Talk:John Hagelin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Rearranging and neutralizing

For some time, I have studied this biography and followed the discussion. It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. All one has to do to see the situation is to compare this biography with others. For example, compare it with that of Francis S. Collins. Collins is another recipient of a Kilby International Award. He is a scientist, but also one who has been particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs and has written books on both topics. Nevertheless, the body of his scientific history and accomplishments is separated from material relating to his views on religion and the interaction between religion and science.

I suggest we rearrange the components of the Hagelin biography to make the biography more logical and to bring it more in line with other biographies by keeping the factual descriptions of his academic choices and his research separate from the examples of reactions to these choices and research. Moreover, these reactions need to be placed in their appropriate contexts, and they need to more clearly reflect a neutral POV.

The following is a set of headings that seems to better reflect Hagelin’s activities and the responses of others to those activities. I see no need for the major heading “Professional Careers.” Instead, all the bases seem to be covered by headings arranged as follows: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References.

Fitting the current material into this structure would not involve a major overhaul. Most items already exist and can easily be just moved about. A few sentences would be moved from one subhead to another. If we can reach consensus on these topics, I will rearrange the current contents of the biography into this order for others to see, either on this page or in a sandbox (Which do others prefer?). ChemistryProf (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The comparison is inapt. Collins is not a controversial figure, and does not propose as "science" theories which are regarded by virtually every mainstream scientist as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot". "Neutralizing" is a loaded word. Our goal is not to "neutralize" either criticisms or praise reported in reliable, independent, mainstream sources nor to misrepresent fringe positions - and Hagelin's theories are the fringiest of the fringe - as being mainstream. Our goal is to accurately report, with neither understatement nor overstatement, what the reliable, verifiable, independent sources say about the subject. As olive proposed Talk:John_Hagelin#Example above, it is certainly a worthwhile goal to try to improve the article, and using "feature" bios as a model for improvement is a good plan to try to do so. But, the Collins bio is neither a feature article nor one which is particularly useful as a model. Instead, you should use as a model a feature article on a person who has been subject to serious criticism or controversy. If you do, you will see that the portions of the article which apparently disturb you are entirely appropriate and neutral, and that the efforts of some other editors to sugar-coat the criticisms of his work are inappropriate efforts to push the POV of the TM Org to which they owe their livlihood. And, as for who is trying to dominate the shaping this article, I'd suggest you're looking in the wrong direction. Edit Count-Article Fladrif (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your views, Fladrif. It has become obvious to me over the last months that you have strong views on this article, in fact, on all the articles relating to the Transcendental Meditation technique. Some of these views appear so strong that they must have a negative effect on your ability to perform as a neutral editor. I have been in this situation myself at times, and it’s not comfortable. It takes the enjoyment out of editing. If we cannot enjoy this work, why do we do it? Let’s see if we can relieve the pressure a little and make this a more enjoyable process, for everyone. Aside from improving the article, this is my main goal.

Fladrif’s first sentence above, “The comparison is inapt,” throws down the gauntlet. Right away it casts a negative light on any constructive points I was making. But is it true? I chose the Collins example precisely because his religious activities and convictions have led to considerable controversy. He has an ongoing, public debate with Richard Dawkins concerning God and the relationship between religion and science, and has been criticized by others. All of this controversy appears under one topic, “Religious Views.” Naturally, we want to make the Hagelin bio a Featured Article, but we have a distance to go to achieve that. The Collins article simply shows that controversial viewpoints on a person’s activities can be placed under one subsection, leaving the more factual material to itself.

Fladrif’s second sentence begins “Collins is not a controversial figure…,” which brings up another point that needs clarification. Let’s not be bigoted. A person is a person. His or her actions or expressed views may be controversial, but the person is simply a person. This is true of Hagelin, Collins, George W. Bush, Obama, Hitler, or Fladrif. Courts cannot try a person for being who they are. We can never know what a person truly is inside. Courts try men for their actions. Sometimes they may be tried for their expressed views, but that is a dangerous departure from our claims to be a free country, allowing freedom of thought, religion, etc. Let’s try to uphold the ideals of our republic, if at all possible. (Correct me if not all the editors working on this article are citizens of the US of A.)

Unfortunately, the remainder of Fladrif’s second sentence, “…and does not propose as "science" theories which are regarded by virtually every mainstream scientist as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot,"” ventures further into the realm of judging Hagelin’s innermost person. If Fladrif is a scientist, or even a historian of science, he or she knows that mainstream scientists often have it wrong. How many examples can we think of where the mainstream has opposed a scientist’s discovery or set of views only to have to retract their criticisms some years or decades later? Galileo, Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein are a few names that come to mind. Their work was vilified in their time, but eventually was accepted, even by the mainstream. Galileo was hanged; Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein were called “crackpots.” What did that criticism do to advance our knowledge?

Is it beginning to be clear what the word “neutralize” was intended to convey? Editors can make their views known in an article through their choice and placement of specific materials. If an editor has a strong view for or against something, then unless they are scrupulously careful, that view is likely to be exhibited in their choice and placement of materials. Any experienced editor knows that. My suggestion is to move material that falls into the “opinionated” category into one section, a place for directly and indirectly airing different opinions of Hagelin’s work and of his chosen career path. That would leave the article much freer of bias and move us in the direction of a decent bio, one not prone to libel or anything of the sort. Let’s look at Fladrif’s example (not yet produced) of a Featured Article on a person who has been subject to serious criticism or controversy for more ideas, but let’s also give feedback on my earlier suggested rearrangement of sections. Here is a repeat of my earlier suggestions for rearranging the material. "I see no need for the major heading “Professional Careers.” Instead, all the bases seem to be covered by headings arranged as follows: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References." Comments, please. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I happened to see a comment here that I'd like to respond to, though I haven't followeed this whole thread or dispute. ChemistryProf writes:

• How many examples can we think of where the mainstream has opposed a scientist’s discovery or set of views only to have to retract their criticisms some years or decades later? Galileo, Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein are a few names that come to mind. Their work was vilified in their time, but eventually was accepted, even by the mainstream. Galileo was hanged; Pasteur, Edison, and Einstein were called “crackpots.”

The argument that we should give special treatment to unusual scientific theories because Galileo turned out to be right is probably made every day on somewhere on Wikipedia, but it is always wrong. Wikipedia should reflect the majority view of issues. If we were writing in the 19th century, and if the majority of reliable sources available characterized Edison's ideas as unscientific (or whatever) then that is the view to which we should have given the greatest weight. We also should have included other views, if available in reliable sources. We're not here to right great wrongs, or to show readers a higher truth that leading scientists don't (yet) recognize. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a pretty essay. And pretty much fact-free too. Galileo was hanged? That's news. Go back and actually re-reread what I wrote. And, while you're at it, look at the feature bio for oh, say Wesley Clark, which is the example I produced when olive suggested looking at a feature article BLP as a template for this one. Clearly you weren't paying attention. Collins and Dawkins debating their views on whether or not God exists does not make Collins a controversial figure, whether or not one agrees or disagrees with those views. Hagelin positing that the unified field of physics is bound up in the Marishi's theories of consciousness and SCI, to say nothing of his proposals as to how those theories should be practically applied, are universially rejected by mainstream science and are regarded as the fringiest of the fringe of education, politics and any other field that he dips his toe into. That might not be apparent from the limited horizons of beautiful downtown Fairfield, but them's the facts, and its our job to report 'em, unpleasant though you may find them. Fladrif (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to thank ChemProf for his comments. He obviously is attempting to help create an environment where all editors can feel comfortable. There are lots of ways to write articles and lots of examples on Wikipedia. We are in no way committed to any of them. I think Chem makes some good suggestions and I can't see a down side to what he is asking. Can anyone else? As an aside to Will . I didn't take it from what Chem was saying that we should allow material into an article based on the hope that Hagelin for example is another Galileo or Einstein. I thought he was suggesting fairness and good editor work ethics in dealing with whomever we are writing about since non of us are in a position to judge anyone else, either who they are, or the impact their work may have in the future. (olive (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Will Beback, olive is correct in her summary statement. I was not suggesting we give special treatment to any theory that is not welcomed by mainstream science, but simply pointing out that some of our greatest discoveries in the past were first ignored or vilified. So reception by the mainstream is not a valid measure of the value of a scientific discovery. For that matter, the words of a few scientists spoken in an interview with a reporter are not a valid representation of mainstream science. Challenging current paradigms is often a hallmark of leading-edge science. The context of this point was the current Hagelin article's treatment of his published research on consciousness, implying that because a few outspoken scientists dismiss it, their words should be given special importance and should be highlighted in the article no matter how caustic. This does not jibe with WP guidelines nor does it make scientific sense. It merely reflects the POV of the WP editor responsible.

Fladrif, I read the Wesley Clark bio. It is interesting in several ways. First, it is extremely long, detailing every step of Clark's career advancement in numerous paragraphs. Positive, congratulatory comments were pretty much peppered throughout the article, sometimes without attribution, but the four descriptions of controversial material or controversial actions were inconspicuously placed under the topics to which they applied, and only muted language was used to describe Clark's actions. There was nothing resembling the current negative tone in several parts of the Hagelin article. It is similar to the Collins example in this regard. So now we have two examples, one having qualified as a Featured Article, that provide precedent for the type of rearrangements I am suggesting for the Hagelin article. Neither you nor Will commented directly on these suggestions, but I will make the changes and display them here before inserting them in the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposed structure: Academic Positions; Research in Theoretical Physics and the Unified Field; Research on Consciousness and Peace; Notable Awards; Reactions to Hagelin’s Academic Choices and Research; Business Activities—Enlightened Audio Designs; Political Activities; Activities in Support of World Peace; Popularity; References, would work very well. --BwB (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since my name came up again I suppose I need to comment further. I disagree with the headings proposal. In particular, "Activities in Support of World Peace" is not a neutral title. The folks who built the MX missile, AKA the "Peacekeeper", could have been described as engaging in activities supporting world peace. While the current heading is over-long ("Invincible America, US Peace Government and Global Union of Scientists for Peace"), it can be trimmed to the most important of those entities. "Awards" usually go at the end, and "notable" isn't needed because we wouldn't include non-notable ones. If the "reractions" are in response to the "research" then they should go close together. Why would we have a "popularity" section? That sounds like it'd be more appropriate for a rock star. Overall I don't see the need for a re-organization, and the specific proposal does not appear to be neutral.   Will Beback  talk  16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Will brings up some good points that I failed to see in a quick glance at the titles. Rather than say the proposal wasn't neutral can we say the proposal might create a non neutral aspect to the article. I have to rush of but maybe there's some middle ground we can discuss. Not sure yet. (olive (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes some good points from Will. We can continue to consider different options. --BwB (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, I appreciate the constructive feedback. In the next day I will make a list of the reasons for the rearrangement and will follow up with suggestions to fix any problems pointed out by Will Beback. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Will Beback's following comment "Overall I don't see the need for a re-organization, and the specific proposal does not appear to be neutral," I explained the need at the beginning of this thread and repeat here as follows: "For some time, I have studied this biography and followed the discussion. It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. All one has to do to see the situation is to compare this biography with others. For example, compare it with that of Francis S. Collins. Collins is another recipient of a Kilby International Award. He is a scientist, but also one who has been particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs and has written books on both topics. Nevertheless, the body of his scientific history and accomplishments is separated from material relating to his views on religion and the interaction between religion and science."

"I suggest we rearrange the components of the Hagelin biography to make the biography more logical and to bring it more in line with other biographies by keeping the factual descriptions of his academic choices and his research separate from the examples of reactions to these choices and research. Moreover, these reactions need to be placed in their appropriate contexts, and they need to more clearly reflect a neutral POV." I can now add to this the results of further discussion above, namely, that Fladrif's suggestion to compare the Hagelin article with the one on Wesley Clark was followed, and the same conclusion was drawn. In the Wesley Clark "Featured Article," despite Fladrif's indication that he is a "controversial figure," the amount of discussion of controversy is minute compared with the detailed description of his every career step and activity. Negative comments are also restricted to a few places in the appropriate sections. Although that article does not have a separate section for the controversies, in the Hagelin article the controversies are overlapping in such a way as to make a single section for them more appropriate. For example, several points have to do with the interaction between his physics research and his consciousness research. The physics research part involves references to several dozen articles in this area, while his consciousness research involves only two or three articles. It would clarify the treatment of these topics, then, to deal with these research categories separately and to deal with the criticisms of their interaction together in one section following the research discussions. Likewise, there are logical reasons for each of the other headings suggested. Certainly, some of these headings can be refined following our discussion. That is why we have a discussion page. I appreciate the constructive feedback and will submit a revision of the reorganization plan incorporating the feedback. As for your (Will Beback's) comment that the proposal "does not appear to be neutral," in what way? I am trying to improve a bio that is in obvious need of improvements. The suggested rearrangements will be followed by further suggestions specific to each. Isn't this how WP works? ChemistryProf (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quoting a large chunk of text from this same thread isn't really helpful. The suggested proposals are not neutral because they give exessoive prominence to the awards, and promote a view of the USPG. Maybe I don't understand what the point of a "popularity" section is, but I've never seen such a section in the article of a scientist before. If its related to his political success then it should just go in that section.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I took out the reference to Maharishi Central University in the Academic subsection, since it is not an academic institution at this time. If and when it becomes a functioning university its inclusion would be relevant. As of now it just clutters up the page to no purpose.Hickorybark (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception section: concerns

My recent deletions from the article:

Physicist Victor J. Stenger wrote in The Humanist that "quantum consciousness" as described by the Maharishi, Hagelin and others is a "myth" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."

Pertinent quotes from Stenger:

They [words by Robert Lanza in The Humanist] also resonate with the “cosmic consciousness” promoted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Transcendental Meditation movement.

The myth of quantum consciousness should take

its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell

them about the world.

Stenger doesn't say Maharishi talks about quantum consciousness. Others is weasel wording. I've removed them.

I'm not sure what this is about, but it looks like the author talks about the Maharishi and quantum consciousness:

• The Maharishi associates cosmic consciousness with the Grand Unified Field of particle physics. Maharishi University “quantum physicist” John Hagelin, Natural Law Party candidate for President in last year’s election, has spoken frequently about quantum consciousness.

While "associates" isn't the same as "describe", but that could be fixed by copyediting. Or maybe I don't understand the problem.   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stenger never says the Maharishi talks about quantum consciousness and neither should we. He says "cosmic consciousness"... "resonates with" and "associates". I don't care about the information but synthesis is something we don't need more of. I've added the older version of the quote from the article. (olive (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

The sentence I've brought here from the article probably deserves more discussion.(olive (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

I think we should remove this. Stenger doesn't give a source to back up his claim that Hagelin frequently talks about quantum consciousness. Hagelin has never talked about quantum consciousness. Maybe "cosmic consciousness," but that's something different. You'd think that if he frequently talks about it, it would show up via a Google search. But I couldn't find a single instance. We should be wary of using Stenger. He makes stuff up. As can be seen from the recent discussion, Stenger was utterly wrong that Barr 1982 and Deredinger 1984 had anything to do with flipped SU(5) heterotic string. TimidGuy (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We should be wary of using Stenger. He makes stuff up. That seems a bit harsh. We usually review sources for reliability according to the reputation of the publisher, etc. Of course if a writer has a track record of errors that counts too. But if it's just our opinion that he "makes stuff up" then that might not be a strong argument. Unless someone can show definitively thet this is not a reliable source, I suggest that we start fresh and summarize what he does say in regard to Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be harsher still No we should not remove it. Stenger doesn't have to give a source. TG continually confuses what editors have to do with what authors of source material have do do. As for making stuff up, see Psychological_projection. What we can see from the recent discussion on SU(5) is not that Stenger was wrong, but that either TG is a pathological liar serial deciever or utterly incapable of reading technical material. Usually, I apply Hanlon's Razor to these kinds of dilemmas, but I don't think you're stupid.your track record here it too long and extensively documented to opt for the stupidity explanation for your actions. Barr is absolutely the first paper to describe Flipped SU(5), derived from SU(5),and his 1982 paper is repeatedly referenced for it, as anyone would discover from even the most casual of Google searches. [1] [2] Similarly, Stenger was absolutely correct about Derendinger's 1984 paper.[3][4] And, I've read the papers, and your statements about them are, to put it most charitably, grossly misleading at best, and less charitably, absolute falsehoods. There is nothing that I can think of that is more disruptive to, or destructive of, the aims of Wiki than the willingness of an editor like yourself to continually misrepresent sources assert blatant falsehoods to try to push your POV on these articles. And yet you persist month after month, year after year, in the most outrageous deceptionsfalshoods, many of which were documented on COIN long before Will or I ever set eyes on this article, apparently with the motive of protecting this article that you wrote and had another editor post at Wiki. It is utterly unacceptable behavior, and frankly inexplicable since your claims are so easily falsified by any neutral editor. This has got to come to an end. Now. Fladrif (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not looking at the source but at the syntax and the synatx creates a synthesis situation. If the source is reliable and verifiable, and if the source says something we need then we can rewrite the text if not , no. I am not familiar with Stenger but for the article he writes to be considered reliable the material must be verifiable... and if its not the source goes. WP:Verifiable is a policy and underpins and also trumps the guideline, WP:Reliable.

Fladrif, the Deredinger papers you link to aren't the 1984 paper, as far as I can tell. Can you tell me the page on which the 1984 paper mentions flipped SU(5)? I keep searching the PDF and it just doesn't come up. And I don't see it when I skim the paper. Also, Barr had nothing to do with the flipped SU(5) heterotic string, which is a derivation of the flipped SU(5) GUT from string theory that came years later. Hagelin didn't claim to invent flipped SU(5). His website, which Stenger quotes, says he's "responsible for the development of a highly successful Grand Unified Field Theory based on the Superstring." What Hagelin did was use flipped SU(5) to create a GUT model, which Barr didn't do. I think the main problem is that you, like I did earlier, assume that flipped SU(5) always refers to the name of a GUT model. It doesn't. It's a tweak of SU(5). Barr applied it to understand symmertry breaking. Hagelin used it to develop his supersymmetric GUT model. I believe you're correct in saying that Barr was the first to describe flipped SU(5). But that's not the same as saying he's the first to develop a flipped SU(5) GUT, which is not what he did but is what Hagelin and collaborates did in the 1987 paper. And then several years later they derived the flipped SU(5) GUT model from string theory.

Will, please let me know if you can find an instance where Hagelin talks about quantum consciousness. I feel that if a source says that Hagelin says something and doesn't give an example of where he says it, and if no such instance can be found, then it's not a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to impeach the source that's your job. The article is published by reliable publication. For all I know, Stenger considers "quantum consciousness" and "cosmic consciousness" to be synonyms. We're not here to decide whether criticisms of the subject are correct or not. We're here to report the criticisms (and accolades and everything else that's significant). If author "Smith" had said "Hagelin is a nice guy" would we demand evidence to prove the assertion correct? If there are other reliable sources that say Stenger is incorrect then we an add those too. But discounting a source because we've decided it's wrong on a matter of interpretation is essentially a violation of WP:NOR: relying on our own original research to shape a Wikipedia article.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe we're here to decide whether sources are reliable. If Hagelin has never used the term quantum consciousness and Stenger says he often talks about it, then why isn't that a relevant consideration? I feel that if a source can be shown to be demonstrably factually incorrect, it shouldn't be used. Cosmic consciousness means something very specific when Hagelin talks about it. It's not the same as quantum consciousness. TimidGuy (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for establishing reliability are in WP:V and WP:RS. How can we prove that Hagelin has never used the term "quantum consciousness", and that Spegnewr is erroneous? It's generally considered difficult to prove a negative.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW (which isn't much), I just listened to Hagelin's talk on Youtube titled "John Hagelin, Ph.D on Consciousness 1 of 2".[5] The entire lecture is about quantum mechanics as it relates consciousness (or vice versa). While he might never use the term "quantum consciousness" per se, it's a topic that he appears to discuss using similar terms.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, It's possible that we're looking at different Deredinger 1984 papers. I believe I'm looking at the one you originally cited. I don't think your citation had a title, but what I'm looking at is titled "ANTI-SU(5)." I can't find any mention of flipped SU(5). Please point me to a particular page. By the way, I don't yet have Stenger's book. It should arrive in the next day or so. All I have is a short excerpt on this that someone e-mailed me about a month ago. I'm eager to see if Stenger says anything beyond the excerpt I have. TimidGuy (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into flipped a bit more. It's correct to say that Barr 1982 in the context of his discussion of symmetry breaking briefly examines flipped SU(5) as a possible GUT. It's incorrect in every case to say that he first described flipped SU(5) heterotic string or that his paper had anything to do with deriving flipped SU(5) from string theory. Hagelin's first 1987 paper introduced supersymmetric flipped SU(5). We would have to be very careful not to suggest that Barr 1982 first described this. Then later in 1987 Hagelin and his collaborators were the first to derive slipped SU(5) from the superstring. Hope that helps. By the way, flipped SU(5) apparently begins by presenting a rudimentary flipped SU(5) and then goes on to describe the supersymmetric flipped SU(5) originated by Hagelin and his collaborators. TimidGuy (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like if you're going to include Barr, then we should also include mention of Sheldon Glashow's development of SU)5). TimidGuy (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read Stenger's critique of Lanza and watched the video. Stenger's arguments have nothing to do with what Hagelin says. Hagelin is talking about quantum mechanics in the context of superunifcation. And again he's proposing an identity between this unified field envisioned by physics and a unified field of consciousness. Stenger doesn't mention this at all. His critique is related to things Hagelin hasn't related to consciousness, specifically the EPR paradox. I've never heard Hagelin talk about EPR. He's coming from a completely different angle. TimidGuy (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard Hagelin talk about EPR either, but that doesn't prove he hasn't done so. As for Stegner in general, if there's a reubttal of some kind we could include that, but I don't see a legitimate reason for excluding his view.   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He simply doesn't talk about EPR or collapse of the wave function — they aren't part of his primary logic. Both of those are early to mid-20th century. Hagelin's main work, and his focus, is on more recent unified field theory -- GUT and super-unification. He bases his understanding of consciousness on a connection between that and what the Vedic literature and Maharishi have said about consciousness. Stenger simply says that Hagelin often talks about quantum consciousness, which he doesn't, and then presents a rebuttal of Lanza, dealing with things that Hagelin doesn't discuss. We have absolutely no idea why Stenger thinks that Hagelin's ideas are a myth. (And though this is unrelated, there are many physicists who would disagree with Stenger's interpretation of EPR and collapse of the wave function.) Why do we include this as evidence when we have absolutely no idea what Stenger is objecting to, since Hagelin doesn't talk about quantum consciousness, and absolutely no idea how Stenger's comments in the Humanist article are related to Hagelin, since his focus has been something other than collapse and EPR?

Does Wikipedia have to include every passing comment that appears in print? If so, then why couldn't I present the hundreds and hundreds of comments by long-term practitioners of TM saying how beneficial it has been in their lives that have appeared in the news media coverage of TM? Or the article that credits practice of TM by former Mozambique president Chissano for his extraordinary success? And the many many comments by famous celebrities who say that TM has been beneficial? There are many reasons to exclude something without needing a rebuttal. One is WP:V, since Stenger's article gives zero information to support his view of Hagelin. It's just fundamental that if you're going to make an argument against someone's view, you show how it relates to that person's view. One is WP:WEGIHT. This section is now longer than the entire research section. Another is the excellent advice in WP:QUOTE. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're selectively reading portions of the article and ignoring the rest to come to a false conclusion. It is very clear, both in the specific context of the specific article, and the broader context of his other writing, that Stenger regards the attempt to connect quantum mechanics with consciousness, whether by Lazla, the Maharishi and the TM Movement, including Hagelin, Capra, or others as all of a piece, whether one calls it "quantum consciousness", "cosmic consciousness", or Stenger's preferred term "quantum metaphysics", or the term used in Wikipedia "quantum mysticism", and his criticism is not limited to Lanza. The argument that the Stenger reference doesn't meet WP:V is nothing but Wikilawyering. Verifiability does not mean that a reliable source needs to provide footnotes or references for statements made by the author. You are confusing what is required of Wikipedia editors in citing reliable, verifiable sources with what is required of the authors of those sources. That is not what verifiability means.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

(Emphasis added) This paragraph is reliably sources and verifiable. Arguments to the contrary are not well-taken. Fladrif (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be correct. And that's the problem with quoting Stenger out of context -- and the value of paraphrasing. You nicely give the context above. That's missing from the article. What you added to the article gives no sense for what Stenger means by quantum consciousness, and makes it sound like Hagelin talks about quantum consciousness. And it would be good to show how Stenger is generally applying this judgment. I believe this could be done in a couple sentences. In general, I would encourage you to paraphrase. And follow the excellent advice in WP:QUOTE. Give context, paraphrase, and stop focusing on using quotes for rhetorical effect. (By the way, Stenger confuses GUT with super-unification, both in this article and in his book.) TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I reorganized this section to provide factual context. Because the editorial history had arrived at a sort of unstable equilibrium, I was reluctant to delete material and kept almost all the sentences that were already there, with only minor changes. But the text was a mess, with the logic difficult to follow. So I edited with the objective of improving the flow of logic and making the various points of view clear to the reader.Hickorybark (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. However the additions showed the basic problem with splitting the research from the reception of the research. Where there were previously two sections (research and reception), I split it into three: Grand unification research, Maharishi Effect research, and Reception of Hagelin's connection of unified field of physics to the Maharishi Effect. I'm sure those heading can be improved, but the organizational concept is to place all of the discussion of a particular study or finding together. The "Reception" section is now just general views of Hagelin's linkage of the GUT to the ME.   Will Beback  talk  09:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is an improvement.Hickorybark (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I reworked the segment describing the debate between Fales and Markovsky and the rebuttal by Orme-Johnson and Oates. I think the debate is well worth keeping, but the issues were not very clearly laid out in the previous version. Fales and Markovsky base their critique on Bayesian confirmation theory, which is itself controversial in the philosophy of science. I tried to present their point of view without going into the technical details of Bayesian theory. Basically their point is that "heterodox theories"--theories that radically conflict with the orthodox or mainstream paradigm--have a very low "prior probabilty." Orme-Johnson and Oates's rebuttal is that low prior probability or not, the evidence is too striking to ignore and that anyway, prior probability has to be weighed against the alternative theories. And when it comes to consciousness, there are no good alternatives--in Bayesian terms, all theories of consiousness have a low prior probability. I hope this helps.Hickorybark (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See #Lengthy discussion of Maharishi Effect research below. This material belongs in the TM-Sidhi article, where there is a complete discussion of this research. This article is a biography of Hagelin and yet this material doesn't even mention him.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the discussion of Fales and Markovsky that you reinstated is not very good. It doesn't make clear what their objections are (e.g. what "time lags" are they referring to, what are they referring to with "other strongly confirmed theories, and their supporting evidence," etc.) It gives the impression of a shouting match between the opposing teams. While that is certainly part of what's going on, there is actually a debate with cognitive content, and we should try to make some of that clear. The opposing authors do in their respective articles. If you don't have time to work on it, I may have time later in the week.Hickorybark (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we have an article on TM-Sidhi which has a large section devoted to an analysis of this study, let's keep most of it there. It's sufficient to note here that Hagelin's research methodologies have been criticized. While we can't use it as a source, the email that you linked to below [6] is a good outline of the author's key objections.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

TimidGuy stated "I think we should remove this. Stenger doesn't give a source to back up his claim that Hagelin frequently talks about quantum consciousness." TimidGuy I apologize if this has been brought up before, are you aware that John Hagelin's paper in the pseudoscience journal Modern Science and Vedic Science, "Is Consciousness the Unified Field? A Field Theorist's Perspective" was self-published by MIU in January 1987. This association of the consciousness with the unified field would therefore date from at least 1987 (although I can probably find sources going back even further, if you are not familiar with TM org pseudoscientific claims claims on "consciousness and quantum physics"). The idea that the thought-free states experienced in TM are associated with the UF would therefore also date from at least 1987. I think what Vedic Science apologists are doing here is missing what Stenger is saying. Aren't you associated with MUM.edu? I'm unclear why this is not obvious to TM org insiders and apologists, esp. since it doesn't sound very neutral to me.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Message, not the messenger please Kala. --BwB (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Make no mistake, my major concern is "omission via silence", whereby an editor who should be familiar with a certain topic would deliberately withhold the information (in this case known by most average TMers), i.e. that John Hagelin had been advocating quantum consciousness type theories for over two decades. While I certainly would not jump to actual Vandalism unless I saw the same tendency in other posts as well, it is a valid concern, but really it's Will Beback's battle to fight, as it was his entry. But we'd be talking about a type of "intellectual dishonesty" I would be disturbed if I saw it creeping into Wiki entries, it's difficult, reading over the older posts, to not say something...--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite Hagelin article

I've added the rewrite into the mainspace article as per consensus. The rewrite includes changes suggested by both Will Beback and by ChemProf.(olive (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

What consensus? I don't agreee. Will said he would comment, and has not yet done so. His "suggestion" was an inquiry over whether your indigestion over the word "Crackpot" could be met with other language. He did not agree to this change. A bunch of TM-Org employees agreeing to rewrite an article after several rounds of unsuccessful forum shopping is not a consensus. Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the request for input at the BLP Noticeboard referred to the use of one word, "crackpot", and not on any other part of the section. I conceded to your desire to include the word "crackpot" and to COIN input, and put it into my rewrite. Will in commenting on the rewrite suggested that the "sticking point " in this discussion was this one word. I then removed the word and replaced it with his suggested replacement with agreement of the other editors. Will did not comment on anything else in the rewrite, implying agreement, nor does anything he said in that post seem to indicate he had other concerns. However in case he wanted to add anything further, I notified him of the rewrite. He said he'd take a look over the "next day or two" . Its been five. How is this forum shopping?(olive (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Consensus is about policy not numbers. Polls are "regarded as a structured discussion" WP:CONSENSUS. What I see are editors as a group attempting to bring a section more into line with BLP than what is in place now and all are compromising on their original positions. This is in line with collaborative discussion. Further, I assume you aren't speaking for Will since that would be Meatpuppetry. If you don't feel there is consensus on this rewrite I would suggest dispute resolution. (olive (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

I know there is not consensus on this issue. This falls directly within WP:CONLIMITED. I suggest you read it. Will is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. If I was speaking for him, I would say so. Whether or not I was speaking for him that wouldn't be Meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry would be WP:CANVASSING TM-Org employees, anonymous IP editors from Fairfield, various other WP:SPAs and the like to weigh in on the side of edits you want to push through to attempt to create a false impression of concensus. You really need to actually read the rules and policies you cite before engaging in this kind of passive/aggressiveWP:Wikilawyering. And, not waiting for Will's comments on this question might be regarded by some a bad faith on your part. I'm not saying that I regard it as bad faith. But some people might. Its just a common courtesy on my part to point that out in case it hadn't occurred to you. Fladrif (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED generally refers to editing policy/guideline pages where wider community input is requested because the wider community is affected. If you want wider community input feel free. I treated Will with respect and consideration for his input, and he didn't respond which is fine. I assumed he wasn't interested. If he is I'm sure he'll show up.(olive (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

I know Will has been very active with TM and TMM articles, so he has been around the last 4-5 days. Seems like this is enough time to wait for his comments. Again, Flad, maybe remember "Message, not the messenger". Thanks. --BwB (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What am I supposed to be commenting on?   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, and thanks, KBob! Hope you don't mind that I replaced your requests for signature with a signature(olive (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)) OK, good, thanks for cleaning up.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that olive has spent so much time on this section. It now is more in line with core WP policies and reads almost like an encyclopedia article. One part, though, still stands out as not really appropriate. The quote of Park's about Hagelin's published article on the study in DC represents an emotional insult, and is comparable to the insulting name calling that we have gone through pains to remove. It's this kind of non-argument that degrades this article to something closer to a news tabloid one might pick up at the checkout counter at Walmart or the grocery store. Other than that, however, the section now has the tone of a respectable reference book. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fleshy

Markovsky and Fales seems a little too fleshy by comparison to the research section on the entirity of Hagelin's work. So the obvious choices are, reduce Markovsky and Fales or flesh out the other research. Further fleshing out could create a rather long article, but so be it.(olive (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

Fleshy? Is that the most accurate adjective for material in this article? I thought Hagelin was a vegetarian. ;)   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could have fleshy vegetables :o)... Don't know if he is a vegetarian or not...(olive (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

I suggest we move the entire discussion of the ME studies to one article or another, such as Research studies on the applications of Transcendental Meditation or TM-Sidhi program. Otherwise we're going over the same material in multiple articles.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New lead

John Hagelin (born June 9, 1954) is an American particle physicist, three-time candidate of the Natural Law Party for President of the United States, and head of the Transcendental Meditation movement in the US.

Hagelin was a researcher at the European Center for Particle Physics (CERN) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and is now Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management. He has conducted research into the unified field theory and the Maharishi Effect.

He ran for U.S. President in 1992, 1996, and 2000 on the NLP ticket, appearing on the ballot in as many as 44 states and gaining up to 0.1% support.

Hagelin was appointed Raja of the Invincible America by the late Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and is also the President of the US Peace Government, two positions at the head of the TM movement in the US. He is Executive Director of the International Center for Invincible Defense, Executive Director of Global Financial Capital, Executive Director of the Center for Leadership Performance Director of the Board of Advisors for the David Lynch Foundation, and International Director of the Global Union of Scientists for Peace.

The current intro is too short for the article. I propose the above text. It's only a little longer, but it better summarizes the key points of the article and the subject's notability. I'm note sure that we need the last sentence to be in the lead. It's just a list of title and we could move it down to the end of the article somewhere.   Will Beback  talk  10:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Think we can remover the sentence "He ran for U.S. President in 1992, 1996, and 2000 on the NLP ticket, appearing on the ballot in as many as 44 states and gaining up to 0.1% support." and put it in the body of the article under the NLP section. it adds little to the lede. --BwB (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Running for president, and getting on the ballot in so many states, is a notable accomplishment by itself. If Hagelin had done nothing else that would have been sufficient cause for an article. Can you suggest another sentence or two that better summarizes his campaigns?   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I' would like to see sources for the "head of the TM movement" additions, but besides that, Will's version would be fine as a lede.(olive (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

With his roles as Raja of Invincible American, and President of the US Peace Government, he holds the top jobs in both hierarchies in the US. That alone is a significant achievement. I'll go ahead and add the edited version.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I may tweak it a bit, but generally agree with the points made here. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is cited here. A discussion of that citation is underway at Talk:TM-Sidhi program#Input from editors requested: Journal of Scientific Exploration. Any input concerning its use as a source should be added there.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we really say this?

• Hagelin stated in a press release announcing the project that 1,730 yogic flyers were required for the demonstration to work., a level which the Assembly has exceeded nearly every day in the afternoon group meditation session.

Regarding the text above taken from the article ie the section in bold. The source does not specify when the threshold of 1730 yogic flyers was reached, on what days, for how long etc. Is it fair for us to make a conclusion about the raw data? Also, the sentence contains the weasel word "nearly" and further qualifies with "afternoon" sessions. Is it encyclopedic to have so many qualifiers (nearly, afternoon only) to make the point or are we stretching it a bit? When I go to the primary source cited I see that the attendance numbers were as low as 1483 in at least one morning session and 1512 in at least one afternoon session but higher of course on other days. Did Hagelin say that only the afternoon session had to be over a certain number to create effect? Hagelin made the statement about 1730 in 2007. Has the attendance been over 1730 in all sessions since then? For how many consecutive days? What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how qualifiers alone are a problem. They usually make material more accurate or precise. We could use the vague term like "often" instead, but I'm not sure that's an improvement.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right it wouldn't be an improvement. Qualifiers are good because they are honestly reflect that the sentence is unsure of itself. Like this one: "It is nearly always sunny in London on rain-free afternoons." I question whether it is appropriate for us to be making subjective statements about raw data which is so inconsistent that it could be interpreted loosely with qualifiers in any way an editor(s) chose.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

All careful authors qualify their writing. Journalists say that "it's reported" or "sources say". Scientists use qualifiers too, limiting the scope of their findings. Precision is a good thing, so long as it doesn't sacrifice accuracy.

In preparation for a visit to Northern England I was advised that it would rain and the sun would shine, everyday. No matter the season, at least a little of both every day. I can vouch that that was true, mostly. I believe that those few days when I never saw both sun and rain I missed it by being indoors or asleep during their possibly fleeting appearances.

So, shall we use "often" instead?   Will Beback  talk  13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good one Will, I appreciate your sense of humor. Hope you had a good sleep in England, ha! Anyway the real point that you haven't responded to is that the sentence/text draws conclusions from primary source, raw data and is in my opinion OR. Any thoughts in that direction?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone makes a noted prediction, such as "the price of corn will go up if it rains", then I don't think it's OR to report that it has rained. We're not here to prove the prediction came true or didn't, but we can offer brief information from reliable sources so that the readers can decide for themselves. Omitting that information, and giving the impression that the prediction came true or was never tested, would be misleading. I'd have to look around to find it again, but I recall seeing somewhere an assertion that America had achieved invincibility, and if so we should report that too.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the point your are trying to make, Bobb. We have the web page with the title "2009 Superradiance Tally by Date and Location ". If we have a Wiki editior reading these "raw" numbers and then writing something in a Wiki article that reports the data, is that OR? Or if the text extrapolates on the data, is that OR? Or if the editor makes inferences about the data, is that OR? Where dose OR begin and end? --BwB (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly, we are not talking about one day, did it rain or not. We are talking about years of tallies and the data is for twice daily. So the sentence refers to which data? On what days and in what years? It does not specify. And why is a Wiki editor allowed to comment on part of the data ie discount the morning data and the data on days when it was less than 1730 by using weasel like, qualifying adjectives such as "nearly", "afternoons only" etc.? To me its such a blatant case of OR, I'm flummoxed (to quote an old friend) that its not obvious to everyone that its inappropriate.  :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here were go:

• Today is the 5th day of the third month of US national consciousness rising to invincibility, as indicated by the following press reports, which continue to reveal the dramatic, 180-degree turnaround in the fortunes of the nation: [..]
  • Invincibility update - breaking records by Global Good News staff writer 29 September 2006[7]

So we can use something like that to say that invincible America has been achieved, a fulfillment of Hagelin's prediction.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another:

The dramatic decline in the number of hurricanes and tropical storms this season is not an anomaly. The decrease is the direct—and publicly predicted—result of the increased coherence in national consciousness created by the large group of 1400 advanced Transcendental Meditation programme experts who are practicing Yogic Flying together in Washington, D.C., and Iowa.

This is the assessment of world-renowned quantum physicist Dr John Hagelin, who is the leading expert in the application of the Vedic science and technology of consciousness for the betterment of society.

Dr Hagelin is directing the world's largest—and longest—research project demonstrating the profound positive effects of group Yogic Flying practice on economic, social, and environmental trends in the nation. The project, entitled the 'Invincible America Course,' is now entering its eighth week.

— "US: Dramatic positive effects in nation created by groups of yogic flyers DC and Iowa" Global Country of World Peace press release 19 September 2006 [8]

In this press release it's said that 1400 Yogic Flyers are enough to dramatically reduce the number of storms.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Or this, in which Hagelin explains the numbers better:

• Dr Hagelin explained that the number of Yogic Flyers required to produce this coherent effect for the United States is 1730. However, he said, the initial group of 1200 experts is more than enough to create a calming, stabilising effect in national consciousness. 'As the number of Yogic Flyers rises to 2000 in the coming days, the world press will be reporting better and better economic and social news. We are transforming the nation before the eyes of the world. I urge the press to watch what happens tomorrow,' Dr Hagelin said.
  • "More good news from first week of Invincible America Course"2 August 2006 [9]

So it might be a quibble over whether the number of Yogic Flyers was 1695 or 1750, since 1200 is sufficient to have an effect.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one, that specifically addresses the issue of morning and afternoon sessions:

Speaking recently on Maharishi Global Family Chat, Raja Robert Wynne, Mayor of Maharishi Vedic City and Raja of Invincible New Zealand, Armenia, Kenya, Pakistan, Iraq, Vanuatu, Liberia, and Burundi for the Global Country of World Peace, reported rising numbers at the Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa.

In this last week, he reported, 200 more Maharishi Vedic Pandits arrived to the Maharishi University of Management (M.U.M.) campus and to nearby Maharishi Vedic City. With these new Vedic Pandits, as well as M.U.M. students returning to campus after a short vacation, the number of Yogic Flyers, both morning and afternoon on Monday, 2 June, exceeded the 1,730 necessary to bring invincibility to America.

In fact, Raja Wynne continued, it was the very first time that the morning group, which reached 1,788 on Monday, surpassed the 1,730 level, and the first time the afternoon group, 2,039 on Monday, exceeded the 2,000 mark. [..] Raja Wynne emphasized that, despite the currently large numbers in the Invincible America Assembly, the additional Pandits will be needed to ensure that the group of Yogic Flyers remains at or above the 1,730 level. The numbers in the Golden Domes* drop noticeably during holidays, said Raja Wynne, since not all members of the assembly are receiving grants from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation for full-time participation.

'We're excited to maintain this high number of Yogic Flyers,' said Raja Wynne, 'so that the US becomes beneficial to all people and countries throughout the world.'

— "US: Invincible America Assembly achieves record-breaking numbers" 5 June 2008 [10]

Interestingly, this indicates that pandits count towards the total.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And another that specifies the threshold has been met:

• Dr Morris said that in these few months 'since he took the mantle of Invincible America,** Raja Hagelin has brought about a very dramatic transformation'—particularly at this time, when the required number of Yogic Flyers participating in the Invincible America Assembly at M.U.M. in Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City to create invincibility for the United States, has been achieved for the first time in both the morning and afternoon sessions.
  • "Maharishi's expressions of praise for the invincible leadership of Invincible America - Part II" 25 June 2008 [11]

So we can summarize these by saying something like "Press releases announced that the threshold level had been surpassed in June 2008."   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are reports in reliable secondary sources:

• This odd group of meditators has promised that despite the recent woes on Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average will end the year above the 17,000 mark. [..] The group's leader, John Hagelin, has compared the Assembly's use of transcendental meditation to the invention of electricity and other advances. "This is not wishful thinking," he says. "This is hard science." "Prior to the Invincible America Assembly, since January 1, 2000, the Dow decreased on average about 0.02pc per week. However, immediately following the beginning of the Assembly on July 23, 2006, there was a statistically significant shift to a rapid, positive average rate of growth of 0.5pc per week. The probability of observing a change this large in the Dow's rate of growth purely by chance is less than 0.014."
  • "WALL STREET LIFE We're picking up God vibrations, it's giving the Dow excitations" DAVID LITTERICK. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Aug 4, 2007. pg. 033

• U.S. stock markets have been suffering of late, but a group of meditators promise their good vibrations will send the Dow Jones Industrial Average past 17,000 within a year. A group called the Invincible America Assembly says they have prosperity under control and their positive vibes will bring fewer hurricanes and better U.S.- North Korean relations.
  • "Breath, relax . . . profit?" The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Aug 3, 2007. pg. D.1

• A wealthy businessman has put up millions of dollars to support Sidhi TM practitioners like Olsen and his wife, Mary Cathryn, with a monthly stipend of $600 each. The Olsens say the Invincible America Assembly numbers about 1,500, and when it approaches 2,000, the nation will be positioned for invincibility, even from terrorist attacks. [..] Olsen credits the Maharishi Effect for the New York Stock Exchange's current strong performance, the 2006 lull in tropical storm activity and the speedy end to the July 2006 Lebanon War. He insists the number of wars is decreasing globally, and any pockets of strife are the result of pent-up stress working it's way out of society as the world moves toward it's new order. [..] But Olsen says that war is a relatively small one and will cease once the Invincible America Assembly reaches critical mass.
  • "Return of the Sidhi" Carl E. Feather. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Jun 20, 2007. pg. 1

Make of those what you will.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the research and citations Will. These are good and we should use them in accordance with the guidelines for primary sources and also note the temporal and varying nature of each of the reports. For example, Raja Wynn says the threshold has been reached but he only specifies that one day and says he/they intend to keep the number over the threshold. However, we can see from these reports, that the threshold 'needed" seems to vary ( I guess due to changes in US population) and the number of participants also varies from day to day, month to month etc. What I object to is an editor creating text based on his conclusions drawn from raw data. I am however, in favor of text that accurately reflects specific sources in accordance with RS guidelines. So any movement in that direction would be good.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Will for you research. I agree with Kbobb, the text needs to reflect sources and not text created by editors from the raw data of IAC participants. --BwB (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using press releases for sources is that there are so many of them. For that and many other reasons it's best to avoid too much reliance on them or the raw attendance records. But combined, they do tend to support the idea that the ideal of Invincible America has been achieved, if only for limited periods. This may not be the best article talk page to thrash this out in full. For here, it's only necessary to cover topics directly related to Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  13:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a very simple discussion about an editor drawing a conclusion from raw data and writing text for the article based on his/her conclusion which, as you know, is OR. BWB has now come in and said the he agrees. So I think we have consensus for removal of the half sentence in question. If you would like to write some text from any of the sources that you cited above, which conform with Wiki reliable source guidelines, that would be fine. But to allow OR text to stand in the meantime does not seem appropriate.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Text

Hi Will, You removed this sourced text. [12] Could you explain the thinking behind this deletion? thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, it is moved to a different spot in the article. Check out the "Maharishi Effect Research" section. --BwB (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that clarification, that solves the mystery! -- — Kbob • Talk • 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In its current state the following text seems totally out of place in the Maharishi Effect section. Can we amend this somehow?

• Hagelin was invited to be a plenary speaker at the 2007 Quantum Mind conference in Salzburg, Austria, organized by Stuart Hameroff (University of Arizona) and Gustav Bernroider (University of Salzburg). Hagelin was a featured scientist in the popular movies, What the Bleep Do We Know!? and The Secret.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've now moved it to the "Reception" section, since we're not using those appearances as sources for anything.  Will Beback  talk  21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That's probably better, thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Nonsense

• Woit also thinks that superstring theory itself is nonsense.
  • Woit, Peter, Not even wrong: The failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law Basic Books (2006) ISBN 0465092756

I see where Woit calls certain papers nonsense, but could someone show where he says the entire theory is nonsense? Page number? I'm not even sure this is relevant here since this isn't an article on superstring theory.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This seem to be an extrapolation from the premise of the book itself, the failure of suoerstring theory. I would consider it OR and it should be removed, in my opinion anyway.(olive (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

I wanted it in because it provides context, namely by showing the heated controversies inherent in physics itself, particularly as it tries to grapple with fundamental issues. This seems especially relevant, since we are including the Woit quote because it gives some sense of how Hagelin is regarded. So it is important to understand that the heat comes with the territory of exploring fundamental reality. The title of Woit's book, Not Even Wrong, derives from Wolfgang Pauli and, more fundamentally, from verification theory, according to which a statement which can't be verified or falsified is nonsense.

Here's a readily accessible reference from a review by John Cornwell in the London Times:"String theory, [Peter Woit] avers, has become a form of science fiction. Hence his book’s title, Not Even Wrong: an epithet created by Wolfgang Pauli, an irascible early 20th-century German physicist. Pauli had three escalating levels of insult for colleagues he deemed to be talking nonsense: “Wrong!”, “Completely wrong!” and finally 'Not even wrong!'. By which he meant that a proposal was so completely outside the scientific ballpark as not to merit the least consideration."

From Peter Woit's blog, in characterizing some ideas of Ellis, Mavromatos and Nanopoulos as "complete nonsense." In this blog, Woit ridicules a Mavromatos and Nanopoulos article in which "Mavromatos and Nanopoulos also believe that string theory is responsible for the way that our brains work." And here's something else from Woit's blog in which he reviews a book chapter on ways to test string theory. Woit concludes, "This is really egregious nonsense." These are my reasons for noting Woit's liberality in attributing nonsense. It's very relevant in the present context. If he's willing to refer to Hagelin's ideas as nonsense, who else's views is he calling nonsense? Hickorybark (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments you're hanging your hat on are from Woit's blog (i) dismissing a popular media account and (ii) reviewing the book "The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory" [13] on the testability of string theory. Anyone who actually bothers to read the sources you've cited would readily see that you have completely misrepresented what Woit wrote. This is starting to be a disturbing pattern in your edits. Fladrif (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad idea, when editing Wikipedia, to add what one knows to be true and then try to find sources to back it up. The better approach is to start with the sources and simply summarize what they say.

This article isn't about string theory in general. This is primarily a biography, and we should avoid adding material that is not directly connected to the subject. Woit's views on matter other than Hagelin belong elsewhere, such as Peter Woit, and interested readers can follow that link if they wish to learn more about him.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What's not directly connected to the subject about the fact that Woit is liberal in his attribution of nonsense? It is directly relevant to the weight that should be given to his assessment. Also, what he means by the term "nonsense" is important information for the reader. You haven't made the case for deleting that information, as far as I can see. Hickorybark (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What reliable source says that Woit is liberal in his use of the term "nonsense"?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Czech physicist Lubos Motl (formerly at Harvard) complains that "Peter Woit is not a scientist in any sense; he is just an activist." Motl's Amazon review says that Woit's blog "is designed to misinterpret and obscure virtually every event in physics and transform it into poison - and to invent his own fantasies to hurt science. This makes Woit's blog highly popular among the crackpots...." Leonard Susskind, in this radio interview, also has a pointed explanation for Woit's "grumpiness" as resulting from his failure as a physicist. My point for us as Wikipedia editors is that we need to be conservative about citing references to justify calling people "crackpots" or their theories "nonsense". It's too easy to call people names, and I prefer to keep our writing out of that as much as possible. If we absolutely feel its necessary, in order to illustrate the controversy, then at least we need to provide some information about the source of the namecalling--in this case Woit.Hickorybark (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that such contextual information is considered by Wikipedia to be OR. We just aren't supposed to add content from sources that do not directly reference the topic of the article. We have to remember this is an encyclopedia and that measn we are creating a context for sourced information, but not in anyway extrapolating from that information. Sure Woit sounds like he is not quite the expert he appears to be, but the way we deal with that is to add content from sources that present multiple views, creating a balanced overall look at the topic of the article. This creates a "neutral" article, NPOV(olive (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

We could also, with someone like Woit, choose as a group to look for a more expert view, and to toss out Woit. But that requires pretty tight collaborative editing. We probably aren't at that point here, yet. :o)(olive (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

OK, but Wikipedia also acknowledges the value of common sense in editing.Hickorybark (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Hickory, Yes indeed.(olive (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Lengthy discussion of Maharishi Effect research

• Hagelin's linkage of quantum mechanics and unified field theory with consciousness, and with the "Maharishi Effect", was critically reviewed by Fales and Markovsky in the journal Social Forces. According to their review, "The investigators predicted and found that meditation group size correlated negatively with crime rates, automobile accidents, and fires in Jerusalem; positively with stock market prices and a national mood indicator in Israel; and negatively with war intensity and war fatalities in Lebanon." Moreover, they said that "the most compelling" presentation of this data "showed superimposed graphs" of the number of assembled meditators and a composite quality of life index (derived from the variables indicated above). However, they went on to object that the theory is vague, relies on specious analysis, is silent about key processes linking causes to alleged effects, and "does not pass minimal criteria of meaningfulness and logical integrity." They further said that the Maharishi Effect predictions cannot be derived from the master theory because of a lack of causal connection, and an inability to specify time lags between meditation and the observed societal effects. Further, they maintained that the model that can be derived from the formal component of the theory to make specific Maharishi Effect predictions is ignored by its researchers. They concluded that there are serious problems with the theory. It does not fit well and conflicts with other strongly confirmed theories and their supporting evidence, and the evidence offered by the researchers, as support for the Maharishi Effect, "cannot significantly enhance confidence in the veracity" of the theory, primarily because "in view of prior knowledge" its likelihood of being true "is very close to zero."[36]

  David Orme-Johnson and MUM Public Affairs officer Robert Oates later provided a point-by-point reply to this review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal devoted to paranormal phenomenon.[37] They countered that"the Maharishi Effect has clearly defined, operationalizable terms and that it makes specific predictions, which have been repeatedly tested using objective, public data sources, with hypotheses being lodged in advance with independent observers." Morevoer, they cited published reviews of their work that found the level of theoretical vagueness/precision to be consistent with norms in sociological research.[38] [39] They further argued that any supposed vagueness in the theory "does not prohibit a clear decisive experimental decision about the hypothesis in question, which is, simply, did the war and other social indicators co-vary with the meditation groups?" While acknowledging that the causal mechanisms relating meditators' practice to the observed societal effects have not yet been worked out in detail, Orme-Johnson and Oates argued that "there is no systematic theory of consciousness available in any academic discipline," and that this "should be kept in mind as the reviewers emphasize that the theory behind the Maharishi Effect is improbable ...." Orme-Johsnon and Oates emphasized that the quality of life index, derived from governmental and public sources, correlated so closely on a daily basis with the varying number of assembled meditators that this evidence is too striking to ignore. Finally, the authors discussed the alternative explanations, suggested by Fales and Markovsky, some of which had already been considered in the original study[40], and found that they could not explain the phenomenon and that there is as yet no explanation other than the one hypothesized by the study.[41]

There's one thing missing from all of this text: Hagelin. We should move all of this to the TM-Sidhi article and leave a one or two-sentence summary that focuses on Hagelin's involvement.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In particular, the Orme-Johnson and Oates paper only mentions Hagelin in the text once, and it cites papers by other authors more often than those of Hagelin. OTOH, the Fales and Markovsky paper discusses Hagelin repeatedly. Further, one is published in reputable journal while the other is in a fringe science journal. So they are not equal sources that deserve equal weight. Whatever we have in this article needs to be directly related to Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasons for moving the text, but not with your designations "reputable journal" versus "fringe science journal." These designations are part of the controversy.Hickorybark (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hickorybark. Would you mind explaining further what you mean.(olive (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Fales and Markovsky initially attempted to publish their critique in Journal of Conflict Resolution, but it was turned down. Evidently the editors didn't want to host a lengthy debate between Fales & Markovsky and Orme-Johnson. Here is Markovsky's account.After Fales and Markovsky published in Social Forces, I would guess that Orme-Johnson and Oates tried to publish their rebuttal in Social Forces as well, but were denied permission. Indeed Fales and Markovsky were adressing their critique to journal editors to provide philosophy of science justification for shutting off debate from "fringe scientists." This is exactly why their Bayesian Confirmation Theory is controversial in the philosophy of science. It denies that scientific method is a straightforward, objective relationship between the scientist and the evidence, as in traditional philosophy of science. Bayesianism shifts the emphasis to the concept of "prior knowledge," which puts a greater burden of proof on the defenders of an unorthodox theory, because it has a low "prior probability" in light of prior knowledge. Debunkers like this idea because it gives them a weapon against "pseudoscience" as having a low "prior probability," and frees them from having to debate evidence. It's controversial, because it raises a host of subjective issues about who is to decide if a theory is "fringe," if it really has a low prior probability in comparison to well-established alternatives, and whether the theory's defenders have indeed supplied the extra level of evidence called for. Orme-Johnson made all of these points in their rebuttal, arguing in particular that there is no well-established, orthodox consensus about consciousness in the way Fales and Markovsky assume. Anyway, I realize that Wikipedia cannot go very deeply into these issues, but if we dumb down the discussion too much, it just has the flavor of a shouting match between the opposing sides. And this is why I object to Will's characterizations of the journals, because the debate has shifted from debating evidence to debating prior credibility, and I don't think Will is doing justice to the depth of the underlying issues involved in these characterizations, particularly when it pertains to the theory of consciousness.Hickorybark (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's all very interesting. We have had a thorough discussion of the JSE on talk:TM-Sidhi program, and no one was able to find evidence that it is considered a reputable journal. Judging their overall contents, I think it's correct to say that they focus on hypotheses and data that are on the fringes of science, such as UFO and telekinesis. In contrast, here's how Social Forces is described on Project MUSE: "Founded in 1922, Social Forces is a renowned journal of sociological research ..."[14] Anyway, this has only slight bearing on Hagelin's biography, so I propose that we discuss Fales & Markovsky and Orme-Johnson & Oates over there, and leave this page for discussing matter more directly connected to Hagelin's biography.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this long version to TM-Sidhi#General views of Maharishi Effect and restored the shorter version that was here before.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, most of the Social Forces article isn't related to Hagelin. It's a critique of the JCR study. Only five paragraphs directly address Hagelin's theory. I think this could be more balanced. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the coverage of details of the concept and research of the ME to a minimum and cover that fully in the TM-Sidhi article. We have an article on Flipped SU(5), and an article on the TM concept, etc. This article should stay focused on events of the subject's life.   Will Beback  talk  13:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above, both sides of this issue can be handled in a couple of sentences, with little weight on OJ who mentions Hagelin only once.   Will Beback  talk  13:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You have done a good job in reorganizing this section, Will. I like your idea to move most of the ME discussion to the TM-Sidhi article, just leving a brief summary of it here as it pertains to Hagelin. --BwB (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree that we need to keep ME to a minimum. I noted that much of the Fales and Markovsky critique that was included here was critiquing the JCR paper, not Hagelin's theory of a relationship between consciousness and the unified field. So I trimmed it. We need to make sure that what's included here is only the section where they directly address Hagelin's theory per se. Of course, Fladrif will likely revert my edits. TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think your trimmed version is a definite improvement.Hickorybark (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dallas Observer

This isn't saying as of 2000. It's simply saying that once Hagelin began making the link between physics and consciousness, he was ostracized. So this needs to be balanced by the fact that he continued collaborating after he began making the link. Fox uses simple past tense. If he were associating it with the time of writing, he would have said, "have now ostracized." TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I took out the Jonathan Fox quote because it is contradicted by more reliably sourced material above. Obviously Hagelin had not been ostracized by his former peers, since they continued to collaborate with him. Also, note Glashow's remark. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to be dredging up inaccurate quotes solely for their "gotcha" effect. We can document the controversies, including some of the hostile responses, from more primary sources, such as John Ellis and Peter Woit. But why include a political reporter's uninformed and mistaken beliefs about how Hagelin's former peers regarded him?Hickorybark (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. What we have is you deleting reliably-sourced material based on your own original research. That's not how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V before you do this again. Fladrif (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense to you. It's not original research and a political writer is not a reliable reference on attitudes of physicists. If this stays in it will reduce Wikipedia's credibility.Hickorybark (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are so wrong on this issue as to be not even wrong. Fladrif (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Hickorybark (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems Hickorybark, TG and Flad all make important points.

In any article the deletion of large chunks of reliably sourced content can be problematic. These TM articles are highly contentious so such deletions are even more of a concern. So Hickory might want to rethink the deletions.

Our final goal on Wikipedia must be accuracy that is verifiable, not truth, but accuracy. An encyclopedia that is not accurate is of no use to anyone, and that accuracy is the underlying agenda of this or any encyclopedia To have information in the article that is misleading does not serve that end whether sourced or not. In a situation where editors were able to go to another level of accuracy , to investigate and have knowledge of physics as Hickorybark seems to have could improve and increase the accuracy of the article. I agree that the comment by a political journalist is not reliable on this level of editing, but it is reliable on a more supeficial level of editing. We can choose to include everything we find... or.... we can choose the best in terms of reliability. NPOV creates accuracy.

To have information that shows Hagelin was not always supported by his peers is accurate and reliable, but to exclude further information that indicates that he continued to collaborate with notable physicists creates an inaccuracy.

Right now some editors are working at cross purposes. Hickory is a new editor so may not be aware that his deletions were not going to go over very well in this environment. Flad is noting the deletions. But, lets assume Hickory is knowledgeable and his deletions were meant to improve, and lets get past the deletions and see if he has something to say that will improve the article .TG 's point supports the idea of accuracy. I realize I'm a bit long winded here , but it seems we are in a position to take this article to another level if we use the expertise of the editors involved. Any chance of reviewing the discussion and points made here here and possibly strengthening the article.(olive (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the feedback. I understand the point about sourced material. In the case of a controversial, public figure like Hagelin, though, I think we have to use common sense, because all kinds of people are going to be weighing in with their opinions. Jonathan Fox is a reporter with no evident expertise or background in physics or the physics community. He's not a science reporter. Why does Wikipedia want to reprint his uninformed opinion from 10 years ago on Hagelin's scientific credentials or the attitude of his former colleagues? We have to use a little common sense, otherwise the page could degenerate into a list of sourced putdowns. I think it's valid to discuss the controversies, including negative attitudes. But including the Fox quote is just dredging for mud.Hickorybark (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit to being utterly mystified by these exchanges. We have already gone through a lengthly exchange some months ago about Anderson, Woit et al, with claims being made by the Fairfield contingent that articles by highly regarded science writers in a leading scientific journals couldn't be used as a source to say that mainstream physicists reject Hagelin's theories as nonsense, and that his former colleagues have distanced themselves from him lest his crackpot ideas rub off on them. Now, we have yet another source which says exactly the same thing. Arguing that the authors of articles in reliable sources aren't qualified to report in highly-regarded independent newspapers and journals what scientists think about Hagelin is a complete non-starter. It is not dredging up mud to accurately and neutrally report that Hagelin is no longer part of the mainstream physics community. He may have gotten an handful of papers published in the first few years after he started writing his papers on consciousness and the unified field (I have no idea when the underlying research may have been done - it was likely done in at least some cases prior to publication of his articles in the JMS&VS, but he hasn't written a single paper with researchers indepndent of the TM Movement in something like 15 years. This argument is not an application of common sense; rather, it seems like an overwrought emotional denial of reality. In all this, there has never once been a credible claim by anyone disputing these entries and sources that this is not 100% accurate reportage by Woit, Anderson, Stenger, Fox and others that Hagelin's theories are regarded in the scientific mainstream as crackpot nonsense, and that his former colleagues no longer have anything to do with him. This is reliably-sourced material, it is verifiable, and it is accurate. Fladrif (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Flad's characterization of past discussions can tend to have an interesting flavour. You wouldn't be outing editors would you Flad . Best to keep your idea of where editors are from to yourself. At the same time, Hickory Flad, is right . The material is reliably sourced, and you don't have agreement among editors here to move it, so your unilateral deletion is a concern. You make some good points, but unless there is agreement among other editors to remove the content based on those points, you should probably reconsider your deletion. That's collaboration and how Wikipedia operates(olive (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

I've reverted.(olive (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC))