Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

An Excluded Middle

One thing missing between Dr. Chopra the Scourge of Standard Medicine and Quantum Physics and Dr. Chopra the extremely successful businessman is the fact that Dr. Chopra is probably the most popular and well known current-day provider of spiritual ideas. (next to the Pope)

These ideas although contrary to mainstream science and medicine offer a benefit to millions of people as inspirational beliefs. These inspirational beliefs, like the fantasy beliefs of religion, have an established benefit. They offer "compensatory wish fulfillment, which (is) recuperative in effect” ( Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (London 1946) p. 554)

Various studies have pointed to the useful aspects of these type of beliefs.

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., McGregor, I., & Nash, K. (2010). Religious belief as compensatory control. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 37-48

Salamone, F., The Selfobject Function of Compensatory Fantasy. Clinical Social Work Journal; Vol 23, Number 3; 327

Dr. Chopra offers a class of spiritual beliefs that are an evolution from the formal materialistic Father-God of the Heavens. Toward a formless timeless source of all being. He has written and spoken about this many times. And it shows how Chopra differs from many organized religions, how he offers an evolving set of beliefs moving from formal to formless (and also toward science) and this should probably be included in the Spirituality and Religion section also.

Deepak Chopra is a tireless champion for those that need and desire such compensatory uplifting spiritual beliefs. He is fighting the "Good Fight" for their validity and their place in society. That he is such a tireless crusader in this is a source of great comfort for many people. How much more compensating these beliefs are if they are popular and they are part of a coming revolution and people think they are even proven by science- or about to be proven by science.

Plus- it does not hurt their compensatory value that these beliefs are reviled and despised by those unimaginative atheists, materialists and skeptics. That even seems to help their value.

Deepak Chopra is so helping these people. Many of them really need the inspiration.

No amount of brain imaging will ever explain why, when a person loses all their compensations they try to commit suicide.

Dr. Chopra is constantly supporting and enriching the quality of these spiritual compensations and increasing their value as inspirational vehicles. Very much like the pastor of a large church that goes out and performs good deeds to support the brotherhood and charity tenets of his religion. Dr. Chopra is out committing his resources to looking after his flock and advocating for their beliefs. It is a huge endeavor and it is a very large flock.Ptarmigander (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting post, Ptarmigander, with some pretty provocative ideas. I'd be interested in seeing a different paradigm to this page that doesn't dwell so heavily on the "Science v. Woo" aspect that doesn't seem to be healthy for WP or us editors. What type of material did you have in mind? A new section or a broader reassessment? Given the contentiousness of this article we have to be very careful how we approach any significant changes, and dramatically expand your selection of sources. Interested to see what you propose... The Cap'n (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is a variant of WP:USEFUL: that while his teachings are bullshit, they are useful bullshit. But that's the opinion of Ptarmigander, and thus has no place here. Are there reliable sources stating that spiritual, business or political leaders have openly made this argument in favor of Chopraism? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra's inspirational and spiritual teachings are much more than "bullshit". That is a narrow perspective and it does nothing to refute that spiritual and religious beliefs have compensatory benefits in society.

Also, Deepak Chopra is not a scientist and he does not really act as a scientist- like -for example Rupert Sheldrake or Dean Radin- Deepak Chopra acts mostly as a spiritual author and speaker. Therefore in that area, the views of scientists and science based skeptics that disagree with some of Chopra's stated ideas are not really qualified to pass judgement on Deepak's ideas as spiritual teachings and beliefs. They can say the physics is wrong etc. but as scientists they can not say that the spiritual belief that "we are all quantum foam" (or consciousness, or whatever) is a bad spiritual belief. They are not authorities on the psychology of belief. And they are not authorities on spirituality and religion. The fact that Jesus arose from the dead can be contested and protested by a medical doctor but that doctor has no authoritative standing regarding the inspirational benefits of the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Much less has he any authoritative basis to go from understandably disagreeing about the possibility of Jesus' resurrection to a dismissal and damning of Christianity -or of any preachers, ministers or priests that speak about the resurrection as a fact. Ptarmigander (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My deepest apologies, Ptarmigander, for misunderstanding you. "Not true but useful" came across as a euphemism for "bullshit", but obviously that's not what you were trying to say, and I regret the misreading. I will admit that your argument puzzles (and fails to convince) me, but I did not intend to mis-represent it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey ditto mike. I apologize too. Since we are rolling out the needless apologies. I like the word bullshit btw. I felt a little guilty turning it back on you as an accusation of narrow mindedness. So sorry about that.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I also think meditation is an integral part of Chopra's spirituality teachings. Isn't it? (having trouble with sourcing that too.) Chopra agrees with health benefits of meditation. But I believe he also advises meditation as a spiritual exercise or technique. Doesn't he? I think this can be sorted appropriately. I am working on it. May take a while.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding much criticism in the Spirituality and Religion department.Ptarmigander (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact if Deepak was a "Guru" he would probably be the least culty, the least scandal prone, the least throne oriented/acting as if above others, and one of the most generous and approachable all around good guys of any popular New Age Gurus. In fact, if Deepak was a Guru, because of qualities like these, I am pretty certain he could have the largest following of the whole bunch. Ptarmigander (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So from a skeptical point of view, if he is a "Guru", he is one of the best. And it is to his credit that he stacks up so favorably when he is compared to so many other New Age Gurus. Ptarmigander (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In a lesser of evils- comparisons are odious kind of way.Ptarmigander (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Banet-Weiser, Sarah (2012-10-15). Authentic™: The Politics of Ambivalence in a Brand Culture. NYU Press. pp. 192–. ISBN 9780814787151. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
• Larson, Bob (2004). Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality. Tyndale House Publishers. pp. 139–. ISBN 9780842364171. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
• Young, Anna M. (2014-02-21). Prophets, Gurus, and Pundits: Rhetorical Styles and Public Engagement. SIU Press. pp. 60–. ISBN 9780809332953. Retrieved 4 July 2014.

Some helpful things there, thanks. From -Prophets Gurus and Pundits- "Chopra has transformed from practicing endocrinologist to spiritual health guru over the last two decades." "Spiritual health guru" seems pretty accurate to me. Prob. never make the page -I realize. Ptarmigander (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely some useful data in those sources, though care is required when citing them authoritatively. Larson's book, for example, is actually a Christian condemnation of inferior "pagan" religions, organized to explain their presence and appeal, then explain why they are fundamentally wrong in "Christian Critiques". A couple of fun excerpts that give an indication of why it's important we read the context around sources:

• “Today many people don’t care whether a religion is based on solid truth like the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” p. 4
• “We must be ready to present the claims of Jesus’ divinity and his sufficiency as our Savior and Lord." p. 4
• Describing Chopra's beliefs as “…Hindu occult speculations…” p. 142
• “The ancient ayurvedic approach to health is a combination of folk remedies and idolatrous devotion…” p. 142
• “Those who attend his centers will fall under the spell of his finely tuned public relations image as well as the dark forces operating through his pagan belief system of well-being” p. 143.
• “The same sinister powers that have propelled Maharishi have also catapulted Chopra to stardom…” p. 142
• “The more serious consequence is eternal, if one believes Chopra’s message…” p. 143

That said, biased sources do not necessarily make bad sources, so long as we take the bias into account. There is a lot of information in this book, for sure. The Cap'n (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a lot of fun reading Larson's "All the facts about hundreds of cults."

I figured biased sourcings do not make for as good of an entry so I would avoid Larson's.

I am trying to learn. And I appreciate the suggestions.

The last time I had any involvement with an encyclopedia also had something to do with a cartoon cricket. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead again

The second paragraph of the lead:

Chopra obtained his medical degree in India before emigrating in 1970 to the United States, where he specialized in endocrinology and became Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital (NEMH). In the 1980s he began practicing transcendental meditation (TM) and in 1985 resigned his position at NEMH to establish the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center. Chopra left the TM movement in 1994 and founded the Chopra Center for Wellbeing, now located in Carlsbad, California.

seems trivial to me. At the very least, it should be moved down, so that what he is known for, in the third paragraph, should be moved up. Perhaps it should disappear from the lead entirely. (Need it be said that, although I believe Kww's lead is accurate, it may have WP:DUE weight problems.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been brought up before and received no responses. I say it's time to be bold with it. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the third paragraph:

Combining principles from Ayurveda (Hindu traditional medicine) and mainstream medicine, Chopra's approach to health incorporates ideas about the mind-body relationship, teleology in nature and the primacy of consciousness over matter – that "consciousness creates reality."

seems a bit puffery puffery to me. If it could be sourced without using his own works, it might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• prefer to wait until the RfC about the lead has closed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I can understand that. I just don't see any chance of the RfC producing a consensus, other than one opposing Kww's choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The RFC on making criticism more prominent is nearly at a dead heat numerically, and none of the oppose votes have a sound foundation in policy or guideline. They seem to be primarily based on the notion that Chopra's opinion of himself needs to be given prominence. I agree that the medical career that he abandoned 30 years ago is no longer prominent enough to warrant mention in the lead.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find something without his own words. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like "puffery" so much as the type of biographical information that is supposed to be the focus of a Biography of a Living Person. Why are we pushing to remove the one chunk of information in the lede that is purely and objectively factual?

@Kww, first off, it's not quite a dead heat, as there are more Oppose/Leave It Alone than Support. Secondly, it's not very responsible to generalize statements like "none of the oppose votes have a sound foundation in policy or guideline." WP:BLP is a sound policy, WP:BALANCE is a sound guideline, WP:NPOV is a sound policy, WP:LEAD & MOS:BEGIN are sound guidelines, and these were all referenced at length in the RfC Survey. What hasn't been a strongly represented opinion among the Opposes has been the idea that the lede needs to be Chopra's opinion of himself. I try to be careful not to misrepresent the arguments of others even if I disagree with them; please extend the same courtesy. The Cap'n (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It was 12:10 at last count, so there isn't a numeric imbalance bigger than sampling error. Given that moving criticism up in the lead is not contraindicated by WP:BLP, WP:BALANCE, or WP:NPOV, none of those arguments have a sound foundation in policy or guidelines. I could argue that criticism needed to be moved up based on WP:Short horizontal line, but that would not mean that my argument had a sound foundation in policy or guidelines.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, the second paragraph is the sort of biographical information, which should be in any encyclopedic biography, but not in the lead. The first sentence of the third paragraph was puffery, but, if accurate, the first and third paragraphs constitute a reasonable lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree and Premature - Per MOS:INTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. With about half of the article addressing the subject's "Biography", the two sentences we are affording this info in the current lead is the minimum mention warranted in this concise version of the article. SueDonem (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Are tweets WP:RS if self published?

If so, then the following exchange is peachy...

@DeepakChopra [said] ... "Real scientists have epistemic humility, reverence for existence, value transcendence, have healthy skepticism @allforafairsoc @ProfBrianCox"

@ProfBrianCox [said] ... "The most important attribute for a 'real scientist', as you put it @DeepakChopra, is to actually understand some science."

This was just this week. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

twits are self published and are only reliable for non promotional content about the subject who twits it and in general, twitting and twits are WP:IINFO for which coverage in the article would be WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem with tweets is context: it's very difficult to use them without running afoul of WP:OR while trying to place the tweet into the larger discussion.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Twitter (the ban of my existence, despite its usefulness during the Arab Spring) usually consists of self-published primary blurts of truncated opinion, and trying to place them into a context and larger analysis as befits an encyclopedia is highly problematic. The Cap'n (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an easy consensus, but my example does serve to illustrate, quite concisely, very well, and with a dash of humour, the mainstream view. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Roxy please don't be provocative. There is no way twitter should be used in a contentious article. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

very confused here as to how the 'mainstream' view is being defined. I can confirm that this is not a 'mainstream' view or if it is mainstream, it is one of many mainstream views that contradict each other. For every scientist out there that you can find a quote of that is unfavorable to Dr. Chopra, I can find another one that is favorable. Chances are Brian Cox is not even familiar with Dr. Chopra's work and is just jumping on a bandwagon. SAS81 (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

SAS please limit yourself to discussing what reliable sources say (and I recommend that you cite them when you make claims). Neither your nor anyone else's broad stroke opinions have value in WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you are very confused. I'm not aware of any scientists that believe in quantum healing, vibrating AIDS viruses, or any of the things that Chopra is known for. I'm familiar with charlatans and fools that agree with him, but not any scientists. Who is it that agrees with Chopra that you have confused for a scientist?—Kww(talk) 02:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww please be reminded that this article is under Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Comment on content, not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the "confused" comment was a bit more pointy than necessary, but other than that, I don't see that Kww's comments were anything but focused on the content, rather than the contributor. He very clearly was addressing the sources -- or more accurately hypothetical sources whom you have implied to exist, a notion he, as any editor, is quite empowered to challenge and require a source for before giving it weight in content discussions. You opened up the door by making the claim that for every vocal critic Chopra has in the scientific community, he has a defender in the same community. I have to agree with Kww and Jytdog - that seems a highly dubious claim. Snow talk 22:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the part of Kww's statement that could be seen as less-than-polite was referring to those who agree with Chopra as fools. While it's not the most diplomatic language, I also think it's not (or shouldn't be) actionable under Arbcom. The Cap'n (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Aggregate Numbers on Reception

Snow Rise brings up a good point about the support v. critique among the scientific community. I'm certainly not arguing that Chopra's reception amongst scientists is evenly split, but it'd be good to see whether he does have any mainstream scientific support. We've been treating it as a given that he is uniformly refuted, but I haven't seen any evidence of a large scale consensus other than Ptolemy's article mentioning it off-hand. We've got a pretty solid showing of scientists (and nonscientists like Robert Todd Carroll) who think Chopra is wrong/illegitimate/a fraud/etc; does anyone have any reliable sources indicating there are scientists who agree with any or all of Chopra's ideas? I've done a (very cursory) count of the sources that are critical of Chopra; there are about 20, many of them aren't by scientists, but let's assume they are for the sake of argument. Assuming there are 20 cited scientists refuting Chopra, if there are even 5 sourced scientists who support him that would be a 20% rate, hardly enough to generalize the scientific community as a whole's reaction as hostile. I don't know if there's 5 scientists who do support him, but that's my point, we don't know how dominant rejection of Chopra is (I'm pretty confident it is dominant, I should point out, but there's a big difference between 99% and 51%).

The lack of these supporting scientists could be due to A) a truly uniform dislike of Chopra among scientists or B) lack of research into those types of sources (as for balanced research, some of the Google book sources currently cited still show the search parameters of "ayurveda mumbo-jumbo" or "Deepak Chopra snake oil"). Either A or Bcould help resolve recurring arguments about Reception. I'll start looking into RS's and look forward to whatever anyone else can contribute. The Cap'n (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, while not EVERYTHING he says or claims is UNIVERSALLY dismissed, it is a WP:REDFLAG claim to assert that there is even a measurable level of support in the scientific and academic community for the vast majority of ideas he perpetuates such as the claim that you can hum away AIDS or get rid of your cancer by refusing to think that you have cancer. The claims that he is famous for are not the "Meditation can help reduce the stress in your life", its the wacko "Yoga yourself to live to be 130!"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

First off, the AIDS and Cancer "humming" is a frustrating return to a discussion that we spent pages of text on, itself an example of poor encyclopedic research. There were lengthy citations of text from Chopra's own books citing where he had discussed the biological nature of AIDS, as well as the fact that he believes in chemotherapy as the fundamental treatment for cancer. He also went on to reference how ayurveda would describe a virus and anecdotes on a "miraculous" cancer recovery (after several rounds of chemo), but including those out of context, without any reference to the qualifying "normal" positions is misleading and bad academics.

Secondly, your argument is a prime example of WP:OR v. WP:RS. You're asserting as a fact both that there could not be any measurable support for the majority of Chopra's ideas, and that he is notable only for his most extreme positions, with zero evidence cited for either. You could well be right, but I'm proposing we work on gathering some evidence and RS to support/refute these assertions rather than just insisting that a uniform opinion from a broad group of intellectuals is common sense. WP relies on evidence, not assertions. The Cap'n (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have some sources here that somewhat contradict the idea that Dr. Chopra is mainly known for having little support in the scientific community. These sources support the idea that many interesting and prominent scientists agree with Dr. Chopra, and find his work worthwhile.

In addition to recent evidence that Dr Chopra's ideas are not antithetical to science, there are numerous scientists who outright agree with him on the topics above. For spaces' sake I'll limit my contributions to a handful of prominent scientists who have agreed with Dr Chopra on some or most of his ideas. I can provide more on request.

• Elizabeth Blackburn is a Nobel laureate whose research has suggested meditation, specifically TM, may have a direct effect on aging, one of Dr Chopra's most controversial claims. These findings are also supported by Tonya L. Jacobs, Jue Lin, Owen M. Wolkowitz, David A. Bridwell, Anthony P. Zanesco, Stephen R. Aichele, Baljinder K. Sahdra, Katherine A. MacLean, Brandon G. King, Phillip R. Shaver, Erika L. Rosenberg, Emilio Ferrer, B. Alan Wallace, & Clifford D. Saron.
• Rudolph E. Tanzi, serves on dozens of editorial and scientific advisory boards, and as Chair of the Cure Alzheimer’s Fund Research Consortium. He shares Dr Chopra's interest and ideas on consciousness and coauthored Superbrain with him.
• Elissa Epel, a prominent research scientist, has cited Dr Chopra as one of her major influences.
• The late neurologist David Simon shared Dr Chopra's perspectives on mind-body relations and Ayurveda, and cofounded the Chopra Center.
• Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and professor who specializes in consciousness studies, and agrees with Dr Chopra on numerous levels.

More detailed information, citations and links for this data is on my talk page

Dr. Chopra has a 30+ year career with over 75 books published, so naturally he may have made a few statements over the years that have received criticism, however these do not encapsulate his contributions and should be placed in proper balance. Dr. Chopra is primarily known for integrating western lifestyle and western medical treatment with meditation. What informs his worldview are his views on consciousness. His views on consciousness are philosophical and philosophical views should not be confused as a medical or scientific views and as such should be immune from too much weight on the criticisms therein, in my opinion. SAS81 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the two Blackburn sources you cite on your Talk page (not this one nor this one), cites Chopra or says anything about him. It is WP:OR for any of us here to read those articles, read a book by Chopra, and say "Blackburn supports Chopra." This is not how we do things here. Please don't that anymore, SAS. If you want to make claims that "X supports Chopra's view on Y" you have to bring a source where X actually writes: I support Chopra's view on Y. Would you please strike the references to Blackburn? If there are others where she actually discusses him, please bring them. Thanks. On the other hand, the 2 co-authorships and the direct citations of Chopra are dead on correct in terms of how we do things. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks for looking out Jytdog, I should have clarified; Dr Blackburn is accurately referenced as endorsing meditation's effect on aging, not as endorsing Dr Chopra himself, and therefore contains no OR. I'll clean up my text as I see how it looks like I'm suggesting it as an endorsement of him as a person, like a few of the others. Consider? One of the issues under discussion is the claim that Dr Chopra's ideas are so far-fetched that they're not shared by any reputable scientists, and this is a reputable scientist who independently shares one of his ideas and comes to identical conclusions. Although I do have primary sources that establish the direct connection between Blackburn and Dr Chopra (he is collaborating with the Blackburn group on a study) I'm not claiming the source shows Dr Blackburn agrees with Dr Chopra, I'm stating that they both agree on the role of meditation in the aging process and Chopra's claims that meditation can lengthen telomeres is a key component of his work. Not sure how much of this discussion you have been following, but I believe it was TRPoD who was suggesting his ideas on aging were discredited. Since this is one of the most controversial statements Dr Chopra has been criticized for, the fact that a Nobel laureate has come to the same conclusion without the sources showing collaboration with Dr Chopra makes this source relevant then, yes? I can make this distinction between Dr Chopra and his ideas more clear, but the significance remains, i.e. in contradiction to the point that no scientist takes his ideas seriously or that they are pseudoscientific ideas not supported by science. Please let me know your thoughts here. thanks! [EDIT: changed a word] SAS81 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

SAS, please do read WP:OR, especially the section on synthesis. No one here is allowed to read Chopra and read Blackburn and say "Blackburn supports Chopra's ideas. It is beyond the scope of what Wikipedia editors are allowed to do. If a third party reads them both and says that they agree and this is stated in a reliable source that we can cite in the article, only then can we use that. So where you ask "yes?" the answer is absolutely not. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep focusing on exceptions. "There are some things Choprah has said that are not false" is an obviously true proposition: his harshest critics aren't saying that every word that has left his lips has been a lie. That his fame rests on untrue statements is also an obviously true proposition: he's not famous for being just another guy that believes in meditation, he's famous for quantum healing and outrageously exaggerated claims about the impacts of meditation. Bringing up the support of other people famous for pseudoscience, such as Stuart Hameroff and Tanzi (seriously? Brain-directed evolution? Won't Lamarckism ever die?), doesn't support a claim of mainstream support for Chopra either.—Kww(talk) 04:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww, please remain focused on article content and sources for the article. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what constitutes an 'exception', I'm not saying Chopra's views are all accepted by the mainstream (although it depends on how we are defining mainstream too) - but at the very least, Chopra's ideas are apart of a minority viewpoint, that of philosophical holism, which does have many prominent thinkers and scientists and therefore minority acceptance at the very least. Most of Chopra's critics are usually taking issue with his philosophical position on consciousness and his belief that QM can provide a map to understanding his philosophical view on health. That's absolutely valid to criticize, but there is no 'mainstream' view on philosophy, to be fair. I have more sources of more scientists he is working with too if anyone needs. SAS81 (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey everybody. I would like to remind everybody that conversation on Wikipedia Talk pages needs to be focused on article content and sources for content. This is not a forum. This thread was started by The Cap'n who is clearly calling for content and sources for the article. SAS, please do not provide unpublished "insider information" here, like "Chopra is collaborating with Blackburn" (If such information is published in reliable sources that can be used in the article, it is not "insider information" - but in that case, please provide the source). Thinking about that a bit more, it ~might~ be better if we didn't make statements about Chopra being in the process of collaborating with anybody, as collaborations don't always bear fruit, for any number of reasons. It would probably be best if we only cited the resulting work when it is published. (Just suggesting, not sure...) But in general, editors working here need to avoid taking broad pot-shots at Chopra and SAS and others need to refrain from responding to them and from making their own sweeping positive statements. We all need to work hard to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including the Talk page guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog, I appreciate the refocus! I completely agree that we cannot include anything about Blackburn collaborating with Chopra until we get RS sources on it, which I have seen none of yet. I do think if we had such RS', we could say something about it, given that it lends itself to determining Chopra's level of support, not just his successes.

I think the Blackburn source is ideal for the topic I brought up, as long as we make it clear she is not supporting Chopra but an independent idea. It is OR synthesis to say "Blackburn agrees with Deepak Chopra on his aging ideas," but it is not OR synthesis to point out "Blackburn supports findings that meditation can slow aging, an idea that Deepak Chopra has independently promoted." It's like convergent evolution; they have different origins but end up in a similar place. This section was in part intended to find whether his positions were so extreme that no other scientists shared them, so scientists unconnected to Chopra (?) who have come to the same conclusions are especially significant, particularly with regard to one of his most controversial claims.

@Kww, these types of assertions (he's only known for outrageous exaggerations, etc) are exactly what we're trying to qualify here. If you have some sort of neutral RS cataloging the roots of his popularity (other than another highly biased skeptic book), please share it. Otherwise we cannot accept what seems obvious to you. Also, Rudolph E. Tanzi seems to be a highly distinguished and accomplished scientist, being considered an authority on genetics and the brain. In a search for legitimate scientists whose views agree with Chopra, we cannot then claim scientists are not legitimate because their views agree with Chopra. That's peer-review-by-WP-editor. As a side note, unfortunately for all us sedentary folk, more and more clinical studies are showing genes are not as immutable as we thought. Almost motivates me to be healthier. Almost. The Cap'n (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I can begin a search for sources that show that Tanzi has jumped the rails. He's not a suitable indicator of reception because his status is closer to co-conspirator.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Cap'n. I disagree that "Blackburn supports findings that meditation can slow aging, an idea that Deepak Chopra has independently promoted." is not WP:SYN. This is almost a perfect example of it. We need a source that connects those dots - it is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia editor's authority to do that. I don't know if you have looked at WP:SYN in while, but if you have not, please do. In the meantime, I hope others who are very clear on what WP:SYN actually says will weigh in. (this is not a hand-wavy thing) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog, no need to get hand-wavy, I understand (reread today just to be sure I didn't miss anything) and appreciate the importance of WP:SYN and agree it has no place here. That said, SYN occurs when sourced statement A is combined with sourced statement B to create unsourced conclusion C (correct me if I'm wrong here). Synthesized conclusions and/or analysis is misleading and a big part of the problem I actually created this section to address. Stating "Blackburn has argued meditation can slow aging (source A), a theory that Deepak Chopra has also supported (source B)" does not introduce any unsourced analysis, it makes two verifiable, sourced statements. If we said "Blackburn has argued meditation can slow aging (source A), a theory that Deepak Chopra has also supported (source B), indicating support for Chopra's views (unsourced C)", that would be SYN, but the version I was discussing had no unsourced analysis, merely two independent sources indicating Blackburn and Chopra have separately endorsed the same theory. There is no opinion, unverified fact or cognitive leap required, and a perusal of the examples on WP:SYN supports this phrasing. Okay, done wiki-geeking out... The Cap'n (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see what you are saying. Where I am not comfortable is a) the high-level summation you are making of Blackburn's stance and b)high level of summation of Chopra's view on this; and c) equating those summaries. Do you see what I mean? It is those multiple steps that make it OR/SYN, to me. I need to go and actually read what Blackburn has written, but I would be very surprised if she actually "argued meditation can slow aging" at the same kind of high level, broad brush way that I understand that Chopra has made these statements. (SYN is indeed tricky - I am not trying to wikilawyer and I don't think you are either - we are each trying to understand the spirit not just the letter) Jytdog (talk)

What encyclopedic value does having "X agrees with Chopra in regard to Y" that isn't a WP:SOAP violation? --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Good question. In trying to determine the degree to which statements like "his views are rejected by the scientific community" can be used, we need to determine which of his views actually lack/have support in the scientific community. As a hypothetical example, if it turns out Chopra was right on meditation having an effect on aging but wrong on the benefits of ayurvedic herbs, it would be an unencylopedic generalization to simply say "his views are considered wrong by scientists." Having prominent scientists share one Chopra's most controversial positions makes a big difference in how the article is written, how the section on Aging is depicted, how Reception is handled and how we reflect the uniformity (or lack thereof) of his scientific rejection. The Cap'n (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please see the OP by Cap'n above, which is an effort to find sources about actual documentable support or opposition; the results of this conversation should generate content for the article. One of the key issues in this article, is where various ideas that Chopra has, fall on the spectrum of mainstream vs FRINGE. The original post is effort to address that, in a grounded, wikipedia-true fashion. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to confuse scientific consensus with opinions of individuals. That would violate FRINGE and NPOV. Do take a look at Project Steve concerning such appeals to false authority. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Ronz, and we're not trying to overturn sourced consensus with the opinions of random individuals. There currently is no sourced scientific consensus, and I don't think we can claim that Nobel Laureates and people who sit on dozens of scientific boards (as well as chairing a medical research program) are "false authority." They are legitimate members of the scientific community, no more, no less, and their positions on Chopra are just as valid as those scientists who disagree with him. No one is trying to claim these scientists' positions should be portrayed as vindicating all of Chopra's ideas; what exactly is your objection to sourcing this information? The Cap'n (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"There currently is no sourced scientific consensus" We follow MEDRS and FRINGE. Even a list of Nobel Laureates named Steve doesn't change this. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a false comparison, Ronz. There are overwhelming numbers of surveys and metadata showing the scientific community's position on evolution, but we don't have that here. Of course we follow MEDRS and FRINGE, but that doesn't mean we ignore RS requirements and just say whatever we want. FRINGE is not a blanket designation that determines all ideas related to a subject, it's just a set of guidelines for neutral accuracy, while MEDRS makes the position clear that any claim to scientific consensus must be more sourced, not less. If we say Chopra's ideas are rejected by the scientific community, have no sources reflecting the community's rejection, but do have individual scientists expressing different opinions, then we'd be disingenuous to say we have evidence of a uniform position. Chopra's obviously in the minority opinion, to be sure, but we need sources to make specific statements about his specific positions. Generalizing it as "Chopra is WP:FRINGE, so anything he says is rejected by the scientific community" does not make for a good article or good editing. Some of his ideas likely fall squarely under FRINGE, some likely are debatable and some likely have support. Nuance is okay, rejecting legitimate sources is not. The Cap'n (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, what are the reliable source that all of Chopra's ideas are WP:FRINGE? Everybody here, on all "sides", needs to hew close to the sources.... Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the straw man arguments and misrepresentations of my comments deserve any more response than this. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I never ask sarcastic questions. I really meant it. The only way I can interpret it is that you are saying that all of Chopra's positions are FRINGE. If that is not what you are saying, please clarify. Really, please do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not all his ideas can be considered fringe, however a sizeable number can - however if they are prominent/notable enough they also deserve inclusion within the article. Zambelo; talk 02:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, you and I have disagreed over issues in the past, but we've also come to resolutions. I certainly haven't intended to misrepresent your position, merely clarify my own, while from everything I've seen Jytdog is a very straightforward, earnest editor. There was no offense intended.

@Zambelo, completely agree. The article should reflect solid sources, for and against.

@Jytdog, do you see my point about the Blackburn source being an example of source A & source B without an unsourced C? If not, please let me know what you consider the unsourced analysis and we can work on it or excise the source. Thank you for your feedback and patience, it's appreciated. The Cap'n (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Elizabeth Blackburn is a Nobel laureate whose research has suggested meditation, specifically TM, may have a direct effect on aging"

Wasn't the study by Blackburn on physiological changes in meditation and they ended up focusing on Telomeres and stress- not specifically aging? And wasn't it conducted at the Shambhala Mountain center in Colorado? At the Shambhala Mountain Center they practice a combo of Tibetan Buddhist mindfulness meditation and compassion meditation. The Blackburn study on telomeres didn't seem to have anything to do with Transcendental Med. It wouldn't be the truth to imply otherwise would it? While TM is similar to Dr. Chopra's Primordial Sound Meditation® they both are very different from MBSR and also Shamata (which is practiced at Shambhala) and various forms of Vipassana. Within these forms there also are large differences. Meditation research is in it's infancy.

It would be bad science.. or no science.. to claim benefits of one style of meditation equate to an other because they are so very different. And of course any study on a trademarked brand of meditation (or yoga etc.) is going to be more suspect.

Plus in the event of studies on mantra meditation - maybe the study got the results because the god or the "vibration" of the particular mantra symbol was helping- or maybe the Vedic astrology behind the mantra made a difference. If these type of factors don't matter or don't really influence anything, then why pay for the specially figured mantra? (Or to sit with a particular guru or teacher?) This type of trademarked commercial background to meditation is certainly problematic.

The Blackburn study can make no conclusion such as meditation slows aging. It only states that this particular mindfulness meditation accompanied the reported changes- which may be related to greater longevity, but that is far from conclusive. So it is a lot of supposition to use that study as any proof meditation slows aging. And it really says nothing about Primordial Sound Meditation.

This type of study is OK for pointing toward doing more studies but not good for drawing definite conclusions about meditation and aging. Of course relaxation and non ruminating are healthful. Meditation seems to be a effective way to do that and doing that allows for studying it. That is about as far as science can go right now. To make a big fantastic claim out of it smacks of marketing and commercialism not science. The two should not be conflated. And when they are it should be pointed out. Clarity counts. Blurring the lines is what is the problem and why a lot of people are getting upset. Obviously some people are upset that they can not blur the lines. Ptarmigander (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot and should not report that studies have proven meditation can slow aging, the purpose is to determine whether there are other scientists who share Chopra's belief that it's possible, ie. their perspective in regards to lack/presence of support in the scientific community for these theories. As far as the focus of Blackburn's study, I think there were a few listed, but one of the ones on SAS81's page specifically dealt with meditation and aging (and was actually titled "Can meditation slow rate of cellular aging?"). Again, this section is primarily aimed at determining the support/lack thereof of Chopra's ideas, not their factuality. The Cap'n (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, Cap'n, it is OR/SYN for you to summarize what scientist X thinks about topic Y, summarize what Chopra says about Y, and compare them. That is not an edit I would let fly. If scientist X says "Chopra and I agree on Y" that is great, or if some third party compares them and discusses how they are the same or different, that is great too. But we cannot do that. (sorry to beat the dead horse) Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rest assured, no horses corpses lay beaten here, we've gotten derailed a few times in the course of this conversation. Again, I appreciate working with reasonable, NPOV editors like you, thank you for your time and explanations. I see your point, and while I don't 100% agree it applies in this situation, I'll see if there's a way we can include the source in some way and also resolve your concerns with OR. It's such a prominent source dealing so specifically with something so linked to Chopra's pseudoscientific Reception idea that I think it should be referenced if it's possible to avoid OR. 22:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The title "Can meditation slow rate of cellular aging?" is a teaser title. It asks the question that the study did not answer. Cellular aging or the lack thereof were not shown in this study they were merely speculated upon. And, importantly, "cellular aging" is not the same as aging in the individual. Here it is - from the horse's mouth:

Is it possible to use the length of the telomeres as a “clock of aging”?

"No. This is a mere statistical association, which shows up in studies with an extreme large number of people. Most people are fascinated and ask what the length of telomere reveals. Individually, it does not mean anything." -Elizabeth Blackburn.

The small study we are discussing showed higher telomerase activity with meditators at a 3 month retreat at the Shambhala center. As the concern of the study was, for one thing, telomerase levels and stress reduction- the higher telomerase levels could just as easily come from being on retreat in the mountains for 3 months. That would certainly be stress reducing. It could be from sleeping in cabins in all that fresh air. It could have been from eating a more restricted natural foods diet for 90 days. It could be from 3 months of not working, parenting, or going to college classes. It could even have been from regularly drinking more wine and beer than usual come evenings - since this is Shambhala Mountain Center.

Which is just to point out how imprecise the study may have been. Not to say anything good or bad about the Shambhala Mountain Center. The main thing is that nothing is proved about people aging -or not aging- in relation to meditation by this study. And also, when it comes to the whole telomere thing, Blackburn and others point out that similar telomerase effects can come from exercise, relaxation, and even better education- positive lifestyle changes. So the big whoopie-doo about meditation and telomeres and aging is (at this time) highly exaggerative. Ptarmigander (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that it's a proven fact that drinking more beer will make me live longer? Kidding... You make a good point in your last paragraph, but it's important to note that we're not trying to judge the quality of the study, that would be OR on our parts. Editors cannot peer-review journals themselves. The Cap'n (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. OR. What I am pointing out is that it is going to take some very creative wordsmithing to even attempt to justify any claim that “Meditation lowers Biological Age.” by citing this study. Since those facts are not there. The "OR" would be claiming this study showed that meditation reverses or slows human aging. As it says in the discussion accompanying the study the model is "highly speculative".

Also btw many of the study participants did daily yoga and or Qi Gong sessions during the retreat. I did not find any claims about daily yoga and Qi Gong practice affecting concentration, mood or telomerase activity. So the study may have been directionally blind.

Personally I am hoping that you give citing this study in relation to Chopra a try. I enjoy your nuancing Cap. But if anyone is going to state that meditation can "reverse aging" they need a lot more than this. Good luck. Ptarmigander (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it appears we had a simple misunderstanding, Ptarmigander. I agree with you wholeheartedly, I am only referencing this study in relation to Chopra (though we're not there yet, still resolving SYN issues). I have absolutely no intentions of trying to use it here to claim that meditation (or anything) can factually slow or reverse aging. That's not what I'm focusing on here, but rather BLP issues and Reception numbers. The Cap'n (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I do tend to go off. I suppose I was largely responding to some statements SAS81 made about Blackburn that seemed inaccurate. I am sure SAS81 is just trying to be helpful though. Maybe I got interested when you (Cap'n) said "It's such a prominent source dealing so specifically with something so linked to Chopra's pseudoscientific Reception idea" and: "Blackburn supports findings that meditation can slow aging, an idea that Deepak Chopra has independently promoted."

I don't see where Blackburn agrees with any of Chopra's wilder aging claims. Which includes meditation slows human aging. I really don't think Blackburn has ever said that. And I have looked.

Elissa Epel might agree with some more far out Chopra claims.

IMO SAS81 should put those sources that establish Blackburn supports Chopra's idea that meditation slows or reverses human aging (not just meditation may effect some bio-markers) on his TALK page. Because I can't find them.Ptarmigander (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)