Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

Comment by Tumbleman

Wiki policy is pretty clear on this issue - when dealing with subject matter that may be considered fringe both sides of the story must be presented without bias and with a neutral POV. There is absolutely no reason for wiki editors to determine the value one way or another to any hypothesis in the TALK section. Whether his hypothesis is BS or not, it's not our place to say. Since Sheldrake's ideas have made a notable controversy for over the past 20 years, it is reasonable that this controversy is presented without bias and with notable references that summarize the environment.The Tumbleman 23:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleman (talk • contribs)

Sheldrake is a notable figure in science for the notable controversy he has caused over the years with numerous articles, conferences, debates and even television specials and documentaries detailing on the matter and this goes back over 30 years. TEDx is the most recent historical example and caused a degree of controversy for TED, prompting TED’s Chris Anderson to later retract many of the claims against Sheldrake’s talk by TED Scientific Advisory Board, stating publicly “Some of his questions in the talk I found genuinely interesting. And I do think there’s a place on TED to challenge the orthodox. Maybe I’m expecting too much for this forum, but I was hoping scientists who don’t buy his ideas could indicate why they find them so implausible.” As this is notable in the history of sheldrake's career, I will be resubmitting shortly within the neutrality guidelines of wikipedia. The Tumbleman 23:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleman (talk • contribs)

The Tumbleman 23:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

article is plagued with bias either for or against both ways. just as many proponents of sheldrake as their are those with negative bias here. we can do better guys. the whole point is to be neutral and provide a complete history of notable individuals that detail notable events in their careers.The Tumbleman 23:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, in your initial comment on this page you had added to an obsolete section which referred to an older version of the article. It was bad timing that during the archiving process you had edited other sections, so I copied those. Appending to sections that are 3+ years old is confusing since there's no correlation with the current article. Vzaak (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak - are these talk archives available anywhere? odd timing indeed. Does this suggest that this is now the only current talk on the article? The Tumbleman 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleman (talk • contribs)

Thanks Vzaak!The Tumbleman 00:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleman (talk • contribs)

This is now article's talk page. There's a "search archives" field above, and the numbers next to it correspond to pages. The last archived page is 4. Something's wrong with your signing situation. I guess you removed the link to your user page in your signature, causing SineBot to think you're not signing. Vzaak (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Yes I noticed this too and will look into this problem. thank you."The Tumbleman 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, please add new comments below previous ones. And please read the guidelines at the top of this page. Vzaak (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

yup The Tumbleman 16:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that on wikipedia WP:NPOV does not imply treating different viewpoints as equal, or creating a false balance. We put fringe views into perspective with respect to the mainstream, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written in the point of view of a purely scientific mainstream context, however nor is this a peer reviewed journal. That is not the editing voice of Wikipedia. This page is not about Sheldrake's hypothesis, it's about his biography of which his hypothesis has played quite a significant role. Wiki policy is clear that subject matter must be *notable*. Fringe policy by Wiki is also clear - it is important wikipedia not give attention to *insignificant* works. I think you assume 'fringe' means something it does not and your voice sounds a little biased here. Sheldrake has a career of responding to his critics and publicly requests them to review his evidence and reasoning in conference, public debate, written works, and interviews. There have been television specials on him in this regard as well as subject of journalists in various publications. He has shared round table discussions with Daniel Dennet, Freeman Dyson, Stephen Jay Gould to name a few. If he is fringe, he is certainly a scientist of notable controversy. We are here to present this neutrally. We are not here to say his theory is fringe or not fringe - we are only here to report if someone notable has referred to it that way and in light of a notable controversy when relevant. The Tumbleman 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleman (talk • contribs)

Please keep in mind that you already shot yourself in the foot with the "bias" claim in your very first message on this page. You thought the article intro contained a "horribly biased definition" of Sheldrake's work, but it was his own words which were quoted. Please take that false positive to heart. Also remember that such accusations directed at individuals (as opposed to the article) are forbidden per WP:NPA (and remember WP:OUCH).

Nope - not shooting myself in the foot by any means and still stand beside my claims of bias - I have not yet really begun to edit this page yet and do believe still that this page written in bias - and my first edit may still stand because the source that was referenced was a biased article and if that article used that sheldrake quote in context or out of context and I am researching the source still. At face value it did look like I was mistaken however and apologized. I do not believe wiki has a 'shoot self in foot' policy (edit - i see now that you are referring to the OUCH policy) and I have accused no one directly that I am aware of.The Tumbleman 16:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The above comment is in response to my comment. My response is below. Vzaak (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments as a whole indicate that you need to become familiar with WP:FRINGE and the policies at the top of this talk page. They should answer most or all of the issues you've raised. In the past there have been problems with users not reading these policies, so please actually do so. Vzaak (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, have read them and Yup, am familiar with WP:FRINGE. If you believe one of my comments is out of step with WP:FRINGE then please copy and paste the comment in question and advise to that specifically, thank you. I develop collective editing systems and am quite familiar with objective protocols, voices of neutrality, unbiased journalistic standards, etc etc so your concerns are quite misguided here. I am agnostic as to Sheldrake's theories - I am here to make sure his bio contains notable events that are significant to his biography as per wiki policy. The Tumbleman 16:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Claiming to be familiar with policy and actually demonstrating familiarity are two completely different things. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

True - so let's all work on keeping all of us in check.The Tumbleman 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Tumbleman, don't split up other people's comments like that. The signature distinguishes who said what, and it's confusing when it is not present. Also, could you please stop commenting in all italics? It's harder to read and there's no need to distinguish yourself like that. And, again, please fix your signature as it violates WP:SIGLINK policy. A signature link aids in marking the end of a comment, among other reasons for it.

I have fixed signature issues in preferences. I am not sure what you mean when you say 'split up other people's comments'. I comment directly underneath each comment with a editor signature.

Don't do what you just did again here, in the comment above. Don't insert your response between the paragraphs of someone's comment. There needs to be a signature in order to distinguish the end of a comment and to whom it belongs, otherwise mass confusion ensues. This is basic wiki convention and common sense. Moreover, there's no signature in your own comment directly above. Vzaak (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand not to comment in between paragraphs - I am just not seeing the reference to where I "just did again here, in the comment above." if I see a comment and then after that comment i see a user signature, I leave my comment with my user signature like you are doing as well. If I interrupted a paragraph somewhere, it was probably an accident. I was having problems in preferences earlier that I was not aware of so again, apologize if there has been sloppiness. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comment "Nope - not shooting..." splits my earlier comment, leaving my paragraph "Please keep in mind that..." signature-less. Your comment "I have fixed signature issues..." splits up my earlier comment "User:Tumbleman, don't split up other people's comments...", leaving that paragraph signature-less. Vzaak (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also no signature in your indented comment below. If you indent like that, you need to attach a signature, otherwise people don't know who made the comment (short of investigating diffs). Vzaak (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You removed "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" because "it does not define the author's hypothesis but rather an interpretation from a negative science writer". I don't know where that comes from, since the source quoted Sheldrake. Reverting your edit, I said, "No, that is a properly attributed quote from Sheldrake. Verify using google.". That should have been the end, but instead you comment on this talk page asserting that the quote is a "horribly biased definition of authors own work". I respond by giving you a direct google link for the quote. Now you say that your removal of the quote "may still stand".

Help us to understand your perspective. How on Earth could your removal still stand? Why did you think "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" was "horribly biased"? Vzaak (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify and I apologize if any of my form here has been sloppy. Correct, I did originally remove ""mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" because, academically speaking, it is not how Sheldrake presents his hypothesis and the quote was linked to a scientific american article of high bias against the hypothesis article as reference, not one of Sheldrakes own publications as one would normally expect in a formal definition. However I was mistaken in regards to the quote not being attributed to Sheldrake directly, and I responded ( if you pull up the discussion we had) with "Apologies, I withdraw my argument".

What *may* be in question regarding the Scientific American article is regarding that quote being used out of context by Scientific American to frame how Sheldrake's hypothesis is defined academically or formally by Sheldrake. This reads as bias to me from the Scientific American journalist himself and he may be taken out of context to show that bias. If this is the case, and that quote is not a formal definition of Sheldrake's theory, then I will remove it and request for a formal definition, cited from his own works on the matter, replace it. I am still researching this as well as to other issues effecting this page. As for now, your edit stands as well as all edits on this page until I complete my task and finish diligence here.

In terms of my comment that you mention regarding bias in the over all article - it was in regards to the whole page of talk now in previous archives, it was my reaction to both sides of the argument - and yes I still do see evidence of bias on this page and will edit and clean when I have completed my tasks. Hope this clears things up. Thank you. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

First "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" was a "horribly biased definition of authors own work". Then you pull back, "I withdraw my critique". Then you say "my first edit may still stand". Now we have "Apologies, I withdraw my argument" juxtaposed in the same comment with "academically speaking, it is not how Sheldrake presents his hypothesis".

Sheldrake's own words are "horribly biased" against him and "not how Sheldrake presents his hypothesis". I give up.

I would still like to know why you think (or thought) "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" was "horribly biased" -- not the genetic argument of where it came from (a fallacy), but what about the quote itself, the quote alone, is (or was in your mind) "horribly biased".

P.S. In the edit in which your above comment was created, you have an indented paragraph lacking a signature. Vzaak (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak - getting very unclear to me why this is still a source of confusion for you. I already addressed this once above. I was mistaken about attribution and therefore withdrew my claim based on that error since I assumed you were giving attribution to the journalist and not sheldrake, therefore making it 'horribly biased'. I was mistaken there. My claim of potential bias however, which I am still researching, is about the possible bias of the context in which Sheldrake's quote was used by Scientific American. "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" does not appear at face value to sound like a formal definition of Sheldrake's hypothesis, but rather a loose and informal *explanation* of what his hypothesis suggests. Sheldrake is a formally trained scientist and one would expect a formal definition of the subject matter of his own hypothesis. A formal definition is not an informal explanation and an informal explanation is not notable unless the context it was given in was notable to the subject matter. The two are not the same. An informal explanation could be used by an author in a specific context (for example if the author is speaking to children he may explain something in simple to understand terms or metaphors). Since the Scientific American article is written with a negative bias regarding Sheldrake, he may be framing Sheldrake's words against him to make his hypothesis read more pseudoscientific which is the opinion of the journalist. Therefore, if this is the case, and i research the reference in question and I determine it to be taken out of context or not how Sheldrake formally defines his hypothesis, I will remove it once again with this argument specifically because it would lean towards a bias on the page and in violation of WP: NPOV. Until then, there is no reason for you to keep addressing this to me because until I do this, your edit stands. The Tumbleman (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

TEDx talk

Looking for WP:RS. Google News gives nothing on this. User:Barney the barney barney pointed to the Independent, which is the only news source I know about. The article lacks detail, and it may not be possible to treat the topic appropriately without doing original research.

Previous TEDx talks were removed because they violated the TEDx guidelines on pseudoscience, including TEDxCharlotte, TEDxValencia, and TEDxWestHollywood. The latter even had their TEDx license revoked per the Independent article. It's not at all surprising that Sheldrake's TEDxWhitechapel talk was also removed, given the TEDx guidelines on science which existed before Sheldrake's talk and was explicitly sent to TEDxWhiteChapel prior to the talk. I'm not trying to do WP:OR, just saying that there's no indication that TED has treated Sheldrake specially in this regard. The online response from those who were riled up with a "censorship" framing of the issue doesn't translate to notability for WP, of course. WP:RS have to cover it. Vzaak (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Google News only gives 30 days of reference and the controversy was 6 months ago so it would make sense that is why it would not pull up much. A simple search in Google proper may assist you within correct date frame will provide you with adequate sourcing. The Tumbleman (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you click on the google link, you'll see 1984, 1983, 2007, etc. Also, earlier I asked you to add new comments below previous ones. This is at least the third time you've added new above old. Vzaak (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worth briefly mentioning. It is part of a pattern of behaviour (see what happened with the British Association talk [1]. Also, Sheldrake can be relied upon as a reliable source for what Sheldrake thinks. Similarly, sources such as PZ Myers's and Jerry Coyne's blogs can be relied upon to present viewpoints of sceptics/scientific community. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

But as far as I can tell there is just one short news article that has ever been written about it. Can this really suffice for notability per WP standards? A TEDx affiliate produced a talk which violated the TED policy on science, something that had happened many times before. I suspect news organizations didn't pick it up because it's not very newsworthy. The blog activity surrounding it seems not far from gossip to me. I think a brief description of the facts of what happened is appropriate, but I'm not so sure WP should be reporting the spin that blogs have put on it. Vzaak (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman argues that the TEDx blog is a news organization and a reliable secondary source

Not sure how 1 scientist and 1 clearly biased blogger would constitute view points that can be relied upon as the voice of the skeptic or scientific community, that seems like a bit of a reach and potentially in violation of Notability. In this article here on Huffington Post [2] 10 scientists lend their support to sheldrake. For the same reason one could not claim that because 10 scientists give him public support as evidence the scientific community supports him, you cannot use simply 1 blogger and 1 scientist to say the same to the contrary. You have no references that would justify giving them that voice. that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Let's try to stay neutral here guys, these kind of arguments are what makes it appear to me to be some bias amongst the editors here and that there may be ideological reasons for them editing this page.The Tumbleman (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) TED's own publication reported on the controversy - and TED obviously is notable. As the TED controversy was also reported on by various other publications, it makes the TED controversy notable by wiki standards. Chris Anderson's own comments on the talk after the controversy also notable. I am still doing diligence on the TEDX issue and have not yet presented my formal edit.The Tumbleman (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC) TED's own publication is a primary source. A primary source can be used for facts, but hardly anything else. That's why I said "the facts of what happened". WP policy is, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" (WP:PRIMARY). Vzaak (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) TED's primary source in this regard is the Youtube Channel for TEDx (because that is where it is sourced that video was been removed) or at best TED.com (which is the hosting brand for TED channel) - Not TED's blog . TED.blog is a notable news outlet that covers events happening with TED events. It is reasonable the promote on the controversy as TED.BLOG reported on the controversy and use TED.BLOG as the source for TED's position editorially. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I don't understand your comment, but if you're suggesting that TED's blog is a secondary source, it's not. The TED blog is also not a news outlet as far as WP is concerned, WP:RS. It is. I believe You are mistaken here. I don't see how blog.ted would not be considered a secondary news source for TED events, nor do I see how how it's not a news outlet is covered in WP:RS - that seems a little extreme and quite a broad interpretation. so if you have a specific interpretation of this you need to be a little more clear. I hope you can make the distinction between TED as a forum for live events that are recorded, and TED as a publisher of news regarding it's own events. Clearly blog.TED is a reliable source to reference in terms of TED events. Your original suggestion was that TED's own reporting on a controversy would not qualify a wiki editor from using that source to define the controversy. I hope you are not confusing comments on the blog.ted site with what I am suggesting. blog.ted published a few articles on the controversy and many of the articles or comments there are directly from TED director Chris Anderson directly on TED's position. This is indeed relevant because TED officially retracted many of the claims it gave towards removing the talk. Many other publishers also picked up on this controversy. The controversy is notable to the bio of Sheldrake since Sheldrake has a long history with such controversy and this is the most recent historical example, so it's relevant to his bio. To suggest that a wiki editor can not use that as a notable reference for the controversy does not seem reasonable to me and I see no violation of wiki rules that you mention.The Tumbleman (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Is this a joke? This is the third time you have split my comment, immediately following my third explanation and my second request to stop. This is common sense. Don't split comments. People need to know who said what. You are confusing a news organization -- as in an organization with professional journalists and an editorial staff that hold themselves to journalistic standards -- with a blog about events of a random organization. The former is (typically) a reliable secondary source. The latter is not a news organization and not a secondary source. I did not say that "TED's own reporting on a controversy would not qualify a wiki editor from using that source". Indeed before you wrote those words I added material to the article using the TED blog as a source. I think you missed my point about the limitations WP places on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). (P.S. Put the Sheldrake page on your Watchlist; you'll be able to see changes to the article and the talk page at the same time.) Vzaak (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I am quite clear on what constitutes a news organization and so is WP. There is nothing in the WP that would disqualify blog.TED from qualifying as a news organization relative to that channel, considering TED is a massive online publisher. Your issue revolved, and correct me if I am mistaken, that reporting the event as a controversy and using blog.ted as a primary source to reference the event as a controversy was against WP and the only source you could find was the independent which also referenced the event as a controversy, which you then questioned as notable. Your exact words "Can this really suffice for notability per WP standards?". To me your words clearly show you are seeking to limit the notability of the event as a controversy or even referencing it as one. Perhaps you can share your thoughts here regarding this specifically? This does not seem like a complex issue so not sure why you have any issue with simply providing a NPOV on the matter as an unbiased editor. Any organization that reports news in any channel or interest is, in principle, a news organization relative to that channel. WP allows us guidelines to determine the veracity of what any organization reports and gives editors leeway under those guidelines, including (WP:PRIMARY). Again, I have not made my edits yet to this page so I guess we will be visiting this issue once I do. Secondly, on this page you wish to show how the removal of the sheldrake talk was akin to issues regarding Tedx events such as TEDxCharlotte, TEDxValencia, and TEDxWestHollywood. While those events may have faced similar issues related to TED TOS with event organizers, Sheldrake's video was called out specifically by TED on the TED site which later retracted the claims that Sheldrake's talk was removed for gross errors and pseudoscience. Clearly you can see the distinction there. As to the splitting of comments, apologies please do not assume it is a joke or take it personal. wiki TALK is naturally a very sloppy format in principle to handle these discussions and I am sure myself, like most wiki editors, have good intentions and I will make sure not to make this mistake again.The Tumbleman (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Vzaak, my concern is that you use WP a little to strictly to enforce what appears to me to be a loose opinion or interpretation, when in fact WP is clear when it is meant as a guide or heuristic instead of a policy for deletion. From (WP:PRIMARY) "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." As long as we keep a firm commitment to maintain a NPOV, these issues should be easy to resolve since these are quite rational distinctions. I look forward to working with you one this page over time to maintain this standard. The Tumbleman (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC) This is getting close to personal attacks again. Focus on article content and arguments, don't comment on people. WP:NPA. No more vacuous accusations of bias directed toward people. Remember that I declined to take that shot despite the easy target you presented in your mistaken first comment on this talk page. You missed that I said "I think a brief description of the facts of what happened is appropriate" in the same comment as "Can this really suffice for notability per WP standards?". The TED blog is clearly not a news organization and clearly not a secondary source. I'm not going to argue about this. Take it up with WP:RSN, they'll tell you the same thing. You really need to read WP policies and understand them. WP:RS WP:V WP:NOR and more. Vzaak (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC) It is completely appropriate to mention the voice of an editor if that voice is influencing the actual content of the page. For example if an editor has a voice which suggests bias, it is not a personal attack to mention the concern of bias to that editor in TALK. I am merely commenting on your language and your evaluations and how you are using WP to make those evaluations and broad sweeping judgements which so far have been based on what appears to be very loose interpretations of WP. I stand by my comment and in no way is this a violation of WP:NPA. I have concerns of an ideological bias here on this and I have every right as a wiki editor to address that within reason. Please try to maintain a NPOV here. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I may very well take it up with WP:RSN but appeal to an authority as a basis for your argument here is a logical fallacy. If you cannot explain how TED's own organization that reports on TED's news and events would not qualify as a news organization relative to that channel or blur the lines between primary and secondary sources within the WP, then it would be fair for you to no longer comment in the TALK section about this issue. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Comment on content, not on contributors. Warned. Vzaak (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Comment was on "content" specifically and I have addressed my concerns with you on your personal page especially in relationship to WP:AOHA. Please let's be civil and genuine in accordance with WP. If you want to resolve this with me on my personal page please feel free to message me there. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Note you can't use "<ref>" here since this page has no "{{reflist}}", i.e. the link you gave doesn't work. Use [] instead. (There's also an extra slash in your URL.) Vzaak (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC) My full apologies, I am in between projects now and writing quickly. Have been away from wiki editing for awhile so please be patient with my while I re orientate. Here is the reference in mention [3] The Tumbleman (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I wasn't confused about where the TED blog was; I already cited it myself. I was just letting you know about "ref". (FYI that link is still wrong.) Vzaak (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is my first time on Wikipedia, so if I make any mistakes here, please be patient. Here are a variety of sources for establishing notability for the TED controversy: Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, Anderson Huffpo response, and rebuttal, WeHoville, The Independent (UK), The Belfast Telegraph

Notable people commenting on the controversy on their own or lesser known blogs: Ben Goertzel Ray Kurzweil Charles Eisenstein Of Course PZ Myer, Jerry Coyne and Kylie Sturgess, who started it all. Notable people who commented on the TED website include philosopher Bernardo Kastrup and Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson.

Lesser news blogs commenting on or linking to commentary on the controversy: Natural News Reality Sandwich1, Reality Sandwich2 Stargate News Doubtful News Collective Evolution Conscious Life News The Daily Grail Alpha Minds Philosopher's Stone Skeptic Ink Digital Journal Intellihub Circular State of Mind Et Vita The McGill Daily NHNE Pulse Compassionate Action Network International Patheos Newshour 24 The Hollywood Vine

Other: Summarys of the Controversy for reference: The Big TED Controversy Part 1 The Big TED Controversy Part 2

http://www.c4chaos.com/2013/03/rupert-sheldrake-and-graham-hancock-ted-ideas-not-worth-spreading/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/12F-enpa8eUH73m6wS-GDsWa19Lw1a7S2Sla9kxzZtfY/edit

There were also personal blogs commenting on this controversy or reposting that were too numerous to count. You can find a short list about 25 pro Sheldrake, et. al. blog posts here: Craig Weiler (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw the Belfast Telegraph too; it's the same article as the Independent with a different opening paragraph. The problem is that we cannot synthesize primary sources together. Especially considering the polarizing nature of the issue, what we can write is greatly constrained without reliable secondary sources, and apparently only one such article exists. The LA Times article is about TEDxWestHollywood and doesn't mention Sheldrake. Wehoville has been used as a source exactly once on WP, but in any case with regard to Sheldrake it doesn't offer much that isn't already covered by the WP article. I'm not arguing for anything here, just stating what the challenges are. Vzaak (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My main goal was to establish the notability of the TED controversy, and that does not appear to be in question now. I'm sure a NPOV can be created from the available sources. The main goal here should be to not slander a living person by misrepresenting the controversy. And on that point the record is very clear. Whatever opinions people had, and they were quite diverse, the fact was simply that at the end of the controversy there was no claim of any kind made against the quality or accuracy of Sheldrake's video. As this is the truth, the editing should reflect this. Craig Weiler (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added a little material by citing the Independent article. It's a short article and there's not much to gleam from it about Sheldrake specifically. It looks like you're suggesting original research. I also don't understand "no claim of any kind" because the TED statement is sourced and quoted directly in the WP article. Vzaak (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The section of the article which deals with the controversy contains factual errors. The most glaring of these is this: According to a statement from the TED staff, TED’s scientific advisors "questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions" and believed that "there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance". The advisors recommended that the talk "should not be distributed without being framed with caution". The science advisors only provided input once and that was to create a list of complaints about Sheldrake's talk. They later withdrew these complaints and never created any new ones. The area in quotes is mis-attributed. No one at TED or the science board made those claims. (Here are the claims. They are crossed out by TED to demonstrate that they are no longer valid. but even so they are different than what is quoted in the article.) The last statement that the talk "should not be distributed . . ." is Chris Anderson's and it was a general statement directed at no one in particular and it is superseded by his closing statement. Note how vague it is and how it's not directed at anyone in particular.

It's completely understandable that people are confused about this. First there were claims, then there weren't claims, then there were vague not-quite-claims of pseudo science. It's not at all easy to sort out. I only know this because I was right in the middle of the thing at the time following it every tortured step of the way. You might find it helpful to read the two part summary I provided from my blog. Like everyone else I do not have a neutral viewpoint, but it is factually accurate and has the necessary links.

Just as a bit of background for you, I was the one who initially brought the controversy to wider attention when my initial blog post on the controversy started getting spread around and I was the one who broke the TEDxWestHollywood story. I'm focusing on this section because it's something that I know extremely well. Craig Weiler (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I double-checked those three quotes, "questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions", "there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance", and "should not be distributed without being framed with caution". They exactly match the source cited in the WP article and therefore are not misattributed. Vzaak (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see where this was pulled from. As every single claim by the science board was later retracted, this initial statement on that blog post no longer applies and cannot be in this article. It is part of the original blog post which was very obviously updated at a later date to include the speaker's responses and changed to strike out all of the initial complaints. It is no longer representative of the blog post and is therefore misleading. As this is a biography of a living person, this amounts to slander at this point and should be changed immediately.Craig Weiler (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The source cited in the WP article is the final blog post by TED on Sheldrake. The post states the action TED took and their reasons for it, and WP cites that. Anderson's closing statement links to that post. It still appears as though you wish to incorporate original research. Vzaak (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The closing statement has no links, so I don't know what you're referring to there. In any case, this is an incorrect understanding of the timeline of the controversy. This is verified by Sheldrake's response: "I appreciate the fact that TED published my response to the accusations leveled against me by their Scientific Board, and also crossed out the Board’s statement on the “Open for discussion” blog. http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

There are no longer any specific points to answer. I am all in favour of debate, but it is not possible to make much progress through short responses to nebulous questions like “Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation?”" (This response shows up in multiple second sources so it is not primary.)

Vzaak, like many new editors on Wikipedia I am here to lend my expertise in a specific area. It is very important that the article be both accurate and neutral. I would hope that you are glad to have someone around who can sort out the controversy and put it into the proper context.Craig Weiler (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The source cited in the WP article is right there at the top of Anderson's closing statement. The closing statement capped off the two-week discussion starting March 19 for which the TED blog post -- the source cited in WP -- gave context along with the video itself. Again, this was the the final blog post by TED on Sheldrake, not the initial/original one as you claimed. Vzaak (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why I need to explain this to you, but the closing statement is in gray with black lettering and it is delineated with a border around it. It contains no links. All other information on that web page is irrelevant to the closing statement. As this is a summary of the controversy, it supersedes all other TED statements that came before it. This is very obvious and it demonstrates that the current quote on Rupert's page is taken out of context. Craig Weiler (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Go to the closing statement. This is a TED discussion titled "The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk". The title appears at the top of the page. Directly underneath the title it says, "Please use this space to comment on the debate around Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk, as described here: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/". That link is the source used in the WP article. It provides the context for the discussion. It is the final post by TED on Sheldrake, not the initial one as you previously thought. It's an official, final statement from TED describing the action they took and their reasons for it. The WP article cites this statement with three direct quotes. Anderson's closing statement does not describe the reasons for TED's actions, it only alludes to them by mentioning "curatorial role" and "science board". In order to find the reasons for TED's actions (and to see the talk itself), readers are invited to visit the link at the top of the page, the link that WP cites. The WP article should state the reasons for TED's actions. This cannot be done if we confine ourselves to Anderson's statement as you suggest. Vzaak (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You have this all mixed up. The last update to the blog post was on March 19th. The closing statement (that is specifically referred to as the closing statement) occurred on April 2nd, almost two weeks later. The part that you are missing here, that is of great significance, that I have already pointed out to you, is that there WERE NO REASONS GIVEN for the removal of Sheldrake's video. The statements that you are referring to were part of the initial complaints against Sheldrake's talk. Those were ALL RESCINDED after Sheldrake responded to those complaints. That's why Sheldrake stated that "there are no longer any specific points to answer." Because there weren't any.

This makes the account of the TED controversy in the Sheldrake article grossly misleading. Craig Weiler (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP should cite the reasons TED gave for moving the video. TED did not retract this official statement, which contains the reasons TED gave for moving the video. Therefore, WP cites that statement. It is the final statement TED made on Sheldrake. They made the statement on March 19, opened a planned two-week discussion linking to the statement, the discussion ensued, and then Anderson ended the discussion in his closing statement. Vzaak (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

TED can be assumed to have retracted the statement when all of the complaints by the science board were crossed out. Furthermore, those were not the official reasons for taking down the Sheldrake video. The official reasons, the only ones that count, can be found crossed out below the Sheldrake video. If there were any reasons still outstanding, those would have been dealt with in an update to the blog and/or mentioned in the closing statement or referenced in the closing statement. And they were not. What your are doing is second guessing what the source might have intended after they changed their official position. That's not appropriate for a NPOV. Craig Weiler (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at this google link. You will see three TED blog posts on Sheldrake. They are different posts, with different contents. The March 19 statement, the source cited in WP, is not retracted. It is not the initial post. The initial post was on March 14. You are saying, I think, that "TED can be assumed to have retracted" the March 19 statement. That doesn't make sense to me, but if you can provide a source that says TED retracted the March 19 statement then that should go into the WP article. Vzaak (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirming TED retracted statements regarding the controversy arising from statements from the science board is found here. [4]. Any summary of this controversy on WP must allow for the statement "TED later retracted statements from the Science Advisory Board" or this article is in violation of NPOV. This is an editorial retraction directly by the TED blog editors and there is absolutely no argument to support that TED's own editorial retraction is not allowed for primary or secondary source causes, as WP gives us flexibility to determine when issues of NPOV arise. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

TED Talks are available under Creative Commons license "Attribution - Noncommercial - Nonderivative" (see THIS). Are there objections to including a Sheldrake TED talk as an external link, provided that the link gives proper attribution to TED? Lou Sander (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The video of the talk has been there in the ref, The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk. That's the source that should be used. Vzaak (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Belfast TEDx coverage gives us a wee bit of additional info, or at least another slightly different take on the matter. Sadly, the most useful sentence is marred by a transcription typo.

"TED reserves the right to take down talks from the web, as with Rupert Sheldrake, author of 'The Science Delusion', who was censored. Are some ideas not worth spreading?" [Interviewer, Maggie Armstrong]

"TED have a healthy approach to this. It is their event, so if a speaker doesn't follow the rules, they aren't obliged to put it up. Any speaker who doesn't get their talk put online – and that's very rare – can always share their viewpoint elsewhere.

In Sheldrake's case, the speaker got more press by accusing TED of sponsorship – and they did eventually post it online with an explanation (see: blog.ted.com/ 2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert- sheldrakes-talk)." [Science Gallery's Ian Brunswick, the organiser of TEDxDublin]

"sponsorship" ARRRRRGH! [David in DC, commenting on Murphy's Law]

Ideas for Everyone, Irish Independent, 14 September 2013. David in DC (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, sponsorship. Thanks for finding that; too bad the article apparently wasn't copy-edited at all. The lack of formatting of the Q and A is confusing. Vzaak (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's probably better in the hard copy version. So in 30 years, we can probably link to a google image version. In the meantime, anyone up for a field trip to a Dublin library? The first pint of lager's on me. David in DC (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Unclear what this editor is suggesting, David in DC can you clarify the sponsorship issue raised here and how it affects edits to this controversy on WP? The Tumbleman (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a typo on the newspaper's website. In context, the word is almost certainly censorship. If the formatting issue Vzaak identifies in the online version and the typo I've identified in the online version weren't there, arguably this article might be used to further source the controversy. But as it stands, the link would add confusion, rather than clarity. Hence my "ARRRRRGH" and my reference to Murphy's Law. David in DC (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns with article

The user Barney the Barney Barney has 2 concerns that seem to inform the current tone of this article: 1) As inferred by this dialogue with him, he relates Sheldrake's work to telepathy experiments and claim that they are inconsistent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barney_the_barney_barney#Re:_Consistency 2) He sources Lewis Wolpert to claim that Sheldrake's ideas are inconsistent with modern science (there are superior sources refuting Wolpert), and he claims that Sheldrake has no evidence for his theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vzaak#Please_understadn

I will deal with both of these concerns: Concern Number 1: Refutation of this is important, because the general opposition to Sheldrake revolves around misconceptions concerning psi research in general. There was a recent Baysean analysis entitled "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences", published in 2011 in the journal "Frontiers in Psychology": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114207/ A table from that showed that Baysean analysis of Ganzfeld ESP experiments yielded a Bayes factor of 18,861,051: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114207/table/T1/

A Bayes factor of greater than 100 is considered to be "decisive".

Incidentally, according to an Epoch Times article, "Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another both found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”—56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other.":  http://m.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-211214.html

So the classification of this as WP:FRINGE is uncalled for.

Concern Number 2: In this revision of the Sheldrake article I noted replication of his experiments using solid sources (and that Wiseman, while earlier claiming that he had discredited Sheldrake, later admitted that he replicated Sheldrake's results). I also refuted the idea that it is not consistent with current science by noting the support given with the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that Bohm believed that Sheldrake, via a different angle, came to the same realizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=572407570&oldid=572407366 - and the Bohm interpretation leads "to experimental results compliant with quantum mechanics", and has been presented as a useful means of understanding quantum phenomena in top journals like Foundations of Physics: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018861226606

From p. 271 of his biography we find the following praise for David Bohm from Richard Feynman, one of the world's most important physicists: "When he mentioned his own lack of interest in the philosophical issues of science, one of the Ojai group, David Moody, joked, "Dave knows a little bit about both." Feynman became angry, saying "I can tell you one thing. David Bohm knows a lot more than a little about physics." Booth Harris, a teacher at the Ojai school, remembered Feynman saying, "You probably don't know how great he is," and noticed the considerable respect Feynman showed towards Bohm.": [5]

The Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson has also defended Sheldrake: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5833/pdf/293594b0.pdf - you can read the text of the defense here: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/293594b0.pdf

And Hans-Peter Dürr, former executive director of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, has shown that Sheldrake's work is indeed consistent with modern science in his article "Sheldrake's ideas from the perspective of modern physics" in the journal "Frontier Perspectives": http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-182664602.html - you can read the article here: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/Sheldrake%C2%B4s%20Id%C3%A9er_07,pdf.pdf

Regarding replication, I sourced Sheldrake's refutation of Rose, published in a quality journal (the same journal Rose's criticism was in), and also sourced Sheldrake's defense of the idea that morphic resonance applies to crystal formation and rat behavior. I have noted Wiseman's admission of replication of Sheldrake's results with dogs knowing that owners are coming home, and also that Wiseman is on record of being skeptical of "normal" evidence for psi claims. As an aside, I recently sent Wiseman the aforementioned Baysean analysis by email, and he replied "how interesting", and thanked me for sharing. I also provided a meta-analysis to a quality journal showing an effect with "sense of being stared at" experiments.

Some replication of Sheldrake's Telephone Telepathy experiments have occurred - an example is this article - this was a paper presented at a parapsychology convention, so I assume that you would be skeptical of it - however, consider the Baysean analysis given above: http://www.metapsychique.org/Who-s-calling-at-this-hour-Local.html

In another replication published in journal "The Open Psychology Journal" entitled "Do You Know Who is Calling? Experiments on Anomalous Cognition in Phone Call Receivers", the abstract concludes "We conclude that we could not find any anomalous cognition effect in self-selected samples. But our data also strongly suggest that there are a few participants who are able to score reliably and repeatedly above chance." - so such telepathic ability varied with individuals. This does not nullify it - it just shows that it is more prevalent in some people than others. The conclusion of the article specifically states that " Based on our findings we suggest that future research in this area should focus more on experiments with few well selected and gifted participants rather than testing the general population on their anomalous cognition ability. This has already be shown in other fields of anomalous cognition research.": http://www.benthamscience.com/open/topsyj/articles/V002/12TOPSYJ.pdf

I have given examples concerning replication of Sheldrake's major theory of morphic resonance, but key evidence for it is in the article "Adaptive state of mammalian cells and its nonseparability suggestive of a quantum system", published in the journal "Scripta Medica", the abstract of which states: "Established mammalian cells were assayed for their resistance to different selection conditions which had not been used against these cells before, including exposure to thioguanine, ethionine, high temperature and a protein-free, chemically defined culture medium. Single assays were negative, showing that the cell lines contained no spontaneous mutants, or that these were present in a number below detectable limits. To obtain such mutants, we designed experiments of mutant isolation by serial assays. The cells were kept growing without selection and, at each passage, cell samples were withdrawn and assayed for resistance in separate cultures. As a result, we found no mutants at the beginning, then a few and, finally, a great number. This was in conflict with the postulate of random occurrence of mutants and, furthermore, with their spontaneousness. On the contrary, the results provided evidence that mutants occurred as an appropriate response to selection pressure. The most amazing feature was that this response could be detected in cells growing without selection and never exposed to selection pressure before. If one tried to explain the adaptive response in terms of signals, the signals would have to travel from the exposed to the unexposed cultures. The results are instead discussed in terms of adaptive states and the nonseparability of cellular states due to quantum entanglement of cells, in particular daughter cells, distributed between the exposed and unexposed cultures. Whatever the mechanism, we concluded that the finding of resistant cells in growing unexposed cultures, as a response to selective pressure on cells in physically separated cultures, tends to render meaningless any theory based on the spontaneous origin of mutants.": http://www.med.muni.cz/biomedjournal/pdf/2000/04/211-222.pdf

Another example of morphic resonance at work occurs in the article "Analyzing ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ Concerning Brand Logos" in the journal "Innovative Marketing", which states: "Based on the assumption that there exists a kind of collective knowledge beyond individual experience, the authors found that in respect to logos humans are more likely to respond to stimuli if many people in other parts of the world do or did know them, even though they personally are not consciously familiar with the logos. An improved favorability of 20% for original symbols versus comparable control symbols can be regarded as a solid competitive advantage. This benefit regarding brand logos was analyzed by means of latent class models. Additionally, the heterogeneity in the participant’s characteristics as well as the heterogeneity in the analyzed symbols were incorporated by means of random and fixed effects models. Furthermore, this effect was shown to be neither culture-specific nor linked to age, gender, level of extraversion, and education of the participants. ": http://businessperspectives.org/journals_free/im/2006/im_en_2006_01_Schorn.pdf

Ans also, see the article "Evidence of Collective Memory: a test of Sheldrake's theory", published in the Journal of Analytical Psychology: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3804853 - the article can be read here: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/Evidence%20of%20Collective%20Memory.pdf

The conclusion notes that "The presence of collective memory was tested by having three groups of students learn the morse code, which had been previously learned by a large number of people, and a novel code that had never been learned by others and was constructed to be of equal intrinsic difficulty. As predicted, the Morse code was initially easier to learn, and the Novel code itself became easier over the three groups. The results confirm Sheldrake's theory and lend credibility to Jung's concepts of the archetype and the collective unconscious while suggesting that the ladder contains much more than archetypal memories." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.210.61 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Scientific community rejects him, not just a few scientists

A good ref is http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion. MilesMoney (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

“Science,” according to the renowned physicist Richard Feynman, “is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” It is not the intellectual communism that is so popular here. It is also notable, as shown above, that leading physicists, including the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, have defended Sheldrake. Also, points of concern regarding Rupert Sheldrake have been addressed in the section above. Also, his morphic resonance hypothesis has been corroborated with other research, as shown above. What's left then is the atmosphere of intellectual communism that Sheldrake directly addresses. It is notable, also, the surveys concerning telepathy, related to Sheldrake's inquiry, given above showing that acceptance of it is not as fringe as some might imply, and the above given Baysean analysis of ESP experiments that proves the phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.210.61 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The article already says "widely rejected by the scientific community". A better lede would be, "rejected by many in the scientific community, but has been defended by notable physicists like David Bohm, Brian Josephson, and Hans Peter Durr."71.202.210.61 (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nah, our sources say it's widely rejected. MilesMoney (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To say that the scientific community rejects Sheldrake is misleading and biased no matter the source. It is impossible to define "scientific community." There is no comprehensive list of scientists who reject Sheldrake's work. It is on the level of gossip and not suitable for an article and should be removed. It is also not a NPOV and therefore violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Craig Weiler (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Craig Weiler. Also, the sources supporting Sheldrake (Bohm, Josephson, Durr) are actually more eminent than the sources rejecting him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.19.195 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Craig, you're asking us to choose between your personal opinion and our sources. The sources win every time. MilesMoney (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the sources supporting Sheldrake (Bohm, Josephson, Durr) are actually more eminent than the sources rejecting him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.19.195 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't care. We have reliable sources saying that the scientific community rejects his theories. Deal with that. MilesMoney (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The comparison of sources is equivalent to saying that Einstein or Newton defends his theories, but a cadre of purportedly "skeptical" science columnists reject them.

It's pretty clear from the references that there's a lot of skepticism about Sheldrake's work. IMHO, that is fairly stated and strongly backed up by the material in the article. If, indeed, some credible people have defended his work, NPOV requires that that be mentioned and referenced. If somebody will post some verifiable references here, I'll be glad to put these points of view into the article, hopefully in a way that will be acceptable even to skeptics. I'll have to be able to see the references myself, though -- I'm not willing to accept their verifiability on faith. Lou Sander (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no problem with mentioning his supporters. I just don't want to lie by making it sound as if the scientific community as a whole takes him seriously. It doesn't, and that's not just my opinion, it's what our sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Josephson, Bohm, and Durr are now in the article, with corresponding references. Josephson came up coincidentally after I discovered that the Roszak reference was about the wrong book and subsequently searched for something else to counterbalance to Maddox. Vzaak (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander - the sources you seek are here - scroll down to "concern number 2": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Concerns_with_article198.189.184.243 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Positive reactions from colleagues can be included but they need to be given sufficient context, i.e. what the person is saying and who it is that is saying it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I will summarize the Durr article, which defends Sheldrake, and shows how his argument is not inconsistent with modern science: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/Sheldrake%C2%B4s%20Id%C3%A9er_07,pdf.pdf

Points of interest are the second paragraph of the article, where Durr states that while biology moved away from holism towards reductionism, physics moved towards holism.

In the fourth paragraph, Durr criticizes biology for not keeping up with physics, and states that "For me, it is difficult to understand why biologists do not make more use of the revolutionary ideas of modern physics, seeing that the processes of life, as Sheldrake makes obvious, seem predestined to act as a bridge."

In the fifth paragraph, he notes the misconception that the features of the "microcosm" are irrelevant to the "macrocosm", and states that "Numerous examples show us in what unexpected ways the new laws of the microcosm manage to effect the macrocosm that is directly accessible for us."

He gives examples (pp. 30-32) of macroscopic structures. A note on this - I feel that that this is important to bring out in some detail, because the feeling I got from the Bohm-Sheldrake dialogue was that Sheldrake came to many of the same conclusions Bohm did, but his argument dealt with macro systems, and it is traditionally argued that quantum effects have no application to macro systems. The traditional claim that quantum explanations do not hold in this case is beginning to break down as more and more information is coming in - like this paper by Anton Zeilinger showed the wave-particle duality occurring with buckyballs, large molecules: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0.html Also, it is now being shown that quantum decoherence is not necessarily a preventor of these effects occuring - a recent paper showed that "One of the major obstacles to realizing quantum computers and simulators is the environment, which disturbs quantum systems. In the ideal regime, information from the system leaks slowly to the environment. Such unidirectional flow of information in which the noise acts the same way at all times characterizes a Markovian process. However, soft- or condensed-matter systems are strongly coupled to the environment and this leads to a regime where information also flows back into the system; a non-Markovian process. Now, writing in Nature Physics1, Bi-Heng Liu and co-workers report an all-optical experiment in which the flow of information between the system and environment is controlled and the system can be steered between these two regimes.": http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~jbar/files/Barreiro-Nature%20Phys.-7-927-928.pdf Consider also the paper "Physics of Life: The Dawn of Quantum Biology", which states, "discoveries in recent years suggest that nature knows a few tricks that physicists don't: coherent quantum processes may well be ubiquitous in the natural world. Known or suspected examples range from the ability of birds to navigate using Earth's magnetic field to the inner workings of photosynthesis — the process by which plants and bacteria turn sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into organic matter, and arguably the most important biochemical reaction on Earth. Biology has a knack for using what works, says Seth Lloyd, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. And if that means "quantum hanky-panky", he says, "then quantum hanky-panky it is". Some researchers have even begun to talk of an emerging discipline called quantum biology, arguing that quantum effects are a vital, if rare, ingredient of the way nature works.": http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474272a.html The following article states that "Until the past decade, experimentalists had not confirmed that quantum behavior persists on a macroscopic scale. Today, however, they routinely do. These effects are more pervasive than anyone ever suspected. They may operate in the cells of our body.": http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=living-in-a-quantum-world And also, consider a paper by Andreas Albrecht, "Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse", which argued that all probabilistic effects, including macroscopic effects, can be traced to quantum uncertainties: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953 The article "Adaptive state of mammalian cells and its nonseparability suggestive of a quantum system", cited in the above section, would specifically seem to justify these ideas and, as it corroborates Sheldrake's argument, it shows how his thesis is consistent with the framework being described.

Returning to Durr's text - p. 32, the section entitled "The Quantum Interpretation of Life" is interesting. It is also interesting in light of the dialogue between David Bohm and Rupert Sheldrake.

He states on p. 34 that he wants to investigate "if and under what conditions Sheldrake's ideas have a chance of being accepted on the terrain of the present day established modern natural sciences." And that he is "not as pessimistic" as those who completely disregard Sheldrake, accusing one such person of "dumping the baby out with the bathwater". He states also that "considerations should not be restricted to what seems immediately plausible to us from our macroscopic view."

On p. 34 of the text he commends Sheldrake for making practical proposals for how his thesis can be validated and notes, "Since he himself does not have a suitable laboratory and funds at his disposal, he explicitly requests support by others. This book is intended to provide a constructive contribution to this. Sheldrake is familiar enough with the natural sciences to know how a scientifically well-founded set of measurements must be set up, and what the readings must look like, for there to be a significant confirmation."

He states on p. 38 (and this is not some ignoramus with no understanding of the subject, this is Hans Peter-Durr, of the Max Planck Institute), that the "processes of quantum physics might in principle contain a fruitful potential for an explanation of Sheldrake's morphic fields."

I would also like to note that this argument can show how telepathy arguments are not inconsistent with modern science, and why the results from the Baysean analysis given above show an effect that is not as "paranormal" as we might think, but possibly quite normal. For more on this, see the article "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential": http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3029159

The abstract reads: "Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen (EPR) correlations between human brains are studied to verify if the brain has a macroscopic quantum component. Pairs of subjects were allowed to interact and were then separated inside semisilent Faraday chambers 14.5 m apart when their EEG activity was registered. Only one subject of each pair was stimulated by 100 flashes. When the stimulated subject showed distinct evoked potentials, the nonstimulated subject showed “transferred potentials” similar to those evoked in the stimulated subject. Control subjects showed no such transferred potentials. The transferred potentials demonstrate brain‐to‐brain nonlocal EPR correlation between brains, supporting the brain's quantum nature at the macrolevel."198.189.184.243 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference list

Somehow the references in the list are not numbered. I don't know how this happened, but I do see that the reflist tag is set up in an unusual way, with many paragraphs apparently being inserted before the closing curly brackets. Somebody please fix it. (I'm reluctant to try it myself, for fear of messing up whatever is intended with those many paragraphs.) Lou Sander (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I bisected the problem to this diff (at bottom). Now fixed. Vzaak (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Misleading lead section

The second paragraph of the article says

"Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis is widely rejected within the scientific community and has been labelled pseudoscience and magical thinking. Concerns include the lack of evidence for the hypothesis and its inconsistency with established scientific theories."

There are lots of inline references that appear to back up these claims (though I haven't checked them all), so I have no problem with what this paragraph says. But other stuff is missing.

The lead paragraphs of WP:LEAD tell what should be in an article's lead, including that it should summarize the material in the article, including important controversies, and be written from a neutral point of view. The latter is especially important in biographies of living persons.

In looking at the article, I see much material that is favorable to Sheldrake, often of the form "X says Sheldrake is a big windbag, but that mightn't be entirely correct." None of this material is mentioned in the lead. Neither is there anything in the lead about Sheldrake's important criticism of the current state of scientific inquiry.

Based on these facts, I believe that the lead fails to summarize important controversies (mentioning only the predominant anti-Sheldrake side of them) and fails to include important material (the fact that Sheldrake attacks the very science that the anti-Sheldrake folks base their careers on, and that therefore might color their opinions). These omissions, IMHO, mean that the lead isn't written from a neutral point of view. The strict requirements of WP:BLP allow this paragraph to be removed immediately. It would be much better, IMHO, to add some material that would create a neutral point of view. A few sentences would probably suffice.

I'm not highly familiar with Sheldrake material myself, so I'm reluctant to try fixing the defective lead. Maybe some of the Sheldrake experts will work on it. Lou Sander (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read WP:UNDUE, you'll see that it requires us to give weight based on the weight of our sources. We have a few sources supporting Sheldrake, but the majority are starkly critical. The article reflects this fact. MilesMoney (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what Lou Sander is suggesting, reading WP:UNDUE the lead section in Sheldrakes's biography is misleading, written in a voice to demean his biography as a way to disprove a hypothesis of his. This lead section shows clear signs of bias and violations of WP NPOV. WP UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Consider - this is not an article on Sheldrake's hypothesis, it is a biography page and any application of WP must be applied strictly to WP:ALIVE. It appears that editors on this page are confusing mainstream scientific critique of an hypothesis with a critique on Sheldrake on his biography page. I vote for a re - edit of this entire page and will be making suggestions shortly. The Tumbleman (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WP:UNDUE, there also appears to be bias as to how Sheldrake's hypothesis is being defined under WP:FRINGE/PS. Because there are sourced quotes claiming his hypothesis to be Pseudoscience, that is not strong enough to apply it as Pseudoscience in editing under WP:NPOV. Consider - WP:FRINGE/PS lays out a framework for editors to determine the application, specifically "Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia: 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics". This is why String Theory is allowed a full voice on Wikipedia although technically, it falls under Pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific definition. Additionally, the over all biased voice of the whole page appears to violate. WP:TE The Tumbleman (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparing Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" with string theory is a disingenuous false analogy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's actually quite an appropriate analogy. There is no reasonable claim an editor can make regarding Morphic Resonance as Pseudoscience as the term is used and defined in science unless you are claiming it is PS because it is not falsifiable. That appears to me to be the only supportive claim an editor can make to hold Morphic Resonance under WP:FRINGE. That's the exact same issue with String Theory, and under the terms, string theory is pseudoscience. This is a problem in academia regarding this definition, as this article in Scientific American points out.. that is why WP:FRINGE has section four. Editors cannot put an hypothesis in a WP:FRINGE category just because they have a quote from a scientist who says it is PS, and if they do, and it's from inside the scientific community, then it's considered an alternative theory and not PS. Help me understand your thinking here, what reasons do you as an editor support Morphic Resonance being held to WP:FRINGE as pseudo science? I am not seeing a clear case here and want to understand. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)