Talk:Fritjof Capra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A little biased?[edit]

Those last two paragraphs read like an advertisement.

Agreed: deleted one unreferenced phrase re: Capra's latest book on Leonardo, which is patently hype: "the first book to present a coherent account of the scientific achievements of Leonardo da Vinci, and to cogitate them from the perspective of 21st-century scientific and philosophical thought." -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New comment from[edit]

Im totally new to this editing thing but i just wanted to comment. I have been doing a bit of reading and research lately and i think Fridjof Capra deserves something a bit more comprehensive for an article. I dont think im yet qualified to do it myself but i know this guy is an incredible person whos ideas and projects deserve much more publicity and recognition than they have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2006

If you haven't by now, you should read Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:How to log in. These should answer your questions about Wikipedia. Logging in has several benefits, including allowing you to watch page, so that you know if they are changed. Welcome. (I share your thoughts about the importance of Capra! --Bhuston 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Call to participation[edit]

This comment is left on the understanding that Fritjof Capra, or somebody who knows him, will read it . He is probably among the very few people who will understand the fractal similarities of process that operate on many levels of ecosystem: cell, human body, human community. He will understand that certain processes as division operate on all three levels, and that this has implications for ethics, civics and politics. Therefore, he and anybody else who graps these concepts is invited to participate with the embodiment wiki:


i removed the following passage because it is to strongly worded for the introduction and i don´t quite know what to do with it, the provided ref does not say what is said in passage and to call the sceptical inquirer as some scientific observers is a little misleading:

His works all share a similar subtext: that "there are hidden connections between everything". Huge numbers of this book have been sold, but Capra's views are dismissed by some scientific observers as being unfalsifiable and therefore of little interest to them[1]. trueblood (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

removed section[edit]

i removed the following section, it is badly written and does not provide references, saying that capra thougtht that quantum mechanics proves mysticism is a bit simplified, is it not

Revision of the Original Stance[edit]

Capra's latest stance has detracted away from his original position[citation needed]. Capra no longer claims that Quantum mechanics proves mysticism but rather that there are important parallels. Mysticism cannot substitute quantum mechanics or vice versa. During the original publication of the Tao of Physics, Capra attempted to draw parallels between Hinduism's Indra's Net of Jewels, or Buddhist interpenetration and the bootstrap model. Now that the bootstrap model is out of vogue in the physics community[citation needed], Capra has considerably revised his stance. trueblood (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific claims[edit]

It's interesting that here in Wikipedia, authors like Fritjof Capra, Jean Charon and others "from the same team" don't receive any criticism or accusations of practicing bad philosophy or bad science. (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Because critisim should be basen on reliable sources, not personal thoughts of editors. If you give some lingk to scientific criticism, i think it will be added. Cathry (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception, citations[edit]

For a longstanding biography of a living person (created in 2002), this article is extremely sparsely cited. The IP above was on the right lines - the article should summarize reliably published criticism and praise of Capra, neutrally and with sources. This could be done in a separate Reception section covering his published works, or worked into the biography to provide sources for the claims made there. Or, of course, both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Skeptical Inquirer on Quantum Quackery