Talk:Peter Fenwick (neuropsychologist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Physiology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the brain, nerves and nervous system.
 

Recognised as an authority[edit]

The statement, "He is recognised as an authority on the relationship between the mind and the brain." is supported by only one source and not a particularly good one at that the publisher is Hay House a New Thought and Self-help publisher. Not exactly what one would describe as a reputed publishing house. Even with that to state someone is recognised as an authority needs more substantial sourcing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not happy about this article. Many of the sources are unreliable and there is little critical coverage of his bold paranormal claims. True he has written some scientific papers but the majority of his stuff was in parapsychology journals or in new age books. For example he's written a book claiming reincarnation and spirits are real. Apart from his few scientific publications he's basically a parapsychologist with fringe claims. This should be made clear in the article. Goblin Face (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I strongly suspect although he is in the ingroup as far as psychologists go, psychologists do seem to be awfully tolerant of "confirmation bias armchair philosophising" (CBAP) in the name of "scientific debate" - but within the in group he is within a very select outgroup within psychology. Be interesting to see a list of publications and what his h-index is. The issue with pro-fringers is that they'll call anyone who agrees with them "an authority" when the action bypassing the cranks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This link is interesting [1], Fenwick seems to be very quick to dismiss psychological and physiological explanations for the NDE. As the article says he seems to have strong metaphysical assumptions before he has even began investigating. It's not surprising his books are being sold by new age companies. He written papers with Sam Parnia a similar scientist with fringe beliefs and interest in mind body dualism. Goblin Face (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have just watched some interviews of Peter Fenwick, one of these was with Rupert Sheldrake on "Challenging Dogmatism in Science" [2]. He has embraced mind-body dualism, he makes bold claims about the brain not being the mind and memory not traceable to neuronal activity, he claims evidence for mind existing outside of the body (alleged paranormal experiences) and survival of death. He has also endorsed precognition and reincarnation. It seems to me similar to Sheldrake he endorses all kinds of pseudoscience. One of his books has been reviewed by the British Medical Journal found here [3], they are opposed to pseudoscience so I am very interested in seeing what is in the review. It would be a useful reference. Goblin Face (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am removing the sentence from the lead, especially as the source is someone who has co-authored books with the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)