Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

German source (Dürr)

For background, here is the most relevant passage from the German source:

In seiner Auseinandersetzung mit den Naturwissenschaftlern findet sich Sheldrake außerdem mit seiner Theorie gewissermaßen im Niemandsland zwischen den von Form-Denkern zu Stoff-Denkern arrivierten Biologen und den in der Zwischenzeit von Stoff-Denkern zu holistischen, nicht-materialistischen Form-Denkern gewordenen Physikern. Was bei Sheldrake den einen zu «altmodisch vitalistisch» erscheint, ist für die anderen zu «altmodisch objektivistisch». Vielleicht prädestiniert aber gerade diese Zwischenstellung Sheldrakes Theorie dazu, Brücken zwischen verschiedenen, heute miteinander ringenden biologischen Weltansichten zu schlagen und herrschende Naturwissenschaft mit verdrängter Naturwissenschaft und Außenseiter-Wissenschaft konstruktiv zu verbinden sowie der Naturwissenschaft allgemein den Einstieg in eine «Nachmaterialistische Wissenschaft», wie sie schon von der modernen Physik vorgezeichnet wird, zu erleichtern.

Zielsetzung und Absicht

Angesichts dieser Situation möchten die Schweisfurth-Stiftung und die beiden Herausgeber mit der vorliegenden Publikation eine öffentliche Plattform für einen solchen Brückenschlag schaffen und die internationale Wissenschaft zu einem offenen und intensiven wissenschaftlichen Diskurs darüber einladen.

In his debate with natural scientists, Sheldrake additionally finds himself in a kind of no man's land with his theory, between biologists, who have moved away from being form-thinkers to being matter-thinkers, and physicists, who over the same time period have moved away from being matter-thinkers to being holistic, non-materialist form-thinkers. Where Sheldrake's thinking appears too much like "old-fashioned vitalism" to the one side, it appears too much like "old-fashioned objectivism" to the other. But perhaps it is precisely this intermediate locus of Sheldrake's theory that predestines it to create bridges between the two biological world-views competing against each other today, to forge constructive dialogue between the establishment views of natural science on the one hand and suppressed natural science or maverick science on the other, and to help natural science generally to move into the "post-materialistic age" already outlined by modern physics.

Intent and objective

Given this situation, the Schweisfurth Foundation and the two editors would like to create a public platform with this publication for building such bridges and to invite the international scientific community to participate in open and intense scientific discourse on this topic.

Cheers, --Jayen466 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The "post-materialistic age" is fabricated bunk well outside the mainstream. Biologist base their work in a chemical understanding of the world and that chemical understanding of the world is very up to date and includes all relevant and understood quantum mechanic phenomenon. For example the role that quantum tunneling plays in the kinetics of enzymes involving proton and electron transfer. In general the wave aspect of matter collapses into the particle aspect on the biological scale making a regular chemical approach relevant. Chemistry is largely based on empirical observations which physicist dislike in favor of first principles using the minimal number of empirical observations. Sadly a full quantum mechanics explanation of chemistry is still ongoing and well behind chemistry based on all available observations. I believe Dürr has confused the on going inclusion of quantum mechanics into chemistry and biology for the idea he is calling "post-materialistic age". Saying biology works through a Newtonian or vitalistic world view is grossly ignorant, which isn't surprising for an older gentlemen not trained in the field. The important part of this passage which I believe to be true is that Dürr (a Sheldrake supporter) identifies Sheldrake's work outside "the establishment views of natural science". This sentiment is echoed throughout the citations used in this article but is still under represented in the article. This article is about Sheldrake not by Sheldrake. If he was referred to as a popular author like Gary Zukav none of this would be necessary. Since he is implied to be a "currently active professional biologist" in order to maintain wikipedia's policy on NPOV concerning mainstream science then it must be pointed out he is far from an active mainstream biologist when discussing "his" work and ideas.--OMCV (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP calls for balance in criticism and praise

The key WP policy for this article is WP:BLP#Criticism and praise which states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented ... so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." The key point is the appearance to take sides.

The article (and the draft to a greater degree) give significant prominence to criticism (Maddox, Rose, Bateson, Marks, Colwell, Shermer, Bauer and Gardner, and to many other unspecified "mainstream scientists"). That prominence requires that other viewpoints and citations in favor of Sheldrake's ideas need to be given, to provide balance. So we have Bohm and Dürr (but countered with Klymkowsky) and the fact that Sheldrake was invited to give a plenary presentation at a prominent conference. And what else? Nothing else, that I can see. When such references were proposed, they were promptly removed on the grounds of giving WP:UNDUE weight, when in fact omitting them gives far too much weight to the criticism.

So I think at a minimum the fact that Sheldrake's theories have been cited by quite a few others (6 authors total) in support of their theoretical work needs to be mentioned. What I proposed amounted to 2 lines of text, to balance what I count is over 20 lines devoted to reporting criticism.

I think the Maddox quotes and video also need balancing with quotes from some of the prominent researchers who responded countering his 1981 editorial.

Finally, I would like to cite another part of this policy: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons." --EPadmirateur (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not call for "balance", it basically says: Don't do anything that'll get us sued. Beyond that all policy and guidelines still stand, including WP:UNDUE. Praise should indeed be included, but only if it is notable and correctly weighted. Jefffire (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's important to note that WP:UNDUE does not call for removing material in support of pseudoscientific theories altogether, in articles about that topic, or in this case about the pseudoscientist. It simply says that in articles comparing views (like this one) significant minority views should not be made to look more prominent than they actually are. EPadmirateur said that the text amounted to two lines, that's hardly undue weight for a significant minority view, significant in that this is a biography with detracting views (majority) and supporting views (minority). It should also be noted that the overriding policy (NPOV) does call for balance. It describes how balance is achieved in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views. Note that here it doesn't talk about removing supporting material in favor of pseudoscience either. Instead (paraphrasing), those views should be placed in context. It says that the majority view should be described as such, and the minority view should be described as such. Nowhere does it say that all supporting views must be removed. There's really no reason why minority views supporting Sheldrake should be removed so long as they are described as the minority view, placed in context, and the majority view is clearly stated and given its due validity and prominence. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

EPadmirateur left out a bit of WP:BLP: "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." Scientific acceptance of Sheldrake's view is definitely a "minority" position and probably a "tiny minority" position -- as such it should get fairly minimal representation at most. Positive mention in reasonable detail by prominent scientists still have a place, but mere mention (i.e. only being 'cited') in passing by otherwise-anonymous scientists, philosophers, and whatever should not. It is questionable whether his participation in a fairly fringey conference makes that cut. WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity" and WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution would also apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

2 lines out of 20 (according to EPadmirateur) is compatible with all the policies you quoted. There's no reason to remove them as two lines do not in any way suggest a minority view is a majority one. The usual qualifiers such as "So and so positively views Sheldrake's theories for such and such reason, however the theories have received virtually no support in mainstream biology" can be added to emphasize that it is a minority view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the '2 lines out of 20' as long as it is (i) representing substantive positive comment on Sheldrake (as opposed to mere mention in passing as part of surveying all viewpoints); and (ii) accurately reflects the source. As far as I can see, the current Bohm and Dürr content achieves this. I do not think that EPadmirateur's efforts to date have done so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate. EPadmirateur recently introduced the following 'balancing' statement:

Sheldrake's morphic resonance was cited among the alternative scientific views for the causation of consciousness and subjective experience to explain the phenomenon near-death experiences.

What the source actually says is:

Alternative scientific views for the causation of consciousness

and subjective phenomenon have, therefore, been proposed. These range from the view that consciousness may arise from ‘quantum’ processes within neuronal microtubules [51], to consciousness being a form of ‘morphic resonance’ [52] or the possibility that the mind or consciousness may actually be a fundamental scientific entity in its own right irreducible to anything more basic [50,53]. This concept has been proposed to be similar to the discovery of electromagnetic phenomenon in the 19th century, or quantum mechanics in the 20th century, both of which were inexplicable in terms of previously known principles and were introduced as fundamental entities in their own right [50]. An extension of this has been the view that contrary to popular perception, what has traditionally been perceived as spirituality, is therefore also an objective branch of knowledge with its own laws, theorems

and axioms [53].

(my emphasis) Sheldrake gets 8 words, out of a 7 page article, that merely mentions that his view exists. EPadmirateur's statement is (at 25 words) more than three times as long as the source's. How is that not gross WP:UNDUE weight? Further, this was merely a review article on 'near death experience' in a journal on resuscitation -- hardly high impact science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have missed my point entirely: this article needs all of these balancing references: Bohm and Dürr, the 4 citations in theoretical work and the acknowledgment that his theory is "among the alternative scientific views for the causation of consciousness", i.e. that it is recognized by some researchers as a scientific view for the cause of consciousness. To suppress any of these balancing statements violates WP:BLP. As editors of a BLP we have the obligation to provide balance, even in the face of giving undue weight from the perspective of many in the scientific community. There are plenty of caveats that show that these "minority view" balancing statements are not the majority view, not least of which is the relative number of lines devoted to them in total. Nor is the minority view a "tiny minority": there are 10 researchers in total who are cited who recognize Sheldrake's theory. There are 8 researchers or science writers cited who criticize him plus many other "mainstream scientists". Leaving the balancing statements out clearly signals taking sides and the article becomes biased and unbalanced from the perspective of WP:BLP. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I see your point -- I simply regard it as being completely without merit.

1. 10 researchers who bother to notice Sheldrake's work at all (most of whom merely mention him in passing, often in a general survey of work) do not amount to more than a "tiny minority" out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists, even if it could legitimately be considered to be a heterogeneous "viewpoint" (rather than lumping together those who actually approve of his work with those who merely mentioned him for reasons of completeness).
2. WP:UNDUE weight, especially to mere mentions-in-passing, is not legitimate balancing -- it is exaggeration of minority viewpoints, and thus against both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.
3. Your "all of these balancing references" amounts to considerably more than the "2 lines out of 20" you have Nealparr's support on. Between Bohm & Dürr +Arizona conference, we're probably in excess of that already.
4. Your plan appears to be to dump & pump any and all non-negative material, no matter how trivial or peripheral, into the article, in an attempt to portray Sheldrake in the least-negative possible light. That is not permissible -- per WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE & WP:NOT.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, this is called being mentioned, in fact cited, in a mainstream journal (or I believe it is a mainstream scientific journal). Now look at this [1]. I think there does need, perhaps, to be some mention that Sheldrake is indeed part of the scientific debate, though restricted to a rather fringe part of it. Haven't read all the above, and did not like the paragraph listing where he's cited. Still, some mention of his positive notability is due, in addition to his negative notability. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi: this is tendentious. Academic journals don't sneeze without giving a citation. The citation in question was for an eight word mention (that contained no discussion whatsoever of the contents of Sheldrake's hypothesis), as part of a general survey paragraph, in a review article, in a very minor and obscure medical journal. This is not being "part of the scientific debate" -- this is getting occasional fleeting notice from the periphery of it. It is "mention" not "usage" (as the article made no 'use' of Sheldrake's ideas), and it's inclusion, let alone inflation to 25 words, is blatant WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, don't start attacking me. I'm not taking one piece of shit from you. I've done that in the past with other editors, and endured being abused no end. Stop it now. And don't try to defend accusations like that either. Just stop it from now on, and we can have a civil debate.

As to the rest of your post, that's exactly what I said, so I agree. Read it. Sheldrake would normally not be mentioned, but as this is his bio, the reader deserves an idea that he has been mentioned positively in science, as well as negatively, as is already in the article. I'm talking about one to three sentences in the "reception" section.

For example:

"Sheldrake's ideas have been cited as possibly relevant to several alternative views of scientific evidence, for example as possibly related to explaining near-death experiences." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPADE -- make a tendentious argument and I'll call it for what it is -- I waste quite enough time with such arguments as it is, so have little toleration for them. Your invocation of WP:RS#Usage by other sources was particularly tendentious -- mere mention is not "usage" or "use [of the] given source", and certainly is nothing like "citation without comment for facts". This article is NOT indication that he is "mentioned positively in science". (1) The article is strictly neutral in that it merely mentions the existence of his hypothesis in the context of a brief survey of views. (2) The journal itself is a medical journal not a scientific one, for "the dissemination of clinical and basic science research relating to acute care medicine and cardiopulmonary resuscitation". As such, this mere neutral mention is in a field entirely unrelated to Sheldrake's research. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, I would take the fact that editors are resorting to using mere neutral mention, in a review article in a minor medical journal restricted to a specialised niche topic, as indication of a dearth of discussion that is either (1) in-depth; (2) of a positive nature; (3) in the scientific literature; (4) makes "use" of Sheldrake for facts or as the basis for further research; or (5) is in any prominent source. This is clearly indicative that the support for Sheldrake's work approaches "tiny minority" status. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What you do by your attitude is to give up the ability to work with people in a positive manner, or have them listen positively to your arguments, some of which are good. WP works by consensus, so you reduce yourself to edit warring, which is not effective unless only one other editor disagrees with you. So good luck being effective on WP if you're going to behave badly.

Also, please read policy and the other stuff you cite before you cite it. And don't cite it out of general policy context. For instance, WP:SPADE. As SlimVirgin once said, SPADE is often used as an excuse to be a WP:DICK, but does not actually justify it. I'd urge you to read SPADE, very very much. But also DICK, as it says exactly what I'm trying to say to you:

"Don't be a dick" is the fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along is a special case of it. Although nobody on WP is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick (as this would be an instance of being a dick), it is still a bad idea to be one. So don't do it.

No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right.

Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are.

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And of course your lengthy chest-beating over a (now well-substantiated) characterisation of the lack of substance of your argument is not in the least bit dick-like is it Martinphi? If you don't like people calling your arguments bad (or "tendentious" or 'without substance') then avoid making bad arguments. It'll save wear and tear on your temper & my patience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll come back to this article when things have cooled down. If anyone needs me to reply to something, please post a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

categories on user sandboxes

I put "nowiki" tags around the category list on the article on your sandbox, after finding it listed on Category:Parapsychologists. User space pages should not usually be visible from mainspace. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Extensive discussion"

I've tagged the sentence "Sheldrake’s ideas have been subjected to extensive discussion in some journals and newspapers." This appears to give the false impression that Sheldrake's ideas are a hot topic for discussion, with frequent and in-depth coverage. I would suggest that "sporadic" would be a more accurate characterisation, as the coverage is relatively infrequent and generally fairly superficial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheldrake's theory is one of three cited as alternative explanations for consciousness

Hrafn, you said earlier "Sheldrake gets 8 words, out of a 7 page article, that merely mentions that his view exists. EPadmirateur's statement is (at 25 words) more than three times as long as the source's. How is that not gross WP:UNDUE weight? Further, this was merely a review article on 'near death experience' in a journal on resuscitation -- hardly high impact science."

You are presenting an interesting "argument by ridicule". What Parnia and Fenwick are saying is that the ordinary materialist explanations for consciousness (direct causation by the brain) do not explain the phenomena of near-death experiences where vivid conscious experiences are reported in cases when the brain has ceased to function for example in cardiac arrest. Sheldrake's theory is one of 3 that were cited as alternative theories that are cited which have been proposed in the literature to explain this anomalous phenomenon.

This doesn't need to be "high impact science" in order to mentioned here, although the actual cause of consciousness is a fairly weighty problem. It doesn't have to be in a high power journal although Resuscitation is a respected peer-reviewed journal and they are talking about a phenomenon that's seen in cardiac arrest. But the citation is valid evidence of Sheldrake's theory's reception among at least some part of the scientific community.

Just to get it straight, are we giving WP:UNDUE weight because the reference is so relevant that it should not be mentioned (and gives undue weight to Sheldrake), or that it is so trivial that it should not be mentioned (it's undue because it's a "tiny minority" view), or that it takes more words to express the idea "cold" without any previous context and has undue weight because it takes more than 8 words? Just wondering. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am ridiculing your claim because it is a ridiculous claim. The article was delineating the "range" of views, so it is hardly surprising that this would list in passing some of the more extreme/fringe views -- as these define the extent of this "range". The authors did not consider Sheldrake's views to be sufficiently credible or interesting to be worth discussing in the slightest detail. It is WP:UNDUE weight because:

1. the article expresses no viewpoint on Sheldrake's work, it merely notes its existence (so there exists no meaningful viewpoint to give prominence to);
2. the source does not give Sheldrake's viewpoint "prominance"; and
3. this mere mention is not in a "prominent" source.

Thus including this material is not "in proportion to the prominence" of it. It is a trivial irrelevance, and should not be given undue weight. This would be true even if this was in a high-impact scientific journal, it is even more true when it is in an obscure medical journal. I am getting tired of this argument. Mere neutral mention in passing (cited or otherwise) does not belong in an article. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP & WP:NOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should not make a major point out of a mere mention. Jayen466 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this source, when combined with other similar mentions, deserves a couple of sentences, as I described above, in the reception section. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Balance for Maddox quotes

It seems ironic that Maddox's condemnation of Sheldrake gets such high prominence in the article when the readers of Nature unanimously said that Maddox's views were extreme, in the next issue. These were readers listed as located at Oxford University and Universities of Cambridge and York. I think there needs to be some balancing that shows that Maddox's position regarding was not as widely held as the article presently implies. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you wanting to defend the scientific community's unscientific reaction to Sheldrake? Anyway, letters to the editor don't make a good source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To balance Maddox's extreme position that takes such a prominent position in the article: yes, Sheldrake's views are weird but Maddox went overboard and his words are quoted prominently. The writers' views are a balance. That's all. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, those letters to the editor balance Maddox...... yeah, but they don't represent the reaction of the scientific community, not the way Nature as a whole does. I say that the scientific community doesn't deserve your grace here. Let them come off as asses, because that's how they acted. Imagine Nature seriously publishing an article that said that. It's a complete disgrace, and deserves the air time.

However, I agree that if we can find some better sources, where the scientific community actually did mitigate the disgrace of Nature and Maddox, then we should use them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned above and provided a link that according to Hanegraaff the New Scientist published a riposte to Maddox, asking if Nature had abandoned the scientific method in favour of "trial by editorial". So that statement is available, if there is a consensus to add something that puts Maddox in perspective. Jayen466 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that: thanks very much. The New Scientist riposte is cited in Appendix A of Science of Life, after p. 209 of the 1995 edition, and perhaps 1985 edition. I don't have a copy handy. Can anyone look this up? I think this would be much better than citing correspondence. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, if there's better sources for it (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A question: were the responses defending Sheldrake's work, or merely expressing disapproval of the unseemly and immoderate vehemence with which Maddox expressed his own disapproval? I think this point is important to providing an accurate context for Maddox's statements. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't answer this earlier. Robert Hedges, F. W. Cousins and C.J.S. Clarke call for a rational approach to any scientific controversy and did not defend Sheldrake's work. However, Brian David Josephson of University of Cambridge, Nobel laureate physicist, predictor of the Josephson effect, who also believes that parapsychological phenomena may be real, wrote the following letter:

SIR — In a leading article (Nature 24 September, p.245) you reject Dr Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields as "pseudo science" on the grounds that he does not prescribe their nature or origin, or discuss how their laws of propagation might be discovered. But the properties of heat, light and sound were investigated long before there was any understanding of their true nature, and electricity and magnetism originally had exactly the status that you criticized in the hypothetical water-divining example. Were such investigations pseudoscience?
You claim that hypotheses can be dignified as theories only if all aspects of them can be tested. Such a criterion would bar general relativity, the black hole and many other concepts of modern science from being regarded as legitimate scientific theories.
The discussion of Dr Sheldrake's proposed experiments and their falsifiability is rendered void since it assumes a priori that the experiments will fail.
The rapid advances in molecular biology to which you refer do not mean very much. If one is on a journey, rapid progress on the way implies neither that one is close to one's destination, nor that the destination will be reached at all by continuing to follow the same road.
By referring to "self-respecting grant-making agencies" you show a concern not for scientific validity but for respectability. The fundamental weakness is a failure to admit even the possibility that genuine physical facts may exist which lie outside the scope of current scientific descriptions. Indeed, a new kind of understanding of nature is now emerging, with concepts like implicate order and subject-dependent reality (and now, perhaps iformative causation). These developments have not yet penetrated to the leading journals. One can only hope that the editors will soon cease to obstruct this avenue of progress, and instead encourage reviews of the field.
B.D. JOSEPHSON
University of Cambridge, UK

That word iformative is probably a misspelling: formative. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Freeman gives an account of the controversy. --Jayen466 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Freeman says virtually nothing about the immediate response (just quotes one letter calling it a "hysterical attack"). It's interesting that Freeman likewise received a 'response':

As illustrated by the following response from neurophysiologist Christof Koch to my invitation to

join this symposium: ‘I’ll not comment on Sheldrake’s papers because I think it is a waste of time. I would like to see hard physical, empirical evidence — and not just appeal to what Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann called quantum flapdoodle—for such a non-local mental “field” that would carry information from a subject in one room, observed via a video camera, to an observer at a remote location. Of course, this information would not have to interact specifically with any other subject who would then also claim to be stared at.
‘Sheldrake has no understanding of modern neurobiology or modern theories of vision, confusing metaphors and museum exhibits with the ideas themselves — his characterization of how vision occurs in the brain is cartoonish.
‘The morphogenetic fields postulated by Sheldrake to be necessary to explain developmental processes have proven to be equally elusive and molecular biology, coupled with the physical diffusion of various chemicals, has proven to be far more successful in explaining, in a predictive manner, how organisms develop from a single cell. Nor are such fields needed to explain animal communciation in non-vocal species. See, for example, the recent article by Couzin et al. (Nature, 433, pp. 513–16, 2005) on how local mechanisms can explain rapid group decisions in animal collectives on the move (e.g. school of fish). No need for any spooky substances.
‘Finally, I don’t see how appealing to the beliefs of people makes a theory more or less true. In the US, far more people believe in ghosts, astrology, the literal truth of the bible and so on than in natural selection by evolution. That is a sociological but not an ontological observation.
‘As a member of this journal’s advisory board I’m surprised that JCS would give a platform to these sorts of ideas. It makes the job of those of us that seek to identify and study consciousness as a natural phenomenon, subject to known physical and biophysical principles, so much more difficult.’ (Text of an email from Christof Koch to Anthony Freeman, February 10, 2005, reproduced here with the

writer’s permission.)

This tends to support my earlier suspicion that Sheldrake is largely ignored by the scientific community as being 'beyond the pale' & not worth dignifying with a response. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Koch was one member of the JCS editorial board that took that view; the JCS issue still ran. The entire issue (later published as a book, IIRC) was devoted to Sheldrake, and a number of people contributed, much as in the German book by Dürr. But on the whole I believe you are quite right; Sheldrake's theory is mostly ignored by natural science. There is a minority in natural science, which includes some notable figures, that says it deserves to be looked at. That's the state of play and is how we should present it. Jayen466 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gardner quote

The Gardner quote is misleading in that it comes from someone who has no understanding of Sheldrake's theory, as he demonstrates when he tries to describe it and instead produces something like a parody of Sheldrake. We have no reason to believe that any scientist told Gardner that Sheldrake is pseudoscientific on the basis of a genuine understanding of his work. To my knowledge, no actual scientist has ever, one, demonstrated an understanding of Sheldrake's work, and two, claimed that it was pseudoscience. Keep in mind that scientists generally do not like to accuse fellow scientists of pseudoscience.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: it as an objective fact that Sheldrake is a biologist, i.e. a scientist. If his work is pseudoscience, no one has ever demonstrated precisely on what grounds this is so.

Either the context of Gardner's quote must be included, or it must be eliminated. A Wikipedia editor needs to step in and ensure that the Gardner quote is not allowed on Sheldrake's page unless properly contextualized.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Either get sources for it or stop edit warring over it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

At least provide a quotation from the alledged source you give (ibid p 111) to bolster what you say. As is, it looks like OR, and must be eliminated per WP rules. If you can source and attribute it, we can leave it in. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And this latest edit [2] just makes it look even more as if it's OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Without a source from secondary literature, WP:OR indeed. Jayen466 01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He's introduced it again here & here. It currently states:

However, not only does Gardner fail to provide any references to bolster his accusation, he misconstrues the theory, claiming that "M-fields operate... on a sub-quantum level outside space and time."[33] This statement bears no relation to Sheldrake's theory as he has consistently described it.[34]

The trouble is that Gardner makes no such admission in the first citation, and Sheldrake makes no such accusation in the second. I have templated Alfonzo Green twice for this blatant WP:SYNTH, but still he keeps continuing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, Gardner isn't going to concede in his book that what he's written in it is completely bogus. Nonetheless, I understand the situation better now. Wikipedia is not about accuracy per se. It's only about making sure that everything is sourced and therefore unoriginal. This is understandable, and I'm not going to criticize Wikipedia for its policy. However, I have now made it clear that Gardner has no idea what Sheldrake actually proposes. We have no reason to believe that any scientist who talked to Gardner was responding to Sheldrake's actual theory or Gardner's caricature of it. It's easy to imagine Gardner describing some crazy theory of fields operating "on a subquantum level outside space and time" so as to yield the hoped for condemnation. The Gardner quote is thus totally meaningless. So, why do you want it up on the Sheldrake page? Yes, I see how you can work Wikipedia rules in your favor, but what about your credibility? Don't you want to be perceived as someone devoted to accuracy and truth? Instead, you come across as someone who knowingly takes a cheap shot so long as it's against a perceived adversary.

Not only does Sheldrake say nothing whatever about any "subquantum level," but one of the main themes in his work is the denial of transcendent causation, that is, causation that operates outside of space and time, such as eternal, changeless laws of physics. Morphic resonance is a descriptive term for memory, meaning that it's immanent to time. And of course morphic fields are as spatial as any of the widely accepted physical fields. Not only does Sheldrake not say what Gardner attributes to him; he says the opposite.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you understand the situation correctly. We are breaking the rules to exercise such editorial judgment here, so we give up at least one way in which traditional encyclopedias can, in some cases, become accurate. It stinks, but what can one do? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not true. We can, in theory, agree that Gardner is not qualified to make his pronouncements, or that they have no encyclopedic relevance. This happens all the time. For example, J. Randi has written that the Wizard of Oz is more fun, and more believable, than the Bible. Yet you will look in vain for that comment in our article on either. Randi is simply not notable and qualified enough for his comments on the Wizard of Oz or the Bible to be of encyclopedic relevance. Gardner, likewise, is neither a biologist nor a physicist, he is just a man with an opinion. It is up to talk page consensus whether to include it or not. Personally, I think he is dispensable; there are enough people in Sheldrake's field who have a low opinion of his hypothesis. Jayen466 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources would appear to apply here -- as Sheldrake is no more qualified in quantum physics than Gardner is. Though I would agree that Gardner isn't particularly prominent (I only originally brought him up as part of a list of sources substantiating that Sheldrake was WP:FRINGE). I'd suspect that Koch's comments are of more direct relevance (being a neurophysiologist who's also on the advisory panel of Journal of Consciousness Studies). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that Christof Koch, while probably less famous than Gardner, is more qualified to comment, and a better source to quote. Jayen466 21:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Details in the 'Testing formative causation' section

The story appears to be this: Sheldrake and Rose did an experiment; Sheldrake disagreed with Rose, Patrick Bateson and other "mainstream scientists" as to the interpretation of the results. Given that the disagreements appear to have been over proper statistical methodology and are unrelated to the specific setup details of the experiment, I don't see how the details of the setup are relevant. Would it have altered the disagreement if 2-day-old chickens had been used, or crow chicks (or even lizards), or if a green light had been used, or if lithium fluoride had been substituted for chloride? Then why confuse the readers with all this trivia? I'm not sure if any mention of the nature of the underlying experiment is necessary, but if it is mentioned, it should be a single, very short, sentence -- as it is just setting the scene for the 'he says, they say' disagreement afterwards. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're too focused on the controversy. It's very appropriate to give a hint of how exactly the thing was tested. As with any good reporting, general context is also relevant. This is detail the general reader will want to know. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that Sheldrake is notable because his ideas are controversial. Likewise the experiment is noteworthy because of the disagreement between its participants as to the interpretation. Details about the experiment that do not aid in understanding that controversy are thus largely irrelevant -- and the reader will not want to know them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The reader will be far more interested in the experiment than the dispute, which is why magazines like Discover lard their articles with human details. But let some other people comment. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The excessive presentation of details in fringe articles make them into puff-pieces. The fact that we have fringe articles means that we must explain what is fringe about them (part of what makes them notable is the fact that they are fringe). Obscure experiments that have received no critical review or citations to mainstream literature are only notable for the controversy the engender -- inasmuch as the controversy is about the actual experiment we can cover it. In this case, the controversy is over the ideas behind the experiment and the disputed results. So detailing the experiment is inappropriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What did Rose say about Sheldrake?

In his book Lifelines: Biology beyond determinism, Steven Rose mentions Sheldrake in three places:

Old paradigms, one might say, never die; only their protagonists fade from view. For instance, on a less grandiose scale than relativity or evolution, the belief that memories are stored in the brain in the form of changes in the properties of nerve cells and in the connections between them is the paradigm within which my own research is set, and within which I am largely content. Like other paradigms, it is hard to disprove. One alternative, energetically proposed by the botanist turned New Age philosopher Rupert Sheldrake, is what he calls 'morphic resonance'. His idea is that memories — human and non-human — are not stored in the brain at all, but are somehow present in a universal 'ether', so that once something has happened somewhere in the world, it becomes easier for it to happen again somewhere else.7 His books and public appearances attracted a good deal of non-scientific enthusiasm for this seemingly bizarre proposal, so much so that the then editor of Nature, the world's premier scientific journal, was moved to suggest that Sheldrake's was a book fit for burning.

I was sufficiently troubled by this suggestion that I incautiously suggested to Sheldrake that he and I do a joint experiment, based on the behaviour of my chicks, to test his idea. We agreed the design of the experiment and made two rival predictions as to its outcome, and decided that when it was done we would write up the results as a joint research paper. Within my paradigm, the predicted outcome of the experiment would be that the behaviour of successive hatches of chicks would not change, despite previous hatches having had a novel experience; within his, there should be a change, as later hatches would acquire a memory of the experience of the earlier hatches by virtue of some incorporeal 'morphic resonance'. When we ran the experiment, I was proved right — to my satisfaction and to that of other researchers in the field. Sheldrake, however, was able to convince himself that, viewed in a particular way, the data supported his hypothesis of morphic resonance. We couldn't agree on how to write the joint paper, and instead published two alternative accounts side by side.8 This just goes to show how little facts 'speak for themselves'. We all cling tenaciously to our views of the world; rather than accept an interpretation which destroys our paradigm, we wrap the paradigm... p. 49.

References:

• 7 Sheldrake, A New Science of Life
• 8 Sheldrake, 'An experimental test of the hypothesis of formative causation'; Rose, 'So-called "formative causation"'; Sheldrake, 'Rose refuted'.

Within limits, our experiments are successful, our predictions about the world are confirmed. This is why as researchers we get so much pleasure from elegant reductive experiments which give clear-cut conclusions, and why as a teacher I spend much of my time helping my students design such experiments. And, historically, writers and poets who opposed the reduction and mathematization of the universe, the Blakes, or Goethes, the nineteenth-century 'nature philosophers' with their romantic pleas for a non-reductionist alternative, the philosopher Bergson with his vision of a non-physical life force, or their twentieth-century avatars like Sheldrake, have simply been unable to come up with an effective alternative experimental programme. p. 78.

Loeb went on to formulate his own grand theory, which he called The Mechanistic Conception of Life in a book — or rather a manifesto - published in 1912. In it he claimed that organisms are machines. Behaviour, even of the most complex kind, can be broken down into a series of mechanical tropisms, tendencies to move towards or away from the light, or in response to gravity, or whatever. Furthermore, simple biochemical mechanisms could account for such tropisms. If Driesch was the Sheldrake of his day, Loeb was certainly the Dawkins. p. 109.

Have I missed anything else? --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting quotes. Sheldrake should have known better than to undertake such an experiment, as studies of small effects are not always successful even when they do exist. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm -- where's the yellow light, where's the lithium chloride? If Rose doesn't mention them, then why do we -- and especially, why are we citing Rose for them? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Reception" in "Anomalies of Consciousness"

EPadmirateur insists on placing this item in 'Reception', but the item gives no indication of what reception his ideas got there. What did the "three critiques of his work" say about it? This information is needed to make this item relevant for the section. I find it odd that such crucial relevant detail is omitted, while the article simply gushes with irrelevant trivia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's notable about the "Anomalies of Consciousness" plenary session, as an indication of the reception of Sheldrake's work, is that it focused on his work. Given the sense of this article, you wouldn't expect that any major conference would invite Sheldrake to present anything at all, let alone highlight his work in a plenary session. The critiques from the other presenters in this session focused on his experiments on the sense of being stared at, which had also received a significant focus in the 2005 JCS issue, with 14 very critical commentaries (The Sense of Being Glared At). The following descriptions are based on my notes, so they are not citable and may contain errors, misinterpretations and omissions. Note: I am no particular fan of Sheldrake: his presentation at this conference was the first time I had heard about his work in any detail.

Sheldrake spoke about apparent telepathy between animals and humans, for example, the dog JayTee who seems to know when his owner has decided to come home (the video made by the Austrian television crew was shown), also describing the replication by Nicholas Humphrey and his analysis of where Humphrey had failed to interpret the observed behavior properly. He also presented the video of an experiment with the African Grey parrot N'Kisi, where N'Kisi spoke words identifying what his owner was viewing of randomly selected pictures in another part of the house. Sheldrake also presented cases of apparent human to human telepathy, such as the babies and nursing mothers, telephone telepathy, email telepathy and the sense of being stared at.

Bierman focused his presentation on how these paranormal phenomena should be interpreted. He cited comparable staring studies, one where the investigator was skeptical of the phenomenon (getting a non-significant rate of 50.8% compared with Sheldrake's highly significant 55% -- significance due to the extremely large sample size). He pointed out that the most obvious difference between the studies was the involvement of a particular experimenter (Sheldrake) suggesting that the experimenter's mere association with the experiment can be a factor. He criticized the telephone telepathy experiment on several counts: the method allows cheating, not as large an effect was found in replications (perhaps due to differences in subject populations), and again the "experimenter effect". Finally, he presented his latest study on presentiment: showing 64 computer-randomly-selected images (neutral, violent and erotic) to 8 different experienced meditators and 8 matched controls, using fMRI imaging of 36 specific brain regions, there is a slight but significant reaction some milliseconds before the picture is shown which appears to be anticipation of the as-yet-to-be selected image. The most interesting fact revealed by Bierman (with Sheldrake's permission) was that Sheldrake was one of the meditator subjects in the study and had a very large "presentiment" effect for erotic pictures (but not for animal violent pictures -- as a biologist, Sheldrake said he is not particularly affected by these images). Bierman stated that a "retro-psychokinesis" effect by Sheldrake is a possible explanation for the differences in the studies but time-symmetric physics might be a better explanation than ad hoc morphic field explanations. Such experiments need to control for the experimenter's "influence".

John Allen and Steven Barker gave two shorter evaluations of the sense of being stared at experiments. They were introduced as being neutral researchers in the debate, not having formed any prior opinions of Sheldrake's work. Allen tried his own simple replication of the experiment and found that with proper control of confounding factors, there appears to be an effect but noted among other things that the effect feels like guessing, that the subject is making a forced choice without awareness. Barker did an analysis that showed that the effect shown in Sheldrake's data, despite the impressive levels of significance reported (p=10^-8), is still quite small: it's only slightly better than chance.

In the "panel discussion" there was time only to let Sheldrake reply. Sheldrake responded that retro-PK doesn't explain the effect of his association with the experiments because the tests are completely automated and are either done without Sheldrake's involvement or can be set up that way. But, yes, there are "experimenter effects" -- different results because of association of different experimenters. One difference might be the subjects: the best subjects are not college students but single mothers. Many of the responses in these experiments (staring, skin response, milk letting down) are made unawares. Yes, the staring phenomenon is a small effect but the statistical significance is due to the very large sample size. Small children can be tested, for example, in automated tests of the staring effect in science museums. "Sensitive" subjects can be identified. One can train people to increase their sensitivity to the staring phenomenon, for example, training in martial arts.

If you want better documentation of the session than my notes, you need to get the recording, preferably the DVD since the bulk of the talks were supported by slides and videos; it's well worth the $30 price.

So regarding reception of Sheldrake's work, my impression was that Sheldrake was very amicably and warmly received and was treated with respect. (He still had a limp from the knife attack and had to sit while giving his presentation.) Still, I detected an undercurrent of grumbling among some conference participants at his presence in the conference, and I'm fairly certain that the program committee received significant opposition to this part of the conference. Nevertheless, his work was the focus or highlight of a plenary session at a major conference on consciousness. I think we need to state that in the article as evidence of his "reception". --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the evidence that his work was "the highlight or focus" of the session? Is that stated or implied somewhere? Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 01:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The program billed the plenary session as "Anomalies of Consciousness, Does extra-sensory perception actually occur? Rupert Sheldrake will present his controversial evidence for non-local perceptions (e.g. ‘the sense of being stared at’) as a product of evolution. A panel of critical discussants will evaluate his claims."

The day-by-day program listed the session as "Anomalies of Consciousness, Rupert Sheldrake The Evolution of Telepathy, Panel: Dick Bierman, John Allen, Steven Barker".

This format was also the way the session was introduced (by Stuart Hameroff as I recall) and this was the way it was run, with Sheldrake having the bulk of the time and then being allowed to respond to the other 3 panelists, without a "discussion" since they had run out of time. You will need to get the DVD to verify these last points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were suggesting that Sheldrake was a "highlight or focus" of the conference. The fact that he presented a talk at a plenary session in and of itself does not say anything about how his work was received. Is there a secondary publication that reports on his reception that we can reference? Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 14:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A "highlight of the conference"? Not at all! One of the 12 plenary sessions was devoted to his work, where it was featured in some detail and critiqued. From the point of view of the general reception by the scientific community, the fact that his work was featured in this way is an indication of a degree of positive reception. This is somewhat different from what is portrayed in the rest of the article, and so is probably notable. The critiques were well thought through and presented but they were not harsh criticisms, denunciations or outright rejections, from my perspective. Sheldrake received very warm applause from the audience. I am not aware of any "review" of or commentary on this plenary session. The best source from which to judge it would be the DVD of the session. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible that – Christof Koch's opinion not withstanding – Sheldrake receives a more positive reception among researchers and philosophers of consciousness than he enjoys among traditional biologists. We'd need sources though. Jayen466 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Sheldrake's work

Cited comments on Sheldrake's ideas from reliable secondary sources were deleted without discussion. The material specifically addressed ideas introduced in Sheldrake's work and was relevant to the section. Please discuss why you think cited material should be removed before removing it. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 14:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The cited material was a general critique of Sheldrake and his publications, rather than specific to the book being discussed in this section. I have moved it to Reception. Even there, we would do better to quote a more reputable author who carries some weight in the field. Jayen466 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The cited material is not a general critique, it is taken from an article entitled morphic resonance and specifically addresses Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonance and A New Science of Life. Because it is intended specifically to address morphic resonance, it should not be relegated to a section on Reception.

Regarding your comment on the reputation of the author, I would like to point out that there is no "reputable author who carries some weight in the field" because there is no reputable field that embraces "morphic resonance". On the other hand, the cited author is an expert in pseudoscience and, since that is the basis upon which Sheldrake's morphic resonance has been criticized, he is an appropriate expert upon which to draw. I am moving the comment back to the section where I believe it clearly belongs and I would ask you to leave it there until there is some consensus that it belongs elsewhere. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 15:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. In my view, it does not belong in the section covering his book "A New Science of Life". Nothing in the quote refers to the book; instead, it is a critique of the man and his output in general. As such, it clearly belongs in Reception, if included at all.

As for the status of the source, of course there are reputable authors who carry weight in the field; Koch is one, Klymkowsky is another. The field concerned is biology, biophysics, physiology etc. --Jayen466 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is about "A New Science of Life" and the quote is a critique not of the man, but of the non-scientific nature of his hypothesis. I'll update the passage to make that clearer. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 02:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmyotis, I believe you are mistaken. Please read the headline, and kindly read the whole article, not just the first line. So: the title of the SkepDic article is "Morphic Resonance". This is what the article is about. The article mentions that the concept was first introduced in "A New Science of Life." Now, note that Sheldrake's second book, treated in the following subsection of our article, was called "The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature". The SkepDic critique applies to this book as much as the first, does it not? The SkepDic article then discusses and critiques content from "Dogs that Know ..." (covered under "Later Work" in our article), and the staring effect (covered under "The Sense of Being Stared At" in our article). The one book by Sheldrake that the SkepDic page actually lists under Further Reading is "Seven Experiments".

To state, as we are now doing, that the SkepDic article is about the book "A new science of life" misleads the reader. It is not a review of that book, but a general critique of Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance and all his subsequent work derived from it. The description of this work is spread out across all the subsections of our article. Could you kindly explain why it is so important to you that the SkepDic comment on Morphic Resonance should appear in the subsection discussing "A New Science of Life", rather than in Reception? --Jayen466 09:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen466. The SkepDic article is on "morphic resonance" (which is Sheldrake's general thesis, and also the explicit subject of his second book: The Presence of the Past: morphic resonance and the habits of nature, as well as his first), it merely mentions that "Morphic resonance is a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake in his 1981 book A New Science of Life" -- it in no way states that the article is limited to that book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether the skeptic article is about more than just A New Science of Life is a Straw man argument. It was never my intention to suggest it was. My point is that the quote addresses the the non-scientific nature of Sheldrake's hypothesis and, other readings notwithstanding, specifically directs that criticism towards the methods used in A New Science of Life. The current article wording was an attempt to address Jayen466's concern, but I see in retrospect that it leaves the wrong impression. I'll undo that recent change. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 16:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that the SkepDic article "specifically directs that criticism towards the methods used in A New Science of Life", as opposed to Sheldrake (and his work) more generally. The full quote is:

In short, although Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist because of his education and degree, he has clearly abandoned conventional science in favor of magical thinking. This is his right, of course. However, his continued pose as a scientist on the frontier of discovery is unwarranted. He is one of a growing horde of "alternative" scientists whose resentment at the aspiritual nature of modern scientific paradigms, as well as the obviously harmful and seemingly indifferent applications of modern science, have led them to seek their own paradigms in ancient and long-abandoned concepts. These paradigms are not new, though the terminology is. These alternative paradigms allow for angels, telepathy, psychic dogs, alternative realities, and hope for a future world where we all live in harmony and love, surrounded by blissful neighbors who never heard of biological warfare, nuclear bombs, or genetically engineered corn on the cob.

It is talking about Sheldrake's ideas and methodologies generally, not just the contents of a specific book. And it is most certainly " a critique ... of the man" -- and "his continued pose as a scientist on the frontier of discovery". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The SkepDic article gives no indication that it is addressing arguments specific to A New Science of Life, it only mentions that he coined the term "morphic resonance" in that book. There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that material on the SkepDic article belongs in the section on that book, rather than in the one on general reception of his work. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance is Sheldrake's treatise on the subject of morphic resonance. In it he lays out his arguments in support of his hypothesis. The Skeptic's Dictionary article is about morphic resonance and the methods Sheldrake uses to support his hypothesis. That should be all the indication a person would need. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 17:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that is WP:SYNTH: (i) A New Science of Life is about morphic resonance, (ii) the SkepDic article is about morphic resonance, (iii) therefore (i.e. step that is synthesis) the SkepDic article is about A New Science of Life. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it belongs in the book section. It is a general article about his main idea. It starts out with the book in question, but in the same paragraph progresses to his other works. There is already criticism of that specific book, from Nature, no less. Why should this go anywhere but in the general reception section? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Moved back to Reception as per comments above. --Jayen466 03:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(I noticed the hard work and effort here)

Today I visited this article for the first time in several months. It is much improved, much better sourced and much more neutral and encyclopedic in its presentation. Kudos! Trilobitealive (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The last sentence of the introduction states "His work has been branded as pseudoscience by critics", and gives the source: "L'Imposture Scientifique en Dix Lecons".

When this source was originally added, it was to a review of the source. It seems that the editor presumed that because "Roughly translated, the title of L'Imposture Scientifique en Dix Lecons means "Pseudoscience in Ten Lessons.", then by association, Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience. This is quite a leap of faith.

I have (1) removed the source, as it does not appear to support the statement, unless someone has an original quote in the original article to Sheldrake's work, which labels Sheldrake's work as such. (2) Removed the statement as there is now only one source suggesting Sheldrake's work to be pseudoscience, and this is described elsewhere in the article. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO, I have again removed the assertion that "His work has been branded as pseudoscience by critics", on the grounds that the French source does NOT support (a) that his work is pseudoscience (b) that it has been branded as such by critics.

I have also removed the second reference, now described as "[need quote][3][citation needed]", on the grounds that (a) it is already included in the article, and (b) Maddox is not the appointed representative of all critics. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you denying that his work has been branded thus? There are references to critics branding his work pseudoscience on his own website. Jayen466 11:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that the French source does not support the branding, and consequently the Maddox quote alone is not sufficient to support the branding. If there are sources that say otherwise, by all means present them, but I haven't see them. But let's not suggest that the whole of mainstream science has called his work pseudoscience, just because one or two individuals have done so. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Freeman speaks of the hostility "most" mainstream scientists continue to show Sheldrake's work. I think that's fair – not that there haven't been notable exceptions. Jayen466 12:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But just because Freeman says "most", there is no way to confirm this. I am sure he did not ask "most" scientists, and if I were to ask, for example, "most" physicists, I bet most have never heard of Sheldrake, let alone admit to being hostile towards him. I think it is important to attribute this statement to Freeman, especially as we are cherry-picking this from his paper. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Dürr, in the introduction to his book Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion, refers to a "surprising but complete lack of interest in Sheldrake's exotic ideas on the part of the scientific community". ("Im Kontrast zu dem auffällig großen Interesse bei Medien und Öffentlichkeit überraschte viele das völlige Desinteresse, sich mit den exotischen Thesen von Rupert Sheldrake auf wissenschaftlicher Basis - und sei es auf noch so kritische Weise - auseinanderzusetzen.") That is how an explicit Sheldrake supporter characterises the situation. As for Freeman, we don't have to confirm it, it's a WP:RS. If you have an alternative source that states something else, we can add that too, but it's not up to us to confirm if a source is right or not. We only check if it appears to come from a reliable or reputable source. Jayen466 14:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Two Sheldrake critics (Ropp, Wolpert) using the pseudoscience label (apart from Maddox, who we know proved influential): [3]

Remember, the deleted sentence did not say that most scientists referred to his work as pseudoscience; it merely said that his work had been branded pseudoscience "by critics". I think that is perfectly true and fair to say. It's also true that his work is ignored by most mainstream scientists; we could add that to the lede, if editors prefer. Jayen466 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Two different issues here:

1. Durr's criticism are valid, though "no interest" is somewhat neutral, and not the same as "hostile", and not a "rejection". By all means include Durr's comment in context. Freeman may be a reliable source, but I can find half a dozen maverick astronomers (Fred Hoyler, Narliker, etc) who are anti Big Bang, and reliable sources, but it doesn't make their point of view correct. It just makes their point of view notable and perhaps worth describing. By attributing Freeman's view, I can find no fault with the statement, and can not disagree with it; without attribution, the statement is potentially contentious (we know he did not ask most scientists)

2. I wasn't complaining that "his work had been branded pseudoscience by critics", but that the French source did not support it (and Maddox was mentioned elsewhere in context). Now that you have the source by Ropp (I couldn't find Wolpert's), we can verify the statement; having said that, I don't know the credentials of Ropp, it just says he is a "contributing editor" which may make him a less reliable source. If a "contributing editor" criticised the Big Bang, would we include it as a criticism? --88.84.137.165 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheldrake self-published

I see no evidence that Sheldrake's recent work has been self-published, as an edit stated today. His recent books appear to have been published by various Random House imprints. Jayen466 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Its easy to forgot that self published and books written for the popular media have different meanings. At times it seems like splitting hairs to me but you are right. The intent was to indicate that these publications are not peer reviewed. My undo corrects this oversight.--OMCV (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The "generally" is perhaps a little too sweeping; there have been some notable exceptions (Dürr, Bohm etc.), so I'd rather go back to "most mainstream scientists" or some such phrasing. I believe the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research have carried articles covering his key ideas in recent years. I'd rather not get into discussions of what is a bona fide peer-reviewed journal, and what isn't, and propose instead we write our article in such a way that there cannot be any quibbles. Lastly, I believe he is most commonly described as "a biologist"; the "citizen trained as a biologist" seems like OR (and POV) to me. You'd have to show evidence that that is how he is usually described for us to use that wording in the lede. Jayen466 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Much of his work is not biology related. This is to say that even though he was trained as a biologist doesn't mean he is still a biologist. One of the citations added to this section notes this. His current position is not as a biologist but a psychiatry/parapsychologist. In addition it is very important to identify what is and is not a scientific peer reviewed journal since pseudo-jornals is a common method to promote pseudoscience. Bohm hasn't supported Sheldrake for at least 15 years, may he rest in peace. As for Durr why isn't he referenced in this article. As it stands the only feedback from active main stream science referenced in this article is negative or at least overwhelmingly critical. There is substantial evidence and citations indicating that most of Sheldrake current work is pseudoscience. If this article dealt with "Auxin Transport or Hormones in Plants" circa 30 years ago then it would be fair to call Sheldrake a biologist and authentic scientists. In his popular work he left science long ago. This is main stream science, this is what wikipedia identifies as NPOV.--OMCV (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bohm being deceased, he obviously can't support Sheldrake. ;-) Hans-Peter Dürr is referenced in the article; he is a very reputable scientist, in fact he's on the board of the Federation of German Scientists-VDW. The Journal of Scientific Exploration has "proper scientists" on its editorial board. (This is precisely the discussion I didn't want to have, because we could be here all year – I'd rather avoid having that battle fought in this article.) I wouldn't say that Sheldrake's work is "not biology-related", witness criticism by people such as Koch that Sheldrake doesn't understand modern neurobiology etc. Sheldrake does not claim to be doing psychiatry, to my knowledge. We do say that his work has met with a hostile reception from most mainstream scientists; I think that is fair, given that there is a significant scientific minority view that says otherwise (see refs). The POV that he has "abandoned science in favour of magical thinking" is in Reception, with attribution, and the whole pseudoscience controversy in Nature is covered in some detail. Cheers, Jayen466 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that Sheldrake's formal training was in biochemistry and that the sole scientific job that he is credited with was in plant physiology -- neither topic is even remotely related to cognition or parapsychology. The fact that these topics exist on roughly-opposite edges of the immense field that is biology is largely irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As you point out Sheldrake supporters represent the minority view. The introduction should represent the majority view. The fact that Sheldrake is now working very far from his training is very important. A separate community trains people for biochemistry and plant physiology than they do for cognition or parapsychology. Further more parapsychology is considered pseudoscience by most scientists. In fact cognition or parapsychology are not generally approached from biological slant even if its possible to study them from a biological slant. To my knoweldge none of his recent theories involve hormones or methods involved in studying plant physiology, so its not as if he is bring his trained expertise to the field. But these are side pointed place here to help explain give context to the citations for editors not as familiar with the the scientific process. To carry this thought. "Witness criticism" from a person in the scientific community is a very big deal. Those performing pseudoscience are generally ignored since they are obviously not part of the scientific community. The cranks can do as they please. Sheldrake was a part of the scientific community even if he has abandoned the philosophies and processes associated with science. However, his new ideas appear they could be science and he continues to claim them as science. For this reason an editor of one of the two most important journals in all of modern science took the time to write a public letter to point this out. This is highly unusual and only happened because Sheldrake choose to misapply his credentials. This "Witness criticism" carriers a considerable amount of weight here on wikipedia due to WP:FRINGE. Now all I'm looking for is to have this well cited mainstream science POV of Sheldrake used in the articles intro rather then the POV lifted from Sheldrake personal website. The support of a couple old timers, accountable to no one, is not significant support or a representation of the mainstream. For example Einstein was considered largely a crank working outside the mainstream in his latter years as he opposed Quantum Mechanics. The fact that no active scientist has come to Sheldrake defense is telling. Again mainstream science is NPOV on wikipedia not the subject matter's POV. As long as this article leads with Sheldrake is a biologist this is fair. As for the "journals" lucky for us wikipedia looks like it is going to be here for a while so we have years to work out what constitutes a mainstream peer reviewed journal. With much respect.--OMCV (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no sources quantifying the numbers who represent the minority and majority views. I see some sources criticising his work, some in prominent journals such as Nature, but this does not imply that it is shared by others. I might like to think, or even guess that the majority view is against Sheldrake, but suspect that the majority actually have no idea who Sheldrake is, let alone what his theories are, let alone have judged them. Mainstream scientist do not speak for all mainstream scientists, any more than Sheldrake supporters speak for everyone else.

It is interesting that weight is given to Sheldrake working "far from his training", yet we accept a face value, for example, the opinions of the likes of Hans-Peter Dürr and John Maddox, who are also commenting on a subject that is "far from their training".

I note that mainstream journals rarely label anyone's theory as "pseudoscience", probably because "pseudoscience" is not a scientific term with a strict definition. Maddox's opinion was just that, with no scientific basic, and combined with accusations of "book burning" and "heresy". Certainly this is worth noting, but it's one man's view.

Definitely say that Sheldrake was trained as biologist, but leave the reader to decide if his research is "far from his field". Likewise say that Maddox thinks his work is pseudoscience, but also a heresy, and let the reader decide whether he was speaking for everyone else --88.84.137.165 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To determine the major and the minor view we look to someone in the main stream. For example Michael Klymkowsky, a professor in the University of Colorado's department of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology says "There is no evidence that you need to go beyond biochemical signaling to explain morphogenesis, there is no mysterious factor, no point at which you must conclude there must be something larger that directs the process. Anyone who seriously proposes that there is a force beyond gene expression, signaling molecules, differential adhesion, and those kinds of mechanisms, just doesn't know what they are talking about. As soon as you take the organism apart, you find all the pieces." This is an expression of mainstream (majority) developmental biology which I could support with textbook quotes. Here Klymkowsky is a surrogate for the mainstream (majority) since the system does work by ballot. As a result this quote receives considerable weight (weighting will be discussed bellow). This is what wikipedia says is the NPOV and what we have to represent here. It is also a direct and intentional contrast to Sheldrake ideas.

Now I can't say that Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist on my own since that would be synthesis. But there are at least 5 references on this page that makes the claim Sheldrake isn't operating within the bounds of science and has moved on to pseudoscience. I am not relying on only Maddox's testimony for this idea.

Now weighting citations is important. Not all citations are to be taken equally. For example when we find someone who represents the mainstream like Klymkowsky criticizing an outsider Sheldrake, then Klymkowsky is taken more seriously then Sheldrake. This idea is dealt with in WP:weight. Judging scientist public testimony is tricky. Here is a short lesson scientists can criticize specific methodology or projects a long ways away from their field successfully, analyzing the current state of a distant field is sketchy, and providing original research to a field without training is dubious. I trust Maddox and others because their analyzing the methods (and the way Sheldrake states his ideas). Sheldrake ideas might have merit but doesn't matter if he isn't studying and presenting the subject scientifically. I find Durr's analysis at the very least questionable since he decided to analyze fields that are not his own. I made more notes under Durr's quote (above) and I'll bring a point here in that Durr also acknowledged that Sheldrake isn't working in the mainstream. Even his supporters make this stipulation. Finally its not surprisings that Sheldrake went off the deep end when he left his training we even have a quote in the article from Sheldrake discussing this.

What he said just before this quote is also interesting "The idea that the whole truth could be found via reductionism, examining the smallest particles, has never been proved. It's an article of faith." What is great about this quote is that it illustrates one of Sheldrake's misconceptions about science, the idea that science "proves" things. Science does have postulates (which could be called "articles of faith") they include that reality is material, measurable, and is consistent in its behavior. This is the "reductionism" Maddox refers to and it is the core philosophy of science. Anyone who abandons this philosophy is no longer studying science. Which is fine, people become disillusioned with philosophies all the time. It is Sheldrake's right to leave science but if he leaves science and continues to represent his work as science that is when the label pseudoscience becomes important. Finally the misconception that science proves things is folly and its sad that a PhD wouldn't understand this. Beyond the postulates everything in science is unproven theory or unproven law just waiting to be developed into a more exact idea. For this to happen the theories and laws must be stated in a way that is falsifiable. This falsifiability isn't a postulate but it is still a requirement for the scientific process and a place where Sheldrake's work again falls short.

Our responsibility by wikipedia NPOV is to represent mainstream science and properly weight citations to give the reader the opportunity to decide for themselves. Note that I haven't removed anything from the article all the information is still there.--OMCV (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Some good points, but forgive me for taking a slightly different view. Klymkowsky's comments appears in an article in Discover magazine by one Brad Lemley. On the one hand, Klymkowsky may well have thoroughly analysed Sheldrake's work, and can show errors, or misinterpretations, or whatever. On the other hand, I can not tell from Lemley's article, whether he was even asked specifically about Sheldrake's work, let alone looked at it in detail. As we know, journalists like soundbites. Perhaps, (and I don't know either way), Lemley called Klymkowsky and said "this guy Sheldrake claims pets communicate telepathically, what do you think". Arguably, a personal comment in a popular science magazine is what has deviated from science.

I'm not denying that Klymkowsky has weight, but the article does not tell us (a) what Klymkowsky is criticising, and (b) his view on genes does not trump Sheldrake's work, which Sheldrake accepts.

I acknowledge there is criticism of Sheldrake's work, but examples are often vague, and do not appear in peer review. This does not make Sheldrake right, nor does it invalidate the criticism. All we know is that some scientists have made critical comments in certain magazines and journals.

And more importantly, if we mention Klymkowsky's criticism from the Discover article, we should also mention those scientists who are not antagonist towards him. As the article says, "some physicists think he may be onto something" --88.84.137.165 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You can take any POV you like as long as the article contains wikipedia defined NPOV. Peer reviewed journals generally don't deal will fringe science let alone pseudoscience. Only occasionally when the fringe comes from some one working in the mainstream it does happen, such was the case with cold fusion. Wikipedia has a methodology for dealing with such fringe thinking that isn't dealt with in mainstream peer review science for the obvious reason that it isn't mainstream science. That's why the majority of the criticism is in the main stream media. Reading Wikipedia:Fringe theories should clear up most of the issues you are having with citation weighting. Once you read it let me know if you still have issues. On wikipedia a subjects POV about himself and his ideas carry very little weight in order to avoid an idiosyncratic world view. This becomes more important when the subject is fringe. To help you understand one of the reasons the well cited criticisms seem vague is because they are dealing with Sheldrake's methodology. It isn't an issue with specific experiments which are the sort of criticisms that scientist direct towards each other all the time. This is an expected part of the process. Sheldrake is being criticized for leaving that group and its philosophy. He is criticized for the methods he uses to conduct and present his work combined with the fact that he claims to still be a scientist. This is a heavy criticism not offered lightly and probably represents a majority view even if offered only once. Yet I am not relying on only the words of Klymkowsky, Maddox, or any of the others but rather all of them together. Since I can't data dump in the article or talk page I choose Klymkowsky's quote to make the point as a surrogate voice for the scientific consensus. As for "some physicists think he may be onto something" we'll deal with that when we have quotes but as I said before the support of a few senile old timers, accountable to no one, doesn't have much weight.--OMCV (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

the support of a few senile old timers, accountable to no one, doesn't have much weight.

Someone's not shy about inserting their editorial opinion into the process. — goethean ॐ 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC);

As long the editorial doesn't go into the article there is not point in hiding a stance on a talk page. Besides the only editorial is "senile". :)--OMCV (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to get the hint, I will be more explicit. Your personal judgement that a source is senile, old, or unaccountable is unhelpful in the evaluation of sources. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is to find the mainstream it is very important. Scientists as they become older eventual reach emeritus status at which point they are generally not actively preforming science as a result they are not constrained by the peer review, grant writing, and other institutions holding the mainstream together. Often times these individuals maintain the mainstream and sometimes they loss direction. Einstein's continued opposition to the quantum mechanics near the end of his career is an example of this drift from the mainstream. Or more pertinently Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm. When a scientist reaches this age their positions must be approached sensitively in contrast to an active researcher/journal editor at the height of their career. Again my concern is that sources receive the proper weight. I apologies for my familiar tone. I'll keep it formal, direct, and explicit on this page from here out; I assume I can expect others to do the same.--OMCV (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. However, Wikipedia policy does not provide for the deletion of reliable sources based on your opinion that they are senile, too old, obsolete, etc.

To put it another way, you may find Einstein's later work to be irrelevant. But in order to have Wikipedia reflect your opinion, you need to find reliable sources that specifically back it up. — goethean ॐ 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Debunking

Sorry, but the article is starting to appear to be an exercise in debunking, and deviates from NPOV. (1) We say that his books are not peer reviewed. Some books are. I have no idea whether his are, or not, but what evidence do we have that the publishers did not pass them by some referees? (2) And more seriously, why are we so eager to note that his book are not peer reviewed, and totally neglect that he has scientifically published peer reviewed papers?

While Sheldrake's work may have received more criticism that support, giving the impression that it has been judged only pseudoscience, and is not peer reviewed, is a gross distortion of the facts.

I note that Brad Lemley's article in Discover is given as a source as that there have been "significant accusations that Sheldrake is promoting pseudoscience". It does not support this statement. The word is mentioned once in the article but in a different context. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Great you are up to date on policy. Its true I represent a position so it might be worth sketching out where positions fall I've included a list of people involved and where they stand by my guess. Feel free to edit and add to this list while I fall in one of these catagories its important that we find the properly weighted way to represent them all in the intro. Sheldrake doesn't get to write the intro. As you note pseudoscience is used only once in the Discovery article referring to "Richard Wiseman, a British psychology researcher and avid debunker of pseudoscientific claims" and his claimed debunking of Sheldrake's work. You are right that I went to far in say that his popular books are not peer reviewed since no popular book is peer reviewed in the same way as a journal article. I expressed my bias.

The list I've included below is based on the current article and the first 6 citations. Again feel free to edit and develop it. I would contended that no other individual in modern science has attracted more accusation of pseudoscience with the exception of the guys involved with cold fusion. I don't have a citation for that but I leave here as a challenge to those involved who think I'm pushing an off base POV.

• Individuals who avidly support the subject and believe he could be heralding a new field of research: Sheldrake(subject), the general public, Janis Roze (biology professor), Marilyn Schlitz (Institute of Noetic Sciences researcher)
• Individuals who admit that the subject might be on to something but indicate he is on the fringe: David Bohm (late theoretical physicist), Hans-Peter Durr (physicist Max Planck Institute), Germano Resconi (computer programer), Masoud Nikravesh (computer programer), New Scientist (popular science magazine)
• Individuals who flatly state that the subjects methods or idea run counter to the mainstream but don't mention pseudoscience: Michael Klymkowsky (professor biology), A. Freeman()
• Individuals who claim the subject is putting out bad data from faulty experiments: John Colwell (Middlesex University), David Marks, Steven Rose (neurobiologist), Patrick Bateson (biologist)
• Individuals who state the subject is a promoting rubbish, pseudoscience, or frauds: Richard Wiseman (British psychology researcher), John Maddox (former editor of Nature), Lewis Wolpert, (professor of biology), Robert A. Baker (professor emeritus of psychology), Robert T. Carroll (The Skeptic's Dictionary), Michael Shermer (Scientific America), Christof Koch (), Susan Blackmore (), Henry Bauer ()

Thanks--OMCV (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lede and bio revised

• Sheldrake is a former biochemist who now makes his living as a parapsychology researcher. The description in the lede intro sentence has been updated accordingly.
• The sentence about his popular science books not being peer-reviewed was unsourced and has been dropped.
• The Carroll, Bauer and Scientific American cites have been dropped from the lede, as they do not report mainstream scientific reception of Sheldrake's ideas (for which ample sources remain). Carroll and Bauer remain unchanged in Reception.
• The development of Sheldrake's work priorities is not covered in the article proper and thus out of place in the lede. The para has been moved to the bio section. Jayen466 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It disagree about the removed ciations: Carroll (direct analysis from trained debunker), Bauer (direct comparisons to other pseudoscience) and Scientific American (references mainstream researchers and their debunking). Their report of the mainstream science view is valid referencing according to wp:fringe. But the lead works at this point and looks much better. I'm sorry to see so much information go but I'm very happy to see that is doesn't imply that a mainstream biologist has discovered the disputed (at the very least) concept of morphic fields based on the writings of some philosopher.--OMCV (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And that's the problem. Carroll's comments appear quite ad hoc and seem to make no attempt to make a scientifically valid critique, or examination of Sheldrake's evidence. To suggest that Carroll has somehow "debunked" Sheldrake's work is a nonesense. Carroll's comments are an exercise in pseudoskepticism. (as far as I know, there is no such thing as a "trained debunker"). Bauer's book mentions Sheldrake, but I can find no comparison to other pseudosciences, let alone a rationale.

Sheldrake's work may well be garbage, but WP:FRINGE (a guideline), does not tell us that just because Carroll has given his opinion on his Web site, without even indicating whether he has looked at any evidence, is as unreliable as me claiming that morphic resonance is possible because I have a degree in biology, and I can find an analogous term which is accepted.

I acknowledge the criticisms of several mainstream scientists. I disagree that they have "shown" Sheldrake to be pseudoscience, debunked, or even bad science. Likewise, Sheldrake has not "discovered" morphic fields, he has just put forward a hypothesis with a bizarre name, to support evidence he has published in peer reviewed journals... and that's more than his critics have done. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More debunking

I see we have no interest in writing an NPOV article. (1) We never mention that Sheldrake has peer reviewed articles (2) The intro implies that ALL Sheldrake's idea receive a hostile reception, and (3) the "Mainstream Community" unanimously, and as a whole as, receive ALL his ideas hostilely. (4) The intro doesn't mention that there are some scientists who are sympathetic to his work.

I'm no expert at maths, but describing perhaps half a dozen criticisms as "THE scientific community", completely ignores WP:Weasel --88.84.137.165 (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

most/mainstream

Re the first sentence in Reception, just for clarification, the cited source speaks of "the hostility most mainstream scientists and philosophers continue to show toward Rupert Sheldrake and his research programme." The present version by User:Martinphi is still reasonably close to that, though I'd have no problem with using "most mainstream scientists and philosophers" directly, either. Jayen466 11:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Other scientists" is better, but (1) The Anthony Freeman article talks of "the hostility most mainstream scientists and philosophers continue to show toward Rupert Sheldrake", whereas the article introduction writes of "pseudoscience", which is not the same. (2) One author claiming "most mainstream scientists", with no supporting evidence, does not make it so. (3) We still say nothing about Sheldrake's peer-reviewed articles, giving the false impression there is none. --Raevaen (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The pseudoscience claim first came in Nature, as described in the article. It proved sufficiently influential to "put an end to [Sheldrake's] academic career and made him persona non grata in the scientific community" (that quote is from Freeman btw, which is a source sympathetic to Sheldrake) – or at least it did so for 20 years, if one chooses to view Sheldrake's present Perrott-Warwick scholarship as a resumption of his academic career. We are reporting opinions, we are not saying they are right. If you are familiar with his papers and would like to see them mentioned, please provide a list of them here, with an indication of the journals in which they appeared, and we can discuss including them in some appropriate manner. At the very least, the most important ones should be listed in the bibliography. Jayen466 12:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. When we say "they have often met with a hostile reception from scientists and philosophers." This is obviously true. It should be "other scientists and philosophers," though. The reason is that otherwise it sounds even more like "The public is stupid enough to believe this stuff, but scientists don't," and sounds as if there is a distinction being drawn between the (unspecified) category in which Sheldrake resides and category "scientists." It's a bit complex to explain, but the sound of it is fairly obvious. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its very complex and I've noted it since it was changed. The switch from "reception from scientists" to "reception from other scientists". The first form is scientists criticizing an outsider. I find this first phrasing to be the most accurate statement. The second form is scientists criticizing one of their own; less accurate but I'm not going to dispute it unless more motivated POV is added.--OMCV (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Other" implies that Sheldrake is himself still a scientist -- which is clearly disputed (and contraindicated by the current lead)) - Comment on edit reversal. It seems that pettiness knows no bounds in the mainstream science community and its hangers on. How does a well qualified scientist cease to be a scientist just because he researches in areas where some other scientists, often lesser scientists and rank amateurs are completely out of there depth? Thank goodness science is only part of my profession and am more than just a scientist, even without my non-engineering involvements. Colleagues in the Scientific and Medical Network, as well as elsewhere, are supportive of the general thrust of Rupert's work, at a minimum, and certainly rate his work highly; that makes a few thousand positive, at least, from that source alone. at least they, along with Rupert, are prepared to c=declare themselves and do not hide behind a pseudonym. On Wikipedia courage seems to be in as short supply as a level of science much above school standard, along with reason and logic at similar levels. RichardKingCEng (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RichardKingCEng, you are the third to clarify the meaning of "other". Honestly what I added wasn't really necessary but at least we are clear on meanings. It is clear that Sheldrake is no longer a biologist, it seems he wander beyond his depths as RichardKingCEng might say. Most reasonable people don't consider parapsychology research a science, at the very least not a mainstream science. I have gone through a number of the citation on this page and listed the positions of other scientists towards Sheldrake under the Debunking section. I would appreciate any help you could offer developing this section as long as you can cite things. As for the "Scientific and Medical Network" you are grasping to claim it as mainstream science or even scientifically significant. If you want to learn about real research in morphogenesis you might want to take a look at epigenetics or any number of related pages. I trust the scientific standard and reasoning will be more to your liking.--OMCV (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He used to be a scientist, but now he's not, so I removed "other". Spotfixer (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Carroll quote

I have removed the unverified claim that Robert Todd Carroll "debunked" morphic resonance. To debunk an idea is to demonstrate that it's not scientific. To this end, Carroll makes a number of assertions in his Skeptic's Dictionary.

Carroll accuses Sheldrake of promoting vitalism, according to which a life-force lends organisms form and purpose unavailable to inanimate objects. Yet Sheldrake explicitly rejects this view, arguing instead that morphic resonance applies to all organic substances, living or not. This demonstrates that Carroll hasn't actually read Sheldrake's work.

Carroll claims that Sheldrake prefers thinking outside the "paradigm of science." Yet Sheldrake has attempted to present a logical and testable claim, namely that organisms are influenced in their development by previous, morphically similar organisms. Neuroscientist Steven Rose implicitly recognized the scientific validity of morphic resonance when he attempted to falsify it with his experiment on chicks. Right or wrong, morphic resonance is not subject to debunking but must be refuted in the laboratory.

Carroll labels Sheldrake's interests in terms of the occult, metaphysics and the paranormal. Sheldrake has never indicated any interest in the occult. Carroll simply fabricated this charge. To the extent that metaphysics is synonymous with supernatural or occult phenomena, Sheldrake rejects this too. If metaphysics is taken in the proper philosophical sense to mean a theory of reality, then Carroll himself, whose view of reality precludes action at a distance over time, is guilty of subscribing to what is known as physicalist or reductionist metaphysics. As to the paranormal, Sheldrake doesn't simply assert that phenomena such as telepathy are real but rather attempts to put them to the test, that is, to either falsify them or generate evidence in their favor. Certainly, attempting a scientific investigation of the paranormal does not demonstrate an antiscientific attitude. Science has no preconceptions but is merely a methodology for exploring phenomena, no matter how strange those phenomena might seem.

Carroll links morphic resonance to the engram, which is correct, but then reveals his ignorance of biological theory by claiming that L Ron Hubbard invented this concept. In fact, the great German zoologist Richard Semon coined the term. According to Semon, the engram is the difference between the primary resting state of a neuron and its secondary resting state. So, for instance, if you've just been exposed to a loud noise, you will then be predisposed to react more strongly to a subsequent noise. Semon argued that engrams are inherited and play a role in evolution. A mouse is born into a life of near-perpetual fright because it has been conditioned through eons of evolution to be wary of any possible threat. Thus the mouse is influence by the cumulative experiences of previous mice. What Sheldrake adds to this view is a mechanism by which engrams are inherited. A mouse inherits mice engrams rather than, say, lion engrams, because a mouse is morphically similar to other mice, not lions. Contrary to Carroll's claim, the fact that Sheldrake's thinking is related to the engram places him within the stream of science, not outside it.

Carroll tries to associate Sheldrake's view with the Platonic notion of eternal Forms or Ideas. Again, this reveals that Carroll is not familiar with Sheldrake's published work. The whole point of morphic resonance is that it's a temporal phenomenon. The form of an organism does not descend from a timeless Platonic realm but emerges according to the way similar organisms have developed in the past. As organisms are forced to adopt new behaviors and forms in response to changing environments, subsequent organisms will develop differently than would otherwise have been the case. Morphic resonance, unlike Platonic Forms, is an evolutionary approach to life.

Carroll further demonstrates his misunderstanding by claiming that Sheldrake substitutes laws of nature with morphic resonance. In fact, Sheldrake substitutes laws of nature with habits of nature, morphic resonance being merely the mechanism by which habits persist. This is in keeping with Sheldrake's rejection of the Platonic worldview. Rather than being determined by abstract, timeless laws, physical phenomena are influenced by past physical phenomena. If a hydrogen atom happens to emerge in the early universe, rather than claiming that abstract laws maintain it in that form, Sheldrake contends that once established, a particular form becomes habitually ingrained.

Carroll claims that morphic resonance would allow information to be transmitted "miraculously and mysteriously." One could just as easily argue that electromagnetic fields allow information to be transmitted "miraculously and mysteriously." Yet radio, as mysterious as it may seem, is obviously real. Action at a distance has been demonstrated in physics regarding gravity, electromagnetic fields and quantum entanglement. There is no reason to assume, a priori, that action at a distance cannot take place across time. In fact, we have a word for it. It's called memory. Ultimately, what Sheldrake is saying is that natural memory does not depend on stored information, as with artificial memory, but involves long-distance causal influence of the past over the present. As Bertrand Russell noted in the course of his discussion of Semon's engram (see The Analysis of Mind), if causation can operate moment to moment, then it may also operate over extended timeframes.

Carroll claims that morphic resonance, according to Sheldrake's model, is "transmitted via 'morphogenetic fields.'" Again, Carroll demonstrates that he has no idea what he's talking about. Morphic resonance is itself the means a transmission, specifically, the transmission of past organic forms to current organic systems. The past informs the present via morphic resonance. Morphogenetic fields, originally proposed in the 1920s to account for the top-down or "holistic" development of organisms, are interpreted by Sheldrake as the medium by which past influences are translated into current activity. Rather than reflecting a Platonic ideal of each species, morphogenetic fields represent the influence of the past over the present.

Carroll implies that morphic resonance can't be real because it would involve information transferal without energy loss. Sheldrake does not address this question. Energy would certainly have to be expended as current organic systems are brought in line with past systems, but that doesn't mean morphic resonance itself requires the expenditure of energy. Ultimately, it comes down to laboratory experiment. If morphic resonance is verified, it will certainly affect our view of physics, including the role of energy.

Finally, Carroll implies that morphic resonance leaves no room for genetic influence over form. Again, no one familiar with Sheldrake's work would ever make this claim. Sheldrake is absolutely clear on the need for a complementary approach, where genes provide for differentiating traits of individuals belonging to a given species, while morphic resonance provides for the general background form common to all members of that species.

Carroll believes he has debunked morphic resonance but in reality has only revealed his ignorance and intellectual laziness. It would be acceptable to say that Carroll claims to have debunked Sheldrake but certainly not to assert this as established fact.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your analysis, but I don't think Carroll claims to have debunked Sheldrake's morphic resonance, as that word is not used in the cited article. So the assessment that Carroll successfully debunked Sheldrake's theory is an opinion or original research. (Your judgment that Carroll has revealed his ignorance or intellectual laziness is the same sort of opinion or judgment.) I think the article needs to stay away from polemical and POV wording, so a better, more neutral wording in my opinion would be:

In his Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll stated, in an article critical of Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance, that "although Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist because of his education and degree, he has clearly abandoned conventional science in favor of magical thinking."

--EPadmirateur (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WRT "debunking" if somebody drove to the shop but the cite says "using his vehicle he travelled to the shop" it's not OR to say "he drove to the shop". FWIW when I read Carroll's words I personally see debunking. Given that I didn't actually write the edit (somebody else did) and Alfonzo has been reverted by two other editors, that's three editors that don't have an issue with seeing "debunking" in what Carroll has written. Shot info (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, "highly critical of" is also OR, if you want to be strict. I have no problem with the current version. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro

It is somewhat inaccurate to describe Sheldrake as a 'parapsychology researcher' since he doesn't just do research, he also theorizes and writes, and his work is not limited to parapsychology, though most of his recent work has been related to this. Also, he was a plant physiologist as well as biochemist, so 'biologist' would cover both, but as no doubt people will object that this gives a false impression I will state the detail. Ben Finn (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Philosophers

In Reception, 'they have often met with a hostile reception from scientists and philosophers' - with the exception of the article by the one philosopher in the journal cited I've never come across any philosopher commenting on Sheldrake (I have a philosophy degree FWIW), and I expect very few know much about his work, so I've deleted the rather sweeping reference to 'philosophers'. Ben Finn (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Morphic field article

There is a not insignificant overlap between the content of this article and the (rather poor) Morphic field article. I'm not sure how it's best resolved, but hope someone will do it. Ben Finn (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've already explained, what he's doing now is not regarded as science by scientists. Spotfixer (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining - but whether that's true or false, what has it got to do with my comment above? Ben Finn (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, regardless of whether the subject is scientific or pseudoscientific (though my opinion runs strongly to the latter), Sheldrake is known for his morphic field hypothesis, the morphic field hypothesis is known for being promoted by Sheldrake, and neither has any significant non-overlapping notability, and that it would be difficult to explain one without heavily explaining the other. It would therefore be appropriate to merge the two articles, per WP:MERGE#Merging criteria #2 (overlap) & #4 (context). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Would tend to agree that the two articles could and should be merged, pending any convincing argument to the contrary. Jayen466 15:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because then the Sheldrake article will then be open to the criticism that it is unbalanced and gives undue weight to the morphic field theory, which then would justify removing most of the material that currently is here. These were precisely the arguments against including details of Sheldrake's work in his article several months ago, you may recall. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresent the linked edit -- it's argument was that the excised material gave WP:UNDUE weight to questionable sources -- not that it gave undue weight to his morphic field hypothesis -- his books on which, the purported tests of which, and criticism of which, currently constitutes the vast majority of this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite my point: the argument on undue weight can be used generally essentially to eliminate the merged material. It's a pretty convenient way to delete an article without going through formal AfD. I think the morphic field article should stand since that's all that a person may be interested in, not the details of Sheldrake's life, etc. If anything it should be enhanced and improved to address the problems noted in it. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that (i) morphic field contains virtually no verifiable material & (ii) the bulk of this article is already on the topic of morphic fields, the possible effect of WP:UNDUE is a moot point. That vast majority of verifiable material on morphic fields is already in this article, and a merger would simply be formalising what has already happened. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing what needs to be done

This argument has gone on for long enough. Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist, let's leave it at that. As for the wikipedia article, I intend to edit it to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbass24 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that he is a pseudoscientist, what you are doing is simple vandalism. Far better to describe, with reliable sources how/why he is a pseudoscientist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Former

Describing Rupert Sheldrake as a former biochemist is retarded. If this is going to be the case, then I want Richard Dawkins' page to read that he is a former ethologist. I want to see Orwell and Tolkien, or even Terry Pratchett, be described as former writers. The simple fact is that Rupert Sheldrake is a biochemist. Regardless of whether you agree with what he currently focuses on, I doubt he has lost everything he learned which made him a biochemist to begin with. Unless he's suffered some severe trauma or had an amnesic event occur which I am unaware of, the man is not more stupid now than he was then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.50.58 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look to the talk sections "Sheldrake self-published" and "Debunking". Unlike Dawkins maintained a similar position through out his career slowing morphing into a grandfatherly figure of mainstream science. Sheldrake in contrast ended career as a biochemist when he left his tenure-track position as Cambridge University in addition to being excommunicated from the community by his outlandish ideas. Actually the article should talk about exactly why and how he left Cambridge University. His current position is a parapsychologist which is not a recognized field of biochemistry. Unless there is new information he is not actively researching biochemistry. There is even a quote from him in the history section where he discusses abandoning his training. You comparison to writers is quaint, writers are one of the few activities where the practitioners remain "something" without actually doing that "something". Neither you nor I are everything we ever did. We are what we currently do; unless of course we are some sort of artist such as painters, sculptures, poets, actors, musician, or authors. That's why you are being reverted. In addition please refrain from using ignorant pejoratives on talk pages.--OMCV (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lakatos

i've written a line or two on lakatos. those may be a little clumsy, though, even though the essential infos are now written down. Twipley (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the cited source makes no discussion of whether Sheldrake's claims are scientific or pseudoscientific, the new material would appear to be tangential & potentially misleading. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Unanimity might be attained by Wikipedians on this subject topic, but just for reference here are the lines that I had written in order to express my thoughts: "However, there is still controversy between philosophers of science concerning what science really is or should be. For example, Lakatos argues that, since "a theory may be scientific even if there is not a shred of evidence in its favour, and it may be pseudoscientific even if all the available evidence is in its favour," that alternative criteria in the determination of the scientific character of a theory, among others based on scientific progress, should be applied. Thus, unanimity concerning the nature of science is yet to be resolved." Twipley (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit: that was in the "reception" section. Twipley (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lakatos offers no opinion as to the scientific/pseudoscientific status of Sheldrake's work. Inferring support from Lakatos' stated opinion would be illegiatimate WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

External link (suggestion)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8346001127958763110 (to the "morphogenetic field" article). Twipley (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted corrections

All of the corrections I made yesterday have been deleted. A few things you might want to know before deleting them again:

1) Sheldrake is a theoretical biologist. His two most significant works, A New Science of LIfe and The Presence of the Past, concern a theory of development from the egg. His work in parapsychology is strictly in the service of his theory of development, which involves morphic fields. Sheldrake is interested in a dog's ability to sense when its master is returning home because he sees this ability, rightly or wrongly, as evidence for morphic fields.

• Neither book, nor their contents, represents legitimate theoretical biology. Their claims have not been subjected to peer review by the biological community, and their contents is widely regarded as pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

2) Sheldrake's latest book, the extensively revised 3rd Edition of A New Science of Life, concerns morphogenesis. Since this has been the primary focus of his career for over 30 years, it should be the first topic that comes up regarding his work.

• The article on morphogenesis contains little, if any, commonality with Sheldrake's work. Can you provide any reliable third-party source that places Sheldrake's work as being legitimately within this field? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

3) The full name of Sheldrake's first book is A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. There's no mention of morphic resonance in the title. This can be easily verified online. Of course, obtaining and reading a copy would be better still, particulary for anyone who wishes to edit the description of this book.

• http://www.sheldrake.org/books/index.html#newscience states otherwise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

4) A New Science of Life proposes a theory of development from the egg. This fact must come first in the section on this book. For the sake of clarity, I have elaborated on this point further down in the section.

5) The statement that "biological growth and behaviour become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events" has nothing to do with Lamarckism. It was Charles Sanders Peirce, not Lamarck, who first proposed this hypothesis. A German biologist named Richard Semone proposed something similar in terms of personal memory. Lamarck, on the other hand, asserted that species evolve on the basis of the inheritance of acquired characters. This is a different concept altogether.

6) The 3rd Edition of A New Science of Life contains an appendix with 50 pages of discussion of tests of his hypothesis. It is important, given frequent claims of pseudoscience, that this fact be included in the description of his book.

• Length of appendices is no guard against pseudoscience -- many pseudoscientists are notoriously long-winded. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

7) Henry Bauer does not compare Sheldrake's morphic resonance with Reich's orgone energy. He simply states that Reich's backers have mistakenly cited Sheldrake in support of their own views.

Here is the passage in queston:

"Concerning rhetorical tactics, as with Velikovsky so it is with Reich. Hangers-on seek to portray brief encounters with Albert Einstein and other greats as scientific support... Connections are asserted that are farfetched, or made with extremely doubtful bits of claimed science, as with the 'independent or outright discovery of an orgone-like energetic principle... by scientists other than Reich, such as Georgio Piccardi, Dayton Miller, Halton Arp, Hannes Alfven, Harold Burr, Louis Kervran, Frank Brown, Robert Becker, Bjorn Nodernstrom, Jacques Benveniste, and Rupert Sheldrake' as well as Paul Dirac and Thelma Moss."

Bauer (2001) Science or Pseudoscience, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, p 162

Clearly Bauer is comparing Sheldrake to the other scientists in the list, not to Reich.

• This passage does not support your favoured text of "Henry Bauer noted that some of Wilhelm Reich's backers have mistakenly cited Sheldrake's ideas in support of discredited claims of orgone energies."

• Bauer is clearly drawing parallels between the research (on "an orgone-like energetic principle") of the list of researchers (including Sheldrake) that are "other than Reich", and Reich's own (on orgone energies). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• On further reflection I've concluded that Hrafn's interpretation, though not in keeping with the literal meaning of the text, is nonetheless legitimate. By noting that Reich's followers tried to connect his work to that of the other scientists listed above, Bauer draws a parallel (albeit incidental) between their work and Reich's.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the deletions of my edits were motivated by personal bias against Sheldrake. Furthermore, the responsible parties have demonstrated their ignorance of the topic at hand. Unless you're a biologist or have studied Sheldrake in depth, you should not be interfering with this page. To any editor who wishes to delete any of these changes, please respond to the relevant points above before doing so.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would also point out that further references to Sheldrake himself put the article into worse violation of WP:SELFPUB #5: "the article is not based primarily on such sources" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Sheldrake is a theoretical biologist insofar as he presents a theory of biological development. If you think the theory is illegitimate, you need to explain why. The experiment he designed with Steven Rose was written up in a peer reviewed journal. Sheldrake's work is described as pseudoscience only by self-described "skeptics," that is, people who confuse science with a dualistic metaphysical theory that reduces all of existence to matter under the control of timeless, immaterial laws of nature. Very few scientists have spoken out against Sheldrake, and no scientist has ever accused him in print of being a pseudoscientist. It's just a band of reductionist ideologues, very few of whom are actually scientists, who accuse him of pseudoscience. This accusation is based entirely on their opinion that his theory simply has to be wrong. His theory may indeed be wrong, but that it's a testable scientific theory is an indisputable fact.

• Already explained: "Their claims have not been subjected to peer review by the biological community, and their contents is widely regarded as pseudoscience." Please provide RSes that establish that his claims have been accepted as legitimate theoretical biology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As I already stated, Sheldrake's work with Steven Rose was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Rivista di Biologica - Biology Forum. The Discover Magazine article lists two biologists, Janis Roze and Sue Ann Miller, who support him. However, I repeat that the burden is on those who doubt his legitimacy. This is Sheldrake's biography page. Sheldrake purports to be a theoretical biologist. Unless you can find credible reports from biologists that this is not the case, you must cease removing the reference to his occupation.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2) Sheldrake's theory addresses development of the organism from the egg. Morphogenesis is about development of the organism from the egg. The burden is not on me to demonstrate that it's legitimate. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it's not. To do that, you will have to actually read the work yourself. None of his critics have ever made a convincing case that what he's proposing is somehow other than the scientific theory it purports to be. Mostly, what his critics demonstrate is ignorance of what he actually says.

3) This book has been printed many times. Apparently one of those printings offered a different subtitle. The best option in this case is simply to cite the original edition. Why would you want to cite another printing? What exactly are you getting out of this? Is it simply the satisfaction of vandalizing the Sheldrake page?

• You cite neither refertence nor ISBN for your alternative subtitle. Therefore this subtitle (unlike "The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance") is not verifiable.

Are you kidding? Is this some kind of joke? I cite the damn reference. The ISBN is in the reference. And you keep deleting it. For no apparent reason.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

4) You failed to respond to this point yet still removed the material. If you want to remove material, at least make the effort to explain why it should be removed.

• I did not respond because it was (i) an unsubstantiated assertion & (ii) appearted to be an obscure point unrelated to any genuine dispute. The reason for reverting this passage is that it is a "a testable hypothesis" -- which as (i) it is self-serving & (ii) it is made in a questionable source (see earlier point at the bottom), violates WP:SELFPUB. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That the hypothesis is testable is demonstrated by the fact that it was tested by Steven Rose. However, Sheldrake lists many other tests that have taken place, and unless you can find a source discussing the tests and demonstrating that they are somehow illegitimate, you have no basis for deleting this assertion.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

5) Again, no response, yet the misleading note on Lamarck has been restored. Unbelievable!

• I did not respond to it because it was a fairly minor and fairly obvious point. That Sheldrake's morphic fields act as a form of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters is quite obvious. In any case, the point has been made in Perilous planet earth, Trevor Palmer, pp173-174. I'll add the citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is quite well known that Sheldrake advocates inheritance of acquited traits, but this has nothing to do with the assertion that "biological growth and behaviour become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events." That's not Lamarck. The passage is misleading. If you want to edit Wikipedia, learn to organize your thoughts and present the material correctly. By the way, Sheldrake is Darwinian as much as Lamarckian. What distinguishes Lamarck is not inheritance of acquired characters but supernatural direction of evolution to a predetermined outcome.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

6) You're begging the question, a common logical fallacy. Perhaps if you read the appendix you would see that it's entirely reasonable and fact-based, with no hint of pseudoscience anywhere in it. If you disagree, then read it for yourself and explain how it qualifies as pseudoscience.

• No. It was a rebuttal to your fallacious argument that "appendix with 50 pages of discussion of tests of his hypothesis" is in some way relevant to "frequent claims of pseudoscience". The difference between science and pseudoscience isn't the length of the appendices and whether the author purports to have 'teseted' his hypotheses or not -- it is whether the claims, and underlying tests, have been submitted to, and passed, peer review. This is not the case with Sheldrake's work, so it is not science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The new appendix is important in that it discusses tests of his theory. You assumed that its length reflects the fact that pseudoscience can be long-winded, but you never demonstrated that it was pseudoscience in the first place. Assuming what you must prove is called begging the question. Again, Sheldrake has in fact been subject to peer review. I should add, however, that nothing Darwin ever wrote was ever subjected to peer review. And nobody dismissed his work on this basis. His critics operated on the belief that a real dismissal comes from examing the work, demonstrating an understanding of it and then showing where it goes wrong. Unless you can cite critics who have done this with Sheldrake, there is no basis for your interference with this page.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

7) Here you reveal poor reading comprehension. Bauer is pointing out that Reich's supporters have used the well known pseudoscience tactic of attaching their theory to the work of legitimate scientists. Bauer goes on to note that many on this list have impeccable credentials, and this certainly includes Sheldrake. He also notes, on page 76, that accusations of pseudoscience against Sheldrake are unhelpful. The entry in the index under Sheldrake states "support for because of unfair criticism." In other words, while Bauer does not agree with Sheldrake's theory, he recognizes Sheldrake as a legitimate theorist. Bauer is well known as an "open minded skeptic," critical of the self-described "skeptics" who are really just reductionist true-believers.

• It is you who "reveal poor reading comprehension". " Bauer is pointing out" nothing of the sort. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bauer says that Reich's supporters tried to tag onto Sheldrake and other scientists to gain credibility. No one in their right mind would disagree with that interpretation. The passage is right there for anyone to see. You appear to be incompetent. Get a grip on yourself.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Approximately 1/3 of the references, and probably about a half of the text, is to Sheldrake -- proportions which your changes increased. This goes against both WP:PSTS, which states that secondary sources should predominate, and WP:SELFPUB, as Sheldrake is widely regarded as a 'pseudoscientist' he is, at best, a 'questionable source' and so "the article [should not be] based primarily on such sources". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a biography page. It's about Sheldrake and his ideas. I am presenting Sheldrake's ideas. Stop censoring me.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: You don't know a damn thing about Rupert Sheldrake. Why are you editing his page when you have no familiarity with his work? Your activity here is clearly the result of personal bias against his views. This is irresponsible, unethical behavior. If you really cared about the accuracy of this page, you would become acquainted with his work before you made any further edits.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again I've had to restore my corrections. Also, a biographical note I added has also been repeatedly removed. Sheldrake entered into a 20-year scientific wager with his colleague Lewis Wolpert regarding the reducibility of the organism to the genome. This is an important wager, published in New Scientist, and certainly belongs in his biography. Why would anyone want to remove this?

Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:Fringe and consider WP:3RR. Most scientist don't take the time to publicly point out pseudoscientist since it demeans their own reputation in the process. Serious scientists debate with serious scientists and they ignore quakes publicly. I would like to see an example of where a "scientists" accused someone of being a pseudoscientist. Actually if "A book for burning?" isn't an example of scientist identifying pseudoscience I don't know what is an example. Sheldrake hasn't been a scientist for a long time.--OMCV (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The book-burning jackass to whom you refer is a journalist, not a scientist. John Maddox worked his way up to editing Nature without ever grasping the actual nature of science. His mistake was to think that science makes no room for radical proposals. In fact, proposals that initially confound the keepers of received wisdom often turn out to be the most useful of all. To dismiss a proposal, the critic must do two things: first, demonstrate comprehension of the theory in question, and second, demonstrate precisely where it goes wrong. In the case of Sheldrake's critics, the first is rarely achieved, the second never.

• WRONG! Maddox lectured in theoretical physics at Manchester University before turning his hand to science journalism. Better a scientist-turned-science-journalist (for a number of prominent publications) than a scientist-turned-pseudoscientific-crank. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For some time now, evolutionary and morphogenetic research have been driven by the idea that if a trait is biologically ingrained, it must be genetic. Sheldrake disputes this belief. Note that this belief is not itself a proven theory and doesn't even offer a means of being tested (Gould 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge: Belknap, p 201). When ideologue Michael Shermer dismisses Sheldrake on the grounds that there's no longer an issue open to discussion - - that it's all been cleared up with the unraveling of DNA - - he is either misinformed or lying. One of the key elements of science is that discussion is never entirely cut off. Any proposal, no matter how at odds with dominant opinion, must be judged in a nonbiased manner. Is it logically coherent? Is it based on accurate assumptions? Can it be put to the test?

• Is it peer reviewed? No. Has his methodology been accepted, and his results been reproduced, by the scientific community? No. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we imagine that habituation is a general feature of nature? Is this so farfetched? Was Newton out of line when he proposed inertia as a property of nature? Of course not. And what is Sheldrake proposing if not a kind of organic inertia? If it happens a certain way, it will probably happen like that again. Not so different than to say that an object in motion stays in motion. In addition to material-energetic inertia, we have morphic inertia, or the conservation of form in organic systems, as physicist turned biologist Walter Elsasser put it.

• Can we imagine pixy-dust? Yes. Is there any more evidence for the existence of morphic fields than for the existence of pixy dust? No there is not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if this entire line of thought was hatched from the brain of Sheldrake. His intellectual lineage includes Goethe, Darwin, Peirce, Semone, Bergson and many lesser figures. Goethe's morphological approach influenced Darwin, who inspired CS Peirce to propose that natural law is itself mutable and subject to evolution. Sheldrake has deep roots. You don't overturn 200 years of intellectual evolution with the push of a delete button.

It absolutely has not been established that gene = biology. That a trait is biologically ingrained does not mean it's necessarily genetic. The trait or tendency need not be reducible to material storage in chromosomes. Nature's memory does not necessarily operate the same way as the memory systems of human technology. To believe otherwise is to commit the scientific sin of anthropomorphosis.

The Shermer's of the world would prevent discussion of natural memory on the grounds that it doesn't conform to current thinking. This is not defense of science. This is dogmatic conformity disguised as science.

You are correct, however, that scientists don't like to point fingers at their own. In that regard, science is no different than any other profession. But there's a deeper reason scientists refrain from condemning Sheldrake: his theory is in fact scientific. Could be wrong, but it's coherent and testable, and that's all that counts.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• There's a simple way to solve the "theoretical biologist" question - source it. What do good, reliable sources call him? Is he usually described as a theoretical biologist?
• As for the fact that he published a paper in Rivista - that journal is well known for publishing crankery, pseudoscience and nonsense. It was once a real journal, but it really can't be taken too seriously any more.
• As for claiming as intellectual heritage that "includes Goethe, Darwin, Peirce, Semone, Bergson and many lesser figures"...yeah, well - that's a standard practice with fringe ideas. Anything with a 200-year heritage and no supporting data is especially suspect. Guettarda (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"a soupçon of pardon"

I would note that Roze's & Miller's opinions are listed as part of "… at least a soupçon of pardon for Sheldrake in the scholarly world of developmental biology …" (with "soupçon" meaning a hint, per Cooking weights and measures). This does not imply that this viewpoint has much WP:WEIGHT, and should not be given such prominent emphasis in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hrafn, WP:UNDUE seems relevant. Verbal chat 10:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rivista di Biologica - Biology Forum

Alfonzo Green states:

As I already stated, Sheldrake's work with Steven Rose was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Rivista di Biologica - Biology Forum.

ROFLMAO! Rivista di Biologica - Biology Forum has for many years been a notorious purveyor of pseudoscientific nonsense. It's editor during that time has been Giuseppe Sermonti, himself notorious for his fringe anti-evolution views. Along with Sheldrake, it has also published such notorious fringe personalities as Mae-Wan Ho, and creationists Jerry Bergman, Richard Sternberg & Jonathan Wells. As such this rag has about as much credibility as a pig's fart, and its so-called "peers" are most likely fellow pseudoscientists.

I will not bother to reply to the majority of Green's other jumble of unthreaded replies (please read WP:TALKPAGE), beyond stating that the fact that the reference of "^{10 ^} Rupert Sheldrake (1981) A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation, London: Blond and Briggs" contained no ISBN is no "joke". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The thread two above quickly becomes too confused to read. Looking at the edits AG keeps restoring, I feel they are generally unsupported and incorrect. Hrafn's judgement about the publication above seems reasonable. Verbal chat 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring against the consensus

I would note that:

1. Alfonzo Green's edits have been reverted by three [four] editors:
   1. Myself
   2. Verbal
   3. OMCV
   4. [ Johnuniq ]
2. His rationales for his changes has received no support here on talk.

I would therefore suggest that he is engaging in a WP:EDITWAR against the WP:CONSENSUS, and should be sanctioned for such. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He has been warned on his talk page, and I then clarified a possible misunderstanding. However, he has continued to revert since. I suggest it is taken to WP:AN3, but I'm just leaving. Verbal chat 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maddox, etc

WRONG! Maddox lectured in theoretical physics at Manchester University before turning his hand to science journalism. Better a scientist-turned-science-journalist (for a number of prominent publications) than a scientist-turned-pseudoscientific-crank. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lecturing in physics does not a physicist make. All it means is that he studied physics and developed enough understanding to teach it. Maddox is not known for having done any work in theoretical physics. He is not a scientist, only a teacher of science, whether in the classroom or in the press. You have yet to provide a single example of a scientist accusing Sheldrake of pseudoscience.

Rivista di Biologica - Biology Forum has for many years been a notorious purveyor of pseudoscientific nonsense. It's editor during that time has been Giuseppe Sermonti, himself notorious for his fringe anti-evolution views. Along with Sheldrake, it has also published such notorious fringe personalities as Mae-Wan Ho, and creationists Jerry Bergman, Richard Sternberg & Jonathan Wells. As such this rag has about as much credibility as a pig's fart, and its so-called "peers" are most likely fellow pseudoscientists. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your statement on Biology Forum is your own unsubstantiated opinion. By contrast, that it is indeed a peer reveiewed journal is a verifiable fact. I'm not familiar with the scientists you cite except for Mae-wan Ho, a well known and highly esteemed biologist (though I did once see a bizarre attempt to libel her on her Wikipedia page).

Sheldrake has also published work in mainstream journals, including Nature. Granted, this work did not concern his theory of morphic resonance, but it does solidify his credentials as a scientist, and this ought to influence how we view his unconventional work. Keep in mind that journals got cold feet about publishing his work on morphic resonance after the Maddox outburst. Journal editors are only human and respond to pressure to conform.

You also claim there's no evidence for morphic resonance. Sheldrake discusses numerous lines of evidence for his theory. That you refuse to look at the evidence obviously does not qualify you to comment on it. Your interest is not in discovering whether or not Sheldrake is legit but simply attacking him in any way possible. You display the arrogance of a true-believer, a know-it-all who seems to know next to nothing about either Sheldrake or biology in general. Your attacks are ideologically motivated and have no place in the biography of a scientist.

By the way, in your senseless hacking away at the article, why do you keep deleting the wager he made with Wolpert? You still haven't responded on that one. The citation is from a highly respected source, New Scientist, and is clearly significant in his career. You may not realize it, but by deleting this you're essentially saying that Sheldrake's life isn't worth reporting. Yet this is his biography page. Bizarre, truly. You simply hate the man, whose work you will not and possibly cannot comprehend. You wish to efface him altogether. This is your true motivation.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Green is wrong on both points:

1. Lecturers "[in] the United Kingdom … are academics early in their careers, who lead research groups and supervise postgraduate students as well as lecture courses."
2. My "opinion" of Rivista di Biologica - Biology Forum is substantiated by the WP:FRINGE figures that I have documented inhabiting it. I would further point out that Green has provided no evidence whatsoever that Sheldrake's results have been subjected to legitimate peer review by Nature, or any other legitimate scientific journal. What "Sheldrake discusses" is not at issue -- as Sheldrake is not a third party source!

"By the way, in your senseless" regurgitation of Sheldrake's claims, and exaggeration of third-party views, you are making the article blatantly POV. Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager contained no third-party references so, per WP:V should not exist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Leading a student research group does not make someone a scientist. Whatever came of the student research he directed? Were any papers published? Does he ever refer to any of his research in any of his writings? The man never claimed to be a scientist. By his own reckoning, he was a journalist. It was in his capacity as editor of Nature, a journalistic position, that he accused Sheldrake of pseudoscience.

Rivista di Biologica - Biology Forum, one of the oldest biology journals in the world, is peer reviewed. That it's considered "fringe" by some people only means that it's willing to print work outside the mainstream of biological thought. This does not make it unscientific. The point of science is evolution in thinking, as opposed to dogmatic stasis. Science evolves in part as the result of fringe ideas entering the mainstream. To claim that a proposal is unscientific because it's on the fringes is to upend the scientific project altogether and render it into a new kind of religion.

Obviously Nature peer-reviewed Sheldrake's work on the the protein auxin before printing it. For anyone who's interested, the article is located here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v238/n5363/abs/238352a0.html

Btw, explaining what Sheldrake is proposing is not regurgitating his claims. This is, after all, his biography page.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Green pretty much has no credibility left at this stage:

1. "lead[ing] research groups and supervis[ing] postgraduate students" in the field of physics, most certainly qualifies one as a scientist;
2. Sermonti, Wells and Bergman aren't simply "outside the mainstream of biological thought" -- they are in the mainstream of the anti-science creationist apologetics community. This (and similar issues) does render Rivista "unscientific".
3. The Nature article was published in 1972, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Sheldrake's current field of interest or claims.
4. Re "regurgitating", please read WP:FRINGE & WP:DUE (particularly taking note of WP:GEVAL).

On none of these points does he make a credible argument, and on none of these points does he seem to have any support (and at least one other editor has explicitly rejected his claims on the reliability of Rivista). I therefore do not propose spending much (and preferably not any) further time debating such flimsy points. This should not be considered to be acceptance of either his arguments or his edits on the basis of them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the "equal validity" policy:

"The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Holocaust never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

As you can see, the policy is that we do not take a stand on whether or not a given idea is pseudoscience. We let the readers decide for themselves. And of course we are allowed to note that the view in question is regarded by many as illegitimate. This view is well represented on the Sheldrake page. But presenting the opposition view doesn't translate into censoring the view of the accused. What if the individual is wrongly accused?

Hrafn's error, once again, is begging the question. He already knows, before even investigating the issue at hand, that a theory of organic memory - - or habituation as a property of nature - - is by definition pseudoscience. How about we present, on this page, the basics of Sheldrake's theory and what others have said about it? We allow the supportive comments of Janis Roze and Sue Ann Miller, which I tried to add, and Hrafn delted. We allow reference to the scientific wager he accepted from Louis Wolpert, which demonstrates that his viewpoint is at least coherent and tenable. We grant that his work primarily concerns morphogenesis and that he has been occupied with developing and testing a theory in the field of developmental biology. We present the basics of his proposal according to how he describes it in his books, and we refer to a new appendix in the just released edition of his first book because it includes an important discussion on testability and evidence. The point of doing all this is so that readers can make up their minds for themselves. Hrafn deleted every one of these additions because he wants to dictate what the reader comes away with. Our job is simply to present the verifiable facts about Sheldrake, one of which is that he is scientifically trained and purports to be presenting a scientific theory. By following up on the references, readers are free to make up their own minds on Sheldrake.

That Hrafn has made up his mind doesn't mean Wikipedia readers should be deprived of the facts by which to decide for themselves.

We're not here to decide if John Maddox was or was not a scientist. Simply by presenting the facts of his life, most people will recognize that he was a journalist and, if at all a scientist, only secondarily. So too, by presenting the facts about Sheldrake, most people will recognize that he is indeed a scientist, whether or not his theory has any merit. This is what Hrafn can't abide by, so he must censor the page in order that his particular point of view become the only point of view available to Wikipedia readers.

Hrafn says I have no credibility. Fine. He can say what he wants. I'm not a whiner, and I don't turn people in to the Wikipedia police for "incivility." (Granted, it was a fellow ideological opponent of Sheldrake who did the dirty work for him). Now that he's brought it up, how much credibility does Hrafn himself have? Since this is the Sheldrake page, the first criterion of credibility is knowledge of Sheldrake. Hrafn has demonstrated none whatsoever, nor any inclination to acquire any. The second is to demonstrate knowledge of the field Sheldrake occupies. Again, we see no indication that he has any particular expertise. His sole agenda, as exhbited in all his actions and comments, is to eliminate any material that reveals the falsity of his own POV. Not much credibility there.

Hrafn's comment on Sheldrake's Nature article is particularly telling. The issue was his contention that Sheldrake cannot be referred to as a scientist. Part of his "evidence" was the claim that none of Sheldrake's work was peer reviewed, so I gave him a reference not only to a paper in a peer reveiewed journal but one that appeared in Nature, of all places (there are several more such papers from mainstream journals). The issue here is not morphic resonance but his credentials as a scientist. As I stated above the link, the article concerns a protein known as auxin. Clearly I was not trying to hide the fact that the article is on something other than morphic resonance. The point is that he has scientific credentials. That Hrafn tried to shift the ground of the discussion, as if we had been discussing something else, demonstrates his unwillingness to engage in honest dialogue.

Incidentally, since Sheldrake's more recent work is outside the dominant belief system of current biology, we should not be surprised that this work has not appeared in mainstream journals. Of course, over time this could change. Nonetheless, that a belief is outside the dominant framework cannot be taken as evidence that it's unscientific. In fact, to make this claim is to demonstrate perfect ignorance of the nature of science, which evolves in part through the absorption of previously rejected beliefs (such as continental drift or, more recently, the repeated inundation of what is now eastern Washington state, etc). No one who reflexively equates minority thinking with anti-science has any business contributing to science-related pages.

Creationism, though clearly wrong, is in fact part of the scientific project. There's no law of science that says theorists cannot attempt to define the limits of science, which is essentially what creationism does. The claim being made is that science can only tell us so much about the emergence of species, that the ultimate mechanism behind this emergence is beyond our ability to demonstrate. Like most people with an interest in science, I cannot imagine a belief more misguided than this one. Nonetheless, if the belief is presented coherently, it is indeed part of science. You might say it's the shadow, the negative aspect of science, offering no theory but also contending that no theory is possible. Of course, Sheldrake is just the opposite. He's saying that we can in fact bring within the grasp of scientific theory the mystery of morphogenesis, a process that currently is not the object of any other theory. As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, the notion of DNA as blueprint of the organism is not testable, or at least no one has figured out yet how to test it. Like creationism, genetic reductionism offers no theory, the difference being that reductionists assume that one day, with enough knowledge, the actual theory will come into focus. It's a statement of faith and a basic framework within which to conduct the research that one day, it is hoped, will lead to testable hypotheses.

There's much more nuance to this than Hrafn realizes. That reductionism offers no theory does not mean it's not science. That creationism claims there is no possibility of a theory of species emergence does not deny its role in the scientific project (albeit a negative one). Given that Sheldrake purports to offer a theory of morphogenesis, in addition to his impeccable credentials, as Henry Bauer put it, we have no business passing on the claim that his views are unscientific while censoring his own claims. Our job is to present his theory alongside the views of his opponents and let the reader decide.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Green's post beings three links to mind: argumentum ad nauseam, WP:TLDNR & WP:TE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here Hrafn reveals classic bullying behavior. He makes several points against me. So I respond, as economically as I can, to those points. Then, when he can't respond to those points, he accuses me of argumentum ad nauseam. Citing irrelevant Wikipedia pages does not advance his case.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of bullying. Various editors have explained these issue to you already. That should be adequate. Simply repeating them in a new section is unhelpful. Guettarda (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Holes you could drive a truck through

I am a bit concerned that undue weight is being given to the Morphic Resonance information on this article. I'm of two minds. On one hand it would probably be best-practice to remove much of the repetition of information caused by addressing his books independently. On the other hand information such as his salamander legs argument beiles the pseudoscientific nature of his theory to anybody with the least scientific training. What do others think?Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how his argument about salamander limb regeneration indicates pseudoscience?

Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)