Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Four groups

Heretic or Heretics of Science?[edit]

This article says that Sheldrake was the subject of a 1994 BBC series called "Heretics of Science" but I thought that the programme was just called "Heretic". (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct, it was just called "Heretic" (reference). --Iantresman (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No sources?[edit]

"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience[citation needed]. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology[citation needed]"

Um. LOL. "Critics cite" ... [citation needed]. Come on Wikipedia. Someone must find this as amusing as I do. When will the world wake up? Come on boys and girls... Sheldrake HAS proved it. How much longer can you hide the truth that actually he can not be debunked? -M 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please show us the citations. GangofOne (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Someone added those citation needed templates last week, and when they did they apparently missed the extensive citations in the note at the end of the paragraph. Thanks for mentioning it, I have removed the erroneously placed tags. - MrOllie
(talk) 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A Book for Burning[edit]

I think that sections on John Maddox could mention that Maddox went as far as to say that in the editorial to Nature, Maddox said that Sheldrake's "A New Science of Life" was the best candidate for burning in years. I know that the Guardian online claims that Maddox did not actually say that Sheldrake's A New Science of Life was a book for burning - but I hardly think that one could call the Guardian a reliable source! Vorbee (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Um ... OK, ... I'll bite ... what is wrong with the graun as a source? -Roxy the dog. bark 20:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel that Sheldrake is doing something important by expanding science to include the spiritual. It is not "magical thinking" but the inclusion of the centuries-old almost universal belief that the spriritual is part of nature and not something separate from it. This belief was enshrined in Aristotle's hylomorphism, the world soul of Plotinus, and the pan-psychism of William James. The view that the world is only composed of matter is not scientific, and, as Sheldrake argues, it has been disastrous for mandkind and the planet. Bdubay (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

And this counts as "discussing improvements to the Rupert Sheldrake article" how? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I've just learned that 'The view that the world is only composed of matter is not scientific' and 'it has been disastrous for mandkind [sic] and the planet.' Gosh. Who knew. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)