Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Rupert Sheldrake. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

"see the Notes section in [1] to verify this"

I'm sure you guys know what this means, but can I suggest that this is never how we cite controversial statements in any article text, let alone in the lede of a BLP article. I see it has been reverted back in, and it is wrong to do so. If a single statement requires 14 citations (in a lede!), then it is probably WP:SYN. Please use one cite per statement, and one that covers the content of the actual statement. --Nigelj (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Iantresman (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The text that the 14 references (which we are meant to go and look up in some old version of the WP article) support begins "Scientists and sceptics have labelled morphic resonance a pseudoscience..." If that weasel-worded statement is to be made, then I'm sure editors here know that we are meant have a single secondary or tertiary source at hand that actually says words along the lines of "Scientists and sceptics have labelled morphic resonance a pseudoscience." The present text is so unsupported by WP policy that I would normally revert it straight out of a BLP article. However it was edited in under the admonition, "Please stop edit warring", and I would hate to end up at AN/I over it. --Nigelj (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources. The weasel words are only there because Sheldrake supporters insist on trying to down-play the extent to which Sheldrake's ideas are rejected. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the weasel word statement with a precise statement backed by the cited sources. Barney has already reverted it twice. He has also reverted corrections to inaccurate, unsourced material on parapsychology and the conservation of energy. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that we don't have many sources that actually say "pseudoscience" and we have many more sources that say his work is scientific (even if wrong). The Guardian actually ran a series of four articles asking the question, science or magic, with regard to Sheldrake's work, and some of those listed above who supposedly said pseudoscience (eg, Sue Blackmore) actually said "scientific" and at no point suggested his work was pseudoscience (none of the four articles said that, fwiw). That being said, it is clear a number of people have made this point and others have used other terms that are almost synonymous, so the claim should definitely be in the article. The extent to which it is claimed, though, is something that needs proper discussion, with sources suitable to the issue at hand, so we may accurately characterise this accusation given BLP. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Guy (1) Nonsense. There are no editors that are unhappy stating that some scientists have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience. (2) Even if it were so, that would not be justification to use the weasel words. (3) If the extent to which Sheldrake's ideas are rejected, you'll have not problems providing reliable secondary sources you say exist. (4) I still agree with Barney:[2] (a) "the majority of authorities on a particular subject will simply ignore it" (b) "a small number of authorities have spoken against a particular view, and yet a small number of others have also spoken in favour of it." --Iantresman (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

that is only an issue because you wish to ignore WP:ITA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented the suggested change with the word "derisive" because many of the reactions to Sheldrake from scientists are exactly that. I've also included the term "scientific community" because the statement specifies that this is largely the reaction, not the reaction of every individual scientist. Incidentally, Barney once again reverted my clarification of the pseudoscience charge, this time with the claim that Sheldrake has more than two critics. Okay, great. But the sources list only two critics. If Barney or any other editor wishes to make a generalized statement that Sheldrake's work is viewed as pseudoscience by scientists, we'll need a source that makes exactly that claim. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is plain tendentiousness. There are a huge number of sources already in the article that identified Sheldrake's proposals with pseudoscience or descriptions synonymous with pseudoscience. It is not anyone's job to put them on a platter for you. The fact that the enormous list of them was removed from the lede does not in any way excuse this kind of pretended bafflement about the plain fact that most people who consider Sheldrake's proposals consider them downright wacky. jps (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that a number of the sources cited for "pseudoscience" have plainly said no such thing, and a number of other sources have been "interpreted" beyond interpretation to give that impression. It is therefore reasonable, I think, that such criticism in a BLP be supported with precise quotes here so that we can judge whether the author actually said anything like what is being claimed. Another example is the media section where sources are used that don't really support the point they are used to support at all. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is only a problem in your evaluation. The "interpretation" of a source that uses synonymous descriptions for a pseudoscience is not unreasonable unless you're being pedantic, which it seems is the sort of default mode for many in these discussions. Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist in that he promotes pseudoscience. Others who support pseudoscience disagree with that characterization. It's as simple as that. jps (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When the source explicitly says "scientific" and the interpretation is "pseudoscientific" then that is a cause for concern. And while such interpretations agree with your opinion on the matter, they don't agree with the source, nor the many other sources that say "scientific", nor the other sources which say there is some debate about the issue. And so while you clearly believe Sheldrake's work is pseudoscientific, your view is firstly irrelevant (unless published in a reliable source), and secondly, it is contradicted by multiple sources from every conceivable type of reliable source. Thus the article should cover the fact that there is a dispute, and that some have said pseudoscience and some have said science. That's how simple it is. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a false equivalence and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia that covers WP:FRINGE subjects by paying most attention to the mainstream evaluation of them. The only "controversy" that is here is the one that comes from Sheldrake being upset for being criticized. We are able to describe that fairly without taking sides and by being explicit that he is generally considered a pseudoscientist by those in the know. To try to accommodate other editorial slants (e.g. that those people criticizing Sheldrake aren't really "in the know") is an abrogation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. An amazing feat of policy avoidance. jps (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

new edits

Barney, it would be helpful if you could seek consensus on the talk page for your edits. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney has added the following paragraph to the Rose section:

In his next column, Sheldrake again attacked Rose for following "materialism", and argued that quantum physics had "overturned" materialism, and suggested that "memories may turn out to depend on morphic resonance rather than memory traces". Philosopher Alan Malachowski of the University of East Anglia responding to what he called Sheldrake's "latest muddled diatribe", defended materialism, argued that dismissed Rose's explanation with an "absurd rhetorical comparison", asserted that quantum physics was compatible with materialism and argued that "being roughly right about great many things has given [materialists] the confidence to be far more open minded than he is prepared to give them credit for"

I appreciate the attempt to deepen the discussion, but this passage muddies the section, which primarily addresses the experiment they designed and which Rose eventually carried out. The disputed results of this experiment are far more important than a philosophical disagreement they had along the way. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I think that the Rose section is now too long, and the added information seems to have been added mainly to allow more critical commentary into the article with little in the way of added value. Indeed, the issue of adding in criticism after criticism is one of the main problems with the article imo. Looking at policy/guidelines, it seems more appropriate to have statements of the fact Sheldrake has been criticised rather than trying to impart this point to the reader by lengthy demonstrations. Thus we have various sections where Sheldrake's views are covered in a few words and then the vast bulk of the section (over 80%) is just one quoted criticism after another, often on subjects where the critics are not expert (eg, Rose's criticism of Sheldrake's media appearances). 23:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs)

Or we could pretend he's had received no criticism. And some support from the scientific community. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I know full well that Sheldrake has received a lot of criticism and agree that fact should be well covered in the article. I just don't think we need to write the article in such a way as to facilitate the inclusion of a quote from the vast bulk of it. It seems enough to say that the ideas are rejected with brief reasons, the odd quote, and references. As things stand the article is more a demonstration of the criticism (with apparent full Wikipedia backing even where the criticism has been widely criticised and/or is from a non-expert) rather than a report about it. One can say, eg, that Sheldrake's media appearances have drawn some criticism without taking up 80% of the section to quote it all. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Which criticism is from a "non-expert"? I see don't really see any that is not from a reputable academic. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the criticism at the start of the media section seems to be from media experts. These are sociology of communication issues and yet people like Rose are quoted, and given massive coverage, as if their views represent the mainstream, or are from experts, within that discipline. On issue like this, people like Rose are just disgruntled scientists whose own views may well be subject to criticisms from experts in that field. Moreover, very few of the sources cited (whitfield appear to be) actually seem to be about Sheldrake's coverage in newspapers, radio, television and his speaking engagements which is what the section is supposed to be about. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

i dont think "media experts" are the sole reliable voice on impact of media on public understanding of science. In fact, scientists would be the experts on that concept. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Scientists do not, qua scientists, study the effects of media on people's understanding of science. Some may, and their views, if backed by research etc, should count as expert. But that is not what we have. We just have some scientists who are not media experts complaining. And where media experts have spoken on such issues they have sometimes been critical of the scientific community's attitude to mavericks for a disdainful attitude towards science by the public.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the height of tendentiousness. Scientists are equipped to evaluate claims in the media when they are about science. We are discussing claims in the media that are about science. Ergo scientists are qualified to evaluate such claims. Indeed, scientists are more qualified than anyone else to evaluate whether the media is being accurate in its descriptions of science. Some scientists have even made part of their careers out of it. jps (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say scientists aren't equipped to evaluate claims IN the media ABOUT science. I said that scientist are not expert in the sociological analysis of the effects of, or the societal rights and wrongs of, media coverage of science. That is, they may be experts in terms of appraising the scientific content of any scientific claims made, but they are by no means expert in assessing the societal impact of such claims. Thus when Rose et al grumble about the media coverage Sheldrake receives they are just disgruntled scientists grumbling, and their views about the societal effects of such coverage should not be considered anything like on a par with their scientific assessment of scientific claims in their area of expertise. Thus there is no need to allocate 80% of the space in an introduction to a section on Sheldrake's media coverage to the non-scientific, non-expert, views of a few disgruntled scientists.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs in asinine ways. When scientists "grumble" about attention being paid to pseudoscientists like Sheldrake, they are absolutely evaluating the claims of the media in supporting the errors and/or lies of Rupert Sheldrake. They are equipped to determine that Sheldrake is misconstruing, misrepresenting, and generally making incorrect statements about the subjects in which they are experts. They do not need to be media experts to judge the media for allowing him space to do that. jps (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree both in terms of your conclusion and your assessment of what the criticism was about. At no point in the cited criticism was there any real scientific content of note. It was all just general non-expert grumbling that the world of the media was not the way they would like it to be. As such their non-expert views should be given a line, at most, in the introduction which notes their concerns but does not massively cover it as if it amounted to anything of consequence or as if it had some accepted scientific validity. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't competent enough to see where a scientist is judging content for the lack of its scientific basis, then you should probably not be in this conversation. Scientists are expert at what is and isn't science. They grumble when people promote pseudoscience. That's all that's happening here. jps (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When someone accuses someone of "self-promotion" he is not engaging in any kind of scientific analysis. To claim otherwise is just arguing for the sake of it. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Balderdash. The scientist is simply pointing out that Sheldrake's self-promotion is a means to scientific miseducation. Sagan was criticized for being somewhat self-promoting, but no one had a problem with his effect on scientific understanding. See the issue? jps (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not what the source says at all. And if that really was what it meant then that is what it should say, rather than asking the reader to divine that point from the term "self-promotion". But then if the article said that it would be as different from the source as many of the other critical points made in the article are. It seems a huge amount ion "interpretation", euphemistically speaking, is being done to sources in order to use them to support things they plainly do not say. This is highly problematic in a BLP. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a tortured reading of what a scientist means when they criticize the media for paying attention to someone who is a pseudoscientist. jps (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No WP:FRINGE-exception

Try as I might, I can find no WP:FRINGE exeception to this WMF board resolution of last month: [3]. I do find this: "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by:

Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;

Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest;

Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess contributions , particularly when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report problems;

Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same."

Yes, I see NPOV in there. We've argued ad nauseum about what NPOV means in relation to this article. But please notice the emphasis. It's mostly about "human dignity" and "[t]reating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same."

Food for thought
David in DC (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Try as I might, i do not see that the foundation has proclaimed that we should whitewash the article and ignore or misrepresent how the academic consensus sees the very non private Sheldrake and his work. If he is concerned about being represented as a promoter of pseudo scientific hokum then it is very simple for him to stop promoting pseudo scientific hokum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If Dr. Sheldrake would like to join the discussion on this page, I know I would extend to him patience, kindness, and respect. jps (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Some months ago, I suggested that we should include the phrase "******* ****** (redacted per request from an admin)" to adequately describe Shelly's ideas. I haven't changed my personal views, but I withdraw the suggestion now. Instead, as an olive branch to woolly thinkers, perhaps TRiPOD's suggestion, "pseudo scientific hokum" is a little more encyclopaedic and less inflammatory. I think the pandering of the article towards Sheldrake's world view in the last few days shames us all. Meh. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem including the phrase ""pseudo scientific hokum", if you have multiple reliable secondary sources that say this. I have no problem attributing this phrase, if you have good reliable source that includes it. Do you have either, or is this just WP:SYNTH? --Iantresman (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed a potentially WP:BLP violating phrase from my comment above, though it has not actually been demonstrated to me that I have violated that policy. I am happy to comply with policy. I do not wish to be the victim of arbitrary sanctions. I also note that it has been requested that good refs are supplied for assertions here on the Talk page. Accordingly, my refs for the phrase "pseudo scientific hokum" are all of Shelly's published works, broadly construed, since he stopped doing science. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem saying "psuedoscientific hokum" if we have sources saying this, and if it is attributed. The problem, though, is that we have over twenty top-quality sources for all types of scientists and commentators who say Sheldrake's work is scientific (even if wrong). Thus we cannot treat a small vocal band of critics speaking on behalf of themselves as the voice of the scientific community at large, while ignoring all the opposite view from similar individuals - as some here wish to do. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources saying this. They might not use the word "hokum", but still, let's stop pretending otherwise. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is pretending you have no sources. But a number of the sources offered simply did not say it, and some actually said the opposite (Sue Blackmore, eg). Thus while the accusation of psuedoscience should clearly be in the article, we shouldn't attribute it to people who never said, nor anything like it. We should be clear that many disagree and the exact status of Sheldrake's work, re this question, is a matter of debate. Numerous sources make this very point, and the commissioned articles in the Guardian (and their commissioning) demonstrate it. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - please stop trying to interpret sources as saying things that they don't say. Again, your idea of a distinction between "terribly bad science" and "pseudoscience" is absolute nonsense, and it's clearly intended to hammer a wedge into the multitude of sources that basically say the same thing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We have been over this. Blackmore calls him a parapsychologist. "He is scientific - to a point." She then goes on to say his science is wrong and that he refuses to acknowledge lack of evidence for his proposal. To take from Blackmore only the first three words is completely unacceptable misuse and misreading her work. And to do so repeatedly is WP:TE-- -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is an informal fallacy. See "You're either with us, or against us" --Iantresman (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. The sources offered in many case don't say what one would expect them to given their use in the article, while others, eg, Blackmore, says the opposite. She says, for example, "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects" and never uses the word pseudoiscience, or anything like it, and yet this is used as a source for pseudoscience. There is interpretation going on as regards this source, then, but not by me. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You're both very persistent at it, even when you're told you're wrong. That some sources do not mention the word pseudoscience, usually by describing characteristics of pseudoscience while not mentioning the word, cannot be reasonably interpreted to say that they endorse Sheldrake's work as scientific. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess the problem is, eg, when someone says "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects", it is difficult to buy your arguments that they really meant pseudoscientific, and that that's what we should take from their article. Presumably Blackmore was free to write what she wanted and did so, and what she wrote was "scientific" albeit with some qualification. Thus it takes an enormous amount of "interpretation", euphemistically speaking, to yield the claim you want. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because you have refused to read beyond those 8 words to see what she says in the rest of the article. And what she describes is exactly pseudo science - scientific overlay masking parapsychology and utter nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Barney . It is not for you, or any other editor, to tell us that we are wrong. You are at liberty to disagree. Just because someone describes the characteristics of a duck, doesn't make something a duck. This is a basic induction fallacy and WP:DUCK "The duck test does not apply to article content". --Iantresman (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@RPoD I have read the rest of the article. At no point does she say Sheldrake's work is peudoscience. Her main criticism is that Sheldrake still believes things which she changed her mind about many years ago. But that in no way equates to the charge that all, or even any, of his work is pseudoscience. Blackmore should therefore be removed from the list of people who have said his work is PS unless another source can be found. @Iantresman, she doesn't even really list any main duck characteristics either as far as I can see. She just thinks he should have changed his mind, but since he knows his own experiments far better than she does he is entitled to argue his corner. This kind of thing is completely normal in science even in cases where some have gone to the grave hanging on to things that evidence rendered unlikely at best many years prior, and some have even been thereafter vindicated. All normal scientific stuff. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Her main point is that Sheldrake appeals to peoples desire to for faith in unproven claims dressed up in science rather than actual facts. That is NOT science - that is pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A correction TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom - Susan Blackmore does not say that his science is wrong, she says his theory of MR is wrong. She clearly clarifies this at the top of the article. And that is her opinion, and it's written in an opinion article, not a scientific journal. She claims Sheldrake does not review the evidence, but Sheldrake makes the same claim for her. I don't feel comfortable about the article taking sides in an argument between two colleagues. And yes they are colleagues they both served as chair for Perrot Warrick. A theory might be wrong, but that does not make the theory, or the scientist who proposes it, pseudoscience. Going through the sources provided here, I've only seen two quotes so far that directly say it's pseudoscience. I might be missing one or two, but Is the status of this whole article resting on those two quotes? That seems like somewhat of a stretch. If Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist because of his work in parapsychology, then Blackmore is also a pseudoscientist. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist because of the specific content and of his claims not because of the subject matter. jps (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking what an editor believes to be true, I am asking about the sources that support that belief. I'm not seeing anything special about the sources specifically mentioned that support the belief that Sheldrake performs pseudoscience. I found two so far. I'll ask the question again, is the entire status of this article resting on those sources? To an outsider, it looks like this article is resting on the assumptions of editors more than the sources provided. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You're assessment is correct. Some editors here have a very different view from the sources and want to include only those which support them and ignore the others altogether. Sheldrake's work has been called pseudoscience by a few people (including some scientists) but his work has been characterised as science by many more people (including many more scientists). Barleybannocks (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The list of "scientists" who support Rupert Sheldrake is full of alternative medicine practitioners, known pseudoscience apologists, and outright cranks. These are not reliable demarcators at all. In contrast, the sources who have plainly and simply dismissed the pseudoscience of Sheldrake are reliable, accomplished, and well-known scientists. This isn't a "he-said/she-said" game. We rightfully exclude the beliefs of crackpots as WP:UNDUE in spite of the nonsense credentialism of Sheldrake and his supporters on this page. jps (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your spurious attack on many top-quality scientists is no reason to reject anything, let alone three sound sources which explicitly state he has received scientific support. It is not Wikipedia's job to right what you regard as a great societal wrong. These people are scientists, many are listed in Wikipedia as scientists, and for many of them, your previous comment, and similar ones above by others, will be the only time their status as scientists has ever been questioned. It's clear you don't like these facts, but facts they are. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The "attack" is simply an evaluation that your favorite sources are unreliable. Just because a scientist says you are a scientist doesn't make you a scientist especially not when your reputation is to swoon over pseudoscience. jps (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources are perfectly reliable. David F Haight [4], for example, writing in an academic a book published by the University Press of America. What is you problem with him and the publisher? Barleybannocks (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The publisher? That's not who is the source. The source is the author and who the hell is David F. Haight? Why should we believe him? jps (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He's a highly respected academic (that's who he is), and he's writing in an academic book. That's the kind of thing Wikipedia rules regards as a reliable source. Thus Wikipedia believes him. We should also believe him because two other reliable sources say the same thing and the evidence that what they say is true has been presented numerous times on the talk page. For example, The Journal of Consciousness Studies, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, devoting an entire issue to Sheldrake's scientific work, etc, etc.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He is absolutely not a highly respected academic. He's a philosophy professor who is trying unsuccessfully to dabble in mathematics and science and promoting pseudoscience along the way. The Journal of Consciousness Studies is a pseudoscience magnet! It's laughable that you'd trumpet that as a standard of reliability. jps (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you sources for these defamatory attacks on Haight or is it all your own work? Likewise the appraisal of the JoCS Journal_of_Consciousness_Studies Barleybannocks (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, Barleybannocks! This isn't a discussion of Haight or of the Journal. This is a discussion of Sheldrake. That you chose poor sources doesn't need to be sourced. We can simply identify that these are poor sources because the Journal in question is poorly considered in the academic community and Haight is simply not a well-known academic who has, additionally, been documented to have supported pseudoscience. Since we aren't writing articles about either of those two subjects, your Russian-nesting doll demand for more sources is just plainly tactics and willful ignorance of the reality that people who believe in the magic of consciousness are considered pseudoscientific yammerers by the wider mainstream community. Now, we can get back to figuring out how to describe this calmly and fairly or we can continue the WP:GAMEs. I bet I know which one you're in favor of. jps (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You got nothing, let alone me. You made this into a discussion of Haight by asking why we should believe him. My answer was that he is a highly respected academic (I linked to his university page, which speaks of him in a very respectful tone). Your response was to attack a man you hadn't even heard of ten minutes ago. Thus, I am asking if there is any external source for the defamatory remarks you make about him, or whether they issue only from you, here, now.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Figure it out, you can stamp your feet in protest that Haight is awesome, but he's simply not a very good source for what you're trying to do. You can ask about sourcing on the talkpage for David F. Haight. jps (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Haight is awesome - haven't met the man. What I do know is that he is exactly the type of source, writing in exactly the type of source, Wikipedia requires, and that to reject him as a source we need a lot more than some apparently unfounded defamatory remarks thought up by an editor here in the last half hour. If you have sources suggesting Haight is untrustworthy for come reason then please cite them, if not, then just inventing more defamatory stuff to go along with the first batch is pointless.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

How it works is you suggested a source. I pointed out problems (obscurity of the author, problematic promotionalism, lack of expertise). You must provide us with some reason that we should use an obscure professor from a minor institution who doesn't have any degrees in scientific fields; the onus is on you to make your case. It's not my responsibility to provide you with sources proving unreliability. That's the silly Russian-nesting dolls sourcing. Are you going to question the sources I dig up about Haight? No... this is essentially WP:CHEESE at this point. Get better sources is the name of the game. Haight's a bad source. jps (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I suggested three sources + around 10 sources that demonstrated the truth of those sources, and you invented some defamatory stuff about one person/source you've never heard of (with no source, and no basis in fact for your invention), and then demanded we reject the sources because you shouted some invented bad stuff often and loudly. Let's at least tell it how it is.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You were the one who (problematically) chose Haight as your ace in the hole and then complained when I impeached the source. jps (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Parapsychology Source is Conflicting

In the lead section Sheldrake is described as a parapsychologist with two sources only. One source is a review of a lecture and does not claim Sheldrake is a parapsychologist, but just that he is now researching parapsychology, and the other source states specifically that Sheldrake is a well known biologist. If these are the only sources provided, they are vague and contradictory and should be either removed with proper ones supporting or the title of parapsychologist should be removed, as it's conflicting with primary and secondary sources. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think Sheldrake is if not a parapsychologist? jps (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake's belief in the possibility of telepathy follows directly from his theory of ontogeny. The man is a biologist, pure and simple, and that's how he's generally identified in secondary sources. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not how the study of biology works. jps (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

biologists do not study telepathy. parapsychologists study telepathy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not according to every source I could find, where there is no such academic position as "parapsychologist". At the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh University, there are no parapsychologists. Almost all the main staff are qualified psychologists. None of them identify as a "parapsychologist". The European Journal of Parapsychology, which was affiliated with the University of Derby, also included no staff that identified as a "parapsychologist". In related fields, such as consciousness research, the PEAR at Princeton University staff included aerospace scientists, psychologists, electrical engineers, and theoretical physicists. Again, not one identified as a "parapsychologist". The Division of Perceptual Studies at the U. Viginia also has staff qualified as psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors, and no "parapsychologist". There also appears to be parapsychology research in at least a dozen universities in at least 6 countries, at which I found one "psychophysicist" in Hungary. I could find no parapsychologists, though many academic qualified across the spectrum, who do research in parapsychology. --Iantresman (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Parapsychology researcher" would be acceptable. jps (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Sheldrake isn't or is a parapsychologist, jps (talk), but I do believe the two sources that are being used to justify a Wikipedia article do not make that claim and are improperly sourced. I do believe that Sheldrake believes himself to be a biologist, as well as a number of secondary sources. It seems like an extraordinary leap and extraordinary claim to contradict a primary and secondary source with something as flimsy as those two references. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake cannot be used as a source for promotional claims about himself. So you can just factor those out of your calculations for what we should call him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but we do begin by looking at a primary source and see if it's supported by secondary sources, and if so, use the secondary sources. The primary source is a guide, the secondary source is a reference. Since secondary sources support a primary source - it would appear we would need an extraordinary argument to up seat that. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that one of the sources [5] used for "parapsychologist" at no point refers to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist and instead refers to him as a "biologist", and yet it is used as a source for something it doesn't say and is not allowed to be used as a source for something it actually does say! Barleybannocks (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The actual term of art is up for grabs. Obviously, his stuff is categorically parapsychology. Whether that makes him a parapsychologist or not is semantics. jps (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And since it's semantics, it's confusing and contradicts primary and secondary sources which are not confusing at all. This matter is easily fixed - 'Rupert Sheldrake is an x, y, and z - notable for his concept of morphic resonance and his research into telepathy in animals.' 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The resolution described contributes nothing here: we should never call something scientific just to be nice. The issue here concerns contributors trying to reach a neutral draft despite strong differences in their own perspective. Any impermissible nastiness is only a side effect of the difficulties in doing so. I should emphasize that loaded terms like pseudoscience and parapsychologist need to be used only if well sourced, since they typically can only be determined post hoc. For example, it was long known that elephants could communicate with one another somehow over a distance of miles; then finally a researcher got involved who could hear the infrasound. If morphic resonance did turn out to be some kind of real thing, then the animal telepathy would be like the elephant telepathy. Otherwise, if it is not a real thing, people will say pseudoscience with confidence. I haven't done the reading to discuss the idea productively in relation to Sheldrake's publications, but some of the questions I've asked at the recently featured Talk:AdS/CFT correspondence may be related. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A fair point Wnt (talk). I believe the sources show, Rupert Sheldrake is researching 'claims' of unusual abilities in animals, such as homing pigeons or dogs that know when their owners are coming home. Investigating animal behaviors, even peculiar ones, would appear to be what biologists would do. I may be mistaken, I personally am not familiar too much with Sheldrake's work with animals, but his research is meant to show that the phenomenon of 'dogs knowing when their owners are coming home' is a bona fide phenomenon, not a claim that proves 'telepathy exists' or a claim that supernatural forces are at work. His theory may, or may not account for this phenomenon I have no idea, but to refer to him as a parapsychologist appears, on this page, as a way to discredit the man and present him as somewhat flakey. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And one of the sources (Bekoff) used to support "parapsychologist" at no point mentions "parapsychology", or "parapsychologist", and instead call him a "well known biologist". As I understand the arguments of those who want to use this source for "parapsychologist": Bekoff (a biologist) isn't well enough qualified to be believed when he calls him a biologist, but his article can be used to support "parapsychologist" because that's what some here want to say (Bekoff not saying it, and saying "biologist" instead, being of no consequence).Barleybannocks (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Psychedelics

I think this explains a lot [6] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that this may be part of the game. There are a number of academics who are interested in psychedelics who support similar sorts of "spiritualist" ideas. Sheldrake never was at the Esalen_Institute, but many of his supporters were and his ideas strike me as being very similar to those that are associated with that. On the physics end, the Fundamental Fysiks Group has a number of psychedelic promoters who adopt extremely similar ideas to those of Sheldrake. Whether he is simply feeding off of their support or is actively engaged with their idea of taking LSD before you work on research is hard for me to say. I'd like to see more sources on this. jps (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, did I say that Sheldrake was never at Esalen? That's not right: [7], [8], [9]. Hmm... the plot thickens. jps (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Ashram of Bede Griffiths publicly seem to prohibit the use of drugs (including Cigarettes and Alcohol) [10] Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rules posted in the 2010's do not necessarily reflect the rules and norms in the 70s. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should include details of Sheldrake's use/advocacy/interest in psychedelics, as long as accurate sources can be found. What we should avoid, however, is moralising on this point and/or trying to score rhetorical points by insinuation. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

the above is Sheldrake himself speaking, in a dialogue with a friend published by a major publishing house. i dont think you can get any more "accurate" than that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So what would you like to include in the article? At one point Sheldrake lived somewhere which prohibited the use of alcohol/tobacco. To what end?Barleybannocks (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

of course not. but something along the lines of Sheldrake believes the use of psychedelic drugs "can reveal a world of consciousness and interconnection" which he says he has experienced. (http://books.google.com/books?id=uCF5SBj0EmUC&pg=PA75&dq=Rupert+psychedelics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_xmjUtrOLsSEyAHJ74DwAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=snippet&q=%22Rupert%20%20I%20think%20that%20psychedelics%22&f=false) Voilà ! the essence of morphic fields.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Sheldrake quote, but your interpretation of its relevance is highly problematic. That is, we need to very careful here because, as I am sure you are aware, there is no mainstream view on psychedelic insights because with the exception of a only a few studies in recent years (which would be quite supportive of Sheldrake actually - eg, Rick Strassman, Roland Griffiths, and some work done in the 50s and 60s) psychedelic effects on consciousness have been completely off the scientific agenda for the last 50 years for legal reasons. Thus we should be very careful to avoid "war on drugs" moralising especially if it represented as some kind of informed scientific opinion.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

oops this was supposed to be in the section above

We have been over this. Blackmore calls him a parapsychologist. "He is scientific - to a point." She then goes on to say his science is wrong and that he refuses to acknowledge lack of evidence for his proposal. To take from Blackmore only the first three words is completely unacceptable misuse and misreading her work. And to do so repeatedly is WP:TE-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been corrected on this issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what Blackmore has to do with this issue. I know she has said that drug taking (cannabis) has been very beneficial to her thinking, but I don't think she has made this point in connection with Sheldrake, and/or his use of drugs, and/or psychedelics in general.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I feel VERY uncomfortable if this is used to frame the article one way or another. If Shelrake has published something on psychedelics or their usage, that's fair game. But to make an assumption that somehow 'This explains a lot' - is clear interpretation and personal research. If it does explain a lot, then it must also explain a lot about the success of the Apple Computer, or the discovery of the DNA molecule, or the success of Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. Please, no interpretations here. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we will need good sources on this if it is to be included. Let's see what people come up with. jps (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

PCR was also "discovered" by its inventor on LSD. People seem to forget that in the late 1950s and into the early 1970s, professionals from many different disciplines experimented with psychedelics in an attempt to gain insight into their work. This was legal into the mid 1960s. Furthermore, the connection between the dream state and scientific discovery is well established in the history of science literature, so this is nothing new or shocking. Legal creativity research in the late 1960s made use of psychedelics and this is covered in detail by many reliable sources. I'm not entirely sure what the consensus of the research results were, but I recall someone saying something along the lines of the drugs merely eliciting what the subjects already had in mind and allowing them to bring it to the surface. Huxley and others were opposed to Leary for this reason–they believed that only the most intelligent and accomplished could benefit from it, and it would be wasted on the unwashed masses. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As this 2012 article shows, managed use of psychedelics may have value:Psychedelic Drug May Have a Role in Psychotherapy This does not appear to be far out of line from Trpod's [11] reference.

I do hope you all include in the article that he was a druggie so that there will be no remaining doubt to the public that Wikipedia editors are doing all they can to smear Sheldrake's name. Tom Butler (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

because repeating Sheldrakes self admission of the relevance of Psychedelics to his concepts is somehow an attack? get fucking real. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

fixed that for you. let's be civil. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There are phenomena such as contact high and shared hallucination that are very much real, and quite interesting, so anything you can extract to help explain Rupert's ideas is worthwhile. (myself, I got a "restricted page" following that link - I gotta go spend an hour and write a proxy to put someplace, this is ridiculous) Wnt (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of edits

Please talk about each issue in turn. [12]

"sometime"

Rupert Sheldrake was a biologist. He no longer works in biology. The normal way to describe this is that he was a "sometime" biologist. There are others. We must be clear. jps (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is no longer a materialist. He continues to promote and call for testing of his formative model of the organism. However, that's beside the point. We're not here to impose our views. We're here to report how Sheldrake is described in secondary sources, and those sources overwhelmingly describe him as a scientist or biologist. If you can find sources that describe him as a one-time or former biologist, then we can include that perspective in the article. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly extremely controversial to claim that someone can be a scientist while not adhering to methodological materialism. Simply claiming someone is a scientist who denies this basic operational condition is not something that Wikipedia should do, IMHO. jps (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea we should ignore what reliable sources by the dozen say (biologist) on the basis of the potted philosophy of some editors here is ludicrous. There is a long debate to be had about the connection between materialism and science, but this is not the place. Suffice to say you are quite wrong on the issue in any event. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources that claim he is a currently active biologist are reliable, and the reliable ones that claim he is a "biologist" make no mention of whether he is actively working in the field. jps (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost every sources offered for this is reliable. And the demand that these should now note that he is currently working in the field is just another ad hoc attempt to reject dozens of solid sources in favour of your own opinions. Sheldrake is a biologist. Nobody outside this talk page disputes it, and many, many sources outside this talk page state it plainly. Thus the article should state it plainly too. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think "former" is preferable to "sometime", but his 35-paper pre-1987 academic career is not notable for WP:PROF and we should describe him in terms of why he's notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He's notable as a biologist. He's notable as the biologist who wrote a book that caused a stink and led to him being called the most controversial scientist on earth. And given that and the fact that a huge numbers of reliable sources call him a biologist, Wikipedia should too - your attempts to right what you see as a great wrong notwithstanding. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he's not really notable as a biologist. He's notable as a book writer. The book is related to his career in biology and we should figure out how to write this properly. "Former" biologist doesn't quite do it, though. He dropped out of biology to pursue his dream of what he thinks biology should be. I'm not sure how to succinctly describe that. jps (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he's notable as a biologist. It was his biology book being reviewed by Nature that led directly to his notoriety. Not only that, dozens of reliable sources call him that, including one that is so reliable it is currently used in the introduction to support something it doesn't say (parapsychologist) instead of what it actually does say ("well-known biologist"). So, just move the citation back a few words in the opening sentence to where the intro says "biologist" and that should take care of both problems - the incorrect use of the source for parapsychologist becomes the required source for biologist.[13]Barleybannocks (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You really aren't paying attention, it seems. The other editors dispute that he is notable as a biologist, and his previous career as such needs to be characterized in light of his notoriety for writing a book 'relevant to biology, but isn't a "biology book". jps (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I know very well that other editors dispute it here. But this dispute extends nowhere beyond this talk page. There simply is no such dispute in the wider world. That's why dozens of reliable sources call him a biologist and no reliable sources explicitly dispute it. Here's one that not only says he's a biologist but says he's a "well-know biologist" (ie, notable as a biologist). [14] Have you a problem with Marc Bekoff, or Psychology Today? If so then you should know the source is already used in the lede (it's number three).Barleybannocks (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Go into your local university's biology department and ask them their opinion of Sheldrake's baloney. To claim that the dispute is confined to this talkpage is ludicrous, and perhaps indicative of an extremely blinkered understanding of what is mainstream. jps (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is whether he's a biologist. And the answer is a resounding yes from dozens of reliable sources such as highly respected academics and highly respected academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals and mainstream high-quality media. This is the point there is no dispute about anywhere outside this talk page. Thus I will not address your attempt to change this very specific question into yet another debate about the veracity of his work (there, there obviously is a debate). Barleybannocks (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change the subject: we're trying to figure out how to appropriately describe Sheldrake. You claimed that Sheldrake is notable as a biologist uncontroversially. That's nonsense. Sheldrake is notable for writing something that essentially almost every biologist who looks at rejects. That is the sense in which we should describe him. Now how to do that is the issue. jps (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We're looking for how to describe in the first line of a BLP. Thus the dozens of sources that say "biologist" should suffice. Especially given there is nothing external to this talk page which explicitly questions this well-known fact.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, if we wrote, "Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist" as the first linke that would not be enough. jps (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

parapsychologist

Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychologist. We should be up front about that. jps (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

probably should be footnoted with one of the many sources that make that analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He is a biologist and parapsychologist. We should be upfront about both. Biologist is sourced to over 20 sources and I seem to remember sources were offered above for parapsychologist. Thus we should say both. At present though we have the ridiculous, and meaningless, suggestion that he is a "sometime English biologist". What does that mean - sometimes he's a French biologist, or a German one, or that he's only sometimes a biologist (ie, when he's not sleeping, or eating dinner). It seems to me, then, that in their desire to do down Sheldrake, some editors here are (unwittingly) making a mockery of Wikipedia with the introduction of farcical phrases. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternative suggestions that indicate that he was once this and now is that would be most welcome. jps (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Biologist" would appear to be the best choice. It is true, it is well-sourced (to dozens of sources), and it is completely in line with Wikipedia guidelines, policies and precedents. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't indicate that he is no longer doing research in biology. jps (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is firstly no such requirement, and secondly, even if there was, he meets it. He is still researching morphogenesis, for example. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked for a specific alternative. You don't have to respond if you don't agree to it. Also, Sheldrake hasn't published in a legitimate journal in decades, so he's obviously not doing meaningful work in biology any more. Credible journal publications are the currency of research. jps (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

scientific facts

The Law of Conservation of Energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion machines are scientific facts. I linked to the appropriate section so you can learn about that. jps (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have already learned quite a bit about it. In my experience, the common ways to speak of COE are as a "law" or "principle". There are dozens or hundreds of references to it as a law or principle, for example this one. It would be helpful if you could provide a reference or two defining COE as a "fact". I've tried, but I can't find any.

Until such references surface, one can look at the articles Laws of science and Scientific laws for information about these matters, as well as for specific references to COE. The article section on scientific fact is pretty non-specific, and doesn't mention COE. Maybe it's not such a good thing to link to, at least compared to the other two. Lou Sander (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the conservation of energy is a direct result from the observed time symmetry in nature makes the conservation of energy a fact if anything can be said to be a fact. [15] [16] [17] [18]

I'll leave you to find the thousands if not millions of other examples (these were just the few that took me seconds to locate). jps (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that energy is conserved is due to the principle of conservation of energy. Lou Sander (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that energy is conserved is due to physics conforming to reality. The principle, law, and fact of energy conservation is not an assumption: it is a feature of time symmetry. What you are saying/implying is as nonsensical as saying "the fact that 1+1=2 is due to the principle of 1+1=2". jps (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see a lot to be gained from a lengthy discussion of the exact nature of the law of conservation of energy. This is because the way the current introduction has it - "and advocates questioning the scientific facts of conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices" - is a gross misrepresentation of Sheldrake's overall view. That is, it is true in a sense, but it is only one tenth of the story and far from the most important tenth. If this is supposed to be a one line summary of Science Set Free then it is an awful attempt and should be changed to something more general that accurately covers the gist of what Sheldrake is saying. As it stands, it seems to me, it is just another example of Sheldrake's views being presented in the most unflattering light imaginable. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be that this particular tenth of Sheldrake's ideas are over-emphasized, but I see no alternatives being proposed that emphasize something else. If we're going to talk about his questioning/denial of the conservation of energy, we need to make it clear that he disagrees with a fact. jps (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One alternative would be to say he advocates questioning what he calls ten dogmas of science - dogmas which he feels have been elevated above the status of provisional knowledge to the extent that some claim they are facts which must not be doubted/questioned. It is also worth noting that some of the criticisms of Sheldrake reject his claim that scientists take these dogmas as facts - thus the irony of this discussion. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit head-spin-y, but there is an extreme consistency here that you seem to have missed. There is nothing, in principle, non-scientific about questioning basic facts. Question the facts of the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion all you want: that's not a problem. These are, perhaps, unfortunate ideas to start out with, though, and the motivation for why Sheldrake thinks these are reasonable things to be questioning is rather absurdly lacking to the point of it being mistakable for farce. I think this is why some people here think we are criticizing Sheldrake by pointing out this simple point that he advocates questioning facts even though there is nothing in principle wrong with questioning facts.

More broadly, I think Sheldrake's poor choice of questions may be related to his documented illiteracy in matters of physics. I somehow doubt that he would have said something like, "I think we should question the existence of the cell" on the basis of reasonable skepticism of microscopes(!). It's that level of absurdity we're talking about here with this rhetoric -- nearly to the point of a kind of middle school solipsism and protestations of 14 year olds that "we can't really ever know anything!" Still, in principle, there is nothing that is not up for grabs in our investigations of the Universe, so the critique that Sheldrake thinks there is no flexibility is certainly misplaced. The larger point that is perhaps more visible, however, is that you cannot question facts without first understanding why the facts exist. In the case of Sheldrake's streams of consciousness about energy and perpetual motion, it's pretty clear he is out of his element. Questioning the *fact* of the conservation of energy is fine (and de rigeur!), but he is not doing this in a serious way at all. There is a difference, of course, between being open-minded and letting your brain fall out. jps (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a place for your philosophical opinions in the article. Facts can't be amended; facts can be amended (but only if they're questioned seriously). If you have a non-contradictory non-your-own-opinion point about how we should improve the article I'd love to hear it.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

These aren't philosophical opinions at all. This is an evaluation of the sources you seem to have misunderstood. Try to keep up. jps (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between a fact, law, and principle. As someone who studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, Sheldrake will not only know the difference, but have used the term he felt was most appropriate. I can not think of any reason why anyone would want to force their own interpretation on what they THINK Sheldrake meant, or claim he said something different to what he actually wrote. There are enough book reviews on Sheldrake to use as secondary sources for use as interpretation and analysis. --Iantresman (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You claim that there is a difference, but don't show any sources that indicate that Sheldrake thinks there is a difference. And even if he does, he denies the fact of the conservation of energy, or, at the very least, advocates that it should be okay to question whether the conservation of energy is a fact. As I've said previously, I don't really care if we discuss the conservation of energy in the lede, but if we do, I'm not going to stand by while people construe it as a "principle" or a "law" simply because it makes it seem like it is easier to amend. Principles and laws can be amended. Facts cannot. jps (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironically Sheldrake would entirely approve of your statement. He brings up the issue on page 56 of Science Set Free, specifically disputing the "law of conservation of matter and energy" which "guarantees fundamental permanence in an ever-changing world." He argues that laws of nature are really habits that can be amended, and he applies this approach to conservation of energy among other laws. This is in stark contrast to the standard view, which holds that all laws of nature are immutable. Keep in mind that a fact, by definition, can be directly observed. Sheldrake isn't denying that the conservation of energy has been observed at various times in closed systems. He's denying the inference that conservation of energy must always be obeyed. What he disputes is the lawfulness of energy conservation, not the fact of this or that observation. (As an aside to jps, time symmetry follows from mathematical analysis, not observation. What we observe is time asymmetry, i.e. the forward movement of time. Only in the math is time allowed to flow backwards.) Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is not a physicist and so may not understand that questioning the conservation of energy is about as rigorous as questioning the idea that one thing added to another thing makes two things. It's that fundamental. He's questioning a basic fact. jps (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is clear that what he questions is the law inferred from observations of energy conservation, not the fact of those observations. We cannot list Sheldrake as a source for a claim he does not make. Incidentally, plenty of physicists, including heavyweights like Dirac, Wheeler and Feynman, have questioned the belief that laws of nature are eternal and immutable. In other words, what is factual today may not be factual tomorrow. See Lee Smolin's Time Reborn. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no facts in science so secure that they cannot be amended given further observations. That, I believe, is philosophy of science 101.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a shell game. Not philosophy. Competent philosophers do not claim that we can never know anything because everything is up for grabs. jps (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about doubting there are any facts. Some things are clear facts. But in discussions about philosophy of science, using words in a sloppy manner is not helpful, and there is no requirement for Wikipedia to engage in such sloppiness just so we can take a cheap shot at Sheldrake. That sentence needs to go, then, for a variety of reasons, not least because it is a hopeless summary of Sheldrake's actual point, as well as for the reasons highlighted just above. 21:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs)

Philosophy of science is irrelevant to the fact that energy is conserved. jps (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Principles, laws and facts, you acknowledge and state a difference in your last sentence, so I don't know why your make it my "claim". It is not for editors to provide sources that support interpretation from editors. If you want to imply that Sheldrake claims that physical facts can be broken, then the onus is on you to provide a source that says. I have not seen one. Indeed, if you want to say anything about Sheldrake and what he says about the Conservation of Energy, then tell us your source, and we'll all look over it. For all we know, he is discussing it in the same way that radioactivity was discussed, when scientists thought that it violated the law of the Conservation of Energy. [19] --Iantresman (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake questions the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy is a fact. Therefore Sheldrake questions the fact of the conservation of energy. The end. jps (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think some people will be able to repeat their same old inane refuted arguments over and over again and over again and over again and over again and then some more. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's exactly what jps is doing. Sheldrake questions the lawfulness of energy conservation, not the fact that it's been observed at various times. To attribute to Sheldrake a claim he does not make is to violate WP:Source. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I note this from the link to Isolated system from the definition in the Conservation of Energy page: "In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange... Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature... and they are thus hypothetical concepts only" (my emphasis). Thus, when Sheldrake argues that "perpetual motion" devices may work, he need not even dispute law of the conservation of energy to do it, and need only point out that there is no such thing in reality as a closed system. Thus he may be saying that we should investigate so-called perpetual motion devices to see if they work rather than just dogmatically dismiss them by illicitly treating them as closed systems (which are impossible). This also raises issues about the status/use of a purported scientific fact that cannot apply to, or have been observed in, anything we have ever encountered, or will likely ever encounter, in the history/duration of human existence. Thus such devices being ruled out a priori is possibly, for Sheldrake, the dogmatic misapplication of a law for a hypothetical system to a real/different type of system. Best just test the devices, then, says Sheldrake, to see if they do in fact work.Barleybannocks (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is silly nonsense. The extent to which the conservation of energy is a law is a fact of nature. The end. Crocodile tears over the impossibilities of "isolated systems" are not going to help rehabilitate Sheldrake's (or his supporters') illiteracy in matters relating to physics. jps (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of silly nonsense in this section. It is here for all the world to see. Lou Sander (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, a quote I'm seeing is “The universe is now like a perpetual-motion machine, expanding because of dark energy, and creating more dark energy by expanding... Skeptics claim that all these devices are impossible and/or fraudulent, and some promoters of ‘free energy’ devices may indeed be fraudulent; but can we be sure that they all are?” This isn't immediately guaranteed to be a pseudo-scientific statement, even though we know full well what the reputation of the "field" is now. I mean, what would happen if we did design a device that creates dark energy? (I'm not sure if this has any relationship with the equally controversial idea of extracting zero-point energy) If we ignore the invisible dark energy in our calculations, could we see it give the appearance of producing free power? (I think I should take this one to the Science Refdesk, actually - meet you there) Wnt (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Dark energy is a form of vacuum energy (essentially a false vacuum), so the stuff is unextractable in essentially the same way zero-point energy is unextractable with the added problem that the energy density of dark energy is impossibly small on human scales. jps (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So far the Refdesk discussion seems to have been that either we don't know what it is, if it exists, let alone whether we can extract it, or else that it is a mathematical abstraction to explain the cosmological constant. I'd welcome if you would comment further there (or here if you want). It is vacuum energy in the sense that it pervades what we know as a vacuum freely, but is its level truly invariable, or does it just happen to be pretty uniform? When you say it is a false vacuum (which our article doesn't address) that would seem to imply that there is a way to tap that energy after all, but how, when we know so little about it, do we know that you can neither create nor destroy it short of some cosmic catastrophe? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion may be a bit far afield, but basically it is "unextractable" in the normal sense (see work (physics)). The level may be variable (that's what quintessence is), but even if it is, it must take on a scalar form in the Einstein Equations to have the properties necessary to cause the accelerating universe. This basically prevents it from being extractable in even the remotely plausible sense (for example, as in an Alcubierre drive). The "tap into" the dark energy idea of a false vacuum would lead to an end to cosmic inflation with the attendant problems associated with that. If we were to, for example, create a true vacuum that decayed from the false vacuum in a lab or something, this would probably have the effect of destroying the universe at the speed of light. I don't think this is exactly relevant to this article, however interesting it may be. jps (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You know, it doesn't seem fair when professional physicists can talk about some mysterious hypothetical stuff, beyond our ability to test for, that might be a constant or a scalar and might rip the universe apart altogether or blow it up at the speed of light - but Sheldrake gets blasted as a pseudo-scientist for saying that we shouldn't give up looking for a way to detect it experimentally by making free energy. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

then you should lodge a complaint of unfairness with the peer review journals for their refusals to publish his work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor is it fair that students are taught by teachers who can't grok the difference between elementary descriptive terms. Lou Sander (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

complaints about the education system go thataway.=> Facebook -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, journals do publish his work. [20] I mean, the guy has been published in Nature.[21] True, it wasn't for science, but still, not everyone does. I fully understand the feeling against it, I really do, but there's a no true Scotsman aspect to saying that no "scientific" journal publishes the works listed about telepathy. Besides, my aggravation is not really directed at the journals who snub Sheldrake, more at the physicists who have wasted veritable days of my time on "dark energy" without me feeling like I have any sense that it has any meaning at all beyond "the universe keeps expanding, duh I wonder why". Wnt (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You want to learn the difference between perpetual motion and dark energy? Take a few classes. I can't help your ignorance on this website. I don't get paid nearly enough. jps (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

ITA

WP:ITA forbids us from using in-text attribution to imply that Rupert Sheldrake is only considered to be problematic in his claims by two isolated critics. We can mention what each critic says but, per WP:SUMMARY, we MUST describe the general reaction to him which is that he is promoting pseudoscience and generally nonsense. jps (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ITA is a guideline, it does not forbid anything. There is no problem including in the summary, that some scientists have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience. --Iantresman (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:VALID is a policy which ITA clarifies the application. How is the encyclopedia improved by ignoring the guideline's application of policy in this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Maddox source specifically says it's pseudoscience but that has been edited out. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is still there in the section "A book for burning?" (in the quote). I added it, and I don't know any editors who would want it removed. --Iantresman (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Only a few people have charged him with pseudoscience, which is tantamount to heresy. That's very different from widespread rejection of his claims, which is already in the article. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The people who have charged him with pseudoscience are those who are most able to judge, not being supporters of other known pseudoscientific endeavors, for example. jps (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Academic support

There seems to be this idea that Rupert Sheldrake has a small amount of "academic" support. I think what people are trying to say is that there are academics who have expressed support of Sheldrake. However, simply saying he has "academic support" can be confused for a claim that there is "academic work" in support of him, which there is not. The academics who have supported Sheldrake, almost to a name, have not done so in the usual places of academic discourse. There has been no Nature or Science article announcing the discovery of evidence for morphic fields. jps (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a small amount of academic work in support of him - more by physicists than biologists, as one source explicitly says. David Bohm, eg, has done some work with Sheldrake, and Stuart Hameroff acknowledged in the letter published in the Huff Post that he has made use of Sheldrake's work in the cutting edge theory of consciousness he has developed with Roger Penrose. We also have an entire issue of the Journal for Consciousness Studies (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) devoted to a discussion of his theories. Thus the article should deal with the mainstream academic/scientific support/interest and should mention the fact in the introduction. As things stand we have the article making the ludicrously skewed (and false) point that support for Sheldrake's work has come only from new age devotees. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you got citations for these Barleybannocks (talk · contribs)? Genuinely interested to see this scientific support. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we were discussing them yesterday in this section.[22] I believe this is now the fifth time you have asked me, and the fifth time I have provided them.[23]Barleybannocks (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Barleybannocks (talk · contribs). Which papers specifically support Sheldrake and provide validatory tests of his hypotheses? Or it this just more pathological science published in a journal that publishes highly speculative ideas? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the point here is that we have secondary sources stating that there has been support, and we have peer-reviewed journal issues devoted to his work, as well as positive discussion of his theories in academic books, and support offered for his theories in various places by a number of scientists and philosophers. The issue of some academic support is now therefore exceptionally well-sourced and demonstrated, even if some still think there is one hoop or other that needs to be jumped through. Secondly, the issue is not about whether his theories have been validated - they have not. The issue is whether there is interest in them and support for them from within academia. The answer to the last question is a clear yes, and therefore given it is all sourced it should be in the article, your arguments against his work, and the sources, notwithstanding.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any peer-reviewed journals of high quality. We'd like to see top journals in biology, physics, psychology, etc. That, so far, has not been forthcoming. WP:REDFLAG is, essentially, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The extraordinary claim that Sheldrake's ideas are taken seriously should be accompanied by extraordinary evidence in the form high-quality journals (since his contention is essentially Nobel Prize worthy if it is true). Since there is no evidence that Sheldrake has received such notice, we are under an obligation not to mislead the reader into thinking that such has occurred. jps (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That Sheldrake enjoys some academic support is in no way an extraordinary claim. Not everyone is committed to the materialist interpretation of the world. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake only receives support from those sympathetic to pseudoscience. If he had scientific evidence for his ideas, he would be published in the top journals and talked about. He doesn't, so he's not, and he has no support in the relevant academic disciplines. jps (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of edits 2

The RfC proposal has been archived; some text below has been lifted from it.

There are a significant number of sources that support intelligent design, some written by professors from respected institutions. Why doesn't the Evolution article mention that evolution has a rival called intelligent design that "enjoys a small handful of academic support"? According to WP:NPOV, shouldn't this significant minority viewpoint be expressed in the article? No, because ArbCom has decided that Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia with a scientific focus.

Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Intelligent design does have significance as a social phenomenon (it is mentioned in the Social and cultural responses section of the Evolution article), but it has no scientific significance.

It seems to me that the present conflicts with the Sheldrake article are solved by asking: What is the view of mainstream science? Is it the view of mainstream science that "morphic resonance" has some "academic support"? This is not the case. Is it the view of mainstream science that telepathy, "morphic fields", and the "sense of being stared at" are part of the field of biology? This is not the case either.

Playing source-counting games is poor practice. The article on Evolution was not informed by counting the number of reliable sources, in scorecard fashion, that either support or deny evolution. But even if we play these counting games, the claim that more sources call Sheldrake a biologist is a questionable one. By a ratio of 3 to 1, the number of Google Scholar hits of "Rupert Sheldrake" that mention neither "biologist" nor "biochemist" outnumber the hits that mention either "biologist" or "biochemist".[24][25] (The ratio is much higher for regular Google web hits, though these results are not as interesting.) Remember that this is only about what Sheldrake is presently called in the first sentence of the article. No effort has been or will be made to erase Sheldrake's position as a Cambridge biochemist until 1973, as described in the second sentence of the article.

Morphic resonance falls under

Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

The article should therefore contain this information and be so categorized.

Using in-text attribution of quotes from specific scientists to suggest that an idea is less marginal than it actually is in the scientific community runs afoul of WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL, which are part of WP:NPOV.

Repeated violations of the aforementioned ArbCom decisions -- which seems to have happened already -- should be taken up with Arbitration Enforcement (WP:AE). vzaak 05:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

vzaak, we do in fact have sources stating that Sheldrake has limited academic support. You appear to have removed those sources from the article along with the statement they supported. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. Please do not repeat this action. With the newly added sentence sourced to Gardner and Sharma followed by the one on Wolpert and Rutherford, there's too much anti-Sheldrake sentiment clogging his biography. It's unbalanced, and it won't stand. As to WP:PSCI, citing this here assumes that morphic resonance is pseudoscience, but we don't know that. It's certainly not the opinion of the overwhelming majority of secondary sources, most of whom refer to Sheldrake as a legitimate scientist even if they think his hypothesis is wrong. WP:GEVAL would apply only if we were discussing a mainstream scientific topic, as opposed to the biography page of the originator of a radical hypothesis. This is why the evolution article has no bearing on this discussion. Alfonzo Green (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the old citations are now gone, I should point out sources such as

Nature -- "former biochemist and plant physiologist at the University of Cambridge who has taken up parapsychology"[26]
Nature -- "parapsychologist"[27]
New Scientist -- "biochemist-turned-parapsychologist"[28]
New Republic -- "pseudoscientist"[29]

If the counting game is employed to argue that Sheldrake should be called a biologist in the first sentence instead of the second sentence, then I will point to the counting method above which favors the opposite. If we rightfully abandon the counting game and look to ArbCom principles, then we find the strongest and most prestigious sources representing mainstream science, in which case Nature wins. (Remember, again, that he's called a biologist in the second sentence.) vzaak 07:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You've clearly done the work to cite him as a parapsychologist according to sources, though a step of indirection analogous to the sources ("has taken up parapsychology") may still be appropriate. That does not, however, refute him as a biologist assuming there are some sources lying around for that. Just as a person can be a Muslim and a physicist, someone can be a parapsychologist and a biologist; there is (or should be) no loyalty test. Wnt (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Again with the circular discussion, so I'll put in the requisite comment. If he is a scientist, show us his scientific work. The publications, the criticism (meant in its classic sense) the collaborations, the citations, the discussions, the follow-up work, the other scientists in the field, the awards, the acclaim of peers etc. etc. I point you to the huge gaping and above all - empty - vacuum. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any peer reviewed journal articles, despite Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) noble but ultimately baseless attempt to pretend that pseudojournals are peer reviewed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please try to gain consensus for the edits. The arguments above are absurd. We have multiple reliable sources for each of the claims which, in addition, are clearly true. Removing this well sourced biographical information to do down Sheldrake is not appropriate for a BLP. If you have problems with the sources, then please explain what they are here. Barleybannocks (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The problems with your arguments. The first argument above above intelligent design and how it should feature in the evolution article is of no consequence here, because to continue the analogy, this is the article about ID and not evolution. Therefore it is wholly inappropriate to note in the article about evolution that ID has academic support. That is, it would be inappropriate to cite Sheldrake's academic support in the article on morphogenesis, but absolutely appropriate here. With regard to counting sources to see how many times he's called a biologist as opposed to not being called a biologist, so what? Unless Sheldrake changed his name to Rupert Sheldrake Biologist, it would be extraordinary for this word to appear every time his name does. I note you apply no such counting rule with regards to any of the other things you want to call Sheldrake and so this seems like an ad hoc criterion dreamed up to justify the exclusion of dozens of very reliable sources in favour of the opinions of editors here. Barleybannocks (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the repeated request for the evidence that Sheldrake's work has had some scientific impact in virtue of further work by other scientists, I will once again, eg, cite the fact that the peer-reviewed Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted an entire issue to the work of Sheldrake. This is a plain fact. And it, in addition to the other sources cited above about the interest in his work by, eg, David Bohm, and Stuart Hameroff, means the other sources that talk of a small degree of academic support are not only good enough to be included in virtue of being reliable sources making a claim, but also because the claim they make is obviously true. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted an entire issue to the work of Sheldrake in which it specifically DROPPED any formal peer review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true (source/evidence?), it still shows Sheldrake's work having generated interest within the academic community which is what the journal having done that was evidence for. There are also the numerous academic books, and the supporting articles/letters/reviews etc, all cited above, which demonstrates the truth of the claim that the three supplied sources state plainly: that Sheldrake's work has garnered a small amount of support from within academia (rather than simply being confined to new-age devotees as the article currently misleads the reader).Barleybannocks (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

[[30]] / beginning on page 8 "[http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf Given the situation described in the previous few pages, it was clear to me before I even read Rupert Sheldrake’s submission that if I submitted it to peer review under the usual conditions, it would be rejected. " ..."It was somewhat like the situation facing the editors some years ago over submissions to the parapsychology special issue of JCS. Had we held them to the same standards that apply in mainstream science, they would all have been rejected. Since the object of the exercise was to expose readers equally to parapsychologists’ and sceptics’ views of the field, and let them judge the merits of each side, such a result would have been self-defeating. So we agreed, on that one occasion, to allow certain assumptions and claims to stand that most in the scientific community would not accept, with the proviso that the parapsychologists were representing ‘the mainstream views of their community reasonably well’. Critiques by other parapsychologists served as an appropriate form of quality control, in the circumstances. In the present case I could not apply quite the same solution, because Rupert Sheldrake is a one-off and represents only himself. So the only alternative to outright rejection was to publish his work with open peer commentary to provide balance and criticism." The issue dropped its standard peer review because his work had not the slightest chance of passing through. AND identifies the ideas as even less accepted than general parapsychology, where they were able to put together a set of reviewers from the "mainstream of parapscychology" - Sheldrakes work does not have even that type of following. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the "peer-review" was published in the journal alongside Sheldrake's articles. secondly, and in any event, you seem to be confused about the claims being made here. The claim is not that Sheldrake's work was peer-reviewed in this particular instance in the normal way. The claim here is that the existence of the Journal issue devoted to Sheldrake, along with things like the editorial comment "The willingness of fourteen respected commentators to join this discussion of Rupert Sheldrake’s papers and offer a variety of reflections — most of them a robust mixture of criticism and encouragement...", shows some degree of support and interest from within the academic community. In that respect, then, it is just one more piece of supporting evidence demonstrating the truth of the point made in the three sources which you removed from a BLP because you don't like this fact being made known to readers.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What I dont fucking like and will not stand for is a misrepresentation in the article that presents Sheldrakes nonsense as having any measurable level of support in the mainstream academic community. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that mainstream academia supports his magic theories and requires extraordinary sources to be present to support such content.. And I dont fucking like is you making assumptions about what I fucking like. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is support as documented in multiple reliable sources. Thus, whether you like it or not is of no real consequence (I only mention it because that's what your argument appears to amount to and nothing more). I'd also be grateful if could refrain from the constant swearing at people, it doesn't make your arguments any better and it just raises the temperature here when we are only discussing the biography of a scientist - not some life or death issue.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not have extraordinary sources supporting the extraordinary claims, you have some off-hand comments cherry picked and being used out of context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It shows that 14 people were interested. Not even a negligible portion of the academic mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Easily enough, though, given the other sources, to show that there has been a small degree of support for Sheldrake rom academia - as was stated in the reliably sourced claim you removed from a BLP because you don't want people to find out about these facts.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

THERE ARE NOT EVEN ENOUGH SHELDRAKINS FOR THERE TO BE A "MAINSTREAM" SET OF BELIEVERS FROM WHICH TO PULL A PEER REVIEW TEAM FOR THE SPECIAL ARTICLE!!!!!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You still miss the point. The point is that we have solid reliable sources which say Sheldrake has received a small degree of support from within academia, and we have incontrovertible evidence of the existence of that support. Thus, there is no reason, other than you don't like this fact, to exclude it from the article about Sheldrake. It is clearly relevant, and clearly necessary to the accurate portrayal of the man and his work (which is, after all, what an encyclopaedia article about the man and his work should aim to be). Barleybannocks (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep up your WP:TE pushing to suggest there is any measurable level of academic support and you are headed for AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out what reliable sources say. That's the gold standard on Wikipedia. Even more important in a BLP. As for measurable - it is a small degree, which is well sourced and obviously true. No one is trying to pretend the mainstream scientific community has endorsed it - it hasn't. But it has garnered a small degree of interest and support as noted in the sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

to pretend that the dozen or so people identified are a measurable enough even identify as a "small set of followers" particularly in the lead is a gross and unacceptable misrepresentation . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, regarding intelligent design it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the Evolution article or the intelligent design article. Both articles must reflect the ArbCom principles above. But taking your point anyway, the article on intelligent design does not have words in the lead to the effect of "intelligent design enjoys a small handful of academic support", despite the significant number of sources that support intelligent design, some written by professors from respected institutions.

Arbitration principles and arbitration enforcement were designed to address this very situation. For an idea that falls under generally considered pseudoscience, repeatedly attempting to subvert that designation goes against arbitration principles and should trigger arbitration enforcement. vzaak 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, you couldn't be more wrong. Here's why: if what you say is true then we should give Sheldrake and his views the same amount of space in this article as he/it gets in the article on morphogenesis. But if we did there would be no Sheldrake article at all. That is, we would have an article about Sheldrake and his work that doesn't mention Sheldrake and his work. That's a ludicrous idea and it shows how wayward your reading of policy is. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) None of the sources above stating "former biochemist" "parapsychologist", etc, are peer-reviewed. The Maddox quote calling Sheldrake's work "an exercise in pseudo-science"[31] is also not peer-reviewed, and neither are any of the sources calling Sheldrake's work pseudoscience, except Rose in Riv. Biol./Biol. The point is that peer-review is not essential for a view to be described.

(2) While the Journal of Consciousness Studies did not peer review Sheldrake's article before publication, it subjected them to public "open peer review" after publication, where 14 people acted as referees, instead of the usual two. The journal did not "drop formal peer reviewed", it used a different peer review process, "open peer review".

(3) WP:DUE tells us that "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint .. these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". Undue weight has nothing to do with how much space we give views, but how we use prose to frame them. --Iantresman (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. The "open peer review" in that special issue is as much pseudo peer review as morphic resonance is pseudo science. ie. 110%. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's clearly your opinion, but the scientific status, or at the very least the arguably scientific status, is supported by reference to dozens of reliable sources. in any event, again you miss the main point, which is that this Journal issue demonstrates the truth of the well-sourced claims about academic (nothing about peer-reviewed) support that you removed from a BLP because you don't want readers to know about these facts. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Even Nature has trailed "open peer review", who do not share your views.[32] --Iantresman (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

show me a source that says the "open peer review" in the Sheldrake JoC issue is anything but a sham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, I'm trying to understand your above comment, but I'm honestly unable to do so. To revisit the overall point, we may document the curiosity and social support that Sheldrake attracts, but this does not amount to scientific support for morphic resonance, which is what "academic support" suggests. We may also include responses to what some consider over-reactions, for instance even Sheldrake's nemesis Steven Rose expressed dislike of the book-burning reference. vzaak 15:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, we have three reliable sources stating plainly that there is a small degree of academic/scientific support for Sheldrake's ideas - specifically, in the case of the three sources in question, morphic resonance. Thus it doesn't matter one iota if you disagree - the sources are what (should) count here. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the degree of academic support for Sheldrake's morphic resonance is similar to the number of people who call it pseudoscience? Is that a small degree, or is that more significant? --Iantresman (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's non-existent. Let's stop trying to pretend otherwise. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it does exist. And its existence is noted in multiple reliable sources. Thus we have both the claim (well sourced) and the evidence the claim is true. By contrast, against these sources we have your very poor argument. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Can you guess where this is headed Barleybannocks (talk · contribs)? I ask you for peer reviewed sources. You complain about having answered this question before and produce a list of "supporters", thus failing to address the question), and point to a very small number of articles in some psuedojournals. We point out they aren't peer reviewed. You try to argue that they are, and fail, but always must have the last word, because the person who says the last word wins regardless of whether or not what they said was insightful. Right? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered who gets the last word. On Wikipedia, the last word should really go to the sources, and we have multiple reliable sources that are being excluded from a BLP because you and others don't want readers to know the facts they detail about the subject of the article and his work. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted an open peer reviewed issue to Shreldrake's work[33] that included contributions for academics. I know of no source that suggests this is a "pseudojournal". Unfortunately I don't have access to their papers, so can't assess them. I suggests that Rose is one of the only peer-reviewed papers that suggests his work "has many of the characteristics of such pseudosciences"[34] (refuted by Sheldrake)[35], but do we have any more peer reviewed sources that suggest his work is either pseudoscience of rejected? --Iantresman (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, there are many more sources supporting intelligent design than morphic resonance, so why doesn't the article on intelligent design mention in the lead that "intelligent design enjoys a small handful of academic support"? According to WP:NPOV, this significant minority view must be expressed, right? Please review the ArbCom principles above and think about those questions. vzaak 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I should emphasize again that Sheldrake certainly has support from those disillusioned with the current state of science -- New Agers, even some scientists, etc. -- and the article should certainly mention that. This is distinguished from the scientific support for morphic resonance, for which there is none. The Adam Lucas article you are touting says that "the actual 'scientific' response" to Sheldrake's work "has been virtually zero", which is exactly the point. vzaak 16:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On ID: it's unclear whether there are mainstream sources which say ID has garnered a small degree of academic support (we have three such sources for Sheldrake). It's also, as a movement with prominent proponents almost all from academia, not so clear such a point needs to be made, not so clear there are any outside the movement itself. Neither are the scientific credentials of its proponents being suppressed the way Sheldrake's are. All in all it's a completely different article subject and what goes for one need not go for the other. Nonetheless, while were in 'let's compare articles' mode, I note that Sam Harris is an American author, philosopher and neuroscientist. Academic philosophy posts/qualifications? Neuroscience posts?

On New Age devotees only, that's yout opinion about everyone who supports him, but it's not at all clear it's true by any stretch of the imagination (eg, Paul Davies to name but one we have a source for). Re Lucas, you're twisting the source. The source says there has been virtually zero in the way of government funded research efforts, but clearly states in numerous places a small degree of support from scientists and other academics.

One might also say that the article currently gives the impression that the scientific community have rigorously examined Sheldrake's theories in the normal scientific manner when nothing is further from the truth. That is, Sheldrake's ideas have been rejected largely a priori. The article should, imo, make this distinction lest people think that the critical views are actually the result of the scientific method as opposed to what is largely armchair criticism. Many sources make something like this point. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. I said "New Agers, even some scientists, etc.", which you transmogrified into "New Age devotees only". I was in fact referring to Davies, Gribbin, etc. there. I also said that should "certainly" be mentioned. Again, this is distinguished from scientific support for morphic resonance, for which there is none.

Re "rigorously examined Sheldrake's theories", this kind of argument has been brought up many times on this talk page. There are no research grants awarded to determine if something is pseudoscience. In some cases people have come close to demanding that a vote must be convened among all the scientists in the world in order to determine whether something is pseudoscience. If that were the case then nothing could be called pseudoscience.

Please review the ArbCom principles above, and it can't hurt to read WP:ARB/PS as well. Repeatedly subverting the status of morphic resonance as generally considered pseudoscience should cause sanctions. Arbitration enforcement was tailor-made for this problem. vzaak 17:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the text that way removed from the article was "academic support" and not "scientific support". I have no objections to changing this to "garnered some support from scientists and academics". With regard to "new agers" versus "new age devotees" I doiubt there is much difference. Secondly, it also seems highly disingenuous to be talking about people like Brian Josephson (a physics Nobel Laureate), Paul Davies and John Gribbin as New Agers. Their articles make no such claim. Unsure why we should portray them in that way in this article. Finally, it's also made more disingenuous by following up the false claim with the quote from Deepak Chopra, the "new age guru", about religion that refers to nothing discussed in the body of the article except the repetition of that quote. Hardly a suitable point, then, for the lede.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, what? I guess you misinterpreted my statement that tried to undo your misinterpretation. I was taking umbrage that you transmogrified "New Agers, even some scientists, etc." into "New Age devotees" not because of the distinction between "New Agers" and "New Age devotees" (hardly any), but because you clipped the "even some scientists" part. I was not saying the scientists were New Agers. Those are separate things. New Agers. Scientists. This misinterpretation is frankly weird to me.

The Chopra point is weird to me as well, since it's a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation. The addition of Chopra's support to the lead was seen as positive. This is the first time I've seen it called "disingenuous". I don't know what that means in this context. Similarly, the addition of the "Notes" section was considered very good by all parties, but now is a "cheap shot". vzaak 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, until "scientists" is in the article rather than only on the talk page, and until you stop removing it and replacing it with "new age" only, every time someone adds it, it seems disingenuous to claim that your view supports/takes account of this fact. That is, in this case your actions on the article speak much more loudly, and much more clearly, than your words on talk. Re Chopra, who would you rather have as your supporter - a Nobel LKaureate in Physics or a "new age guru". And following on from the point about his support being new age only, it's clear what the insinuation is here. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, what? When did I replace "scientists" with "new age"? And I did so repeatedly? And you are really accusing me of calling Paul Davies a New Ager? This is all extremely weird, and I advise you to stop making unfounded allegations and start focusing on the article. vzaak 19:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, this edit here [36] is where you most recently removed from the introduction the well-sourced mention of academic support for Sheldrake and retained only the false claim that his support has only come from the new age movement. It's also the edit where you removed the extraordinarily well-sourced fact that Sheldrake is a biologist.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not replacing "scientists" with "new age", and you haven't told me about the repeated times. In any case, please drop the accusations and focus on content, not individuals. As is well-explained above, "academic support" is misleading, which was why it was removed. In our discussion here, I've already indicated that it may be fair to mention support from individuals like Lovelock (who doesn't necessarily think morphic resonance is real but seems to appreciate Sheldrake's general outlook), as distinguished from the non-existent scientific support of morphic resonance. It's only a matter of deciding how to do that appropriately. vzaak 20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's removing all mention of any academic support (including that of scientists) and replacing it with the claim that his support coming only from those in the new age movement. That is, you know Brian Josephson, David Bohm, Paul Davies, and others have offered some support for Sheldrake's idea, and you know the sources that you removed from the article were referring to this scientific/academic support (or did you remove them without reading them or the extensive discussion about them above). Thus, in the context of this discussion, it's very clear what I was referring to (the section is about your edits after all): it is you removing, regularly, any reference, however well-sourced, which gives any indication of support for Sheldrake from non new age devotees. If you took me to be saying you were going through the article replacing the word "scientists" with "new age" then I apologise for any confusion. My point was about your removal of multiple reliable sources from the article referencing Sheldrake's academic support - sources which show your favoured version to be false. I trust all is now clear. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - you are right, and wrong. It is probably a fault to characterise all Sheldrake's supporters as new agers, and this should be avoided. However, your insistence that there is academic support for Sheldrake's key idea is just very, very, wrong. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney, you appear not to be able to distinguish me from multiple reliable sources. It's not my insistence, it's what's written in those sources. Three different sources all saying effectively the same thing. And when we check the world, we see it matches their description of it in this respect (thus Bohm, Davies, Josephson, Bekoff etc). An thus we have the phrase "a small degree of academic support" to summarise this important point in an encyclopaedic manner. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - I can easily tell "you" apart from a handful of poor quality and therefore irrelevant sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

One of them is already used in the article, perhaps you should remove it if you really believe it's not up to Wikipedia standards. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, after all this discussion it's still not clear whether you understand the reason for removing "academic support". At least you seem to continue arguing as if you don't understand. This is particularly apparent in your saying that my reference to "actual 'scientific' response" in the Lucas article was twisting the source. Government-sponsored research is exactly the kind of thing which would indicate that morphic resonance is being taken seriously. Any kind of significant research with scientific articles in mainstream journals would do, actually.

We have to make the distinction between (a) actual, nonfictional, impactful scientific support for morphic resonance and (b) Ecologists and Templeton-prize-winning physicists who unsurprisingly liked Rebirth of Nature. If (a) were true then Sheldrake would be one of the greatest discoverers in the history of all humankind. We have to distinguish between (a) and (b). Do you understand why that is important? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just want to get everyone on the same page here. vzaak 23:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So you think "a small degree of academic support" surrounded by lengthy caveats including terms like "pseudoscience" and immediately preceded by "Sheldrake has received a largely critical, even derisive, reception from the scientific community" will leave anyone thinking "Sheldrake would be one of the greatest discoverers in the history of all humankind". Seriously? Not sure which page you're on. Not sure which book.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You've failed to gain consensus for any version thus far. Time to work productively with those whose views are not your own, or drop the stick. If you have not done either within 7 days, I will ask for a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, where's the consensus for the current version? There is none. And I'm not the only one who objects. There are three here who object (and there's only three because most of the other neutral editors claimed they were were bullied off the article). Secondly, just so I can be sure about Wiki policy: how many editors' opinions does it take to override multiple reliable sources? Barleybannocks (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake has been the victim of a vicious and sustained attack. So I guess the witch hunt against those who would treat him fairly on Wikipedia shouldn't be any surprise. Alfonzo Green (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since cutting and pasting my previous responses would seem rude, I had taken the liberty of using inventive phrases to describe the same thing. Sheldrake being "one of the greatest discoverers in the history of all humankind" is a stand-in for morphic resonance having no scientific support. It is yet still unclear whether or not the basic point has been successfully communicated. Do you understand that the scientific status of morphic resonance should not be misrepresented? vzaak 02:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is forcing an absolutely black/white distinction onto things. Consider: Sheldrake's ideas have zero support from scientists and nobody thinks any aspect of them is any good; Sheldrake's ideas have garnered some support from a few scientists but only in a very limited sense; Sheldrake's ideas have garnered some support from some scientists who think some aspects of what he is saying may prove valuable; Sheldrake's ideas have garnered some support from scientists who think his work will be ground-breaking; Sheldrake's work has garnered moderate support from scientists even though they feel the idea lacks evidence at present; and then 100 more along the way before we get to, Sheldrake's ideas are universally accepted and he is considered a giant of science. Now, if the only options are the first and last, then the last is nearer to the mark, but we are not confined to those options. We can pick the most appropriate from a spectrum of possible views. Thus the situation we actually have regards Sheldrake seems to me to be between the second and third option offered above. And a similar spectrum of views is possible for both the psuedoscience/science question, and the question of support, or lack thereof, for Sheldrake even by those who think his ideas are probably wrong. No need for the article to misrepresent any of this by enforcing false dichotomies and then picking a winner and only allowing that one viewpoint to feature.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

From the sidelines, I have seen no consensus for any edits to the article in a long, long time, if ever. I HAVE seen a lot of name calling, condescension, bullying, questioning of sources, etc. that impede any progress toward consensus. There is absolutely none of "I propose this edit; what do people think?", followed by polite rational discussion and formation of consensus. Lou Sander (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lou. It would be nice if Sheldrake supporters would stop this type of thing --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a time limit?

Somehow the above has gotten kind of heated, discussing his recent non-scientific publications. The question I'd ask is, is there any kind of support for the idea of a "former" biochemist? Has someone set a time limit where his status expires? Is there some rule that says he can only say so many outrageous things before they throw him out? Because I'm not aware of any such, the point as it stands now is that he is a biochemist who publishes (according to some good sources) about parapsychology. That's not a contradiction. A person can believe much crazier things than that, even common religious dogmas, and still remain a scientist. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is 30 years not long enough for you? Moreoever why would we choose to deliberately mislead the reader? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

But Barney, dozens of reliable sources contradict your non-sourced opinion about Sheldrake's status as a scientist (it's over 25 sources at my last count - zero explicitly against). The zero against being hardly surprising since no such distinction exists in the wider world. The distinction, and the arguments, being entirely limited to this talk page. I think this explains Wnt's perplexity at the things he is seeing here.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, there are several that identify him as a confirmed former botanist. We've told you why newspaper editors go for 1-word descriptions, we have a little bit more room to be accurate. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources?Barleybannocks (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are straying into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Now would be a good time to cease this obdurate refusal to demand proof of the obvious majority view to your satisfaction. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It will all be settled before the WP:DEADLINE. Sheldrake fans of course want is to please him 'right now but that won't happen. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"We've told you why newspaper editors go for 1-word descriptions, we have a little bit more room to be accurate." Ummmmm, isn't that kinda the opposit of our WP:RS policy and more akin to the folly described in our WP:TRUTH essay? I'm just sayin'. David in DC (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The subject of "Sheldrake fans" or, less politely, "fanbois" keeps coming up. One wonders how a person identifies a Sheldrake fan. Lou Sander (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Its easy, they're the ones that think he's a scientist. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This polarization is unnecessary. I mean, consider something like his current Ten Dogmas claim that "Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or physical. There is no reality but material reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Evolution is purposeless. This view is now undergoing a credibility crunch." Why doesn't he deserve fair credit for calling out the mainstream on its own pseudoscientific beliefs? The fact is, there's not one bit of evidence, anywhere, explaining why chemical reactions in a brain matter more than chemical reactions in a stale beer. That's not to say the two are the same, but ... we don't have a theory to explain it. And if we don't have a theory to explain it, why be in such a rush to shut somebody up who wants to maunder on about it? Maybe he'll hit on something interesting. There's a balance between creativity and rational thought, and he's got it turned up more than a bit high, but you never know. There are people who play Lotto - I'd rather listen to stuff like this now and then and see if anything sticks out. Wnt (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he does have something. But you know what, you can bet on his crazy ideas maybe coming up with something but I am going to bet on the actual scientists. But neither of our beliefs have anything to do with the article. What matters there is that we WP:VALIDly represent what the mainstream academics think (and they are placing their bets with me)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I just think it will improve the tone here if people remember that he doesn't have to be biologist or parapsychologist, and his ideas don't all have to be uniformly pseudoscience or science or something in between. We should be sure to feature both commentary that is positive and that is negative wherever both exist, without choosing between one and the other. Wnt (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:VALID again. what we need to do is show how his ideas are received by the mainstream academia- as a hot gooey mess.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and that can be dealt with in about one hundred rather than thousands of words. There is nothing that says we have to devote almost the entire article to critical commentary, nor that we need to try to demonstrate, rather than merely state, the view of the mainstream. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what would be the benefit to the encyclopedia or the reader not to present the full picture? I have never seen an article where the goal of the editing team was to make the article less informative.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be representing the full picture. It would be representing, eg, the mainstream view by describing the mainstream view accurately and succinctly (thus leaving no reader in doubt and leaving some room for Sheldrake) rather than by merely re-enacting the most hostile reactions over and over again to the point where the subject of the article barely features (thus leaving the reader hopelessly uninformed about the real subject of the article). Barleybannocks (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

HUH? how the fuck is providing LESS information about how the mainstream views the proposals as complete hooey and why they do presenting the FULL picture???? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting you do that. But the first editing I did on the article was to get rid of the 'Notes' section, which was an unnecessary copy of those arguments. Even so, what I left behind was still just another duplicate section in the sense that every single reference was of the <ref somename /> format. We really could get rid of some of that; much of the time in these articles it is sufficient to cite a source one time in one place, suck all the content we want from it right there in a couple of sentences, and move on. By all means, cite every source that says his arguments are flawed but you don't have to hit us over the head with it. Wnt (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - we are not asking for "one hundred" "thousands" of words. We are asking for about four; "author", "parapsychologist", "former" and "biologist", or suitable and appropriate variations thereon. You want to use a single word which misrepresents both (1) what he's notable for and (2) endorses his activities as scientific. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't want to use a single word. I'm happy with "biologist, parapsychologist and author" because the first and the last are exceptionally well sourced and the middle term can, I believe, be well-sourced although the sources have not yet been provided. Anyway, on the point of this discussion, it's about the appropriate way for an article about a particular subject to be structured. If you have any comments on that then there is space below for them. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I fear my comments will be better received and better in line with policy than yours Barleybannocks (talk · contribs). But anyway, you don't want to use the word "former". Let's get to the heart of this matter - why is this? Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it's largely without a source or is poorly sourced (the sources I've seen are in some cases making a slightly different point, eg, "former Cambridge biologist", and others can't be read so we don't know what's in them), whereas "biologist" is massively well sourced (we have dozens already, form every conceivable kind of source, and it's not too much of a stretch to think 100 could be produced if necessary). For example, "Rupert Sheldrake, (a) biologist" gives 126,000 hits on Google whereas "Rupert Sheldrake, (a) former biologist" returns zero. Rough and ready I grant you, but nonetheless... Barleybannocks (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Another search for "Rupert Sheldrake" returns 684,000 results - what is your point? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is clear: Wikipedia shouldn't be about the only source in the world that describes Sheldrake in this singular fashion.Barleybannocks (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean apart from the others that do so, which Vzaak (talk · contribs) has pointed out? This is surely the most egregious case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU around, don't you think Barleybannocks (talk · contribs)? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources I have seen so far cited are either unsupportive (at best ambiguous) inasmuch as they say "former biologist/biochemist at Cambridge" or "former Cambridge biologist", which suggests that "former" is as much, or possibly more, about him being no longer associated with the institution (Cambridge University) in that capacity than it is about him no longer being a biologist. And when this is contrasted with the literally dozens of sources that say "biologist" there seems no reason, none given so far, to make Wikipedia the only googleable source that uses this singular phrase with regard to Sheldrake and being a biologist. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A reminder

For something to be included in the article it must be:

verifiable
Supported by reliable independent sources.

To be included in the lede, it must also be judged to be significant by those sources.

A few scientists support morphic resonance, that is true and can go in the article. If you want the fact that a few people support it to go in the lede, you need a reliable independent source that not only says it, but says that it is a generally accepted fact that a few scientists support it.

That's all you need. A reliable independent source, of recognisable stature, that makes the claim that minority scientific support is a significant fact. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since as you say, "a few scientists support morphic resonance", and this is, by your own admission "true and can go in the article", and since others above have been disputing this or days after sources were provided with all sorts of tortuous arguments, perhaps you should caution them rather than me. Also, with regards your second point about a source saying something is significant, where does that requirement come from? It certainly doesn't seem to apply to any of the other things in the lede. Is this part of some policy or guideline? The point under discussion would seem to be clearly significant, no? Barleybannocks (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE it is inappropriate to present as a major aspect of Sheldrake the very remote and minor "support" he has received from a very small handful of actual scientists in the mainstream by calling it out in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As TRPoD points out, the issue is not whether it can go in the article, but whether it can go in the lede as you insist. I have shown you how to persuade people, now all you need to do is produce the required sources. Or, you know, drop it. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The lede is a summary

Arguably, putting references in the lede is not a good idea. The references should be in the article and the lede, like the abstract of a paper, should be a summary of the article. Putting references in the lede is not objectionable, per se, but it is poor form to argue that every sentence in the WP:LEDE should be cited. As long as there is a citation in the body of the work, we're up to snuff. jps (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Things that should be in the article

I note from Roszak's review [37] (second paragraph), that on the publication of A New Science of Life, "many" scientists took an interest in Sheldrake's ideas and proposed/ran experiments to test the idea, including New Scientist which "sponsored a contest, offering a prize, to anyone who could devise a solid, empirical test to prove or refute Sheldrake." The results were all apparently "inconclusive". This seems a fairly important point and I think it deserves mention in the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The more recent views of those who at the time "took an interest in Sheldrake's ideas " This analysis was far from clear-cut and the results did not, in my opinion, support the theory. Nor have results since then. Any use of dated content must be placed in its current context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about Rupert Sheldrake and his ideas. One notable fact about Sheldrake and his ideas is detailed in my post above. This is not a point about the validity of his views or otherwise but simply a noteworthy thing that happened. That is, a major scientific publication ran a competition and offered a prize relating to testing a theory of his. The article should mention this fact. It should probably also mention the fact that the Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted an entire issue to his work. Again, this is an interesting and notable aspect of his professional life and as such should be mentioned in the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That there was "interest" when it first came out and the "interest" has morphed to skepticism with the lack of actual evidence might be appropriate. Anything else is misrepresentation.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And since this is an article about Sheldrake and his ideas, and is not confined to stuff that happened in the last few years, we can and should note notable things that have happened throughout his (working) life. New Scientist running a competition, and the Journal of Consciousness Studies devoting a whole issue to his work, are clearly notable events from his life and thus suitable for inclusion in this work-focused biography. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, the "interest" that may have existed, MUST be placed in appropriate current context. Yes he may have caused a stir, but that has passed and there has been no swell of support or more specifically no actual science supporting it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well we can quite easily frame some of these sections in those terms. But the point stands that these are important events and should be covered in his biography. No need to turn everything into a black/white overloaded discussion about the truth or otherwise of Sheldrake's work to the point that basic facts about it are kept out of the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There are hints of this in the sources, there appears to have been some kind of competition run in New Scientist. However, NS doesn't have online archives from this period, so it'll have to involve library work. Are you up for that? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to say a tremendous amount about it. There are various sources which mention it and Blackmore says a bit more about it in her Guardian article (she mentions the winner and discusses the findings and her take on them). Barleybannocks (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the reason we "dont need to say a tremendous amount about it" because according to the participants "the results did not, in my opinion, support the theory. Nor have results since then. " ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I already noted Blackmore's summary, and I think that it, with attribution, should be included alongside the facts she cites, such as the existence of the competition, it's nature and, I think, the winner. The reason for not going into too much detail is partly the difficulty of tracking down all the stuff from 30 or so years ago, and partly the nature of a general biography.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)