Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Clairsentience Article

hi i am putting together an article on clairsentience , which seems to have fallen under the control of the parapsychology department , the difficulty being that they dont seem to understand the philosophical context which must be discussed to even begin talking about this issue . they talk about objectivity and neutrality , but as you and others have noted , there is no such thing and in fact some quite narrtow minded prejudices are being expressed across wikpedia on a wide range of subjects . Thesource42 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if wikpedia is going to have articles on people such as terence mckenna , robert anton wilson , barbara brennan , rupert sheldrake , ken wilbur etc then contibuters to these articles must be allowed to express some of the flavour and philosophy of these pioneering thinkers . knowledge if it is truly about exploration , discovery and curiosity should not be kept fozen stiff like a dead branch if it is to flourish . the rational yang is no good out of balance without the intuitive mystery and creative imagination of the yin . if psychadelic mushrooms are to be covered for example then why is the pre eminent scholar and ethnobotanist terence mckenna not referenced here. Thesource42 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

also , if someone with a progressive aproach such as rupert sheldrake given a page yet the quality and flavour of it is hacked at by vultures of dumb blind intent while elsewhere sheldrake is not considered a valid scientific source for reference by miopic wikpedians . the pedantry , rampant here where every tick and whistle is used as an escuse to hack at the body and spirit of large numgers of progressive articles across the site . it seems the closed minds here have not understood the true nature and spirit of knowledge which is a living flowing river , a living book , ever changing , always evolving . wasnt it just yesterday when " scientists told us that extra tererstrial intelligences were impossible , and didnt they keep it kina quite when they all changed their minds . hasnt the flat earth society always been this way . they starve wikpedia of the oxygen of creativity , imagination , joy , mystery .... it is rational yang out balance , which my friend is a cold dead thing with his consort , lady yin and her deep mysteries and intuition .Thesource42 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if your going to have a page on basrbara brennan or clairsentience then the philosophical issues must be allowed to breath and live without the bigots of empirical science hacking into the living branch.

if you could help me get my article into shape , specifically formating issues , it is posted on my user page for now . my main concern is that wiki formats are being abused and badly interpreted in order to vandalise to body and flavour of articles in wikpedia generally , especially ones who are discussing ideas at the forefront of eploration with regards to the object in hyperspace we are coming towards . i have referenced david bohm , lylle watson , rupert sheldrake , barbara brennan , ken wilbur , terence mckenna and robert anton wilson for this perpose , because it is the only way to establish a context for even the existence of clairsentience as an object. as i say in my article , implicit within nthe word itself is a higher dimensional sense world and higher tuned senses with which to aprehend it , therefore i have had to provide a background for understanding an alternative mechanism for both this unusual transmission of information and the existence of a more broadly defined holographic universe .Thesource42 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

to bring a way of understanding the arrival in humanity of these new phenomena i have referenced ken wilber with regards to emergence and from pop culture , the x men and diana troy from star trk next generation to express the flavour of the idea of emerging newly evolved states of coscoussness , to which mckenna and a wilson are also allies in the understanding of other realities , shifted perception and altered states .Thesource42 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

do you see , how , in the context of a dry empirical ration mode , none of this can be discussed , yet the existence of the word clairsentience begs for it and as i have previously said , if your going to have this word on your site then your going to have to allow it to breath its life into here . the word implies a sense which is super human and out of the range of empirical science , so in that case one cannot merely stick to entirely rational modes for describing ite place in the human mind , culture etc which is why i have had to draw on such i wide range of disciplines in order to define it . this then leads to the possibility that this subject should not be in th parapsychology section with their pretentions of science and should perhaps nest somewhere else , although each field i think mof seems inapropriate , eg . philosophy? psychadelia ? altered states ? spirituality ? etc...Thesource42 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

from the various things i have read in your user talk etc i can see that you have some insight (rare here ) into the irrationality and prejudices of those here claiming objectivity and neutrality and also the hypocracy of the attitides of moderators and editors with regards to who`s view are valued and who`s are not . as i have said elsewhere they hold some very closed minded philosophies yet are ignorant that they hold any philosophy at all . any help with regards the many issues ive raised here , but more specifically , with my article would be greatfully recieved. with many thanks , loon .Thesource42 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This user has been blocked indefinitely for massive talk page disruption across Wikipedia. Kafziel ^Talk 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Superficial treatment?

The section on Sheldrake's later work is rather superficial. More specific references could be made to Sheldrake's belief that animals and humans have an innate sense of being stared at, and that pets may know when their owners are coming home (he has published books on both of these fields). His work on animals' potentially psychic abilities is particularly interesting, and is relevant to cases of dogs that can apparently detect cancer or other medical problems. Sheldrake has been involved in a lively controversy with Richard Wiseman, over whether a dog in Greater Manchester called Jayshree really does know, through telepathy, when her owner is coming home. Some details on the different interpretations that Sheldrake and Wiseman have over these experiences would help to clarify that type of controversial debates in which Sheldrake has been involved. A. Carl 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There are few Wikipedians who are interested in Sheldrake. Please add what you can to the article. Although, on the other hand, this article seems to be limited to biography with text on his ideas at morphogenetic fields. Maybe extended text should be at the (as yet unwritten) articles on each of his books. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not sure whether the suggestion that "few Wikipedians" are interested in Sheldrake" was meant as a prescriptive statement, aimed at discouraging people from adding to the text, or, on the contrary, was meant as descriptive statement, simply meaning that few contributions had been made to this article as yet and inviting readers who are interested in Sheldrake to add to the article. I have added some information on Sheldrake's life and work. In particular, I thought it important that this article clarified how Sheldrake, in his early career, worked as a crop physiologist in India. In its original form, the article depicted Sheldrake as being little more than a New Age maverick, obscuring how he is actually a man of high scientific credentials who has made contributions to mainstream science. If you read his website, you will see that one of the scientific accomplishments of which he is most proud relates to his research in plant physiology. A. Carl 09:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Parts of the section on A New Science of Life seem to have been paraphrased directly from here: http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf. While there is a link to Imprint further down the page, it probably would be better to make the source clear. I have decided not to touch the article, though. 201.1.92.247 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Totally Disputed

Can someone please add to the top of the Sheldrake an explanation of what exactly is pseudoscientific about his work? Currently it is merely asserted that some unspecified scientists believe this. Back it up please. And why can't the top of the article be edited, unlike the other parts? -ijt

Start here. Al 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The blog post you referenced contains a lot of inflamed rhetoric by someone who says he has never read any of Sheldrake's books `(yet).' At one point he makes the following statement, without providing a reference: "However. I have no intention of sitting passively by while this lunatic fills the heads of suffering people with this garbage that allows them to believe that their brains are nothing more than a receiver for evil memories and ghosts." Having read A New Science of Life, The Presence of the Past, and The Sense of Being Stared at, and also having heard him speak publicly, I don't recall Sheldrake ever saying that our brains are `nothing more' than receivers for memories via morphic resonance. Also, he has on all occasions refrained from passing judgement on the good or evil nature of the memories, whatever that might mean. Clearly he does say that brains pick up memories, but he leaves open the question of what else they do. I've also never read anything by Sheldrake saying that our brains are receivers for ghosts. In addition, I am unaware of any effort by Sheldrake to specifically diseminate his ideas to `suffering people' but if he has then it's a good thing `Quest' is there to protect them. -ijt 00:57 28 Aug 2006 (PST)

This article is highly biased and nonfactual. Sheldrake's ideas (note that I don't call them theories) are not merely shunned, they are recognized as psuedoscientific. The rest of the article suffers from similar biases, and needs to be cleaned up so that it doesn't read like a hagiography. Al 18:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this bio needs to be rewritten to accurately portray the scientific status of Sheldrake's claims.---CH 20:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope people read the article, and Sheldrake's own bio, before re-writing it. Requesting a source for the subject being a biologist indicates that the requester has not read the article. -Will Beback 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(Embarrased grin) Will was right; I had simply overlooked the relevant information in the article. I apologize for any confusion I might have caused. ---CH 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

He's a biologist, but he's writing well outside the limits of biology, as well as outside the limits of science. Really, he's qualified to talk about strains of disease-resistant rice, not telepathy in dogs. Al 03:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you don't care for Sheldrake, but have you done any of his experiments to try to prove they are pseudo-scientific? What is the limit of science? Only to things we currently know? That's not science. That's the way forward thinkers like Galileo and Copernicus were treated when they had pseudo-scientific ideas! Enough already! DavidRavenMoon (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping there is no university which grants a degree in canine telepathy. The point about qualifications is true, but irrelevant. Darwin and Kinsey were both specialists in small insects, yet they managed to branch out into unexplored areas far from their specialties. We should describe Sheldrake's training, scholarship, and the questions raised about them, but we should not draw our own surmises about his fitness to theorize on esoteric subjects. -Will Beback 08:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to. There are plenty of scientists who are on record stating that Sheldrake's ideas are pseudoscientific. Al 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"plenty of scientists" isn't that a weasel word? There are also plenty of scientists that agree with him. Debunking is not science.

And none of them have bothered to try his experiments, and some, like Shermer and Randi haven't even read the data! Its time for this whole skeptic witch hunt to come to an end. We don't know everything, and standard scientific method can only work if you have a hypothesis to work from. if you don't understand the underlying mechanisms involved, how can you devise a test? You can't. You cannot test for something that you don't know exists, which is why historically so many things are discovered by accident. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles on somewhat controversial or non standard ideas do not need negative viewpoints, anymore than an article on chocolate needs the mention that some people prefer vanilla. This is an article on a person, he is a scientist, has a PH. D. It's so easy these days to cry pseudo-science when someone is trying to go outside what we already know. Most of the science text books I studied growing up are now out of date and filled with incorrect information. That's the way it is. We can cling to ideas all we want, but when something comes along and disrupts that, we have to accept we don't know everything. Real scientist are not afraid to say "we don't know". Many scientists are only interested in what grant they can get doing "safe" research, their reputation, and just going along with the status quo.DavidRavenMoon (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. When something is "common knowledge" the sources are abundant and we're safely encyclopedic. -Will Beback 10:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't an encyclopedia, it's a pseudo-encyclopedia. 90.210.185.230 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the question as to whether he can be described as a scientist rests on whether he is actively doing science -- as in the process of science. If he is not then calling him a "biologist" is like calling Maggie Thatcher a "chemist". — Dunc|☺ 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that Margaret Thatcher had a terminal degree in chemistry. What is being advanced here is that the article needs to reflect certain people's opinion that Sheldrake is not a "real" scientist, an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. — goethean ॐ 15:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to reflect the views of the scientific community. As it turns out, the scientific community does not consider Sheldrake's ideas to be scientific, so the article should reflect this. Thank you for understanding. Al 20:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a straw-man argument. Who is the scientific community? You can speak for all of them? You asked every scientist how they feel about Sheldrake? James Randi is not a scientist, and neither is Shermer, and those are the two making the most noise about Sheldrake.DavidRavenMoon (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on a side note, please consider this text from No true Scotsman:

This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

If the definition of science excludes certain kinds of studies, and these are the studies Sheldrake engages in, then there is no fallacy in saying that he is not a true scientist. I hope that clears things up. Al 20:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Q-What is the definition of "science"? A-"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" I think this is exactly what Sheldrake (and others) is doing. Anyone who has lived with dogs know that they can sense when their owner is coming home.. and it's not because the owner is coming home the same time every day, or driving in the same car, etc. I've seen this many times first hand. With cats as well. At least a half hour before they arrived, the dog or cat is in the waiting position by the door. It can not be written off, nor can modern science explain it. Now scientist can prove this happens, but they can't explain why, and that's where scientific method breaks down. Many kinds of science are purely observational. Astronomy and animal behavior are two examples. Anyone who exclude studying something is not a true scientist, or a Scotsman! Remember "If it's not forbidden, it's mandatory"DavidRavenMoon (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that any hopes that Wikipedia pages get to be NPOV are over-optimistic, but could this discussion page at least be open to endorsement of Wikipedia's policy against libel? Whether or not one agrees with Sheldrake's ideas, I do not think it appropriate, in Wikipedia, to use language declaring that scientists think that a certain individual is a "----". Could additions to this discussion page please have a rigorous, academic foundation? ACEO 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Al 20:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Your schoolyard namecalling is still in the history of this page. — goethean ॐ 20:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I did call him a ----, but I lack a time machine, so the most I can do is change the text. Al 20:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look people this is getting rather childish now. The statement "but his ideas are considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscientific." is nothing more than gratuitous ad hominem. Are we to believe that ALL of Sheldrakes ideas are considered pseudoscientific by ALL of the scientific community? And why is there even a debate about the status of Sheldrake as a scientist!? The man is a biologist for heaven's sake and obviously a scientist - even if SOME people might disagree with his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psibermage (talk • contribs)

Exactly! I can name at least one person with good credentials, Dr. Rick Strassman, Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of New Mexico School of medicine that thinks Sheldrake's work is valid.DavidRavenMoon (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for every last scientist in the world to agree; all the matters is the consensus of the scientific community. Likewise, I'm sure that Sheldrakes ideas about water being wet are not contested, but that's not the point. His unique claims about morphic fields are what scientists consider pseudoscientific.

If you have no further arguments, I'd like to remove the tag now. Al 19:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying the "scientific community". Please point us to that. All that says is "scientist that agree with each other" or, a clique. There is no scientific community per se. You don't agree with Sheldrake, so by God, no one should. That's the childish behavior of scientific skeptics and hints at lack of emotional wellness.

A brief addition to this discussion. The autobiography on Sheldrake's web site mentions his early reading of Kuhn's Logic of Scientific Discovery and his recognition (which no historian of science or for that matter well informed scientist would dispute) that the world view of modern science is a paradigm, that is a hypothesis that is well enough supported by evidence to be taken as the basis for action until it is refuted by other evidence. Many of the criticisms of Sheldrake's work that I have read are based on the fact that he rejects the current paradigm (and that his world view and persona are a touch hippy, new age or similar). He's certainly following the method of formulating a hypothesis and seeking evidence to refute it, although critics have also pointed out that he tends to present confirming evidence as very powerful while not looking very hard for real refuting evidence. I think this should be the starting point for the discussion of the scientific status of his controversial work. I'll try to draft something if I have time and energy. Or if enough other people do it first for morphic resonance to kick in.

131.111.25.150 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)HE Elsom

DavidRavenMoon: you are responding to two year old comments in a thread that has been inactive for 18 months. Your chances of getting a response from the original participants (even if they're still around) is thus minimal. 05:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unified field theories

There seems to be some serious confusion in connection with Sheldrake over the origin of the term unified field theory. For example, the Salon article mentioned in the external links section states

Hans Spemann, Alexander Gurwitsch and Paul Weiss ... independently proposed that morphogenesis is organized by fields. (Albert Einstein extended this field concept to include the gravitational field that holds the universe together.

— David Bowman, Rupert Sheldrake: The delightful crackpot, Salon, Nov. 23, 1999

This is a serious misunderstanding of the history of the field concept. In fact, in general relativity (and later work on unified field theories, a term he is often credited with introducing), Einstein was passing from non-relativistic classical field theories to relativistic classical field theories. An important example of a non-relativistic classical field theory is the field-theoretic approach to Newtonian gravitation, which is governed by the Poisson equation (so the concept of the gravitational field was in fact the first physical field to be introduced, contrary to what Bowman suggests). Important examples of a relativistic field theory include the modern field-theoretic approach to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and Einstein's theory of gravitation, general relativity. The term morphogen was used by Alan Turing in his classic study of a reaction-diffusion equation model of biological development. (See self-organization for a bit about reaction-diffusion equations.) A common theme in all of these works is the use of partial differential equations. But none of these developments has anything to do with Sheldrake's paranormal ideas, which cannot be considered scientific at all. ---CH 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're right. It makes no sense at all. Al 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. ---CH 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint about the Einstein reference should then be directed at David Bowman who you cite above, not Sheldrake. I may be mistaken but I don't recall Sheldrake ever discussing Einstein & unified field theories in his work. Ben Finn 10:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Context for external links

Anyone wishing to add another external link: please verify that it is not broken (ideally make sure it is likely to be around for a few years by checking ARIN) and please add some context explaining who operates the website or indicating what their agenda might be, as per the model of the links as I just fixed them. TIA ---CH 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

For the record I've made some edits to remove some POV, such as "His ideas are consistent with New Age religion" which seems to me to be an attempt to damn him as a crank by association. Ben Finn 20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also under 'Animal Telepathy' I cut most of the discussion of dogs detecting medical ailments and how this may be explained by dogs' acute sense of smell, as those who've read Sheldrake will know his experiments are not about this but about perception at a distance (such as dogs knowing when their owners are coming home, the title of his book, or dogs and pigeons finding their way home from a remote location) which if true lacks such an obvious explanation. (His book does mention dogs detecting medical ailments but it's not his research.)

I've also cut the incorrect claim that Sheldrake's experimental results have not been replicated. Ben Finn 20:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy

Re:

"The reported results are striking, though most scientists remain unconvinced.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› "

I don't have a reference to hand for the scientists remaining unconvinced, and I doubt it is 'most' scientists as most scientists won't have read his papers. So I have cut the last bit. It is undoubtedly the case that the reported results are striking; I will add a reference for the reported results instead. Ben Finn 14:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to see a cite that his resuls are, in fact, striking. In any case, it's clear that the scientific community as a whole is unconvinced, even though most scientists have never seen these reports. The way it works is that, if the reports were convincing, the scientists who were convinced would spread the news. This lack of spread indicates that pretty much nobody was impressed. Al 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then, please locate a cite that 'the scientific community as a whole is unconvinced'. In the meantime I'll take this text back out of the article, and reinstate the link to the paper (which seems to have been deleted) so people can judge the results for themselves. I've also added a 1-sentence summary of the results. Ben Finn 10:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I note that a Wikipedia policy states that citing supposed opinions of 'the scientific community' is POV as it is a form of 'weasel words' - see WP:AWW Ben Finn 23:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would appriate a citation for the text in question. — goethean ॐ 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you've got it completely the wrong way round. Sheldrake should try to get his ideas peer-reviewed, published, replicated, and then accepted. Since he's not done the first, it can be very safely assumed that he's not done the last. This patently obvious common sense. The only reason that the tag is being added is to push some pathetic pseudoscientific quasi-spritualist nonsense. — Dunc|☺ 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well now, isn't that an opinionated conclusion. It's obvious the bias here. If you feel that's what his work amounts to, than the burden of proof is on who? You! DavidRavenMoon (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheldrake has had numerous papers published in various peer-reviewed journals. Please take the trouble to find out about his work before condemning it. Ben Finn 10:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it neutralized

Good, the current version looks much better than the one I remember. But watch out, 81.106.239.182 (talk · contribs) Belfast is trying to change it right back, arghgh. Compare Goethean (talk · contribs · block log) ---CH 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. User:Duncharris is willing to enforce his personal opinions through edit war. This is, of course, contrary to every Wikipedia policy. He doesn't give a shit. — goethean ॐ 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just mean-spirited: "Sheldrake holds no university tenure position, he self-publishes his work in books rather than scientific journals, and this is rarely (if ever) cited by scientists." Can we please cut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.208.3 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

'The scientific community'

Re the ending of the intro: '...believed by the scientific community to be pseudoscientific': as mentioned above references to the 'scientific community' are outlawed by WP:AWW as 'weasel words'. Though I can see what it intended by this wording - for I do not doubt that Sheldrake's views are controversial and also at odds with current mainstream scientific thinking - this reference to 'the scientific community' implies that many scientists have read his work and taken a view on it, which is not AFAIK the case (at least, not his work since A New Science of Life). On the contrary, AFAIK few scientists are familiar with his work. So while respecting the intention of this wording I have changed it to something more neutral. 217.155.116.125 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting the change made by User:Jefffire which immediately altered the above back to a formulation ('mainstream scientists') of the kind forbidden by WP:AWW. Please look at WP:AWW and discuss this before changing it again. Ben Finn 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually to avoid a similar formulation I'm also replacing 'mainstream scientific theories' with 'conventional scientific theories', though they mean much the same. Ben Finn 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream is much more approppiate than "opposing", which suggests that there is some kind of accrimony against Sheldrake. Put simply, Sheldrakes work is trash, his proceedures sloppy, and his name has become a byword for bad practice and pseudoscience. Scientists don't "oppose" him, we recognize his work as failing to meet the standards of the scientific method. Thus "opposing" is a POV term. Jefffire 11:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

'Sheldrakes work is trash, his proceedures sloppy, and his name has become a byword for bad practice and pseudoscience' - and you're claiming your view is NPOV? 'we recognize his work as failing to meet the standards of the scientific method' - can you give an example? It seems to me the main problem his opponents have is that they haven't actually read his papers, or tried to replicate his research. I'd be interested for example to know what you think the obvious flaw is with his recent telepathy research (as linked to in the article), which I assume you've read and are familiar with. Ben Finn 21:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Snort. You're exactly right, all these people who talk about how Sheldrake is a "pseudoscientist" and haven't even read his original papers (which are all posted on his website, BTW). I think a great definition of a pseudoscientist is someone who attacks research that they know nothing about and haven't read. The "skeptic" contributions to this dialogue on Sheldrake amount to namecalling and complete ignorance of his research and the independent replications of it. The lot of you need to go to sheldrake.org and read all of his research papers before you comment any more about how he is "unscientific".Sdaconsulting 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience/protoscience

If (a big if) this article is to have the Pseudoscience category, on the grounds that some people consider Sheldrake's views pseudoscience, then I think it is only reasonable that it also has the Protoscience category on the same grounds (that Sheldrake's supporters consider it protoscience, and on grounds that cannot be instantly dismissed). There is no doubt at least that if (a big if) Sheldrake's views on (for example) morphic resonance are true then it would be the start of a new area of science. And much of Sheldrake's work meets the standard requirements of falsifiabilty, empirical evidence, and replicability (e.g. his 'staring' and telepathy experiments), though I don't doubt that some dispute the experimental evidence and its replicability, as is typically the case with a protoscience. Ben Finn 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can find notable scientific supporters of Sheldrake saying it is a protoscience, then the category is valid. Until it is supported by references, it is OR. Jefffire 10:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Many Scientists?

Here is a citation from one of the two sources that is purported to support the statement "considered by many mainstream scientists to be pseudoscientific":

Q: Is the idea of "morphogenetic fields" taken seriously today?

A: Yes, it is. In fact, about half the people working in embryology and experimental biology regularly use the phrase. The problem is that nobody's been able to say what they are and how they work. Clearly they must be something more than, say, electromagnetic fields if they're able to do what they're supposed to do...

Both references follow a similar vein. Saying "considered by some mainstream scientists to be pseudoscientific" is a more accurate reflection of what either of the two cited references portray. 202.67.116.55 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious views

Although initially a practicing Christian, Sheldrake became agnostic or atheist (I don't recall which one) during his schooling around the same time he began to take an interest in biology. I'm sorry that I don't have a source to point to as this moment, but as there is no source to indicate the contrary, I am removing him from the "Christians in science" category at this time. --BDD 07:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the book which he co-authored with Matthew Fox, entitled "Natural Grace". In this book, he explains how, although he did have an atheistic phase, largely under the influence of a school biology teacher, he did go back to the Christian tradition, following his combined Methodist and Anglican background. Sheldrake is a deeply religious man and I would strongly urge that his name is again listed in the category "Christian Scientists". ACEO 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In an interview, with Robyn Williams, broadcast in October 2006 by the ABC (Australia), Sheldrake said, "I'm a christian, I'm an Anglican ..." 203.23.210.116 11:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I can vouch that in a recent interview I conducted with Sheldrake last year, he reiterated his Christian beliefs. Sdaconsulting 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these endorsements of Sheldrake's Christian credentials. I have now restored the link to the category "Christian scientists" and take it that the comments here do provide good evidence for making this connection. ACEO 11:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Does anyone know why the cleanup tag was put on this article in Sept? It seems reasonably clean to me. Any objections to removing it? Ben Finn 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible Link To Scientology?

Can anyone confirm this? I just watched this video from off his site where he gets introduced as as "scientologist, biochemist." How does it square with Christianity? Thanks, Marco :)

Bonteburg 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the video? — goethean ॐ 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sheldrake.org/video_live/ "A Glorious Accident" It kind of made me feel more skeptical about him, what with Scientology not having the best of records. Bonteburg 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't view the video, because I don't have the software. But I am certain that Sheldrake is not a Scientologist, even if the guy introduced him as such on that video. Sheldrake is an Anglican (see conversation above). — goethean ॐ 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

err ... ignore me The guy says "cytologist" and he has a dutch accent to boot. Lol.. Bonteburg 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical Investigations external link

It's a small thing, but I'm not about to let Wikipedia pass on the nonsense that skepticalinvestigations.com is a 'skeptical' organisation. It would be like calling the Democratic Republic of Germany a democratic country purely because of the name. A cursory glance at the site shows that it's an attack page aimed at the entire mainstream skeptic community, in order to promote the pseudoscience freaks that run it (like Sheldrake). The last person who reverted my changes asked for sources, although he didn't proffer any sources at all for HIS revision. So here's one that calls it the pseudoscientifical bunk that it is. Here's one that calls it 'critical of skeptics'; that wording I think is neutral enough that it could be agreed on by everybody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.163.18 (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Can someone source this statement?

"Despite the criticism of mainstream scientists, Sheldrake's ideas were lauded by scientists like Fritjof Capra and the mathematician Ralph Abraham, who were trying to invent a new scientific paradigm which would embody 20th Century discoveries like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and the strange world of quantum mechanics, which apparently cast doubt into the certainty and completeness of an 18th century Newtonian/Cartesian materialistic view of reality."

Pseudoscience Category

Sheldrake's credentials firmly place him in the science Cat, as do his publications in peer-reviewed journals. It is not necessary to put him in the pseudoscience Cat, but if he is in one, he is in the other- to say otherwise is OR. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree but if you have read the science cat, you will note that it is an inappropriate place for a person to be placed. Feel free to put him under one of the natural sciences. In the mean time, the pseudoscience cat as pointed out above in this talk page is appropriate for somebody of Sheldrake's notability, given that the number of notable people in pseudoscience is relatively low. In the mean time per the heading in the science cat, I am removing Sheldrake from the cat. PS: See your talkpage. Shot info 07:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, noted that putting people in the Science Cat is probably not going to work. We need a Cat called "Disputed Science," so that we are not making an absolute claim (it is noted in BLP that a Cat is an absolute claim). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SI on this, the pseudoscience category is absolutely appropriate and supported by text and sources, while putting him directly into "science" isn't appropriate for an individual. --Minderbinder 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree that his work is pseudoscientific. The very definition of science is having the discipline to suspend your conclusions until all available evidence has been considered. Most people who dismiss his work have formed the firm conclusion that he is wrong and therefore refuse to consider his evidence, in spite of the painstakingly unbiased manner in which his research was conducted. Rupert Sheldrake has it correct, a phenomenon should be investigated before it can be dismissed.Landroo 04:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the definitions of science doesn't support your comments. Most people who consider him wrong is because Sheldrake's work hasn't proven him right. Research into something has nothing to do with it, it's the researchers role to prove his assertions not the other way around. This is one of the fundamentals of the scientific method. Shot info 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You aren't even observing the scientific method. Forming your conclusions before considering all the evidence is not only non-scientific, but shows a bias towards not allowing evidence to alter your preconceived conclusions.Landroo 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of debate, -and not just within fringe groups- on how to define science. Science with no, or incorrect, results may still be science, because of its method. You can't say "he hasn't proven it therefore it is pseudoscience." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually yes you can "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.[1] Pseudosciences may appear scientific, but they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method[2] and are often in conflict with current scientific consensus." "Science" which is inherently untestable, unreproducable, unprovable are pseudoscience. Now this doesn’t mean we shouldn't research these things (in fact I agree with the principle of 'research for research's sake') but it doesn't deny the fact that certain areas of research match the definitions for pseudoscience. Shot info 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Sheldrake's stuff is testable and falsifiable. So why say pseudoscience? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't say "he hasn't proven it therefore it is pseudoscience." Yes you can. It is untestable, unreproducible and unprovable. Items of research that depend on "suspend your conclusions until all available evidence has been considered" really aren't scientific. It's the researchers role to prove his assertions not the other way around. This is one of the fundamentals of the scientific method. Shot info 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, if that were true, you would be right. Sheldrake's hypotheses are testable, reproducible, and provable- according to him and his data, which have not been debunked. His hypotheses do not depend on "suspend your conclusions until all available evidence has been considered". So you are calling it pseudoscience purely because you believe it is. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I gather that you haven't being reading this thread as this is where I lifted the data from, responding to a set of comments from Landroo and then you once again jump on the pseudoscience bandwagon. It is pseudoscience because it is. Just because you don't like the word doesn't make it less so. As you are probably aware, "debunking" is not a function of the scientific method (per se). Shot info 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

When you say "it is because it is" -that's a religious statement. A scientific statement would be "under investigation" or "not yet proven false" -forming conclusions by excluding evidence is definitely irrational and un-scientific.Landroo 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Be nice. And yeah, pseudoscience is pseudoscience just 'cause. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that science has to be judged on how it is working in the present, not how it might work in the future. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia remember. Shot info 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And according to Sheldrake's tests, it works just fine now. Is testable now. Is falseafiable now. Is replicable now. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP Shot info 01:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ever hear of a talk page? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This page says "Talk" at the top, so what's your point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Landroo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

He's acting like WP:SOAP has something to do with the talk page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Suggest you read the policy then :-) Shot info 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally confused. Sounded like you were saying that SOAP was what I was doing on the talk page, and I think that section refers only to articles. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

This line "Yet the criticism of Sheldrake's work is characterized by a resistance to the challenge it brings to the current scientific paradigm. " is probably OR given it's notability, or rather it's drawing from what is probably a single source. Shot info 11:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I took out the (now restored) quote from McKenna is that I think that it leans a little too heavily towards the "conventional scientists hate Sheldrake not for scientific reasons but because he threatens their cosy life" school of thought, which I take (as a scientist myself) as quite a slur on our collective personal integrity. Look at the quote again: ...make no mistake about it, the overturning of a scientific paradigm is a political act, and it has to do with reputations, and tenure, and publication, and people who have built their lives defending something that they now see under severe attack." If any of Sheldrake's ideas could be conclusively proved, conventional scientists would be the first to advocate them. There seems to be the distinct implication here that we know Sheldrake is right and we are engaged in collective repression of truth. I find that quite deeply offensive. Criticism of Sheldrake's work is characterised, in fact, by examination of the evidence (and finding it wanting) Memeticos 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the context of WP:BLP and also WP:WEIGHT this particular piece of editing should be carefully considered for removal. Also, the reference (the google video). Where is it from, what date, who conducted the interview (etc). The video doesn't support the statement that they were "colleague"s, where is the reference for that statement? I think there is a bit of WP:SYN being applied to this paragraph the more I look into it. Shot info 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd sentance

"He has a popular public following, particularly because his books are aimed at the lay reader, but some of his ideas are controversial and are considered by at least two scientists to be pseudoscientific." So it goes from making a sweeping statment "popular public following" to "at least two scientists". Normally in other BLPs this would read "He has a popular public following, particularly because his books are aimed at the lay reader, but some of his ideas are controversial", especially for the lede. Shot info 13:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Extended Maddox quote

In this edit another statement from Maddox is added. It's rather recent that I watched the streamed online version of this interview, and I believe this is part of the same interview, not another, more recent. Could somebody check on this. If I'm right, this statement about heresy and Galileo should be integrated with the former and with the same reference citation. __19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit by 217.43.17.171

He has removed that he is a "biologist" and added "Sheldrake holds no university faculty position, he self-publishes his work in books rather than scientific journals, and this is rarely (if ever) cited by scientists.". No sourcing.

I feel this violates WP:BLP and WP:V. Additionally, a cursory search on google scholar reveals he HAS been cited repeatedly. He _has_ held a number of faculty positions. I am not too sure wether he has released any papers in any scientific journals, but that has to be WP:V before it is stated because this is after all WP:BLP.

Additionally 217.43.17.171 has reverted my previous undo asking for WP:V. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Shameful Article

Again, I come to a wikipedia article like this, if I am going to, in order to find out about the person identified. What I find out instead is a bunch of attitudes held by "Wikipedia editors" about this scientist. Please keep your pseudo-skepticism to yourself. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox. And to the person who deleted my previous comment, evidently you lack awareness of the concept of democratic discussion. Please rectify that while you are at it. 91.110.14.19 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)An Old School Encyclopedia User

• Please don't stop donating, though. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• 91.110.14.19, I'm trying to find these attitudes by "Wikipedia editors". Looking at note b, I see I think eight different sources, books and articles, that quality the man's work as pseudoscience. So these are what we call "reliable secondary sources", with which we build the encyclopedia. They are not the editors' opinions. Here, for instance, is an article from Nature, a scientific journal that does peer review and all that, and is not run by Wikipedia editors (as far as I know), which argues that your man's work "undermines the public's understanding of science". Perhaps you can consider lodging a complaint with the editors of that well-known journal, with a strong reputation around the world, to claim that they got it wrong. Good luck with that, and please report back. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  You started with your link 'here' and your quote was that Sheldrake's work "undermines the public's understanding of science" which is not a string of text I find in the linked article. Where is the quote from? Garrett.stephens (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you do not want to "find out" things about the person. You want to find out things you like about the person. This mindset of cherry-picking information you agree with is fully consistent with Sheldrake's working style and ideas, but not with the scientific method. That is why Sheldrake has not convinced the scientific community that his ideas have merit: he cannot give a valid justification for them, just like you cannot give a valid justification for your wishes.

And if you think Wikipedia should be "democratic", think again. Facts are not the subject of votes. We use reliable sources instead, and they disagree with you.

There have been dozens of other users on this Talk page whose understanding of encyclopedias and of science are as poor as yours. You can find their contributions and the refutations in the archives, linked at the top of this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hah, you're talking about 'facts', but several sentences before that there's a mention (not yours) of Nature as a sort of a support for a particular view, which exactly fits the definition of authority bias. And as anyone who's dealt with philosophy for more than a month knows, there are very few 'facts' out there. Most of everything else is a conjecture at best. 77.248.83.156 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"No philosophic argument ends with a QED." ~ Friedrich Waismann, quoted in Iain McGilchrist, The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, authority bias/Argument from authority is sort of the point of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

On top of that, the IP actually uses the fact that someone has quoted Nature, for ignoring the content of the Nature quote. As if reasoning which comes from an authority is automatically invalid. I don't think that fallacy has even a name. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)