 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who lives in the 21st century knows you can get an "expert" to say absolutely posomicklutely anything. Some were fringe, perhaps, others were not. What about the guy crying about being mis-represented? He's one of the experts. Anyway, we don't have sources for controversial, but we do for expert- such as the American Chemical Society one which says the credentials were impressive. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking over sources discussing all of the contributors to this movie, I can find only one who is not considered controversial or non-mainstream... and he is the one who takes umbrage at the film's misuse of his statements. For some of the others, I have quotations that are as forceful as labeling them "on the fringes of mainstream science." Fringe researchers aren't usually the type of people you would label "experts" in the lead of an article, at least not in a way that makes it seem like they are experts in what most people consider science. Antelan ^talk 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sources? They are all experts, but not all controversial. So, what would you do? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sources that are listed in this article. But it's strange - these individuals are, by and large, on the fringes of science. There are sources to back this, but none have been referenced so far in this article. This is important, insofar as this article is making them look so run-of-the-mill. When Newsweek is calling you fringe, you know you're out there. Why, then, is this article obfuscating the fact that these folks are on the fringe? Antelan ^talk 07:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not obfucation: we are summarizing. While they are all experts of one sort or another, not all are fringe. That will come later. The lead as a whole gives the reader proper context. I'm putting in a compromise. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask you this, but do you know the definition of ersatz? To back your claim that these folks are experts, you cited an article from the American Chemical Society that calls them ersatz scientific experts. This completely supports my point. Antelan ^talk 07:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be moot with the changes, but I think it's easy enough to source "experts" if needed. Dreadstar † 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From their promotional site? That hardly seems like a reliable source for stating that outright. --Philosophus ^T 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that agree with that statement, check out the Sep 10, 2004 Chicago Sun Times review by Roger Ebert, or the article by Catrina Coyle in the Aug 19, 2004 Monterey County Weekly Newspaper. As for their promotional site, yes we can use that per WP:SELFPUB. Dreadstar † 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger Ebert does not approach being a reliable source for determining scientific expertise.Kww (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't claim he was. Dreadstar † 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar, WP:SELFPUB says this type of sourcing is valid if "it does not involve claims about third parties." This is explicitly about third parties ('experts'). Shouldn't an admin know this, or at least read over it, before posting it to this page as an attempted justification? Antelan ^talk 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all Antelan, I recommend you restrict your remarks to the editorial content of the article instead of making insulting, rude comments about other editors. Secondly, the site isn't referencing "third parties", it's referencing participants in the movie. It's not really "third parties" at all. I'm sure it can be argued the other way, but it's not nearly as clear cut as you seem to think it is. There are also other considerations to take into account as well, the documentary nature of the film, the obvious linkage to and from the 'expert's' webstites from the bleep website...etc. No, not clear-cut at all. Dreadstar † 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the articles on the "experts" themselves. If it were, we could certainly say that they claim to be experts, if there are self-sources to back that. But to conflate these individuals with the movie itself is incorrect. Is there a place where we could ask other administrators for clarification? Antelan ^talk 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been a slew of other admins involved on this very talk page an the article over the last few days. You can also take it to Wikipedia:Village Pump if you think it's that important. The term 'experts' is sourced and part of the movie, plus their credentials include Ph.D's and M.D.'s I can't see how that can be disputed successfully. And to be honest, it just looks more and more like an attempt to push a pov into the article. Participants in a thing are not third-parties to that thing. Using "claim" violates WP:WTA and I think anything along those lines is just an attempt to add bias to the article. The description of the movie should be true to the description provided by the makers, participants and the movie itself says; then the view of the critics can be added. Dreadstar † 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise, instead of saying 'experts', perhaps we can substitute "Ph.D's and M.D's , etc"? But you know, 'experts' is sourced by the movie and number of it's articles, promotional sites, books, etc. Dreadstar † 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A degree does not an expert make. Antelan ^talk 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? ;D Yeah, but the degrees and the work they've done lend credence to the statement that they are 'experts', can't just cherry-pick things out of the whole picture. We should also take into consideration the context of that expertise, the context in the area in which they speak, work and have studied - in addition to the context of the movie - a movie that is the subject of this article. Dreadstar † 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha. OK, what I will say is that what is well-sourced (not in this article, per its current slant, but in others) is the degree to which these "experts" differ from the mainstream. Some do so wildly, being labeled "fringe" by major publications. Others do so to a lesser degree. I will provide references after my flight. Antelan ^talk 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Have a safe flight! Dreadstar † 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this has now been referenced from a different discussion, I want to point out that this portion had been archived within a week of its occurrence, and I recently de-archived it so we could continue the discussion. Now about the sources... Let me grab a few. Antelan ^talk 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred Alan Wolf "Two of the “teachers” in the film are identified as quantum physicists, which they are, although on the fringes of mainstream science. One, Fred Alan Wolf, is mostly an author of science books with a quasi-mystical bent" (Newsweek text available in copy here.) Antelan ^talk 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John Hagelin "Two of the "teachers" in the film are identified as quantum physicists, which they are, although on the fringes of mainstream science. ... the other, John Hagelin (who has run for president on the Natural Law ticket), is affiliated with Maharishi University of Management, in Fairfield, Iowa, which does research on transcendental meditation." (from the same Newsweek article, supra) Antelan ^talk 05:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The credentials and status of the movie paricipants is sourced by the flim itself. Also, be cautious of WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE when adding material that contradicts other sources. Dreadstar † 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain that Newsweek trumps this movie in terms of being a reliable source. Do you disagree? Antelan ^talk 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing the participant's credentials

Anyone besides SA and me have an opinion? Lots of chatting in the above section about standards and guidelines, but I think the issue should probaby be settled by consensus. Dreadstar † 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary was that "Dr" was an appeal to authority. If that's true, SA will immediately go over to Quackwatch and change "Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director." Anyway, the edit was done because it was an appeal to authority to have the titles [1]. I see nothing in WP rules saying that this is necessary. It is customary to use such titles. I do seem to remember a rule about only using it the first time a person is mentioned, but I can't find it. The rule from biographies is irrelevant. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the same thing with "Stephen Barrett, M.D." in Quackwatch, and it should be changed in Stephen Barrett's own article as well. Dreadstar † 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an issue to be decided by consensus for this article alone. In my opinion the credentials certainly shouldn't be added in that manner in articles like this, or Quackwatch, but making the same argument for a biography, where the correct post-name credentials are useful information, seems very pointy. As for pre-name titles (again, outside of biographies), I think the issue isn't so clear: in lists, they seem rather annoying, but in the text itself, for the first mention of the name, they might be acceptable. --Philosophus ^T 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it may be best to use it the first time the name appears, then refer to that individual by their last name in other instances. But in a list where the whole name is used, along with a short summary of the history of the person, it seems right to include the pre or post titles, if for nothing besides being complete. Not sure why that would be annoying..seems like listing just the names alone would be annoying. It's possible that there may be room for variations in different types of articles, depending on the nature of the article and the relevance of the title to the subject of the article. But it would be nice to have a consistent standard across the board.

As for it being pointy to make the same argument for a biography..I'm not sure what you mean. It says,"Postnominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.", how is that pointy? Do you mean the guideline is pointy or am I totally misunderstanding your...um...point?  :) Dreadstar † 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the distinction made between different types of postnominal letters. --Philosophus ^T 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

However, note that the same part of the MOS also precludes use of Dr in almost all cases as well. --Philosophus ^T 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost sure I read somewhere that this is correct what Philosophus and others are saying. That we use the title the first time (I don't see any difference between whether it comes before or after the name), and then just the name thereafter. If the first mention is on a list, that should include the title. However, come to think of it, a list is probably a special case and should include the title to be complete.

Notice that this issue isn't one of annoyance or writing, but merely that SA doesn't like them to have titles because it makes them sound educated.

I honor Philosophus' edit here [2]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too, nicely done Philosophus. Dreadstar † 04:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly honorable. But it also needs a consensus discussion at that article, not here, so I've reverted it. The ref to the WTBDWK's talk page in the edit summary brought me here, by the way. Yet another film I want to see... life's too short. What the bleep am I doing editing WP anyway? Avb 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Consciousness

One of the sentences in the current lead looks a bit odd. It says: "The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related ..."

It's hard to unpack this, but first of all, there has been a scholarly debate for hundreds of years about the role of the observer in the thing observed, a debate that intensified with attempts to understand the implications of quantum physics. So in that sense there is indeed a relationship between consciousness and quantum physics, though that's not really an accurate way of expressing the complexity of it.

It's also not clear what it would mean to say that this idea "is not supported by science." What is "science"? (Imagine a sentence that read: "This is a hairstyle not supported by hairdressing.") And which idea exactly is "science" not supporting?

Part of the problem with the film (as I understand it -- I've not seen it myself) is that it massively simplifies extremely complex issues and draws conclusions not supported by any of the scholarly debates. The problem with this article is that it's almost doing the same thing from the opposite direction. A lighter touch when it comes to the writing would help to avoid that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify what your mean by "The problem with this article is that it's almost doing the same thing from the opposite direction," as there are a number of possible permutations. Thanks. --Anthon01 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've decided I need to watch this before saying any more, because I'm responding only to the way the article's written without knowing enough about the film itself. Will get back to you when I've done that. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

An excellent NPOV overview of Quantum Approaches to Consciousness can be found at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/ - The bottom line is that at present there exist philosophical conjectures linking Quantum Physics and Consciousness; but no equations or experiments (no formalism nor evidence) linking the two. It remains outside the realm of science even more than string theory. String theory has equations (formalism) and is expecting to have actual experiments that can be done when a super-colider being built is finished. Two key issues (quantum effects are too small, and it is just using one unknown to pretend to explain another unknown) that I have seen used to dismiss the idea is presented in the article this way:

"Influential criticism of the possibility that quantum states can in fact survive long enough in the thermal environment of the brain has been raised by Tegmark (2000). He estimates the decoherence time of tubulin superpositions due to interactions in the brain to be less than 10^-12 sec. Compared to typical time scales of microtubule processes of the order of milliseconds and more, he concludes that the lifetime of tubulin superpositions is much too short to be significant for neurophysiological processes in the microtubuli. In a response to this criticism, Hagan et al. (2002) have shown that a revised version of Tegmark's model provides decoherence times up to 10 to 100 μ sec, and it has been argued that this can be extended up to the neurophysiologically relevant range of 10 to 100 msec under particular assumptions of the scenario by Penrose and Hameroff.

However, decoherence is just a tiny piece in the debate about the overall picture proposed by Penrose and Hameroff. From a philosophical perspective, their proposal has occasionally received outspoken rejection, see e.g., Grush and Churchland (1995). Indeed, their approach collects several top level mysteries, among them the relation between mind and matter itself, the ultimate unification of all physical interactions, the origin of mathematical truth, and the understanding of brain dynamics across hierarchical levels. Combining such deep issues is certainly fascinating, but it is as ambitious as it is provocative." WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Was 4.250. For me these comments illustrate why we need here in the most neutral way possible to deal with as closely as possible with what is said in the movie. The issues the movie deals with are complex, and obviously scientists are weighing in on different sides. The lay person coming to the article probably won't come to this article for accurate information on the most up to date science on these issues. They more likely are just movie goers. My thoughts anyway and thanks so much SlimVirgin for coming in. You add a breath of fresh air. (olive (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

There aren't any scientists who have weighed in on the side of this nonsense being anything more than quantum quackery. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/ also says:

"There are quite a number of accounts discussing quantum theory in relation to consciousness that adopt basic ideas of quantum theory in a purely metaphorical manner. Quantum theoretical terms such as entanglement, superposition, collapse, complementarity, and others are used without specific reference to how they are defined precisely and how they are applicable to specific situations. For instance, conscious acts are just postulated to be interpretable somehow analogously to physical acts of measurement, or correlations in psychological systems are just postulated to be interpretable somehow analogously to physical entanglement. Such accounts may provide fascinating science fiction, and they may even be important to inspire nuclei of ideas to be worked out in detail. But unless such detailed work leads beyond vague metaphors and analogies, they do not yet represent scientific progress. Approaches falling into this category will not be discussed in this contribution."

When you talk of quantum quackery as being the quantum approach to consciousness used in this film, I am guessing that you believe it to be similar to what this article more neutrally identifies as metaphorical and thus unworthy of serious philosophical or scientific discussion. As I have not seen the movie, I lack an informed opinion as to that specific question. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that the people in the film believe they are talking metaphorically. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that the above paragraph is limiting itself to people who believe they are talking metaphorically. It is commonplace for science to be explained with analogies and for people to misunderstand that they have been told an analogy and mistake the analogy for the science when the science itself is better identified as the application of specific equations in specific ways. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The analogy between science and hairdressing would be apt if science were the realm of all ideas in a similar sense to hairdressing being the realm of all hairstyles. However, not all ideas fall into the realm of science. Science does not support ideas that connect events taking place on widely differing scales of time, size, and distance without mediating events. For example, take the idea that a poodle had a litter of a certain size because unobserved planets collided at that very moment. With no mediating particles travelling between the planets and the poodle, this idea is not supported by science. The poodle/planet connection in terms of distance and time/space scales is (kinda) analogous to the quantum-theory/conciousness connection presented in the film. It is an unscientific idea that may nevertheless be interesting. I think an NPOV article would label the ideas in this film strongly and correctly in the introduction. Flying Jazz (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try again. I have no idea what that meant.Kww (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At the core of SlimVirgin's criticism of a phrase from the article ("The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science") was an analogy between science dealing with ideas and hairdressers dealing with hairstyles. I disagree with her criticism and I was encouraging editors here to part ways with this analogy. The scientific community does science and the hairstyling community does hairstyling, and there are ideas that fall within and outside these realms of professional practice. If a film pretended to be about hairstyling matters and it began to present supposed hairstylists seriously discussing surgery and dentistry like some barbers of old used to do, then I would support an NPOV statement in a Wikipedia article introduction that the film presented ideas that are not supported by the hairstyling community. My memory of this film from a few years ago (which may be flawed) is that it pretended to be about scientific matters and then began to present supposed scientists seriously discussing some relationship between wishful thinking and reality like some philosophers of old used to do, so I support a similar sort of statement in the introduction. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, astrology is both interesting to some people and known to be totally unscientific - even when terms used in science are thrown in to appear credible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Boiling it down

Let's try to get to the point. As I see it, the bone of contention that is halting forward progress is this:

Some editors (ScienceApologist, Kww, Antelan, JzG, Rracecarr, Naturezak, Flying Jazz, etc--call them group I) believe that there are ample references to support a statement such as "Bleep makes up false things and presents them as science," and that any qualification of such a statement does a disservice to the reader by giving the impression that there is more doubt as to the quality of the science than there actually is.

Other editors (Olive, TimidGuy, Dreadstar, Nealparr, etc--group II) are in favor of a phrasing such as "Some scientists have criticized Bleep for what they say are made up false things presented as science." They believe that such a statement is the only kind that can truly be backed up by references, and that readers should be able to form their own opinion of the validity of the ideas in the movie after reading the comments of certain scientists and others, duly collected and reported without any synthesizing by editors.

Did I get this right? If so, let's try to write this one sentence--I have a feeling things will flow easily from there. Is any kind of compromise possible? Group II (and Group I for that matter), would you be amenable to a phrasing such as "mainstream scientists agree...", or "the unequivocal consensus of the scientific community is..."? These are not quite a direct statement that Bleep is wrong, but still, to my mind, leave little doubt as to the veracity of the science.Rracecarr (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it basically right. The one problem to be dealt with is that our situation on the sources is that we have a handful of sources that noticed the movie. Those sources can be verified as being accurate and reliable, and we can easily turn up hundreds of sources that back them on the science, but not hundreds dealing with the movie. Thus, we cannot apply the word consensus to the movie, just the science.Kww (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article to reflect my idea of a compromise. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

His contribution may be seen here.Kww (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good edit. Support. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the constant excision from the article of mainstream critique is a pressing problem. The quotes from ACS and others offset the claim to be a documentary. It is not a documentary, it is a propaganda film by some rather questionable new-age cultists, and the article in failing to reflect that mainstream perspective is failing WP:NPOV pretty badly - it is reasonable to quote those people because they are normally very moderate voices, and it takes a special kind of fautity to provoke them to invective. Needless to say it's another science v. pseudoscience fight, and as always we are hapmered by the fact that in the main science simply points and laughs at this kind of twaddle because it is so self-evidently bogus, but as always we must strive to reflect the fact that anybody seriously involved with what the film portrays as its subject, including quantum mechanics, has either ignored the film as fatuous or has derided it in whatever venue comes to hand. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, that's an opinion to express in the RfC. Everyone editing the intro to insert their opinion goes absolutely nowhere. You're an admin right? Shouldn't you be helping to see the RfC process work? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, the half article are scientists pointing out that the movie is not very likely to represent science properly. And I see nothing in the article that conveys a message that the movie is factual. Where exactly is there a NPOV? I see it reflect a mainstream opinion. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea to help WP:NPOV in this article, but I don't think you'd like it very much. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to post it. I'm open to suggestions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It involves a compulsory vacation for fringe and pseudoscience POV-pushers. That would improve a lot of articles. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia supports compulsory vacation for POV-pushers. The thing about that is that you have to develop consensus that an editor is pushing a non-neutral point of view. So at some point you have to build consensus whatever way you go. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is the exact opposite. I see articles being written from a non-scientific rational skeptic way too often. This is not why rules against pseudoscience/fringe POV was made. Making the article "rational skeptic" POV is not NPOV. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of Benjamin's edit, I'm ignoring the article itself right now because there seems to be an edit war going on there. I will say that Benjamin changing "The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science" to "The film presents many concepts which are considered unlikely according to mainstream science" does not seem to be a compromise to me. I just began posting on this talk page today so I can't talk too much about groups of editors here, but I suspect that many of the editors characterized as falling in Group I ("Bleep makes up false things and presents them as science") may actually be in a different group with me (Group zero?) and would say there is an important distinction between "False things" and "unscientific things." Many false statements still fall within the realm of science, but when ideas are presented as science that are not science, then whether they are true or false is indeterminate because, with a scientific standpoint, the ideas fall in the realm of Not even wrong. Back to the hairstylist analogy, if a film about hairstyling depicted hairstylists discussing surgical techniques, would the introduction to an NPOV article focus on whether the surgical techniques were correct or not? I don't think so. It would focus on the fact that surgery does not fall within the realm of hairstyling during this century. The three references cited by the current version of the introduction indicate that this film depicted people who seemed to be scientists discussing ideas about topics that do not fall within the realm of science. "Not supported by science" already looks like an NPOV compromise to me between group zero and group 2. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I proposed What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that misrepresents science as supporting New Age beliefs as an introductory sentence. Even if, by some stretch if the imagination, their beliefs are true, they are not supported by science, and to state that they are is a misrepresentation. I think it passes NPOV, and gets the major point across.Kww (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

well..if we were having an anti-pseudoscience rally then your introductory sentence would win. But if a fairly uninvolved editor like SlimVirgin thinks the current introduction requires a lighter touch, imagine what she would think of that opening sentence! C'mon...do you really think the opening sentence in an encyclopedia should be so confrontational? Flying Jazz (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

While I think that it is crucial that this information is conveyed in the lead, I don't think that that specific wording works in the intro sentence. The fact that it misrepresents science is lead-worthy, but the intro sentence will probably be fine if we note that it is controversial, and then expand on the controversy below. So I agree with the sentiment, just not with this exact wording. Antelan ^talk 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What I struggled with was an alternate for the first sentence that didn't give excessive credence to the movie. "... a controversial movie that explores the link between science and New Age beliefs"? Nope, because there isn't a link to explore. All alternatives that I could come up with failed for similar reasons.Kww (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Posits? Antelan ^talk 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an even fancier word than "pseudoscience", but accurate. Another worry is that if we don't state the lack of support in the first sentence, it's going to get lost in a morass of "criticized by some" language again.Kww (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what's important for the first sentence is the goal attempted by the filmmaker. How about "...is a 2004 film that attempts to relate science and spirituality using documentary interviews and a fictional narrative "? Flying Jazz (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know their intent? Perhaps it "succeeded in bilking people for millions of dollars by confusing them about quantum physics." I suggest that we stay many miles away from "intent."Kww (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh...Some previous editor wrote copy and I am making an effort to edit it. The current version says "combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative to posit a connection between science and spirituality" and the verb "attempt" seems more Wikipediaish to me than "posit" for an article about a film. I reasonably suspect that was their intent because the references left by a previous editor direct me to an official webpage that declares the film is a "blend of Quantum Physics, spirituality, neurology and evolutionary thought," so I suspect that even critics of the film would say that the filmmakers attempted to relate science to spirituality. However, "attempts to blend" might work better than "attempts to relate" and is more verifiable. I've already said you won the anti-pseudoscience competition. Say? Care to collaborate in editing an article for Wikipedia? Flying Jazz (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am cooperative. I simply don't believe that we have access to the filmmakers "goal" or "intent", so that can't be the focus of the lead sentence. We just don't know what it is. We can only describe what they actually did, and we need to keep that in mind.Kww (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the discussion was in regards to the filmmaker's stated intent, not about some attempt to read their minds or divine what lies behind the scenes. Wikipedia needs to report what they have said thier intent was. Dreadstar † 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This kind of reporting is where it is important to use language that attributes the statement, because the veracity of the statement cannot be cross-checked.Kww (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "... that suggests a connection between science and New Age beliefs." I'm not partial to any of this, just lobbing verbs out there. Antelan ^talk 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer posits. Kww (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is meant to be entertainment. At least Brian Josephson mentioned that in passing somewhere. However, I do feel that the "science" in the movie is really "fringe science" and IMO any science, true or not, any method, qualifies as science. It is just not mainstream science. That is why I feel this qualification is important. Even astrology, can be considered science in that it is knowledge; but it is not mainstream, hard science, or true. I guess I just hate the word "science" used as if it was a singular concept. Well, it can be actually useful for primitive societies. :) Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

With regards to this article, what are you suggesting? Antelan ^talk 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, messed up my edit. I am awaiting more discussion, but mentioning both that it is accused of "misrepresenting" or "using science in a problematic fashion" in addition to saying that the movie "presents claims mainstream science find unlikely" should cover all bases. The act of mixing science and spirituality has implications that science has huge problems dealing with. For example the quantum-consciousness link is something that has been discussed a lot in science throughout ages, and is known for being an "unanswerable question". The debunking depends on what interpretation you subscribe to. So, absolute claims are problematic, but it is fair to call it very unlikely. :) Perhaps I am rambling, but this would probably satisfy those who object to skeptical POV. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I responded awhile back to an RfC, and swoop by every once in awhile to catch the latest episode in what's certainly become one of the most childish and enduring temper tantrums in all of wikipedia. These are my recommendations for settling the remaining disputes: a) nobody who has seen the film should edit or comment, b) nobody who has already formed an opinion about this film based on what they heard from their friends, their New Age Guru, or the Skeptic blogs, or the Oprah show, or Bullshit! or anything else of that ilk should edit or comment, c) nobody who can't tell the difference between his or her own bias and what the published sources wrote on the page should edit or comment, and d) anyone else left, who can actually and honestly read a source and knows how to contribute properly to articles here at wikipedia should come to the rescue, leaving everyone else who feels so passionately about this movie to carry on as they have been at the nearest special interest messageboard of their choice. If the shoe fits, ... well, yes -indeed it does then. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just arrived here today, and I agree strongly with your "c" and "d." As for "a" and "b," I disagree just as strongly. If knowledgeable opinionated people can create Wikipedia articles about important political matters then they should be able to do so about a silly little movie! Flying Jazz (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC clean up

I'm lost and the talk page is a mess. Can someone more familiar with the RfC reformat it below so we can look at it from the perspective of finishing it up? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is good now? Dreadstar † 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal

The editors of the movie released a rebuttal, and it could be a useful primary source. At least it sheds light to a few questions posed above. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What questions are those?Kww (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sheds light for me that they're not a reliable source on spirituality at least, whatever their ability to present quantum mechanics correctly. I'm not a physicist, but I do understand mystic traditions and have a fairly good understanding of Aldous Huxley and the Perennial Philosophy.

The concepts we present in "Bleep" can be found in Taoism, Buddhism, Yoga, the Alice Bailey material, Kabballah, Theosophy, Unitarianism, Christian Science, and dozens of other religions, spiritual disciplines and paths. This explains why audience members from all these spiritual backgrounds, and others, embrace our film as a reflection of their own teachings.

Also known as The Perennial Wisdom, or The Perennial Philosophy, these teachings have been defined as "a body of knowledge designed to promote a spiritual understanding of our lives as human souls incarnate." It’s been around forever.

That's complete BS. The idea presented in the film is that spirit can be reduced to matter through quantum mechanics. Anyone the least bit familiar with the world's wisdom traditions can point out that the Perennial Philosophy is based on the hierarchy of the Great Chain of Being, or nested spheres of existence. Most commonly this is referred to in the West as body/mind/spirit, but Eastern philosophies have dozens of levels in the hierarchy. They're right when they say the Perennial Philosophy shows up in every culture in some way or another, but no wisdom tradition would ever reduce spirit (always at the top of the hierarchy) to gross matter (always at the bottom of the hierarchy). That's pure flatland New Age postmodernism.

Add pseudo-mysticism to the list along with pseudoscience. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<personal insecurity>The funny thing is, I understand what you mean when you say 'pseudo-mysticism' despite the fact I've never seen that phrase before.</personal insecurity> It's interesting - perhaps not surprising, with the benefit of hindsight - that the movie is controversial on multiple fronts. Antelan ^talk 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a word I thought I made up, but Google shows it's been used before in connection with Bleep [3]. I wouldn't use it in the article, but that's exactly what it is. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Resource on spiritual views

With all the talk about the rejection of the film by mainstream science, it may have been overlooked that mainstream spirituality doesn't really accept the ideas either. Contrary to the film maker's assertion that the concepts in the film "can be found in Taoism, Buddhism, Yoga, the Alice Bailey material, Kabballah, Theosophy, Unitarianism, Christian Science, and dozens of other religions, spiritual disciplines and paths", it's really only found in New Age circles. An excellent critical review of the film from the mainstream spirituality side can be found in "Taking the Quantum Leap... Too Far?" an article in What is Enlightenment? Magazine.

Great quote:

...even the founding fathers of quantum physics/mechanics—Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Sir Arthur Eddington, et al.—who were all self-proclaimed mystics, strongly rejected the notion that mysticism and physics were describing the same realm. The attempt to unify them is, in the words of Planck, “founded on a misunderstanding, or, more precisely, on a confusion of the images of religion with scientific statements. Needless to say, the result makes no sense at all.” Eddington was even more explicit: “We should suspect an intention to reduce God to a system of differential equations. That fiasco at any rate must be avoided. However much the ramifications of physics may be extended by further scientific discovery, they cannot from their very nature [impinge upon] the background in which they have their being.”

And there's the crux of the confusion. Quantum physics deals with the abstract, symbolic analysis of the physical world—space, time, matter, and energy—even down to the subtlest level, the quantum vacuum. Mysticism deals with the direct apprehension of the transcendent Source of all those things. The former is a mathematical system involving intensive intellectual study, and the latter is a spiritual discipline involving the transcendence of the intellectual mind altogether. It's apparently only a very loose interpretation of physics, and a looser interpretation of mysticism, that allows for their surprising convergence—and opens the door to the even wilder idea that by drinking some of this quantum mystical brew, you'll be able to create your own reality.

Not sure if anyone is interested in adding something along these lines when the article becomes unlocked, but I personally feel it is an important point of view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This perhaps is more relevant to the quantum mysticism article. But I notice the movie is more along Consciousness causes collapse‎ which is an inconclusive philosophical discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were about the mathematics of CCC, it'd be a boring film. The reason viewers latched onto it is because of the New Age ideas presented in the film: we create our own reality, everyone is One, and so on. It is a movie about quantum mysticism, not quantum physics. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Lead section discussion

• There has been an ongoing dispute about the neutrality and contents of the lead section of this film article.

• Several editors have worked on multiple versions of the lead in attempts to reach consensus, but without success. Comments on the most neutral and most appropriate version for the lead to an article would be appreciated.

New version proposals

V. Rracecarr

• Reactions to Bleep have been mixed. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received, playing in 200 theaters across the US and grossing over $10 million. It attracted the attention of scientists as well; the scientific community has criticized the film for inappropriately applying quantum mechanical principles and concluding, erroneously, that human consciousness directly influences the physical world.Rracecarr (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Have been convinced by Kww that paragraph needs a straightforward statement that the science is wrong.Rracecarr (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

or (working toward verifiability per Dreadstar)

• Reactions to Bleep have been mixed. It was well received by many members of the New Age spiritual community, playing in 200 theaters across the US and grossing over $10 million. Presenting many ideas not supported by science, the film attracted the attention of scientists as well, a number of whom have criticized it as pseudoscientific, saying that it inappropriately applies quantum mechanical principles and thereby concludes, erroneously, that human consciousness directly influences the physical world. Rracecarr (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

V.Anthon01

• "Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received (needs a little more here). Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience concepts, like a relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics, and modification of ice crystals by thought." Anthon01 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  

or for those not comfortable with the perjorative

• "Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for many ideas which are not supported by science, such as a relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics, and modification of ice crystals by thought." Anthon01 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

V.olive - Version A with possible additions/addition

• Reactions to Bleep have been mixed. The film, a moderately inexpensive, low budget production played in 200 theaters across the US, and grossed over $10 million. The film has been criticized for making connections between new age, spiritual concepts and established scientific theories. These critics say that the connections, speculations and conclusions in the film appear to be based on scientific understanding, but in reality are not.
  

or

• Among the New Age spiritual communities, the film was well received. or In the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received.The film has been criticized for making connections between new age, spiritual concepts and established scientific theories. These critics say that the connections, speculations and conclusions made in the film appear to be based on scientific understanding, but in reality are not.(olive (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

V.awotter - My idea of a simplified concise lead section

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that seeks to explore the relationship between spirituality and science. The film combines special effects and documentary interviews with the fictional story of the life and struggles of a deaf photographer (Marlee Matlin).

Considered a moderate to low budget film, Bleep grossed over $10 million dollars, a success some see as the result of grassroots and guerrilla marketing to members of New Age spiritual groups. Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Bleep features extensive interviews with the school's controversial director, Judy Zebra Knight. Knight and others interviewed in the film explain their views of the supposed impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry.

Some members of the scientific community have criticized the film, believing it supports what they consider unscientific theories such as quantum mysticism, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to misrepresent his views, making him appear to agree with the ideas presented in the film.

Refs (Named refs following unscientific theory that appear later in body of text are remarked out in text)

V.Kww

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that misrepresents science as supporting New Age beliefs. The film combines special effects and interviews with the story of the life and struggles of a fictional deaf photographer, played by Marlee Matlin. Considered a moderate to low budget film, Bleep grossed over $10 million dollars, a success some see as the result of grassroots and guerrilla marketing to members of New Age spiritual groups. Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Bleep features extensive interviews with the school's controversial director, Judy Zebra Knight. Knight and others interviewed in the film explain their views of the supposed impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry. Members of the scientific community that have commented on the film have criticized the film for supporting unscientific theories such as quantum mysticism, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to misrepresent his views, making him appear to agree with the ideas presented in the film. Kww (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

V.SlimVirgin

I'm sorry to see that was reverted. I'll post it here as requested. This is instead of the current final paragraph of the lead:

The film presents ideas about the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness — such as that the shape of ice crystals can be influenced by thought — that have been criticized by members of the scientific community. Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenbaum, physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today, that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins." David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make him appear to agree with the ideas presented.

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

POV via faint criticism. "ideas ... that have been criticized by the scientific community" holds out the possibility that they are correct. There isn't such a possibility, and we have sufficient sourcing that we don't have to pretend that there is. Minimizes the "Physics Today" letter, which are reviewed ... not equivalent to a standard "Letter to the Editor." Kww (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revision of first part of sentence:

"The film presents ideas positing a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness — ..."

The previous wording suggests that such a relationship is a given, and the wikilinking of the entire phrase risks getting interpreted as POV editorializing. I'm not sure if my revision of the wikilink is any better....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this version a lot and would support it. I agree with Fyslee, though, it needs some sort of rewording to reflect that it is an interpretation of QM, not a given idea in QM. Here's my shot at it: "The film presents ideas about [a] relationship between quantum physics and consciousness [found in some interpretations of quantum mechanics]" <- or something like that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to see that it was reverted also. IMO, your version is encyclopedic. Hence the problem with these pages were pseudoscience may be an issue. Perhaps you will persist in helping bring sanity to these topics. Resolving this here may help resolve it in other similar pages. Some folks here will not accept the removal of the term pseudoscience. For some it is a mantra.

Anthon01 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to rename this one SlimVersion..;) Dreadstar † 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue - that have been criticized by members of the scientific community is true, but doesn't convey the degree to which this movie's ideas lack any support within that community. Antelan ^talk 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SV V.2

Per Nealparr's suggestion:

"The film presents ideas positing a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness — such as that the shape of ice crystals can be influenced by thought — that have been criticized by many members of the scientific community. Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenbaum, physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today, that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins." David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make him appear to agree with the ideas presented.

SV V.2 discussion

How's this appeal to everyone? Dreadstar † 00:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Take out the word "many." If there were "many" there would be better sources. But overall, it looks fine to me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, that was like the only change Martinphi : ) Many -- amounting to a large but indefinite number;more than a few, more than several is supported by the sources already in the article. If it requires digging up more sources to support it, there's plenty, especially considering the example used in this sentence is the segment on thought influencing water. That's a form of psychokinesis and I'm sure you're familiar with the number of detractors on that topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The other important point to consider on sourcing this statement is that it's talking directly about ideas presented in the film, not the film itself. While the film may have been ignored by the greater scientific community, the idea that thought can influence water (PK) has been covered in science, through parapsychology, and has gained no acceptance in mainstream science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Change "have been criticized by many members of the scientific community" to "have no scientific support."Kww (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be wrong. However, Kww, we agree that this edit [4] would be good.

Nealparr- kay, I'm out of the loop (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Version corrected for syntax and grammar. Hey, its my field (one of them) - I can't help myself, and with a possible insert for Kww's view.(olive (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

"The film presents ideas, for example, that the shape of ice crystals can be influenced by thought, that posit a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness, and that have no identified support in the scientific community. Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenbaum, physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today, that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins." David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview so that he appears to agree with the ideas presented.

and another version... lets choose one so we can finish this and get on with something else.....Yes, I am resorting to begging.(olive (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

The film presents many concepts that have been criticized by members of the scientific community and are considered unlikely according to sources in mainstream science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and can be influenced by thought. Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenbaum, physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today, that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins." David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make him appear to agree with the ideas presented.

In most of the several versions above, I'd suggest condensing "wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today" to simply "wrote in Physics Today". It's been suggested above that the letter was peer reviewed, and that should be explained or, preferably, the word 'letter' should be left out. Also it must be obvious that they were writing "about the film". --Hordaland (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that shows the letter was subject to peer-review? "Wrote in Physics Today" implies an article, so if the source is viable and peer reviewed, then the fact that it's a letter should be pointed out. Dreadstar † 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Extent of scientific criticism

Is there a reliable source for this lack of support? Dreadstar † 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the onus would be on those who suggest that there is support to provide such evidence. Antelan ^talk 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We've established that the critics are reliable, and no one has found a credible proponent of the science in the movie ... I don't know why you feel you need any more.Kww (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is suggesting there is support? Antelan, you're the one who just said "but doesn't convey the degree to which this movie's ideas lack any support within that community.". Source it, then. I'm afraid the onus is on you.

Yes Kww, but just because those scientific critics ae reliable and no 'credible proponent' has been found, doesn't mean we don't need to properly source views and who has those views in relation to the movie. WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Dreadstar † 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We tried that, and then you got upset that we had too many citations in the lead. Don't argue in circles. The sources we have are reliable, as unanimous as sources can get, and they all say that the movie is "tosh", "balderdash", and "pseudoscience." It's sourced. There is no valid reason, either in logic or policy, to avoid a statement that simply says "What the Bleep is a movie that misrepresents science." , with full citations if that's what you want. That's what is necessary, not some mealy-mouthed "been criticized by members of the scientific community"Kww (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument Kww. There was never a source provided that shows either: A) the scientific community as a whole has spoken on the movie, or B) there is no support in the scientific community for the movie. Dreadstar † 23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a strawman. The scientific community has not spoken as a whole on the movie ... those members that have have used verifiable science to do so. The onus to find support is on you ... we've looked, it doesn't seem to exist, and as Antelan points out, WP:FRINGE requires us to assume that there is no support. Stop raising this argument without evidence. Unless you can find support, there is no support. If you will get past this issue, we can build an article. If you cannot get past it, we might as well delete and salt it.Kww (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Dreadstar. From WP:FRINGE: If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance Well, this article does have reliable sources that comment on the ideas in this movie, and they reject the ideas. If these sources are not enough for you, you will have to find others that support your views. Antelan ^talk 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a film, not an article on quantum mechanics. Dreadstar † 23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also just a lead, not an article. It just needs to summarize the critical responses in the article, which in turn summarize the sources supporting them. All of that taken together, without any sort of synthesis, spells out a degree of response... "that have been criticized by many members of the scientific community" (sans-bolding, of course). Many is a non-number-specific word, but it accurately reflects the degree to which this film has not gained acceptance by members of science. Make that change to SlimVirgin's proposal and see if it gains support. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy still applies despite your preferences. Furthermore, your statement would be an argument in favor of relaxing, not tightening, the standards of scientific consensus in this article. Antelan ^talk 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe policy supports my "preferences," and the applicable sourcing standards from WP:V apply. They're not overriden by anything in the WP:FRINGE guideline. Dreadstar † 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is the consensus on this issue? Do we put in a lead section statement that is not verifiable per WP:V, yet apparently tells the truth as some editors here believe it to be? If so, how should that lead sentence be structured? Do we just out-and-out say, as has been suggested, that there is "no support from the scientific community" for some or all of the ideas expressed in this movie? How do we make a short, concise statement to that effect? Dreadstar † 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See above for my suggestion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, had a bit of an edit confict, apparently..;) Dreadstar † 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being insulting, Dreadstar. The statement "What the Bleep Do We Know misrepresents science" is verifiable ... we have multiple sources for it. I'm not asking for any statement to be made that violates any Wikipedia policy. My whole suggested lead of What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that misrepresents science as supporting New Age beliefs. The film combines special effects and interviews with the story of the life and struggles of a fictional deaf photographer, played by Marlee Matlin. Considered a moderate to low budget film, Bleep grossed over $10 million dollars, a success some see as the result of grassroots and guerrilla marketing to members of New Age spiritual groups. Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Bleep features extensive interviews with the school's controversial director, Judy Zebra Knight. Knight and others interviewed in the film explain their views of the supposed impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry. Members of the scientific community that have commented on the film have criticized the film for supporting unscientific theories such as quantum mysticism, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to misrepresent his views, making him appear to agree with the ideas presented in the film. is verifiable.Kww (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Kww. Dreadstar † 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Then refactor your statement that says that I am asking for people to place unverifiable content into an article. I am not doing so, and I believe that you know that. It's an insulting statement to make, and implies a lack of good faith on my part.Kww (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unverifiable per the standards outlined in WP:V, and it wasn't meant to be an insult - it was meant to try and find a way around this impasse. Dreadstar † 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article alone is sufficiently verifiable, and the remaining sources all serve to confirm it. Or would you prefer a direct quote like "distorts science to fit its own agenda"? The way out of this impasse is for you to accept that the statement is verifiable under WP:V. Please refactor your insulting statement.Kww (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, and that statement, attributed to its source, is allowed in the article. Point is, it is not sufficient for a stand-alone, sweeping comment in the lead. Wikipedia cannot make that statement. Period.Dreadstar † 01:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The combination of sources we have for that kind of statement is more than sufficient. Period. It's a perfectly acceptable lead sentence.Kww (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Combination of sources we have", well that sounds a lot like WP:SYNTH to me. I can accept a sentence that attributes the criticism, yet also indicates the lack of support by mainstream science. It needs to be carefully worded. Haven't seen that careful wording yet.

No one is saying all of the proponents in the movie are anything at all..except that which is sourced. You're mixing apples and oranges. Dreadstar † 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this argument, too. We are not allowed to use those sources in the article, but you conceded that we can use them to check the reliability of our sources. Our sources check out. While not enough people noticed this thing to directly allows us to quote a consensus, we can say that the criticisms are in line with the scientific consensus on each topic. No violation of WP:SYNTH either. You want to treat the existence of the criticisms as the only fact we can report, and I vehemently disagree ... we can and must treat those criticisms themselves as factual. No need to say "some scientists say". The movie does not represent the science it presents accurately ... it mispresents it. That is a fact. I don't want to say lies about, and I don't think the sources are in enough agreement to back phrasings like "intentionally distorts" ... it just "misrepresents" it.Kww (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly have been through this argument before, and consensus was that OR was not allowed. This: " While not enough people noticed this thing to directly allows us to quote a consensus, we can say that the criticisms are in line with the scientific consensus on each topic." is the very definition of WP:NOR. What I agreed to was the reliability of the sources used; if they weren't reliable then we couldn't use them. That does not mean we can take those different sources, and combine them together to advance a position. Apples. Oranges. Different. Dreadstar † 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The OR question was whether we could use science coverage that didn't reference the movie in the article. I'm not. Not planning on it. I am simply using the sources that we have deemed reliable. The movie misrepresents science. If there's a different word that you feel more accurately summarizes our sources, fine, but don't act like the sources can't be treated as reporting facts. Suggest a better summary of: "pretends to be an exploration of the grand questions of science", "dishonest[...] charlatans who peddle such tosh", "distorts science to fit its own agenda, it is full of half-truths and misleading analogies, and some of its so-called scientific claims are downright lies", "What the Bleep Do We Know draws heavily on the role of the observer in quantum physics. Unfortunately, it also completely misunderstands it.", "pseudoscientific docudrama that purports to link quantum mechanics and consciousness". I think "misrepresents science" is a good summarization ... not a synthesis. Kww (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're dancing way too close to OR. Those statements aren't facts; they're opinions or statements. They need to be attributed in the text and summarized in the lead. The simplest summary is one that says "Some scientists have criticized the movie for misrepresenting science". You are trying to have Wikipedia say, "the movie misrepresents science". Even if the entire scientific community said such a thing, we'd still attribute it: "The entire scientific community has said the movie misrepresents science." It's not done your way. There may be a compromise, but your wording is not per policy and is unacceptable. Dreadstar † 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If I was in a pointy mood, oxygen would be considered to be an element. It's not a violation of Wikipedia policy to state facts as facts. Be a pretty bad encyclopedia if it was.Kww (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, we've been through that one before too. Discussions between you and I appear to be fruitless, so hopefully WP:CON will resolve the issue..else, we'll have to go to the next step of the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process. Dreadstar † 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a question- but tell me what makes all of the proponents in the movie not credible- besides that they are proponents?

"WP:FRINGE requires us to assume that there is no support." Absolutely wrong- it requires us, rather, to not assume anything. Look at Antelan's quote.

What we need is a sentence like this: "WTBDWK does not draw a clear line between valid representations of science, and speculations which some scientists have criticized as pseudoscience, for example that there is a connection between consciousness and the quantum wave function collapse" I guess I got the terms right? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance seems pretty direct to me. And yes, supporting WTB does pretty much blow your credibility, but it wouldn't be fair to use that as a standard. Can you identify a proponent of the science that is is not associated with a fringe organisation like the Institute of Noetic Sciences or Maharishi University of Management? One that actually could be considered credible on the topic of quantum mechanics?Kww (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the so-called fringe proponents are more relevant than physicists to this movie. It is after all just speculation, and the movie doesn't present it as truth. The physics talked about in the movie is speculative, but not directly wrong. Under a Copenhagen interpretation, which is mainstream, it can be argued to be wrong. Your request is like finding a supporter of the green party from the ruling party of US. But Brian Josephson has supported the movie. Besides, mainstream science has no opinion on spiritual matters. I think the movie is fairly interesting and brave, although it could have been better. The criticism seems to come from people who subscribe to strict materialistic philosophy. Which is not weird considering the movie tries to unite spirituality and science. Perhaps the claim are unverified, but the only way it could be considered "wrong" is if there are specific counterclaims. All we have got is the opinions from some scientists. Opinions! Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, that is a point we haven't really talked about, that the movie doesn't present it as truth. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, since you asked for it, is that your post exemplifies why this movie description needs to closely follow WP:FRINGE guidelines. For instance, you say both "mainstream science has no opinion on spiritual matters" and "the movie tries to unite spirituality and science", which reinforces the notion that this movie is far astray from the mainstream in presenting scientific claims. Your suggestion that the movie doesn't present this information as true is interesting. If that's the case, we need to make it very clear that nobody, not even the movie's creators, actually holds this stuff to be true. Antelan ^talk 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all science is mainstream. I prefer to think of science as "body of knowledge" and this includes all kinds of discussions and philosophy. The movie is highly critical of dogmatic materialistic science, and this is what is considered authoritarian and generally called "science" in the US. And are you trying to raise a WP:POINT? Anyone who is slightly interested in science and how science progresses know that speculation is part of the scientific process. To frame it from the view you are suggesting is to impose the POV of authoritarian positivist materialism. Fact is that a lot of what is said in the movie is also true, for example its summary of the history of science. And nothing in the movie is highly controversial to anyone who has ever studied a bit of philosophy. It is just that some people react emotionally when confronted with spirituality. I agree that it conflicts with mainstream science, but mainstream science is not truth either. And the concept of mainstream science is really problematic in itself too, which is why portions of the world now uses other standards of science to promote progress. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to speak for them, but I don’t think that’s what either Martin or Benjamin were saying, quite the opposite. The movie does not present information as "truth" in the form of "verified facts", that's why they use words and phrases like "speculate", "posit", "the possibilities", even "odd science". On the other side, to counter the movie’s speculations, we only have the opinions of the few scientists that bothered to comment on it.

This isn't an article about a fringe science, it's an article about a movie that speculates, asks questions, and is meant to “make you think.” WP:FRINGE cannot be applied to this, much less "followed closely" as if this article was on a subject like Time Cube. Even if this were a scientific article, the self-admitted “speculation” in the movie puts it beyond that limitation. WP:V and WP:NPOV apply, and they should not be infringed upon by WP:FRINGE for this subject..

BTW, have you seen the film and read the books Antelan? Just curious. Dreadstar † 06:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are several reliable sources that state that What the Bleep is full of Bleep when it comes to science, and that there are no disinterested reliable sources that contradict this, why is it against policy to write in the article that the science is bad? How is this different from other esoteric scientific facts? Would such a statement be more acceptable if it weren't contained in the first sentence of the lead--instead of Kww's "What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that misrepresents science as supporting New Age beliefs.", the article could start off with basic info like "WTB is a 2004 independent film combining documentary-style interviews with a fictional storyline to advance new age ideas." The sentence stating that the ideas are unsupported by science could come later in the lead. What say you?Rracecarr (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rracecar. Hello. … Some thought on the dilemma at hand. The issue isn't whether its fact or truth. Because the article is encyclopedic editors are bound to report what has been said and not what each might see as the truth, or is in fact the truth. Wikipedia uses the example of Hitler. Millions of people died at his hands. The writer can’t say that, but must say “So and so” says that millions of people died at his hands, “So and so” being a reliable, verifiable source. A research paper that contains support for an idea applied to arguments to prove the idea to be a truth is different than encyclopedic writing, it seems. That’s research, and OR here on WP. If there is a limitation to encyclopedias it might be that there is no room for original thought. This isn’t the place to change that, in my mind. We are writing the lead and just plain good writing style dictates that the introduction should give a general sense of the information in the article, but yet does not and cannot create generalizations because that’s not encyclopedic. New Age is a generalization for a group of people who we are saying liked the movie, but is of course inaccurate because we don’t know if Joe down the street who is a Baptist and no “New Ager” loved the movie. Saying in so many words that the “science is bad” is a generalization, and original thought because there is a jump here from what the editor discovers what the critics say, to actually writing about the what the critics say. All the editor can write is, this is what the critics say, and must connect as closely as possible to the critics’ words for the sake of accuracy. Generalizations require synthesis in thinking and writing and so cannot be encyclopedic - weasel writing according to Wikipedia, because the words imply more than they say. There is an unencyclopedic jump from identifying the source… to writing about the source… if a generalization or conclusion from the source material is made. No matter however frustrating for someone who is looking for truth, this is an encyclopedia, and editors by definition are not original researchers. We have to live with that or write somewhere else where original thought and the proving of truth is the modus operandi. There are a couple of new versions near the bottom of the page … did you check them out.Any better See what you think.(olive (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, the Hitler article makes it painstakingly clear that he embodied evil. The second sentence of lead on Adolf Hitler: The Nazi Party gained power during Germany's period of crisis after World War I, exploiting effective propaganda and Hitler's charismatic oratory to gain popularity. The Party emphasised nationalism and antisemitism as its primary political expressions, eventually resorting to murdering its opponents to ensure success. Stated as fact. Just like the scientific statements in this article should be. Antelan ^talk 19:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All this about what we can and can't say--what is the difference between the scientific fact this movie presents bad science and the scientific fact that gravity produces an attractive force between massive objects? Both are straightforward assertions about the way the world works (or doesn't). No one seems to even feel the need for a reference in the first sentence of the gravity article, let alone some weaselly "Scientists believe". I will check out the new versions. Rracecarr (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan,the implication in your summary is inappropriate.You know it and I know it. (olive (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

It's not an implication. It's a summary of the frustration expressed in my post that you actually made a Nazi reference in this discussion. I did convert that frustration into a valid point, which you have not yet commented on. I take it you do not disagree. Antelan ^talk 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What absolute rot... I referenced Wikipedia's example using Hitler, because it is obviously extreme. I didn't make a Nazi reference, and I was attempting to explain a thought on truth and fact vs verifiability using Wikipedia's example. I do not agree , and this discussion is over from my side. If this is how you discuss please feel free, but I am not part of it.(olive (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

Antelan, olive was correctly using the example in WP:NPOV: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves. Your edit summary was inappropriate, as is your comment about Olive using a "Nazi reference" in the discussion. Dreadstar † 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Invoking Hitler is the quintessential Nazi reference. It may be inappropriate to bring up such a reference, as olive has done, but to continue with it and use her very reference to rebut her point? Perfectly "appropriate". This line of argumentation completely avoids my point, which was actually relevant to this article, so to comply with talk page guidelines let's get back to it, shall we? Antelan ^talk 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems this discussion got off track and trailed off. To answer Dreadstar's original question: Yes. There's a reliable source and sources have been provided. /Conversation over

And as Antelan said above, the burden of proof is on you to show that it's accepted by the mainstream. It clearly isn't, based on the sources provided.

Now, it just seems like folks want to put apologetics for fringe theories in the lead and delete reliable, verifiable, sourced criticism. The community can't let you do that.

As for the Nazi reference, per Godwin's law, /conversation DEFINITELY over

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just think it should be attributed correctly. The Consciousness causes collapse is indeed science, but it is not mainstream science. You can cite sources till the cow comes home but they are just opinions from scientists. The experiments haven't been falsified either, as I can see. The reaction from the sources seems highly emotional IMO. Nobody is claiming it is supported by mainstream science, but "science" alone doesn't have an opinion on the movie. Get the terms right! So, yes, it does not have support in mainstream science, but it has support in science. Fringe science is also science. I feel this is kinda like objecting to passion of christ's mainstream scientific originBenjaminbruheim (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I am fine with most ways to put things. Even a huge criticism section. But as it is now the article is more about the criticism than the concepts laid out in the movie. The criticism isn't very relevant either. I think those who comes to this pages wants a discussion about the subjects the movie raise, not just the emotional outrage it caused amongst those who deny spirituality. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to provide a link to the reliable source you mention? I suggest we quit harping on this presumed "nazi reference". If you have a problem with it, address the policy it came from - that should eliminate such an issue. Dreadstar † 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind the Physics Society and Chemical Society references that have already been provided. Nevermind that I have made a relevant content point above that has never been responded to. Dreadstar, circular argumentation is not productive on this page. Antelan ^talk 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as using the example of the Hitler article, it is obvious that it needs changing to be NPOV, for example, need to take out the word "murder" and "resorting."

Rracecarr, read the theory of science. "Scientific fact" is an oxymoron.

Please don't accuse of bad faith, Antelan and ZenWhat: using the Hitler article as a reference is not a Nazi reference- read her actual post.

Criticism in the lead is fine, if appropriate per WEIGHT, does not make the article look like an attack, and is properly attributed. "Pseudoscience" would be fine to mention.

Antelan, you say the article should make clear the movie is using speculation. That would be why we say:

" film that combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative to posit a connection between science and spirituality.[1][2] Computer-animated graphics are featured heavily in the film. The film intersperses interviews about quantum physics and spirituality with the fictional story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her life. The film employs a panel of interviewees who speculate about the impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry."

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee, that's right, teach me about the theory of science.Rracecarr (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny that. When Newton first published he was accused of giving immaterial mass spiritual properties by saying that it somehow magically influenced a field. But yeah, you physicists tends to think of hard science as the only kind of science. But if it weren't for controversial theories the field would never progress. And many scientists who are well versed in fundamental physics agree that spirituality and philosophy is the way to go in order to go beyond what we can get out of instruments. Stating that it is not following the scientific method is fallacious, because there is many cases where inituition and speculation has resulted in verifiable empirical proof. It is part of the process. I dunno, perhaps it is a cultural thing because this harsh attitude is regarded as highly unprofessional over here. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

With regards to science, Wikipedia gives most weight to the mainstream; it is not a place to right great wrongs. There are ways to go about changing policy if you think you could get community consensus, and I'll point you there if you'd like. This, however, is not the place. Antelan ^talk 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been discussing the issue(s) left and right, and it really seems a WP:SCIENCE is required. I would love to participate in such a policy debate. The problem is that this movie is within a entirely different epistemology of science than hard science, as many other speculative fringe subjects. The concepts raised in the movie are verifiable, and they are in the domain of philosophy rather than hard science. Giving weight to mainstream science may be right in many cases, but in this article mainstream science has no opinion or empirical proof. Philosophy supports the concepts, and might even be considered mainstream. The sources given are just a bunch of opinions and doesn't really constitute science. But yeah, this is an overarching issue that needs discussion elsewhere. I think we are very close to a consensus for a tone for this article; trying to say that this movie is scientifically impossible would be contrary to the scientific method pr mainstream science, thus the "soft wording" would be the most NPOV and appropriate. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SCIENCE in a nonscience encyclopedia would be a blessing. Anthon01 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New header, above section

Rracecarr, Science is not an absolute set of beliefs. You can get close to scientific fact in things like "the world is round," but we are not nearly there yet with much related to QM.

Antelan: Want to write from the mainstream? Then let's set the numbers of people who liked the movie against the numbers who disliked it. You don't want mainstream. You want scientific mainstream, and WP is not SPOV. But if you want to go with that concept, let's see if we can even fit a criticism into the lead, maybe a short sentence, to go with the short paragraph of criticism way down the page.

Let me ad to that: Usually, "mainstream" around here means a tiny cohort of skeptics. In this case, we have a mainstream, and a scientific mainstream. The mainstream liked the movie. The scientific mainstream didn't. There is no problem with writing the scientific mainstream's opinion of Bleep. However, the article is about Bleep, not the science of Bleep, so giving undue weight to scientific arguments is just not correct. Also, I don't think we've discussed the scientific concepts in the movie nearly enough to warrant that much criticism. But setting all this aside, at the very least we should not just make an absolute statement about the movie being "pseudoscience." In addition to being totally wrong according to the mainstream sources, and totally unfair, it is against WP:ATT. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this - I'll speak for myself, and you can misrepresent my views in your head instead of in writing. Antelan ^talk 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan-that is uncivil and uncalled for. Please cease. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When someone directly misattributes views to me on a public talk page, I will correct them. Antelan ^talk 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Then correct them, but do it civilly. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to remain so if there was more balance. Here, you have let someone get away with writing a polemic directed at me by name, but you have censured me for correcting his incorrect claims about me. Antelan ^talk 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see it that way, but all the continual never-ending wikidrama and incivility on science/pseudoscience-paranormal articles needs to stop, so I'll warn everyone to stay civil, this applies to both sides. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Debate

I gather there is some debate here. But what on earth is it about? I think that although the film is pretty flaky (the last half in particular), it does serve to highlight some modern physics in a relatively digestable form. It is definitely better than the Dancing Wu Li Masters.--Filll (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeh. The debate is about whether we should, basically, bash it or not. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Do we have sufficiently strong sources that we are able to simply say "What the Bleep is a movie that misrepresents science" and still satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:V? Or do we have to refer to it as a movie that has been "criticized for misrepresenting science"?
2. Is the article governed by the standards of science articles (where we are fairly rigid about whose say counts, and avoiding statements that give credence to fringe positions), or is it governed by the standards of pop culture articles, where Roger Ebert and Richard Dawkins have equally valid viewpoints?

That's about as neutral as I can get. I'm avoiding this article today, because I'm near explosion point.Kww (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you put it well, and I think you get to the nub of things.

1. There isn't really any such thing: we always attribute, certainly in cases such as this.

2. It's about a movie. It's pop culture. What did you think? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's a movie about pop culture, then it looks like we've misidentified it as a movie that posits a connection between science and spirituality. If science isn't part of it, what is? Antelan ^talk 01:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What User:Martinphi said was that the article is about a movie, a piece of pop culture. He didn't say or in any way imply that the movie is about pop culture. No doubt you simply misunderstood his comment. Dlabtot (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. If the movie isn't about pop culture, but instead is about science, then its scientific claims are fair game for evaluation on a scientific basis. We don't get to make this evaluation, but the reliable sources that we have certainly do. Antelan ^talk 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is something in that. But the problem is that we never really discuss the movie's speculations. But we have lots of criticism. So, we need to beef up one or cut down the other. But I don't care, I just don't want it biased from the start, in the form of absolute statements without ATT. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is something to that, as well. I have always argued for attribution (not necessarily in the form of quotation) for statements likely to be challenged in this article. Antelan ^talk 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How other encyclopedias handle pseudoscience

Please check the entry for astrology in other encyclopedias.

Encarta [5]
Astrology, the study of the positions and movements of astronomical bodies—particularly the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars—in the belief that they correspond to events on Earth.
Astrologers believe that the position of astronomical bodies at the exact moment of a person’s birth and the subsequent movements of the bodies reflect that person’s character and, therefore, his or her destiny. Scientists have long rejected the principles of astrology, but millions of people continue to believe in or practice it.

Britannica [6]
Divination that consists of interpreting the influence of stars and planets on earthly affairs and human destinies. In ancient times it was inseparable from astronomy. It originated in Mesopotamia (c. 3rd millennium BC) and spread to India, but it developed its Western form in Greek civilization during the Hellenistic period. Astrology entered Islamic culture as part of the Greek tradition and was returned to European culture through Arabic learning during the Middle Ages. According to the Greek tradition, the heavens are divided according to the 12 constellations of the zodiac, and the bright stars that rise at intervals cast a spiritual influence over human affairs. Astrology was also important in ancient China, and in imperial times it became standard practice to have a horoscope cast for each newborn child and at all decisive junctures of life. Though the Copernican system shattered the geocentric worldview that astrology requires, interest in astrology has continued into modern times and astrological signs are still widely believed to influence personality.

HighBeam [7]
Study of the influence supposedly exerted by stars and planets on the natures and lives of human beings. Western astrology draws specifically on the movements of the Sun, Moon and major planets of the Solar System in relation to the stars that make up the 12 constellations known as the zodiac. Astrology originated in ancient Babylon and Persia c.4000 years ago, and rapidly spread through Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. In Europe, the growing influence of Christianity saw the demise of astrologers. Popular horoscopes still appear in some daily newspapers.

Worldbook Astrology, Play this Pronunciation. «uh STROL uh jee», is the study of how the sun, moon, planets, and stars are supposedly related to life and events on Earth. Astrology is based on the belief that the stars and planets in the sky influence events on Earth through their mathematical relationships to one another and to Earth. An astrologer is a person who claims to read the patterns of the stars and planets and to tell people’s fortunes and characters from them. Many people around the world believe in astrology, though scientists have found no evidence that it is valid. Many other people see astrology as a form of entertainment.

Columbia Encyclopedia http://www.bartleby.com/65/as/astrolog.html

Wikipedia | Astrology

None of these mention pseudoscience, except wikipedia. Anthon01 (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters, here's Encarta:

1. Psychology was predated and somewhat influenced by various pseudoscientific schools of thought[8].
2. Astrology listed under "Pseudoscience" category [9].
3. European philosophers became preoccupied with alchemy, a secretive and mystical pseudoscience[10].

Antelan ^talk 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this present discussion? It doesn't seem like it's heading anywhere. Antelan ^talk 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added worldbook above. I'm specifically addressing the text of the article. How can you make that determination when the discussion hasn't even begun? Anthon01 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your "Psychology" link mentions pseudo science on page 6 of 10.
• Your "European philosophers" link mentions pseudo science on page 5 of 8.

Neither are in the lead. Anthon01 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are not allowed to call pseudoscience pseudoscience, then we are not serving our readership well. If it hurts your feelings, too bad. My condolences. Lets think about the readers not your feelings. --Filll (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. Stop with the condescending comments. Please observe WP:CIVIL. It just doesn't appear that wikipedia is dealing with this issue in an encyclopedic manner. I don't have a problem with the term, just the prominence that it is being given here. Anthon01 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue here. Again, this should be closed. Antelan ^talk 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Anthon01 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to the extent that this is an issue, it's an issue that should be discussed on a relevant policy page. Arguing here that a Wikipedia article can't use a word in the lead because a Britannica article doesn't do the same is not productive. Antelan ^talk 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be in a hurry to end this discussion? How about waiting for some feedback from the editors who have been discussing the issue of how to approach pseudoscience in the lead? Anthon01 (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm encouraging you to move it to a policy talk page, where it would be relevant. Antelan ^talk 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is overarching. What policy does it apply to? I see it relates to many many policies. FRINGE, PSEUDOSCIENCE, NPOV, even RS too since fringe sources are often argued to be Non-RS... Actually, I feel the usage of the word Science in policy is US-centric, as it does not accept that soft sciences are also science. And that policies introduces bias in such way that fringe subjects and claims are not able to be neutrally described. Meanwhile we should rather aim for consensuss among editors rather than trying to fiure out who is right according to policies here IMO Benjaminbruheim (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is an RS that says "what is stated in the movie is pseudoscience" (or similar words to that effect) then case closed. Shot info (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there seems to be a bit of canvassing going on... Shot info (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In about 15 seconds with google, I found a dozen WP:RS that state it is pseudoscience. So you think that is a high hurdle to pass? Good heavens.--Filll (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did it in 14 seconds.:) This issue I am raising is a MOS issue. Encyclopedias don't put this term in their leads. Anthon01 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. Review WP:LEAD.--Filll (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do. The term pseudoscience is not mandated by WP:LEAD. Anthon01 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. It is far more. -- Fyslee / talk 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon's research is interesting. Still, it does not really relate to WP. We have our own rules. One of those rules is ATT. So, we'll stick to it. (And about Canvassing- see Fringe noticeboard, that's just a legal form of canvassing). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. Currently, in terms of pseudoscience, the lead of this article states: Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience. This statement seems to be briefly describing a notable controversy which is detailed and supported in the robust section "Academic reaction". If there is any imaginable way for the word "pseudoscience" to be removed from the lead, it would first have to be justified by its removal from the "Academic reaction" section in terms of how the scientific critics describe the film. Currently, I think "Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience." is a pretty accurate summary. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! A perfect explanation of policy on this matter. -- Fyslee / talk 06:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I could agree to that sentence.(olive (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

The bigger issue is that pseudoscience is not really an academic concept. It is really just a perojative that some scientists use in their rhetoric. Many scientists find it entirely wrong to dismiss things on a priori reasoning, and this issue is reflected in articles all over wikipedia. Now, the reason it is on wikipedia is that many tech savvy internet users has grown up with Randi and that entertainment and become deluded to believe that this is science. There are enough papers on the subject, and they point out this kind of skepticism is hurting science. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which may be why so many other encyclopedias treat the term pseudoscience in a different manner. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll look around for sources stating these issues, but the history of CSICOP contains lot of discussions that are critical of how "debunkers" dismiss things on a unscientific foundation. This paper is a good read: Rejecting highly cited paper states "The most common problem were rejection of the manuscript, and skepticism, ignorance and incomprehension".

this well-sourced paper also contains a lot of quotes from skeptics pointing out the problems that skeptics activism such as CSICOP brings about. I don't have access to scientific papers now, but the debate is on-going. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the phrasing "criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience" let's the reader know of the subjective and pejorative nature of this term. It would be one thing if we were using the criticism to outright label the film as "pseudoscience" in the lead. We are not. "Pseudoscience" can in fact be an academic term; however, more often than not it is abused by pseudoskeptical critiques. Anyhow, as long as the criticism which describes the film as "promulgating pseudoscience" is of a notable weight and continues to fill so much of this article, keeping the lead sentence as is seems justified per WP:LEAD. Again, before looking at the lead which is merely a summary of the criticism, I would suggest first looking at the criticism itself. If the bulk of the criticism which describes the film as "promulgating pseudoscience" were to be removed from the "Academic reaction" section (by consensus), then removing such a statement from the lead would be justified. This discussion is trying to treat the "effect" (the lead) and not the "cause" (the content), so in fact, if it continues on this course, it will go nowhere.

The name of this discussion thread is: How other encyclopedias handle pseudoscience. For a relevant look into how Wikipedia handles pseudoscience, please consider this policy: WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. The pseudoscience policy may need to be amended as much time is being wasted on these pages. Anyone know how we do that? SA has posted on his talk page his version of how pseudoscience policy should read. Regarding the lead, WP:LEAD does not mandate the use of pseudoscience in the lead even though it appears in the body of the article. --Anthon01 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that WP:LEAD mandates the use of pseudoscience in the lead. Antelan ^talk 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Levine is suggesting that if its in the body, then it has to be in the lead as per WP:LEAD. Anthon01 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Consider my two suggestions (A and B) below. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that pseudoscience should be in the lead as long as it is in the body. The criticism should be rewritten to be about the specific problems people have with the movie instead of their subjective opinion. But well, this off-topic discussions are about the problems with the policy. Issue is that "mainstream science" is not really such a great source for subjects where hard science doesn't apply. The policy ain't too bad, but it seems mostly to be about fringe mentions in mainstream subjects. Also, it seems to suggest that fringe subjects should not be mentioned at all. However, there are also other policies which ties into this, so a central place to place such a discussion is not obvious. Any suggestions? Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think that this paragraph in the lead gets a little redundant and a little to detailed and should be trimmed down:

Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience. The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.

How about instead it just reads:

A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience.

Or, if removing pseudoscience is more to your liking but essentially we will spell it out and say the same thing:

B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

In my opinion, either A or B would be better choices than what is currently there because they are more to the point and satisfy the spirit of WP:LEAD more. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I posted almost the same above. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs)

Either of your suggestions are better than what is there now too. Essentially these two sentences are redundant and should be combined: Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience. The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. And the David Albert piece is too specific for the lead. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The lead needs to make it clear that the movie distorts science, and, if people won't allow that specific phrasing to appear, the specific citation of Albert's accusation needs to appear to convey that message.Kww (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of... Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. ...makes it all too clear that the movie distorts science. Remember, the lead should provide a concise overview of the article and briefly describe its notable controversies. The David Albert point, while damn interesting, is too specific for a concise overview. The point is made by a simple summary of the scientific communities reception of the ideas presented in the film. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I also made the same criticism above about

Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience. The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science ...,

as being redundant. I couldn't find it; maybe it was archive. Someone might accuse us of being sockpuppets. ;-) Anthon01 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kww: I think that the statements by Levine and myself make it abundantly clear without belaboring the point. What do you think a reader will hear when they read, "Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science"? Anthon01 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That some handful of scientists disagree. Much like "Some members of the scientific community feel that global warming is not a serious issue." The lead has to convey, within the limits of NPOV, the absolute revulsion the critics have expressed, and the fact that several have accused the film of going beyond misstatement into active fraud.Kww (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of this section is How other encyclopedias handle pseudoscience, which we have determined is not a way to determine if the word may be used in a Wikipedia lead. We have also determined that WP:LEAD does not mandate the use of the word in the lead, though that was never suggested. Ultimately, we are back to where we started - we may use the word in the lead, and now we just have to determine if we want to, and how so. Antelan ^talk 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on reducing the paragraph in question down to either of these suggests?

1. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience.
2. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As said above, the movie has been accused of going into active and conscious distortion, which must be stated in the lead, either by the Albert citation or by paraphrasing.Kww (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I hear you. It doesn't all need to be in the lead. The issue of fraud can be taken up in the body. The phrase doesn't say some members it says members. How much stronger can we make that statement without violating WP:NPOV? How many members of the scientific community have criticized the movie? You can't take the criticism of lets say 100 scientists and turn it into the whole or most of the scientific community has ... You would have to have a scientific body denouncing the movie to justify the comment you are trying to make. Are there any promiment members of the scientific community critizing the movie? If yes then you could say "Prominent members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science ..." Anthon01 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We have prominent scientists making these statements. We have the letters in the ACS. All of the criticisms can and have been compared to mainstream texts (which, unfortunately, don't contain movie reviews, so we can't include them directly in the article without violating WP:OR). I believe we can stay within the bounds of NPOV while including statements as strong as "The movie misrepresents scientific issues to support New Age spiritualism, and has been criticized for this by prominent scientists, including David Albert, who accuses the filmmakers of selectively editing his interviews to make it appear that he supports positions taken in the movie."Kww (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to accomplish. First prominent scientists cannot be used, so should not be considered. Next, IMO, you are conflating two things together in trying get across the idea that this movie is bad. The juxtaposition of the two comments is inflammatory. One issue is did they distort science. They other is did they distort the words of a scientist. IMO, I think you are trying to hard to have your POV reflected in the text. Anthon01 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because it reflects the comments made in all reliable sources about the science in the film? At the very least, leave the Albert citation in the lead. That is why it is there ... to represent the issue without any accusations of synthesis. Kww (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are that far apart. Conflating two things together to get your POV across violated WP:NPOV. I understand your urgency. The text should reflect the RS that are usable and not those from mainstream textbooks. I think from what you said above, saying "has been criticized for this by prominent scientists" would be OR? It should be "has been criticized for this by a prominent scientist ...," is that correct. My objection to Albert citation is a MOS issue and conflation. Separating and rewording the Albert citation may resolve the latter. Omitting the former in the lead would be the only way to resolve the MOS issue. Anthon01 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would yield to consensus on the MOS issue. Anthon01 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this - we can cite a specific instance of the film clearly distorting science for the sake of supporting its message. In the segment regarding wave/particle duality with a particle passing through slits and creating an interference pattern, the film clearly implies that the use of a passive observation system caused the particle/wave to behave differently according to the thoughts of the experimenters. In reality, the observation system was active, not passive, and functioned by creating and monitoring an electric field - which was directly responsible for the observed changes in the particle/wave's behavior. The film omitted the well-established scientific explanation and lied about the experiment. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, "criticized by prominent scientists" is not OR. The Guardian article quoted three, the ACS letter was written by two, there's a handful more. The problem is that most scientists made no public comment about this movie. Thus, while all scientists that made a comment said negative things(with the exception of those associated with the Institute of Noetic Sciences, an organization that doesn't pass the criterion for reliable sourcing), editors are nervous about claiming this as a consensus on the movie, even though it can be readily demonstrated that the criticisms have consensus behind them. The reason I want to use the word "misrepresent" is because it actually is a fairly neutral word...misrepresentation can occur by good faith error or by active intent. I'd love a verifiable source on 205.175.225.22's comment (one that actually mentions the movie).Kww (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kww - the portion of the movie I'm thinking of can be found on Youtube, located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rQiF2cRKdc . At about 4 minutes into it, they misrepresent the kind of device that was used to observe the particle. It's the classic double-slit experiment, which other wiki users have explained very well at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment . That wiki article, under the "Quantum version of experiment" section, explains that the fact their detectors must INTERACT with the particle instead of merely OBSERVING it is what causes the behavior to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I need a link to a reliable source that specifically discusses the WTB performance of the experiment. Even if their method was obviously wrong, Wikipedia editors can't draw the conclusion ... a verifiable, third-party analysis is required.Kww (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At first, Anthon01's claim was convincing, but then I thought about it, and this seems to tie in with WP:Wikipedia is not paper. The encyclopedias above all have to rely on sales, which can influence their objectivity (see Political correctness). If they fail to mention scientific criticism, then their articles are inaccurate. If they include scientific criticism, that will hurt sales, however, because astrologists, New Agers, and so on, will be turned off by such assertions, and not purchase the encyclopedia. In this regard, all the above proves is that Wikipedia is superior. Anthon01 himself seemed to acknowledge the above are pseudoscience. I admit, though, that including criticism in the lead often seems tacky. On Astrology, for instance, it seems unnecessary. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are definitely some NPOV issues to be worked out. Whether something is in fact science or pseudoscience is a matter of opinion. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. My claim is stil convincing.;-) Jokes aside, I didn't object to the term, but the use of it in the lead. We don't have to sell paper but we have to make WP attractive to readers, otherwise all this is a waste of time. MOS is important (tacky). Criticism is a necessary. How it is presented makes all the difference. Anthon01 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought."

This one is best, but per weight should probably have a bit of explication of why the film was liked. IPOF, some scientists do support some parts of the film (see Physics Today), but nevermind. The only problem I see here is the wish to include the statement which is against the mainstream sources that the film "is" pseudoscience, rather than that it contains it. The WEIGHT issue is also there, so perhaps people should weight the lead same as the article, which would require a word count. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan's done the word count several times... we need to approximately triple the criticism in the lead to obtain balance.Kww (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As chance would have it, suggestion "B" has almost precisely a 3-to-1 word count in terms of praise versus criticism. (Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be readable. Word counts don't matter. One sentence can counter the claim of 20 others. It is not the count that makes the difference but the weight of the words of the sentence that does. Anthon01 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be Kww. We don't, however, have any discussion of the themes from the movie's POV. However, I hardly find that credible, as the criticism is about a 4th to a third of the lead already, and having it mostly criticism would not in any way reflect the article ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

This non-binding straw poll is meant only to summarize our feeling about two suggested wordings to go in place of second paragraph in the lead. This is not a vote, but merely a chance to see if we are close to a resolve or consensus.

Please place either a -1, 00, or +1 below the two suggested wordings. Here's what it will mean:

-1 = I don't like it at all.
00 = I like it.
+1 = I like this one more.

Please vote on both suggestions. Thanks!

Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience.

00 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-1Unacceptable. Criticism section is excessively brief, although I think the word "pseudoscience" is fine.Kww (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-1 promulgating pseudoscience isn't descriptive enough; tacky as per Zenwhat. Anthon01 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-1 -- per Anthon01. Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 - Am OK with a brief overview, actually. Antelan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestion B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

+1 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 This one says more to the reader. Anthon01 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Could be made acceptable by reincluding the Albert criticism. Would prefer stronger phrasing. "Pseudoscientific ideas" preferable to "ideas".Kww (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) - per Kww. This should have pseudoscientific ideas in the phrasing. That might make it ok. It is better than some of the other ones we've had around here though. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- Agree with Kww on including Albert criticism, which is notable enough to mention in lead. No need for "pseudoscience" which is covered by "ideas which are not supported by science" Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 - Doesn't address some major issues, such as the misrepresentation of David Albert. Antelan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New suggestions, narrowing it down

From the responses above, I have formulated four more suggestions. It is clear that Suggestion B. above is preferred but there are some caveats. Please reply the survey with the same scheme (-1, 00, +1) as above:

---

Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film

00 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestion B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many pseudoscientific ideas such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film

00 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 -- Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 - Still not quite right regarding the reactions of the scientific community, but close enough for a compromise lead. Antelan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestion C. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

+1 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 - (Repetition of another suggestion above.) Antelan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 See below. Anthon01 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestion D. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many pseudoscientific ideas such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

00 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 -- Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestion E. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.

+1 -- No need for the examples of the unsupported science, they're detailed in the text. Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 - Doesn't fairly represent the criticism. Antelan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 MOS. Concise is better. Agree with DreadStar. Elucidate in the body. Anthon01 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Poll comments

This straw poll is pointless. I suggest people ignore it. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this from WP:DR:

If consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, consider conducting a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion. Note that a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it.

In a conversation with Antelan, I found that he/she like me found this discussion a bit messy (and thus difficult to gauge a consensus). So, per the advice of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, I set up this straw poll as a non-binding survey to help us understand where consensus might exist. I'm sorry that you find it to be a pointless process as I would like to see everyone's thoughts expressed on this issue and see if we can end this dispute in an amicable manner. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting is not evil, and as Levine2112 points out, polling or conducting a survey, is an accepted part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process, to help clarify the issues and assist in "understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions." I find this attempt to convince other editors to ignore a standard step in dispute resolution and consensus discussions to be troubling..to say the least. Dreadstar † 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This diff has already been considered and dismissed by the arbitration committee. Let's get back to work here. Antelan ^talk 07:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two different things Antelan. The ArbCom case has nothing to do with my comment above. Dreadstar † 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism needs to be in the lead

I don't care how you do it, but quantum mysticism needs to be in the lead at least as a piped link. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, it depends on who you ask really. Quantum consciousness is a concept which is a valid hypothesis and should be linked, but if attributed to critics quantum mysticism is very related in order to understand why the critics dislike the concept. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Our Quantum mind article is really quite poor, and the validity of the hypothesis is really up for debate. What is true is that consciousness is generally a derided term in physics and the people proposing "quantum consciousness" are generally on the very fringes if not completely immersed in pseudoscientific claptrap. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it describes the hypothesises properly. And I am quite happy that it isn't filled with POV from uninformed skeptics; we get that you subscribe to some kind of radical materialism. Really, these people in physics who deride consciousness are probably not even studying the topic. And it is not like physics has made much progress lately because of the limits that reality sets on people, so perhaps you should take a hint and read up on Bohm and follow his suggestion that spirituality is the next logical step for physics in order to understand the deeper concepts of reality. Because the field of spirituality is sorely needing people who can cut the crap, and you rational skeptics has so far thrown the baby out with the water. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This commentary on what you believe my personal prejudices are is quite irrelevant to this discussion. In the meantime, I'm gald we agree on including quantum mysticism. I'll see you at quantum mind in the future when I start decimating that article with my radical materialism. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are sources that use the exact words "quantum mysticism", and it's a term that is correct, and this film isn't about the interaction of quantum consciousness. It's about quantum mysticism. It takes the idea of quantum consciousness and adds several unrelated ideas so that it appears quantum consciousness supports mysticism, which is an idea strongly contested by both mainstream physicists and mainstream mystics themselves. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Particular science issues with the movie

There are particular science issues with the movie. I propose we have sections about these issues including sections detailing the criticisms on:

Quantum mechanics and quantum mysticism

Water memory and ice crystal pseudoscience

Transcendental Meditation study bullshit

Neuroscience psychobabble

Ahistorical lies

etc.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but this should also include the original idea; preferably sourced in the original papers. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The last three need a NPOV check : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like enough for a whole article of it's own... you might even be able to get a reliable source to publish it, that is, if there were actually any interest in this movie beyond a small group of Wikipedia editors. Which seems doubtful. Dlabtot (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An older version of the article more-or-less did.1Z (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see below. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better version

[12] This is the version of the article we should revert to after protection ceases. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs to stay protected until consensus is reached on the content of the lead section. Dreadstar † 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, keep protected riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's going to cause a fight...1Z (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the lead issues the version linked to by SA looks pretty informative and NPOV to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That version is full of original research, a view which has been confirmed at least twice by consensus after major disputes. Going back to that version is completely unacceptable. Dreadstar † 07:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with JoshuaZ here. The lead is still a bit fluffy (no need to give a laundry list of every topic touched upon by the film). Antelan ^talk 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, just a little rewording of the lead for conciseness. Jefffire (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can see including a new lead in that version and then working to source the various points. Maybe something along the lines of the above section. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is: What are the "various points" that should be in this lead.....I have seen multiple incarnations of this lead with multiple points many of which were agreed on by at aleast some editors, some of which had achieved consensus. Could these points be articulated and delineated clearly.(olive (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Since you've mentioned that some points have achieved consensus, perhaps you could list them here for addition to that lead? Antelan ^talk 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just another attempt to add Original research to the article. The version ScienceApologist is recommending here is clearly full of OR, and this version was subjected to intensive discussions, revert warring, protection and had to be taken through several steps of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Consensus was found on that occasion that the disputed content violated WP:NOR. There have been two additional attempts by ScienceApologist and others to introduce OR to this article.here and here

This is an unacceptable path to go down yet again. But if we have to, we'll do it again. Dreadstar † 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, this is an attempt to return the article to a better state than it is currently. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've been misunderstood. I am not referring to specific additions to the article but rather what needs to be in the lead. What general issues...points... information whatever we want to call it should this lead contain. Possibly if we all know what these fundamental points are, appropriate sources, and an appropriate syntactic structure for the lead could be more easily decided on.(olive (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

I understand you Littleolive oil. I think that we can deal with this in a separate section. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be provocative to return to a version that so many editors have objected to, and it does contain OR. The thing to do in a situation like this is just report what reliable sources have said about the film without embellishment. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been no OR documented. There isn't any embellishment in that version either. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the OR was well documented and each item was discussed in detail, finally reaching consensus that it was indeed material that violated WP:NOR. Read the links I provided in my post above...all the details are there. The embellishment is the additional critical comment from unrelated sources. You'll need to find consensus to go back to that version. I doubt you'll find it. Dreadstar † 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You are incorrect. You are linking to metadiscussions, not discussions on article content. There is this persistent myth that we can only quote and not summarize. However, this version of the article can be cited extensively to actual movie reviews as a summary of the various issues critics have had with the film. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we simply return to a version and offer our selected critical citations. It's that simple. We are in a position now where people agree (see above) that we can have sections regarding individual issues in the movie. I'm not saying that we have to stick with this version, I'm just saying that it's better. There is precedent for doing this. See Cold fusion for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim Virgin put it perfectly. I agree completely with Dreadstar here. Let's stop going in circles and just move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not going in circles. There's plenty of good text in here that simply doesn't appear in this article. The water crystal nonsense is barely mentioned here, yet is prominently mentioned in the movie. This has even been criticized by critics of the movie itself. Slim just let me know that she only saw the first 20 minutes of the film and judged it to be pop-philosophy. While there certainly is a lot of pop-philosophy in the film, there's also quite a bit of pseudoscience being promoted as fact throughout the film. There isn't anything wrong with documenting this since we have sources which point it out. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We are going in circles ScienceApologist. If you take the time to read through the so-called "metadiscussions" you would indeed find that the content was discussed in detail line-by-line and source-by-by source, a poll was taken and consensus found. Not once, but at least twice, which included an undeniable consensus, with additional pushing by you on the WP:NOR talk page. If you want to go back to that version, then you'll need to bring each item here, with sources to support all the content you wish to revert to. Your proposed version is full of WP:NOR, so you'll need to provide details on new sources for it to be considered. Dreadstar † 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop talking about what "I" am doing and start focusing on the proposals at hand? I see a use of "you" or a derivative in respect to me 13 times in this section used by User:Dreadstar. This is getting very close to a personal attack. Please remove all references to myself and stick to talking about the proposal (which has nothing to do with "you"). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's your proposal and we have focused on it. I suggest you follow WP:CON and WP:DR where the other proposals and straw polls are concerned, which you've told other editors here to ignore.

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks', so there's no reason to remove "all references" to yourself. If you think you've been personally attacked, then by all means take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Dreadstar, Slrubenstein, and SlimVirgin, who wrote: "it would be provocative to return to a version that so many editors have objected to, and it does contain OR. The thing to do in a situation like this is just report what reliable sources have said about the film without embellishment." I do not question that many of the scientific facts in the film are wrong. But this is an article about a film, not about science. The only way to address the facts in the film is to use WP:RS that mention the film. There are plenty of experts who have done so. I don't see what the problem is, just quote them stating their ideas about the way the science is presented in the film. Using science sources that do not discuss the film is WP:SYN. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, we are asking to use that version as a starting point and will go ahead and reference the points as they go through. Did you not understand that? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that perhaps a draft intro might be useful since the current choices do have their weakness. Jefffire (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure I started one below. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

View from the "middle" on language used here?

I am only peripherally and casually interested here, and after reviewing the straw poll above I declined to vote because I'd like to remain so. So I attempt to speak from the "middle" and on that basis ask a bit of indulgence from both sides.

I share many of the criticisms directed at the film, but the film is, at it's heart, asking a question: can science and "some" form of 'G-d' be reconciled? Certainly the film (a) has a POV about the answer to it's own question, and (b) has taken (IMHO) far too much liberty in presenting certain "research" as "science". It's a typical pop-cultural sensationalization, therefore it is (by definition) entertaining to many and also (by definition) reprehensible to strictly scientific and rational viewers.

Now, may I suggest that some discussion here about the language used might be helpful? For example there are perfectly good words historically used frequently by scientists and academics -- "metaphysics" and "metascience", that can be used more frequently here or as a substitute for the pejorative "pseudoscience". There is a good example (in proper context) here.

Case: In the '80s John Wheeler initiated a trend in physics that has been widely discussed by serious physists (remains respectable to this day) that posits that the universe is made up entirely of information and that matter and energy are merely "incidental". Meanwhile, the first bullet of the Bleep synopsis here states that "The universe is best seen as constructed from thought (or ideas) rather than from substance." Now, I am quite familiar with Satinover's work and can assure all that he is not a "quack" for entertaining the philosophical questions clearly implied in this similarity of views. Essentially Satinover is putting the question into the philosophical context of "Spinoza's G-d", the "god" of Einstein.

So, my suggestion here that perhaps the use of the pejorative "pseudoscience" here (and argument over it's placement) can be solved or mitigated by use of the less pejorative "metaphysics" and "metascience", where appropriate. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are sources that say "pseudoscience." Are there sources that say "metaphysics" or "metascience"? (I'm not implying that there aren't.) Antelan ^talk 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now we're talking. But yes, the movie ties into the historical tradition to philosphise over the big questions, but is updated on empirical facts. For example black holes and big bang are very rigirously defined by hard physics, but they have huge consequences for philosophy, and by proxy the opinion of the individual scientists that works with the field. So obviously this generates most fuzz in the popular culture and polarized communities, in this case debunkers and new age communities. But the subject isn't very unknown to those "in the know". Totally, this results the subject to be considered by the various groups to be pseudoscience, empirical science, existentialism, philosophy of mind, consciousness science, mythology and parapsychology. And I don't think mainstream is the most authoritarian POV here. Anyway, great take on the subject WNDL42 --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which sources are good or bad, but this google news archive search yields a pretty diverse range.

Also, in case anyone is interested in having some fun here, we might even agree that the film has spawned an entirely new lexicon of words to convey the psuedo-scientific aspects, and some of them are precious. My favorite is "quantum-flapdoodle". Perhaps we could have a section (written in a tongue-in-cheek yet encyclopedic tone) to convey in good humor some of this crticism. I expect those who like the film might even enjoy joining the effort...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert filed on Dreadstar

I have filed a Wikiquette alert on User:Dreadstar in relation to his continued posturing regarding ownership of this page and his inability to discuss content rather than contributors. Please comment there. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

False claims of consensus

There is no consensus on the following issues:

1. That the article is better now than it was in the past.
2. That previous versions of the article are not better than the article is now.
3. That previous version of the article contained original research that cannot possibly be cited to reliable sources.
4. That criticizing pseudoscience in the movie is necessarily WP:OR.
5. That the movie isn't about science but rather philosophy.

In fact, there is substantial amount of controversy over each of these issues. I would say that all of these contentions are substantively wrong.

I will from now on refer all false claims of consensus to this thread.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone claim there was consensus on these points.(olive (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

I get the impression that that was happening above. I just want to be clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any kind of suggestion that these claims had a consensus, or that anyone thought there was a consensus on these points, as far as I can remember.Just clarifying.(olive (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

I'm glad we have consensus on this ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An actual intro workshop

This is my preferred version of the intro:

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k) πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film that combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative to posit a connection between science and spirituality. Computer-animated graphics are used heavily in the film that is also interspersed with excerpted interviews where purported experts speculate about the impact of human consciousness on the natural world. Most of those interviewed are affiliated with New Age organizations, and some hold academic degrees. The plot follows the fictional story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience and misleading lay audiences about science. The film presents as fact many ideas which are not supported by science, with the effect that many scientists say the film misleads the audience about science. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film when in fact he does not.

Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, and the film features extensive interviews with the school's director Judy Zebra Knight, some where she claims to be channeling an entity known as Ramtha. A moderately low-budget independent production, the film was promoted using unusual grass-roots marketing methods and grossed over $10 million.

Rather than have people argue back and forth about which version is best, please edit this version directly. I'll revert anything I dislike. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An objection to workshopping the lead

I'm not sure how that's going to work. I have big concerns with the syntax and structure of this version that would require more than some copy editing, but closer to a rewrite. Editors will have a difficult time knowing what's going on if there are constant reverts.I would think this has to be about what all of the editors agree on rather than on one who reverts what he doesn't like. This may not work very well.(olive (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Instead of complaining, why not try making some of your edits? Who knows, maybe I'll like some of them! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No complaining just pointing out some obvious concerns. I guess I don't feel its worth my time to copy edit this version unless multiple editors are involved. With respect, I don't consider you to be the definitive expert on the lead version of this article, although like all of us you have opinions of course.(olive (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Can you name one syntactical issue in that lead? I'll gladly fix it for you. Antelan ^talk 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get caught up in the whole "version mania" that has plagued this article as of late. The problem is that I've seen many different versions that are all basically the same without any direct discussion of why certain things should or should not be discussed. Instead of workshopping the versions people re-include errors and old nonsense. I was blocked for adding quantum mysticism to the lead simply because an observer thought that including this was controversial. Lo-and-behold, when I explicitly stated it needed to be in the lead nobody but nobody objected. The current status quo simply is not working. If you aren't going to offer any better alternatives and refuse to take part in helping move us further, then that is your decision, but don't hold us back. I'm relegating this discussion to a new section since it's basically irrelevant to content (once again). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SA... this is a community of editors. If you want ... really want an article that is a reflection of an editing community then you don't say,"I'll revert anything I dislike. Editors who haven't agreed with you in the past are likely not going to want to edit something you have assumed sole revert rights to. As I said, for me to work on this version would take quite possibly a rewrite which I am quite capable of doing, but I'm not going to work on something when I know that it will be reverted in all likelihood. We are standing on different platforms here. I could care less about this movie, but I want neutrality.You see my version of neutrality to be non-neutral. I know the physics/science connections are highly flawed. I have a very good friend who is a brilliant physicist.I know what he thinks, and I know he knows what he's talking about. That's not the issue for me. The solution is not to say to me in so many words, get out of our way if you don't like it, but is to find a way that provides input and a consensus from all editors who are interested and involved. I don't know what the answer is . We've tried lots of ways to come up with a workable version. I suspect consensus takes compromise. Are there multiple ways of saying something as riverguy42 suggests above, that although not exactly the wording you want is very close, always remembering that this is an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge rather than a place to uphold views on truth. Truth is the ultimate beauty for me, but I know an encyclopedia is not about truth but about collecting knowledge. Sorry this has turned into an essay and wasn't intended. I could write a version tomorrow - bare bones - and maybe rather than take material out material can be added a bit at a time, until we have full fledged section. You are not alone in your frustration. I expect all editors who have been involved are fed up. Not sure what else to do.(olive (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive, I'm still interested in the syntactical issue that you said you had found. Can you identify it so it can be fixed? Thanks. Antelan ^talk 23:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)