![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 |
Here is an article about Robert Lanza:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,72910-0.html?tw=wn_index_23
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.236.3 ( talk) 13:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The wp:criticism article is not a rule to be enforced, but simply a guide... it may be that the criticism section should stay. In any event, please stop stomping one another's edits and talk. - sinneed ( talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
At the top of the article, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." - sinneed ( talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Now, beyond that, you are as a group wp:edit warring. Rather than tossing out one another's work, please consider integrating the too-long quotes into the section on Biocentrism. - sinneed ( talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Please consider and discuss compromise that might meet the requirements of the various editors.
I don't agree with a philosophy that says one must *always* balance a discourse with 2 for, 2 against, etc ,etc... There is such a thing as one side prevailing in an argument when it has the best points ... That said, I think a good balaance has now been struck with the existing "Pubs" section (although I personally would prefer that the "Criticism" section stay). (Beware edit warriors!) Dogwood123 ( talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, that didn't last long, did it.... Dogwood123 ( talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly recommend everyone give this a break - one postive quote and one negative quote. Regener ( talk) 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as the Dennett quote, it was previously pointed out that Lanza and Dennett have publicly criticized each others theories. It would be inapproapriate to quote this feud out of context (and adding that in here would be too much). This is not the place for a pissing match between different philosophies. Surely you can find other forums to get your views across (the "Robert Lanza" Wiki page is not the most suitable site for this) Regener ( talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please make proposals, offer thoughts and continue to communicate. I do think a bit more positive presentation, and perhaps NOT having the Medicine Nobel guy 1st, and a section for this issue that is clearly important at least to some WP editors. - sinneed ( talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Both the Medical Nobel and the Physics Nobel are way prestigious, no doubt, but my take would be that a Medical Nobel laureate weighing in on a matter pertaining to physics/metaphysics/cosmology could suggest someone getting out of their depth (like Lanza himself!). It has less credibility. As to finding a "positive physics opinion", good luck... That may be hard to come by. (Although there is the Johns Hopkins prof's quote about political correctness.) On blockquotes being ugly: Aesthetics will always be subjective. I rather like them. Dogwood123 ( talk) 14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Two other points on the present state of the article: (1) The 2007 "biocentrism" article is mentioned, but not the 2009 book. That should be fixed. (2) The current laconic "A says X, B says Y, & C says Z" presentation is rather stark & without context. Maybe a preliminary sentence that states that the "theory" has proven controversial could be put there... Dogwood123 ( talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The Biocentrism article itself is a mess. It goes into several definitions of the word and in a generally incoherent way. One way around this might be to create a separate article like "Biocentrism (Lanza)", but personally I don't think the concept is even notable enough to have it's own article. IMHO Lanza's "biocentrism" will soon be completely forgotten. (So why do I care so much? Got me!) Better to stick with the article on the man, who is notable (tho not for his Biocentrism concept...) Dogwood123 ( talk) 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Biocentrism - article rework. Please help. I expect to argue strongly that more bulk for Biocentrism belongs in the article, ugly or not. - sinneed ( talk) 19:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Lanza himself has submitted some images to be included in the article, but I have not added them at this time due to the full protection. I request they are added after the protection is lifted. They are saved as File:Robert Lanza.jpg and File:Robert Lanza and Barbara Walters.jpg. J Milburn ( talk) 13:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: 140.139.35.250 is hosted by "cs.detrick.army.mil" and "may be shared by multiple users" You should be aware that this computer may be a party involved in an internet harrassment case targeting Robert Lanza. Thus, this individual's neutrality is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regener ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Lanza's involvement in his own article would violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. He may also have been personally involved in the recent "edit war" over a "Criticism" section. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 13:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The COI flag went to the talk page because the article is currently locked to edits. It could go there when unlocked. Which among the several recent anon editors might be Lanza is unknown. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the COI flag says "a major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest..." I agree with your first 2 clauses, but not the last 2. The vehemence with which the anon editors (which could be one or more people) resist even well referenced, authoritative "critical" quotes (which he/they characterize unrealistically as "bashing") is very striking & strongly suggests personal bias. Lanza is now stated (above) to be aware of the article & actively providing material for it. Nothing inditable here, but I think it clearly justifies a COI flag. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
As soon as the lock comes off, I am going to put up a POV flag. I wish there were a "queue the harps and violins" flag for the serenade in the " His home life was less than the Norman Rockwell ideal." and " Like Emerson and Thoreau -- two of the greatest American Transcendentalists – Lanza’s youth was spent exploring the forested woods of Massachusetts that teemed with life. His understanding of nature began on those journeys." POV...not encyclopedic.
There is a wp:BLP violation about the daddy and sisters... no reason to think they are dead, I should think. And... what is wrong with being a gambler? POV. What is wrong with choosing not to finish US high school? POV. No wonder his critics are unhappy with the article. - sinneed ( talk) 14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am very dubious.
I fixed what I saw, and directly attributed the quote. - sinneed ( talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. BTW The ACT website even furnishes a high-resolution version of the image for download. Most scientists and institutions routinely provide permission to use headshots/pictures for scientific meetings, the media, and the public Regener ( talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC).
Something is desperately wrong when an editing war occurs, and the only result is that three (3) very negative quotes are added. So much for WIKI objectivity. WikiWatch31 ( talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Folks- I'm sure no one wants to hear this, but it may be time to step back and use some common sense. Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that an individual/s is so obsessed with adding negative after negative quotes about this guy? The escalation is ocurring because you're feeding this person. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to realize that this individual is bashing - these quotes are vicious. Wikipedia editors and administrators should be trying to prevent- not encourage- this kind of abuse from ocurring on Wikipedia. As far as the edit wars- this guy came in with his/her cannons and started blasting away, and Wiki pats him on the back. Gee, I can't imagine why that might trigger an edit war. Prosody31 ( talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No offense was intended. You are to be commended for your efforts Prosody31 ( talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You have rightly stated that “De-escalation is needed here, rather than escalation.” Administrator Tan placed a two-week “protect” on the disputed material to stop the edit war. By copying the entire disputed section involved in the edit war over to the "Biocentrism" page, it seems to bypass his intent. As someone vested with official Wikipedia authority, I’m wondering if duplication of an entire section (especially material protected on another page) is permitted under Wiki guidelines?
Also, I’m puzzled how this helps de-escalate the situation? In my eyes, this seems counter-productive and only serves to escalate the edit war to a second Wiki page. As is, one side has been rewarded with a 3-to-1 negative vs supportive quotes locked on the “Robert Lanza” page for 2-weeks. I understand how difficult your position is try to mediate between warring parties and would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to correct this situation. Thank you for considering this request and for the time you have invested helping to preserve this valuable online resource. Regener ( talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong talk page. "By copying the entire disputed section involved in the edit war over to the "Biocentrism" page" - Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. "it seems to bypass his intent." - Intent: stop edit war. "As someone vested with official Wikipedia authority," - I have no idea what you are talking about. wp:talk - Focus on the content, not the editors - firmly "I’m wondering if duplication of an entire section...is permitted" - Please cite a guideline that you are concerned about. Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. "I understand how difficult your position is try to mediate between warring parties" - I stopped mediating and started editing. I trusted that the edit war was over. Mistake. " and would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to correct this situation." - Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. - sinneed ( talk) 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
..and a rude person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.73.102 ( talk) 02:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This was posted on the “biocentrism” talk page. It may be helpful here as well, since it’s about the same section (which is caused the edit warring). Whatever the final consensus, it should probably be for both. Staff3 ( talk) 14:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
"It’s not neutral adding three quotes in a row that make biocentrism look nutty. There are LOTS of other top scholars and scientists in the world who think very highly of biocentrism. Here are just a few (I recommend the first four quotes be added for balance):
"Having interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence." - Deepak Chopra, one of the top icons of the century (2)
"It is genuinely an exciting piece of work.... The idea that consciousness creates reality has quantum support and also coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesn't really move but we do (we are the active agents), so [it is] suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality." - Ronald Green, renowned scholar, Eunice & Julian Cohen Professor, and Director of - Dartmouth College's Ethics Institute (1, 3)
"This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come." - Anthony Atala, internationally recognized scientist, W.H. Boyce Professor, and Chair and Director at Wake Forest University. (1,3)
“Reading Robert Lanza’s work is a wake-up call....” - David Thompson, astrophysicist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (3)
“I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me. The essay is definitely of the former kind.” - -R. Stephen Berry, James Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry, University of Chicago (3)
“It’s a masterpiece-truly…magnificent. Lanza is to be congratulated for a fresh and highly erudite look at the question of how perception and consciousness shape reality and common experience....his arguments [are] both convincing and challenging.” - Michael Lysaght, Professor of Medical Science and Engineering at Brown University and Director of Brown’s Center for Biomedical Engineering (3)
“Like A Brief History of Time, it is indeed stimulating and brings biology into the whole…. Most importantly, it makes you think.” - E. Donnall Thomas, 1990 Nobel Prize (3) “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University (4)
There lots of possible references, but these 5 cover all the above quotes:
1) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1933771690/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books 2) http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/health-care/dr-robert-lanza-featured-guest-deepak-chopras-sirius-xm-stars-radio/ 3) http://www.moxiestudio.com/designsamples/BenBellaBooks_Spring2009_Catalog_Final.pdf 4) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/biocentrism.pdf "
Fixed spacing - it all ran together Staff3 ( talk) 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI At last, a consensus appears to have been reached on the disputed material (all sides 'grudgingly' said it was acceptable on the Bicoentrism page). WikiWatch31 ( talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reception -
Lanza's article and book on "biocentrism" has received a mixed reception.
David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center called the “work is a wake-up call.” [10] Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine) E. Donnall Thomas stated that "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole."[11] Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science.[12] Wake Forest University scientist Anthony Atala stated "This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come."[13] But in a email message posted online, USA Today astrophysicist journalist David Linley responded to Lanza’s essay, calling it a "...vague, inarticulate metaphor..." and stating "...I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?"[14] Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, says he does not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all. He's stopping where the fun begins."[15] Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University points out that Lanza's theory is consistent with quantum mechanics, “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!” [16] Noted author Deepak Chopra stated “Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence."[17]
My apologies (didn't mean to make this two sections). WikiWatch31 ( talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tan - a consensus has been reached on the disputed material that is now holding on the "Biocentrism" page (which everyone involved in the discussion agreed). Would it be possible to lift your protect now and see if the edit war has been resolved. I think it has, but if for some reason it resumes, you can always add the protect again. WikiWatch31 ( talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As recommended, I added new section for the material related to biocentrism (which includes the consensus version reached on the “Biocentrism” page) WikiWatch31 ( talk) 17:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there has been intensive discussion on this for two weeks both on the "Robert Lanza" and "Bicoentrism" pages by dozens of people. Please do not barge in here and vandalize the page again Staff3 ( talk) 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
140.139.35.250 Please review the discusion on this on "Biocentrism" Again, please set aside any agenda - Chopra is a physician and writer (no need to start throwing adjectives around that taint him one way or the other. WikiWatch31 ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no "accusation" above. Just a calm, clear question which the editor(s) have yet to respond to. I reject the notion that I must either start a formal investigation OR keep quiet. A civil, polite query is entirely in order..... Let him/them respond. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
140.139.35.250 - this is getting silly. Question: Aren’t you and Dogwood123's (as well as others) the same person (your editing history includes very similar entries – some exactly the same)? I may be wrong as well. Staff3 ( talk) 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The reference quoted explicitly states Lindley’s position. This is how the article starts:
“Astrophysicist and science writer David Lindley's full response to Robert Lanza's article. This is an e-mail message that was sent exclusively to USA Today's Dan Vergano and is posted here with Mr. Lindley's permission: " Staff3 ( talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You may be right - after re-reading the sentence it's not clear what his exact affliation with USA Today is. However, a quick scan on Google reveals that he has spent most of his career as a writer/auhtor and or editor at various journals. For instance, The American Scientist (link: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/david-lindley) refers to him as “Astrophysicist and author” 72.165.90.110 ( talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - science writer is best. Also, the piece was never published in USA Today - however, it would indeed be corect to say "In a message posted on USAToday.com" Staff3 ( talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This was removed. I oppose that, and have restored it. The massive coverage of a very minor theory outside the man's area of expertise seems not to belong in a wp:BLP. The content is not about the man, but about a theory, and does not belong here. Adding offtopic to the section. - sinneed ( talk) 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sinneed - there have been no disputes or concerns expressed (whatsoever) for over a week. I even posted a message on the administrators page the other day asking if it was okay to remove the POV flag seeing that peace had been succesfully achieved. You are the first one - out of the blue- to suddenly have a new concern that until now had not been an issue. It seems hard to believe that after the long and hard fought consensus over this that it's being brought up now that its been resolved Regener ( talk) 13:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The POV flag is no longer relevant, unless you consider Sinneed's position a "POV." As far as the offtopic flag, biocentrism is Dr. Lanza's theory and there are 10s of thousand's of entries on "biocentrism" on Google associated with his name. So I guess it wouldn't be considered offtopic. 94.228.35.133 ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The "Biocentrism" section in the "Robert Lanza" article is definitely not "off topic". His "theory" of "biocentrism" is a big component of his public reputation and image now. He's written a book about it. It is controversial. The fact that his "biocentrism" has it's own article does not change that. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 14:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Anon is right: Is Einstein's relativity theory offtopic for a page about Albert Einstein? Is the theory of evolution offtopic for a page on Charles Darwin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.228.35.133 ( talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course biocentrism is relevant to "Robert Lanza" (it's his theory after all) 213.175.203.74 ( talk) 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Sinneed - you're all alone on this one. It's a no-brianer. It isn't even logical to say that Dr. Lanza's theory doesn't belong on a page about lanza. And over a hundred-thousand links about it on the web isn't exactly minor, regardless of any personal views you might have on the topic. Also, Lanza is a biologist, so biology is not outside his field. If you read Lanza's theory, you'll realize that the whole premise is "bio-centrism" (that biology is central). In any case, that's not really for you or I to decide here. Staff3 ( talk) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I misunderstood you (I apologize). Yes, I agree with you too much depth, but do you think you (or we - or anyone) can trim it down? I'd be happy to try, but I'm not sure I'm up for triggering any kind of a battle. Any thoughts? Staff3 ( talk) 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the "Biocentrism" section has 5 statements in favor of the concept and 3 against. If the complaint is that the section is too long, I would be OK with taking 2 of the "pro" statements away (making it 3 vs 3). I would NOT be OK taking the Krauss, Lindley or Dennett statements out. Chopra would be a good candidate for removal. (I even say that knowing that taking him out would actually strengthen Lanza's arguements, since he [Chopra] is a well known "flake" with essentially no scientific credibility, despite his popularity on Oprah, etc...) Henry would also be a good candidate. He has some academic credibility by virtue of his position, but his statements are rather frothing-at-the-mouth... If taking out 2 is not acceptable, I think we are stuck.... 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 15:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
At this point there is peace - I highly recommend we leave it that way. There are already three very negative quotes (which is excessive). Staff3 ( talk) 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I see there are much bigger fights going on over the content on this page, but it is worth noting that both of the "citations" that supposedly support the claim that Lanza is a "leading" scientist are links to descriptions that Lanza wrote himself. I don't know what the hell "leading" scientist is supposed to mean in the first place, but if it has any significance at all surely one does not become a "leading" scientist just because one says so oneself. The description "leading" scientist should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.61.7 ( talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The opening to the "Books" section reads: "Lanza has authored articles and books on topics involving tissue engineering, cloning, stem cells, and world health, including the Handbook of Stem Cells and Essentials of Stem Cell Biology...." Actually, most of the books listed (including Handbook of Stem Cells) are collections of essays that Lanza co-edited. He is the "author" of very little material on the list. I recommend either (a) dividing the list of books into two parts: one described as "Books Authored" and one as "Books Co-Edited" or (b) changing the intro to the list to read "Lanza has authored articles and books and co-edited collections of essays on topics involving...." Either would be an improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.49.178 ( talk) 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The following accounts, which have edited as single-purpose accounts on this article and the related biocentrism (cosmology) page, have all been identified and blocked as sockpuppets of a single user:
Editors are advised to check the contributions of each of these accounts, and IPs possibly related to them, for neutrality issues, and watch out for any new socks that may yet appear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Also:
- Sinneed 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I cut: He believes that stem cell technology will have a substantial importance in the future of medicine. [1] According to Discover magazine, “Lanza’s single-minded quest to usher in this new age has paid dividends in scientific insights and groundbreaking discoveries.” [2]
Maybe it belongs in "Awards and accolades" or some such, but I don't see it, and I really don't see how it belongs in the stem cell work. I won't cut it again, but I would love to understand how it improves the encyclopedia article.- Sinneed 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Note:
(outdent) I revisited this after some time to find her red link gone. I dug in a bit and sourced the awards listed to support the "numerous awards" statement. One is from Wired, one is from the no-artcile "Mass High Tech" weekly. Sourced the 2006 MHT award to MHT, dropped red link for the never-going-to-have-an article Rave Award. Re-added the red link for the editorial writer, briefly. I expect to kill this bit of personal opinion by a journalist unless someone argues it belongs.- Sinneed 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
((OUTDENT)) I just checked the
Biocentrism (cosmology) page to see what dispute you were talking about, and it seems pretty clear to me that you are right and Peter Grey is wrong. I also see that Jordgette has weighed in on your side. Without an additional editor voicing an opinion you just have disagreement, and the potential for an edit war. Yes, this article is "stable" in the sense that it is not undergoing rapid change, but it is not "stable" in the sense that there is an agreed equilibrium point, if you will. How about we just wait until the end of the day to see if FP@S or someone else comes by to offer a third opinion? That's what I plan to do now.
142 and 99 (
talk)
15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Discover magazine senior editor interviewed Lanza in 2008, and wrote “Lanza’s single-minded quest to usher in this new age has paid dividends in scientific insights and groundbreaking discoveries.”
![]() |
I'm not an expert on stem cells or Robert Lanza. I've never edited this article. I'm not here to judge, I'm just here to help. I'm assuming the issue is inclusion of this quote in the "awards and commentary" section " Pamela Weintraub, Discover magazine senior editor interviewed Lanza in 2008, and wrote “Lanza’s single-minded quest to usher in this new age has paid dividends in scientific insights and groundbreaking discoveries.." The quote is properly referenced, and it is indisputable that she said it. However, the fact she said it adds nothing to the article, and neither does the quote itself. See Wikipedia:Peacock#Exception_for_quotations for criteria on adding quotes using "peacock" terms. Such indirect or direct quotations may be useful in presenting important perspectives, especially on contentious subjects, or in summarizing a widely held view. This particular quote neither adds perspective on a contentious subject, nor does it summarize a widely held view. Weintraub's comment does not appear to be particularly notable. She is, as has been mentioned, a journalist and editor. Her comment is given as an introduction to an interview. And just as "glowing introductions" for speakers at conferences are not particularly notable, neither are introductions to interviews. I would leave it out.— Work permit ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
Well, I disagree with the verdict, but the process has properly been followed, so the result should stand. I'll make the edit myself.
142 and 99 (
talk)
00:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is too much bulk and way too much quoting. The theory has its very own article, now. I propose to drastically shorten the coverage here, dropping all the feedback, leaving the sources, and just saying something to the effect that reception has been mixed. If that is objectionable, how about 2 very brief summaries of the pro and con, with no quotes? - Sinneed 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
:: "Making deletions recommended in January on talk page" - No, you didn't. You just cut out all the opposition. -
Sinneed 18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) My bad. Sorry. But no. -
Sinneed
18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Citation 34 is a dead link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.78.110 ( talk) 02:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This article looks vandalized -- Lanza was mentored by B.F. Skinner and Jonas Salk??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.56.72 ( talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, Mr. Lanza thinks that energy is measured in Watts, see [1]. In my country people who believe that cannot not properly graduate high school. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Think of the 20-watts of energy as simply holo-projecting either this or that result onto a screen. ... I thought about the 20-watts of energy, and about experiments that show a single particle can pass through two holes at the same time. ... Whether it’s flipping the switch for the Science experiment, or turning the driving wheel ever so slightly this way or that way on black-ice, it’s the 20-watts of energy that will experience the result.
— Robert Lanza, Does Death Exist? New Theory Says ‘No’
The debunkers blog article has been reposted at http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4769-biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanza-39-s-notion-of-a-conscious-universe , therefore it should be considered a reliable source snd notable criticism, since it bears the stamp of approval of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Robert Lanza. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, so we have four different versions of this content
In 2007, Lanza's article titled "A New Theory of the Universe" appeared in The American Scholar. [3] The essay addressed Lanza's idea of biocentric universe, which places biology above the other sciences. [4] [5] [6] Lanza's book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe followed in 2009, co-written with Bob Berman. [7]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Lanza, with Bob Berman, has published ideas about a "biocentric universe." [1] [2] The ideas are based on the anthropic principle, and hold that time and space are products of human consciousness. [3] Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated, “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science." [3] Daniel Dennett said that he did not believe that the idea meets the criteria of a theory in philosophy. [3] In USA Today Online, theoretical physicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what? I [also] take issue with his views about physics." [4]
References
In 2007, Lanza's article titled "A New Theory of the Universe" appeared in The American Scholar. [1] The essay addressed Lanza's idea of a biocentric universe, which places biology above the other sciences. [2] [3] [4] Lanza's book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe followed in 2009, co-written with Bob Berman. [5] Reception for Lanza's hypothesis has been mixed. [6]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Lanza, with Bob Berman, has published ideas about a "biocentric universe." [1] [2] The idea sees biology as the central driving science in the universe, and an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology. Lanza believes that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos—consciousness creates the universe rather than the other way around. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, Lanza claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything. [3] Critics have questioned whether the concept is falsifiable, which can raise questions whether it falls more in the range of science or pseudoscience. Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory. [4]
Lanza claims that biological observers actually create the arrow of time. [5] In 2016, Lanza and Dmitriy Podolskiy published a paper in the physics journal Annalen der Physik. [6] In his papers on relativity (also published in Annalen der Physik), Einstein showed that time was relative to the observer; in their paper, Podolskiy and Lanza argue that quantum gravitational decoherence is too ineffective to guarantee the emergence of the arrow of time and the “quantum-to-classical” transition to happen at scales of physical interest. They argue that the emergence of the arrow of time is directly related to the way biological observers with memory functions process and remember information. They cite Lanza’s American Scholar paper on biocentrism, stating that the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom.
The reception to biocentrism has been mixed. [7] Physician and Nobel laureate E. Donnall Thomas said of biocentrism, "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole." [8] However, some physicists have commented that biocentrism currently does not make testable predictions. [8] Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated, “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science." [8] Daniel Dennett said that he did not believe that the idea meets the criteria of a theory in philosophy. [8] In USA Today Online, theoretical physicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what? I [also] take issue with his views about physics." [9] Stephen P. Smith conducted a review of the book, asserting that Lanza is actually describing a form of idealism. Smith found Lanza's claim that time is an illusion to be unfounded since the premise was that time was not understood fully. He concludes that, while lacking in scientific and philosophical rigor, "Lanza has a colloquial style that is typical of good popular books, and his book can be understood by non-experts". [10]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I think that is all of them. How do we adjudicate this, i wonder? Jytdog ( talk) 22:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I would be thankful if these few lines can be added to my page. There are proper sources provided. I have also requested on the talk page. And from now on will do the same by requesting edits from the talk page. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
“Lanza and his colleagues have published peer-reviewed scientific work supporting his ideas, including a paper in the same journal Einstein published his papers on relativity, showing that “quantum gravitational decoherence is too ineffective to guarantee the emergence of the arrow of time and the ‘quantum‐to‐classical’ transition to happen at scales of physical interest. The emergence of the arrow of time is directly related to the nature and properties of physical observer… in a sense, the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom.” [1] [2]
“Nathalie Cabrol, the director of the SETI Institute Carl Sagan Center, said “A biocentric ‘theory of everything’ could take life’s origins all the way back to the beginning of the universe…a paradigm shift that fundamentally changes our relationship to our planet, to our biosphere and to our universe.” [3] [4] [5] [6] LanzaRobert ( talk) 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
an over the top put-down from a skeptic who could hardly be considered neutral-- and especially inappropriate on a living person's Wikipedia page. Why would a skeptic not be considered neutral for the purposes of WP:NPOV? In fact, Novella is fairly neutral precisely because he is not connected nor does he have any disconfirming prior conflicts or relationships with Lanza/biocentrism that I've been made aware of. I don't think this is particularly harsh criticism given the context. But, more than that, it is properly attributed, so it's not being said in Wikipedia's voice thus I have a hard time understanding the problem with that source.
I assumed with good faith that the sources supported the statement; would have looked before addition. I have no reason to doubt XOR'easter (haven't looked), so getting secondary coverage of these ideas would be good. Otherwise, it might be okay to list the paper in an author bibliography, but I'd have to check MOS. Urve ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
including a paper in the same journal Einstein published his papers on relativity} This gave me a hearty laugh. So the public segment you want to reach are those who are so extremely stupid that they are impressed by contagion magic. Einstein's genius seeps into the journal, which infects Lanza! Impressive, to some people.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
See
WP:FTN. Lanza's knowledge of physics is inane, he thinks
energy is measured in
Watts. See
Talk:Robert Lanza/Archive 1#20 W of energy. Verity defense: if it's true, it ain't libel: truth is a complete defense to libel and defamation claims
[2].
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
19:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
20 Watts of power, but that does not pander the prejudices of the New Age folks. Energy could be conflated with energy (esotericism), but energy divided by time can't. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Almost no research is mentioned since 2012, which seems odd for someone of his prominence. Books published more recently seem to be theory not research. Can anyone (inc Lanza himself) provide more recent research citations, particularly in regard to stem cells, curing macular degeneration, and other breakthroughs? Surely something new after 9 years? Martindo ( talk) 12:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I am withdrawing this proposal and will start a discussion of narrower requests in a new section below Sapphire41359 ( talk) 16:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
References
He argues that the grand theories offered by physicists to explain the ‘origins of everything’ fall shortWhat are these "grand theories"? Is he referring to grand unified theory? If so, they absolutely do not fall short
because they do not take into account the essential role that biology plays in creating a conscious perception of physical reality.They fall short because there hasn't been observational confirmation of the theory yet. jps ( talk) 17:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Lanza published three books that subsequently developed his theory of biocentrismpresume that Lanza actually
developed his theory, rather than adding new vague statements on top of his old ones. Calling biocentrism a theory in the scientific sense is something we can't do in wiki-voice. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Can editors address some narrow, discrete issues rather than the proposal for a rewrite which I made above. Please note COI disclosure above.
1. I think the article at least needs an actual description of the theory which it now lacks. It is very difficult to follow what the 199-word criticism refers to absent a description of the theory (which has now been discussed in three books and two peer-reviewed physics journals. [1] [2]) The description in the current second sentence of the Wikipedia page is incomplete and does not represent the theory:
"The essay proposed Lanza's idea of a biocentric universe, which places biology above the other sciences." [3] [4] [5]
Here is a proposed second sentence with independent reliable sourcing:
Biocentrism proposes that consciousness is the basis for understanding the existence of the universe. The theory “proposes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that's separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.” [6] [7] [8]
I propose this as a starting point for discussion. Note that I have linked "conscious perception" to the article about observer effect (physics) because the two are closely related and the theory makes much more sense in relation to physics in this context.
2. I also think that it would be helpful to include the two recent papers in peer-reviewed physics journals, written with well-regarded physicists. This was suggested by jps above. Both papers discuss Lanza’s biocentrism theory. The first paper references the original article in The American Scholar [9] -- it is somewhat difficult to find because the reference only contains the title of the American Scholar and the word “biocentrism” is only in the subtitle of the original article. The original American Scholar article is in reference 41 here. [10] ("the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom (as was earlier suggested in 41)." In the second paper the authors refer to their previous paper from the Annelen der Physik (which explicitly relies on biocentrism) as reference 49. [11] [12] The second paper has recent press coverage by a science journalist in an independent media source. [3]
There is an extended discussion of theory underlying biocentrism in the Introduction:
We deem these observations generally interesting also because the described setup, quantum gravity with disorder, represents a rare case in theoretical physics when the presence of observers drastically changes behavior of observable quantities themselves not only at microscopic scales but also in the infrared limit, at very large spatio-temporal scales. Namely, in the absence of observers the background of the 3 + 1-dimensional quantum gravity remains unspecified. Once observers are introduced, coupled to the observable gravitational degrees of freedom and integrated out, the effective background of theory becomes de-Sitter like. Rather than being a fundamental constant of the theory, the characteristic curvature of effective cosmological constant is determined by the intrinsic properties of “observers” such as the strength of their coupling to gravity and distribution of observation events across the fluctuating spacetime. Physical observers thus play a critically important role for our conclusions implying a necessity of proper description of observer, observation event and interaction between observers and the observed physical system for theoretical controllability of the very physical setups being probed."
To the extent that editors think that because the papers don’t use the word “biocentrism” in the body of the texts (even though the underlying principles are discussed) that they shouldn’t be included in this section, then I propose just changing the subsection title to “Biocentrism and related papers” to account for the ongoing peer-reviewed publications of a well-known scientist, all on closely related topics. These papers are useful in allowing more academic readers to evaluate the theory and Lanza’s credentials.
3. Finally, since it seems editors would rather work to improve the current version than substitute it, I’d propose adding a new third sentence to the second paragraph from a renowned physicist, Richard Conn Henry. (From Wikipedia: “Richard Conn Henry (born 7 March 1940[1]) is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of one book and over 200 publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy including optical, radio, ultraviolet, and X-ray.”) The quality of the source is secondary to the very high quality of the expert in this case.
In a review of his book ' 'Biocentrism' ' , Johns Hopkins physicist Richard Conn Henry comments that the Lanza’s theory that the “animal observer creates reality” is “factually correct”, if not novel, and worth exploring because it’s what physicists “only whisper… in private.” [13]
The arguments against including positive quotes have been that they haven’t come from qualified physicists. It’s not an applicable argument with this physicist. Sapphire41359 ( talk) 16:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Here I critique Sapphire41359's first proposal
Biocentrism proposes that
consciousness is the basis for understanding the existence of the universe.
This is a pretty anodyne statement here that doesn't seem to add much except for the WP:ASTONISHing and hidden claim that the observer effect is based on consciousness (the observer effect can actually function without any consciousness whatsoever). If that's actually the claim that Lanza is making here, then it's related to consciousness causes collapse ideas which are maligned but, more importantly, I don't see third-party sources identifying that clearly. There is a reading of this sentence that is almost tautological. Understanding anything likely requires "consciousness". However, I imagine what is intended here is something a bit more expansive, so we will have to explain that. We have sources which talk about the primacy of biology in Lanza's proposal. We don't have sources that talk about consciousness explaining the observer effect. Unless you can find one that does so.
The theory “proposes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that's separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.”
[14]
[7]
[15]
Yuck, not particularly enthused by what is being proposed here. There is, of course, an old form of solipsism and related philosophical arguments that would align with the text itself. That's not precisely what Lanza is saying, I think. Moreover, I'm not a big fan of these sources. Paul Ratner seems to have simply accepted everything Lanza has to say at face value and not gone looking for other sources. BigThink doesn't really have a good editorial policy, after all. The Alan Boyle blog is similarly no good -- perhaps even worse from an editorial perspective though I appreciate that at the time he asked for feedback (would have been better if he had actually sought it out). Finally, I cannot get access to the Eckelbecker article.
In short, to me, this isn't that promising as an improvement.
jps ( talk) 17:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
We already link to The American Scholar piece, so I'm not sure what is being asked in that case. As for the Annelen der Physik article, I'm not opposed to mentioning that he collaborated on that, but even the quoted piece doesn't so much as define what an observer is beyond what is typically meant in QM -- that is any process which causes wavefunction collapse. Now wavefunction collapse is still debated and is mysterious, but there is nothing to preference consciousness in this mystery either in the paper itself or in general. That the paper was published seems to be a testament to the authors explicitly not drawing such conclusions. So, aside from a brief mention such as "Lanza has collaborated with physicists to publish a paper on quantum mechanics." I'm not convinced much more deserves inclusion here.
jps ( talk) 17:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm willing to concede that the lack of secondary sources make this a bridge too far. jps ( talk) 03:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
We typically do not accept stuff published in Journal of Scientific Exploration. I'm sorry. jps ( talk) 17:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
First, some unreliable sources. Unreliable sources may be useful on a talk page -- never in an article -- to help the Wikipedia editor to gain insight about a topic, but they often range from opinions to outright lies. Unreliable sources (especially using Wikipedia as a source) may also contain links to reliable sources that we can use.
Next, some primary sources written by Robert Lanza
Finally, some sources that I believe we can use per WP:PARITY:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional Reliable Sources Excerpts
Additional Unreliable Sources Excerpts
Additional works by Lanza and co-authors
I look forward to more discussion. Sapphire41359 ( talk) 17:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
His latest journal articles from 2020 and 2021 are co-authored with world renowned physicists and are in prestigious journalsThis is great, but these journal articles co-authored with Podolskiy do not actually mention "biocentrism" as a specific proposal in them. They are much more focused on certain "perhaps relevant but perhaps not" case studies. jps ( talk) 17:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: where is the the right place to post, I don't think it matters. Everyone concerned appears to be keeping up with everything written anywhere on this talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 |
Here is an article about Robert Lanza:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,72910-0.html?tw=wn_index_23
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.236.3 ( talk) 13:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The wp:criticism article is not a rule to be enforced, but simply a guide... it may be that the criticism section should stay. In any event, please stop stomping one another's edits and talk. - sinneed ( talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
At the top of the article, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." - sinneed ( talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Now, beyond that, you are as a group wp:edit warring. Rather than tossing out one another's work, please consider integrating the too-long quotes into the section on Biocentrism. - sinneed ( talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Please consider and discuss compromise that might meet the requirements of the various editors.
I don't agree with a philosophy that says one must *always* balance a discourse with 2 for, 2 against, etc ,etc... There is such a thing as one side prevailing in an argument when it has the best points ... That said, I think a good balaance has now been struck with the existing "Pubs" section (although I personally would prefer that the "Criticism" section stay). (Beware edit warriors!) Dogwood123 ( talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, that didn't last long, did it.... Dogwood123 ( talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly recommend everyone give this a break - one postive quote and one negative quote. Regener ( talk) 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as the Dennett quote, it was previously pointed out that Lanza and Dennett have publicly criticized each others theories. It would be inapproapriate to quote this feud out of context (and adding that in here would be too much). This is not the place for a pissing match between different philosophies. Surely you can find other forums to get your views across (the "Robert Lanza" Wiki page is not the most suitable site for this) Regener ( talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please make proposals, offer thoughts and continue to communicate. I do think a bit more positive presentation, and perhaps NOT having the Medicine Nobel guy 1st, and a section for this issue that is clearly important at least to some WP editors. - sinneed ( talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Both the Medical Nobel and the Physics Nobel are way prestigious, no doubt, but my take would be that a Medical Nobel laureate weighing in on a matter pertaining to physics/metaphysics/cosmology could suggest someone getting out of their depth (like Lanza himself!). It has less credibility. As to finding a "positive physics opinion", good luck... That may be hard to come by. (Although there is the Johns Hopkins prof's quote about political correctness.) On blockquotes being ugly: Aesthetics will always be subjective. I rather like them. Dogwood123 ( talk) 14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Two other points on the present state of the article: (1) The 2007 "biocentrism" article is mentioned, but not the 2009 book. That should be fixed. (2) The current laconic "A says X, B says Y, & C says Z" presentation is rather stark & without context. Maybe a preliminary sentence that states that the "theory" has proven controversial could be put there... Dogwood123 ( talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The Biocentrism article itself is a mess. It goes into several definitions of the word and in a generally incoherent way. One way around this might be to create a separate article like "Biocentrism (Lanza)", but personally I don't think the concept is even notable enough to have it's own article. IMHO Lanza's "biocentrism" will soon be completely forgotten. (So why do I care so much? Got me!) Better to stick with the article on the man, who is notable (tho not for his Biocentrism concept...) Dogwood123 ( talk) 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Biocentrism - article rework. Please help. I expect to argue strongly that more bulk for Biocentrism belongs in the article, ugly or not. - sinneed ( talk) 19:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Lanza himself has submitted some images to be included in the article, but I have not added them at this time due to the full protection. I request they are added after the protection is lifted. They are saved as File:Robert Lanza.jpg and File:Robert Lanza and Barbara Walters.jpg. J Milburn ( talk) 13:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: 140.139.35.250 is hosted by "cs.detrick.army.mil" and "may be shared by multiple users" You should be aware that this computer may be a party involved in an internet harrassment case targeting Robert Lanza. Thus, this individual's neutrality is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regener ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Lanza's involvement in his own article would violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. He may also have been personally involved in the recent "edit war" over a "Criticism" section. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 13:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The COI flag went to the talk page because the article is currently locked to edits. It could go there when unlocked. Which among the several recent anon editors might be Lanza is unknown. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the COI flag says "a major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest..." I agree with your first 2 clauses, but not the last 2. The vehemence with which the anon editors (which could be one or more people) resist even well referenced, authoritative "critical" quotes (which he/they characterize unrealistically as "bashing") is very striking & strongly suggests personal bias. Lanza is now stated (above) to be aware of the article & actively providing material for it. Nothing inditable here, but I think it clearly justifies a COI flag. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
As soon as the lock comes off, I am going to put up a POV flag. I wish there were a "queue the harps and violins" flag for the serenade in the " His home life was less than the Norman Rockwell ideal." and " Like Emerson and Thoreau -- two of the greatest American Transcendentalists – Lanza’s youth was spent exploring the forested woods of Massachusetts that teemed with life. His understanding of nature began on those journeys." POV...not encyclopedic.
There is a wp:BLP violation about the daddy and sisters... no reason to think they are dead, I should think. And... what is wrong with being a gambler? POV. What is wrong with choosing not to finish US high school? POV. No wonder his critics are unhappy with the article. - sinneed ( talk) 14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am very dubious.
I fixed what I saw, and directly attributed the quote. - sinneed ( talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. BTW The ACT website even furnishes a high-resolution version of the image for download. Most scientists and institutions routinely provide permission to use headshots/pictures for scientific meetings, the media, and the public Regener ( talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC).
Something is desperately wrong when an editing war occurs, and the only result is that three (3) very negative quotes are added. So much for WIKI objectivity. WikiWatch31 ( talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Folks- I'm sure no one wants to hear this, but it may be time to step back and use some common sense. Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that an individual/s is so obsessed with adding negative after negative quotes about this guy? The escalation is ocurring because you're feeding this person. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to realize that this individual is bashing - these quotes are vicious. Wikipedia editors and administrators should be trying to prevent- not encourage- this kind of abuse from ocurring on Wikipedia. As far as the edit wars- this guy came in with his/her cannons and started blasting away, and Wiki pats him on the back. Gee, I can't imagine why that might trigger an edit war. Prosody31 ( talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No offense was intended. You are to be commended for your efforts Prosody31 ( talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You have rightly stated that “De-escalation is needed here, rather than escalation.” Administrator Tan placed a two-week “protect” on the disputed material to stop the edit war. By copying the entire disputed section involved in the edit war over to the "Biocentrism" page, it seems to bypass his intent. As someone vested with official Wikipedia authority, I’m wondering if duplication of an entire section (especially material protected on another page) is permitted under Wiki guidelines?
Also, I’m puzzled how this helps de-escalate the situation? In my eyes, this seems counter-productive and only serves to escalate the edit war to a second Wiki page. As is, one side has been rewarded with a 3-to-1 negative vs supportive quotes locked on the “Robert Lanza” page for 2-weeks. I understand how difficult your position is try to mediate between warring parties and would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to correct this situation. Thank you for considering this request and for the time you have invested helping to preserve this valuable online resource. Regener ( talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong talk page. "By copying the entire disputed section involved in the edit war over to the "Biocentrism" page" - Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. "it seems to bypass his intent." - Intent: stop edit war. "As someone vested with official Wikipedia authority," - I have no idea what you are talking about. wp:talk - Focus on the content, not the editors - firmly "I’m wondering if duplication of an entire section...is permitted" - Please cite a guideline that you are concerned about. Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. "I understand how difficult your position is try to mediate between warring parties" - I stopped mediating and started editing. I trusted that the edit war was over. Mistake. " and would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to correct this situation." - Please join the discussion there if interested. Please see wp:talk. - sinneed ( talk) 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
..and a rude person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.73.102 ( talk) 02:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This was posted on the “biocentrism” talk page. It may be helpful here as well, since it’s about the same section (which is caused the edit warring). Whatever the final consensus, it should probably be for both. Staff3 ( talk) 14:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
"It’s not neutral adding three quotes in a row that make biocentrism look nutty. There are LOTS of other top scholars and scientists in the world who think very highly of biocentrism. Here are just a few (I recommend the first four quotes be added for balance):
"Having interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence." - Deepak Chopra, one of the top icons of the century (2)
"It is genuinely an exciting piece of work.... The idea that consciousness creates reality has quantum support and also coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesn't really move but we do (we are the active agents), so [it is] suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality." - Ronald Green, renowned scholar, Eunice & Julian Cohen Professor, and Director of - Dartmouth College's Ethics Institute (1, 3)
"This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come." - Anthony Atala, internationally recognized scientist, W.H. Boyce Professor, and Chair and Director at Wake Forest University. (1,3)
“Reading Robert Lanza’s work is a wake-up call....” - David Thompson, astrophysicist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (3)
“I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me. The essay is definitely of the former kind.” - -R. Stephen Berry, James Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry, University of Chicago (3)
“It’s a masterpiece-truly…magnificent. Lanza is to be congratulated for a fresh and highly erudite look at the question of how perception and consciousness shape reality and common experience....his arguments [are] both convincing and challenging.” - Michael Lysaght, Professor of Medical Science and Engineering at Brown University and Director of Brown’s Center for Biomedical Engineering (3)
“Like A Brief History of Time, it is indeed stimulating and brings biology into the whole…. Most importantly, it makes you think.” - E. Donnall Thomas, 1990 Nobel Prize (3) “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University (4)
There lots of possible references, but these 5 cover all the above quotes:
1) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1933771690/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books 2) http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/health-care/dr-robert-lanza-featured-guest-deepak-chopras-sirius-xm-stars-radio/ 3) http://www.moxiestudio.com/designsamples/BenBellaBooks_Spring2009_Catalog_Final.pdf 4) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/biocentrism.pdf "
Fixed spacing - it all ran together Staff3 ( talk) 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI At last, a consensus appears to have been reached on the disputed material (all sides 'grudgingly' said it was acceptable on the Bicoentrism page). WikiWatch31 ( talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reception -
Lanza's article and book on "biocentrism" has received a mixed reception.
David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center called the “work is a wake-up call.” [10] Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine) E. Donnall Thomas stated that "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole."[11] Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science.[12] Wake Forest University scientist Anthony Atala stated "This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come."[13] But in a email message posted online, USA Today astrophysicist journalist David Linley responded to Lanza’s essay, calling it a "...vague, inarticulate metaphor..." and stating "...I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?"[14] Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, says he does not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all. He's stopping where the fun begins."[15] Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University points out that Lanza's theory is consistent with quantum mechanics, “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!” [16] Noted author Deepak Chopra stated “Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence."[17]
My apologies (didn't mean to make this two sections). WikiWatch31 ( talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tan - a consensus has been reached on the disputed material that is now holding on the "Biocentrism" page (which everyone involved in the discussion agreed). Would it be possible to lift your protect now and see if the edit war has been resolved. I think it has, but if for some reason it resumes, you can always add the protect again. WikiWatch31 ( talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As recommended, I added new section for the material related to biocentrism (which includes the consensus version reached on the “Biocentrism” page) WikiWatch31 ( talk) 17:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there has been intensive discussion on this for two weeks both on the "Robert Lanza" and "Bicoentrism" pages by dozens of people. Please do not barge in here and vandalize the page again Staff3 ( talk) 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
140.139.35.250 Please review the discusion on this on "Biocentrism" Again, please set aside any agenda - Chopra is a physician and writer (no need to start throwing adjectives around that taint him one way or the other. WikiWatch31 ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no "accusation" above. Just a calm, clear question which the editor(s) have yet to respond to. I reject the notion that I must either start a formal investigation OR keep quiet. A civil, polite query is entirely in order..... Let him/them respond. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
140.139.35.250 - this is getting silly. Question: Aren’t you and Dogwood123's (as well as others) the same person (your editing history includes very similar entries – some exactly the same)? I may be wrong as well. Staff3 ( talk) 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The reference quoted explicitly states Lindley’s position. This is how the article starts:
“Astrophysicist and science writer David Lindley's full response to Robert Lanza's article. This is an e-mail message that was sent exclusively to USA Today's Dan Vergano and is posted here with Mr. Lindley's permission: " Staff3 ( talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You may be right - after re-reading the sentence it's not clear what his exact affliation with USA Today is. However, a quick scan on Google reveals that he has spent most of his career as a writer/auhtor and or editor at various journals. For instance, The American Scientist (link: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/david-lindley) refers to him as “Astrophysicist and author” 72.165.90.110 ( talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - science writer is best. Also, the piece was never published in USA Today - however, it would indeed be corect to say "In a message posted on USAToday.com" Staff3 ( talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This was removed. I oppose that, and have restored it. The massive coverage of a very minor theory outside the man's area of expertise seems not to belong in a wp:BLP. The content is not about the man, but about a theory, and does not belong here. Adding offtopic to the section. - sinneed ( talk) 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sinneed - there have been no disputes or concerns expressed (whatsoever) for over a week. I even posted a message on the administrators page the other day asking if it was okay to remove the POV flag seeing that peace had been succesfully achieved. You are the first one - out of the blue- to suddenly have a new concern that until now had not been an issue. It seems hard to believe that after the long and hard fought consensus over this that it's being brought up now that its been resolved Regener ( talk) 13:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The POV flag is no longer relevant, unless you consider Sinneed's position a "POV." As far as the offtopic flag, biocentrism is Dr. Lanza's theory and there are 10s of thousand's of entries on "biocentrism" on Google associated with his name. So I guess it wouldn't be considered offtopic. 94.228.35.133 ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The "Biocentrism" section in the "Robert Lanza" article is definitely not "off topic". His "theory" of "biocentrism" is a big component of his public reputation and image now. He's written a book about it. It is controversial. The fact that his "biocentrism" has it's own article does not change that. 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 14:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Anon is right: Is Einstein's relativity theory offtopic for a page about Albert Einstein? Is the theory of evolution offtopic for a page on Charles Darwin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.228.35.133 ( talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course biocentrism is relevant to "Robert Lanza" (it's his theory after all) 213.175.203.74 ( talk) 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Sinneed - you're all alone on this one. It's a no-brianer. It isn't even logical to say that Dr. Lanza's theory doesn't belong on a page about lanza. And over a hundred-thousand links about it on the web isn't exactly minor, regardless of any personal views you might have on the topic. Also, Lanza is a biologist, so biology is not outside his field. If you read Lanza's theory, you'll realize that the whole premise is "bio-centrism" (that biology is central). In any case, that's not really for you or I to decide here. Staff3 ( talk) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I misunderstood you (I apologize). Yes, I agree with you too much depth, but do you think you (or we - or anyone) can trim it down? I'd be happy to try, but I'm not sure I'm up for triggering any kind of a battle. Any thoughts? Staff3 ( talk) 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the "Biocentrism" section has 5 statements in favor of the concept and 3 against. If the complaint is that the section is too long, I would be OK with taking 2 of the "pro" statements away (making it 3 vs 3). I would NOT be OK taking the Krauss, Lindley or Dennett statements out. Chopra would be a good candidate for removal. (I even say that knowing that taking him out would actually strengthen Lanza's arguements, since he [Chopra] is a well known "flake" with essentially no scientific credibility, despite his popularity on Oprah, etc...) Henry would also be a good candidate. He has some academic credibility by virtue of his position, but his statements are rather frothing-at-the-mouth... If taking out 2 is not acceptable, I think we are stuck.... 140.139.35.250 ( talk) 15:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
At this point there is peace - I highly recommend we leave it that way. There are already three very negative quotes (which is excessive). Staff3 ( talk) 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I see there are much bigger fights going on over the content on this page, but it is worth noting that both of the "citations" that supposedly support the claim that Lanza is a "leading" scientist are links to descriptions that Lanza wrote himself. I don't know what the hell "leading" scientist is supposed to mean in the first place, but if it has any significance at all surely one does not become a "leading" scientist just because one says so oneself. The description "leading" scientist should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.61.7 ( talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The opening to the "Books" section reads: "Lanza has authored articles and books on topics involving tissue engineering, cloning, stem cells, and world health, including the Handbook of Stem Cells and Essentials of Stem Cell Biology...." Actually, most of the books listed (including Handbook of Stem Cells) are collections of essays that Lanza co-edited. He is the "author" of very little material on the list. I recommend either (a) dividing the list of books into two parts: one described as "Books Authored" and one as "Books Co-Edited" or (b) changing the intro to the list to read "Lanza has authored articles and books and co-edited collections of essays on topics involving...." Either would be an improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.49.178 ( talk) 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The following accounts, which have edited as single-purpose accounts on this article and the related biocentrism (cosmology) page, have all been identified and blocked as sockpuppets of a single user:
Editors are advised to check the contributions of each of these accounts, and IPs possibly related to them, for neutrality issues, and watch out for any new socks that may yet appear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Also:
- Sinneed 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I cut: He believes that stem cell technology will have a substantial importance in the future of medicine. [1] According to Discover magazine, “Lanza’s single-minded quest to usher in this new age has paid dividends in scientific insights and groundbreaking discoveries.” [2]
Maybe it belongs in "Awards and accolades" or some such, but I don't see it, and I really don't see how it belongs in the stem cell work. I won't cut it again, but I would love to understand how it improves the encyclopedia article.- Sinneed 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Note:
(outdent) I revisited this after some time to find her red link gone. I dug in a bit and sourced the awards listed to support the "numerous awards" statement. One is from Wired, one is from the no-artcile "Mass High Tech" weekly. Sourced the 2006 MHT award to MHT, dropped red link for the never-going-to-have-an article Rave Award. Re-added the red link for the editorial writer, briefly. I expect to kill this bit of personal opinion by a journalist unless someone argues it belongs.- Sinneed 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
((OUTDENT)) I just checked the
Biocentrism (cosmology) page to see what dispute you were talking about, and it seems pretty clear to me that you are right and Peter Grey is wrong. I also see that Jordgette has weighed in on your side. Without an additional editor voicing an opinion you just have disagreement, and the potential for an edit war. Yes, this article is "stable" in the sense that it is not undergoing rapid change, but it is not "stable" in the sense that there is an agreed equilibrium point, if you will. How about we just wait until the end of the day to see if FP@S or someone else comes by to offer a third opinion? That's what I plan to do now.
142 and 99 (
talk)
15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Discover magazine senior editor interviewed Lanza in 2008, and wrote “Lanza’s single-minded quest to usher in this new age has paid dividends in scientific insights and groundbreaking discoveries.”
![]() |
I'm not an expert on stem cells or Robert Lanza. I've never edited this article. I'm not here to judge, I'm just here to help. I'm assuming the issue is inclusion of this quote in the "awards and commentary" section " Pamela Weintraub, Discover magazine senior editor interviewed Lanza in 2008, and wrote “Lanza’s single-minded quest to usher in this new age has paid dividends in scientific insights and groundbreaking discoveries.." The quote is properly referenced, and it is indisputable that she said it. However, the fact she said it adds nothing to the article, and neither does the quote itself. See Wikipedia:Peacock#Exception_for_quotations for criteria on adding quotes using "peacock" terms. Such indirect or direct quotations may be useful in presenting important perspectives, especially on contentious subjects, or in summarizing a widely held view. This particular quote neither adds perspective on a contentious subject, nor does it summarize a widely held view. Weintraub's comment does not appear to be particularly notable. She is, as has been mentioned, a journalist and editor. Her comment is given as an introduction to an interview. And just as "glowing introductions" for speakers at conferences are not particularly notable, neither are introductions to interviews. I would leave it out.— Work permit ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
Well, I disagree with the verdict, but the process has properly been followed, so the result should stand. I'll make the edit myself.
142 and 99 (
talk)
00:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is too much bulk and way too much quoting. The theory has its very own article, now. I propose to drastically shorten the coverage here, dropping all the feedback, leaving the sources, and just saying something to the effect that reception has been mixed. If that is objectionable, how about 2 very brief summaries of the pro and con, with no quotes? - Sinneed 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
:: "Making deletions recommended in January on talk page" - No, you didn't. You just cut out all the opposition. -
Sinneed 18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) My bad. Sorry. But no. -
Sinneed
18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Citation 34 is a dead link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.78.110 ( talk) 02:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This article looks vandalized -- Lanza was mentored by B.F. Skinner and Jonas Salk??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.56.72 ( talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, Mr. Lanza thinks that energy is measured in Watts, see [1]. In my country people who believe that cannot not properly graduate high school. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Think of the 20-watts of energy as simply holo-projecting either this or that result onto a screen. ... I thought about the 20-watts of energy, and about experiments that show a single particle can pass through two holes at the same time. ... Whether it’s flipping the switch for the Science experiment, or turning the driving wheel ever so slightly this way or that way on black-ice, it’s the 20-watts of energy that will experience the result.
— Robert Lanza, Does Death Exist? New Theory Says ‘No’
The debunkers blog article has been reposted at http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4769-biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanza-39-s-notion-of-a-conscious-universe , therefore it should be considered a reliable source snd notable criticism, since it bears the stamp of approval of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Robert Lanza. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, so we have four different versions of this content
In 2007, Lanza's article titled "A New Theory of the Universe" appeared in The American Scholar. [3] The essay addressed Lanza's idea of biocentric universe, which places biology above the other sciences. [4] [5] [6] Lanza's book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe followed in 2009, co-written with Bob Berman. [7]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Lanza, with Bob Berman, has published ideas about a "biocentric universe." [1] [2] The ideas are based on the anthropic principle, and hold that time and space are products of human consciousness. [3] Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated, “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science." [3] Daniel Dennett said that he did not believe that the idea meets the criteria of a theory in philosophy. [3] In USA Today Online, theoretical physicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what? I [also] take issue with his views about physics." [4]
References
In 2007, Lanza's article titled "A New Theory of the Universe" appeared in The American Scholar. [1] The essay addressed Lanza's idea of a biocentric universe, which places biology above the other sciences. [2] [3] [4] Lanza's book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe followed in 2009, co-written with Bob Berman. [5] Reception for Lanza's hypothesis has been mixed. [6]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Lanza, with Bob Berman, has published ideas about a "biocentric universe." [1] [2] The idea sees biology as the central driving science in the universe, and an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology. Lanza believes that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos—consciousness creates the universe rather than the other way around. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, Lanza claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything. [3] Critics have questioned whether the concept is falsifiable, which can raise questions whether it falls more in the range of science or pseudoscience. Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory. [4]
Lanza claims that biological observers actually create the arrow of time. [5] In 2016, Lanza and Dmitriy Podolskiy published a paper in the physics journal Annalen der Physik. [6] In his papers on relativity (also published in Annalen der Physik), Einstein showed that time was relative to the observer; in their paper, Podolskiy and Lanza argue that quantum gravitational decoherence is too ineffective to guarantee the emergence of the arrow of time and the “quantum-to-classical” transition to happen at scales of physical interest. They argue that the emergence of the arrow of time is directly related to the way biological observers with memory functions process and remember information. They cite Lanza’s American Scholar paper on biocentrism, stating that the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom.
The reception to biocentrism has been mixed. [7] Physician and Nobel laureate E. Donnall Thomas said of biocentrism, "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole." [8] However, some physicists have commented that biocentrism currently does not make testable predictions. [8] Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated, “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science." [8] Daniel Dennett said that he did not believe that the idea meets the criteria of a theory in philosophy. [8] In USA Today Online, theoretical physicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what? I [also] take issue with his views about physics." [9] Stephen P. Smith conducted a review of the book, asserting that Lanza is actually describing a form of idealism. Smith found Lanza's claim that time is an illusion to be unfounded since the premise was that time was not understood fully. He concludes that, while lacking in scientific and philosophical rigor, "Lanza has a colloquial style that is typical of good popular books, and his book can be understood by non-experts". [10]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I think that is all of them. How do we adjudicate this, i wonder? Jytdog ( talk) 22:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I would be thankful if these few lines can be added to my page. There are proper sources provided. I have also requested on the talk page. And from now on will do the same by requesting edits from the talk page. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
“Lanza and his colleagues have published peer-reviewed scientific work supporting his ideas, including a paper in the same journal Einstein published his papers on relativity, showing that “quantum gravitational decoherence is too ineffective to guarantee the emergence of the arrow of time and the ‘quantum‐to‐classical’ transition to happen at scales of physical interest. The emergence of the arrow of time is directly related to the nature and properties of physical observer… in a sense, the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom.” [1] [2]
“Nathalie Cabrol, the director of the SETI Institute Carl Sagan Center, said “A biocentric ‘theory of everything’ could take life’s origins all the way back to the beginning of the universe…a paradigm shift that fundamentally changes our relationship to our planet, to our biosphere and to our universe.” [3] [4] [5] [6] LanzaRobert ( talk) 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
an over the top put-down from a skeptic who could hardly be considered neutral-- and especially inappropriate on a living person's Wikipedia page. Why would a skeptic not be considered neutral for the purposes of WP:NPOV? In fact, Novella is fairly neutral precisely because he is not connected nor does he have any disconfirming prior conflicts or relationships with Lanza/biocentrism that I've been made aware of. I don't think this is particularly harsh criticism given the context. But, more than that, it is properly attributed, so it's not being said in Wikipedia's voice thus I have a hard time understanding the problem with that source.
I assumed with good faith that the sources supported the statement; would have looked before addition. I have no reason to doubt XOR'easter (haven't looked), so getting secondary coverage of these ideas would be good. Otherwise, it might be okay to list the paper in an author bibliography, but I'd have to check MOS. Urve ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
including a paper in the same journal Einstein published his papers on relativity} This gave me a hearty laugh. So the public segment you want to reach are those who are so extremely stupid that they are impressed by contagion magic. Einstein's genius seeps into the journal, which infects Lanza! Impressive, to some people.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
See
WP:FTN. Lanza's knowledge of physics is inane, he thinks
energy is measured in
Watts. See
Talk:Robert Lanza/Archive 1#20 W of energy. Verity defense: if it's true, it ain't libel: truth is a complete defense to libel and defamation claims
[2].
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
19:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
20 Watts of power, but that does not pander the prejudices of the New Age folks. Energy could be conflated with energy (esotericism), but energy divided by time can't. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Almost no research is mentioned since 2012, which seems odd for someone of his prominence. Books published more recently seem to be theory not research. Can anyone (inc Lanza himself) provide more recent research citations, particularly in regard to stem cells, curing macular degeneration, and other breakthroughs? Surely something new after 9 years? Martindo ( talk) 12:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I am withdrawing this proposal and will start a discussion of narrower requests in a new section below Sapphire41359 ( talk) 16:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
References
He argues that the grand theories offered by physicists to explain the ‘origins of everything’ fall shortWhat are these "grand theories"? Is he referring to grand unified theory? If so, they absolutely do not fall short
because they do not take into account the essential role that biology plays in creating a conscious perception of physical reality.They fall short because there hasn't been observational confirmation of the theory yet. jps ( talk) 17:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Lanza published three books that subsequently developed his theory of biocentrismpresume that Lanza actually
developed his theory, rather than adding new vague statements on top of his old ones. Calling biocentrism a theory in the scientific sense is something we can't do in wiki-voice. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Can editors address some narrow, discrete issues rather than the proposal for a rewrite which I made above. Please note COI disclosure above.
1. I think the article at least needs an actual description of the theory which it now lacks. It is very difficult to follow what the 199-word criticism refers to absent a description of the theory (which has now been discussed in three books and two peer-reviewed physics journals. [1] [2]) The description in the current second sentence of the Wikipedia page is incomplete and does not represent the theory:
"The essay proposed Lanza's idea of a biocentric universe, which places biology above the other sciences." [3] [4] [5]
Here is a proposed second sentence with independent reliable sourcing:
Biocentrism proposes that consciousness is the basis for understanding the existence of the universe. The theory “proposes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that's separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.” [6] [7] [8]
I propose this as a starting point for discussion. Note that I have linked "conscious perception" to the article about observer effect (physics) because the two are closely related and the theory makes much more sense in relation to physics in this context.
2. I also think that it would be helpful to include the two recent papers in peer-reviewed physics journals, written with well-regarded physicists. This was suggested by jps above. Both papers discuss Lanza’s biocentrism theory. The first paper references the original article in The American Scholar [9] -- it is somewhat difficult to find because the reference only contains the title of the American Scholar and the word “biocentrism” is only in the subtitle of the original article. The original American Scholar article is in reference 41 here. [10] ("the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom (as was earlier suggested in 41)." In the second paper the authors refer to their previous paper from the Annelen der Physik (which explicitly relies on biocentrism) as reference 49. [11] [12] The second paper has recent press coverage by a science journalist in an independent media source. [3]
There is an extended discussion of theory underlying biocentrism in the Introduction:
We deem these observations generally interesting also because the described setup, quantum gravity with disorder, represents a rare case in theoretical physics when the presence of observers drastically changes behavior of observable quantities themselves not only at microscopic scales but also in the infrared limit, at very large spatio-temporal scales. Namely, in the absence of observers the background of the 3 + 1-dimensional quantum gravity remains unspecified. Once observers are introduced, coupled to the observable gravitational degrees of freedom and integrated out, the effective background of theory becomes de-Sitter like. Rather than being a fundamental constant of the theory, the characteristic curvature of effective cosmological constant is determined by the intrinsic properties of “observers” such as the strength of their coupling to gravity and distribution of observation events across the fluctuating spacetime. Physical observers thus play a critically important role for our conclusions implying a necessity of proper description of observer, observation event and interaction between observers and the observed physical system for theoretical controllability of the very physical setups being probed."
To the extent that editors think that because the papers don’t use the word “biocentrism” in the body of the texts (even though the underlying principles are discussed) that they shouldn’t be included in this section, then I propose just changing the subsection title to “Biocentrism and related papers” to account for the ongoing peer-reviewed publications of a well-known scientist, all on closely related topics. These papers are useful in allowing more academic readers to evaluate the theory and Lanza’s credentials.
3. Finally, since it seems editors would rather work to improve the current version than substitute it, I’d propose adding a new third sentence to the second paragraph from a renowned physicist, Richard Conn Henry. (From Wikipedia: “Richard Conn Henry (born 7 March 1940[1]) is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of one book and over 200 publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy including optical, radio, ultraviolet, and X-ray.”) The quality of the source is secondary to the very high quality of the expert in this case.
In a review of his book ' 'Biocentrism' ' , Johns Hopkins physicist Richard Conn Henry comments that the Lanza’s theory that the “animal observer creates reality” is “factually correct”, if not novel, and worth exploring because it’s what physicists “only whisper… in private.” [13]
The arguments against including positive quotes have been that they haven’t come from qualified physicists. It’s not an applicable argument with this physicist. Sapphire41359 ( talk) 16:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Here I critique Sapphire41359's first proposal
Biocentrism proposes that
consciousness is the basis for understanding the existence of the universe.
This is a pretty anodyne statement here that doesn't seem to add much except for the WP:ASTONISHing and hidden claim that the observer effect is based on consciousness (the observer effect can actually function without any consciousness whatsoever). If that's actually the claim that Lanza is making here, then it's related to consciousness causes collapse ideas which are maligned but, more importantly, I don't see third-party sources identifying that clearly. There is a reading of this sentence that is almost tautological. Understanding anything likely requires "consciousness". However, I imagine what is intended here is something a bit more expansive, so we will have to explain that. We have sources which talk about the primacy of biology in Lanza's proposal. We don't have sources that talk about consciousness explaining the observer effect. Unless you can find one that does so.
The theory “proposes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that's separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.”
[14]
[7]
[15]
Yuck, not particularly enthused by what is being proposed here. There is, of course, an old form of solipsism and related philosophical arguments that would align with the text itself. That's not precisely what Lanza is saying, I think. Moreover, I'm not a big fan of these sources. Paul Ratner seems to have simply accepted everything Lanza has to say at face value and not gone looking for other sources. BigThink doesn't really have a good editorial policy, after all. The Alan Boyle blog is similarly no good -- perhaps even worse from an editorial perspective though I appreciate that at the time he asked for feedback (would have been better if he had actually sought it out). Finally, I cannot get access to the Eckelbecker article.
In short, to me, this isn't that promising as an improvement.
jps ( talk) 17:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
We already link to The American Scholar piece, so I'm not sure what is being asked in that case. As for the Annelen der Physik article, I'm not opposed to mentioning that he collaborated on that, but even the quoted piece doesn't so much as define what an observer is beyond what is typically meant in QM -- that is any process which causes wavefunction collapse. Now wavefunction collapse is still debated and is mysterious, but there is nothing to preference consciousness in this mystery either in the paper itself or in general. That the paper was published seems to be a testament to the authors explicitly not drawing such conclusions. So, aside from a brief mention such as "Lanza has collaborated with physicists to publish a paper on quantum mechanics." I'm not convinced much more deserves inclusion here.
jps ( talk) 17:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm willing to concede that the lack of secondary sources make this a bridge too far. jps ( talk) 03:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
We typically do not accept stuff published in Journal of Scientific Exploration. I'm sorry. jps ( talk) 17:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
First, some unreliable sources. Unreliable sources may be useful on a talk page -- never in an article -- to help the Wikipedia editor to gain insight about a topic, but they often range from opinions to outright lies. Unreliable sources (especially using Wikipedia as a source) may also contain links to reliable sources that we can use.
Next, some primary sources written by Robert Lanza
Finally, some sources that I believe we can use per WP:PARITY:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional Reliable Sources Excerpts
Additional Unreliable Sources Excerpts
Additional works by Lanza and co-authors
I look forward to more discussion. Sapphire41359 ( talk) 17:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
His latest journal articles from 2020 and 2021 are co-authored with world renowned physicists and are in prestigious journalsThis is great, but these journal articles co-authored with Podolskiy do not actually mention "biocentrism" as a specific proposal in them. They are much more focused on certain "perhaps relevant but perhaps not" case studies. jps ( talk) 17:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: where is the the right place to post, I don't think it matters. Everyone concerned appears to be keeping up with everything written anywhere on this talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)