Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Rupert Sheldrake. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

A hodgepodge of points

The article is getting long. I appreciate Barney gathering all these reviews, but in some places it seems too much material; too much weight. I would suggest commenting out a few. Also, it's unencyclopedic and unhelpful to the reader to just say "So-and-so reviewed such-and-such" with no further information. At least those should be commented out.
Regarding longness again, there's now an extensive Rose v Sheldrake section. I've argued in the past that Wikipedia editors should not be jumping into the middle of a scientific debate for which there are only primary sources. For example one WP user is absolutely convinced that Richard Wiseman is disingenuous via a misinterpretation of primary sources. Wikipedia can report conclusions of scientific papers, i.e. the interpretations of their authors, but shouldn't wade into the muck without the use of secondary sources. The lack of secondary sources also indicates the relative unimportance.
The original way the mainstream view of perpetual motion machines was stated was to cite them as pseudoscience. Attempting to soften the lead, I removed the pseudoscience part, but this left an opening where the mainstream view was not clearly explained, which I would suppose has resulted in jps' insistence of saying "fact". Since "fact" here is awkward, and comes across -- rightly or wrongly -- as editorializing. This could be avoided with the re-insertion of the pseudoscientific characterization of perpetual motion machines.
In dealing with pseudoscience, WP editors have to exercise judgment informed by reliable sources. Morphic resonance falls under 2. Generally considered pseudoscience, and as such there is no mandate to call it anything in particular like "theory" or "hypothesis". There is a common confusion here with WP:SYNTH, which only applies to implication statements in the article. Editors using informed judgment to determine whether a topic is pseudoscience, as explained in FRINGE/PS, is not SYNTH.
With regard to the opening sentence, the root question is not "What is Sheldrake?", but "What is Sheldrake notable for?"

vzaak (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the opening sentence, he's not notable for his date of birth, but that's in there. Nor do many know his first name is Alfred, but that's there too. And since this sentence serves to introduce the man and place him and his work in context it is clearly appropriate, given the precedent set by the rest of Wikipedia, to let people know he is a biologist. It's also true and supported by numerous reliable sources.

Moreover, even if it was only what he's notable for, he's very notable for his work in biology - that's what the Nature editorial was about, for example. And that's what his wager with Wolpert is about. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So what secondary sources do we have describing aspects of Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience? --Iantresman (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, another attempt to have a reasonable conversation fails because some people cannot listen or comprehend basic policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I dialogue fails when one person does not continue with it, or makes an unhelpful comment. I hate it when people don't listen. Fortunately I did, as is evidenced by my comment, and reasonable request to assess reliable secondary sources. Please. Most the the sources I have seen contradict the assertion that he is known for his pseudoscience. I am well aware of some primary sources calling some of this work pseudoscience, and am happy to include them, but I'd like to assess the quality and number of secondary sources to see how they compare to those I provided above. I'm sure others would too. --Iantresman (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs) - which pieces by renowned scientists that highlight fundamental scientific problems with the content of Sheldrake's books and other writing of are you disputing the existing of? What book reviews do you dispute the existence of? They're in the article - please read it and read the originals. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been stated that Sheldrake is "Generally considered pseudoscience", a statement that I believe you uphold. I'm not going to find sources for you. Which secondary sources are you putting forward that supports this. If they are in the article, tell me which ones, and provide a permalink so they can be assessed. --Iantresman (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough Iantresman (talk · contribs), there haven't been any surveys of how scientists view Sheldrake's contributions to knowledge, so we have to go with the preponderance of sources, paying particular attention to those with accomplishments in science. This is per policy. These sources - principally Maddox, Rose, Wolpert, are backed up by others making similar noises The sources are in the article. Sheldrake says in his FAQ [1] "There is a great variety of opinion and openness within the scientific community. Many scientific colleagues are friendly and supportive of this work, and help me with advice and in other ways" Then who the fuck are they? Why aren't they doing research? Why aren't they writing into the Guardian supporting him? If they exist, they should be heard. Please provide examples support from scientists (we've already got Josephson). Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And those are great sources! They belong in the lede. But they do not eliminate Iantresman's sources. The BBC is not fringe. You cannot downplay the BLP's PhD/theology/mainstreamResearchWork, just because some of the ideas that BLP has published as some points in their lives are dubbed pseudo. That is the problem here. WP:FRINGE does not apply to everything Sheldrake has ever done or will ever do. WP:REDFLAG only applies to telepathy-related claims, or subquantum-physics-related claims, not to the claim that 95% of reliable sources refer to Sheldrake as a 'biologist and author'. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Maddox, Rose, Wolpert are three individuals, and their views are derived from primary sources. We do no exclude them. But they are not representative of how Sheldrake is viewed by the world at large, for which we defer to secondary sources (see next section). --Iantresman (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If we ignore the fact that all of the sources above are cherry picked, and many do not support your conjecture. But what you're saying Iantresman (talk · contribs) is that on a topic that is scientific - whose subject claims himself that he is doing science - that instead of looking at the opinions of high ranking scientists (plus for generosity any sociologists or philosophers of science) we should rely on the ability of journalists, whose credentials we can't be sure of, to write accurate descriptions of someone who clearly overemphasises his own importance and achievements, when they probably don't realise that their words are going to be cherry-picked for the importance of accuracy in sources that Wikipedia needs. This is not honest. Meanwhile, Vzaak (talk · contribs)'s points to improve the article are ignored. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, they were not cherry picked. I have always supported the inclusion of scientists' views on Sheldrake, and do so now. The sources I provided are reliable sources that have the necessary resources to take into account all views, including scientific views, and summarise their findings. You are more than welcome to provide your own independent reliable sources that support your view, but I couldn't find any. There is no dispute that some scientists consider some of Sheldrake's work to be pseudoscience, but this appears to be at odds with the world view of him, where he appears notable for his controversial theories. I am not ignoring vzaak's points, I am specifically address point #4 above. --Iantresman (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, the guy is a scientist - a biologist. There is no debate at all about that fact. It is easily sourced to a number of reliable sources. Thus, even if Sheldrake's work is considered psuedoscience it is important to let the reader know that this particular pseudoscience (biological pseudoscience) is being put forward by a properly credentialed biologist. It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide to strip away someone's credentials or withhold them from the reader in order to try to forestall some potential over-positive reactions by readers to the mere fact he is a biologist. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you're new to this, have a look at WP:FRINGE, and our articles on scientist and the scientific method. A scientist does science. Sheldrake doesn't do science. You work out the rest. The sources provided by Iantresman (talk · contribs) are nonsense - I'll provide a better analysis in due course. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Sheldrake is a scientist in the sense necessary to be called a scientist in blurbs about him, introductions, biographies and the like. That's why there are so many perfectly valid and reliable sources which describe him as such. If he then does very controversial work that some label pseudoscience he is still a scientist (as opposed to a non-scientist) doing very controversial work that some label pseudoscience. A point also made in those some of same sources. It is not for wikipedia editors to re-assess people's basic academic credentials in light of the quality, or otherwise, of their work. That Sheldrake is a biologist is therefore, simply a fact about the world, well sourced, and indisputable. And if the wikipedia policies say otherwise then cite the relevant section of the policy where it says people's credentials should not be accurately portrayed if their work does not match the standard some think should come from those with such credentials. I looked and saw nothing like that at all. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BarleyBannocks, you are correct, and Iantresman is correct. The problem is that Barney is wanting to elide facts about Sheldrake, by incorrectly expanding the scope of WP:FRINGE. Just because Sheldrake has, at some point in his life, made some claims that some scientists (Maddox/etc) called pseudo... does not therefore mean any source which calls Sheldrake a biologist (see Ian's list), or any ideas about spirituality Sheldrake has, or any philosophical musings Sheldrake as published, must therefore be tarred & feathered as fringe. Barney, I swear, you read WP:FRINGE again, it only applies to scientific-sounding claims. It is a plain pure-dee fact that Sheldrake is a biologist(-and-now-also-parapsychologist). You cannot delete reliable sources you disagree with, and point to WP:FRINGE. This is not truth-o-pedia, where readers get logically-sound objectively-verifiable scientifically-proven Truth. This is wikipedia, where readers get the pablum that reliable sources like the BBC feel fit to publish. You need to understand that wikipedia reflects the mainstream media -- famously dubbed the lamestream media in political contexts -- which is *not* identical with SkepticMag alone. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"At some point in his life, from 1981-2013". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly your position. Also known as SkePOV. But as you well know, the idea for morphic fields was from around 1971, not 1981; that was just when his book was published, and the ideas became Notable by wikipedia standards. Your abuse of wikiPolicy is that, based on his pseudophysics, you obliterate all his other positions, in five or ten distinct fields of inquiry, and even purely-demographic facts, as "pseudo". It is blackly funny; Orwellian sceptisicm. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV and unilateral declaration of no edits

David in DC (talk · contribs)'s unilateral fiat in his revert that no one can edit the article PLEASE give it a rest for a day. Please read my last edit summary. PLease read my last talk page post. PLEASE. PLEASE. One day won't hurt, I promise. Just fix my misspelling in this edit and rest. It's Sunday. Even G-d rested on Sunday.) is unacceptable and inappropriate. Particularly when the lead now does not put bogus-ness of Sheldrake's idea into context until the third sentence. Policy: WP:VALID the nonsense that Sheldrake has been spouting for thirty years must be called out as such immediately, particularly since he is known as much for the disdain the scientific community lays on his position as for his work itself.

And to claim such a fiat, and know there is disagreement, and then check out without engaging in discussion is complete bullshit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've already said, it was a plea. Made on bended knee. Begging is sorta the polar opposite of issuing a fiat.

I have no authority to do impose any kind of ukase, ban, prohibition, moratorium, edict, proclamation, demand, proscription, prescription or sanction. I can issue no Papal bull nor transmit any Mosaic commandments. I apologize for being unclear about that. I thought the quotation you've republished was fairly clear, but re-reading it I can see how one might have missed the fine nuances.

I had meant to cajole, wheedle, urge, request, ask or in some other way appeal to the better angels of our natures. Please note that I intend to speak of individual natures. I understand that any reference to any sort of mythic collective nature of our kind would be inappropriate and unacceptable. I just got a notice about that. Others reading this explanation may have, too. Still others reading this may be the enforcers of said notice.

Good luck to you all. David in DC (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

it is not a "plea" on "bended knee" when your first response is to jump in and revert someone who makes a change with your sole rationale as "i just wanna have this sit at my preferred version for 24 hours while you guys come to my enlightened understanding of policy" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Yes, I can see how letting a half-day's worth of good faith effort sit for a full 24 hours while all sides reflected on it was unreasonable. The deadline is so pressing, the danger of misleading the public so great, and the obvious foolishness of worrying about WP:BLP when there's so much fringiness popping up all over are all evident to me now. Yeah, you're right, the request for a 24-hour ceasefire was a truly evil one to make. I certainly won't do that again.

As for your calling "bullshit" - BRAVO. Google the phrase "left wing bullshit". You'll find a moribund blog that stands testament to the signal achievement of my life, thus far. David in DC (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You asked for 24 hours. Your version was reviewed and found wanting per WP:NPOV and was modified. Did you leave the modification for 24 hours of consideration? No. You , on bended knee, "pleaded" by reverting back your your personal version. A version not supported by any type of consensus on the talk page. You made no opening discussion on this talk page nor any response to the post on your talk page. If you were expecting that type of behavior to produce any good will, you are sadly deluded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

tldr

TRPoD, you are correct that David is attempting to assert WP:OWN over the mainspace, for the moment. He has taken than mantle from Vzaak, apparently with Vzaak's consent. David has also worked something out with Barney, Blippy, BarleyBannocks, Iantresman, Ken, Alfonzo, et cetera -- implicitly for the most part, methinks. This david-de-dictator scheme isn't unilateral, it is on my suggestion, at least partially, and I'll take the blame for it, rather than have you mad at David. He is trying to help; WP:AGF and WP:IMAGINE. The same applies to yourself, of course; you are also trying to help!

On the content-issue you bring up, we violently agree: the very first sentence needs to mention 'parapsychologist' or just flat 'telepathy-like' rather than waiting until the third or fourth. Those efforts are the crux of Sheldrake's fame, and also his Notability. As for the way in which David is trying to preserve mainspace with his own vision of the article, for a few brief hours, roughly 24, and certainly less than a triple-digit-hour-count... that is not *great* of course... but look in the mirror. What has been happening for the last four months?

David's gambit is only a test, to see if consensus can be achieved, by breaking the back of the dispute through a massive rewrite. His RfC is intended to bring in fresh eyes, that can review his version with a fresh mind. You and myself and Alfonzo are too WP:INVOLVED, and what David is asking for is a ceasefire. He is also trying to keep BarleyBannocks at bay, in mainspace, if that makes you feel better. Anyhoo, per WP:HIGHHANDED methinks that David should not continue forever in his pathway... but notice that is a redlink!

The relevant policy, which David is attempting to operate under here, is WP:IAR. He's trying to improve the encyclopedia, in a good faith effort to fix this basket-case. Even though you disagree about specific content, and find David's mechanism repugnant to "the traditional way" of working on articles, even you have to admit: there was no consensus *before* David started his quest for consensus, now was there? So try and give him a little slack. Maybe, against all odds, his guerrilla-BLP-paratrooper-approach will turn out okay, and bring consensus to mainspace, and peace to the talkpage. If not, well, we're no worse off than before, eh? Hope springs eternal. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

His "test edit" failed which was quite obvious by the short time it took for another editor to review it and find it wanting and make other suggested changes.

and he was down on his knees, pleading... with his finger on the "revert" button, but no discussion or attempt to get agreement from editors on the talk page before or after initiating his unilateral move. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There were four months of discussion, while you and Barney and Vzaak held your collective-yet-merely-emergently-organized fingers upon the revert-button. Reinforcements from FTN have arrived; you are no longer so alone. Agree that David's attempt was a failure. Certainly it was not unilateral. Certainly it won agreement with some editors, besides the folks who believe wikipedians are free to delete Reliably-Sourced-materials, if they so choose, based on their own personal logic/truthAnalysis/etc. Predict that real-world media exposure for Sheldrake, getting interviewed about bias in his wikipedia BLP, will thus continue. Predict that you and the other FTN folks will continue to shoot scepticism in the foot. Predict you will not believe this message to be true. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Compromise Edit for Lead

Folks, thought about this long and hard. The ONLY compromise that seems reasonable here would be to simply refer to Sheldrake as an English author, lecturer, and independent scientist, notable for his concept of Morphic Resonance, his research into telepathy in animals, and his criticisms of scientific dogmas. Although I would prefer the simple 'biologist' as most references support that - I think this is the only reasonable alternative. This should satisfy the Skeptics, since 'independent' is both truthful and asserts he operates outside of the mainstream POV, and scientist because all sources support he is doing scientific research where applicable. Please provide thoughts from both sides of the argument and please, can we just do this and be done with it? I'll resolve the BLP thread if so - and then we can get into the meat of the article, we can all move on and enjoy a nice thanksgiving holiday and have something to be grateful for. I'll make the edit in a day or so unless someone wants to jump in. Philosophyfellow (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your suggested lead is only even vaguely appropriate if it is immediately followed by the full placement of "morphic resonance" as complete pseudoscience that is utterly rejected by the mainstream academic community. Any consensus or compromise must leave the article in compliance with WP:VALID , WP:BALANCE and WP:PSCI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well vaguely appropriate seems like a step in the right direction. Agree that criticisms from scientific community should be in the lead. Not sure what 'immediately followed by the full placement..' means but we agree it should be in the lead. Philosophyfellow (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a step in the right direction. :-) TRPoD is wanting to make sure that the meaning of 'independent scientist' is clear, namely, that Sheldrake's theories about the subquantum physics, and his cognitive-research trying to discover telepathy-like phenomena, have been labelled as pseudo/parapsychology/etc by various sources. Maybe my old chestnut of "independent scientist-and-now-parapsychologist" can be more-concretely a step in the right direction? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the names given above, two had not read Sheldrake, only three mention Shreldrake as pseudoscience (none peer reviewed), the rest either did not mention it was pseudoscience, or no source was provided to check. Most of these did reject Sheldrake's theory, but describing it has complete pseudoscience is WP:SYNTH and not supported by the sources, even less by peer reviewed sources. --Iantresman (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think one thing missing in the lede is the fact that Sheldrake was a prominent and important figure in biochemistry up to (and including) his 1981 book - I understand New Scientist ran a competition for ideas on how MR might be tested prior to the Maddox rant. It is this fact (his contribution to biochemistry) that Maddox responded to and what seems to have led to his becoming persona non grata within biology. So while I embrace the independent scientist idea, I think the significance of Sheldrake to all sides of the debate is that he has such a solid pedigree. Arguably this is the reason he has generated such interest - pro and con. Can I suggest something along these lines:

Sheldrake as an English author, lecturer, and independent scientist, notable for developing the concept of Morphic Resonance, his research into telepathy in animals, and his criticisms of scientific dogmas. Sheldrake made significant contributions to plant biochemistry prior to his publications on Morphic Resonance which generated considerable controversy, and led to accusations of embracing pseudoscience.

This scene doesn't seem to get painted very clearly in the lead currently, and instead of leaping immediately into the controversy I think we would do well to at least name/describe it's nature. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

he is not at all notable for the actual science work. if that is what we were judging him on he would not have an article. the only reason he is notable is for his work as an author and the reaction that work has had. to give the emphasis on his early work as you are suggesting is to give it WP:UNDUE weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not every fact in every article need be notable enough to have its own article. Once there is an article about X (ie, X is notable enough to have an article) all sorts of facts about X that are not notable enough to generate an article on their own should be included. Indeed, one could take any notable life and split it into pieces sufficiently small to be not notable enough on their own to justify an article. Thus with Sheldrake, we have lots of small details that feed into his general notability (eg, his academic credentials and work in botany) but which on their own would not necessarily warrant an article. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not say every fact in the article needs to be notable; but the lead sentence needs to specifically cover why the subject is notable and the rest of the lead needs to cover the rest of the subject in proportion to the coverage and impact it has had. Sheldrakes early bio work is miniscule importance and scant in coverage by third parties.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you really believe that then remove his date of birth from the opening sentence. He's certainly not notable for that basic biographical fact. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Be fair here BarleyBannocks. TRPoD has a solid point: the first sentence must explain why the BLP is in fact Notable. Sheldrake's fundamental notability is that he is a scientist with highly respectable mainstream academic credentials, who authored or co-authored a dozen books, and promotes telepathy-like ideas. Right now, the first sentence skimps on the last part, and that should be corrected, because otherwise we are not giving the readership a clear picture of *why* Sheldrake is such a famous author (telepathy-like) and *why* Sheldrake is such a black-sheep-scientist (telepathy-like). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should say why RS is notable in the introductory sentence. My point is that there are other things that may also be included, and that why he is notable is itself a function of various things, each of which, in and of itself, is not necessarily notable. The date of birth point was merely to show that there was clearly a place for basic biographical details too. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Useless strawman. If you think the DoB should be removed from the lead, go change the MOS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You're the one arguing that anything for which RS is not notable should form no part of the introductory sentence. I was simply pointing out, with an example, that you are wrong. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Though amusing to watch Seventy Four trying to be puppet master, pulling the various strings, and accepting responsibility for the Machiavellian machinations currently going on, I would like to point out that Shelly was a scientist, whose credentials were ordinary for a scientist - contrary to what Seventy Four asserts. These facts should not get lost in the morass of exaggeration to make a point. I know the point has been oft made, but I think it should be made every time a statement like 74's is made, just for, you know, balance. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well damn. Just read an article in Psychology Review by Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He not only referenced Sheldrake as a biologist, but a well known biologist. Just when I thought this might start to get easier. Research into claims of telepathy, or telepathy like claims in animals, appears to have a square footing with *some* biologists. I'm not sure how to deal with these conflicting sources now. How deeply should we involve ourselves in this issue? Is this a tit for tat between scientists as well as wikipedia editors? Philosophyfellow (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG to claim the "some" is a measurable percentage would take an extraordinary source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it goes both ways. To claim ALL scientists find his work to be pseudoscience or to suggest that Sheldrake has NO mainstream support would also require such extraordinary sourcing. So far I see less than 10 sources from less than 10 scientists who are all vocal members of Skeptical organizations that back your claim and Lantresmen pointed out a few reasonable issues with them. Because a handful of scientists claim that Sheldrake has no support seems more like opinion of a small handful of scientists. That those sources are vocal and hold opinions does not the entire mainstream make. Sheesh. Back to the BLP noticeboards again. I guess this Thanksgiving I'll be grateful for HBO instead of Wikipedia. Philosophyfellow (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. It is not an extraordinary claim in the least to say that the scientific mainstream doesn't believe in magic and telepathy. See WP:FRINGE/PS. Bring us any indication that there is any measurable level of support in the mainstream academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom You're weaseling your way out of this argument and trying to start a new one. It's not a question of what scientists believe, it's a question of what scientists research. Please stop using weasel words like magic. Are you actually suggesting that science by definition *must not* research claims of telepathy in animals or humans and any attempt to do so disqualifies it as science? Not only does that sound like Orwellian science, it also sounds like a very biased POV of what scientists can and cannot research and your argument now rests on a tautology and circular reasoning. Stop that. Please at least make a sophisticated argument, I'm not a college student nor a promoter of the paranormal. *Some* scientists support Sheldrake's research, and while I assume most do not you only have under 10 sources that claim NO one accepts his research and there are other sources that contradict it. You're asking us to take a leap of faith. What does WP suggest we do when we have conflicting sources again? Philosophyfellow (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney sources: kudos

Well done Barney for summarising a list of sources on Sheldrake in your Sandbox3 that you mentioned elsewhere.[2]
It would also be interesting to know how they refer to Sheldrake: biologist? biochemist? scientist? Former scientist? etc.
I note that out of the list of 77 sources, only one specifically mentions Sheldrake works as pseudoscience (Guardian, 11 Jan 84, Wolpert). This would suggest that he is not widely known for "pseudoscience", as it is unlikely he would be included so frequently if his work were totally discredited.

Through which service are you gaining access? --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that I also have access via my local library's online eResource, via NewsBank to The Guardian, Independent, Times, Sunday Times. Very useful. --Iantresman (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Library access is restricted from around 10-20 years ago, depending on the publication. --Iantresman (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian and Observer have an archive that contains the full runs 1821 and 1791 respectively. The Times and Sunday Times similarly have a full archive that runs from 1785 to 1986. After that, you have to use other databases. These are very useful for Wikipedia articles generally. If your library doesn't offer access to these, you can join another one that does. Guardian is here: http://search.proquest.com/hnpguardianobserver/ your number is usually three letters followed by your library number. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it's not just having access to these sources, it's being able to summarise and use them correctly without creative interpretations. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Without any kind of interpretation, analysis, judgement or synthesis :-) --Iantresman (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Ian you have persistently tried to deny that sources say what they say, while maintaining that they say what they don't say. You've been doing this for years. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've happily provided and acknowledged sources that specifically say that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience, and added relevant quotes to the article, eg. Maddox,[3] Coyne[4] and Meyers[5][6] above, and you've also mentioned Wolpert,[7] No cover ups or denials there. And for example, Prof, Steven Rose did no such thing, and even collaborated with Sheldrake.[8] "philosophical implausibility" does not mean or imply "pseudoscience", any more than "dog-like" means dog. --Iantresman (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How many sources do you really want? Just because Rose doesn't use the word pseudoscience doesn't mean he doesn't provide an excellent summary of why it isn't science, despite superficial appearances, criticism which is entirely consistent with other criticism, so 2+2=4, and this is, er, work it out. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because I describe something as being like a dog, does not mean it is a dog, even if you say it is. --Iantresman (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

proposals that the article present Sheldrakes morphic resonance as being held as anything other than pure nonsense by any measurable segment of the mainstream community is WP:REDFLAG an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We are getting very close to a working relationship here. How about this? Barney agrees that all Reliable Sources deserve their place in the article, with placement/emphasis -- but not inclusion -- subject to WP:UNDUE, until and unless a particular source can be particularly excluded as Not Reliable At All per the Journal-of-Sasquatch-Believers exception of WP:FRINGE.

Iantresman agrees that, per WP:FRINGE, specific parts of Sheldrake's work are in fact considered pseudo by mainstream science/scientists, to include the pseudophysics of subquantum morphic fields. Sheldrake fully admits he does not have a mathematical model, which is a prereq for any theory of physics; Sheldrake is approaching the field as an experimental biologist, looking for experimental evidence, not as a theoretical physicist trying to integrate with the existing unified theory of everything.

But the key is this: can everybody agree, that just because *some* things Sheldrake does are WP:FRINGE, and *some* sources may individually on a case-by-case basis be excluded per WP:FRINGE against Sasquatch-Journals, that this does not somehow invalidate the BBC, the Guardian, and so on... which still satisfy WP:RS even if what they say is literally logically untrue? Nor does Sheldrake's ideas that fall into pseudophysics territory, have any impact at all on his spirituality, his philosophy-of-science-funding, or his mainstream-research work/credentials? If my statements here put your position incorrectly, please correct your position specifically, on which fields-of-inquiry WP:FRINGE applies unto (or whatever you disagree with). Gracias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have always said that I have no problems mentioning that some scientists consider Sheldrake's work to be pseudoscience, as long as (a) the source says this specifically (b) it is attributed. But since none of the sources are peer reviewed secondary sources, I have said that we do not over-generalise, and give the impression that all/most of mainstream science considers Shreldrake's work to be pseudoscience. I will happily agree that most sources reject Sheldrake's work. --Iantresman (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@74 the BBC, the Guardian, etc. are fine mainstream press some of the best mainstream press infact, but they are not academic journals. And editorials in the mainstream press are merely editorials and need to be treated as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And of the comment on pseudoscience, Maddox[9] is not peer reviewed, Coyne,[10] Meyer[11][12] and Carroll[13] appear on their blogs, Wolpert is also in the Guardian, as is Blackmore,[14] and Rutherford[15] and I guess we'd have to overlook Barney's list of 70+ newspaper articles[16]. But I'm find about sticking with peer reviewed reliable secondary sources, which is bit of shame as Sheldrake's works have reached a wider audience.--Iantresman (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs) - if we relied on sources that were peer reviewed we'd have Wiseman et al.'s paper - and that's it. There are however plenty of sources that are opinion, many from senior science academics, and should be presented as such. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but they shouldn't be misrepresented as the view of mainstream science (ie, the stuff that's in peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, and is taught at school/university), rather than the views of some mainstream scientists, parapsychologists, journalists (which appear in newspapers, opinion pieces and blogs etc.). The scientific community does have a mainstream view of morphogenesis, but at present that view is almost entirely excluded from the article in favour of the views of a few scientists speaking on behalf of themselves. That is, as regards my first sentence, we are excluding the former, including only the latter, and misrepresenting the latter as the former. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We are also relying on the view of Economist Ruchir Sharma in his book on Foreign Policy.[17] I also have no problem with the view of scientists quoted in the broadsheets, including Sheldrake. We can easily state Sheldrake's view (response) without giving him undue veracity and credibility by our use of English. --Iantresman (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know about Ruchir Sharma, but the idea that commentary from numerous senior scientists (plus various less detailed comments from other scientists), which are consistent with each other is not "mainstream" viewpoint is preposterous. Clear WP:REDFLAG as has been explained to you. Even Sheldrake recognises this with his comments against "the dogmatic establishment". Meanwhile, the view of mainstream science is in the textboooks - and it doesn't mention Sheldrake, only the mainstream materialistic theories he misrepresents. Sheldrake's work is also not in peer reviewed journals. So we can conclude his ideas are scientifically irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not preposterous. The mainstream scientific view is what is found in textbooks and the like, not newspaper articles. And while the two may overlap in many cases, the acid test is the textbook. As things stand, though, we have a few newspaper articles and the like with scientists dismissing and criticising Sheldrake and some other newspaper articles and the like with a few scientists supporting him, and nothing at all from textbook. Thus the mainstream textbook view is excluded entirely, in favour of some personal views of some scientists - views which are notably absent from the textbook.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to stay WP:ONTOPIC, and can't use a biography of Rupert Sheldrake as a WP:COATRACK for a general article on developmental biology, behaviour (including learning), genetics, and whatever else that Sheldrake's theory of everything purports to explain. We have to therefore include sources that generally mention Sheldrake directly (there might be occasionally room for WP:IAR exceptions but I see no reason to make any here). Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The idea that morphic resonance influences whatever, and is credible and proved, is an extraordinary claim that would indeed require very reliable sources. But we are not saying that, and I would not support it. The idea that Sheldrake has a hypothesis called morphic resonance, that he has carried out tests, and published his results in several journals, is not extraordinary, as they are demonstrable facts, that in no way suggests undue credibility and veracity. --Iantresman (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Policy/guidelines seems quite clear on this. Where a fringe theory (Sheldrake's) conflicts with the mainstream view, the mainstream view should be stated in such a way as to ensure people know what it is and know that it is the mainstream view. So, specifically, Sheldrake has offered a fringe theory of morphogenesis, and thus we should present the mainstream view of morphogenesis so that people may know what it is and that it is the mainstream view. At the moment, however, the mainstream view (the textbook view) of morphogenesis is excluded entirely in favour of the views of a few scientists and others writing in newspapers and the like. Worse still, these newspaper views are being misrepresented as the mainstream/textbook view when they are, as noted, completely absent from said textbook.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is not talking morphogenesis, he is talking morphic fields and morphic resonance something that mainstream science just laughs at. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course Sheldrake is talking about morphogenesis, that's what his theory of morphic resonance attempts to explain. The mainstream view being that morphic fields are unnecessary because it is expected that the form organisms take will be fully accounted for by reference to genetics once our understanding of genetics develops sufficiently. Thus, eg, his wager with Wolpert. That's the mainstream view that policy/guidelines say should be presented so that people don't think Sheldrake's theory has more support than it does. Barleybannocks (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There does appear to be some comments in some textbooks (academic/university/textbook presses):

2010, "Jung in the 21st Century Volume Two: Synchronicity and Science", Routledge, 2010.[18]
2010, "Ubiquitous Computing and Multimedia Applications", Springer.[19]
2008, "The Living Classroom: Teaching and Collective Consciousness", SUNY Press, 2008.[20]
2007, "Theoretical Advances and Applications of Fuzzy Logic and Soft Computing", Springer. [21]
2003, "Conscious And Unconscious", McGraw-Hill International.[22]
2003, "Perilous Planet Earth", Cambridge University Press.[23]
2001, "The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology", SAGE.[24]
1999, "Encyclopedia of Creativity", Academic Press.[25]
1997, "The Meaning of Consciousness", University of Michigan Press.[26]
1997, "Mapping Reality", SUNY Press.[27]

--Iantresman (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC - withdrawn

an RfC request which has been withdrawn

The editors of the Rupert Sheldrake article need assistance from previously uninvolved editors savvy about WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. The article currently caries an NPOV tag, but even the tag's presence is in dispute. The current editors are focused on the WP:LEAD, right now. It's reproduced below, minus refs. Please read it here, as a typical reader might. Please then go to the page to evaluate the refs, with the eyes of a wikipedia editor. Please then comment under the appropriate heading below. Please save back-and-forth for the threaded discussion. David in DC (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate RfC

The attempt to railroad through this brand new lead is highly inappropriate. Instead of boiling down the essential conflict into simple questions, David has presented a freshly constructed lead which inserts his POV as if it had implicit consensus for any length of time. This is decidedly not the case. The message being suggested is that one side is against the consensus, which is false.

Further, the RfC assumes David's own framing of the issue, which he characterizes as WP:FRINGE versus WP:BLP. I do not hold this viewpoint, but the RfC aims to direct all responses through that lens. I have said many times that WP:NPOV is sufficient because it contains e.g. WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Further, here is the ArbCom decision,

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Wikipedia aims to be a serious and respected encyclopedia with a scientific focus. This conversation should not be hijacked by a predetermined viewpoint or a falsely suggested consensus.

Please withdraw this RfC and submit another one that frames the issue neutrally and fairly, and in a simple manner. This means asking short, simple questions which capture the root conflict. vzaak (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Support vzaak's analysis and request. The RfC as initially proposed is worse than useless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Current lede

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a biochemist and author, best known for ideas propounded in his 1981 book, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. In this book, and in later writing, lectures, debates and public appearances, Sheldrake has asserted that "memory is inherent in nature", that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind" and that morphic resonance could explain "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". These ideas are widely rejected by the scientific community, with scientists who have investigated morphic resonance offering reasons ranging from a lack of evidence to inconsistency with established scientific theories and categorising Sheldrake's work as psuedoscience or magical thinking.

Sheldrake also argues that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. He advocates questioning facts such as conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices, bedrock foundational principles that undergird modern science.

Critics express concern that Sheldrake's books, appearances and advocacy attract popular attention in a way that undermines the public's understanding of science. The Guardian, to which Sheldrake contributed a series of pieces which ran in the paper's "Body and Soul" column in the late 1980's, described him in 2012 as having to continually defend himself. A 2013 interview with Sheldrake in The Sun magazine opened with a similar observation.

Despite the response to his work from the scientific community, Sheldrake attracts some public support. Among his proponents is Deepak Chopra who sees Sheldrake as a "peacemaker" who "wants to end the breach between science and religion". Sheldrake has also acknowledged criticism, suggesting in response that scientists are susceptible to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience".

Per WP:FRINGE

Please comment here on how the lead does or does not comply with WP:FRINGE and how it might be improved.

This RfC is wrongly configured and should be shut down. The OP should offer two or more possible wordings, not probe for impressions. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP

Please comment here on how the lead does or does not comply with WP:BLP and how it might be improved.

This RfC is wrongly configured and should be shut down. The OP should offer two or more possible wordings, not probe for impressions. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion about the viability (or lack thereof) of an RfC in this format providing any actionable consensus

Please discuss here.

A supremely poorly thought out attempt at an RfC. This page and subject do NOT need more people making general comments about policies and the RfC in this format is almost absolutely guaranteed to not bring the article forward at all and merely generate more circular discussions. It also reeks of the submitter attempting to have not only a 24 hour "hold" on their preferred version of the lead, but to lock significant editing until the 30 day comment period of the RfC is over. BAD IDEA all around. I urge the submitter to withdraw this debacle in the making now. While an RfC may be needed THIS is not it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We disagree, but thanks for sharing. David in DC (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - introducing more bureaucracy is not what we need. We need to take the German approach. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)this isnt even bureaucracy - its just more hot air with no actual determinants that are going to come out of it other than "BLP applies: we cannot make unsubstantiated attacks at a living individual and all critiques must be properly sourced and represent significant portion of the mainstream view" And we have that already. So all that is going to come of this is another 6 archive pages. Bad idea. right up there with New Coke. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

e/c Rather dodgy behaviour by David in DC urging editors to stop editing for a while, and at the same time not telling us of his RfC proposal. Difficult to assume good faith of an editor I previously held in high esteem when compared to some of the woolly thinkers in evidence here up to now. TRiPOD is, I believe, correct in suggesting that all we will see are more of the same circular discussions, but the next few days will prove or disprove that. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I made the plea for restraint in earnest. Then I got the notice we all did about discretionary sanctions. That's a far stronger signal for restraint than I could ever present. It was only after that that I conceived of the RfC. The circularity of the arguments here, and the proliferation of Noticeboard battlegrounds make it imperitive, for the good of the project, and not just this single bio, that the editors with feet fixed in concrete take a breater, while others who hold the project equally dear offer fressh insight. None of us hold a monopoly on wisdom, least of all me. There are three criticisms above. I've replied to the first, in what I think is the appropriate manner. My response to the other two follows:

I regret disappointing you and hope the events of the next few days offer you either some reassurance or offer me an appropriate basket of trout, said trout being deposited in the basket after being used in the maner for which G-d intended trout to be used. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot know which outcome is more likely. But I'l make every good faith effort to discern which it is, and act in accordance with the message we get from uninvolved editors. In my view, this part of the thread ought to be collapsed, with a heading like "Criticism of this RfC and of its originator." I would not view the second clause as a WP:NPA personal attack, but rather as an accurate reflection of what's inside. But I think having all this stuff at the top could either poison the well boomering. Again, per WP:CRYSTAL, I cannot say which. But either effect should be unwelcome. David in DC (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ohfergodsake, OF COURSE we know what is going to happen in an open discussion on this page. A gazillion pixels will give up their life and the "consensus" will be "BLP applies: we cannot make unsubstantiated attacks at a living individual and all critiques must be properly sourced and represent significant portion of the mainstream view". There is no other possible outcome, and even if some other outcome might have a "consensus" here, it would be immediately overturned as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (for those who wish to waste their time in an RfC that will lead to no actionable consensus)

Please discuss here.

refuse to participate in this nonsense -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WITHDRAW. Would an admin please shut this down. David in DC (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Strange new lead

The mention of the book title in the first sentence is peculiar. Such a situation might be appropriate for Moses, but not for Sheldrake. Moreover, it's not just the title A New Science of Life, but A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. It appears that the full title is only there to introduce "hypothesis" into the first sentence.

"...morphic resonance could explain 'telepathy-type interconnections between organisms'". The wording suggests that telepathy already exists, with morphic resonance simply explaining it.

"widely rejected...". This was in an old version of the lead, but was removed due to WP:WEASEL. "Widely rejected" also gives undue status to morphic resonance, suggesting that the scientific community has "widely" paid attention to it, which is not the case.

"magical thinking" was also in an old version of the lead, but was removed because it seemed gratuitous next to "pseudoscience". I think just "pseudoscience" is sufficient for the lead.

"bedrock", "foundational", "undergird" -- just one of these is sufficient; using all three next to each other is definitely too wordy.

"Body and Soul" column -- why is this random info in the lead? When people think of Sheldrake, they don't say "Oh that's the guy that did the 'Body and Soul' stuff in the 1980s!". It also doesn't summarize the article in any way. The same applies to The Sun.

"Sheldrake has also acknowledged criticism, suggesting in response that scientists are susceptible to 'the recurrent fantasy of omniscience'." He didn't say that in response to criticism; the quote is out of context. He's contrasting the confidence of scientists with unknowns like dark matter.

The pattern of statement / criticism / statement / criticism / etc is idiosyncratic and seems counter to Evaulating claims, "Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas".

If nobody minds, I would like to restore a more stable version of the lead. With regard to the high-conflict biochemist-or-former-biochemist issue, the split-the-baby option of "researcher" had some stability. vzaak (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

support this analysis and suggested changes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Putsch

This page is to discuss the article and sources and how to properly present the sources in the article. Claims about inappropriate editor behavior belong elsewhere, such as WP:AE or WP:ANI -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Mangoe and Barney the barney barney are attempting a putsch against editors who do not share their anti-Sheldrake bias, starting with me. Once I've been disposed of, they plan to proceed to other non-biased editors one by one. I assume they sincerely believe that they themselves are the unbiased editors and that they merely wish to perform a service to Wikipedia.

The attempted putsch began when Mangoe filed an incident report on the administrators' noticeboard singling me out as the most offensive editor. Mangoe claims that Sheldrake supporters are attempting to arrive at consensus by exhausting other editors. Obviously those of us seeking to restore a neutral POV to the Sheldrake biography see it the other way around. The report is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Consensus_by_exhaustion_at_Rupert_Sheldrake

I wish to draw the attention of my fellow editors to the final two comments:

There is a WP:AE motion against Alfonzo Green currently, but I think the other pro-Sheldrake, anti-WP:FRINGE (and therefore anti Wikipedia) editors, particularly WP:SPAs need to be considered there as well. Maybe one at a time though. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on that, but the format there seems to dictate a one-by-one belaboring of each editor. I think we're done here, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:AE motion Barney refers to is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alfonzo_Green

Mangoe seems to have initiated the complaint in order to banish me not only from editing the Sheldrake biography but even participating on the talk page, claiming that I'm "belaboring discussion of Rupert Sheldrake in order to push undue claims for Sheldrake's eccentric ideas." Note the use of the word "eccentric," as if proposing a theory that fails to conform to the current standard viewpoint means his approach must be unscientific. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of science, which is not based on dogma but (at least in theory) welcomes alternative viewpoints and evolves as a result.

Following Mangoe's opening statement and vzaak's comments, Barney helpfully chimed in: "I think that Alfonzo Green is the tip of the iceberg and that others will have to follow." Not content with banning me from the Sheldrake biography, he added, "I think that the best thing for Alfonzo Green is that he is placed on a sanction preventing him from editing fringe articles, broadly construed, including talk pages. Violations of this should result in enforcement." Needless to say, I have no interest in fringe issues. My interest in Sheldrake is strictly a function of my interest in science.

There's no surer indication of weakness in one's own position than trying to silence opponents.

All the points in the WP:AE complaint made by Mangoe, vzaak and Barney are either flat-out wrong or irrelevant. The complaint is so flimsy I haven't even bothered to respond. However, I thought my fellow editors here should be apprised of this development. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

my attention was indirectly called to this. The disputes above show why I dislike working with pseudoscience, and especially with AE. But since I have now looked at the recents edits to the article, the substance of Vzaak's recent edits to this article have, in my opinion, been consistently in the spirit of the pseudoscience policy, wholly constructive, and exceptionally helpful. I am quite impressed by his solution to the dispute over the lede paragraph, which is always a tricky matter in this subject. The edits of the other editors are also imo consistent with policy. As I do not get involved in AE if I can help it, I have deliberately refrained from comment on AG' DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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

BBC and WP:SUBJECT on his wikipedia article

It does not yet seem to me that Sheldrake's concern over his Wikipedia page entry is defining enough in the context of Sheldrake to meet the threshold that we would include it in the article ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm inclined to agree - is it just because it's about WP that we find it interesting? Not sure. Has it been picked up elsewhere? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, his web page by itself would not be sufficient to include mention, but the BBC World Service interview on on 1 Nov 2013 increased its notability.[28] (at 8m02s) --Iantresman (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I hadn't seen that. That's quite significant - certainly worth a mention I'd think. Actually, I've starting to think this biography needs a Controversy section. It's sort of covered by some of the other headings, but not as cleanly as if we had something like that. What do you think? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE "controversy" sections are by their very nature not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As we have an inevitable conflict of interest here, is it worth keeping it a disclosure? The problem with that is that by complaining to the media, with complaints about a conspiracy that doesn't exist, Sheldrake hasn't given anyone a right of reply. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is: Has Sheldrake's public complaining about conspiracy theories on Wikipedia reached the point where it is a notable aspect of his profile or is it just navel gazing by Wikipedians thinking that anything involving Wikipedia must be important? To me it currently seems UNDUE. If he is still in the media about this in another six months or a year, then it would seem more appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it´s not worth mentioning at this point. We could put one of those "This article has been mentioned in media"-things on the talkpage, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECT says, "A mention of Wikipedia by a notable person is unlikely to justify a mention in their Wikipedia article. To avoid self reference, a mention needs to reflect its importance in their overall body of work." I don't think that's happened yet.

In the BBC interview alone he said there is a "systematic attempt to distort hundreds of pages on Wikipedia" and "they've got about five people banned so far". In making such fringe claims, WP:PARITY comes into play, allowing the claims to be debunked by self-published sources.[29][30] The article's own history page contradicts many of the claims. It's quite a curious case of self-reference. vzaak (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that Coyne has responded in the New Republic, and Chopra in some newspaper out of San Francisco, we have *more* than passed the WP:NOTEWORTHY standards, and are coming close to the controversy over bias in Sheldrake's wikipedia page being qualified to have a dedicated article per WP:N. Suggest a new talkpage-section be started, in which the additional sentence-or-two that will now have to be added, to the Sheldrake BLP mainspace article, is hotly debated. As for this talkpage section, please do not suggest sentence-wording here... if possible, restrict comments in this section to attempts to elide three-and-counting reliable sources from mainspace. p.s. Oxygen of publicity; think about it please. Backfire. Unintended consequences. Insert further shooting-oneself-in-the-foot metaphors here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

in english, por favor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm learning to speak Seventy-fourish. I think he's urging care in discussion and editing because of the potential for what intelligence-types call blowback. The ~~effects of observation~~ observer effect ~~referred to in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle~~ could also prove problematic. David in DC (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

David gets the gold star. Blowback is part -- not the entire -- but part of the reason why jihadists *particularly* hate the USA. See for instance Iran and Iraq of the 1950s, and the billions in military funding to Israel today, cf stuxnet. For a similar problem, impacting other nations, see the Suez Canal in the 1960s. For the same effect in fiction, see what princess leia says to the empire -- the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through you fingers.

Plain english: TRPoD, if you want The Sheldrake Media Phenomenon to be deprived of the oxygen of publicity, do exactly what David says, and if David makes an edit, never revert it, and if somebody else dares revert David, *you* revert them. This is a suggestion not an order, but David's been on the BLP circuit for years, and if he sees a problem, there is a problem, so trust him. WP:REDFLAG does not apply to whether or not Sheldrake is a biologist. It only applies to whether or not morphic resonance is, or is not, mainstream science. Period. Full stop. No hopping the field-of-inquiry-fences into BLP violations. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have commented out the "incident". There is still no evidence that Sheldrake being upset about the Wikipedia article about Sheldrake has become in anyway a defining aspect of Sheldrake or of any importance outside of Sheldrake being upset. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

No one has presented any rationale for why Sheldrake's whining about the coverage of him in Wikipedia is at the WP:SUBJECT threshold. Yes, Sheldrake has whined about it on his blogs. Yes the BBC had an interview where he whined about it (where they did not interview any other parties to get other views) and Sheldrake's friend Chopra whined on Sheldrakes behalf on Huff Po attacking the same "militant atheist skeptics" that he is whining about on his own blog about the Wikipedia article about Chopra because whining about a friend does not look as bad as whining about yourself. But its all just a nonsense blip. Sheldrake will get over the fact that he cannot have Wikipedia be a platform for promoting his ideas. Or he will maintain a new pointless crusade against conspiracy theories of militant atheist skeptics Wikipedia for the next six months or a year and then we can consider his obsession to be a worthy aspect to cover. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The BBC defines WP:NOTEWORTHY, not wikipedians. Reliable Sources define pillar two, not wikipedians. WP:UNDUE is not a license for wikipedians to delete Reliably-Sourced-materials. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong on all points

WP:UNDUE is PRECISELY a "licence" to delete sourced content that does not appropriately belong in an encyclopedia article because of its triviality.

BBC does NOT define whether or not filler on a slow news day is an important encyclopedic aspect of an article, se WP:NOTNEWS . per your As your WP:NOTEWORTHY , it specifically points out "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content .... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies ... Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." So, from a neutral point of view, and Wikipedias other policies such as WP:SUBJECT, I still fail to see that Sheldrake and his friends making bizarre conspiracy claims about the Wikipedia article are at this point important enough to Sheldrake to include. If he is still squawking and getting covered about his whining in 6 months, then come back but otherwise this is just calling out a pimple on his nose and not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please list all of the active threads...

About this article or editors' behavior in editing this article that are ongoing on the noticeboards? I know about the current BLP noticeboard thread, which is properly noted on the top of this page. But if there are others, it would be nice to know just how many BATTLEGROUNDS this thing is being fought out upon. Especially because it was just suggested that one of my edits might be seen as an attempted "suicide by cop". David in DC (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is under dispute at neutral point of view and fringe theories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_.28again.29 Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the following (editors are welcome to add missing discussions):

Not Pseudoscience??? Has anybody got evidence that Shelly's ideations are anything but Pseudoscientific?

Currently, woolly thinkers on this page are trying to suggest that Shelly isn't doing pseudoscience. Is there any evidence for such assertions? Could it be outlined by anybody here? Lets see links to all this science that Rupe is engaged in? Thank you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Popperian concept of pseudoscience involves proposing theories that have high explanatory power and which are not falsifiable. So far I haven't come across any serious analysis that suggests Sheldrake is proposing such a theory. MR is falsifiable in that it makes predictions that can be tested - you will find many such tests cited already. This, arguably, is the crux of the scientific endeavour. Obviously there is a vast political dimension to science, but by any serious measure Sheldrake is proposing a theory he aspires to test - he isn't making the kind of claims Popper tagged as pseudoscientific viz. Marxism, or Adlerian psychotherapy that can accommodate every conceivable outcome from a test as confirming the theory. And while there are obvious disputes over interpretation of data, there is data that may/may not show MR to be false. This is not the case with pseudoscience. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of what Sheldrake does isn't pseudoscience. For example some pieces on the likes of science funding, using the first person in descriptions of experiments, are not pseudoscience. Also, some of the criticisms of the scientific community as set out in Science Set Free are known to sociologists of science (e.g. the file draw effect).

Contrary to what Blippy (talk · contribs) tries to suggest, we're not allowed to do original research. The biggest prediction of MR is that fields of embryology, developmental biology, genetics and animal behaviour should be getting very confusing results. That we know a lot more about about all of these areas 2013 than we did in 1981, and our basic scientific theories in these areas haven't changed, implies that science is on the right track, after all, and Kuhnian paradigm shifts are overrated (as Maddox alluded to way back in '81). The truth is that MR hasn't been tested in depth largely because it's contradicted by existing evidence. But we're not allowed to say the obvious because it's "OR"

Meanwhile, we have numerous scientific sources saying that MR is not falsifiable, which is what we have to rely on. That some people have tried to test MR only implies that versions of the hypothesis are testable. The Rose experiments are a case in point in which Sheldrake changed his prediction about what MR would do when he saw the results.

You've got it exactly backwards. Sheldrake never changed his prediction. It was Rose who had to figure out a way around the finding that day-old chicks seemed to be influenced by the experience of previous day-old chicks. Sheldrake was happy to publish the results, but Rose reneged on his agreement to publish them jointly. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also struggling to find a scientific source, other than Brian Josephson, as an actual scientist in favour of Sheldrake's work. I'd really like to include such source if possible. Chopra has his own credibility problems. If not "real" scientists then sociologists and philosophers are the next best thing, e.g. Mary Midgley, we got her. Anyone else at all? Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder

Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University

Stuart Hameroff, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital

Neil Theise, MD, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York Barleybannocks (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

An article on Sheldrake by Bekoff can be found here

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201311/why-dogs-hump-and-rupert-sheldrakes-morphogenic-fieldsQuotes

And a letter from the others can be found here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dear-ted-is-it-bad-scienc_b_3104049.html

In the letter I note the following

"Sheldrake's talk was on "The Science Delusion" and covered ten dogmas in mainstream science that need to be examined; there wasn't a hint of bad science in it." And,

"Quantum entanglement could account for Rupert Sheldrake's findings"

Now, whatever one thinks of this, it seems clear that there is at least some support for Sheldrake within the scientific community, and there are scientists who do not regard his work as pseudoscience. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly did I suggest we should violate WP:OR? If you read RTD's question and my response you will see I was answering that question. I did not deny there are scientists who have characterised MR as pseudoscience, however I pointed out that these aren't any serious analyses (as far as I'm aware), Maddox's editorial and subsequent interview are clearly nothing of the sort. Rose and Wiseman are critical of the theory based on their attempts to falsify it - by definition the antithesis of characterising it as pseudoscience. If a theory is testable, and if the results of those tests can demonstrate the theory to be wrong, then that theory is falsifiable. MR is such a theory, and there are many attempts to test it by Sheldrake and other scientists - not least Rose & Wiseman. Disagreements over the results is standard scientific dialogue, not pseudoscience. And just to be clear for those unwilling to see, all of this is my analysis in response to RTD's original question, I'm not making edits, merely attempting to move the conversation beyond the superficial name calling that seems to have dominated proceedings to date. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blippy (talk · contribs) - Maddox was entirely serious, and if you read the piece, he does identify several features that are characteristic of pseudoscience. So not only does he make the allegation, he explains why as well (it is vague, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not testable, it doesn't sit with existing theories). If this isn't "serious", I don't know what is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A serious analysis isn't just a sequence of claims but explanations of those claims. How is a theory that's been put to the test in a variety of ways not really testable after all? This has to be explained. How is it vague? Without an explanation, the charge itself is vague. Doesn't sit with existing theories? Science is a competition of theories. To banish a theory because it conflicts with a pre-existent theory, such as genetic reductionism, is to stop all theoretical progress in science. Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blippy. Indeed, the mainstream scientific view of morphogenesis is what is supposed to be set against and above Sheldrake's theory for balance but that mainstream scientific view is being excluded almost entirely in favour of a hodge-podge of criticism of Sheldrake and/or his ideas from a small number of people who may or may not speak for anyone other than themselves. One would expect the mainstream view to be supportable by literally hundreds of very solid peer-reviewed articles and biology textbooks. That's what makes it the mainstream scientific view after all. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand " the mainstream scientific view of morphogenesis is what is supposed to be set against and above Sheldrake's theory for balance" ? What are you trying to say there?

I'm saying that the mainstream scientific view (ie, the view found in countless peer-reviewed journals and textbooks) is what policy/guidelines say should be presented so that Sheldrake's views are not mistaken for a/the accepted theory. What we have at the moment, by contrast, are a few criticisms of Sheldrake and his theories from sundry individuals speaking on behalf of themselves.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blippy here. First, this section is really inviting OR to the article - which is a big tsk tsk on Wikipedia. Secondly, if a notable author claims Sheldrake's work in MR is pseudo science, is that evidence that it is? hardly - it just makes for a notable critique of Sheldrake's theories. I think the more reasonable question is 'What quality of sources do we use to adopt a PS claim to a BLP page?' If Sheldrake is testing and publishing his research, which resources show he is doing, that seems like disqualify the PS claim. If editors are suggesting that Sheldrake is doing pseudoscience for the sole reason that he is researching telepathy which automatically defaults to PS because of the subject matter and not the quality of research Sheldrake is doing, then Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman and James Randi are also pseudoscientists. Roxy the dog (resonate) - why so angry at Sheldrake? I'm concerned that editors here have to many personal feelings about Sheldrake. Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Angry? Astonished that people are trying to make a case that he's doing "Good Science". If that case gets made, then his notability goes out of the window, with this article, and we wont be discussing AfC but AfD instead. If he's a "scientist and Author" then he is as notable as Trulyscarymary, and deserves a wiki article just as much. If he's doing science, where are his fellow scientists citing his work alongside him in decent journals? If he's doing science, he isn't notable for it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It just occurred to me to check that Mary doesn't have a mainspace page about her, after all she is a published author. She doesn't. Phew. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with an angry editor, they cannot see the forest for the trees. Not one person here is suggesting or arguing that he is doing *good* science. The argument is simply that he is doing scientific research and is a scientist. Philosophyfellow (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

thing is, hes NOT doing "scientific" research. He is doing paranormal "research" and is therefore a parapsychologist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive. Scientists regularly carry out scientific research (tests and papers in peer reviewed publications) into parapsychology, as is evidenced by Princeton's now closed Princeton Engineering Anomalies ResearchPEAR, (U. Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies and U. Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit and U.Arizona's Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health. They are all staffed and run by scientists with academic credentials, qualifications and experience. --Iantresman (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem much reason to think Sheldrake's ideas are, in actual fact, pseudoscience. What we do know is that scientific community has not accepted his ideas, and that a handful of scientists and others have said it is pseudoscience, and another handful of scientists and others have said it isn't. Thus his theories have not been accepted by the scientific community and there has been a very small, but lively, debate about whether his ideas are scientific. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur, as do may reliable sources, eg. [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] and academic books.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] compared to some sources describes him/his work as a pseudodscience.[54][55]--Iantresman (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Science set free

Barney, any particular reason for removing the accurate description of what Sheldrake's book is about?Barleybannocks (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Materialism here: "Besides making a strong argument for the reinvigoration of science through relaxing the firm grip materialism has on scientific practice" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/31/book-review-science-set-free/ Barleybannocks (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mechanism here: "Sheldrake offers an alternative to the mechanistic dogma" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/31/book-review-science-set-free/

And a lot more here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rupert-sheldrake/why-bad-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.html Barleybannocks (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And here from the Guardian source already in the article - the quote is Sheldrake, quoted in the article. "I think if people in the realm of science and medicine came out and talked about the limitations of purely mechanistic and reductive approaches it would be much more fun" Barleybannocks (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

‎:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, I agree that simple statements are simply better, but the sense of Sheldrake's point is currently lost. His point is that it is the certainty with which materialism and mechanism are believed that leads to and is a symptom of "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience". These are the general principles that Sheldrake feels are taken to be known without question and these then dictate what kind of answers science looks for. Thus, he thinks, by relinquishing these centuries old metaphysical "certainties" science can be free to look at problems with fresh eyes. Not saying any of this correct, but this is Sheldrake's view. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, statements in the article must be sourced (WP:NOR). The source given for the quote "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience"[56] does not explicitly connect it to the material you added. The quote "fantasy of omniscience" (without "recurrent") does appear in Science Set Free, however adding that source would still not be sufficient to support the "Citing ..." clause.

There is also another problem with launching into Sheldrake's characterization of science as philosophical materialism; if that is done then the mainstream view must be stated (WP:PSCI). See the Science Delusion section for how that is accomplished.

Until the matter is worked out, removing unsourced material in a BLP is a typical action and I support Barney (and anyone else) doing so. vzaak (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not connected to dark matter either. That's from the previous paragraph. I have, however, cited various sources which support this reading of what Sheldrake is saying so while neither version is actually supported by the one source offered in terms of leading into the "omniscience" stuff, my version has the advantage of being correct.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The source says: Despite this, he suggests, scientists are prone to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience". The "this" in "Despite this" is referring to the point about dark matter.

Correct, unsourced statements in the article should be removed. Correct, sourced statements which violate policy should be removed. There is no easy fix to your edit. It's not clear how to include your material in the lead yet, if it should be done. vzaak (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what the source says, you're butchering it, and Sheldrake's view.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

First five minutes should help clarify what Sheldrake is saying so we can try to provide sources that support that rather than the peculiar readings currently on offer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE Barleybannocks (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happier with QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV's edit. Leave the discussion of the finer points for the appropriate section.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see there has been a further change back to the old misleading version. This is simply not what Sheldrake is saying, The article is a bit misleading that it is sourced to, but Sheldrake absolutely does not use dark matter in that way. His discussions of dark matter are on a completely different point. The myth of omniscience is about the understanding the basics and is not attacked by a "what about dark matter" argument. It's just not what he's saying. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Adams article is foolish in other ways, like taking Maddox's 1994 quote and falsely stating that it's from the 1981 book-burning editorial. It's wrong, but it makes for a nice narrative when combined with Sheldrake's quote of being "excommunicated". Journalists sometimes string unrelated/wrong things together for "flow". I would guess the same is going on with the dark matter thing, too. vzaak (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if people watched the banned talk posted above. This is because there is a lot of mischaracterisation of Sheldrake going on (TED's first stab at a complaint had to be completely crossed out!). And while I know we can't use it as a source, we could at least use it to be alive to what he is saying so that when we summarise sources etc. we can try to bear in mind what his points actually are and try to capture that from the sources we have. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you have gotten the wrong impression. It's not that I lack understanding of Sheldrake's position. Wikipedia is the wrong place for original research or synthesis. You inserted material which you "knew" was right, but which lacked sources to support it. That's not how Wikipedia works. Sheldrake may well have made the dark matter connection in his interview with Adams -- in fact Sheldrake makes such a connection in his conspiracy blog post. The point is that we report what the source says. When the source seems foolish or when an editor objects, it can't hurt to pull less from the source while still maintaining fidelity to it. vzaak (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I inserted material and provided several sources above for my change and even the one in the article supported it. It's also a very widely known fact about Sheldrake's book and it could no doubt be sourced to dozens of sources had the need arisen. It would therefore only appear as original research to someone who had no idea what Sheldrake was talking about. Thus the standing offer to watch the video above.Barleybannocks (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has to be sourced. Sources have to be in the article. Sources on the talk page count for nothing. And as I pointed out above, even putting the sources in the article would not work in this case. as it would result in original research because of the direct quote. Even if we "know" that Sheldrake would probably not object to the quote being co-opted to refer to something else, that's not how Wikipedia works. And lastly, there is the WP:PSCI issue explained above. Normally one would try to fix up a change, but it was not clear how to fix this one.

I've been involved with the Sheldrake article for a while; I have a good memory of each source in the article, and I have watched the TEDx video several times. I remembered Sheldrake's conspiracy blog post that made the same point about dark matter, so adding the reference via the Adams article made sense. I don't care that it's removed now, I'm just saying that its inclusion in the article was not a sign that people need to watch videos. vzaak (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And I'm pointing out that the source in the article already supported my version about as much as it did yours and so sourcing was never really an issue. That's the first point. The second is that it's clear from comments here and above that people editing the article have very little knowledge of the subject matter. For example, there was the stuff you, and others, were trying to insert about dark matter which missed the real point of what Sheldrake was saying (an essential feature in a one sentence summary); some don't appear to know that Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance is primarily a theory of morphogenesis; and there are various other sections of the article that are likewise wide of the mark on fairly basic matters). Thus I thought this lack of knowledge of the subject matter would make editing difficult and so suggested the above video as at least a starter (possibly leading to reading his books), and in this way we could then try to ensure that Sheldrake's views were accurately reported in the first instance rather than just inserting stuff loosely based on sources which may or may not accurately represent Sheldrake. Attaining such an understanding of the basic subject matter being written about being less original research and more simply good solid editorial best practice without which it is hard to pick which stuff from sources should be included and which should not (as the example currently under discussion clearly shows).Barleybannocks (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

as for reading his books, no thank you. I have a feeling that they would only make me sick or dumber. What we do need to know is what the reliable sources have said about the subject. See WP:OR and WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not the least bit surprised. As an aside, my last topic ban came about because two editors claimed a book I had used as a source was about one thing, when all the reviews about the book disagreed, and the book itself specifically said otherwise. They hadn't even read the book, and claimed that having to provide a source to back up their claim was Wikilawyering. --Iantresman (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Misconceptions of WP:REDFLAG & WP:FRINGE

BoldItalicSignature and timestampLinkEmbedded fileAdvancedSpecial charactersHelp One of the biggest justifications for limiting input on this page (and for countless reverts) has been WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, largely by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. The standard argument has been that WP:REDFLAG requires extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, while WP:FRINGE says that WP should not make a fringe theory seem notable . Therefore, since Rupert Sheldrake is a fringe theorist discussing extraordinary concepts, any source that legitimizes him is subject to nearly insurmountable scrutiny and even if it is a valid source, violates the WP:FRINGE policy by... wait for it... legitimizing his fringe theory.

Does that seem a little ridiculous to you? That's because this is NOT how WP:REDFLAG or WP:FRINGE actually works.

The section on WP:REDFLAG is in Verifiability, which is about sourcing the content going into articles, not the subject of the article. Therefore WP:REDFLAG's clause on an extraordinary burden of proof applies only to EDITORS making extraordinary claims, not to BLP's about people who have made extraordinary claims.

EXAMPLE

If I were editing the page on Earth and cited a statement in the lead that said "Many people state the Earth is flat," that would require extraordinary evidence, because it's a new claim.
If I were editing the page of Flat Earth Society and cited the statement "This organization states the Earth is flat," that would require ordinary evidence, because the article is reporting on the statements of another entity, not a statement of fact. (side note: the Flat Earth Society article doesn't have a disclaimer in the lead about the organization being scientifically disreptuble, so why does this one?)

In other words, WP:REDFLAG does not apply to the Sheldrake page because we're discussing the fact that a man has views that are fringe, not fringe views about a man. This can be understood by the fact that every single clause on Verifiability relates to editors being in line with general community conceptions, not to whether the subject of an article is popular in their respective community.

WP:FRINGE, on the other hand, does not state that fringe theories should be repressed out of some bizaare threat to the public's grasp of science, but simply that fringe theories should not be presented as more notable than they are. It also says:

"...all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately..."

There's nothing about extraordinary sources, just reliable ones for both sides. In the Sheldrake article it's clear that the proportionately larger perspective would be the scientific community's dismissal of Morphic Resonance. Fine, great. Almost no version of this article has disputed that. But as WP:FRINGE references, minority opinions still have to be represented, especially when they're proposed by the actual subject of the BLP, and they can be presented without including perjorative disclaimers every other sentence.

This post has gone on a while, I know, but the consistent misuse of these terms has been bothering me. Virtually no editors here are making fringe statements about Rupert Sheldrake, but rather trying to accurately report on a figure who himself makes fringe statements. It's unreasonable and detrimental to place a higher burden of proof on editors who are trying to cite legitimate sources on an aspect of the subject one happens to dislike.

Long story short; whether you agree with what Rupert Sheldrake says or not, you can't deny the fact that he's said it. Therefore objectivly writing about what he's said is citing facts, not extraordinary claims. Please read WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE and correct me if you think I'm out of line. I don't think I am. The Cap'n (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is necessary to follow REDFLAG here to avoid portraying fringe views as plausible. Of course it's fine to say that Sheldrake believes certain things, but the article must not present those views as if they were an accepted. I don't know exactly what you have in mind, but I see the following from this talk page:

It is a WP:REDFLAG claim to assert that there is not near universal unanimity within academic world that morphic fields as anything other than pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That is perfectly correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an extraordinary claim to state that morphic resonance is an acceptable, credible theory. We don't. It is not extraordinary to state than Sheldrake has a hypothesis called morphic resonance. That statement is a matter of verifiable fact. Sheldrake has carried out tests, some in collaboration with other scientists (eg. Rose) and published the results in peer reviewed journals, where they have been criticised and rejected by many scientist. All accurate and matter of fact, and not in the least bit misleading to the average reader. --Iantresman (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If it was true that there was "near universal unanimity" in the academic world that morphic fields are pseudocscience then dozens of textbooks, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, and a vast volume of other writings should be available to source this extraordinary claim. As things stand we have a small number of newspaper and magazine articles and the odd comment from an opinion piece, but nothing in the way of solid scientific sources for this claim. Something we also have for the claim it is not pseudoscience (not necessarily true or accepted) but not pseudoscience. It's unclear why the article should not reflect this fact more honestly rather than make intuited claims about the mainstream view absent any real evidence/sources.Barleybannocks (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. Look at WP:PARITY. Many pseudoscientific ideas are not mentioned in "dozens of textbooks, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles" simply because they are so nonsensical that scientists don't care about them. This does not mean there is not unanimity that they are pseudoscience. That's why WP:PARITY explicitly does not require textbooks or peer-reviewed articles for pseudoscientific topics. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you are wrong. That is, if there is near unanimity then why are there about the same number of sources on either side of this debate. That is, currently we have a small number of sources saying pseudoscience and a small number of at least equally impressive sources disputing it. Where does the certainty on this very specific point come from as opposed to the mere lack of acceptance?Barleybannocks (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a "small number" of sources calling it pseudoscience because most scientists consider morphic resonance to be so unscientific and nonsensical that they don't even bother discussing it. If most of them don't discuss it, it's not going to be in many sources. There are a huge number of scientists who consider it to be pseudoscience, there are just a small number who bother saying so, because the rest of them have better things to do with their time. That's why we have WP:PARITY. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's clearly your opinion, but the sources would suggest otherwise. That is, we have a small number of sources saying pseudoscience and a small number of sources saying it isn't and the mainstream community not yet accepting it. There is therefore no reason to suppose that the vast majority of scientists have even heard of the theory and no reason to suppose those who have all think this same very specific thing about it. Indeed, the opposing sources suggest than a number of those who have heard of it regard it as science, irrespective of whether it is right or not. You seem to be operating on the basis of a false dichotomy.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The idea that many more scientist would call his works pseudoscience if given the chance, is no different to arguing that they might say otherwise in the same proportion as the sources currently reflect. We have many reliable sources that mention Shreldrake, from well-qualified individuals, which are more than capable of ascertaining whether his work is considered pseudoscience, based on exactly the same sources that we have access to. Rather than ignore him, or repeat the "pseudoscience" claim, they generally describe him as scientific, but wrong. That is not an opinion, but reflects the view of a wide range of reliable sources. eg. [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] and academic books.[70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] compared to some sources describes him/his work as a pseudodscience.[80][81]--Iantresman (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this Cap'n. I have a question for Johnuniq (talk) - I still do not see your claim that there is universal unanimity that Morphic Resonance is a pseudoscience. Can you, or anyone - please list these sources that specifically make the claim that there is universal unanimity on this? Remember, it does not have to be pseudoscience for Morphic Resonance to be rejected. Many hypothesis are rejected without being pseudoscience. That Morphic Resonance is rejected or ignored seems likely - that there is universal unanimity that it is pseudoscience, based on all the sources I have seen presented, seems unlikely and a result of bias. Please show me where I am mistaken and I will support your edit. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ken Arromdee (talk) You make this claim: Many pseudoscientific ideas are not mentioned in "dozens of textbooks, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles" simply because they are so nonsensical that scientists don't care about them. Applying that to MR - This is a very circular argument. Can you please do better than that? I think this is why some of us who really would not care so much about Sheldrake's ideas are having issues with the editing decisions here. Sheldrake presents a scientific hypothesis derived from a scientific argument. If scientists don't bother to consider his hypothesis because it's too ridiculous to consider, then there is no way they can consider it to determine if it is pseudoscience. If anyone needs to use a circular argument to support something that they believe to be factual I would not be surprised when neutral editors appear shocked at such a lack of intellectual integrity. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ken Arromdee (talk · contribs) is correct, and people won't or can't understand basic sociology of science and WP:FRINGE then this demonstrates a lack of basic WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ARB/PS should be applied. There is a lack of clear thinking here, or pretty much any thinking at all. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

PS I suggest if anyone has a problem with this as a general policy, they take this to WP:FRINGE/N. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Insulting other editors and questioning their competence is a very weak "argument". The same argument can be applied to all those scientists who would be sympathetic to Sheldrake, but also don't appear in print. Oh wait a minute, I just provided over 20 sources that do state their views! --Iantresman (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear that MR can just be lumped in with every other fringe idea such that what goes for one goes for MR. Many fringe theories have zero support from anyone in mainstream science whereas Sheldrake's theories clearly have some. In many other cases the vast majority of scientists who have spoken all say the same thing, whereas in this case, of those who have spoken, the split looks roughly 50/50 on pseudoscience (with most accepting the basic point about rejection). There are few fringe theories that are unanimously considered pseudoscience that have issued from highly credentialled scientists working in their own specialist field, whereas in this case that is exactly what we have. Many fringe theories offer explanations for long-resolved scientific issues, whereas in this case the central issue is still a profound scientific mystery. In these, and other ways, then, MR stands out as different, and its treatment in the article should surely reflect this. Not least because we have many sources making these very points. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have these sources that specifically call Sheldrake, or his work, pseudoscience (feel free to add to the list):

Jerry Coyne, on his blog.[82]
PZ Myers on his blog.[83][84]
John Maddox opinion piece in Nature.[85]
Ruchir Sharma, an economist in his book on Foreign Policy.
Lewis Wolpert, in an article (or letter?) in the Guardian, 11 Jan 1984
TED, originally called his work pseudoscience, but then retracted.[86]

--Iantresman (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And the request has been for any evidence that shows the mainstream as considering his work in anything other than pseudoscience and fringe? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

About twenty sources to the effect that it is not pseudoscience (even if not right) have been provided above. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not one of them says "this is not Fringey pseudoscience" and/or "most mainstream academics do not consider it fringey pseudoscience" - while they may not specifically say "this is pseudoscience" they are certainly not endorsing it as actual science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well of course the don't say "this is not Fringey pseudoscience" quote unquote, but some do specifically say that it is science, and some do specifically say it isn't pseudoscience. Moreover, there are numerous sources which simply discuss the theory in scientific terms and thus clearly show that there is no near universal unanimity on this specific point.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is there mainstream academic saying it isnt pseudoscience? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources are above and have been posted numerous times (Iantresman recently posted a whole batch of them again in this thread [87]). Barleybannocks (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman has been known to post "sources" claiming they say one thing when in fact they say pretty much the exact opposite. Specifically which source(s) state that it is NOT pseudoscience? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This letter, published in the Huffington Post and signed by a number of eminent scientists refers to his TEDx talk, which included a discussion of MR, and says "Sheldrake's talk was on "The Science Delusion" and covered ten dogmas in mainstream science that need to be examined; there wasn't a hint of bad science in it." Barleybannocks (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

[88] are you talking about this? Deepak Chopra is certainly NOT "eminent" mainstream academia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the people who wrote/signed the article. It is a letter from 5 different people (not just Chopra) and includes a number of eminent scientists. Here are their names (you can read them in the section of the article which tells you the authors and if you click on their names you will see their credentials). Stuart Hameroff, Menas C. Kafatos, Rudolph E. Tanzi and Neil Theise . Barleybannocks (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing eminent parapsychologists, but not eminent scientists. And even if they were all stellar mainstream academics, if all he can round up are 5, that is pretty good evidence that it is NOT a widely held position about his work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's about the same as you've got, and in many cases your sources are not even scientists of any kind, yet you're claiming there is near universal unanimity within the scientific community on this very specific question. The letter itself shows this to be false, and these people are eminent scientists - check out their credentials at the bottom of the letter they wrote. And that's not the only source we have. Numerous others were posted above and one below. Thus we clearly have a number of sources on both sides of the pseudoscience debate. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Credentials here [89], [90], [91], [92]. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And here's [93] another article from the same source which, in discussing Sheldrake, frames the whole debate, including the one on this talk page, and the wider issue as: "The real nexus of the TED controversy therefore lies not between "science" and "pseudoscience." It lies between skepticism and scientism; i.e., scientific fundamentalism. Skepticism is necessary and healthy for science. Fundamentalism is neither." Thus, according to this columnist (and scientist), it is Sheldrake's critics who are engaging in pseudoscience when he rejecting his ideas out of hand due to a misconceived notion of what science is. This is a fairly common view and that debate itself should really feature somewhere in the article. As things stand the "fundamentalists" are being misrepresented as having the full eight of the scientific community behind them without any real support for this from the usual mainstream scientific sources.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We are once again straying into the wilderness of trying to determine whether or not MR is pseudoscience or not. That's precisely my point; it doesn't matter in terms of the sources cited! Unless someone is making the claim that MR is a widely accepted fact OR that it was never uttered by Rupert Sheldrake, all we need are reasonable, reliable sources to make points, either for or against Sheldrake. The main point is that every perspective is equally valid on this page if it's backed by a source and presented in its proper context. There's no disproportionate burden of proof to establish that MR is NOT pseudoscience in order to report on the fact that Rupert Sheldrake came up with the idea. Let's take a deep breath and think about this.

Oh, and Barney the barney barney's habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him incompetent and ignorant is disrespectful and counterproductive. Seriously, get it together, bucko. The Cap'n (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The alternative is to repeat basic points of fact over and over because they are not understood. This is clearly either stupidity or incompetence. I have tried to remain respectful but some "editors" are demonstrating such an astonishing lack of basic WP:COMPETENCE that in all good faith I have to suggest that it's best that they don't disrupt the talk page. I think you'll also find that I've done more than anyone else to add pro-Sheldrake sources to the article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there are several editors that disagree with you, who have provided explanations and extensive sources, and your only response is to be uncivil to them, or try and get them banned, would suggest otherwise. Further, none of these editors have refused to include any specific facts in the article, only the way you want to interpret some of them. Most scientists reject Sheldrake, no problem. Some scientists call his work pseudoscience, no problem. Disagreement is not a competency issue. --Iantresman (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Iantresman hits the nail on the head. I accept fully that some have called Sheldrake's work [pseudoscience (and that should be in the article). I accept fully that some have said his theories lack evidence, and that they are inconsistent with other established hypotheses (and that should all be in the article). I just don't accept that anyone has made the point that his theories are pseudoscience BY CITING a lack of evidence and inconsistency, and I think it should be changed (especially if it can't be sourced) because it doesn't really make sense. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, I think it's clear we now have sufficient sources showing scientific support for at least the idea that Sheldrake is doing science (even if wrong) and that should feature more prominently. As things stand this point is omitted almost entirely from the article and the most extreme views of a handful of Sheldrake's critics is presented as if it was the view of the whole of science. The issue is much more complex than that, as Dave Pruett's article shows, [94], with that scientist's assessment of the debate being, "the real nexus of the TED controversy therefore lies not between "science" and "pseudoscience." It lies between skepticism and scientism; i.e., scientific fundamentalism. Skepticism is necessary and healthy for science. Fundamentalism is neither." I think something about this needs to be in the article. Indeed, I think Bekoff makes similar points and so it is important to let the reader know about these critiques of the critics. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Baleybannocks (talk · contribs) - the sources clearly say it's pseudoscience, and why it's pseudoscience (the issues you mention). The link between these in the sources cannot be disputed by anyone with any basic competence. Meanwhile, "I accept fully that some have called Sheldrake's work [pseudoscience (and that should be in the article)" is not the position you've taken before. Likewise "Most scientists reject Sheldrake, no problem. Some scientists call his work pseudoscience, no problem." for Iantresman (talk · contribs). Please stop switching positions and pretending to be reasonable one minute and then revealing your true intentions in another, in which you try to question the basic foundations of such criticisms. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, if the sources say what you say they do in the way you say they do then post them here (with details of how to find the supposed claims) so we can see for ourselves. Secondly, my stance hasn't changed. I have never argued that Sheldrake's work has not been called pseudoscience, nor that the other criticisms don't exist (my complaint below is about a very specific jumbled claim), and instead I have argued that given the dearth of sources, pseudoscience is not obviously the view of entire scientific community and should not be misrepresented as such (specially when others have said it isn't pseudoscience (that should be noted) and others have also critiqued the critics for a "fundamentalist" mentality antagonistic to science (that should be covered)). My apparent change of stance, then, is entirely a function of your misreading of what I am saying (Iantresman understood no problem) and so there is little I can do to combat that. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney I too would like to see a specific source, with reference to the specific text that your say supports your position, "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation" per WP:FRINGE.--Iantresman (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs) - the sources are in the article. They are fairly represented and quoted from. If you can't read them I don't know what I can do for you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You can provide a specific source and a quote. I can't read your mind. --Iantresman (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

removed "decidedly psuedoscientific " as it's not a true statement but a personal opinion

I have removed the above as not only is it personally damaging, but it's not actually a true statement the word 'decidedly, smacks of biased, warped opinion. I am also dismayed to see how much further these arguments have got and how little consensus has been reached. It's a sad, sad day for wikipedia editing when there are such forceful opinions, that aren't actually shared by Mr/Ms/Mrs General Public Veryscarymary (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that "decidedly pseudoscientific" should only be used in a quotation. However, if it is in a quotation and we attribute it to the people who said it, I don't see the issue. jps (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And now "widely"

The introduction now says that "morphic resonance .. is widely considered pseudoscience"[95][96]. The use of the adjective "widely" is clearly a weasel word. Editors have been pushing for good peer reviewed sources, yet the reference provided for the "pseudoscience" assertion is a book on Foreign Policy[97] by economist Ruchir Sharma. It does not appear to be a reliable source, let alone an independent reliable secondary source.--Iantresman (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Cricket Iantresman (talk · contribs) - you do really know how to creative interpret sources don't you? How is "widely" given the views held by the following:

Prof. Peter Atkins FRSC
Sue Blackmore
Robert Todd Carroll
Prof. Brian Charlesworth FRS
Prof. Jerry Coyne
Prof. Richard Dawkins FRS
Martin Gardner
Prof. Barry Keverne FRS
Sir John Maddox FRS
Prof. Michael J. Morgan FRS
Prof. P.Z. Myers
Prof. Alan J. Parkin
Prof. Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow OM Kt FRS
Dr Adam Rutherford
Prof. Steven Rose FSB
Michael Shermer
Prof. Lewis Wolpert CBE FRS
The Rt Hon. Prof. Robert Winston, Baron Winston FMedSci FRSA FRCP FRCOG FIBiol FREng(Hon)
Prof. Richard Wiseman
etc?

The sources back up the assertion. You know it, but you're trying to wriggle out of it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since they don't want widely, just include the FULL LIST of those that consider it psuedoscientific. That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

With WIKILINKS all round. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The source provided did not support "widely". A list of names is not a list of sources, there is nothing for editors to check. Please provide sources, you would expect no less. --Iantresman (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems that Prof. Peter Atkins acknowledged in a live radio debate that he hadn't actually studied Sheldrake's evidence.[98][99] Which part of the scientific process do you think Atkins was using, or perhaps he is psychic? I couldn't find a source suggesting that Atkins thinks that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience, let alone that we should consider him a reliable source. Leg before wicket or are you playing fantasy cricket? --Iantresman (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "widely" is a bit of a word to avoid if, for no other reason than it's slightly question begging (widely in relation to what group?). I would prefer something like what we have in the third paragraph of the lede, "scientists and skeptics have labeled it pseudoscience", ~~but have to admit to not being too concerned about the current phrasing and am certainly not bothered enough by it to change it myself.~~ jps (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Addendum: Immediately after writing this, I have decided that I actually can be bothered. [100]. jps (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should look at the sources first. --Iantresman (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've all read your opinion to that effect. jps (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

are there any sources that say or in any way give any impression it is NOT widely regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream academic community? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is my initial analysis of the names:

Sheldrake:"if he’s actually read the evidence?". "No" - Prof. Peter Atkins.[101]
"Sheldrake is scientific" - Sue Blackmore.[102]
~~"Granted its scientific" - Prof. Steven Rose.[103]~~
"Sheldrake is a sort of "God of the gaps" scientist" - Dr Adam Rutherford.[104]
"admitted that he had not even seen the book" - Michael Shermer [105]
"the patterning in my studies are the same as the patterning in Rupert’s studies" - Prof. Richard Wiseman.[106]
"Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist" - Robert Todd Carroll.[107]

Two hadn't read Sheldrake's evidence/book, four say he is scientific, and Wiseman said his study saw the same results. This is not looking very good. --Iantresman (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

are you purposefully trying to present things out of context? "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects ... [Sheldrakes ideas] did, indeed, appear completely scatty. ...And as for the paranormal, I spent the best part of 30 years trying to find evidence of paranormal phenomena and failed. My initial belief was wrong, I concluded, and so I changed my mind and became sceptical. Sheldrake has not changed his mind, and goes on believing in telepathy."- Sue Blackmore.[108]--

"Granted its scientific and philosophical implausibility " - Prof. Steven Rose.[109]

"Sheldrake is a sort of "God of the gaps" scientist. He sees gaps in knowledge, and inserts supernature as an explanation. There are three basic flaws with use of this tool. First is that it's just not scientific." - Dr Adam Rutherford.[110]

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I provided more context than a list of names, and a citation so you can check the context. None of them say or imply that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscientist (they say the opposite). Blackmore disgrees, Rose's "philosophical" is not about science, and Rutherford is discussing a "supernatural tool". But let's not distract ourselves from the anticipated reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You false context in a manner that displays either severe lack of WP:COMPETENCE or a deliberate attempt to mislead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think if we want to say these people have said Sheldrake's ideas are "pseudoscientific" (quite a specific complaint) then we had better have them actually saying that. Most of the quotes above not only don't say it (none of them say it explicitly in fact), but don't even come close. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Found two (in addition to Maddox):

Jerry Coyne, on his blog.[111]
PZ Myers on his blog.[112][113]
Maddox opinion piece in Nature.[114]

Total pseudoscience sources to date: 3. --Iantresman (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't use any word that matches pseudo[-]scien* doesn't mean they don't mean it is. Rose for example gives a very good definition of how matches pseudoscience without actually mentioning the word. Morgan says he is "very wrong". They all broadly agree and show a deep consensus that it's not scientific.

I really can't believe we're having this argument. In the words of Stephen Fry: "Are you incapable of rational thought? You cannot be that stupid" [115] . Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to libel someone you really should have a good source. No?Barleybannocks (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

By conducting an experiment designed to falsify morphic resonance, Rose demonstrated that Sheldrake is proposing a scientific hypothesis. This applies to Wiseman as well. The implication of testing morphic resonance is that it's testable and therefore scientific. The opinions expressed by a handful of critics cannot overturn the fact of testability. If this fact goes unreported, the Sheldrake page cannot be considered neutral. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Barney Not according to:

per WP:SYNTH "Do not [..] reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
per WP:LABEL "The prefix pseudo- [..] Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt."
per WP:GRAPEVINE (WP:BLP): "Remove immediately any contentious material [..] that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"

--Iantresman (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

that they think it is "not science" dressed up in science clothes is most certainly "implied " and is many cases stated even if not using the specific term "pseudoscience"; so your SYN argument is off the table. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the quote specifically contradict your claim, they specifically tell us that they think Sheldrake is "scientific". And then you are drawing your own opposite conclusions which is WP:SYNTH. And it still fails WP:LABEL and WP:GRAPEVINE. --Iantresman (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, Ian, you're arguing that we should not call the idea of morphic resonance a "pseudoscience", right? jps (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem stating that there are sources which state that morphic resonance is pseudoscience. But I have a problem when editors claim that some sources are describing something that sounds to them like pseudoscience, but the author is not saying that it is pseudoscience. Just because it lays eggs, has a bill, webbed feet, and lives in water, doesn't mean its a duck, when it turns out to be a Platypus. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like duck, it can still be a goose. --Iantresman (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

QTip, Just because Iantresman can't tell the difference between a duck and a goose doesn't mean we shouldn't call MR pseudoscience. That has to be one of the most specious points made on this page recently. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we need to decide how to write the article. Arguing over arcane interpretations of sources is missing the point, in my humble opinion. We are in agreement that there are sources which characterize morphic resonance as a pseudoscience. Therefore, it should be uncontroversial to include this in the article. The exact wording can be discussed. jps (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone actually oppose inclusion in the article, as long as the sources are clear and the extent of that view is not misrepresented or misattributed. It is also worth noting, however, that there are a significant number of scientists (at the moment not far off a match in terms of numbers with those who say pseudoscience) who say it is not pseudoscience (irrespective of whether it is right or wrong).Barleybannocks (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Significant number"? The only ones I see are Hans-Peter Dürr and David Bohm, neither of which are really considered to be on the up-and-up when it comes to matters of fringe interpretations of quantum mechanics upon which Sheldrake seems to desperately want to hang his hat. jps (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, Nobel laureate in Physics

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder

Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University

Stuart Hameroff, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital

Neil Theise, MD, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York

That'll be 8 so far, counting your two. Iantresman also provided a set of links to a number of academic works referencing Sheldrake and his ideas which I don't think were from any of the above named scientists. Thus we'll almost certainly be over ten once those are taken into account.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Differentiating between a duck and goose would be a species point. --Iantresman (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) and Iantresman (talk · contribs) - could you please provide us with these references as a list with full titles of the papers, etc? I suspect many of these are psychology-based which is a science that hasn't yet moved away from prescientific and quasi-philosophical (i.e. nonsensical) ideas, in which the ghost of Freud looms large, but if they have positive comments and aren't published in pseudojournals then we might be able to include them. Also important is what they say rather than just citing him as they may be citing him negatively. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC) - PS books on spirituality in horses, which is the best I found, don't count. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The main source for 4 of them is the letter signed by all at the Huffingotn Post in which they, amongst other things, defend Sheldrake from charges of pseudoscience. The link is above where this list is repeated. It's nothing much, just an opinion piece in HuffPo, but it's in line with the other sources currently used for the contra Sheldrake views. Bekoff's article is also cited above. Josephson's is, I think, in the article already. And Iantresman has, below I think, provided a list of academic books in which Sheldrake and his theories are discussed in terms of being science.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that you're correct, Barney. Brian Josephson is a fairly famous pseudoscientist in his own right. Marc Bekoff is an ecologist who doesn't really seem qualified to judge this particular matter of physical import, and the remainder are just signatories of a letter to TEDx (along with Chopra) who are all related in one way or another to pseudoscientific speculation on consciousness or alternative medicine. Yes, scientists can support pseudoscience. Yes, these people are somewhat notorious for doing so. Shall we move on? jps (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to rule out everybody, including Nobel laureates because they disagree with you then you would appear to making a mockery of the very idea of a scientist. I don't think it's up to wikipedia editors to try to change the world through these pages. These people are scientists plain and simple. More so than a good number on the list of critics. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether they are scientists or not isn't really the issue. The issue is whether morphic resonance is a pseudoscience. I do not consider this list of pseudoscience-supporters to be a good list on which to determine that morphic resonance actually isn't a pseudoscience. jps (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So a list saying yes is a good list but a list saying no is bad one. Not quite sure I follow your reasoning. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

While we don't really write Wikipedia on the basis of listing people who say this or that, it's nice to know precisely who the people are who do say such things. That there are certain scientists who support pseudoscience is rather unremarkable. Further, I do not think this particular list demonstrates that there are a significant number of scientists who think morphic resonance is not a pseudoscience, especially considering that many of those on the list are notorious supporters of pseudoscience (Josephson, Hameroff, etc.). jps (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Josephson has somewhat of a reputation for supporting "fringe science" but he should be included of course. Deepak Chopra has worse issues (alt med kills, at least MR doesn't). Please though, anyone else? Anyone? Please, the key is sourcing, let's get these sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources are there - links above where the list first appears. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sources that describe Brian Josephson as a fairly famous pseudoscientist. --Iantresman (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss the (lack of) existence of such sources at Talk:Brian Josephson. jps (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of OR going on here interpreting certain scientists who support Sheldrake. Barney the barney barney (talk) - are editors allowed to interpret in this manner? Clearly we have conflicting sources that say conflicting things. It would make sense to show both sides if that is the case, would it not? Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a leading question Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) - and I guess you know the answer. There is no OR going on, only WP:COMMONSENSE (from some of us at least). Please provide solid sources, and we'll include them. We already have a small number, but WP:GIVAL applies, i.e. we shouldn't be pretending that the views of Josephson, Tudge and Chopra are mainstream or giving them undue prominence. Josephson is a well known for his unorthodox academic activities. Let's not pretend he isn't, like we're not pretending that this page isn't WP:FRINGE. I keep asking for sources. Please provide sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we could go through the above list of Sheldrake's critics and make some observations about the particular reasons for notability of around half, and it isn't for their science. That is, a significant number of them are involved in various, but in many cases the same, non-scientific advocacy groups. Groups which advocate science be pressed into the service of a singular religio-socio-political agenda. Many others are very outspoken atheists - a view on religion which may by held by a majority of scientists but which in no way can be construed as the view of mainstream science. It is therefore unclear which particular hat those particular commentators were wearing when they critiqued Sheldrake. Indeed, the responses by some of those supportive of Sheldrake make reference to this situation. Thus, I think, it is clear we do not simply have a group of scientists qua scientists on either side here, as opposed to a significant amount of scientists qua religio-socio-political activists. It's also far from clear the we as editors should turn a blind eye to this since it will almost certainly have been mentioned regularly throughout Sheldrake's career, and has definitely been mentioned prominently with regard to the TEDx controversy. A groups of random scientists saying sciencey things with nothing but science on their mind this is not.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

what nonsense. whether someone is an atheist or not has zero relevance on their ability to critique science or in this case pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said that whether someone is an atheist necessarily has relevance in that way. What I said, and if you want sources there are dozens, is that when someone is a high profile member of a non-scientific group (and is notable only as a member of that non-scientific group) and critiques science that seemingly run counter to the non-scientific aims of that non-scientific group, in a manner that is clearly related to the aims of that non-scientific group, then it is not immediately clear that we can treat their critiques as primarily coming from scientists qua scientists as opposed to scientists qua members of a non-scientific group. The same obviously goes for positive reviews if they come from members of another non-scientific group with aims seemingly supported by the science in question. Are you suggesting that, eg, it is a coincidence that almost everyone on the list of detractors is either a member of such a non-scientific group or allied with some of the aims/beliefs of those groups through widely known non-scientific commentary? Barleybannocks (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, utter nonsense. People get professorships and fellowships of learned societies for doing science that is considered excellent by their peers, not for sociopolitical advocacy of religious viewpoints. While good scientists are usually good sceptics, because scientific scepticism is part of the scientific process. It does seem that statistically, if you're a good scientists, you are likely to be an atheist too. But you get known for your science, and this works both ways - Brian Josephson is notable for his pre-Nobel work in physics, not his post-Nobel dalliances with the supernatural. Furthermore, Lord Rees is a Christian, winner of the Templeton Prize - and as master of Trinity, he's disowned Sheldrake. Steven Rose and Richard Dawkins mutually disagree with each other on other things. WP:GIVAL we have to go back to relying on credentials. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but many on that list have no professorships nor fellowships of learned societies. And many others on the list are best known for their non-scientific religio-political activism. These point are made in a number of our sources and so to say, eg, Richard Dawkins speaks only as always as a scientist is fairly ridiculous. He sometimes speaks as a scientist, but more commonly speaks as a high-profile New Atheist. As such, and since numerous source mentions facts like this, we should not, imo, simply pretend it isn't true. As I also said though, the same is obviously true for some scientists who support Sheldrake. Thus we might say that the scientific community qua scientific community has largely ignored Sheldrake (his views have certainly not been taken up by that community in its work on morphogenesis), an additional dispute has arisen in the wider world primarily over the perceived metaphysical implications of his theories. Some see this as trying to introduce magic into science, while others see this as an attempt to remove immaterial Platonic entities from the heart of science. These and other issues drag the discussion into areas of philosophy, philosophy of science, religion, and politics, and I don't think we should simply shut our eyes an pretend these issues don't exist. They do, and are frequently referred to in reliable sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophers and sociologists of science with academic credentials would be good sources too. We have one, Mary Midgley, and I believe this is covered in the article. Again, more pro-Sheldrake sources would be welcome. Dawkins is not one of our sources for this article, although I have no doubt as to what his views are, I don't think the extrapolation is too hard. Let's not get too bogged down with that. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Editors are not allowed to make their own interpretation. WP:RS is a core policy that warns us against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

WP:BLP: "information about living persons .. must adhere strictly to .. Wikipedia's three core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR"
WP:SYNTH: "Do not [..] reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
WP:GRAPEVINE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"
WP:LABEL: "The prefix pseudo- [..] Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt."
WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources"

Just to be clear, I have no problem attributing some scientists describing some of Shreldrake's work as pseudoscience, if that is indeed what they say (ie. not what editors think they mean). --Iantresman (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

none of that applies as "morphic resonance" is not a living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Really??? (1) WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY apply to all Wiki content. (2) Calling "morphic resonance" pseudoscience, or called Sheldrake a pseudoscientist, may be affected by the fact that this is a biography of a living person. --Iantresman (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

reconsidering "widely"

per Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories the use of "widely considered pseudoscience" is probably ill considered. WP:SPADE, we just call the spade the spade without any of the accusations of "weasel" and use "morphic resonance is a pseudoscientific concept"]]-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no problem attributing some scientists describing some of Shreldrake's work as pseudoscience, if that is indeed what they say (ie. not what editors think they mean). This is not the same as saying that Sheldrake's work IS pseudoscience, as is evidenced by all the other sources that disagree. --Iantresman (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, WP:SPADE applies to the behaviour of editors, not content. --Iantresman (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably. Considering Iantresman (talk · contribs)'s tireless efforts to point this out, I'm in favour of a WP:LEAD summary that contains a summary of the quite numerous criticisms, of not only that it is pseudoscience, but why it is pseudoscience, with appropriate mentions of vagueness, falsifiability/testability, and contradiction of existing scientific theories. This is pretty much what we have at the moment, anyway. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And in contradiction of the many reliable secondary sources which tend to describe Sheldrake as a biologist/scientist,[116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128] compared to the odd blog which describes him as a pseudodscientist.[129][130] --Iantresman (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You know Ian, just repeating your point over and over doesn't make your assessment any more intelligent or correct. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a very straightforward assessment. Here are some sources that say P, and here are some fairly equal and opposite sources that say not-P. The question being why should we completely ignore the sources that say not-P. Surely not simply on the grounds that the scientific community has not accepted Sheldrake's work since that point is consistent with both P and not-P. That Sheldrake could simply be wrong, even wildly wrong, but scientifically wrong nonetheless, does not seem to have been considered as even a possibility by the pro-P advocates. And yet a number of sources make this point.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You know Barney, just repeating your point over and over again... The difference is that I provide a rationale and back it up with over a dozen sources, whereas you back up your statement by insulting my intelligence. --Iantresman (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Iantresman (talk · contribs). I really don't want to repeat myself but some people are clearly incapable of understanding the first, second, or indeed third time. Your intelligence is very good - you are very capable of misrepresenting and creatively interpreting sources. That requires some intelligence. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I need you to walk me through this Barney the barney barney (talk), because I am not seeing the common sense you suggest. You say: There is no OR going on, only WP:COMMONSENSE (from some of us at least). It doesn't appear your being forthcoming here and let me explain why it looks that way. Using the latest source as an example. Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He not only says Sheldrake is a well known biologist, but that his work needs to be reconsidered in addition to acknowledging that it has been peer reviewed. You ask to provide "solid sources", and if so "we'll include them". Well that's a pretty solid source. You mentioned this source should be dismissed because he is professor of ecology, failing to mention he is professor emeritus of ecology AND evolutionary biology. Why should this source not be considered again? And since this, like a number of other sources, conflict with other sources, why is it we should only consider one batch and not the other? Doesn't common sense suggest that to say neutral, we must provide both? I'm failing to see your argument here, but if you provide one, especially one that I cannot refute, I'll be happy to accept your claim. Philosophyfellow (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Barney the barney barney (talk) - I am still waiting an answer to my query above. This is a very relevant question and without a proper answer that is consistent, there is no support for your editing decisions. Why are you rejecting Marc Bekoff as a reliable source when he is professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology? Is it because we have conflicting sources and Wikipedia policy is clear how to approach this issue and you're uncomfortable with the outcome? Please, a reasoned argument supported with sources only. No ad hom, no references Fringe, no opinions and no interpretations. Straight answers only. Thank you. Philosophyfellow (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Berkoff is a good source and should be included. Note however what he says - he says that Sheldrake's ideas "deserve more attention" rather than "Sheldrake is right". We can include that. he also says that "Sheldrake is publishing in peer-reviewed journals" - this is plainly not true, so it does present more of a problem with how to deal with it. I wonder why Berkoff himself isn't doing any MR-related experiments? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again you display your ignorance of the subject at hand. Since 2000 Sheldrake has published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Theoretical Biology Forum, Anthrozoos, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, Psychological Reports, Perceptual and Motor Skills and Journal of Parapsychology. All are peer reviewed. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney the barney barney (talk). Thank you for identifying Berkoff is a qualified source for use in this article. Now that we have qualified sources and valid academic peer reviewed journals that publish the research of a *known* biologist which is supported by primary and secondary sources, I assume this matter is now resolved. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, dilemma but those sources are clearly from pseudojournals (i.e. not peer reviewed). But now what do we do? Do we go with the opinion of misguided scientist, or do we go with that as you suggest, or do we apply WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMONSENSE? We cannot present this as fact, especially since we have another source (Rutherford) who points out that he hasn't published his work in peer reviewed journals. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)