Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Grammar Error?

Part of the article states:

"Sheldrake debated biologist Lewis Wolpert on the existence of telepathy..."

It should read:

"Sheldrake debated with the biologist Lewis Wolpert on the existence of telepathy..."

or

"Sheldrake debated with biologist Lewis Wolpert on the existence of telepathy...

One debates a subject, not a person. One debates "with" or "against" a person. Baby English even to a Swede!

Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

debate 11) to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/re+debate 89.110.2.152 (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect, the example you give has no subject and is limited to U.S English. The following entries from the same dictionary provide further clarification where there is a subject, in U.S. English (using link above)

9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.

10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.

12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.

The Oxford dictionary is not inconsistent with my point:

• For British and World English, see http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/debate
• For "American" English, see http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/debate

The following seems to clarify:

1. to enter into a long and disciplined discussion on a particular subject with someone. Our team debated with the other team about the chances for world peace. The candidates debate about taxes tomorrow. We will debate with them about health care. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/debate)

Regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Information from the essay

I tried adding some more information about "The Sense of Being Stared At" and was immediately reverted. Since Barney³ didn't discuss I guess I will. What's the matter with this? The point of the article is to explain the subject, and I tried to touch on a few of the main headings from Part 2 (the practical experiments already having been covered more).

I'll admit, I find an unusual fondness for these arguments since despite not having known Sheldrake had such ideas I've made all four of them at one point or another over on the Science Refdesk (excluding the concept that consciousness has something to do with entanglement, that I should try to track down). Still, I didn't think I was far from neutral about it, and there's nothing "fringy" about explaining the main topics of a piece of writing. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you made a reasonable first attempt to cover some of Sheldrake's work in a section supposedly about Sheldrake's work, but some here want the entire article to deal with Sheldrake in a few words while giving over 80% of the space to criticism. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, per WP:PSTS the content of the article should be based on reliable sources assessment of the works of Sheldrake, not our regurgitation of his work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree to a certain extent TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - we do need to cover what his ideas say, and might very carefully use primary sources. However, we have a big problem with WP:SUMMARYSING nonsensical fringe, i.e. arguments that do not make sense, and this is where WP:SUMMARYSTYLE just falls apart. (where's the essay on that?)

Instead of going into too much detail, it might be briefly to comment that Sheldrake argues that quantum mechanics and support his proposals, which I think is in the article anyway.

It's also, as we point out, an essay on a website, not peer reviewed, not even published in a newspaper, and given Sheldrake's known propensity for "muddled diatribes", it's clearly not very reliable. We can't go into details on fringe theories, because they don't make sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is about how Wikipedia articles relate to each other, not external content. It would only apply to this article if we determine that there is too much content to reasonably cover in one article and spin off daughter articles about specific content, such as a book or morphic resonance, into stand alone articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What I meant TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) is that we have to summarise sources, but this assumes that arguments presented are broadly coherent, but if those arguments are incoherent, they are very difficult to explain. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have to judge whether it makes sense, but actually it does make sense, quite good sense. It really is established quantum theory, so far as I know, that the stars were all smeared together in a superposition of vast numbers of quantum states, until the first man on Earth looked up and they resolved into their places. No? Wnt (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought you were joking with this, and then, remembering previous conversations, realized you probably weren't. The answer is emphatically, "no". jps (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the basic cat in a box. Until you open the box, there are bits of live cat and dead cat in a billion different positions all mixed up together in a superposition. Well... nobody can look into the box until there is somebody, right? Wnt (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Only if you think that Quantum decoherence is a "somebody". (And starlight is not in a quantum state of superposition, obviously.) jps (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Compare [1]: "We created the universe. ... this strong anthropic principle asserts the universe is hospitable to us because we could not create a universe in which we could not exist. While the weak anthropic principle involves a backward-in-time reasoning, this strong anthropic principle involves a form of backward-in-time action.

"Quantum cosmologist John Wheeler back in the 1970s drew an eye looking at evidence of the Big Bang and asked: 'Does looking back "now" give reality to what happened "then"?' His provocative sketch has not lost impact..." [The sketch is of an eye, at one end of a grey U representing the world-line from a little "big bang", with an arrow from the eye back to the bang] Wnt (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Skirting the edges of the out-on-a-limbs of these physicists' flights of fancy is not a good way to build your physical understanding. The anthropic principle is not causal in the sense of causality and Wheeler's question in context is a similar game. Fred Hoyle's use of the anthropic principle to discover the resonance state of carbon-12 does not imply that we caused that state to exist. Cart before horse and all that. jps (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be right in being skeptical of the anthropic principle - it does tend to verge into solipsism. But my point here isn't really to argue what is good physics; my point is to refute the contention, still being made above, that Sheldrake's ideas are too incoherent for it to be possible to summarize them. When they closely resemble other publications by other people - including ideas I myself have expressed - they are certainly possible to summarize, and it is appropriate here to do it. Sheldrake differs, of course, from other sources in arguing that it is possible some of these effects lead to testable predictions such as telepathy. Even so, when you're the king of Strong Anthropicland and the whole world has been made so that you exist, why shouldn't their thoughts be predictable a little more often than chance? It's not really that far of a stretch from established "scientific" ideas about quantum mechanics. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

To summarize what I think you're saying, I think your opinion that Sheldrake's views are indistinguishable from a kind of solipsism and anthropocentrism that posits cognition as the central feature of the universe, rather in contradiction to Copernican ideals. I think that's a fine thesis, but we'll need some sources making this kind of analysis to be able to include such a summary here. In other words, I think the connection you are trying to make is a valid one, but I don't think we have the sources necessary to make it. Just because logical extensions to Roger Penrose's thoughts could be seen as similar to Sheldrake's proposals does not mean we are empowered at Wikipedia to make such connections, sadly. jps (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you look up to the edit at the beginning of this, I wasn't doing anything nearly so complex as that. I just want us all to claim the right to describe the basic concepts Sheldrake raises seriously, without being stopped by claims that it is incoherent, pseudoscience, etc. So I'm not actually proposing to include a link to solipsism unless I find it in the writing being summarized or third party review of it. Wnt (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are ways to describe Sheldrake's ideas fairly without including caveats every other sentence. However, removing all criticism from the article seems a bit like overkill. It should be possible to describe what he believes without going down the rabbit hole and without sounding like an internet "yeahbut" debater. jps (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I should disclose that I have expressed closely related ideas previously. [2][3] Of course, there are many pseudoscientific ideas that many people arrive at independently, but at the very least you can't say an idea is meaningless when different people can arrive at aspects of it independently. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Many people make similar typos and misspellings. That doesn't mean that the typo itself is meaningful (it is, by definition, an obfuscation of meaning). There is a sociological, perhaps even psychological (or maybe even pharmaceutical!) meaning behind fringe theories, but Barney, I believe, wasn't talking about these. He's talking about the substance of the claims. I know it's popular on Wikipedia to deal entirely syntactically, but we do have some responsibility to keep inaccurate information out of the encyclopedia or at least explain that it is inaccurate and only being included for completeness sake. jps (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Well, it's legit "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." I thought I was sticking to that pretty well - heck, I was really only trying to cover the headings of the source with a few extra words for flow. Per WP:IAR it is better for the article to convey that he was making an argument about quantum physics than giving the impression he just ran some numbers on pet owners. Wnt (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To me, the 80%/20% seems to be a reasonable proportion so that the article is based on third party interpretations and assessments. The problem with going into more detail of his work based on what his work says is that there is so little reliable secondary sourced material critiquing it to keep the based on percentages appropriate and not swing to the point where the article becomes based on Sheldrake's primary source material. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers, please

I see some six citations to The Science Delusion which lack page numbers. In a three hundred-plus page book (at least in the US edition) it is unreasonable to put in such citations. These are being used to back up some strong claims, so if someone wishes to defend these it seems to me that the references need to fixed. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Jzg (talk · contribs) is reading it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I replaced The Science Delusion refs with Science Set Free refs (same book, US edition) and added a Google Books link. vzaak 14:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page semiprotected

I hate semiprotecting talk pages, but Tumbleman is seriously impeding progress here. It is time for the single purpose and agenda accounts to find another hobby and leave fixing this article to experienced Wikipedians who understand words like "compromise". Guy (Help!) 00:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think that there is enough disruption from Tumbleman socks to warrant semi-protection especially given the other IP editors who contribute to the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys need to be more specific in identifying socks, as at the moment I'm guessing. just the first two digits would do, or you could strike through them? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc, evidence is forthcoming for the newest Tumbleman sockpuppet. Also, the person who initially triggered the page protection for the article is expected to violate his/her topic ban once again (and there is further off-site confirmation of this). In addition, there is the case of the IP that completely buried this talk page in comments and repeatedly disrupted it with "battle factions" information.[4][5] After the SPI I was going to file a formal RFPP. vzaak 01:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Roxy, do you mean when we block them strike their comments on the talk page (the marked block script might be useful)? Vzaak, as a regular at WP:RFPP, I would decline the protection request (and I imagine the other regulars would was well). There is no where near enough disruption to warrant semi-protecting a talk page especially given there are also good faith IP contributions to the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Something like that yes. I had no idea that Bubblefish was still socking on this page, and I still don't know which IP he is. Perhaps it is my own lack of experience on here that I don't see the notification of such a finding amongst all the stuff that is happening on drama boards, and my own watchlist. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done a couple as I block them, but when you review an SPI report with a few account and some IPs, striking every comment they make on a talk page isn't really feasible. My best suggestion would be the marked blocked script (which I advise everyone to use), it puts a line through the IP/account when it's linked to the userpage or talk page or contribs and if you hover over it gives you the block information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc, the disruption is not only to the talk page itself, but the time editors have to put into compiling the next SPI in lieu of being productive. I also pointed out the other person that avows off-wiki to disrupt the page (per our conversation on your talk page), as well the tsunami flood by the other IP. Are you sure this isn't sufficient? vzaak 02:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not until or unless it actually happens, otherwise it's preemptive. There has only been one blocked sock (with two edits) in the last week, and that is definitely not enough to warrant protecting an article or project, let alone a talk page with good faith IP contributors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman (talk · contribs) is far from being the most disruptive talk page echo chamber here. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing genuine good faith from IPs here, just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT obduracy and some pretty obvious sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 05:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked for other opinions on WP:ANI#Semi protection of Talk:Rupert Sheldrake|ANI]] asking for another opinion on whether the protection is warranted. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

1RR restriction on this article

Due to continued edit warring after warnings all editors of the article currently at Rupert Sheldrake are restricted to making one revert in any twenty-four hour period on the article expiring at 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC). Violating this restriction may lead to a block or topic ban, as an arbitration enforcement action. Please note that editing reverting just outside the 24 hour period will be considered gaming the system and may result in the same sanction. This action is undertaken as Arbitration enforcement per the discretionary sanctions authorised by the Arbitration Committee in this decision and is logged here. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

reverted clubots archving -not signing so the bot isnt fooled again - TRPOD

Reverted the archiving again and adding a time stamp in the future. 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

sokal affair

Consensus reached, discussion done.

I removed some commentary on the sokal affair because it has nothing to do with Sheldrake. The criticisms etc are about the publication of the article and have no bearing on anyone mentioned in passing therein. Barleybannocks (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC) David added that commentary. I removed it.[6] David added it again, citing something about original research, which I never understood. vzaak (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC) I see Barney has added the commentary again. This isn't about Sheldrake and seems to be included only to get some very negative statements into the article as if they are about Sheldrake when they are not. Please explain the relevance of the commentary here.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC) As the cited sources clearly show, others consider this to be relevant. We should reflect what the sources say, not what we personally believe. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC) I completely agree the Sokal affair is relevant, and that's why I left the reference to it, and a brief description of it, in the article. What is not relevant is to take the genertal commentary (in the form of criticisms) about the Sokal affair and imply they have anything much to do with Sheldrake per se. They do not. But hey, any chance to get some negative words into the article, eh.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC) The current veriosn as of now is: Sheldrake's work was amongst those cited in a faux research paper written by Alan Sokal and submitted to Social Text.[104] In 1996, the journal published the paper as if it represented real scientific research,[105] an event which columnist George F. Will described as "a hilarious hoax which reveals the gaudy silliness of some academics"[105] and which has come to be known as the Sokal affair. This seems to me to be perfectly acceptable. But see below... Guy (Help!) 12:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC) The problem is with "which reveals the gaudy silliness of some academics" and "as if it represented real scientific research" which are both about the Sokal affair and not about Sheldrake in any meaningful way. Thus to include them in the Sheldrake article is to imply that in some way they are a commentary on Sheldrake when they are not. This is misleading and completely wrong in a BLP since it represents a disingenuous attempt to misdirect the criticism from its intended target onto the subject of this article.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC) You and I are familiar with the Sokal hoax. Readers may well not be. The comment is a direct quote about the Sokal hoax and is valid in framing it. Feel free to suggest a better quote that sums up the hoax and what it means. In context, the inclusion of Sheldrake's ideas was deliberate, was intended to highlight a credulous approach to a certain sort of argument, so was directly relevant to the purpose and nature of the hoax, yes? Guy (Help!) 13:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC) IU think the first sentence does the job reasonably well. It was a hoax paper that got published that mentions Sheldrake and coopts some of his terminology. The further views about that hoax have no bearing on Sheldrake and have no place in the article - especially not in a way that implies some negativity with regard to Sheldrake and/or his views. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC) There are many forms of hoax. The specific point of the Sokal hoax was to highlight the credulous nature of those participating in sciencey-sounding but unscientific disciplines. That's what we need to explain. Feel free to suggest an alternative quote that makes this point. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Sheldrake is a completely peripheral character in the hoax. Sokal simply borrowed some terminology and wrote a load of ruubbish. The commentary on that hoax therefore has nothing to do with Sheldrake's actual work, and the criticisms of particular academics mentioned has nothing to do with Sheldrake. Thus the quote that some here want to include is being included to impugn Sheldrake by the slightest of associations.Barleybannocks (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC) He is indeed. But the reference to Sheldrake was nonetheless calculated, and is relevant to this article according to independent sources. What other quote would you substitute in order to maintain the necessary context, while being less offensive to your beliefs? Guy (Help!) 15:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC) I have already written my preferred version - it removed the slur by association about academics other than Sheldrake, and accurately characterises the deliberate mischaracterisation of Sheldrake by Sokal as part of his hoax. You probably didn't see it because it was only up for a few minutes as Barney appears to have carte blanche to undo changes any number of times (4 at the moment) in one day. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC) So, you refuse to even countenance compromise by suggesting an alternative quote that provides the context without offending your beliefs, and this is somehow everybody else's problem. Except that it isn't, it's one more black mark against you. See how this works? Guy (Help!) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC) On the contrary, I have already compromised. I rewrote the passage to give a fairer impression of Sheldrake's lack of substantive involvement in the issue. Here [7] As for your black mark stuff, you really should retract that now given that it is based on a simple error. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) You appear not to understand what compromise means. You inserted different wording, others then tweaked that, you want to revert to your own wording. That's not compromise, that#'s ownership, which is the opposite. Do feel free to suggest a quote which provides the necessary context without offending our beliefs. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC) It is of no consequence whether your beliefs are offended. That's the first point. The second point is that I did put in a compromised version that you have failed to even comment on. The fact is that the negative quote is misleading inasmuch as it looks like Sheldrake is being criticised when it was those who published the article that were being criticised. And this kind of misrepresentation of sources appears throughout the article which is, at present, appalling (possibly due to the lack of knowledge of the subject matter of those who have taken it upon themselves to control the article). 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs) I have no beliefs to offend here. You are the one advocating a non-standard view of the world. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC) You said "Do feel free to suggest a quote which provides the necessary context without offending our beliefs" and then you said "I have no beliefs to offend here". Seems both can't be right. You also suggest I am advocating a non-standard view of the world in my reading of the Sokal affair. One can only guess what kind of fantastic view of the world you have if you think the Sokal affair, and all commentary on it, is about Sheldrake. It isn't, he is a very peripheral figure, and that's pretty much a stonewall fact. Thus the use of disparaging remarks about the incident as if they refer to Sheldrake is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC) The quote says that "the journal published the paper as if it represented real scientific research". But Wills says the magazine published it as "serious scholarship"[8] (unless there is a more specific quotation). That is not the same thing. We shouldn't be saying anything about Sokal's parody, which gives the impression that it refers to Sheldrake, unless Sheldrake is specifically mentioned. I have no problems mentioning the Sokal affair in principle. --Iantresman (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Sokal himself borrowed some of Sheldrake's terminology and invented a view which he acknowledges Sheldrake does not hold, and attributed that view to Sheldrake for the purposes of the hoax article. He also referenced numerous other people. Thus the criticism of those who published Sokal's article has nothing to do with Sheldrake even though the article here clearly implies it does. The Sokal affair, then, should indeed feature in the article, but only as a brief additional fact, and certainly not as any kind of stick with which to beat Sheldrake.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Have put my proposed compromise version in the article. Before adding the criticism about the Sokal affair itself, please explain it's relevance to Sheldrake whose ideas were not presented genuinely and thus the (previously included) criticism in no way relates to anything Sheldrake has actually done.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Your "compromise" is obdurate refusal to compromise. You are now on notice. As a single purpose account, your tendentious editing of this article is a problem. Portraying removal (yet again) of the text as a "compromise" instead of suggesting a better quote to illustrate the problem is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Just for the record, I offered two different versions of the article, as well the complete removal of one sentence, as an offer of compromise. You have refused to even acknowledge the existence of these suggestions. Thus you appraisal of the situation is inaccurate. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC) I hope this edit addresses the respective concerns expressed by the two editors above, and makes both Sokal's views of Sheldrake and his acknowledgment that he misrepresented Sheldrake transparent to the reader. --Andreas JN466 19:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I support the edit. It retains the sokal affair as relevant; deals with the issue of misdirecting criticism of those directly involved in the affair onto Sheldrake; and it clarifies Sheldrake's (non) role in it. Much better. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience it is, then.

There is a perennial argument on this talk page that goes something like this: "Show me the scientific consensus that morphic resonance is pseudoscience! We only have opinions!" This is not how science works. Research grants are not awarded to investigate whether something is pseudoscience. Scientific journals do not invite papers on which newest things are determined to be pseudoscience. There is no annual scientific conference to decide which topics are pseudoscience. There is no global poll among the scientists of the world to determine what is pseudoscience. If any of these criteria were required for something to be called pseudoscience then nothing could be called pseudoscience and the word would cease to have meaning. It is inescapable that morphic resonance is generally considered pseudoscience per WP:ARB/PS. The references in the lead have since been deleted, but that is no excuse to feign ignorance of the many supporting references in the body of the article (last paragraph here). This is one thing that must remain firm in the article. Proponents of pseudoscience have a history of inappropriately using Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience, which had culminated in the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience (WP:ARB/PS). This road is well-trodden. The remedy for this abuse of Wikipeida is Arbitration Enforcement. vzaak 14:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC) There are many reliable sources that specifically say Sheldrake's work is science rather than pseudoscience, and many reliable sources that say this particular point is debatable. Many of these are cited above. Indeed, the Guardian recently commissioned a series of 4 article (links above) asking this very question and not one of the resulting articles used the term "pseudoscience, with some explicitly stating his work was scientific (again, links are above). The issue, then, is nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest, and accurately portraying it should present little difficulty, unless we try to force a single, absolute answer onto an issue that clearly has no single, absolute answer in the wider world/sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC) You are presenting passing usage of the word "science" as if the sources that use the term are doing so in the context of whether or not Sheldrake's work is "science" or "pseudoscience". That is not the context and attempting to misuse them to forward your bizarre and extraordinary claim is not acceptable. Without any mainstream academic sources that say "Sheldrakes work is not pseudoscience" we are done here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC) No, I'm not doing that. There are many sources (often written by academics) which, while dealing with the question of whether Sheldrake's work is science or pseudoscience come to the conclusion that it is science. There are many others that describe his work in a very positive light regarding it's scientific status (even if it does turn out to be wrong). And there are others still which provide an overview of this whole issue and say the issue is undecided. We can just present this honestly rather than trying to answer the question here. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Where are these sources that in the context of real science or pseudoscience say "not pseudoscience"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Well Blackmore, in response to the question, said "Sheldrake is scientific, at least in many respects". That would put her in the debatable camp with a slight lean towards science. Roszak said books/ideas such as Sheldrake's were "the life's blood of science" which would put him firmly in the science camp. The article by Adam Lucas, Rupert Sheldrake: Shaman, Scientist or Charlatan, addresses this very issue and highlights the polarised reactions to Sheldrake. This would put that article as a whole in the debatable camp. There are various others all listed numerous times above. Thus there are many sources that deal with this specific question and say science, or debatable, rather than pseudoscience.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC) "pseudoscience (ˌsjuːdəʊˈsaɪəns) — n a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science" Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009. As you know when you read the full Blackmore article and not just those first 8 words, she also calls Sheldrakes work parapsychology etc etc etc and cannot in any way be considered an Extraordinary source which is supporting Sheldrake as "science" and not "psuedoscience". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Willfully ignoring WP:REDFLAGs - if you like WP:REDFLAGBLINDNESS isn't a great idea. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC) It might be an extraordinary (REDFLAG) claim to claim that Sheldrake's work is true, or supported by the majority of scientists, but it is in no way extraordinary (REDFLAG) to claim many say it is science (even if false). And that's because many of the sources do just that. Blackmore, eg, does discuss Sheldrake's work in parapsychology, but it's not clear that she regards that, or any of Sheldrake's other work, as pseudoscience. Presumably if she thought it was she would have said that straight out, but she didn't, she said "scientific - at least in many respects". Thus she is at worst in the debatable camp slightly leaning towards science. Again, then, you are using a false dichotomy with the only options being true or pseudoscience. There are many more options than that as the sources clearly show. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC) You were asked "Where are these sources that in the context of real science or pseudoscience say "not pseudoscience"? " As you state above, while it may not be crystal clear that Blackmore considers it "pseudoscience" it is equally clear that she is not "in the context of 'real science or pseudoscience' saying 'not pseudoscience'". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Well when people are directly asked if something is science or pseudoscience, or when they are explicitly addressing that question, and they answer "science", we can take it they reject the idea it is "pseudoscience". And that's what we have a lot of. Some have said, eg, in response to this issue and the TEDx talk (which included a short segment on morphic resonance), that "there wasn't a hint of bad science in it". Thus there's five right away who address the question and clearly reject the idea it is pseudoscience. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Deepak Chopra is not mainstream academic. So you do have support as "science" from the mainstream of the woo community, but that is more of an indication that it is pseudoscientific woo than science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC) The list of the others who jointly wrote this letter is produced above several times with links to their impeccable scientific credentials/positions included. To claim this is Chopra alone is just not true. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, it has been linked, but it the signers "credentials" have in fact been pecced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC) If you think unfounded defamatory attacks by editors on a Wikipedia talk page actually have some bearing on the real-world credentials of scientists then you are mistaken.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Speaking informally someone might say that "Sheldrake's work" is pseudoscience, but to be rigorous a person says a particular idea is pseudoscience. An all-out beginning to end denunciation of everything the man has ever written requires, from a responsible scientist, that he has at the least read it all, and, well, I doubt many want to. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Adam Lucas 21 C 1992 I am not seeing anything in here that specifically says "not psuedoscience". Can you point out what specifically you are drawing from here? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC) For example, where it says "Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise" it is clear that some (those who expressed the highest praise) do not agree that his work is pseudoscience. And the article makes many such claims that show there is a debate on this question - that's what the title of the article means. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I do not see how that is "in the context of 'science or pseudoscience?'- not pseudoscience". We have someone in 1992 stating that some identified person had praised a book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC) note: the above should read "some un-identified person" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC) The title of the article - Shaman, Scientist or Charlatan - frames the discussion in those terms. And it is full of statements showing a mixture of criticism and support for Sheldrake from scientists. It is therefore clear from the context, and the words, that some do not consider Sheldrake's work pseudoscience. This isn't the be all and end all, but it is one more source detailing, in this case, the debate surrounding the status of Sheldrake and his work. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC) If we are going to go so loosy goosy, from the title of the piece "Shaman, Scientist or Charlatan?" the unspecifid "praise" coming from unidentified persons can just as easily be from the Shamans and the Charlatans as the scientists, and it is clearly not the extraordinary sourcing for the extraordinary claims that any significant portion of mainstream academia sees this as "science" rather than magical hooha dressed in a labcoat. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC) It's not an extraordinary claim. We have many sources that note that it is science. Perhaps gloriously and hopelessly wrong, but science. You're back to using a false dichotomy between true/massively well supported and "magical hooha dressed in a labcoat". Many in the scientific community, and many outside it, who are far more sophisticated in their thinking and thus take a view somewhere in between. And if the four articles commissioned by the Guardian are any guide, nearly everyone takes a view somewhere in between. Given this, there's no need for Wikipedia to portray everything in terms of the crudest false dichotomy one can dream up. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC) IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM TO STATE THAT THERE IS ANY TYPE OF SUPPORT IN THE MAINSTREAM ACADEMIA TO SEE SHELDRAKES WORKS AS ACTUAL SCIENCE. Yes there may be handful of individuals who do. But there are a handful of individuals who think aliens came to Area 51. We have been going through the sources that you claim and they are being shot down one after the other.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC) No it isn't, because we have multiple reliable sources which contradict your view directly, and others which discuss the very issue of whether Sheldrake's work is science and cover a wide array of viewpoints (thus contradicting your view directly). Again, you appear to be using a false dichotomy to force a choice between true/widely accepted as true and pseudoscience. There are, as noted, and as supported by multiple reliable sources, many more options than that. And the sources are not being shot down. The sources are clear and they don't support your take on things. For example, there are the four articles in the Guardian specifically about this question and where none explicitly stated his work was pseudoscience. If what you say is true, that fact is hard to explain. And it's not as if all the articles were glowing endorsements. They were note. They were just far more sophisticated takes on the question than anything some here will countenance. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC) WP:DEADHORSE. The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is overwhelming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I heard your point. I'm pointing out that the sources don't support either it or the unsophisticated false dichotomy you are using to argue it. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC) You can put it in all capitals, but it's not an extraordinary claim to "see Sheldrake's work as science". It is an extraordinary claim to say that telepathy is real. You see the difference? There are a lot of proposed scientific ideas that don't hold up. There are also ideas that are roundly rejected as pseudoscience by politically motivated ideologues for an entire century, then turn out to be true when someone actually does the experiment, like Michurinism. Finding something philosophically acceptable or unacceptable will always be pretty labile, therefore, not extraordinary. Wnt (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC) In the 22nd Century when the mainstream academic community has done an about face and embraced morphic resonance as actual thing, then we remove claims of pseudoscience. As of this century, Sheldrake does not even have enough academic followers that the JOC could pull a peer review committee from them. There has been no evidence presented that when under context of the question of "science or pseudoscience?" there is any measurable group of academia that says "science". And it is a REDFLAG situation to claim so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Barleybannocks, Robert Todd Carroll says that Sheldrake "has clearly abandoned conventional science in favor of magical thinking" and that Sheldrake's "continued pose as a scientist on the frontier of discovery is unwarranted".[9] Yet in that article the term "pseudoscience" does not appear. Following your argument, the Skeptic's Dictionary would be listed among the sources you are marshalling to support the claim that morphic resonance is not pseudoscience. Does that sound reasonable? On the other hand, we have sources that say "Despite Sheldrake's legitimate scientific credentials, his peers have roundly dismissed his theory as pseudoscience", "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash", and "most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash". Do you have sources which support the contrary? Citing a few individuals will no do. The article says "generally regards morphic resonance as pseudoscience", which allows for individuals to disagree. In our earlier conversation I was apparently unable to communicate the difference between (a) real, actual scientific support for morphic resonance and (b) individuals who like Sheldrake and his general outlook. Even supposing there are individuals who explicitly say that morphic resonance is not pseudoscience (which I haven't seen that in your sources), that would still be consistent with the article text of "generally regards morphic resonance as pseudoscience". vzaak 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC) No Vzaak, I would not be marshalling that source because it clearly makes statements calling into question Sheldrake's status as a scientist. The sources I am marshalling say things like Sheldrake's work is "the life's blood of science" and "it should be said that Sheldrake is totally committed to the scientific method". Thus while I accept that a good number of critics have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience, I am also aware of a good number of others who have said quite the opposite. And I am aware of (and marshalling) other sources which discuss this very issue and come to a different conclusion from you. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC) "totally committed to the scientific method" would be contradicted by Sheldrake's own dumping of the 10 scientific principles as expressed in his recent book and TEDx talk. He is "totally committed except for the parts that he doesnt like". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) When it's sources versus opinions of editors, sources win. also, the dogmas of science Sheldrake critiques have nothing to do with the scientific method. To think so is to conflate the method of science with some of it's findings, or underlying assumptions. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I am impressed by how the bar has been raised from "Did they say it was pseudoscience" to "did they say it is not pseudoscience." In fact, the sentence: "The scientific community generally regards morphic resonance as pseudoscience[12][13] for reasons that include a lack of evidence supporting the idea[14] and its inconsistency with data from genetics and embryology." is grossly misleading. Reference 12 is an opinion stated by a mathematician. Reference 13 is an "emerging market portfolio manager." Reference 14 is a statement by a science journal editor. They do not indicate if he has any college. Reference 15 is a person qualified to make such a statement but the 1984 reference is way too far out of date for such a dynamic science. I see that Wolpert debated Sheldrake in 2004 so there must be a newer reference. The idea of pseudoscience is supported by people who have a reason to know since they are scientists. In no way can you seriously argue that the sources of reference 12, 12, 14 are qualified to judge the an idea science or pseudoscience. You have to find a better reference. Tom Butler (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Well it was inconsistent with knowledge of 1984. Since then Sheldrake's pre-scientific ideas have stood still while science in these areas has advanced rapidly - it is even more inconsistent now. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Tom, your argument is what my initial comment in this thread addresses. I don't understand the point about whether Adam Rutherford "has any college". And you missed this part of my initial comment: "The references in the lead have since been deleted, but that is no excuse to feign ignorance of the many supporting references in the body of the article (last paragraph here)." vzaak 20:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Barleybannocks, you said, "For example, there are the four articles in the Guardian specifically about this question and where none explicitly stated his work was pseudoscience." One of those articles makes a recommendation regarding the reissue of A New Science of Life: "don't read this book, it will make you stupider".[10] Why are you touting this Guardian article but not The Skeptic's Dictionary? You haven't mentioned any sources which contest the generally considered pseudoscience status of morphic resonance. That a few individuals like Sheldrake's books is consistent with the article text. vzaak 20:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I saw your comments and do not agree. I do not doubt that some reputable scientists in that field of study have called Sheldrake's ideas pseudoscience. I also agree that they can be represented here in a balanced way. Look again at the opinion expressed by Andrew Lancaster: "I'll try answering the original question in a slightly different way. The beliefs of authors are not things we should judge on Wikipedia. We know we can cite an author about subject X when that author is considered reliable outside Wikipedia for subject X. But concerning subject Y, we have nothing to say unless we are talking about subject Y, and then we also look at what people outside Wikipedia think of the author and subject Y. We try to reflect what is in publications. It is possible for a person to be considered a lunatic by experts in one field and a genius in another, at the same time. It is not for us to judge that, just to work out what the published experts say in each field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC" [11] I think balance is being argued here and not an attempt to exclude the classification. There are many references in the article using people who have no standing based on lancaster's opinion. If you are not going to allow sources such as the peer reviewed Journal of the Society for psychical Research or the peer reviewed Journal of Parapsychology, then certainly you cannot allow a mathematician, a portfolio manager or a magazine editor ... one can only hope you were not serious about The Skeptic's Dictionary. Tom Butler (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Vaaak, the sources that say the things the sources I provided do - eg, totally committed to the scientific method, and the life's blood of science etc - completely contradict, and thus contest, the point you make. It's not really reasonable to expect sources to start taking account of your misreadings of Wikipedia policies/guidelines and wording their claims accordingly so that people might use them to contest things here in the manner you imagine. The simple fact is that multiple reliable sources say Sheldrake's work is scientific. More say this than say pesudoscience, fwiw, and some summary articles clearly say that the status is debated with some top quality scientists on both sides. I know you feel strongly that Shedlrake's work is pseudoscience, but when it's a case of sources versus the opinions of editors here, the sources win. Tom, you're right that nobody is disputing the fact that some people have said Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience, nor that that view should be in the article. What is being argued here is that many other people take a completely different view (it is science) and that should feature as well since we have multiple reliable sources for it including summary articles and articles from informed people dealing with that very question who say Sheldrake's work is scientific. It is the suppression of these other sources, then, that is at issue. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Just to double-check -- the sources to which you are referring are Haight, Lucas, and Appleyard? I'm trying to figure out what 21 C Magazine is about. "THE FUTURE IS HERE". The magazine doesn't have a Wikipedia page. The website has an article about psychonaut Terence McKenna and another about a book written by a channeled alien. vzaak 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Those are the the sources. But remember what they say is already verified as true since we know a number of the scientists offering support etc. Some are even mentioned in the article, and so including this brief statement of fact in the lede should be unproblematic. Btw, here's the author Lucas' profile [12] Barleybannocks (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Yes it is problematic in that it WP:UNDUEly represents the miniscule handful of individuals in comparison to the vast majority of the mainstream academia. Do I need to remind you again that he doesnt even have a big enough following that for their special issue the JoC could pick a peer review committee from those who are in the "mainstream of Sheldrakian thought" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Barleybannocks, thus stuff fails for the reasons TRPoD and jps have already mentioned. Adam Lucas wrote the article during grad school, so I don't know why you are seemingly touting him as an academic. Do you have the source for Haight? What comes after "field phenomena are necessarily connected"? Do you really think this book on theology is appropriate? The lead summarizes the article. If you want to mention, say, Lovelock in the lead, then there should at least be coverage of Lovelock in the body of the article. And even then it needs to have some significance. In addition, it's not at all clear that Lovelock would support morphic resonance; I would presume he just likes the slant of Rebirth of Nature -- ecology, New Age consciousness, and the like. You're probably right that Chopra doesn't belong in the lead; that was just inserted for some positivity. Be sure to check out the alien channeling article on the 21C site, it's a good one! vzaak 02:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not that bothered which scientist we mention in the lede, if any, but if the lede summarises the article then Chopra's quote should really be removed because there is no real discussion of the point he makes in the article - just its repetition. As noted though, at various places in the article we describe the interest and support Sheldrake and his ideas have had from the scientists/academics thus the lede should summarise that, and since we have sources that are already used in the article which mention this interest and support, we have everything we need: sources, evidence that it is true, and coverage of it in the article. Josephson and Bohm are mentioned in the article in this specific respect, maybe put one of them in the lede. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Given the minuscule amount of support Shelly has had from academia generally, as demonstrated by his supporters here, I can't see that a change in the lede to indicate this support is needed. Leave Chopra there, as a more suitable supporter, as I don't think anybody would want Josephson noted amongst their supporters, given his strange ideas. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Let's just use Josephson then. This is because: Chopra's quote has no bearing on anything on anything in the article; Josephson's support, and the support/interest of other scientists/academics is in the article so Josephson can stand for them; and since Josephson is such a dubious character, there will be no suggestion we are trying to falsely portray Sheldrake's support as more legit than it is. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I think we definitely should put Chopra in the article. He's a lot more famous than Brian Josephson and practically everyone else mentioned in the article including Sheldrake himself. jps (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC) The problem is though, that the lede is supposed to summarise the article, yet Chopra's quote is only repeated in the article and there is nothing further discussion about the issue. As such the lede at the moment excludes lots of stuff that is covered fairly extensively in the article, while it's not clear what the Chopra quote is doing there. I have no objection to Chopra per se, but the way he is presented seems pointless and irrelevant. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) his livelihood has depended upon the new age community- thats where his support is -and so it makes sense to have the quote from someone from that perspective. Perhaps the issue is that we are not covering his new age supporters sufficiently. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Maybe you should do that then. But until it is done the Chopra quote should not be in the lede because it has nothing to do with the content of the article. The continued demands for inclusion of this irrelevant quote also contrasts with the constant removal of well sourced statements of fact about the small degree on interest in and support for Sheldrake's theories by scientists and academics which does feature quite prominently in the article. My point is that the lede should reflect the current article and not some potential future version that may or may not ever come to exist.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I have not found any reliable sources discussing and commenting on the support from the New Age community that have not already been included in the article. Are you aware of any others? --- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I haven't looked, but until such time as the article discusses Chopra's point in some detail his quote about religion should be removed from the lede as irrelevant. I also added a citation needed flag to the stuff you added about Midgley saying Sheldrake's book had been ignored since it isn't in the Midgley article and no details have been given about where in Sheldrake's book (which is cited for this claim) Midgley is reported as having said this.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC) oops, I copied the wrong ref name. Its now fixed. Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the Notes section

Consensus seems to support current layout; feel free to suggest specific changes if necessary

I don't understand why a load of consecutive refs [12][43][13][44][45][46][47] in the article text is better than a Notes section. The addition of the Notes section was praised by all parties, so I don't understand the sudden change. The many references served a purpose: some editors were unaware of the status of morphic resonance in the scientific community, seeming to think it was just another theory alongside other theories. This misunderstanding is presumably shared by readers. A line of refs like this [12][43][13][44][45][46][47] should not be in the lead. Putting a few select refs in the lead has brought confusion and re-arguments again, as reflected in this talk page. Until all refs are removed from the lead, the Notes section is the only solution to the problem. I would support removing all refs from the lead, but it has to be an all-or-nothing situation. Restoring the Notes section also brought my attention to the bit about the public understanding of science. This is a significant section in the body of the article and should be reflected in the lead. vzaak 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Support the bundling -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I agree. The public understanding of science is the crux of this article. Sheldrake's ideas are so silly that nobody in science takes them seriously. However, he does have a lot of people who are fans of his books, and seem to be under the mistaken impression that he's the greatest scientist who ever lived. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) The public understanding of Sheldrake is surely the crux of this article. That's what it's supposed to be about after all, and not some great mission to use this article as a means of forwarding some sociological agenda. As regards Sheldrake being the greatest sceintist who ever lived, I don't see anyone here advancing that or who has even said they suspect/support such a thing. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Do not restore the note -- You clearly have ownership of the notes. In fact, only skeptical editors praised you. I for one frequently condemned the notes. Please do not restore them, as they tend to hid the piling on. Tom Butler (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Tom Butler (talk · contribs) - we go by consensus here. Despite ordering us you are not part of the consensus builders on this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Barney, there is no consensus for restoring the notes. There was not even any attempt to gain consensus before restoring them. The issue was discussed above a few days ago and most thought they should go. Vzaak, however, did not join that discussion and just, as per usual, reverted to his preferred version so that that's what's there while the discussion takes place. Bad form in every respect. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC) The notes need to stay. Part of the reason is certain users liking to pretend that criticism doesn't exist when it clearly and specifically does. It's hard to argue with the sourcing, although somehow I think you might try. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not arguing against most of your sourcing. That is, while it is clear that sources are being systematically misrepresented throughout the article (something that desperately needs to change in a BLP), I fully accept that some sources support the claim that Sheldrake's work has been called pseudoscience. I must have had to say this over ten times now. The problem I have is with all the conflicting sources which say Sheldrake's work is scientific, more than you have for pseudoscience, and from as solidly reliable sources as you have, being excluded from the article because they conflict with the opinions of some editors here.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that's partly right, but your argument is basically because a source doesn't use the word "pseudoscience" but does use the word "science" then it must be endorsing Sheldrake's work as scientific, despite whatever criticism the article contains. This is just plainly absurd. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC) No, I'm not doing that Barney. I am saying that when an article says, eg, "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects" then that is in the "debate" camp (on account of the qualification) but leaning towards saying Sheldrake's work is science. Your reading, however, is that this supports the idea Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience despite that being directly contradicted by the explicit statement quoted. That is what is "interpretation", euphemistically speaking. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Barney there is no consensus and there is no neutrality in this article. You can bluster at me all you wish, but the reality of it is that this article is under the control of skeptic ideologues who represent a small minority of Wikipedia editors, yet are pretty much by themselves dragging Wikipedia into even more disrespect from the larger community. If you were a rational editor, you would see this and at least try to be agreeable for a change. Tom Butler (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) You can scream NPOV ISSUES! NPOV ISSUES! NPOV ISSUES!!!!!!!! all day long and that will not fix anything. If you want to fix anything rather than just fill another 10 archive pages with bloated whining, identify particular content that WP:UNDUE does not accurately represent the mainstream academic views and we can discuss and fix (if there is actually any issue). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) That has been done, probably hundreds of time. The reason it sounds like I "scream" and "whine" is that what I have said is not what you want to hear. You exhibit a serious sense ownership in this article and editors like Barney are just trying to support you. My irritation is at the stonewall you and others are putting up here and at the admin's complacency. Of course I am going to complain. Do you really think I ... and others will just surrender and go away with further actions? Are you that insulated here? It is unfortunate you do not have the courage of your convictions to use your real name so that we can see your credentials. Tom Butler (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Wow. its unfortunate that you are resorting to personal attacks rather than discussing sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC) TheRedPenofDoom (talk · contribs) - I have to tell you that Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is an expert on metaphysics and etheric studies so we'd better accept his knowledge of these issues, especially the existence of psi. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) so noted. i will not present my ignorance of etherialism here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC) You know that is a reflection ... right? Tom Butler (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Please point out where a specific discussion has been made about "This content from this particular source stated in this particular way is an NPOV violation because..." There have been lots of claims about NPOV violations! that when reviewed are actually NOT NPOV violations because the content and the sources are in fact following the NPOV guidelines as identified in WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID and WP:PSCI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) The NPOV issue is less about any particular source (although there are many misrepresentations of sources in the article that editors refuse to allow to be corrected) and more about the mass suppression of sources/viewpoints which some editors here don't like. For example, the article still does not say Sheldrake is a biologist when we have dozens of sources for this (and could probably get hundreds) because some editors here don't want it to be true. It's that kind of thing going on throughout the article (eg, your recent removal of the well-sourced point about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature) that many here feel means the article is very one sided and unbalanced. Thus the three main problems as I see it are: a) misrepresentation of sources; b) suppression of conflicting sources/viewpoint; and c) the refusal to allow anything other than a very brief, and often false/strawman, explication of Sheldrake's views into the article.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Again, when every time editors attempt to keep utilizing sources that violate WP:VALID / WP:UNDUE / WP:PSCI and they are "suppressed"; that is the proper application of NPOV and not a symptom or evidence of NPOV issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) You've been repeatedly told why we can't call him a biologist or scientist, and respond with WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Pick another issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Barney, you've been repeatedly told that your mere telling us your opinions about the world, should not be allowed to override dozens, and potentially hundreds, of reliable sources. Thus we heard alright, we just pointed out how wrong you are, and why it is a breach of NPOV to suppress massively well-sourced basic biographical details because you don't like it. And TRPoD, the sources don't violate anything. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC) You can keep claiming that not calling someone a scientist/biologist is an NPOV violation, but the discussions at both NPOVN and BLPN have shown that your view is not supported by any community consensus. Eventually you will need to drop the stick or it will be dropped upon you at WP:AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Why don't you drop the stick and accept that dozens of reliable sources mean more than your opinion + zero sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC) And while you're at it, why not remove the misquote from Midgley you added to the lede which misrepresents the source and goes against your own argument (used elsewhere) regarding what the source is about. I've pointed out the problems below, thus your refusal to remove the falsely attributed claim is starting to look very unlike a simple error.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Please make up your mind. Is she talking about the book and we place it in the section on the book or is she not talking about the book and we leave it where it is? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC) She's talking about different things at different parts of her article. I explained all this below. Unsure why this is so hard to understand. Some of it is general, some of it about specific points, other bits about other specific points. The bit you quoted is not about what you say, and the different bit I quoted is about the stuff I say.Barleybannocks (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC) When she is talking about the fact that scientists largely ignore Sheldrakes research is she talking about the research in the book, in which case I will move it to the section about the book. Or is she talking more generally about scientists ignoring his research in which case the statement remaining in the lead would be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) To be clear, when I reduced the Notes section to a line of notes, I thought it would be reasonable to continue by deleting some of them entirely, because they are just <ref somename /> type references. The lead is supposed to summarize the other content and in normal articles it is acceptable to not have notes for everything in it when they are elsewhere, as these are. I left them that way to be comparatively moderate in my change. I don't see the need for this polarizing language; as I explained a while back, I am quite aware of a large number of rational explanations for morphogenesis that do not rely on morphic resonance. However, the urge of some here to try to "hyperwin" the argument by pronouncing damnatio memoriae on the man is absurd. There really are arguments he make that make equally as much sense as any other pop physics you read in newspapers and magazines. It should be enough to cite the references one place, one time, yeah, the critics panned this one, and that one, and the other one, without having special repetitions and re-repetitions in the name of "public science education". I mean, just come on. Wnt (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, but Wnt (talk · contribs) - if these quite specific points are not cited, certain editors like to pretend that the criticism isn't supported (and therefore should be removed), despite what the rest of the article says. Yes, it's imperfect, but in case you hadn't noticed, the whole encyclopedia is imperfect and as an imperfection this one is extremely minor. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I suspected as much when I called it a "scar" in my first comment here. But articles are supposed to be written for the reader, to be neutral, not to prepare for war with other editors. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with having citations in the lead. (" The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.") In most cases they are not necessary, but there are a lot of things that are unnecessary that are included in a lot of articles and having cited content in the lead does absolutely no harm to the reader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I never said not to have citations in the lead. I do question whether it is necessary to have a copy of every citation made in the body of the article in the lead. And I reject the notion that the article needs a separate, very visible "notes" section attributing each nasty phrase word by word to combinations of the existing references. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC) It's probably not necessary in an uncontroversial article. However, this is controversial, partly because it's a BLP, and partly because some editor's bizarre beliefs in the paranormal prevent them from being amongst the consensus builders. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC) (e/c) given that you are calling them "nasty phrases" it falls squarely into the "controversial content about a living person" for which specific sourcing in the lead IS required. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Those are some remarkable interpretations of policy indeed. BLP urges you to showcase a list of negative comments beyond just having them in the regular text? And you can't build consensus with people who believe in the paranormal? (you should try editing some articles about religion for some extra entertainment!) Wnt (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) How the fuck is it a remarkable interpretation? BLP does NOT in any way shape or form indicate that we should not include well sourced content that reflects the mainstream views of the subject that has been presented in reliable sources. BLP is NOT a whitewash. It requires sources and sources require footnotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I don't see how your constant use of abusive language towards editors here is in any way helpful. Quite the contrary. We already have four editors who have been bullied off the article by that kind of thing. Wnt's comments, it seems to me, are clearly good faith attempts to improve the article, and it doesn't help when editors trying to do that are driven off because they have no intention of putting up with the constant abuse hurled at them from editors like you. It's also unclear what exactly it is about Sheldrake that annoys you so much. But whatever it is, it seems to me, and to a number of others, that your extreme emotional response to the subject of this article is not conducive to producing a neutrally written BLP.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I will continue to show utter exasperation towards editors who appear to have no ability to read and grasp policies and continue to push for inappropriate content and misapplication of policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Well perhaps you should try to avoid using so much abusive language while expressing exasperation at people's rejection of/disagreement with your perceptions of the rules. It doesn't make your arguments any stronger nor you interpretations of policy any more credible. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) You know, usually when I hear people going on about "inappropriate content" it's the person objecting to that word, not the one using it. :) Really, the whole idea of "inappropriate content" is a mistake. We should have sources and summaries of sources, not making any effort to skew them from their natural occurrence or hold anything back, and be done. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC) e/c When the Notes section came into being here a few months ago, the contemporaneous crop of Shelly supporters were trying very hard to whitewash the lede - the Notes section was the solution to the ugliness of the cites piling on one after the other to silence the clamour of woolly thinkers. The current crop of sheldrakianites haven't caught on to this yet, and this is just a pre-emptive strike to prevent it. I confess to not really liking it, but if you really want to see a mess of obfuscatory referencing, take a look at the Phineas Gage page, and be thankful. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I think the consensus is clear. Don't overload the lede with references. Restore the notes section as constructed by David in DC. jps (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC) JPS, could you set out below a list of those who have commented on this issue (for and against), and then explain what you mean by "consensus". I don't think the notes in their current form are anything like appropriate. So that's one in the "against" category. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS is thataway. I'm not going to play listing games with you. I know you are against anything that makes clear the evaluation of Sheldrake's ideas as being pseudoscientific. You've made that abundantly apparent. I suggest you change tactics and start collaborating. The alternative is just moribund obstructionism which will ultimately result in you being shut out and ignored. You could effect real change if it seemed worthwhile to actually have a conversation with you. Demanding your fellow volunteers act as court reporters is not a step in the right direction. jps (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS says that "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Many legitimate concerns, zero effort to incorporate them, therefore no consensus. Perhaps you could explain why you feel the concerns are not legitimate, or, if they are, what efforts have been made to incorporate (rather than ignore)them.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC) If you click on the link at the start of this section, you'll see that David in DC and Lou Sander thought the Notes section was a very good addition. The removal of the refs caused the re-arguments made by Tom Butler and Alfonzo Green above, which have been made many times before. Removing all references from the entire lead is a viable option, but I would expect that to happen only after there is general agreement on the lead. That you are contesting an uncontestable statement -- that morphic resonance is generally considered pseudoscience -- is all the more reason for the refs to stay, and is the purpose of the Notes section. I advise the following: pick a particular portion of the article and create a new section on this talk page corresponding to it. In the new section, make a concise and simple argument that proposes specific changes, cites sources, and cites policies. Stay away from making nebulous claims, and don't use an existing section to launch into unrelated material. vzaak 22:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I still like the Notes section. It's just a way of presenting information. Whether to have such a section or not doesn't depend too much on what one thinks of Sheldrake's ideas, so a discussion of whether to have it or not hopefully wouldn't be very contentious. If there's still a question about consensus on having it or not, maybe a simple "vote section" could resolve that question. Everyone would be free to express an opinion and give a brief rationale for it. Rationales of more than a very few lines could be discouraged, as would preaching and name calling, and a section could be provided for comments by those who feel compelled to say more. Lou Sander (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources being misrepresented in the article

Redundant per results of AE

I note that in this edit [13] TRPoD added "Midgley also noted that scientists mostly ignored the book", but nowhere in the cited source does Midgley say this or anything like it. Grateful for clarification here.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC) fixed. I copied the wrong refname. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC) No, it isn't sorted because the article you cited doesn't make this point. Grateful for some clarification of where this comes from.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, it is: "scientists mostly ignored it " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC) That's not about any book (as you falsely claim both here and with your addition to the article), but about a particular piece of research into apparent human/animal telepathy. Grateful if you could remove the misrepresentation from the BLP or find a source that says something like what you put in the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC) in an article called "The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake - review" its going to take some wild interpretation to say that her comments are about some other content than the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Firstly, no, you only need read what she says. She is talking about some very particular research into some very particular things (human/animal telepathy). It is this research that is the "it" she says scientists have ignored. Secondly, the section you added this to is about A New Science of Life and not The Science Delusion. Thus, even if she was talking about the Science Delusion, which she clearly isn't, her comments about that book would still not be relevant where you added them. Grateful if you could remove your misplaced misrepresentation of the source from the article without further ado. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC) You are right. I incorrectly assumed that you had added her book review content in the appropriate place. I have removed both of our edits that were about different subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Please restore the content I added as it is about habits versus laws of nature, which is precisely what Midgely was talking about in her article, and what the article here was talking about where I added it. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC) No. As you pointed out, she is reviewing a different book and her reviews of that book cannot be misapplied as referring to a different book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC) She may be talking about a different book but she is talking aboutn exactly the same point - laws of nature being better thought of as habits rather than laws. I also note, TRPoD, that you have now misrepresented in the lede as being about Sheldrake's research in toto when it is clearly about one aspect of his research. This also shows that even you don't buy your own argument about this being solely about Science Set Free otherwise why would you add it to the lede as a general point rather than a point about that book - the clearly false reason you gave for removing my content. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC) WP:AGF has clearly gone out the door. I take your claim that her statement is not about the book and you accuse me of using the statement in a manner that shows it is not about the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Just because one of her comments in an article is not about one specific book, does not mean it is about everything else Sheldrake has ever done (as the lead now falsely suggests by way of your recent edits). Nor does that fact mean that every other comment she makes in that article is or is not about one specific book or one specific point. She makes many points in the article about many things. In the cases under discussion here: her comment about stuff being ignored is about some of Sheldrake's work on apparent human/animal telepathy and not about all of his work; and her comment about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature is about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature, and not solely about Science Set Free. Thus, your edit which misrepresents her quote should be removed from the lede, and my edit about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature which accurately reflects her quote should be restored. In both cases the reasons are ultimately the same and concern using sources to support the specific things they actually about.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) is now [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=585769752&oldid=585762002 misrepresenting sources in the article] by placing content by Midgley in her review "The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake - review" as if she were discussing the book A New Science of Life. Admittedly Sheldrake regurgitates his material from one book to another, but placing the review with the wrong book is inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I put Midgley's comments about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature onto a section about habits versus laws of nature in order that readers might learn something about the intellectual history of habits versus laws of nature. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC) in other words, you took content from her review of The Science Delusion and placed it in order to make a point to the reader about content from A New Science of Life which the source did not make. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC) No, it's not WP:SYN, because the content, in this case, is identical. That is, in both case it is about habits versus laws of nature which appears, in identical form, in both books. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the article

Suggestions are insufficiently specific to be of use

One of the major problems with the article at the moment is that there are no sections which discuss the main themes in Sheldrake's work - the stuff he's notable for - except in the few words devoted to them in sections specifically about his books. This means that, given the same themes run through many of Sheldrake's books, the book sections are almost devoid of content about what's in the book, and the central themes in Sheldrake's work get only very rudimentary treatment as part of some of those books. A better way to structire the article would be, I think, to take three or four of the central themes in Sheldrake's work and write a short section on each so that the reader might leave having been informed somewhat about the actual topic of the article. The four sections I have in mind are: Morphic fields Habit versus laws of nature The extended mind Philosophical/metaphysical views (already done to some extent) So by treating each of these separately, and noting the interconnections between the various strands, we could fairly easily give quite a sound overview of Sheldrake's ideas and their context, which could in turn feed into the (reduced) sections about the books. In this way, I think, the article could be made much more informative, and much better than the current version, which is still C class, and has a hodge-podge feel to it. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC) That sounds like a good plan. Each section would incorporate suitable material per UNDUE, FRINGE etc. --Nigelj (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Tell you what though Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - why don't you make a copy of the article in your sandbox, make rearrangements there, and then let us comment on your proposals. I don't think we can be fairer than that. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I'm happy enough to write something up and post it here for discussion. But I think it would be useful to have a brief discussion first so that if the idea is non-starter for some reason or other, no time is spent working on something that will be rejected on principle.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC) There is a way that would be fairer than that, Barney the barney barney. All the other editors here could agree that all future changes will be tested in sandboxes, or here on the Talk page, and gain clear consensus before the actual article text is changed again. That would let the existing article text settle, and give other, new, editors a chance to familiarise themselves with it and its current faults, which is very difficult when it continually changes and is reverted as at present. --Nigelj (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Well I am sceptical. I do think the present article is a mess and needs to be structured chronologically because that reduces the chances of WP:ARTICLEDISINTEGRATION (whereby unmaintained articles tend to deteriorate in quality as people fiddle with them). However, we know that the idea of "morphic resonance" is not notable, whereas what is notable is the response by reviewers to Sheldrake's books, which have sometimes caused extreme controversy. However, I may be convinced if Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) can make it look good, or if he can achieve consensus here amongst those who follow consensus elsewhere. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC) You are making this up, right? Wikipedia is about "fiddling with articles". Wnt (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Barney, I think Sheldrake and his ideas are clearly notable inasmuch as they have received significant coverage in many reliable sources. And while some of that coverage does discuss the reaction to his ideas it is by no means limited to such a discussion. This, though, brings us to a bigger issue: if what you say is true, then we should change the article title to "The Sheldrake Controversy", or "Criticisms of Sheldrake" or something like that. Such a title would, imo, be far more appropriate for the article that is currently in the article space rather than one about Sheldrake and his ideas which has yet to be written. This is something that needs to be cleared up first then I think. What is this article about and what should its title be? Barleybannocks (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC) OK, Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - has research demonstrating morphic fields been published in any peer reviewed journals? If not, then we WP:REDFLAG it sorry. Please stop wasting your time arguing here and get on with rewriting the article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Something doesn't need to have been published in peer-review journals to be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Do you agree with that?Barleybannocks (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC) If something claims to be scientific, it usually helps though, don't you think? Barleybannocks (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC) That's not the question. The question is whether peer-review is a necessary requirement for something to have enough notability for, or to be included in, a Wikipedia article. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Any article about Sheldrake and his fringe ideas is going to have to frame them within the views of the mainstream academia and based on third party sources and so is going to end up looking very much like this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Suggestions about restructuring are OK. Suggestions about changing the tone of the article to one which is incompatible with WP:FRINGE aren't. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Grateful if we could first answer the question above about what this article is about and what it should be called. If you want to call it "Criticism of Sheldrake" then the article should be about that. But if you want to call it "Rupert Sheldrake" then Sheldrake and his ideas should feature prominently as opposed to being presented in a misleading fashion to allow the maximum possible criticism (which is how the article currently reads). Thus it would be helpful if you could answer the questions about the title and the subject. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Hi Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - the title of the article is Rupert Sheldrake. The subject of the article is Rupert Sheldrake. I'm pretty sure that an article on "morphic fields" will fail AFD, and side-shunting criticism to criticism of Rupert Sheldrake would create two WP:POVFORKs. The article must be compliant with WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not talking about side-shunting anything. I'm asking if this article should be called, and be about, Rupert Sheldrake. I ask because at the moment the article is far more about the criticism Sheldrake's ideas/books have received than it is about those ideas/books. That is, in many of the sections over 80% is allocated to criticism while Sheldrake's ideas are only introduced in the most cursory, and misleading, manner in order to facilitate that criticism. Indeed, you suggested above that Sheldrake/his ideas were not really notable and that instead it was the criticism that was notable. Thus I am saying that if that's true then we should change the title of the article to the subject that is notable ("Criticism of Sheldrake") and be done with it. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC) We have gone through this before, are you going to listen this time? The article is about Rupert Sheldrake, a notable author whose works have received significant coverage by third party sources, coverage that from the mainstream of academia has been highly critical. WP:NPOV and WP:V and WP:OR "work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three." In the case of content about living people like Sheldrake is overlaid by the Policy of WP:BLP. Sheldrake is not notable outside of his pseudoscience; morphic resonance is not notable outside of Sheldrake. BLP requires that criticisms be well sourced and representative. The criticisms in this article are well sourced and representative. We do not WP:POVFORK articles out to remove the criticism from the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You're the one who isn't listening (eg, POVFORK was never an issue except in Barney's imagination). And you're the one who needs to read policy/guidelines. Nothing there suggests that in an article about Sheldrake and his view (if that's what this article is to be) far more space should be allocated to criticisms to the point where the views the article is supposed to be about are almost invisible except for a few strawmen here and there seemingly presented for not other reason than to facilitate that criticism. For example, the nonsense in the lede about perpetual motion machines seems to have been included for no other reason to offer a cheap shot at something he is only partially saying (while his real point is nowhere to be seen).Barleybannocks (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC) How many fucking times do we need to point you to WP:VALID? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I would imagine you'll need to keep pointing to it until you actually go and read it. The stuff there is primarily about presenting fringe views in mainstream articles. This is not such an article. You also seem to be conflating the explication of Sheldrake's views with their endorsement as true. This can easily be avoided by carefully framing those views as Sheldrake's and making appropriate reference to the mainstream views in contrast to which Sheldrake's are considered fringe. There is nothing in the policies/guidleeine you keep misapplying to suggest we have to exclude Sheldrake's views almost entirely, or that we should misrepresent them to make them seem worse than they are, or that we should present a (strawman) snippet merely to facilitate huge amounts of unscientific criticism, or that we should present unscientific criticism as if it was a scientific finding qua scientific finding a opposed to the views of some scientists. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC) There is nothing, repeat NOTHING in [[WP::VALID]] that states or even implies that it is only applies to "presenting fringe views in mainstream articles". It is part and parcel of the main WP:NPOV page which applies to all pages and has no disclaimers or riders suggesting that it is not applicable to any and all pages. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC) The problem, of course, is that "the topic" is not being included in the first place. That is, the topic (if this really is the Rupert Sheldrake article) is being almost completely excluded in favour of criticism. Thus your reading of WP:VALID is wrong because you are conflating the topic itself with a view about it. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC) And back again to primary content policy WP:OR, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." We base our article upon what the secondary sources have said about the subject, and what the reliable mainstream academic sources have said is critical of the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, but that has nothing really to do with your confused reading of WP:VALID.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC) we base the article on what the secondary sources say WP:PSTS in proportion to how the views are held by mainstream academia WP:UNDUE which in this case are overwhelmingly critical of the subject WP:V and so our article in upholding the WP:NPOV will present an overwhelmingly critical view of Sheldrakes works, because we do not make room for pseudoscience to be "treated equally" WP:VALID. Its pretty simple. And if you cannot grasp that by now you should please stop filling up the talk page with your incomprehension. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Firstly, you are conflating the mere presentation of the topic with a view of it. These are different things. Thus we present the topic (neutrally and not strawman fashion) and then we discuss the views of it (which is where the mainstream scholarship would come in). Secondly, on this point, it is important to see that the policy refers to "mainstream scholarship" and yet there is virtually no mainstream scholarship in the article! I have made this point a number of times and have said such a thing should be included. That has been rejected though, and what there is instead is some commentary from some mainstream scientists. But the idea that these views count as "mainstream scholarship" with all that that entails (eg, publication in peer-reviewed sources and textbooks after careful scientific scrutiny) is laughable. Thus the mainstream views of morphogenesis is what policy calls for to be stated as the mainstream view and not some stuff someone once said in some newspaper article as if it has the full weight of science behind it.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Back to the original proposition: why dont you draft what you think such a restructured article might look like, now being pretty well aware of what major concerns might be and taking them into account. Otherwise this section has long passed any usefulness and should be archived. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

off-topic commentary

content originally removed from the page under a misguided application of WP:BLP, however, they are unlikely to facilitate forward progress on improving the article

How about dividing it into: poppycock nonsense utter nonsense -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your input. Some of us are trying to improve the article (from the current C class one you've been presiding over), and thus in turn improve the encyclopaedia. I don't see how sniping from the sidelines and/or presenting you opinions on something you admit you will not under any circumstances read, is going to help. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - but doesn't that introduce a demarcation problem? What's the difference between poppycock and WP:BALLS? Perhaps you too could write something up in your sandbox? Or how about a separate article; list of very silly things said by Dr Rupert Sheldrake, with the option of ordering the table with silliness from poppycock to nonsense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM applies.

People, you're making contentious edits to a BLP while making it clear that you regard the man's work, in its entirety, as meaningless and not even worth describing in a way that far surpasses the statements made by your own sources. I suggest you seriously consider just going off and editing something you don't have a strong connection to until you are willing to put more emotional investment in fairly and completely covering topics than stating your own opinions about them. If you don't, it can only be a matter of time until Wikipedia's usually overbearing BLP and arbitration processes kick in and you are ground down by their admittedly overzealous enforcement apparatus. I have seen it happen too many times before. Wnt (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC) What is the point of the constant digressions whereby some editors constantly disrupt the talk page to give vent to their personal dislike for Sheldrake and his ideas. What purpose is there to such stuff here. If you guys want to start a blog where you roundly abuse Sheldrake every waking hour then go right ahead. Here is serves no purpose other than to derail discussions about improvements to the current article. I also note there are no similar digressions full of gushing praise from all the "Sheldrake fans" some imagine to be here.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Michael J. Morgan's "completely wrong" is a fair assessment. The rest of the other reliable sources support that. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Also, as regrads digressions Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - I'm not the one endlessly repeating silly refuted arguments over anv over and over again in a futile attempt to subvert consensus on WP:FRINGE and wP:NPOV, the most disturbing of which is the insistence that sources that indicate Sheldrake's work as "bad science" are endorsing his work as being scientific valid. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC) No, you are precisely the one repeating silly refuted arguments again and again. Eg, the one you just offered, trying to pretend that sources which say Sheldrake is doing bad science are being included, by me, in the list of sources that say Sheldrake is scientific. All the sources I have cited for Sheldrake's work being scientific say just that. Others I have divided into those which say the issue is debatable and those which say it is pseudoscience. You also conflate "scientific" with "scientifically valid" - there is a difference. A difference noted in multiple reliable sources (albeit ones which show a sophistication of thought (more than two options) far above anything apparently comprehendible by the '100% true or utter garbage' false dichotomy brigade). Barleybannocks (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) and Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs), you do realise that WP:BLP applies to "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page", don't you? I suggest you withdraw the personal attacks against Dr Sheldrake and his work above, or ask for them to be oversighted. After that, I also suggest a cooling off period where you voluntarily offer not to edit here for a while. --Nigelj (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Thank Nigelj (talk · contribs) - I think for TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) and TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) there is a defence of fair comment that seems to be amply supported by the sources, don't you think. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Which scientist used the words "balderdash" and "hokum"? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC) the research scientist isnt named, but he is quoted "no self-respecting university would allow good research money to be spent on such hokum", as one scientist confided to me "no self-respecting university would allow good research money to be spent on such hokum", as one scientist confided to me" its near the end , the cached version with searchable text is blacklisted -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC) and "balderdash" is not specifically quoted to a "scientist" but to an eminent writer about scientists who is summarizing their opinions [14] Martin Gardner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Is 21C magazine a reliable source for attributing "hokum" to an anonymous scientist?[15] --Iantresman (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 13 i think you were the first one to suggest we use it as a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I'm confuseled. We have established the acceptability of "Balderdash" and "Hokum" on this page, so could somebody explain the utter nonsense of removing the words "utter nonsense" the poppycock of deleting "poppycock" and all the other nonsense we see around here regarding phrases like B++++++ I+++++ when describing Sheldrakes ideas? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I don't recall mentioning the magazine, or even see it mentioned on the archive page. So is 21C magazine a reliable source for attributing "hokum" to an anonymous scientist? --Iantresman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I originally suggested the source here as one of three making the claim that Sheldrake's theories have received a small degree of support from scientists/academics. I was asked to provide the sources because, despite us knowing the claim was true in virtue of having the comments from the supportive scientists, these were rejected as sources for the general point as they were considered primary sources. A number of reasons were offered to reject this source, and I'm unsure if any firm conclusion was reached. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC) 21C is clearly a secondary source, for both referring to an anonymous scientist's opinion that universities wouldn't allow research money to spent on "hokum", and for support from scientists, and New Scientist. It would be useful to find the sources for the opinions of Paul Davies, John Gribbin, James Lovelock and David Bellamy. --Iantresman (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Ah yes, David Bellamy, one of those individuals who laypeople often assume are expert scientists when they're really just an expert broadcaster. See his views under homeopathy and climate change denial for how good he is at judging the validity of supposedly scientific ideas. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) that anonymous scientist views are pretty accurate. show me ANY university lining up to spend its research funds on Sheldrakes work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Barney, you seem to be confused about what a scientist is. A scientist is not merely someone who agrees with every other scientist in the world. Some scientists also disagree with the majority view of other scientists on some issues. This is normal in science. And Bellamy is such a scientist. Thus his having some views that other scientists think are wrong, does not render him a non-scientist, it just means that he is a scientist who holds some views the majority of scientists think are wrong. Moreover, Bellamy is not the only one cited. TRPoD, that might be relevant if we were claiming universities were beating a path to Sheldrake's door to offer him funding, but we're not. We're instead noting the well-known/sourced fact that Sheldrake has a small degree of support for his views amongst scientists. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You keep claiming "small" and ignoring the fact that the claimed "support" is in fact soooooooo "small" that the JoC could not round up a batch of supporters to call "mainstream Sheldrakians" from which they could select a Peer Review team for their special issue. To call his support "small" is a gross exaggeration. WP:ITA. There are a handful of individuals who support him, but most Like Deepak are not mainstream academics either.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You keep making that claim as if you didn't make it up yourself. Nothing like that is said in the journal. Indeed, it is clearly stated that he could have picked enough referees but thought that picking only from amongst those supportive of Sheldrake would make the peer-review pointless.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Hi Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - I'm actually quite aware of what a scientist does. A scientist does follows the scientific method, doing objective experimentation and publication of the results for the consumption of his colleagues in appropriate journals. Don't follow the scientific method? You're not a scientist. Get it fundamentally wrong while claiming to do science? You're a pseudoscientist. Bellamy is a retired broadcaster who believes in homeopathy and climate change denial. I wouldn't be surprised if he does support Sheldrake - he ticks most of the right boxes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC) So you don't accept that Sheldrake has had some small degree of support from scientists? You don't think for example that Paul Davies is a scientist, or Brian Josephson or David Bohm or even David Bellamy? I've linked their articles so you can make the appropriate changes to reflect you opinions (if you really believe it, as opposed to just saying it here, now, in order to keep well sourced facts out of the article because you don't like them). Barleybannocks (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I'm interested to see any peer reviewed publications that detail tests of the morphic resonance hypothesis, and in particular conclude that this exists. Has Bellamy or Davies conducted any such experiments and published the results (according to Sheldrake it should be easy to do so). Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not subject to your bizarre personal definitions of terms like "support". The sources say it, and your opinions to the contrary, and your personal definitions, are your own business and have no place determining the content of articles contra multiple reliable sources. And if science means only peer-reviewed stuff, as you suggest, then why misrepresent the obviously non-peer-reviewed critiques of Sheldrake as if they are science and carry the full weight of mainstream scholarly consensus.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the lecture Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - but please don't misrepresent what I said. I asked for peer reviewed support for Sheldrake's hypothesis. You didn't answer the question. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I did answer, I said your question is nonsensical (because it is based on some ad-hoc definition of your own devising), and I noted that if it wasn't nonsensical, then almost everything that is currently presented in the article as "scientific" (the criticism) is subject to that same definition and as such is, by your argument, a gross misrepresentation.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You still haven't answered the question - where are the peer reviewed journal articles demonstrating morphic resonance that would support Sheldrake, or don't they exist? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure there are peer-reviewed papers saying morphic resonance has been demonstrated. But that is of no relevance to whether it has had a small degree of support amongst some scientists and academics. It has, we have the sources showing the support, and we have the sources stating there is such support. On a slightly different note, there are certainly dozens (certainly hundreds, probably thousands) of peer-reviewed journal articles arguing some of the same philosophical points Sheldrake makes. That should probably be mentioned in the article instead of misrepresenting those views as fringe. And I note you still haven't answered my question of how the requirement for peer-review doesn't apply to the non-scientific views the article currently misrepresents as the mainstream scholarly consensus. Where are the peer-reviewed articles, where are the textbooks? Barleybannocks (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC) to conflate the handful of "support" under the banner "small" is inappropriately exaggerating their relative size and prominence. WP:ITA forbids that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Nobody is saying that those we have listed are the ONLY supporters of Sheldrake (although we have listed about 15 versus less than half of that for pseudoscience - which is misrepresented in the article as the mainstream scholarly view). Also, we go with the sources and the sources mention that support. And they do this almost everytime a general article about Sheldrake appears. Finally, the idea that some rule forbids this is complete nonsense and is just another example of your tortuous misinterpretations of rules to forbid well sourced facts that you don't like making it into the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure that horse is really dead enough, nor is it being flogged TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I was hoping to convey the agony. but you are correct, the horse has not quite gone to join the choir invisible yet, and there are no whips. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Ignored" in lead

Discussion superseded by AE

I removed "Scientists have mostly ignored his research" because it's already implicit in the noting of pseudoscience. The amount of criticism in the lead seems about right, and going too far can deflect from other points. Also, Mary "still doesn't get selfish genes" Midgley isn't a good source for this. I'll self-revert if it turns out people really want it, though. vzaak 22:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I think we need to be careful on this point. As it stands the article makes it appear as if Sheldrake's ideas have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and rejected. Almost nothing could be further from the truth. His ideas have, though, been ignored, and most of the criticism is not the result of any science being done but is largely opinion, often a priori, and on occasion from people who have later confessed to not even having read his work. I think it's important to make this clear to the reader.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC) This point has been answered in detail in the first paragraph of the Pseudoscience section above.[16] vzaak 22:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC) No it hasn't. Perhaps you could cite the particular section that you think deals with my comments.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I also reject your characterisation of morphic resonance as widely considered psuedoscience. The policy you cite mentions astrology as the example, but it is clear morphic resonance is a completely different type of thing from astrology. There are, eg, no physics Nobel Laureate's or top theoretical physicists, who have stated that astrology is science. There are no collections of articles in major newspapers addressing the question of whether astrology is pseudoscience where none of the authors say it is. Books on astrology are not called "the life's blood of science". There are no commentaries in scientific journals says those putting forward astrology are excellent scientists for doing so, or that they are totally committed to the scientific method. Thus, you are taking a small handful of sources which you agree with, and ignoring the majority of sources which you agree with, and are attributing a view to the scientific community that is not warranted by those sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You ask me to cite the section, but I already cited the Pseudoscience section in this thread. There's no worldwide meeting among scientists to decide what is pseudoscience, etc. Could you try to use one thread per topic? Re-arguing the pseudoscience topic should stay in the Pseudoscience section if possible. vzaak 23:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You cited the (non relevant) pseudoscience section in your answer to me on a different point! That is, I made the point about ignored (still not answered), and then I addressed the detail in your non-answer by disagreeing with what you wrote in the section you directed me to in your non answer. On that latter point then, I would use a simpler initial criterion for deciding whether something is obvious pseudoscience: if something has been said to be science, even good science, and the person who came up with it has been called an excellent scientists for having come up with it, and if the thing they came up with, whatever you ultimately think about it's veracity, has been called the "life's blood of science" than it is clearly not OBVIOUS pseudoscience. This is not a necessary condition for something not being obvious pseudoscience but it is, obviously enough, a sufficient one.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC) The Pseudoscience section above is making reference to generally considered pseudoscience per WP:ARB/PS, not obvious pseudoscience per WP:ARB/PS. Please try to focus your arguments more practically. Pick a particular portion of the article, propose specific changes, cite sources, and cite policies. Make it simple and avoid labyrinthine arguments. vzaak 00:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I have. I am opposing your statement of generally considered pseudoscience because it is based on a minority of sources which say pseudoscience, and ignores the majority of sources which say science, and also ignores another batch of sources that say debatable. I also think, as noted above, that the scientific community having largely ignored Sheldrake's work is important for the article because it's true, sourced, and does not give the false impression that the rejection/non-acceptance of Sheldrake's work is the direct result of some real scientific analysis rather than what might be called armchair criticism much of which has been described by sceptic Chris French as "uninformed and unfair". These two points are connected, Barleybannocks (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC) @Barleybannocks: If that is really your position that Sheldrakes work is not generally considered pseudoscience then I will be seeing you at AE and your tendentious editing will no longer be clogging the talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC) It's not my position, it's what the sources say. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I look forward to seeing you at AE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I regret having to AE anyone but sometimes it's necessary TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Here's an idea. Why don't you, and the rest of the editors who have been presiding over this article for months - bullying off any neutral editors, and abusing everyone else who disagrees with you - disengage from the article for about six weeks, and then come back and make your complaints about the "good article" that would then be in place of the current shambles. That is, rather than try to ban or otherwise drive off everyone who is trying to improve the article, why not just let them get on with improving it. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Well I have asked Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) to draft your "improvements" so we can examine them. There's certain "consensus formers" on this page who recognise the need for WP:FRINGE-compliance. You are not amongst the "consensus formers" - you're running contrary to consensus on a WP:FRINGE issue that has WP:ARB/PS hanging over it. Which way do you think this is going to go? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Arbitration Enforcement request opened As indicated above, because of Barleybannocks refusal to edit under the condictions that Sheldrake's work is generally considered pseudoscience, an arbitration enforcement review has been opened. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barleybannocks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Poll: Placement of book review contents

This in in regard to the book review

• The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake - review by Mary Midgley.

And the content from the review: " Philosopher Mary Midgley stated she found antecedents for his thoughts on habits versus laws of nature in the writings of CS Peirce, Nietzsche, William James and AN Whitehead."

Where is it appropriate to place the above content/commentary from book review:

1) In the section A New Science of Life because "because the content, in this case, is identical. That is, in both case it is about habits versus laws of nature which appears, in identical form, in both books." or

2) In the section The Science Delusion because that is the book she is reviewing or

3) somewhere else or

4) not include it at all?

Placement of book review: !vote

Please indicate where the content from the book review should be placed, with a 1, 2, 3, or 4 and a short rationale. If you choose 3) please specify where.

• If we include them, 2. We should not be committing WP:SYN by taking a set of comments in a book review about book X and misapplying them as if they were made about book Y. I am not certain that they are appropriate and could be convinced that 4 is a better option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• I have been following this debate. I echo and adopt the position of TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. I dont see the point of this quote in the context of scientific legitimacy, one way or the other. But, if the consensus is to include it, then In 2. I want to say that any reference must be balanced. For example, in the same article Midgley clearly states (i add emphasis):

"Whether or not [sic] we want to follow Sheldrake's further speculations on topics such as morphic resonance, his insistence on the need to attend to possible wider ways of thinking is surely right."

The one cannot be included one without the other. But caution should be exercised to ensure it is clear the opinion set out above is not an endorsement of any view, rather an endorsement only of the modus operandi that Sheldrakes views represent (i.e. "wider ways of thinking"). The fact the words state "surely right" is part of the quote. As such, it underscores there can be no equivocation on the part of the author in this aspect and must be included.

But note: Midgley is primarily a moral philosopher (in the vein of say, JD Raphael). In such respects her opinion adds little nothing to the scientific legitimacy for Sheldrake's view (one way or the other). Ultimately, this is why I do not see the point. The real point she makes (namely "wider possible ways of thinking") is hardly controversial. It is (partly) what drives scientific discovery and innovation --- and as such it is "stating the obvious". Put simply, any scientist or non-scientist does not need a moral philosopher's "legitimization" to push the envelope, surely? Regards to all 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Since the quote is about intellectual antecedents of Sheldrake's view of habits versus laws of nature, and is about nothing else, I say we should put it wherever that point is being discussed as long as we ensure that it is the self same point.Barleybannocks (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• 2, since it's from the review of that book. Or maybe 4, since it's a curiously-chosen snippet from a thoughtful analysis of the ideas expressed in the book. BTW, some of the stuff above seems like it belongs in the Discussion section below. Specifically, maybe, Wnt's comment and 213's mini-wall of text. Lou Sander (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Placement of book review: discussion

Discussion, questions or requests for clarification go here to allow the consensus !votes above to be clearly evaluated and not lost in the walls of text that plague this talk page.

• This poll seems like ridiculous micromanagement. Let's be clear: if you have a reliable source about Sheldrake, or his books, or his ideas (for or against, I don't care), then it belongs in the article, together with enough description that you know what the source was trying to say. Where is a matter of organization that is prone to change. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The talk page and article status suggest that micromanagement is needed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Mary Midgley is an academic, or at least a former academic. She is making a thoughtful analysis of Sheldrake's ideas as expressed in this book. One wonders why more of her analysis doesn't make it into the article. IMHO the proper place for such things is where the article discusses Sheldrake's ideas about science, but such a place is hard to find. On the other hand, it is EASY to find places where his ideas are subtly presented as objects of ridicule, without any elucidation of them, e.g, his questioning the "fact" of Conservation of energy. Also easy to find are personal opinions about his work from those whose oxen it gores, and opinions from editors of journals that formerly published his work. Good encyclopedia articles aren't put together this way. Lou Sander (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We could have a section for inclusion of supporters of Sheldrake's mystical thinking like Midgley and Chopra. I see nothing wrong with that. The Guardian has certainly seems to have a soft-spot for anti-scientific "woo" (to use James Randi's term). See their paen to Chopra: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/17/healthandwellbeing.familyandrelationships jps (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few sources make the point that Sheldrake is trying to naturalise science by getting rid of many of the mystical/transcendental entities (laws) that need to be invoked at present, and replacing them with something like habits that would themselves be subject to direct scientific study. I think the article should probably note this point as it's a fairly central theme of his writing.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have the necessary reliable sources to explain this fully. It certainly makes no sense from the standpoint that Sheldrake's incorporation of his own mystical entity into his description of reality is the thing which most clearly identifies him as a pseudoscientist according to our sources. His "naturalization" as couched is in favor of eliminating all verified theories in favor of an anything-goes approach (allowing him to jump back into the game instead of being an outsider, I suppose). But this kind of muddled thinking is natural only in the sense of the naturalistic fallacy. I think if you want to include such commentary, you're going to have to do better than philosophers who are documented to be prone to anti-science and mysticism. jps (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "mystical entity" you imagine Sheldrake wants to incorporate. His whole argument seem to be to eliminate the need for such entities by rendering the laws of nature subject to direct scientific scrutiny rather than merely shedding light on the nature of the non-natural Laws by means of their effects. I'm also not sure how the naturalistic fallacy relates to this point. I suspect it doesn't at all. Have you actually read any of Sheldrake's work? Barleybannocks (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I was also unaware that the views of respected academics are barred from Wikipedia. Perhaps you could clarify where such a rule is stated.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We do it all the time. A noted expert on butterflies is barred from having their comments included in the social impact of the Boxer Rebellion, and the noted expert on the Boxer Rebellion is barred from having their comments included in the article on the International Space Station. It is quite proper to bar an expert on philosophy from having their comments included on science related topics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What rot. He's not offering the kind of explanation that would develop the fields that have "spookiness" because his conjectures are at odds with what is already well established, and because his reasons for asserting this "simplification" are self-serving - remember, if Planck's constant were zero, QM equations would match classical mechanics, which is why classical mechanics is still good enough for most purposes. Sheldrake offers only conjecture with no rigour and no explanatory power. To claim otherwise is to blatantly violate Wikipedia policy. Guy (Help!) 05:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

at this point, it is pretty clear that the consensus for placement if we include it is to place it with context in Science Delusion so i have added the context and moved it there [17].

since three of the four participants !voted with an indication that inclusion might not be appropriate and it seems that position is also strongly held by @JzG:, the discussion is now whether or not to include it.

We have already included one statement by Midgeley, does she merit two comments? as a philosopher, i think that her analysis comparing Sheldrakes work to philosophers is probably a more appropriate comment to include than her declaration that science should be less materialistic - an area of which she has no competence to comment.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The section presenting Midgley's opinion could certainly be trimmed, as other quotes demonstrate that this view is far form universal. My reading of the sources is that Sheldrake's statements are more coherent than those of your typical Kuhn-loving crank, but that is pretty much the limit of their actual substantive merit.

Scientism is a pejorative beloved of creationists, homeopathists and other people whose religious beliefs are contradicted by robust science - its use always invites the question: what, precisely, is wrong with giving the highest priority to empirically testable fact when trying to understand the universe? It does seem rather as if the use of fact rather than faith has resulted in a more complete understanding, and indeed the approach denigrated as "scientism" would appear to have achieved more understanding in a few generations years than the entirety of human history up to the age of enlightenment if not beyond. Certainly the likes of Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle, Christopher Wren and so on, would have seen very little to argue with in the idea that science was the best way of understanding and describing the universe, and they were very much believers in the metaphysical. Being a Christian and the son of a clergyman did not prevent Hooke from stating in 1690 that fossils were the remains of ancient creatures that no longer walk the earth.

Even so, this would be much less of a problem if Sheldrake presented his conjectures as philosophical speculations, or quasi-religious beliefs. The problem lies entirely in his insistence that not only are they science, but they are science whose rejection is due to dogma, rather than, as is actually the case, his own failure to provide compelling evidence that they are valid. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

New book on this issue

Unreliable source agreed to be unreliable

Craig Weiler's new book is out, and we should really decide if it is a reliable source? I'd be happy to chip in a few pence in order to save on group expense. Once purchased, we could read it, make notes and then pass it on to the next person in the chain. Anybody else interested? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC) its a create space self published work, so No, it is not reliable. and besides I have no interest in dropping even a few pence down that rabbit hole. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC) if you go to amazon.com and select the paperback version, much of the book is available in the preview. Sad to say I did not make it into the index, but Tumbleman did! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC) I refuse to buy new woo books as it simply encourages the woomeisters. However, you can usually pick them up for a penny plus postage from amazon after a few months. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Actually, both of you are in the book. he did a very good job of profiling skeptics. I want to say that, as I read the article today, it is much improved over when this flap began. The intro is a little wordy but does explain to the reader what the subject is without undue criticism. I would avoid characterizing Chopra. I am also impressed that the books are treated in more of a what it is first and then reasonable criticism. I submit to you that the article would not be thus improved if you two and your fellows were alone preparing the article. It has been the balance brought by all of those whom you have been driving away. Now, in there absence, take care not to mess the article up again! Tom Butler (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Au contraire mon ami, I suggest that the article is what it is in spite of the Sheldrakianists and woo believers, and we could have got there so much easier without them too. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC) The book tells me that "the question of autism and vaccines is actually still quite open", and says Andrew Wakefield was "independently replicated", with a footnote. The footnote is a link to the Natural News website, which in turn contains a link to the file "BRIAN DEER IS THE LIAR .pdf" (with space before dot) which holds "THE PROOF". This stuff is so far afield. It's also curious how completely unrelated conspiracy theories tend to be embraced seemingly by virtue of the fact that they are conspiracy theories. vzaak 04:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) It's called "crank magnetism". Guy (Help!) 11:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) its proof of the morphic fields from the original conspiracy theory.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC) I read through the Wikipedia-related chapters of this ebook and I found it to be full of errors of fact, grammar and even ridiculous copy-editing errors. He claimed in a blog post that he was disappointed that no publisher would touch it, but it's no wonder - it's an editing mess. It's clear that much of it was derived from blog posts, but its not even consistent from one section to another as to whether it hyperlinks sources or footnotes them. No way this can be used as a reliable source. ETA: My comments are based on the PDF version of the book he published on his own website earlier, here's the link: PDF Krelnik (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Good grief. I'm astounded that anybody seriously suggested that as a source. It's marginally more coherent that Time Cube, and that's about the best that can be said of it! Guy (Help!) 16:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Who suggested it? Take em to WP:AE straight away. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)