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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 23 |
Has anyone actually read the source connected to this quote in the lead? This particular verbiage is in a paragraph where Sheldrake is comically remarking on how he imagines his detractors see his work. Its place here is out of context and implies this is how Sheldrake himself describes MR. If we're going to have a quote from Sheldrake about MR, it should be representative of how he describes it. Personally, I don't think we need yet another quote (we have four in just one paragraph), so I say we junk it altogether since it contributes little to explain either the hypothesis of MR or Sheldrake himself. If someone has an illuminating quote they feel is necessary to illustrate MR, I'm all ears, but this one is out of context and misleading. The Cap'n ( talk) 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"nowhere else in this article does Sheldrake describe MR as telepathic" -- this isn't true. The article says, "Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic resonance is responsible for it".
It's a simple fact that Sheldrake believes that morphic resonance is responsible for telepathy-type interconnections between organisms. Have you looked at Dogs That Know? It's all about that. I gave an example quote from the book.
Until the following blanks are filled in, I just don't have any idea what you are talking about, sorry.
The two phrases you gave aren't redundant. The first describes the reason for the second. We can leave it to the reader to puzzle, "WTF? What does telepathy have to do with it? Morphic resonance is telepathy? What?" Or we can explain it. vzaak 23:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Askahrc, you came here claiming that "telepathy-type interconnections" is misleading. It looks like you are conceding that this is not the case (otherwise, please fill in the blanks I provided above). The argument is as incomprehensible now as it was when the blocked user made it. Please don't rehash old discussions like this without good reason.
Now you have moved on to a point about redundancy. But you see, that wasn't your original claim, and had you made the redundancy point from the beginning then there wouldn't be an issue. It's perhaps the most trivial point to grace this talk page.
"Telepathy-type interconnections" is fine description appropriate for the lead, where we should elide technical details about the distinction between morphogenetic fields, morphic fields, and morphic resonance.
I have restored the quote and made a change that addresses the redundancy concern. vzaak 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The point about "telepathy" being redundant was resolved with my last edit. I didn't say it was trivial -- I said it was perhaps the most trivial point to grace this talk page. It's the kind of thing that someone just goes ahead and changes, and that is what I have done.
Deleting the essential information that connects morphic resonance to telepathy is another matter.
Regarding the blanks, the source says (bold added),
But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs.
You say "collective memories within species" is fine. So do I. It's a correct and accurate phrase. It is Sheldrake's own quote, his own characterization of the concept. So why does this not apply to the phrase immediately preceding the quote, in the same sentence?
You say "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" suggests the idea of "telepathy being the defining characteristic of MR", but I cannot see how that could possibly be true. The article says,
Conceived during Sheldrake's time at Cambridge, morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".
Nothing here suggests that telepathy is "the defining characteristic" of morphic resonance.
You can learn about morphic resonance and telepathy in Dogs That Know; I provided a quote earlier. Sheldrake believes that morphic fields extend from an organism and connect to morphic fields that extend from other organisms, i.e., "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". Like the quote "collective memories within species", the quote "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" is accurate. For purposes of the lead, it allows us to avoid getting into the details of distinguishing between morphogenetic fields, morphic fields, and morphic resonance. vzaak 03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Your argument appears to be based solely on your idea that the quote represents how others perceive morphic resonance. This is rebutted by my previous comments, particularly my last one, and I haven't seen a response to those points. The quote has been in the article for ages; instead of trying to remove it in slow-warring fashion, please use this talk page to gain consensus for removing it.
Incidentally, I would point out that the source you inserted doesn't even mention morphic resonance, making your change unsupported: morphic resonance suggests "telepathy is a natural ability of animal groups, to communicate with each other". [1] This no longer matters because the text has been removed. vzaak 14:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Although repetition should be normally eschewed, this thread has become so long that we need a wrap-up.
From what I can tell, Askahrc's arguments have been:
The quote has been in the article for seven months, save for a period of about a week when it was removed by David, though David ended up restoring the quote himself. Askahrc needs to accept the consensus and stop pounding on the issue, please.
For the purposes of the lead, the quote succinctly connects morphic resonance to telepathy-related phenomena without getting into the details of describing and differentiating between morphic fields, morphogenetic fields, and morphic resonance. It would seem difficult to do better than that. vzaak 11:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
In Rupert_Sheldrake#Debating_and_lecturing there is a paragraph about the speed of light and other constants changing, which lacks mainstream context per WP:PSCI. The only direct responses I've seen are from Sean Carroll via blogs, [9] [10] e.g.,
There are many respectable scientists (including me, or at least “as well as me”) who study the possibility that physical parameters vary with time, both theoretically and experimentally. For the most part they understand the concept of error bars, as well as how different parameters are related to each other, neither of which Sheldrake has any clue about. Life is too short.
Wikipedia has Is the fine-structure constant actually constant?, but it's not clear that Sheldrake even understands that he's talking about the fine structure constant. It's unfortunate that he received laughs when he told the audience in his TEDx talk that the speed of light was eventually fixed, as if this was some indication of "dogma".
The paragraph in question is misleading without a mainstream view, and I think it should be deleted until one is provided. vzaak 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In the third paragraph of the lead, "Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon..." is an unsupportable generalization. It is like saying the religious community or the political community. I think the term "scientific community" is used here as a means of condemning rather than explaining that there are opposing views ... as there are for virtually all theories. I really thought we settled this months ago. Tom Butler ( talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Our current reliable sources demonstrate reasonably well that there is a consensus within the greater scientific community that Morphic Resonance isn't a thing that exists. If you can demonstrate peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary from non WP:FRINGE sources please do so. And the burden falls upon all editors to assume good faith. Journals like Journal of Parapsychology are considered fringe because the data they contain regularly and consistently falls down with badly executed statistical analysis and experimental design which violates standard principles of blinded experimentation. When we talk about general scientific consensus this is what we mean. It doesn't matter if every person who calls themselves a scientist, or even every person with a PhD from an accredited institution agrees. But can we find sources that have tested this using proper rigor and found... anything? Because right now the answer to that is no. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This sentence is wrong. The entire scientific community does not make pronouncements. A better wording would be what I proposed: [11] where I wrote,
"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterized as pseudoscience."
TDA took offense, I believe, at the insinuation that the scientific community doesn't accept it as a "real phenomenon". Except that this is much closer to what they don't accept than it is to say that they "consider" it a "pseudoscience". Still, perhaps we shouldn't make pronouncement for the entire community. So, we could try this version: [12] where we simply say that "Morphic resonance has been characterized as pseudoscience by members of the scientific community in large part because there is no scientific evidence that it exists." which simply combines the next phrase into the previous one and makes it clearer that it is the members doing the characterization rather than the community itself.
We need to avoid WP:ITA problems as well as avoid sloppy writing. I prefer the second version that was written as an attempt at compromise. What do you think?
jps ( talk) 05:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The one revert rule I imposed on the article with discretionary sanctions is due to expire in the next two days. I don't think it's necessary anymore so am happy to let it expire. However I thought I'd check with the regular editors of the article... are you all happy for it to expire or would you like it to be reimposed and if so for how long? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Just noting that I've blocked jps for breaching 1RR which is still currently active and for the comment above. Regarding this discussion would the editors prefer a 1 revert per 24 hours or 1 revert per week? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright based on the discussion above all editors of this article are restricted to making 1 revert in any 24 hour period until 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC). I have reactivated the editnotice and logged it on the case page. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This article discredits its own credibility from the very first sentence.
"Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4]"
what happened to " Biologist" (PhD) ?
To Criticize one's work. is legitimate, but to "revoke" one's academic credentials to belittle him, is despicable and unacceptable LarryTheShark ( talk) 14:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw that. Thanks for saying. I've struck out the mistake I made above. My position overall still stands. It's really quite odd to put someone's primary credentials at the end of a section like that as an afterthought. It comes across as though the article is hiding his credentials and as such is a little too paranoid of giving too much credence to Sheldrake. I say let his views speak for themselves. It's wrong to hide his credentials and hiding like that will just give fuel to the idea that there is an anti-Sheldrake editorial faction rather than simply openness in the article. 49.183.3.68 ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The second and third sentences of the article bring attention to his career as a biologist in just the way you describe, it seems to me.
As with any other biography, the infobox on the right shows the PhD and the article describes the educational background, including the PhD. Roxy is kind of making a red herring out of credentials and prominence. The lead is not about listing credentials, no matter who it is and no matter how prominent. The Massimo Pigliucci article isn't is ploy to denigrate Pigluicci because the article lead fails to mention that he has three PhDs. The lead is about notability, and people aren't notable for getting PhDs. Filling the lead with credentials does not serve the reader and is not what Wikipedia is about. I haven't found any Wikipedia articles with "so-and-so has a PhD" in the lead; look at Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example.
Another aspect of this is that Wikipedia does not describe fringe views from the perspective of their adherents, but rather from the perspective of mainstream experts. This requires some judgement in identifying what is the fringe view and what is the mainstream view. Joseph Newman once garnered much attention from newspaper and televion outlets, many of which reported his claims credulously (he even made it to congress!). Wikipedia doesn't take the approach of "news guy said it, we report it". Rather, we look at what mainstream experts in the relevant field have to say about particular fringe claims.
Rupert Sheldrake holds a fringe view of what comprises biology. He believes that telepathy and morphic resonance, for instance, are part of the field of biology. When studying those topics, he believes that he is acting as a biologist. He tells the journalists that interview him that he is a biologist, and it gets reported as such. But what do mainstream experts say? They do not hold the view that dog telepathy belongs to the field of biology. They refer to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist or a pseudoscientist or, as the source in the lead says, a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. vzaak 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
49.183.3.68, in your first message you wrote, "There is no reason to remove his credentials...I'm confident people would want to know that he is a PhD in Biology at least somewhere in the article." When people use the word "credentials", they are referring to things like PhDs, just as you did. As has been covered, the PhD is already mentioned in two places in the article (the infobox and the first section), and putting it into the lead text is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia does. It is very confusing that you now seem to be using "credentials" and "title" interchangeably. As I understand your position, you want the title "biologist" to be in the first sentence instead of the second sentence, where it is now. For the sake of preventing confusion, please don't call that "credentials", just say you want the title "biologist".
The lead text brings attention to his career as a biologist in the second and third sentences, using the title "biologist". This already addresses the issue of Sheldrake's background as a scientist, and does so prominently.
It is often construed as rude when newcomers are asked to read such-and-such policy, but in this case some reading on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views really is needed. Wikipedia is not written from the perspective of fringe views. Articles must clearly distinguish the fringe view from the mainstream view; it is the job of Wikipedia editors to do that. This is not a robotic task of source counting, but requires judgement and a sense of proportion.
Dog telepathy is part of the field of biology. Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view? Sheldrake's work on morphic resonance is simply a continuation of his work at Cambridge (as he says). Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view?
The source, cited in the lead, describing Sheldrake as a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology is Nature, a prestigious scientific journal that is qualified to discern whether or not dog telepathy falls within the field of biology. See the archives for other expert mainstream sources. vzaak 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been an extremely well organized and forceful ongoing propaganda campaign here on Wikipedia against any and all scientific work (and those scientists associated with the work) regarding parapsychology or psi or however else you would like to label the phenomena. Even the very label of "pseudoscience" promotes a negative judgement on the scientific research that has been conducted in psi for many many decades now - with quite a large amount of accumulated records and evidentiary material that currently reside within a library at England's Society for Psychical Research or the American Branch SPR. Decades of publications in both societies "Proceedings", have been dutifully and ideologically ignored so that the editorial control, and the organizers of this negative propaganda (most likely fundamentalists for the Skeptics society) here on Wikipedia, would have everyone who visits these very public pages believe have no consequential value at all.
It is unfortunate, that the best and brightest of scientists (such as Rupert Sheldrake) are subject to this kind of fundamentalist assault by the Skeptic's society. It very much reminds me of the kind of persecution Copernicus and Galileo suffered, with the bitter irony that they helped free humanity from the shackles of an over-bearing mainstream church. We now have the same thing taking place, but now with an over-bearing mainstream Skeptic's society who has been given free reign to publish at will their dogma on the Wikipedia pages, while silencing or denigrating contrary views. (unsigned comment by 159.118.158.122, 00:50, April 16, 2014)
This article discredits its own credibility from the very first sentence.
"Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4]"
what happened to " Biologist" (PhD) ?
To Criticize one's work. is legitimate, but to "revoke" one's academic credentials to belittle him, is despicable and unacceptable LarryTheShark ( talk) 14:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw that. Thanks for saying. I've struck out the mistake I made above. My position overall still stands. It's really quite odd to put someone's primary credentials at the end of a section like that as an afterthought. It comes across as though the article is hiding his credentials and as such is a little too paranoid of giving too much credence to Sheldrake. I say let his views speak for themselves. It's wrong to hide his credentials and hiding like that will just give fuel to the idea that there is an anti-Sheldrake editorial faction rather than simply openness in the article. 49.183.3.68 ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The second and third sentences of the article bring attention to his career as a biologist in just the way you describe, it seems to me.
As with any other biography, the infobox on the right shows the PhD and the article describes the educational background, including the PhD. Roxy is kind of making a red herring out of credentials and prominence. The lead is not about listing credentials, no matter who it is and no matter how prominent. The Massimo Pigliucci article isn't is ploy to denigrate Pigluicci because the article lead fails to mention that he has three PhDs. The lead is about notability, and people aren't notable for getting PhDs. Filling the lead with credentials does not serve the reader and is not what Wikipedia is about. I haven't found any Wikipedia articles with "so-and-so has a PhD" in the lead; look at Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example.
Another aspect of this is that Wikipedia does not describe fringe views from the perspective of their adherents, but rather from the perspective of mainstream experts. This requires some judgement in identifying what is the fringe view and what is the mainstream view. Joseph Newman once garnered much attention from newspaper and televion outlets, many of which reported his claims credulously (he even made it to congress!). Wikipedia doesn't take the approach of "news guy said it, we report it". Rather, we look at what mainstream experts in the relevant field have to say about particular fringe claims.
Rupert Sheldrake holds a fringe view of what comprises biology. He believes that telepathy and morphic resonance, for instance, are part of the field of biology. When studying those topics, he believes that he is acting as a biologist. He tells the journalists that interview him that he is a biologist, and it gets reported as such. But what do mainstream experts say? They do not hold the view that dog telepathy belongs to the field of biology. They refer to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist or a pseudoscientist or, as the source in the lead says, a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. vzaak 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
49.183.3.68, in your first message you wrote, "There is no reason to remove his credentials...I'm confident people would want to know that he is a PhD in Biology at least somewhere in the article." When people use the word "credentials", they are referring to things like PhDs, just as you did. As has been covered, the PhD is already mentioned in two places in the article (the infobox and the first section), and putting it into the lead text is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia does. It is very confusing that you now seem to be using "credentials" and "title" interchangeably. As I understand your position, you want the title "biologist" to be in the first sentence instead of the second sentence, where it is now. For the sake of preventing confusion, please don't call that "credentials", just say you want the title "biologist".
The lead text brings attention to his career as a biologist in the second and third sentences, using the title "biologist". This already addresses the issue of Sheldrake's background as a scientist, and does so prominently.
It is often construed as rude when newcomers are asked to read such-and-such policy, but in this case some reading on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views really is needed. Wikipedia is not written from the perspective of fringe views. Articles must clearly distinguish the fringe view from the mainstream view; it is the job of Wikipedia editors to do that. This is not a robotic task of source counting, but requires judgement and a sense of proportion.
Dog telepathy is part of the field of biology. Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view? Sheldrake's work on morphic resonance is simply a continuation of his work at Cambridge (as he says). Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view?
The source, cited in the lead, describing Sheldrake as a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology is Nature, a prestigious scientific journal that is qualified to discern whether or not dog telepathy falls within the field of biology. See the archives for other expert mainstream sources. vzaak 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've found this interview to Richard Wiseman at Skeptiko.com. As I've seen that this interview is being quoted by Sheldrake to support the view that Wiseman, according to his own words, didn't really rule out telepathy. I think it may be interesting to include at "Dogs That Know Their Owners are Coming Home" both Sheldrake's claim and what Wiseman actually said, i.e. that the experiment didn't have a rigorous methodology and it gathered too few data to be conclusive, to set the record straight for people who may have heard about this. Diego ( talk) 10:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several so-called primary sources we are quoting that are also quoting us. Particularly we cite blogs that are discussing the editorial biases this page has faced. They are quoting us and we are quoting them. I cannot even be sure which came first, the writing in this article of the so-called source. This is extremely poor sourcing and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I haven't check every source. Take for example: 20. Coyne, Jerry A. (8 November 2013). "Pseudoscientist Rupert Sheldrake Is Not Being Persecuted, And Is Not Like Galileo". The New Republic. This source is basically an opinion piece about our wikipedia article. However, we are using the source to add weight in saying Sheldrake is pseudoscience. That is inappropriate sourcing. The are several others like this also. My question is how did this happen? Why would an editor add this source in the first place? To be frank. This kind of citing is rife within this article. I'll post about that separately. 49.183.5.190 ( talk) 21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Further to my post about inappropriate source material… Obviously it's hard work to bring the article to neutrality. I believe the article deserves a tag indicating that it is and has been a high conflict article. This is the truth and it is also true from the comments on the talk page that this is ongoing. We have a lot of words in the article that appear either unwarranted or simply don't make sense in the context. For instance, saying: he has primarily worked on promoting and defending his ideas relating to morphic resonance in books, articles, and public appearances. This is inflammatory language. What is he defending? If someone is attacking why isn't this mentioned before we mention Sheldrake defending? It's a mystery to the reader. It seems that saying he's defending is more intended to convey negativity about Sheldrake. Better would be, if he is really being attacked, to say who and why is attacking Sheldrake in summary. You could say "attacked by John Maddox in Nature 1981" and others. It seems very biased to characterise Sheldrake as being defensive in the absence of why. Another instance is saying: known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept This again is odd language. Firstly it is odd we say "concept" when the source material that started the entire debate in 1981, John Maddox uses the word "hypothesis". So too the repeated Nature articles and editors writing about Sheldrake also use the word "hypothesis". They also call "pseudo-science" and an "infuriating tract" etc. I have previously asked on this talk page for someone to provide a single primary source for the word "concept". I am asking again could someone please find me a source for this. Otherwise the language seems clearly fabrication by us, and is at worst derisive of Sheldrake (again BLP). Secondly regarding the quote, why are we highlighting his efforts with the word "advocating". Is he advocating his ideas excessively? Like more eagerly than any other scientist who came up with a new idea? Any more than Einstein's failed static universe theory? Einstein published repeatedly on the topic. It became a sticking point. He ultimately failed to convince. Is Sheldrake advocating more eagerly than Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis? Which is still considered pseudoscience (yet has a much more gentle and reasonable article about it than this one on Sheldrake, please read it and compare). Or compare Brian O'Leary's take on UFOs and how we write about his beliefs using very neutral language in the alternative belief section. Overall, our article is not even-handed. Really it reads as what wiki calls a coatrack article. It purports to be about Rupert Sheldrake but is really an article that labours, and drives home a single point: that Rupert Sheldrake is a isolated, disliked, unintelligent, unscientific show-pony with delusions about the world and why his work is disliked. I challenge any editor to read back to back the articles I have cited and this article. The contrast is startling. So again, I request that this article be tagged appropriately to indicate it is and has been a high conflict article. So much so, that it cannot be edited by anons. 49.183.5.190 ( talk) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) p.s. full disclosure. I am an Australian editor previously known as Metta Bubble. I realise it's contentious article. That's my request that we FULLY DISCLOSE to the readers that this is the case with an appropriate tag. I mean seriously, the article is locked. We should say so and why. 49.183.5.190 ( talk) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Rupert Sheldrake has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The paragraph
Before the publication of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Richard Wiseman, Mathew Smith, and Julie Milton independently conducted an experimental study with an allegedly telepathic dog mentioned in the book and concluded that the evidence gathered did not support telepathy. They also proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's positive conclusions involving artefacts and bias resulting from experimental design.[56][68]
is out of date.
In 2011, Wiseman posted a new article on the Jaytee controversy on his web site, in which he retreated from his claim to have refuted the data http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pets2.pdf
replace it with this:
Before the publication of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Richard Wiseman, Mathew Smith, and Julie Milton independently conducted an experimental study with an allegedly telepathic dog mentioned in the book and concluded that the evidence gathered did not support telepathy. In 2011, Wiseman posted a new article on his web site, in which he retreated from his claim to have refuted the data.[source link]
Reivanen ( talk) 11:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
He has some notability as a biologist so I'm not seeing why there is resistance to saying so, even if we have to qualify that as "biologist gone wrong" or "biologisit better known for his fringe theories." Mangoe ( talk) 13:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
This man studied biology published papers on biology and worked as one. He is a biologist. It doesn't matter whether he has gone "astray" and got issues with mainstream science later.
A studied theologist who is critical of organized religion would still be called "theologist" on wikipedia. Case in point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%BCng Of course, those articles usually aren't beleaguered by "sceptics", who are often way more fanatical than their targets of scorn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.181.209 ( talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Guy, we need to follow WP:V. You, me, and any other editor do not get to decided whether someone has written "nonsense", and further decide whether this meants we can chose to take away their academic status. This is WP:SYNTH. I suspect the other editors have read the achives, where they have seen many sources that refer to Sheldrake as a bioligist ( one set of examples), far out numbering those that suggest doubt.
We don't generally described people's academic status as "retired". eg. the following Nobel Laureates are all described as "physicists", despite all being retired [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Many haven't done any science or published any papers in decades.
Many other scientists have also published controversial material, or hold controversial views, which also has not taken away their academic status. eg. physicist Isaac Newton and his writing on the occult, physicist's William Shockley's and his views on genetics and eugenics, phyicist Philipp Lenard and his views on Jewish Science, and, physicist Brian Josephson and his views on parapsychology.
Of course we could all defer, for example, to the Society of Biology, and see how they define biologist.-- Iantresman ( talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am, really. After the frantic 18 months or so that have just gone by with this article, more than three hours have passed, there has been no edit war, no outrage, no support, no name calling, no tears, no sockpuppetry, no new SPA - nothing.
I'll say it then - It isn't a theory. it is a pseudoscientific concept. The consensus wording for the lead was hard fought, and it has held for a couple of months until today. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Rupert Sheldrake has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author, [1] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, [2] known for his proposed concept of "morphic resonance". [3] He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 [1] and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978. [4] Since leaving research biology, he has devoted his time primarily to morphic resonance, in books, articles, and public appearances.
Krisko111 ( talk) 08:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that it should be mentioned under 'In scientific and popular culture' in Richard Linklater's 2001 movie Waking Life that Sheldrake was indirectly referenced. Here is the text (from subtitle) of the Ethan Hawke character's words: „- I read an article by a biochemist. - Right. - He said when a member of a species is born...it has a billion years of memory to draw on. This is where we inherit our instincts. I like that. Like there's this telepathic thing going on that we're a part of ...whether we're conscious of it or not... That would explain these seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science and art. ...Like the same results popping up everywhere, independent of each other...” It's obvious that the referenced biochemist could only be Rupert Sheldrake, since the words related to drawing memories by a member of a species and the rest are basically Sheldrake's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 ( talk) 00:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Then it should be really fair to have Waking Life info added to the wikipedia article, under Popular Culture reference. I do think that information is important enough to be mentioned, however, since Richard Linklater is recognized as fairly significant director, and that particular film also has certain artistic and intellectual weight. For respect to Sheldrake, Linklater, and the wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 ( talk) 10:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This was never in the first sentence until last July. When it was added -- without any references -- there was suddenly a push to keep it, and then it stayed.
Either the lead should have no references (an acceptable WP practice, as long as the article body is referenced), or the lead should be fully referenced. Either way is fine with me. But a mix of referenced and unreferenced text leads to confusion.
In any case I would prefer the pre-July state, when "pseudoscientific" was not in the first sentence. It seems to me that we should first describe a fringe view and then report its mainstream reception, as indicated by WP:FRINGE. The lead already covers the pseudoscience angle. vzaak 09:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I am here to announce a direct relationship with the subject of this article as well as announce that I am representing a number of his concerns with this article, and per WP:BLP, I am here to work with the community to see if we can find a resolution to these concerns. Per Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy, I will not be making any edits to this page.
Dr. Sheldrake’s main concern is that his long history of interacting with detractors in the skeptic movement has lead to a heavy-handed influence in the lead section of his article, specifically with the continued inputting of "pseudoscience" as his main attribute in the lead section. This appears to be a result of agenda based editing and a method to frame his biography from the point of view of his critics, which is out of spirit with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. This amounts to a disproportionate focus on only the controversial positions of Dr. Sheldrake and a misrepresentation of his continuing work (he has presented half a dozen papers to peer-reviewed journals in the last few years alone).
Additionally, Dr Sheldrake is first and foremost a biologist with significant contributions in that field, and is referred to as such in mainstream coverage. Since this is confirmed by both primary and secondary sources, it is proper for an encyclopedia to list this biographical fact, in accordance with Wikipedia’s own guidelines, and not interpret his work as being devoid of his biological background. This feature is intrinsic to who Dr Sheldrake is - and without this feature the reader is missing a core aspect of why Dr Sheldrake is even controversial in the first place.
We ask respectfully that the community of editors review these concerns in a fair light, honoring the spirit of Wikipedia’s guidelines as well as the spirit of human dignity for a living person.
Below are some issues:
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] known for advocating his pseudoscientific "morphic resonance" concept.[5] He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973[3] and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978.[6] Since leaving research biology, he has devoted his time primarily to morphic resonance, in books, articles, and public appearances.
Ref 4: How does this reference support making parapsychology one of the main terms for describing Rupert Sheldrake? The article is not publicly available, and the shown text doesn’t even refer to Sheldrake as parapsychologist.
Ref 5: Pseudoscience/pseudoscientist/pseudoscientific is used nowhere in this citation, and the source simply describes his positions as controversial. It's certainly not grounds for determining what Rupert Sheldrake is "known for".
Citation Needed for the idea that Rupert Sheldrake has left biological research, and for the authoritative declaration of how he prioritizes his time.
His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect[9][10][11] as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.[12]
Ref 11: Dr. Sheldrake is not mentioned in this book at all, nor is morphic resonance. The other sources support statements about precognition and the staring effect, but remote viewing is not supported.
In light of such shaky sources for these statements, the sources supporting his position as a scientist and biologist are highly underrepresented and mitigated.
WP12345 ( talk) 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@ TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom: I see you have removed "known for" [54] from your statement added in July [55], which now reads "who advocates his pseudoscientific 'morphic resonance' concept". Yet Ref 5 used to support the statement, refers to Shedrake's "theory of morphic resonance". Do you think that your interpretation of the source satisfies WP:BLP? -- Iantresman ( talk) 23:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I have copied the issues identified into separate sections below so individual discussions can take place with less clutter and confusion. I think i got them all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Ref 11: Dr. Sheldrake is not mentioned in this book at all, nor is morphic resonance. The other sources support statements about precognition and the staring effect, but remote viewing is not supported.}}
The most prominent and active advocate of the sense of being stared at is Rupert Sheldrake, who proposes that this ability reflects a new scientific theory of disembodied minds extending out beyond the physical body to connect together. I regard this as an idea originating from the dualism of mind and body that we discussed earlier, but such a notion has been rejected by conventional science. Undaunted by “scientific vigilantes,” Sheldrake proposes that the sense of being stared at and other aspects of paranormal ability, such as telepathy and knowing about events in the future before they happen, are all evidence for a new field theory that he calls “morphic resonance.” ... The trouble is that, whereas electric and magnetic fields are easily measurable and obey laws, morphic resonance remains elusive and has no demonstrable laws. No other area of science would accept such lawless, weak evidence as proof, which is why the majority of the scientific community has generally dismissed this theory and the evidence. However, this has had little influence on the general public’s opinion.
This source clarifies that Sheldrake is a proponent of the psychic starring effect, precognition and telepathy and the scientific community have dismissed his claims. As for remote viewing, this should be removed. Goblin Face ( talk) 11:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Update - I noticed Hood is already cited on the article, but we can use the source in the lead if needed in regards to Sheldrake's endorsement of psychic starring effect and precognition. Goblin Face ( talk) 11:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this section should be expanded. Here's one that could be added [60] Goblin Face ( talk) 12:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
TimAdams
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).whitfield
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).tedblog
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).chaos
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 23 |
Has anyone actually read the source connected to this quote in the lead? This particular verbiage is in a paragraph where Sheldrake is comically remarking on how he imagines his detractors see his work. Its place here is out of context and implies this is how Sheldrake himself describes MR. If we're going to have a quote from Sheldrake about MR, it should be representative of how he describes it. Personally, I don't think we need yet another quote (we have four in just one paragraph), so I say we junk it altogether since it contributes little to explain either the hypothesis of MR or Sheldrake himself. If someone has an illuminating quote they feel is necessary to illustrate MR, I'm all ears, but this one is out of context and misleading. The Cap'n ( talk) 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"nowhere else in this article does Sheldrake describe MR as telepathic" -- this isn't true. The article says, "Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic resonance is responsible for it".
It's a simple fact that Sheldrake believes that morphic resonance is responsible for telepathy-type interconnections between organisms. Have you looked at Dogs That Know? It's all about that. I gave an example quote from the book.
Until the following blanks are filled in, I just don't have any idea what you are talking about, sorry.
The two phrases you gave aren't redundant. The first describes the reason for the second. We can leave it to the reader to puzzle, "WTF? What does telepathy have to do with it? Morphic resonance is telepathy? What?" Or we can explain it. vzaak 23:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Askahrc, you came here claiming that "telepathy-type interconnections" is misleading. It looks like you are conceding that this is not the case (otherwise, please fill in the blanks I provided above). The argument is as incomprehensible now as it was when the blocked user made it. Please don't rehash old discussions like this without good reason.
Now you have moved on to a point about redundancy. But you see, that wasn't your original claim, and had you made the redundancy point from the beginning then there wouldn't be an issue. It's perhaps the most trivial point to grace this talk page.
"Telepathy-type interconnections" is fine description appropriate for the lead, where we should elide technical details about the distinction between morphogenetic fields, morphic fields, and morphic resonance.
I have restored the quote and made a change that addresses the redundancy concern. vzaak 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The point about "telepathy" being redundant was resolved with my last edit. I didn't say it was trivial -- I said it was perhaps the most trivial point to grace this talk page. It's the kind of thing that someone just goes ahead and changes, and that is what I have done.
Deleting the essential information that connects morphic resonance to telepathy is another matter.
Regarding the blanks, the source says (bold added),
But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs.
You say "collective memories within species" is fine. So do I. It's a correct and accurate phrase. It is Sheldrake's own quote, his own characterization of the concept. So why does this not apply to the phrase immediately preceding the quote, in the same sentence?
You say "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" suggests the idea of "telepathy being the defining characteristic of MR", but I cannot see how that could possibly be true. The article says,
Conceived during Sheldrake's time at Cambridge, morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".
Nothing here suggests that telepathy is "the defining characteristic" of morphic resonance.
You can learn about morphic resonance and telepathy in Dogs That Know; I provided a quote earlier. Sheldrake believes that morphic fields extend from an organism and connect to morphic fields that extend from other organisms, i.e., "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". Like the quote "collective memories within species", the quote "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" is accurate. For purposes of the lead, it allows us to avoid getting into the details of distinguishing between morphogenetic fields, morphic fields, and morphic resonance. vzaak 03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Your argument appears to be based solely on your idea that the quote represents how others perceive morphic resonance. This is rebutted by my previous comments, particularly my last one, and I haven't seen a response to those points. The quote has been in the article for ages; instead of trying to remove it in slow-warring fashion, please use this talk page to gain consensus for removing it.
Incidentally, I would point out that the source you inserted doesn't even mention morphic resonance, making your change unsupported: morphic resonance suggests "telepathy is a natural ability of animal groups, to communicate with each other". [1] This no longer matters because the text has been removed. vzaak 14:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Although repetition should be normally eschewed, this thread has become so long that we need a wrap-up.
From what I can tell, Askahrc's arguments have been:
The quote has been in the article for seven months, save for a period of about a week when it was removed by David, though David ended up restoring the quote himself. Askahrc needs to accept the consensus and stop pounding on the issue, please.
For the purposes of the lead, the quote succinctly connects morphic resonance to telepathy-related phenomena without getting into the details of describing and differentiating between morphic fields, morphogenetic fields, and morphic resonance. It would seem difficult to do better than that. vzaak 11:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
In Rupert_Sheldrake#Debating_and_lecturing there is a paragraph about the speed of light and other constants changing, which lacks mainstream context per WP:PSCI. The only direct responses I've seen are from Sean Carroll via blogs, [9] [10] e.g.,
There are many respectable scientists (including me, or at least “as well as me”) who study the possibility that physical parameters vary with time, both theoretically and experimentally. For the most part they understand the concept of error bars, as well as how different parameters are related to each other, neither of which Sheldrake has any clue about. Life is too short.
Wikipedia has Is the fine-structure constant actually constant?, but it's not clear that Sheldrake even understands that he's talking about the fine structure constant. It's unfortunate that he received laughs when he told the audience in his TEDx talk that the speed of light was eventually fixed, as if this was some indication of "dogma".
The paragraph in question is misleading without a mainstream view, and I think it should be deleted until one is provided. vzaak 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In the third paragraph of the lead, "Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon..." is an unsupportable generalization. It is like saying the religious community or the political community. I think the term "scientific community" is used here as a means of condemning rather than explaining that there are opposing views ... as there are for virtually all theories. I really thought we settled this months ago. Tom Butler ( talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Our current reliable sources demonstrate reasonably well that there is a consensus within the greater scientific community that Morphic Resonance isn't a thing that exists. If you can demonstrate peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary from non WP:FRINGE sources please do so. And the burden falls upon all editors to assume good faith. Journals like Journal of Parapsychology are considered fringe because the data they contain regularly and consistently falls down with badly executed statistical analysis and experimental design which violates standard principles of blinded experimentation. When we talk about general scientific consensus this is what we mean. It doesn't matter if every person who calls themselves a scientist, or even every person with a PhD from an accredited institution agrees. But can we find sources that have tested this using proper rigor and found... anything? Because right now the answer to that is no. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This sentence is wrong. The entire scientific community does not make pronouncements. A better wording would be what I proposed: [11] where I wrote,
"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterized as pseudoscience."
TDA took offense, I believe, at the insinuation that the scientific community doesn't accept it as a "real phenomenon". Except that this is much closer to what they don't accept than it is to say that they "consider" it a "pseudoscience". Still, perhaps we shouldn't make pronouncement for the entire community. So, we could try this version: [12] where we simply say that "Morphic resonance has been characterized as pseudoscience by members of the scientific community in large part because there is no scientific evidence that it exists." which simply combines the next phrase into the previous one and makes it clearer that it is the members doing the characterization rather than the community itself.
We need to avoid WP:ITA problems as well as avoid sloppy writing. I prefer the second version that was written as an attempt at compromise. What do you think?
jps ( talk) 05:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The one revert rule I imposed on the article with discretionary sanctions is due to expire in the next two days. I don't think it's necessary anymore so am happy to let it expire. However I thought I'd check with the regular editors of the article... are you all happy for it to expire or would you like it to be reimposed and if so for how long? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Just noting that I've blocked jps for breaching 1RR which is still currently active and for the comment above. Regarding this discussion would the editors prefer a 1 revert per 24 hours or 1 revert per week? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright based on the discussion above all editors of this article are restricted to making 1 revert in any 24 hour period until 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC). I have reactivated the editnotice and logged it on the case page. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This article discredits its own credibility from the very first sentence.
"Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4]"
what happened to " Biologist" (PhD) ?
To Criticize one's work. is legitimate, but to "revoke" one's academic credentials to belittle him, is despicable and unacceptable LarryTheShark ( talk) 14:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw that. Thanks for saying. I've struck out the mistake I made above. My position overall still stands. It's really quite odd to put someone's primary credentials at the end of a section like that as an afterthought. It comes across as though the article is hiding his credentials and as such is a little too paranoid of giving too much credence to Sheldrake. I say let his views speak for themselves. It's wrong to hide his credentials and hiding like that will just give fuel to the idea that there is an anti-Sheldrake editorial faction rather than simply openness in the article. 49.183.3.68 ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The second and third sentences of the article bring attention to his career as a biologist in just the way you describe, it seems to me.
As with any other biography, the infobox on the right shows the PhD and the article describes the educational background, including the PhD. Roxy is kind of making a red herring out of credentials and prominence. The lead is not about listing credentials, no matter who it is and no matter how prominent. The Massimo Pigliucci article isn't is ploy to denigrate Pigluicci because the article lead fails to mention that he has three PhDs. The lead is about notability, and people aren't notable for getting PhDs. Filling the lead with credentials does not serve the reader and is not what Wikipedia is about. I haven't found any Wikipedia articles with "so-and-so has a PhD" in the lead; look at Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example.
Another aspect of this is that Wikipedia does not describe fringe views from the perspective of their adherents, but rather from the perspective of mainstream experts. This requires some judgement in identifying what is the fringe view and what is the mainstream view. Joseph Newman once garnered much attention from newspaper and televion outlets, many of which reported his claims credulously (he even made it to congress!). Wikipedia doesn't take the approach of "news guy said it, we report it". Rather, we look at what mainstream experts in the relevant field have to say about particular fringe claims.
Rupert Sheldrake holds a fringe view of what comprises biology. He believes that telepathy and morphic resonance, for instance, are part of the field of biology. When studying those topics, he believes that he is acting as a biologist. He tells the journalists that interview him that he is a biologist, and it gets reported as such. But what do mainstream experts say? They do not hold the view that dog telepathy belongs to the field of biology. They refer to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist or a pseudoscientist or, as the source in the lead says, a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. vzaak 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
49.183.3.68, in your first message you wrote, "There is no reason to remove his credentials...I'm confident people would want to know that he is a PhD in Biology at least somewhere in the article." When people use the word "credentials", they are referring to things like PhDs, just as you did. As has been covered, the PhD is already mentioned in two places in the article (the infobox and the first section), and putting it into the lead text is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia does. It is very confusing that you now seem to be using "credentials" and "title" interchangeably. As I understand your position, you want the title "biologist" to be in the first sentence instead of the second sentence, where it is now. For the sake of preventing confusion, please don't call that "credentials", just say you want the title "biologist".
The lead text brings attention to his career as a biologist in the second and third sentences, using the title "biologist". This already addresses the issue of Sheldrake's background as a scientist, and does so prominently.
It is often construed as rude when newcomers are asked to read such-and-such policy, but in this case some reading on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views really is needed. Wikipedia is not written from the perspective of fringe views. Articles must clearly distinguish the fringe view from the mainstream view; it is the job of Wikipedia editors to do that. This is not a robotic task of source counting, but requires judgement and a sense of proportion.
Dog telepathy is part of the field of biology. Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view? Sheldrake's work on morphic resonance is simply a continuation of his work at Cambridge (as he says). Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view?
The source, cited in the lead, describing Sheldrake as a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology is Nature, a prestigious scientific journal that is qualified to discern whether or not dog telepathy falls within the field of biology. See the archives for other expert mainstream sources. vzaak 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been an extremely well organized and forceful ongoing propaganda campaign here on Wikipedia against any and all scientific work (and those scientists associated with the work) regarding parapsychology or psi or however else you would like to label the phenomena. Even the very label of "pseudoscience" promotes a negative judgement on the scientific research that has been conducted in psi for many many decades now - with quite a large amount of accumulated records and evidentiary material that currently reside within a library at England's Society for Psychical Research or the American Branch SPR. Decades of publications in both societies "Proceedings", have been dutifully and ideologically ignored so that the editorial control, and the organizers of this negative propaganda (most likely fundamentalists for the Skeptics society) here on Wikipedia, would have everyone who visits these very public pages believe have no consequential value at all.
It is unfortunate, that the best and brightest of scientists (such as Rupert Sheldrake) are subject to this kind of fundamentalist assault by the Skeptic's society. It very much reminds me of the kind of persecution Copernicus and Galileo suffered, with the bitter irony that they helped free humanity from the shackles of an over-bearing mainstream church. We now have the same thing taking place, but now with an over-bearing mainstream Skeptic's society who has been given free reign to publish at will their dogma on the Wikipedia pages, while silencing or denigrating contrary views. (unsigned comment by 159.118.158.122, 00:50, April 16, 2014)
This article discredits its own credibility from the very first sentence.
"Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4]"
what happened to " Biologist" (PhD) ?
To Criticize one's work. is legitimate, but to "revoke" one's academic credentials to belittle him, is despicable and unacceptable LarryTheShark ( talk) 14:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw that. Thanks for saying. I've struck out the mistake I made above. My position overall still stands. It's really quite odd to put someone's primary credentials at the end of a section like that as an afterthought. It comes across as though the article is hiding his credentials and as such is a little too paranoid of giving too much credence to Sheldrake. I say let his views speak for themselves. It's wrong to hide his credentials and hiding like that will just give fuel to the idea that there is an anti-Sheldrake editorial faction rather than simply openness in the article. 49.183.3.68 ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The second and third sentences of the article bring attention to his career as a biologist in just the way you describe, it seems to me.
As with any other biography, the infobox on the right shows the PhD and the article describes the educational background, including the PhD. Roxy is kind of making a red herring out of credentials and prominence. The lead is not about listing credentials, no matter who it is and no matter how prominent. The Massimo Pigliucci article isn't is ploy to denigrate Pigluicci because the article lead fails to mention that he has three PhDs. The lead is about notability, and people aren't notable for getting PhDs. Filling the lead with credentials does not serve the reader and is not what Wikipedia is about. I haven't found any Wikipedia articles with "so-and-so has a PhD" in the lead; look at Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example.
Another aspect of this is that Wikipedia does not describe fringe views from the perspective of their adherents, but rather from the perspective of mainstream experts. This requires some judgement in identifying what is the fringe view and what is the mainstream view. Joseph Newman once garnered much attention from newspaper and televion outlets, many of which reported his claims credulously (he even made it to congress!). Wikipedia doesn't take the approach of "news guy said it, we report it". Rather, we look at what mainstream experts in the relevant field have to say about particular fringe claims.
Rupert Sheldrake holds a fringe view of what comprises biology. He believes that telepathy and morphic resonance, for instance, are part of the field of biology. When studying those topics, he believes that he is acting as a biologist. He tells the journalists that interview him that he is a biologist, and it gets reported as such. But what do mainstream experts say? They do not hold the view that dog telepathy belongs to the field of biology. They refer to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist or a pseudoscientist or, as the source in the lead says, a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. vzaak 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
49.183.3.68, in your first message you wrote, "There is no reason to remove his credentials...I'm confident people would want to know that he is a PhD in Biology at least somewhere in the article." When people use the word "credentials", they are referring to things like PhDs, just as you did. As has been covered, the PhD is already mentioned in two places in the article (the infobox and the first section), and putting it into the lead text is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia does. It is very confusing that you now seem to be using "credentials" and "title" interchangeably. As I understand your position, you want the title "biologist" to be in the first sentence instead of the second sentence, where it is now. For the sake of preventing confusion, please don't call that "credentials", just say you want the title "biologist".
The lead text brings attention to his career as a biologist in the second and third sentences, using the title "biologist". This already addresses the issue of Sheldrake's background as a scientist, and does so prominently.
It is often construed as rude when newcomers are asked to read such-and-such policy, but in this case some reading on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views really is needed. Wikipedia is not written from the perspective of fringe views. Articles must clearly distinguish the fringe view from the mainstream view; it is the job of Wikipedia editors to do that. This is not a robotic task of source counting, but requires judgement and a sense of proportion.
Dog telepathy is part of the field of biology. Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view? Sheldrake's work on morphic resonance is simply a continuation of his work at Cambridge (as he says). Is that a fringe view or a mainstream view?
The source, cited in the lead, describing Sheldrake as a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology is Nature, a prestigious scientific journal that is qualified to discern whether or not dog telepathy falls within the field of biology. See the archives for other expert mainstream sources. vzaak 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've found this interview to Richard Wiseman at Skeptiko.com. As I've seen that this interview is being quoted by Sheldrake to support the view that Wiseman, according to his own words, didn't really rule out telepathy. I think it may be interesting to include at "Dogs That Know Their Owners are Coming Home" both Sheldrake's claim and what Wiseman actually said, i.e. that the experiment didn't have a rigorous methodology and it gathered too few data to be conclusive, to set the record straight for people who may have heard about this. Diego ( talk) 10:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several so-called primary sources we are quoting that are also quoting us. Particularly we cite blogs that are discussing the editorial biases this page has faced. They are quoting us and we are quoting them. I cannot even be sure which came first, the writing in this article of the so-called source. This is extremely poor sourcing and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I haven't check every source. Take for example: 20. Coyne, Jerry A. (8 November 2013). "Pseudoscientist Rupert Sheldrake Is Not Being Persecuted, And Is Not Like Galileo". The New Republic. This source is basically an opinion piece about our wikipedia article. However, we are using the source to add weight in saying Sheldrake is pseudoscience. That is inappropriate sourcing. The are several others like this also. My question is how did this happen? Why would an editor add this source in the first place? To be frank. This kind of citing is rife within this article. I'll post about that separately. 49.183.5.190 ( talk) 21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Further to my post about inappropriate source material… Obviously it's hard work to bring the article to neutrality. I believe the article deserves a tag indicating that it is and has been a high conflict article. This is the truth and it is also true from the comments on the talk page that this is ongoing. We have a lot of words in the article that appear either unwarranted or simply don't make sense in the context. For instance, saying: he has primarily worked on promoting and defending his ideas relating to morphic resonance in books, articles, and public appearances. This is inflammatory language. What is he defending? If someone is attacking why isn't this mentioned before we mention Sheldrake defending? It's a mystery to the reader. It seems that saying he's defending is more intended to convey negativity about Sheldrake. Better would be, if he is really being attacked, to say who and why is attacking Sheldrake in summary. You could say "attacked by John Maddox in Nature 1981" and others. It seems very biased to characterise Sheldrake as being defensive in the absence of why. Another instance is saying: known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept This again is odd language. Firstly it is odd we say "concept" when the source material that started the entire debate in 1981, John Maddox uses the word "hypothesis". So too the repeated Nature articles and editors writing about Sheldrake also use the word "hypothesis". They also call "pseudo-science" and an "infuriating tract" etc. I have previously asked on this talk page for someone to provide a single primary source for the word "concept". I am asking again could someone please find me a source for this. Otherwise the language seems clearly fabrication by us, and is at worst derisive of Sheldrake (again BLP). Secondly regarding the quote, why are we highlighting his efforts with the word "advocating". Is he advocating his ideas excessively? Like more eagerly than any other scientist who came up with a new idea? Any more than Einstein's failed static universe theory? Einstein published repeatedly on the topic. It became a sticking point. He ultimately failed to convince. Is Sheldrake advocating more eagerly than Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis? Which is still considered pseudoscience (yet has a much more gentle and reasonable article about it than this one on Sheldrake, please read it and compare). Or compare Brian O'Leary's take on UFOs and how we write about his beliefs using very neutral language in the alternative belief section. Overall, our article is not even-handed. Really it reads as what wiki calls a coatrack article. It purports to be about Rupert Sheldrake but is really an article that labours, and drives home a single point: that Rupert Sheldrake is a isolated, disliked, unintelligent, unscientific show-pony with delusions about the world and why his work is disliked. I challenge any editor to read back to back the articles I have cited and this article. The contrast is startling. So again, I request that this article be tagged appropriately to indicate it is and has been a high conflict article. So much so, that it cannot be edited by anons. 49.183.5.190 ( talk) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) p.s. full disclosure. I am an Australian editor previously known as Metta Bubble. I realise it's contentious article. That's my request that we FULLY DISCLOSE to the readers that this is the case with an appropriate tag. I mean seriously, the article is locked. We should say so and why. 49.183.5.190 ( talk) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Rupert Sheldrake has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The paragraph
Before the publication of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Richard Wiseman, Mathew Smith, and Julie Milton independently conducted an experimental study with an allegedly telepathic dog mentioned in the book and concluded that the evidence gathered did not support telepathy. They also proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's positive conclusions involving artefacts and bias resulting from experimental design.[56][68]
is out of date.
In 2011, Wiseman posted a new article on the Jaytee controversy on his web site, in which he retreated from his claim to have refuted the data http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pets2.pdf
replace it with this:
Before the publication of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Richard Wiseman, Mathew Smith, and Julie Milton independently conducted an experimental study with an allegedly telepathic dog mentioned in the book and concluded that the evidence gathered did not support telepathy. In 2011, Wiseman posted a new article on his web site, in which he retreated from his claim to have refuted the data.[source link]
Reivanen ( talk) 11:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
He has some notability as a biologist so I'm not seeing why there is resistance to saying so, even if we have to qualify that as "biologist gone wrong" or "biologisit better known for his fringe theories." Mangoe ( talk) 13:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
This man studied biology published papers on biology and worked as one. He is a biologist. It doesn't matter whether he has gone "astray" and got issues with mainstream science later.
A studied theologist who is critical of organized religion would still be called "theologist" on wikipedia. Case in point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%BCng Of course, those articles usually aren't beleaguered by "sceptics", who are often way more fanatical than their targets of scorn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.181.209 ( talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Guy, we need to follow WP:V. You, me, and any other editor do not get to decided whether someone has written "nonsense", and further decide whether this meants we can chose to take away their academic status. This is WP:SYNTH. I suspect the other editors have read the achives, where they have seen many sources that refer to Sheldrake as a bioligist ( one set of examples), far out numbering those that suggest doubt.
We don't generally described people's academic status as "retired". eg. the following Nobel Laureates are all described as "physicists", despite all being retired [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Many haven't done any science or published any papers in decades.
Many other scientists have also published controversial material, or hold controversial views, which also has not taken away their academic status. eg. physicist Isaac Newton and his writing on the occult, physicist's William Shockley's and his views on genetics and eugenics, phyicist Philipp Lenard and his views on Jewish Science, and, physicist Brian Josephson and his views on parapsychology.
Of course we could all defer, for example, to the Society of Biology, and see how they define biologist.-- Iantresman ( talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am, really. After the frantic 18 months or so that have just gone by with this article, more than three hours have passed, there has been no edit war, no outrage, no support, no name calling, no tears, no sockpuppetry, no new SPA - nothing.
I'll say it then - It isn't a theory. it is a pseudoscientific concept. The consensus wording for the lead was hard fought, and it has held for a couple of months until today. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Rupert Sheldrake has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author, [1] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, [2] known for his proposed concept of "morphic resonance". [3] He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 [1] and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978. [4] Since leaving research biology, he has devoted his time primarily to morphic resonance, in books, articles, and public appearances.
Krisko111 ( talk) 08:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that it should be mentioned under 'In scientific and popular culture' in Richard Linklater's 2001 movie Waking Life that Sheldrake was indirectly referenced. Here is the text (from subtitle) of the Ethan Hawke character's words: „- I read an article by a biochemist. - Right. - He said when a member of a species is born...it has a billion years of memory to draw on. This is where we inherit our instincts. I like that. Like there's this telepathic thing going on that we're a part of ...whether we're conscious of it or not... That would explain these seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science and art. ...Like the same results popping up everywhere, independent of each other...” It's obvious that the referenced biochemist could only be Rupert Sheldrake, since the words related to drawing memories by a member of a species and the rest are basically Sheldrake's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 ( talk) 00:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Then it should be really fair to have Waking Life info added to the wikipedia article, under Popular Culture reference. I do think that information is important enough to be mentioned, however, since Richard Linklater is recognized as fairly significant director, and that particular film also has certain artistic and intellectual weight. For respect to Sheldrake, Linklater, and the wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 ( talk) 10:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This was never in the first sentence until last July. When it was added -- without any references -- there was suddenly a push to keep it, and then it stayed.
Either the lead should have no references (an acceptable WP practice, as long as the article body is referenced), or the lead should be fully referenced. Either way is fine with me. But a mix of referenced and unreferenced text leads to confusion.
In any case I would prefer the pre-July state, when "pseudoscientific" was not in the first sentence. It seems to me that we should first describe a fringe view and then report its mainstream reception, as indicated by WP:FRINGE. The lead already covers the pseudoscience angle. vzaak 09:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I am here to announce a direct relationship with the subject of this article as well as announce that I am representing a number of his concerns with this article, and per WP:BLP, I am here to work with the community to see if we can find a resolution to these concerns. Per Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy, I will not be making any edits to this page.
Dr. Sheldrake’s main concern is that his long history of interacting with detractors in the skeptic movement has lead to a heavy-handed influence in the lead section of his article, specifically with the continued inputting of "pseudoscience" as his main attribute in the lead section. This appears to be a result of agenda based editing and a method to frame his biography from the point of view of his critics, which is out of spirit with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. This amounts to a disproportionate focus on only the controversial positions of Dr. Sheldrake and a misrepresentation of his continuing work (he has presented half a dozen papers to peer-reviewed journals in the last few years alone).
Additionally, Dr Sheldrake is first and foremost a biologist with significant contributions in that field, and is referred to as such in mainstream coverage. Since this is confirmed by both primary and secondary sources, it is proper for an encyclopedia to list this biographical fact, in accordance with Wikipedia’s own guidelines, and not interpret his work as being devoid of his biological background. This feature is intrinsic to who Dr Sheldrake is - and without this feature the reader is missing a core aspect of why Dr Sheldrake is even controversial in the first place.
We ask respectfully that the community of editors review these concerns in a fair light, honoring the spirit of Wikipedia’s guidelines as well as the spirit of human dignity for a living person.
Below are some issues:
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] known for advocating his pseudoscientific "morphic resonance" concept.[5] He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973[3] and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978.[6] Since leaving research biology, he has devoted his time primarily to morphic resonance, in books, articles, and public appearances.
Ref 4: How does this reference support making parapsychology one of the main terms for describing Rupert Sheldrake? The article is not publicly available, and the shown text doesn’t even refer to Sheldrake as parapsychologist.
Ref 5: Pseudoscience/pseudoscientist/pseudoscientific is used nowhere in this citation, and the source simply describes his positions as controversial. It's certainly not grounds for determining what Rupert Sheldrake is "known for".
Citation Needed for the idea that Rupert Sheldrake has left biological research, and for the authoritative declaration of how he prioritizes his time.
His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect[9][10][11] as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.[12]
Ref 11: Dr. Sheldrake is not mentioned in this book at all, nor is morphic resonance. The other sources support statements about precognition and the staring effect, but remote viewing is not supported.
In light of such shaky sources for these statements, the sources supporting his position as a scientist and biologist are highly underrepresented and mitigated.
WP12345 ( talk) 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@ TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom: I see you have removed "known for" [54] from your statement added in July [55], which now reads "who advocates his pseudoscientific 'morphic resonance' concept". Yet Ref 5 used to support the statement, refers to Shedrake's "theory of morphic resonance". Do you think that your interpretation of the source satisfies WP:BLP? -- Iantresman ( talk) 23:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I have copied the issues identified into separate sections below so individual discussions can take place with less clutter and confusion. I think i got them all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Ref 11: Dr. Sheldrake is not mentioned in this book at all, nor is morphic resonance. The other sources support statements about precognition and the staring effect, but remote viewing is not supported.}}
The most prominent and active advocate of the sense of being stared at is Rupert Sheldrake, who proposes that this ability reflects a new scientific theory of disembodied minds extending out beyond the physical body to connect together. I regard this as an idea originating from the dualism of mind and body that we discussed earlier, but such a notion has been rejected by conventional science. Undaunted by “scientific vigilantes,” Sheldrake proposes that the sense of being stared at and other aspects of paranormal ability, such as telepathy and knowing about events in the future before they happen, are all evidence for a new field theory that he calls “morphic resonance.” ... The trouble is that, whereas electric and magnetic fields are easily measurable and obey laws, morphic resonance remains elusive and has no demonstrable laws. No other area of science would accept such lawless, weak evidence as proof, which is why the majority of the scientific community has generally dismissed this theory and the evidence. However, this has had little influence on the general public’s opinion.
This source clarifies that Sheldrake is a proponent of the psychic starring effect, precognition and telepathy and the scientific community have dismissed his claims. As for remote viewing, this should be removed. Goblin Face ( talk) 11:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Update - I noticed Hood is already cited on the article, but we can use the source in the lead if needed in regards to Sheldrake's endorsement of psychic starring effect and precognition. Goblin Face ( talk) 11:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this section should be expanded. Here's one that could be added [60] Goblin Face ( talk) 12:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
TimAdams
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).whitfield
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).tedblog
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).chaos
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).