Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 19

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 15

←

Archive 17

→

Context Matters

"Sheldrake proposes that it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".[7]

Has anyone actually read the source connected to this quote in the lead? This particular verbiage is in a paragraph where Sheldrake is comically remarking on how he imagines his detractors see his work. Its place here is out of context and implies this is how Sheldrake himself describes MR. If we're going to have a quote from Sheldrake about MR, it should be representative of how he describes it. Personally, I don't think we need yet another quote (we have four in just one paragraph), so I say we junk it altogether since it contributes little to explain either the hypothesis of MR or Sheldrake himself. If someone has an illuminating quote they feel is necessary to illustrate MR, I'm all ears, but this one is out of context and misleading. The Cap'n (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote is needed because it connects morphic resonance to telepathy and "the sense of being stared at". Without it, the reader is left wondering why Sheldrake is studying those things.

I find nothing comedic about the quote, and it looks accurate. For example in a reader participation section of Dogs That Know, Sheldrake says, "Please tell us about your own experiences that suggest telepathic or other invisible interconnections."

Could you please explain why you think it is misleading? Please fill in the blanks.

"telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____.
"collective memories within species" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____.

As you know, this issue has been discussed before. The original reason the (now-blocked) user gave for removing the quote was that it came from Michael Shermer, which turned out to be incorrect. While this feels like proxying for a blocked user, I shall assume this is not the case, but there should be a compelling reason to rehash the issue. vzaak 21:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the result of making an understandable but regrettable mistake resolving several thoughts that go from the basic statement "Sheldrake says X", which is cited and is obviously consistent with his published writings, to "Sheldrake says X, which is obviously not supported by current scientific thinking"; added to "statements that are not supported by current scientific thinking are stupid", leading to "Sheldrake says X, which is obviously not supported by current scientific thinking and this is a stupid statement". We then boil this down by taking out the middle to "Sheldrake is being stupid", add that to "saying someone is a BLP violation", more brain ruminations and we get to the Captain's marvellous conclusion: "Wikipedia cannot say Sheldrake says X because that's a BLP violation." This completely ignores the sources provided, involves much thought ruminations in the middle, and reaches the wishful thinking that (1) this is a negative statement (it isn't - it's a neutral, cited statement), because the point of the game if you're a self-appointed BLP warrior is to create BLP violations out of nothing, apparently. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney, you appear to fundamentally misunderstand my point. My "marvellous conclusion" is not that the quote is a negative violation of BLP, nor am I a "self-appointed BLP warrior" trying "to create BLP violations out of nothing". This is not, or at least was not intended to be, a controversial, partisan battle (nor did I mention anything about BLP). I'm pointing out that a quote in the lead is unhelpful and that to remove it would make the article more informative, flow better and avoid misconstructions. I opened this post with what I feel was a reasonable issue, respectfully presented and asking for feedback. How exactly does that provoke insults?

As far as vzaak is concerned, I do not think it is a quote from Michael Shermer, but feel it should be removed for the reasons I listed above and will reiterate now. It is misleading as a quote, redundant and an example of excessive quoting that does not improve the article.

Here is the context of that quote:

But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs. Not that they were aggressively hostile; they just made fun of it. Whenever I said something like, "I've just got to go and make a telephone call," they said, "Ha, ha, why bother? Do it by morphic resonance!"

It is inaccurate in that nowhere else in this article does Sheldrake describe MR as telepathic (it's irrelevant whether he's used in an interview, quotes should accurately reflect their particular source), and the context indicates he uses the term as what his opponents believe. If everything in this block of text is to be taken as Sheldrake's literal expression, we might as well include quotes describing MR as capable of replacing telephones.

As far as needing the quote to establish that Sheldrake includes telepathy and stared-at aspects, those concepts are expressed in the very next next sentence. How do the two following sentences offer distinct points?

Sheldrake proposes that it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".
His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as telepathy and "the sense of being stared at"[7][8]

They seem completely redundant to me, which is reason enough to get rid of the quote even if it wasn't misleading. Using this quote to argue that his purpose in that source was to describe MR as telepathy is contextually inaccurate, though stating the scientific community views his arguments as such is not. That's why the second statement is acceptable but the quote is not. Besides, why are so many quotes are necessary in the lead?

Lastly, much as I appreciate the veiled accusation, my reasons for wanting to delete this quotation do not stem from proxying. My goals are to establish a balanced, NPOV article that is succinct, accurate and informs rather than advocates. I have had a longstanding issue with the formatting of this article which I feel I have represented consistently, before, during and after Tumbleman's blocking. I would point out that it is possible for a person to disagree with the content of this page without being a troll, proxy, sockpuppet or fringe proponent. The prevalence of such charges have been and remain a source of concern for me. The Cap'n (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"nowhere else in this article does Sheldrake describe MR as telepathic" -- this isn't true. The article says, "Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic resonance is responsible for it".

It's a simple fact that Sheldrake believes that morphic resonance is responsible for telepathy-type interconnections between organisms. Have you looked at Dogs That Know? It's all about that. I gave an example quote from the book.

Until the following blanks are filled in, I just don't have any idea what you are talking about, sorry.

"telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____.
"collective memories within species" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____.

The two phrases you gave aren't redundant. The first describes the reason for the second. We can leave it to the reader to puzzle, "WTF? What does telepathy have to do with it? Morphic resonance is telepathy? What?" Or we can explain it. vzaak 23:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Barney and vzaak. The Cap'n doesn't seem to realize that Sheldrake believes in telepathic chickens. However, I replaced the sentence with another one with a clearer reference. Does that give similar information or should I find something else? It's not like there's a shortage of potential references. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Cap'n is right that it is a bit redundant. Further revisions should be made to eliminate such redundancy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dingo, I appreciate the attempt, but the new text doesn't quite match the source. In order to use that source we need to explain morphic fields, a complexity that has been purposefully omitted from the lead. (Also note that people are animals :) It has happened before that the original quote was replaced with other text, and accuracy was lost in that case as well. There is really no reason to avoid the quote. There has never been a cabal or conspiracy here, yet that idea seems remain present with some. vzaak 09:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with the original quote if you want to restore it. I was just trying to provide a clearer ref for telepathy (rather than telepathy-type interconnections). Can you really separate morphic fields from morphic resonance? They seem inextricably intertwined. But if you want to revert my edit, I won't complain. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We aren't separating morphic fields from morphic resonance, we're just eliding such detail from the lead while maintaining parity with the sources. Also, "telepathy-type interconnections" succinctly encompasses telepathy and "the sense of being stared at". I'll wait a bit for Askahrc to reply. vzaak 17:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Either way I think the point about redundancy is valid. To say it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections" and then say the idea encompasses telepathy is a tad redundant.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe to the ear, but "telepathy-type interconnections" doesn't necessarily imply telepathy. Sheldrake could have decided that it fell short of "conventional" telepathy, yet allowing "the sense of being stared at". vzaak 19:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding Sheldrake's use of telepathy in the source, though I still agree with Devil's Advocate that it's redundant and unhelpful given the multitude of other quotes and paraphrases that say virtually the same thing. If we're arguing that Sheldrake has clearly linked MR and telepathy (I'll look into that a bit deeper so I can weigh in with a properly informed opinion), then we don't need "telepathy-like," while if we're saying he delineates the two we shouldn't use the sources that say "telepathy." Either way, I really don't think we needed a fourth quote in one paragraph to help provide a broad summary.

As far as a cabal or conspiracy, I would point out that I have not accused anyone of being part of such, but simply referenced that certain (seemingly routine) editing approaches tend to draw disproportionately hostile reactions. I'm not sure I can remember the specifics, but I seem to recall someone who proposed trimming down excessive quotes that they thought were not informative, then was promptly implied to be a proxy violating WP policies and called some choice names. Without insinuating some nefarious League of Evil Wikipedia Editors, I think that trend is a recurring one and a problem that has stifled work on this page. The Cap'n (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, you came here claiming that "telepathy-type interconnections" is misleading. It looks like you are conceding that this is not the case (otherwise, please fill in the blanks I provided above). The argument is as incomprehensible now as it was when the blocked user made it. Please don't rehash old discussions like this without good reason.

Now you have moved on to a point about redundancy. But you see, that wasn't your original claim, and had you made the redundancy point from the beginning then there wouldn't be an issue. It's perhaps the most trivial point to grace this talk page.

"Telepathy-type interconnections" is fine description appropriate for the lead, where we should elide technical details about the distinction between morphogenetic fields, morphic fields, and morphic resonance.

I have restored the quote and made a change that addresses the redundancy concern. vzaak 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, the point about redundancy was in my first post, in which I asked why we need four quotes working to explain MR in one paragraph. I then brought it up again in my reply, and in every statement since then. Also, redundant statements in the introduction to an encyclopedic entry are not trivial. It is not trivial to have redundant-type statements in an encyclopedia entry's introduction. Examples of things that are not trivial problems in the introduction to an encyclopedic entry includes redundant statements.

I still do feel that using that quote from the citation is not representative of what the broader source was stating. As a side note, however, I don't agree with the principle that if I do not fill in the blanks to your statement my arguments are null & void. With all due respect, this is not your article, it's all of ours. Your decision that the quote is a "fine description appropriate for the lead" is just as valid as my decision to question whether that is true. I feel confident I have established over the years that I am not a troll, and if I have concerns about the quality of the article I will bring them up for examination by consensus, in accordance with WP policies. I'm not going to cross-reference my concerns with everything Tumbleman brought up months ago, both because these are issues I have with the current article, and because the fact that he was blocked doesn't mean that all of the topics he ever took issue with are now verboten.

For the sake of argument, though, here's my responses to your blanks:

"telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of __telepathy being the defining characteristic of MR, or that this quote comes from Sheldrake's personal definition of the concept_, while the correct idea is __using that very source to either include Sheldrake's stated definition or his personal paraphrasing__.
"collective memories within species" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____. I don't know why this was asked. I never challenged this statement, tried to delete it or suggested its replacement. It's fine as is.

As always I look forward to everyone's feedback. I will continue to work to improve WP and assume we're all working toward the same end and can do so civilly. The Cap'n (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The point about "telepathy" being redundant was resolved with my last edit. I didn't say it was trivial -- I said it was perhaps the most trivial point to grace this talk page. It's the kind of thing that someone just goes ahead and changes, and that is what I have done.

Deleting the essential information that connects morphic resonance to telepathy is another matter.

Regarding the blanks, the source says (bold added),

But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs.

You say "collective memories within species" is fine. So do I. It's a correct and accurate phrase. It is Sheldrake's own quote, his own characterization of the concept. So why does this not apply to the phrase immediately preceding the quote, in the same sentence?

You say "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" suggests the idea of "telepathy being the defining characteristic of MR", but I cannot see how that could possibly be true. The article says,

Conceived during Sheldrake's time at Cambridge, morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".

Nothing here suggests that telepathy is "the defining characteristic" of morphic resonance.

You can learn about morphic resonance and telepathy in Dogs That Know; I provided a quote earlier. Sheldrake believes that morphic fields extend from an organism and connect to morphic fields that extend from other organisms, i.e., "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". Like the quote "collective memories within species", the quote "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" is accurate. For purposes of the lead, it allows us to avoid getting into the details of distinguishing between morphogenetic fields, morphic fields, and morphic resonance. vzaak 03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I still feel that the quote is not the most concise or representative example of Sheldrake's description of MR, given that he was referencing how others perceive it. If we're going to go through the trouble of including a direct quotation it should either be one of the many that includes Sheldrake's own definition or include some awkward proviso about the quote being referential to the views of others. This has been my ongoing concern with this quote from the beginning; whether or not a reasonable person could construe the words in the quote to be representative of MR, the context of the text makes it clear Sheldrake was referencing the views of others and not providing his own definition of MR. There are plenty of other quotes that could explain his own definition much more accurately, if you really feel the lead is lacking enough info on MR (a concept I find surprising).

I'll see if I can rustle up some representative quotes that fulfill both requirements, then we can set to rest the redundancy issue, contextual/intent problem and MR info matter at last. The Cap'n (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Put in a more representative quote in the lead. As far as the old one, I'd say the final nail in its coffin should be the fact that the passage it's taken from is quoted in its entirety further down the page. It seems to me we don't need the same passage to be quoted repeatedly throughout the text. The Cap'n (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be based solely on your idea that the quote represents how others perceive morphic resonance. This is rebutted by my previous comments, particularly my last one, and I haven't seen a response to those points. The quote has been in the article for ages; instead of trying to remove it in slow-warring fashion, please use this talk page to gain consensus for removing it.

Incidentally, I would point out that the source you inserted doesn't even mention morphic resonance, making your change unsupported: morphic resonance suggests "telepathy is a natural ability of animal groups, to communicate with each other".[1] This no longer matters because the text has been removed. vzaak 14:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My argument is based on the idea that a quote should represent the sentiment being expressed in the broader context and that it shouldn't be a smaller snippet of a fuller quote listed just a section or two lower. You mentioned that I didn't respond to your morphogenetic comment, which I did not because it was unconnected to the arguments being made, but the redundant quotes, unsuitability of this quote in the face of countless other sources and problem of contextual intent have been consistently ignored by you throughout, and they are very pertinent to this issue. I'm not sure if I'll continue struggling to justify this seemingly obvious point, as it appears to be just a time suck. Speaking of which...

I am not slow-warring, I am trying to add modest input to this page, make small changes and discuss possible negotiations. The fact you consider this inappropriate is bizarre. I have sought consensus and compromise at every turn, even searching for quotes that directly (and definitively) reference telepathy (the entire context of that quote was in reference to a MR question) to accommodate your concerns that this information be made clear to readers. So far your idea of compromise has been to blanket revert all of my work, plug in an additional citation or two to "explain" these actions and insist that nothing be altered on the page. This page has not remained the way it is for "ages" (what, a month?) because it is balanced, but because there's been such an incredible backlash against anyone trying to make even minor, balanced edits that everyone gives up. Look at the Talk archive and see the countless topic sections where established editors stated they were leaving the page in disgust. This is not a fruitful environment for collaboration, though FSM knows I'm trying. The Cap'n (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be we can't say "Sheldrake says X" (even though, clearly, he does) because X is so transparently stupid that for Wikipedia to say "Sheldrake says X" is tantamount to libellously accusing him of stupidity. The facts however are clear: He does say X, but we're not accusing him of stupidity, we can let the reader make their own minds up. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary and Conclusion

Although repetition should be normally eschewed, this thread has become so long that we need a wrap-up.

It is a sheer fact that telepathy-type interconnections between organisms is what Sheldrake is proposing. Sheldrake believes that morphic fields extend from organisms and connect to the morphic fields extending from other organisms. That's the medium for telepathy, according to Sheldrake. See Dogs That Know.
In the source, the phrase "collective memories within species" appears directly before "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms", in the same sentence. Askahrc has stated that "collective memories within species" is accurate (which it clearly is).
Sources that are sympathetic and supportive of Sheldrake use "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" to describe morphic resonance: books[2][3][4][5] and who knows how many websites[6][7][8].

From what I can tell, Askahrc's arguments have been:

The quote misleads. Contradicted by the above bullet points.
The quote represents the perspective of Sheldrake's detractors. Contradicted by the above bullet points.
The word "telepathy" is redundant in the lead. Fixed.
The quote should not be mentioned because it appears in greater context in the body of the article. Doesn't follow; no reason why not.
Other quotes exist. Perhaps, but the one given wasn't suitable for reasons that were explained.

The quote has been in the article for seven months, save for a period of about a week when it was removed by David, though David ended up restoring the quote himself. Askahrc needs to accept the consensus and stop pounding on the issue, please.

For the purposes of the lead, the quote succinctly connects morphic resonance to telepathy-related phenomena without getting into the details of describing and differentiating between morphic fields, morphogenetic fields, and morphic resonance. It would seem difficult to do better than that. vzaak 11:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Speed of light

In Rupert_Sheldrake#Debating_and_lecturing there is a paragraph about the speed of light and other constants changing, which lacks mainstream context per WP:PSCI. The only direct responses I've seen are from Sean Carroll via blogs,[9][10] e.g.,

There are many respectable scientists (including me, or at least “as well as me”) who study the possibility that physical parameters vary with time, both theoretically and experimentally. For the most part they understand the concept of error bars, as well as how different parameters are related to each other, neither of which Sheldrake has any clue about. Life is too short.

Wikipedia has Is the fine-structure constant actually constant?, but it's not clear that Sheldrake even understands that he's talking about the fine structure constant. It's unfortunate that he received laughs when he told the audience in his TEDx talk that the speed of light was eventually fixed, as if this was some indication of "dogma".

The paragraph in question is misleading without a mainstream view, and I think it should be deleted until one is provided. vzaak 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientific community is not homogenous

In the third paragraph of the lead, "Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon..." is an unsupportable generalization. It is like saying the religious community or the political community. I think the term "scientific community" is used here as a means of condemning rather than explaining that there are opposing views ... as there are for virtually all theories. I really thought we settled this months ago. Tom Butler (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That statement is supported by the following references:

Gardner, M. (1988). The New Age: notes of a fringe-watcher. Prometheus books. ISBN 9781615925773. "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash."
Sharma, Ruchir (2012). Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles. WW Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393083835. "Despite Sheldrake's legitimate scientific credentials, his peers have roundly dismissed his theory as pseudoscience."
Samuel, L. R. (2011). Supernatural America: A Cultural History: A Cultural History. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313398995. "...most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash..."
Wolpert, Lewis (11 January 1984). "A matter of fact or fancy?: SECOND OPINION". The Guardian. p. 11.
Maddox, John (24 September 1981). "A book for burning?". Nature 293 (5830): 245–246. Bibcode:1981Natur.293R.245.. doi:10.1038/293245b0. "...Sheldrake's argument is in no sense a scientific argument but is an exercise in pseudo-science."
Rose, S. (March 1992). "So-called "Formative Causation". A Hypothesis Disconfirmed. Response to Rupert Sheldrake" (PDF). Riv. Biol./Biol. Forum 85: 445–453. "Along with parapsychology, corn circles, creationism, ley-lines and "deep ecology", "formative causation", or "morphic resonance" has many of the characteristics of such pseudosciences..."
de Pracontal, M. (1986). L'imposture scientifique en dix leçons. Editions La Découverte.
Jones, David (4 July 1988). "Books: Captain Morphic – Review of 'THE PRESENCE OF THE PAST' By Rupert Sheldrake". The Times.

I agree that I thought this was settled - morphic resonance is pseudoscience and WP:DUCK applies to the statement that it is not accepted by general scientific consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice job of cutting and pasting. You are avoiding the point that the "scientific community" has not collectively condemned the theory. Saying it has here is a clear effort to bias the article. Some of your shotgun-like references are more specific than this article. Even Gardner qualifies his generalization with "Almost all scientists..." he specifically avoided "the scientific community." Tom Butler (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Two things. One - please observe WP:NPA - I put up the relevant sources to the statement you claimed to be unsubstantiated in talk to highlight them. You don't need to respond with "Nice job of cutting and pasting," that's going from 0 to hostile pretty much immediately. Two - it's pretty darn evident that the general scientific consensus is that this is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is supposed to use clear and unambiguous language. We don't need to violate WP:DUE by pointing out that somewhere somehow there might maybe be one person in the scientific community who disagrees with consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing civil about this article. Sorry, it is a learned response to assume poor faith around here. The same sort of bias is going on in the Dean Radin (and probably others) article, so please do not think your position is innocent.

As you well know with your Wiki-references, Wikipedia does not allow "the rest of the story" about these people because the community of scientists who study the related phenomena publish in peer-reviewed journals which are not allowed because they are "fringe." That means virtually all of the material used for reference here is from the mainstream, which any historian will tell you is always on its way out of date. In fact, the "scientific community" is not homogeneous and does not as a body reject any theory.Tom Butler (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Our current reliable sources demonstrate reasonably well that there is a consensus within the greater scientific community that Morphic Resonance isn't a thing that exists. If you can demonstrate peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary from non WP:FRINGE sources please do so. And the burden falls upon all editors to assume good faith. Journals like Journal of Parapsychology are considered fringe because the data they contain regularly and consistently falls down with badly executed statistical analysis and experimental design which violates standard principles of blinded experimentation. When we talk about general scientific consensus this is what we mean. It doesn't matter if every person who calls themselves a scientist, or even every person with a PhD from an accredited institution agrees. But can we find sources that have tested this using proper rigor and found... anything? Because right now the answer to that is no. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment of the Journal of Parapsychology as "badly executed statistical analysis and experimental design" shows a clear bias that is most likely based on your own personal ideology and belief system than actual science. In many cases, the journal has provided far more rigor in its statistical analysis than what you will ordinarily find in peer reviewed journals. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked very hard and failed to find supportive statements from the scientific community. All the mainstream sources that I can find are negative. If you can provide sources, then we can have another look at it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There have been many credible scientific sources. The research is easy to find if you are willing to keep an open minded scientific attitude. The problem is an a priori bias that is hard to shake from many who claim they have looked at the evidential material closely - but really haven't. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Please provide us with specific references to where morphic resonance has either (1) been subjected to tests published in mainstream journals which have implied the existence of MR (2) examples where experienced research scientists have praised MR and/or Rupert Sheldrake for his work on MR. While keeping my mind as open as possible, and looking as hard as I can, I can basically find bugger all. I might have missed something though. Assertions that I have missed something sound like wishful thinking unless you back them up with citations. Citations, please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Barney, I have no time for pseudo-skepticism. If you guys were for real, maybe I would take the time. But you're not. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time then. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Morphic resonance has been characterized as pseudoscience by the scientific community.

This sentence is wrong. The entire scientific community does not make pronouncements. A better wording would be what I proposed: [11] where I wrote,

"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterized as pseudoscience."

TDA took offense, I believe, at the insinuation that the scientific community doesn't accept it as a "real phenomenon". Except that this is much closer to what they don't accept than it is to say that they "consider" it a "pseudoscience". Still, perhaps we shouldn't make pronouncement for the entire community. So, we could try this version:[12] where we simply say that "Morphic resonance has been characterized as pseudoscience by members of the scientific community in large part because there is no scientific evidence that it exists." which simply combines the next phrase into the previous one and makes it clearer that it is the members doing the characterization rather than the community itself.

We need to avoid WP:ITA problems as well as avoid sloppy writing. I prefer the second version that was written as an attempt at compromise. What do you think?

jps (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've made a stab at an alternative wording. Thoughts? Second Quantization (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good step, but I thought the wording could be more concise so I shortened it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's shorter (diff), but both versions are incorrect—per WP:REDFLAG, reliable sources are not required to say that morphic resonance "is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon". Inedia does not say "those scientists who have looked at whether it is possible to live without food consider inedia to be pseudoscience". Any acceptance of morphic resonance would be trumpeted worldwide as the first occasion where something apparently identical in nature to all other fringe nonsense has been accepted as a real phenomenon, and scientists would be scrambling over each other to research a completely new area. That is not happening, and the wording proposed by jps above is correct and should be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"But it's true!" is not a sufficient reason for keeping material, as you know. I did not object to simply saying the scientific community characterizes it as pseudoscience, nor do I object to the other material in the article discrediting Sheldrake's view. The issue is not whether the edits are correct, but whether they are neutral. Saying there is a lack of evidence for his ideas and that these ideas are considered pseudoscience is more than sufficient. Adding on yet more material that is useless or argumentative seems to only serve the purpose of pushing one's views about Sheldrake, rather than providing a neutral description of Mr. Sheldrake and his views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please propose some wording that is very similar to the above from jps, but which you believe is more neutral. The real problem with these pages is that people on each side try to push the pendulum too far. "Members of the scientific community who have looked at morphic resonance consider Sheldrake's claims pseudoscientific" is an example of such pendulum pushing—it is never appropriate to say something like "the one or two scientists who have investigated [FRINGE topic] consider it to be pseudoscientific" because that suggests that if only some sensible scientists were to investigate they would find enlightenment. Science has no evidence regarding the existing of a teapot in solar orbit, and if someone claims there is such a teapot, Wikipedia's article has to inform the reader that the teapot is not accepted as a real phenomenon, and proposals regarding the teapot are pseudoscientific. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SQ, previously IRWolfie, is the one who introduced the actual change to which you object and I do not believe his intent was to engage in any "pendulum pushing" in favor of morphic resonance. I merely made some minor edits to shorten the material that, as far as I can tell, have not shifted the original meaning in either direction. The statement that claims are considered pseudoscientific and lack evidence is sufficient. No need exists for additional wording that does not in any way further illuminate the subject. Saying it is "not accepted as a real phenomenon" does not really mean anything as many proposed fields or particles are not "accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon" because they have not been proven to exist. Not all such ideas are considered pseudoscientific or otherwise dubious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in what you say, but do you have any proposed wording? I was trying to emphasise with my edit that the members of the scientific community who have looked at his proposals have then refuted/rejected them. Second Quantization (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

1RR

The one revert rule I imposed on the article with discretionary sanctions is due to expire in the next two days. I don't think it's necessary anymore so am happy to let it expire. However I thought I'd check with the regular editors of the article... are you all happy for it to expire or would you like it to be reimposed and if so for how long? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think 1RR would be preferable to keep as there is currently a revert war being prepetuated by User:The Devil's Advocate going on right now. I think keeping it in place for another 6 months is not a bad idea. If we do keep the restriction, shouldn't it be documented at WP:ARBPSCI? jps (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the 1RR should stay in place for another 6 months. There's been a lot of contention over these pages driven by some off-site activism lately and I'd hate to see an editwar spring up here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem here, Josh, is that you seem intent on POV-pushing. A lot of your insertions, such as the one I have recently removed and the remarkably similar edit you just inserted to avoid "edit-warring" read like polemical attacks, rather than objective attempts to describe Sheldrake and his ideas. Calling his ideas pseudoscience and saying there is a lack of evidence is quite sufficient. However, you are clearly trying to beat readers over the head with your personal take on the man and what he espouses.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

~~The problem here is that you lack WP:COMPETENCE and in short order will be on the wrong end of a WP:AE ban. Just saying. jps (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)~~ Refactored at request of Callanecc. jps (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that I've blocked jps for breaching 1RR which is still currently active and for the comment above. Regarding this discussion would the editors prefer a 1 revert per 24 hours or 1 revert per week? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

How about 1 edit per day? It's easier to understand. jps (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Since all of the trouble is being caused by pro-Sheldrake editors, how about 1RR for anyone expressing such views and ∞RR for those who are sane? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No I can't do that there is way too much room for interpretation and gaming the system. A blanket rule is really the only option it's just whether it's a one revert per 24 hours or a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright based on the discussion above all editors of this article are restricted to making 1 revert in any 24 hour period until 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC). I have reactivated the editnotice and logged it on the case page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, Second Quantization (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The articles credibility

This article discredits its own credibility from the very first sentence.

"Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4]"

what happened to "Biologist" (PhD) ?

To Criticize one's work. is legitimate, but to "revoke" one's academic credentials to belittle him, is despicable and unacceptable LarryTheShark (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

When did he last do any biology? or any science at all come to that? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) - the last of his approx. 40 scientific papers were published in 1986/87, AFAIK. Also, the article doesn't try to hide his previous career in scientific research. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And finally, LarryTheShark (talk · contribs), is quacking, IMHO, as opposed to being an inexperienced newby. Vzaak (talk · contribs) can no doubt add him to the appropriate sockpuppet investigations. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a little hostile Barney. I was going to come to this talk to discuss why the word "concept" was being used instead of "theory", but I found my answer in the archives. On this issue of PhD Biology credentials I think it's a little weird to give a guy a thousands of words article and not note his academic qualifications fully. That said, Sheldrake is in fact slightly significant for his small contribution to biology some decades ago in any case. There is no reason to remove his credentials. For some people it's the only thing significant Sheldrake has ever done. ~~I'm confident people would want to know that he is a PhD in Biology at least somewhere in the article.~~ Imagine if someone else uses Wikipedia as a source for writing an article about Sheldrake and failing to mention his formal qualifications. They really would have egg on their face for failing to do their research. So leaving the information out just makes Wikipedia look like a poor source. I'm also confident that this article is better to be labelled biased as long as the credentials are absent. The better question is why are we hiding Sheldrake's credentials? I welcome my ip number being investigated by whatever arbitration is going on. I have no interested or time in getting involved in wiki politics. I hardly ever talk on wikipedia these days but I do think this article needs some fresh blood on the editing crew. It doesn't come across as even-handed. Since there is arbitration going on I will happily reveal that I used to be a user named Metta Bubble and haven't edited wikipedia in 6 years. Please consider getting some fresh blood to even this article out. If the current state of the article was off-kilter enough to bring me out of a 6 year hiatus I hope that's food for thought to start getting more opinions from people disinterested in the topic. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In the "background" section it says "where he gained a PhD in Biochemistry". Imagine if someone claimed the article didn't mention his PhD without reading the article. (I don't believe he has a PhD in Biology, he certainly doesn't claim one on his website.) They really would have egg on their face for failing to do their research. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that. Thanks for saying. I've struck out the mistake I made above. My position overall still stands. It's really quite odd to put someone's primary credentials at the end of a section like that as an afterthought. It comes across as though the article is hiding his credentials and as such is a little too paranoid of giving too much credence to Sheldrake. I say let his views speak for themselves. It's wrong to hide his credentials and hiding like that will just give fuel to the idea that there is an anti-Sheldrake editorial faction rather than simply openness in the article. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing is about Rupert, is that we have to consider what he is notable for. He hasn't done much notable science at all, and none for many years, see upthread. If he was notable as a scientist, perhaps the PhD would be given more prominence, but as he is only notable as a writer/author/personality on fringe subjects where his PhD isn't really pertinent, then I feel the article gives it sufficient weight. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So I think what you're saying is that because he works in fringe pseudoscience we shouldn't show his actual credentials? Kind of like barring a lawyer for improper conduct. I think you're making a mess of trouble for wikipedia with this view. It would be better to just say he's a biologist with a well-known hypothesis that most scientists consider to be pseudoscience. Why should we obscure his actual credentials in order to sway the wiki audience to an opinion? The article shouldn't convey this feeling of us having an opinion on Sheldrake like that from the get go. It's the first thing I noticed when I read the article. That we were calling his hypothesis a "concept" and that we were omitting his credentials as a scientist. When we put his credentials at the bottom it makes it look like what we really want to say is "look, admitted that this guy is a PhD biologist but we don't hold much stock in his credentials because we don't agree with the books we writes." Is that the message you would rather convey? I think you had better cite someone saying that his credentials as a scientist are actually not valid in order to justify putting it right at the bottom like that. I think it's a bad message for an encyclopedia that values neutrality. It's is far better to say Sheldrake has actual real credentials AND most scientists think he is publishing rubbish. That seems to be the actual truth of the matter. The article is not presenting truth. It's presenting a censored version of the man. The argument of undue weight is quite absurd. He has the credentials of a scientist. It's totally relevant to the article. It is in fact perhaps the most interesting thing about Sheldrake. That he actually has the credentials of a scientist AND he is publishing stuff that is almost completely rejected by other scientists. Why would you want to hide that? Seems really really biased. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You see the thing is, the reason so many organisations and media commentaries are calling Sheldrake a heretic is precisely because he IS a scientist. It makes no sense that The Guardian calls him a heretic if they aren't referring to him being notable as a scientist (albeit it a heretical one). This Guardian article is written in 2012. It's NOT something from Sheldrake's distant past. His scientific qualifications are entirely relevant today to the media and other scientists. I would really like to invite another wiki editor to put the biologist credentials into the opening sentence of the article. I believe I have completely answered Roxy's notability issue with the link above and unless there actual sources to provide a reason to exclude Sheldrake's credentials as a scientist it should in fact be included in the opening. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The second and third sentences of the article bring attention to his career as a biologist in just the way you describe, it seems to me.

As with any other biography, the infobox on the right shows the PhD and the article describes the educational background, including the PhD. Roxy is kind of making a red herring out of credentials and prominence. The lead is not about listing credentials, no matter who it is and no matter how prominent. The Massimo Pigliucci article isn't is ploy to denigrate Pigluicci because the article lead fails to mention that he has three PhDs. The lead is about notability, and people aren't notable for getting PhDs. Filling the lead with credentials does not serve the reader and is not what Wikipedia is about. I haven't found any Wikipedia articles with "so-and-so has a PhD" in the lead; look at Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example.

Another aspect of this is that Wikipedia does not describe fringe views from the perspective of their adherents, but rather from the perspective of mainstream experts. This requires some judgement in identifying what is the fringe view and what is the mainstream view. Joseph Newman once garnered much attention from newspaper and televion outlets, many of which reported his claims credulously (he even made it to congress!). Wikipedia doesn't take the approach of "news guy said it, we report it". Rather, we look at what mainstream experts in the relevant field have to say about particular fringe claims.

Rupert Sheldrake holds a fringe view of what comprises biology. He believes that telepathy and morphic resonance, for instance, are part of the field of biology. When studying those topics, he believes that he is acting as a biologist. He tells the journalists that interview him that he is a biologist, and it gets reported as such. But what do mainstream experts say? They do not hold the view that dog telepathy belongs to the field of biology. They refer to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist or a pseudoscientist or, as the source in the lead says, a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. vzaak 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Vzaak. I think the PhD focus actually is a red herring. I couldn't really care whether he's a PhD or whatever level. The point is, he IS a biologist. Biology is his area of research, his area of publishing, and the area with which everyone is making comment on his work. In short, he is notable in reference to biology. Let's do exactly as you say and NOT describe Sheldrake from his own perspective but let's describe him from the perspective of those writing prominent articles about him. Um, so that would be that he is a heretical scientist (or similar labels).

You made my point for me really. The article and the journos are describing Sheldrake as a scientist by your own admission. So we have Sheldrake calling himself a scientist and we have what seems like ALL major press also calling him a scientist. In fact, Wikipedia is the only prominent information source we can find that isn't citing Sheldrake as primarily a scientist. So the argument against listing him as a scientist really does boil down to "we don't agree with his views."

In summary, Vzaak's and Roxy's only argument for excluding Sheldrake's most relevent credential is that they don't like his science and would like to ignore all the mainstream media about Sheldrake's science in favour of a strictly skeptical view of Sheldrake. I'm sorry but is not an NPOV view at all. There are 2 cited sources here for Sheldrake being considered a prominent scientist by all mainstream publishing and press (albeit for all the wrong reasons, nonetheless Sheldrake is still prominent). We really need to address all these sources and how they could possible be considered irrevelent and then add our own sources for Sheldrake not being a scientist in order to satisfy my point. Otherwise Vzaak and Roxy need to concede the point. In lieu of this happening I again invite ANY editors to please add the "biologist" credential back into the header section or at list a note that this article is biased. 49.183.3.68 (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Anon, you are demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the sociology of science and what WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE mean.

Scientists would demonstrably interact with Sheldrake as a colleague, a biologist, if they were accepting his papers into mainstream journals, citing his publications, working on morphic resonance research, or even as a first step suggesting that his ideas were partially credible. They're not - I've looked.
It's not a case of Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) and Vzaak (talk · contribs) "not liking Sheldrake's science", quite simply because he's not doing any science.
Journalists are not experts on science; scientists are.
Sheldrake exaggerates the importance of his credentials. Wikipedia does not repeat half-truths.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

49.183.3.68, in your first message you wrote, "There is no reason to remove his credentials...I'm confident people would want to know that he is a PhD in Biology at least somewhere in the article." When people use the word "credentials", they are referring to things like PhDs, just as you did. As has been covered, the PhD is already mentioned in two places in the article (the infobox and the first section), and putting it into the lead text is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia does. It is very confusing that you now seem to be using "credentials" and "title" interchangeably. As I understand your position, you want the title "biologist" to be in the first sentence instead of the second sentence, where it is now. For the sake of preventing confusion, please don't call that "credentials", just say you want the title "biologist".

The lead text brings attention to his career as a biologist in the second and third sentences, using the title "biologist". This already addresses the issue of Sheldrake's background as a scientist, and does so prominently.

It is often construed as rude when newcomers are asked to read such-and-such policy, but in this case some reading on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views really is needed. Wikipedia is not written from the perspective of fringe views. Articles must clearly distinguish the fringe view from the mainstream view; it is the job of Wikipedia editors to do that. This is not a robotic task of source counting, but requires judgement and a sense of proportion.

Dog telepathy is part of the field of biology. Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view? Sheldrake's work on morphic resonance is simply a continuation of his work at Cambridge (as he says). Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view?

The source, cited in the lead, describing Sheldrake as a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology is Nature, a prestigious scientific journal that is qualified to discern whether or not dog telepathy falls within the field of biology. See the archives for other expert mainstream sources. vzaak 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Barney and Vzaak. thanks for the replies. I am happy with the reference that Sheldrake is "an English author, lecturer, former biochemist and researcher in parapsychology, known for his largely disfavored morphic resonance hypothesis." Thanks for the suggestion on using the Nature reference. Are you okay with that then? Does that look neutral enough?

I would not approve "taken up parapsychology" as it is derisive language of a living person. See WP:BLP
I would not approve "known for advocating" because what hypothesis creator doesn't advocate their own hypothesis? It's derisive language. Again see WP:BLP.
Also on this point thanks Barney for reminding us to reread WP:FRINGE. It says "it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." So, if you want to use the word "concept" can you please provide some references for it. It seems to me that almost universally it is called a "hypothesis" or a "theory" by both critics and fans.
Barney. You said "Journalists are not experts on science; scientists are." This is not a purely science article. This is a biography of a living person article. The appropriate reference is WP:BLPFRINGE. To say you are only going to present the scientific view of Sheldrake's life story is complete ridiculous. He's also known for being a lecturer. His lectures are well received by the public and the media. We are obliged to present the scientific view and also a view of him as a man in the media. I think you are mixing these two together and have created a coatrack article that purports to be about Sheldrake but is actually focused on scientifically criticising his views. Even in the media section the whole thing is focused on scientific criticism. It needs a lot of work there.
I would also encourage you to read WP:BITR. Specifically "The contents of this type of coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?"
Our article straight away gives the impression that Rupert Sheldrake is not to be taken seriously. "advocate" "concept" "defending". Etc. But what are we saying here? If Sheldrake is defending his ideas then other people MUST be attacking his ideas? How else can we say he is defending? So the word "defending" is presented without the context of what attacks are being made. It is deriding Sheldrake. Please remove this word for a more neutral tone.
Reading further and wholly into the article you'd get the impression Sheldrake is actually criticised absolutely everywhere he goes. As a first time reader I would wonder why he gets invited anywhere at all. In fact almost every single section of our article reads as a criticism of Rupert Sheldrake. The media section goes straight into criticism after the first sentence and then into questioning his motives in the third sentence. This is hardly the structure of a section presenting a neutral viewpoint. A better approach would be for the opening paragraph of that section to state what activities Rupert Sheldrake has undertaken in the media and public and then move the criticism of his actions into an appropriate response below and another section balancing his relative popularity with media outlets and the public. There is nowhere I can find in our article that addresses why Rupert Sheldrake is popular except a brief mention that he manipulates the media and an allusion here and there that the public is stupid enough to follow him.

The article really isn't good enough IMHO. Are you willing to work to address the issues I raised? Are you willing to use the sentence I suggested above? 49.183.36.24 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Largely disfavored" really doesn't work. The reality is that Sheldrake is the only believer and there are several other people saying something like "well, maybe there's something there, but not enough for me to actually work on it". "Almost universally rejected" would be closer to the mark. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We've been through all of this before:

The problem here is that the Sheldrake's oeuvre has three responses; ignorant ignorance (scientists have never heard of it, and are unlikely to be introduced to it via the scientific media (journals, lectures, conversation with colleagues)), deliberate ignorance (scientists who've looked at MR and concluded that it's completely bonkers and not worth wasting their time with), and thirdly quite robust attacks on what he's said. None of these positions accepts MR as valid science. Don't confuse a meta-response to the third response, that of supporting Sheldrake's right to free speech, with advocating support of his hypotheses.
As you've suggested Sheldrake is not "taken seriously" by the scientific community. If by "taken seriously" you meant that "his work is accepted as being valid science", that seems to be a fair and accurate assessment. We cannot lie to the reader and claim otherwise for WP:BLP.
In science-related articles, we don't use the word theory to refer to anything other than a scientific theory. MR has not reached this level of acceptance.
I do however take your point about unconscious biases, and wording. We're trying our best to bend over backwards for WP:BLP. Believe it or not some of the more personal responses have been ignored.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone. Could you all please have another go at addressing my request for a single credible reference that Rupert Sheldrake has come up with a "concept" rather than a "hypothesis". This word "concept" seems to be complete fabrication by us. There are countless scientific and/or media articles refering to his hypothesis in our own citations. Even the Nature article vzaak provided referred to it as a "hypothesis". How can we possibly selectively pick from an article like we have? Please address this question. I have not suggested the word "theory" so please stop addressing that issue, I have suggested the word hypothesis and I have stated our own references and citations use the word "hypothesis". It's a disingenuous article introduction to say "concept". I have read through the archives and have seen the discussion on the issue of concept versus hypothesis and I'd like to remind you that wikipedia is not a vote. Discussion improves articles.

I understand you may think that "Almost universally rejected" captures MR, but does it? The reason I don't think it does is because most scientists simply wouldn't bother going that far with it. To say "rejected" suggests that MR has been peer-researched (or is peer researchable) and that these peer scientists have then gone on to say the hypothesis is rejected now. I prefer "unfavored" because it suggests to me that scientists don't even give it much credence to even discuss, research or reject it. I am open to other suggestions. Could someone else please make suggestions too? How about "unconsidered"? I think "unfavored" is better. How about "fringe hypothesis"? How about something a little more explanatory? "Concept" is simply wrong as far as I'm concerned. "Largely rejected" would be an improvement (if we can cite someone saying that it has been rejected scientifically, which I don't think we can).

Hey Barney. I am glad we are bending over backwards. Me too. It's a hard article to write. No one doubts it. You could always move onto another article if it's too much. I don't really have the time for wikipedia in general but I'd like to see a better article here that is neutral and interesting also. Honestly, if my goal was to make an article that helped people realise Rupert Sheldrake's theories are pseudoscience I'd have to concede that the current article doesn't serve that purpose very well. It simply looks and sounds so biased. Like the "spends his time defending himself" comment. Do we seriously think our readers are so stupid as to miss the bias in sentences like that? Let's give them a good article on this topic instead. 49.183.102.46 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I know of no reliable sources, i.e articles in peer-reviewed journals, that discuss "morphic resonance" as a serious scientific hypothesis. In science, hypotheses should be testable, otherwise they're unscientific. Given the comments from numerous sources that MR isn't basically testable, I'm not sure hypothesis is the best word to use. Concept isn't original research, its just another word in the dictionary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a conjecture, not a hypothesis. But we have already been round that loop half a dozen times. I suggest the IP reads the archives before wasting further time on rehashing prior debates. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Negative Propaganda Campaign

: What Roxy said. Wikipedia covers science and it covers pseudoscience, it just doesn't pretend that the latter has any kind of parity with the former. And according to Jimbo, this is by design. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been an extremely well organized and forceful ongoing propaganda campaign here on Wikipedia against any and all scientific work (and those scientists associated with the work) regarding parapsychology or psi or however else you would like to label the phenomena. Even the very label of "pseudoscience" promotes a negative judgement on the scientific research that has been conducted in psi for many many decades now - with quite a large amount of accumulated records and evidentiary material that currently reside within a library at England's Society for Psychical Research or the American Branch SPR. Decades of publications in both societies "Proceedings", have been dutifully and ideologically ignored so that the editorial control, and the organizers of this negative propaganda (most likely fundamentalists for the Skeptics society) here on Wikipedia, would have everyone who visits these very public pages believe have no consequential value at all.

It is unfortunate, that the best and brightest of scientists (such as Rupert Sheldrake) are subject to this kind of fundamentalist assault by the Skeptic's society. It very much reminds me of the kind of persecution Copernicus and Galileo suffered, with the bitter irony that they helped free humanity from the shackles of an over-bearing mainstream church. We now have the same thing taking place, but now with an over-bearing mainstream Skeptic's society who has been given free reign to publish at will their dogma on the Wikipedia pages, while silencing or denigrating contrary views. (unsigned comment by 159.118.158.122, 00:50, April 16, 2014‎)

Nonsense. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, for those who are further interested in what users like Roxy the dog have been up to go here: https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/wikipedia-the-only-way-to-win-is-not-to-play/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.158.122 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, nonsense. Read the stuff at the top of the page, please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please ignore 159.118.158.122 - this is a banned user Jamenta (talk · contribs) who was also posting as 98.248.9.48 (talk · contribs) who was banned for insulting users on Wikipedia and leaving threats on the Ian Stevenson talk page and other parapsychologists. He's trolled various talk pages in the past with stupid conspiracy theories. Jamenta on his IP 159.118.158.122 (talk · contribs) has also has been leaving abusive messages on the parapsychology talk-page. He was warned for this. Goblin Face (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Jamenta/159.118 keeps mentioning the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research on various talk-pages but they are not considered reliable sources (it is not a scientific peer-reviewed journal) and the journal is rarely used on Wikipedia (a possible exception is if they are mentioned in other reliable secondary sources). But there is a negative paper for Sheldrake's work in the Proceedings for the SPR. Roe, C. A. and Hitchman, G. A. (2011) Testing the theory of morphic resonance using recognition for Chinese symbols: a failure to replicate. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. 75(4), pp. 211-224. Online here [13]. Goblin Face (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research has been published continuously since 1884, promoting the Society's aim of examining "without prejudice or prepossession and in a scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or supposed, which appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognised hypothesis. The Journal's contents reflect the wide range of our contributors' specialisms and interests and include reports of current laboratory and fieldwork research, as well as theoretical, methodological and historical papers with a bearing on the field of parapsychology."

Quoted from the SPR website: "All papers submitted to the Journal are strictly peer-reviewed". So your accusation is not based on any facts Goblin Face. Obviously the IP address you cite is different from this "jamenta" IP address, so again, you are coming up with a very spurious and inauthentic accusation here. I prefer to remain anonymous as you have, for obvious reasons - not the least of which is false accusation, deliberate misinformation and libel. (unsigned comment by 159.118.158.122, 15:58, April 16, 2014‎)

Just because something has been published for a long time does not make it a reliable source. see for example the vernerable National Enquirer. and just because someone claims that they are reliable source, doesnt make them one. we specifically discount promotional claims made by a subject about themselves. And please note, again, that parapsychology and morphic resonance fall under the arb com's Pseudoscience ruling and tendentious claims about non reliable sources will quickly lead to Topic bans via the arbitration enforcement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say the SPR wasn't peer-reviewed, I said it wasn't scientifically peer-reviewed. It isn't a science journal. It's easy to see behind your lies Jamenta :) On your IP address 98.248.9.48 (talk · contribs) you left three abusive messages accusing editors of being skeptics or biased on a very specific section of a talk-page entitled "‎Jamenta's essay up for deletion". You have exactly the same writing style as that IP address, you use the same words and use the same conspiracy theories and obsessions with "skeptics". On your new IP 159.118.158.122 (talk · contribs) on the 06:14, 30 March 2014 you left two more abusive messages on the same talk-page in the "‎Jamenta's essay up for deletion" section which were removed by an admin. Please stop wasting our time. You are the same person. You have contributed absolutely nothing to Wikipedia and all you do is log on here to abuse people, make threats and promote irrational conspiracy theories. The only user writing libel is yourself. I will not be further contributing to this discussion. Goblin Face (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't know who this "jamenta" you are referring to Goblin Face - but I understand what it is like to be the object of abuse now. The SPR is and has always published a scientifically peer-reviewed journal. If you look at Wikipedia's link for the SPR, and look at the past presidents, many were luminaries in the scientific world. To claim otherwise is to be remarkably ignorant of the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.158.122 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.