Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 18

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

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Retiring

I am now retiring from the article. Good luck all. --Iantresman (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not used to being spoken to as above on Wikipedia, and I have to say I don't like it. More work needs to be done here regarding behaviour and attitude before the editing environment is suitable for normal progress. As a volunteer contributor, with a life, I don't need this. --Nigelj (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I know how much of an enormous hassle this page has been (I have to take periodic breaks or lose patience), but I respectfully urge you both to reconsider. So many BLP editors are leaving the site due to its hostile environment, and the dwindling pool of diverse opinions is leading to an growing trend to ban those disagreeing with the most vocal editors. We need sensible people here. The Cap'n (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

biologist title

Can we discuss replacing "researcher" and "biologist" to the first sentence?

Sometimes, newspapers can use inaccurate titles, like calling someone a lawyer when they really aren't.

However, our own article says that:

a) he got a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge
b) "He was a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973[1] after which he was principal plant physiologist (...) until 1978"
c) his theory "morphic resonance is about "various perceived phenomena, particularly biological ones", which then guide "biological growth and behaviour", and constitutes "a biological proposition akin to Lamarckian inheritance".

Shouldn't this be more than enough to call him a biologist? Specially the degree.

(other activities should be covered by "and researcher in the field of parapsychology") --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A few days ago, I wrote the following ...

Again with the circular discussion, so I'll put in the requisite comment. If he is a scientist, show us his scientific work. The publications, the criticism (meant in its classic sense) the collaborations, the citations, the discussions, the follow-up work, the other scientists in the field, the awards, the acclaim of peers etc. etc. I point you to the huge gaping and above all - empty - vacuum. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It is in the archive now, but nobody answered then, so I've reposted it. I do hope some answers are forthcoming, because this discussion is repetitious and tedious. Sheldrake no longer does science, hasn't done science for more than twenty years, probably thirty, and shows no signs of putting his ideas up for scientific scrutiny. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought we had decided on this? The key points are:

He isn't notable as a biologist - he fails WP:PROF
He hasn't published any peer reviewed research since 1987, so he isn't currently doing biology.
Wikipedia shouldn't be endorsing him as a biologist. The key to this is the anti-WP:FRINGE want to endorse him as a biologist.
Newspapers with word limits and journalists working to a deadline tend to use as few words as possible to describe something or someone. We can afford to use a few more words and be more accurate.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely the rules of WP:OR apply here as much as anywhere else. If there are several reliable sources that (inaccurately) describe the man as a biologist, and this as you state is patent nonsense, then "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." In other words, where are the sources that explicitly say things along the lines of, "Sheldrake is not a biologist, as some people report, because of... x, y, and z" as you state? They should not be hard to find, if this is the majority view. --Nigelj (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, no WP:OR doesn't apply to not saying he's something. WP:NPOV however does. The sources generally aren't reliable (on this point at least) for the reasons outlined. You'd be hard pressed finding scientific sources that discuss Sheldrake's ideas as genuine scientific. Meanwhile, we have good sources such as Jerry Coyne calling Sheldrake a "pseudoscientist" - and this is the point. A pseudoscientists pretends to do science and in this case has apparently taken in some journalists. Describing him as a "researcher" is neutral because it doesn't identify his views as being scientific or pseudoscientific - it is neutral. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you have to stick to the point. In this section we are not discussing any of the terms you bring up in that post. The single purpose of this discussion is the application of the word biologist to Sheldrake. Is he, or is he not, eligible to be described as a biologist? In this edit you just reverted the addition of the word, along with four references that say he is. Now, I ask you very specifically, where are your sources for that revert? --Nigelj (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It helps if you read what I've just said and don't pretend WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, otherwise there is little more than I can do apart from repeating myself. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I read what you had written, but I did not see any references or citations. To me it looked like a series of statements of your personal opinion, which is why I asked for evidence based on reliable sources. We cannot write, edit, or redact from BLPs on the basis of anyone's opinion, as you know. --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Barney.

"notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article."(WP:N) It is not a test of whether we should attribute a title to someone.
Publishing in peer-review is not the only criteria for being a biologist, otherwise every retired academic would lose their title. Sheldrake most recently published in the peer reviewed academic journal Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing this year, July 2013[^{[deprecated source?]} available via sciencedirect.com[2] and is an imprint of Elsevier, with an impact factor of 1.078[3] that is greater than several science journals.[4]
As Nigelj correctly notes, Wikipedia has no place endorsing or rejecting any person. That is bias that fails WP:OR.
Newspapers and many other sources identify Sheldrake as a biologist (all listed previously plus many academic books), and a tiny number offer other titles. --Iantresman (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

--Iantresman (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The notability issue is important. We do not explain why something isn't notable, we explain why it is notable (in this case, as an author).
Explore the Journal of Science and Healing is clearly a pseudojournal. Elsevier aren't interested in science - they're primarily interested in making money (mostly from skimming it off publicly funded research).
As explained, "researcher" is neutral. biologist=scientist=someone who does science = not neutral. There is also the issue of WP:FRINGE - we are supposed to be building a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Barney

The notability is established by all the newspapers and other sources that frame Sheldrake as a biologist.
Find me a couple of reliable secondary sources that describe Explore as a pseudojournal, and the point is yours. Otherwise it is just another unfounded aspersion. Find ANY source that suggests "Elsevier aren't interested in science" and I'll buy you a drink! --Iantresman (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers don't establish Sheldrake as a biologist - in fact they confirm the obvious, which is that real biologists don't treat him as a biologist, but as a pseudoscientist who is circumventing the normal scientific processes and going direct to the public before convincing his peers. The discussion is almost entirely limited to the newspapers, New Scientist and op-eds in Nature. Articles in peer reviewed journals demonstrating morphic resonance would establish his status as a biologist. However, he doesn't have these.

Elselvier are well known for profit-based business practices, e.g. [5] [6]. Looks like you owe me a drink. Additionally, Explore is (or was) edited by Dean Radin who has a level of standing in science similar to Sheldrake. Birds of a feather flock together and all that - Let's not pretend that pseudojournals don't exist, or pretend that we can't see the what's a reliable source and what isn't. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue was whether Elsevier was interested in science, not whether they are interested in money. They are not mutually exclusive. This really is my last comment here. --Iantresman (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have time to ask the admins if they can rule on this--a binding ruling! it might be worded as "Does Wikipedia have the authority to remove a college degree from a living person?" and then refer them to this thread.Tom Butler (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Asking such a question is ridiculous. Also, none of you are addressing the fact that Sheldrake's career includes both mainstream science and pseudoscience. This needs to be made clear in the first sentence. Something along the lines of "His career has ranged from mainstream biochemistry to parapsychology and New Age pseudoscience". There are quotes from Sheldrake which are obvious pseudoscience and we don't need anyone else's classification of them as such. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a bad question at all. Had you been paying attention for the last few months, you will have noticed that Sheldrake's academic credentials--parapsychologist, biologist, whatever--remains a problem that cannot be solved amongst the warring editors. Your "obvious pseudoscience" is a personal opinion shared by some of the editors, but is still a personal opinion. You cannot make it so by saying it is so. On the other hand, I would be willing to accept an opinion from an administrator who is more experienced in being neutral. At some point, someone has to be the Wikipedia:Town sheriff.

Of course, if you just don't want to give up this bone of contention, then argue away. You have pretty much lost the necessary quorum to make decisions here with the ban/blocking of editors and the departure of Nigelj and Iantresman. I will be right behind. No one is going to suppose that the article will be fair to the living person with only the skeptics to run the asylum.

Have it your way. Tom Butler (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Biology does include orderly, scientific studying of the behavior of dogs whether or not they know when their masters are coming home, and humans who may or may not know when they are being stared at. Within the field, there's academic biology, and popular biology, professional biology, and amateur biology. No degrees or publications are required to do any but the academic kind. Lou Sander (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"If people are prepared to admit that our consciousness is associated with these complex electromagnetic patterns, then why shouldn't the sun have a consciousness? The sun may think. Its consciousness may be associated with complex and measurable electromagnetic events both on its surface and deeper within. If there's a connection between our consciousness and complex, dynamic electromagnetic patterns in our brains, there's no reason that I can see for denying the possibility of this connection in other cases, and especially on the sun." ^[1] is obvious pseudoscience. There is more of this stuff stating that he believes the stars have consciousness. He is both a biologist and pseudoscientist. Arguing that he is only one or the other is a waste of time. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I would expect editors here to be at least familiar with, if not also WP:COMPETENT in concepts such as panpsychism and the hard problem of consciousness. These are the subjects of long-standing and perfectly respectable debates in academia. --Nigelj (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Nigelj (talk · contribs) - we also expect editors to be basically competent and understand WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG claims. Panpsychism has very little to do with modern science, or sensible modern philosophy. The hard problem of consciousness is an issue for psychology, but I don't see it as something that Sheldrake is particularly concerned with - unlike things like genetics and biological developmental, which I might expect you to be at least familiar with.

Dingo1729 (talk · contribs) is right - Sheldrake has at various points in his career, been a scientist and a pseudoscientist. Looking at the record, he's clearly not currently a scientist, and yet this is what the edit-warred lead now says. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The only reaosn for wanting to have "biologist" in the lede, as far as I can tell, is to give unwarranted support to the rigour of his morphic resonance conjecture. He is, as has been noted above, not notable as a biologist. If he had not dreamt up morphic resonance then we probably would not have an article at all, if we did it would be very short. Compromise wording is always worth seeking, but repeatedly insisting on a specific word fails the definition of compromise rather badly. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I would say that the reasons for wanting the word used to describe him are a) he got a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge, b) "He was a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 after which he was principal plant physiologist (...) until 1978" and (c) many reliable sources so describe him when they introduce him, even if they go on to slam his current work. I would be quite happy with a two-way statement, "once a biologist, but that was denied/revoked/rescinded by XYZ in 199X", but I can't find a source for the second half, and no one has been able to provide one here either. As I'm sure you know, we have to write articles according to what the sources say, even of we don't like it. --Nigelj (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No, those are arguments used by those who demand the term. In fact, he is not known as a biologist. He is known as a crank, in as much as he is known at all. Sorry to be blunt, but that really is how it is. Even most skeptics had never heard of him before the TEDx debacle. Remember, most descriptions will be taken form his own self-description, or will be selected to frame a discussion. "$CRANK says X" is not news, "$TYPEOFSCIENTIST says X" may be. What is unquestionably true is that morphic resonance is not science, and that is what most of the article is about. I'd completely support a renaming to that title, because almost nothing about Sheldrake is independent of that one subject. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had to suggest above that people stick to the topic of the discussion thread. We will never get content consensus on particular wordings if people are too indisciplined to stick to discussion of the wording in hand in each thread. This thread is about use of the word biologist to refer to the man in his BLP. Getting agitated about other matters (TEDx, news reporters, morphic resonance) here doesn't help, unless you also present sources that already conflate these issues with something relevant to our possible use of the word biologist in reference to his life. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nigelj (talk · contribs) - your idea that there must be some "committee" to take away the "biology title" apparently earned by studying for a PhD is entirely disingenuous because "biologist" is not a title - it's a description, and there's no scientific committee that confers that "description"/"title" in the first place. Therefore to demand that there must be one to "take it away, or else it must stay" is nonsense. Science is a doing process. You either do the experiments, scientifically, print in peer reviewed journals and convince your peers, or you're not following the scientific process, and hence aren't a scientist. There is a definite line that Sheldrake crossed that took him from "biologist" to "former biologist". Accuracy demands that we must be accurate. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The questions of morphic resonance etc are entirely valid in context. Since Sheldrake stopped doing biology, he has been involved pretty much exclusively in promoting his pseudoscientific conjectures, and it's for this alone that he has come to what prominence he has. If he'd stayed doing biology we would probably not have an article, unless he'd done something actually notable in that field (which he might have done, had he not vanished off down the rabbit hole, there is no doubt that he's a very clever man). Guy (Help!) 22:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, what exactly is this definite line that was crossed, and when was it crossed? Using the term "former biologist," as opposed to simply referring to his biology work in the past tense, strongly implies that his education and work in biology was invalidated, when in fact it has remained valid while Sheldrake has pursued other topics. One does not lose a background descriptor because one takes up another interest; I would not lose my descriptor of "historian" because I started researching astrophysics. Even granting the term pseudoscience (that's another discussion), he would be "a biologist whose current work is considered pseudoscientific," or something similar. And don't get me started on the double negative of saying someone was formerly a biochemist at blah blah blah... Either say he was a biochemist at BBB or that he is a former biochemist from BBB. Neither is very useful or descriptive, and the whole section just reeks of some editor desperately trying to find an excuse to demonstrate that Sheldrake has no scientific credentials (again, another discussion).

As for the claim that Sheldrake loses his biological background because he has not recently done research approved by the scientific community, this is a fallacious argument that is easily proven false in many places in WP. There's no expiration date on a degree in biology, nor a shelve life on professional work on plant genes. This recurring argument that one's scientific background wears off after awhile is bizarre (if he performed an accepted experiment every 5 years would he get a renewal on being called a biologist/biochemist?).

Lastly, it's not up to us to determine what he is. Sheldrake was educated in biology, he worked professionally in biology, he calls himself a biologist, multiple sources call him a biologist. His professional work and the fact that he has a strong background in biology is the only reason his research into MR has garnered any attention whatsoever. According to WP:BLP's interpretation of the primacy of all these factors, this shouldn't even be an issue, he's a biologist/biochemist. I move to clean up the lead to bring it in line with evidence, common sense and relevancy, as opposed to sloppy invective. I agree with Barney the barney barney: accuracy does demand that we must be accurate. The Cap'n (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Askahrc (talk · contribs) - we have been through these arguments. The idea that a doctorate in a particular subject enables you to be described as a current student of that subject is just lawyering with words. It just doesn't cut mustard. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps now that some troublesome editors are gone, we could re-establish consensus on this. Lou Sander (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Barney the barney barney, but that's assuming all the person has is a degree to recommend the descriptor. Having worked professionally in the field is a far more important and definitive factor, and whatever his standing in the community, Sheldrake has done valid biochemical work. I don't think it's lawyering to point out that the argument for "former biochemist" is not justified by WP practice or the standard usage of background descriptors, and thus the only reason to include it is to discredit Sheldrake's scientific background. No one refers to Hilary Clinton as a "former lawyer," despite the fact that she has not worked professionally as a lawyer since 1979. The common and sensible practice is to refer to past, no longer active attributes in the (wait for it!) past tense. Therefore it could be said that "Rupert Sheldrake was a biochemist at Cambridge," and that would communicate that he was no longer pursuing that work without falsely implying that his degree and body of biochemical work have been invalidated. We don't need to beat the reader to death with the fact that Sheldrake's current work isn't generally accepted by including a reference to it in every sentence. That doesn't seem like a radical suggestion to me. The Cap'n (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference, Askahrc (talk · contribs) is that a lawyer is qualified to practice law, and is licensed. If necessary, that qualification can be taken away because of disciplinary proceedings by official overseeing body. By contrast, there is no overseeing body for "biologists", and you don't actually need any official qualifications to do science. The comparison is invalid. Also, if we are such great fans of research-by-google-search, Hillary Clinton, and you do your research, is called a "former lawyer". Meanwhile, her Wikipedia biography does not describe her primarily as a lawyer, since not only is she currently not lawyering, she is not notable for being a lawyer either. Conversely, it describes why she is notable. We need to descrbie why Sheldrake is notable, and it's not as a biologist, because he's not currently biologising and he's not notable as a former biologist either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, BX3, if I was unclear. I do not propose judging any subject by what you can Google search for, in which case my example of Hilary Clinton can be found in top searches such as HILARY CLINTON MURDERED VINCE FOSTER, HILARY CLINTON IS MORSI, and, my personal favorite, HILARY CLINTON KILLED ABRAHAM LINCOLN. I brought her up as an example of someone whose encyclopedic page does not refer to one who no longer practices a trade as a "former" anything. And of course her page does not say she is primarily a lawyer, she's doing other things now, and likewise I never said that Sheldrake's page should describe all his current work as biochemical, but rather describe his past work in accurate terms, which was as a biologist, past tense. And while there is no bar for scientists, there is scientific work that has been debunked as fraudulent or inherently flawed (like the vaccines=autism study), and none of Sheldrake's previous work has been so challenged. MR and Sheldrake's arguments against scientific foundations are part of what make him notable, but those arguments only matter because they're coming from someone with a valid scientific background. None of the arguments above, I note, address the issue that using "former biologist" when it is not backed up by sources or the subject's self-identification is against BLP policy and adds nothing to the page except to cast doubt on Sheldrake's credentials. Whatever we may think of his current research, he has done valid biological work and we need to reflect that. The Cap'n (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

When you're doing science, credentials are irrelevant. What matters is the validity of your work. The article does reflect that he has done biological work in the past, indeed in the second sentence, but (1) it isn't what he's notable for, and (2) it quite clearly occurred in the past (hence former). I really fail to see how this is a "BLP problem", and we should insert untruths into the article as "fact" as a result. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

... and it is reflected, Cap'n, all through the article, just not in sentence number one. Why do many people here have a problem with that? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said in another discussion section, the "formerly" in the first sentence of the lede is redundant now. The end years for his tenure establish that this was in the past. Even if we remove that word now it will not be saying he is presently a biologist.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I formally removed "formerly" as TDA is correct. I would like somebody else besides myself to look at the citations that I was disrespectful about in the Alfonzo Green Affair because they are still there, and I think all four should go the way of something that has gone. They would be refs 6, 7, 8 and 9 assuming they don't get changed in the meantime. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Reality and Wikipediality

Rupert Sheldrake has proposed a testable hypothesis of development from the egg. The basis for his proposal is Henri Bergson's denial of an absolute distinction between past and present. By this view, the past spills over into the present. Though no longer materialized, the past retains influence over current decisions of intrinsically formed systems, including organisms. We might call this process natural memory. Morphic resonance is a proposed mechanism of natural memory. If it's real, we ought to be able to measure its effects in a variety of contexts. For instance, if day-old chicks are conditioned to associate pecking a yellow diode with an unpleasant sensation, we should see aversion to yellow diodes in subsequent batches of day-old chicks. This is indeed what occurred when a test was conducted on morphic resonance in day-old chicks. The lead researcher, Steven Rose, asserted that the apparently positive results were not really positive. He disagreed that morphic resonance had actually been demonstrated by this experiment. He is entitled to that opinion. Nonetheless, the scientific status of morphic resonance, i.e. its testability and therefore falsifiability, is not open to rational debate. Right or wrong, that MR is a scientific proposal is a simple and indisputable fact.

I introduce the above paragraph not to try to convince anybody of anything but simply to provide a case study of how not to edit Wikipedia. The basis of our discussion is not reality (or, more precisely, what we think of reality) but Wikipediality. We are here to report what reliable sources state in regard to the topic at hand. Failure to abide by this principle is to violate WP:OR. A mainstream newspaper or magazine is by definition a reliable source, and we must report what these sources say. Any attempt at interpreting or spinning the source or favoring some sources over others is WP:OR. Unless we strictly abide by this principle, we have no hope of arriving at consensus. As soon as we make reality our framework instead of Wikipediality, we are hopelessly lost in conflicting opinions of what constitutes reality.

In the above section, "biologist title," Roxy and Barney3 demonstrate unwillingness to abide by the principle of Wikipediality. Roxy gives a variety of reasons why we should not regard Sheldrake as a biologist, ignoring the fact that it's not up to us to determine his scientific status. It's up to the sources, which overwhelmingly identify him as a scientist of one type or another, mostly as a biologist. Iantresman provides a link to many of those sources in the above section.

Barney3's arguments are equally irrelevant, but I will respond to one of his points as it nicely illustrates his unwillingness to conform to proper Wikipedia editing. He claims that WP:Fringe prevents us from referring to Sheldrake as a biologist, and he cites another biologist, Jerry Coyne, who refers to Sheldrake as a pseudoscientist. Okay, that's one source who seems to by denying Sheldrake's status as a biologist. It is however the only source making this claim, as against dozens of others that call him a biologist. Coyne's claim therefore represents a fringe view. By insisting that we cannot call Sheldrake a biologist, Barney3 is himself in violation of WP:Fringe. This is in addition to his violation of the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, as embodied in WP:OR, that is, arguing in terms of reality instead of Wikipediality. Additionally, when reminded of what sources say in the aggregate, he denies the reliability of sources that disagree with his view, again violating WP:OR, not to mention indicating WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

While Barney3 has clearly demonstrated his unsuitability to edit the Sheldrake page, the following comment indicates his unsuitability to edit any page having to do with science: "Articles in peer reviewed journals demonstrating morphic resonance would establish his status as a biologist." In other words, you're not a real scientist until your hypothesis is proven correct. Until that point, you're a pseudoscientist. Since scientific discovery depends on the willingness to take chances, to propose hypotheses that might turn out to be wrong and to put them to the test, Barney3's statement is perfectly at odds with the spirit of discovery that animates the scientific project.

I am restoring the label "biologist" with the sources backing it up. Please do not revert my edit without first explaining here why we should ignore reliable sources in favor of an editor's opinion as to what constitutes reality. Alfonzo Green (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't do that. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Your sources are useless. Please self revert unless you can demonstrate he is a biologist per my comments above. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I support Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs)'s analysis of this. While I know some outliers too easily turn to the usual person-bashing dialog of the skeptical community, most of the scientists I have known are necessarily candid about critiquing the work of other scientists but they have all been respectful of the person. The term "pseudoscience" is intentionally derogatory, and its use is virtually always used as a means of avoiding informed discussion of a concept.

Even if a respected scientist uses the term in regards another scientist's work, Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to echo the words of a few bad players. That gives incivility too much public attention.

The issue is well explained by Alfonso. The fact of the matter is that a scientist has made an informed proposal for a possible explanation about a natural phenomenon. He has taken grate care to seek methods for testing it and has explored the implications if he is right. Wikipedia is a powerful tool for social engineering. Treating Sheldrake in a purposefully negative light casts a chilling effect on other scientist's willingness to propose alternative hypotheses. That only leads to stagnation. Original research is the foundation of progress and I have already seen the effects of Wikipedia and its partner skeptical organizations to suppress that work.

Please take Alfonzo's lead and move on! Tom Butler (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is classic WP:REFUSINGTOGETTHEPOINT. See the umpteen previous comments. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I love a game of whack-a-mole. The above special pleading is obstructive and tendentious and veers far too far into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Given the editor's prior history, and that of the article (and indeed this talk page) this is going nowhere and will unquestionably act as a drama magnet yet again.

Nothing to see here, move along please. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. Some of us are very tired of editors not negotiating in good faith, ignoring good points of the opposing view and stonewalling in an effort to incite reason to block editors.

As an admin, you are complacent in this and not at all neutral in your actions here. Please monitor your own actions and consider abstaining unless you are planning to offer that "official" stamp of approval I have been looking for from Wikipedia. Tom Butler (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, your attempt to block discussion has been duly noted. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

One of us is an admin. It's not you. I strongly suggest you take the hint. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not cool to flex admin muscle.

WP:ADMINACCT "editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions"

WP:INVOLVED. "editors should not act as administrators .. involved administrators may have .. a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about".

WP:HARASS "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, .. intimidation,"

Happy Holidays everyone. --Iantresman (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not "flexing admin muscle". I'm pointing out that when it comes to "Reality and Wikipediality", an admin with years of experience of handling disputes on sensitive biographies is more likely to be right than a single-purpose crank advocacy account. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I am not complacent. I have access to OTRS and all the prior correspondence there. I am not persuaded, but that is not the same thing. I understand that the Shaldrake apologists falsely perceive their bias as neutrality, I don't, which is why I am working with others to balance my natural preference for scientific rationalism as opposed to pseudoscience.

That is irrelevant to the case in point, because Alfonzo has launched yet another campaign to recategorise this as science instead of pseudoscience. Steadfast refusal to accept consensus is obstructionism, and it is disruptive. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of repeatedly attempting to block discussion, why don't you explain why we can't refer to Sheldrake as a biologist when that's how virtually all sources refer to him? Obviously it's not a real consensus when it brazenly defies the sources. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfonso: we have had the discussion, dozens of times, Your POV lost. Repeatedly insisting on having the same debate yet again is disruptive. The fact that you do not like the result of the numerous previous discussions is your problem not ours. The fact that you refuse to accept it is also your problem not ours. Continue to insist on rehashing this sterile debate, and you will find yourself topic-banned. This is not a performance of David Lang's "again (after ecclesiastes)", it's Wikipedia. Our tolerance for that which has happened before and will happen again, is limited. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So insisting that we abide by the overwhelming majority of sources is POV. Is that what you're saying? Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, you said: "...accept consensus is obstructionism, and it is disruptive..." and "...Your POV lost." What do you think we have been arguing about for the past few months? If there was a consensus, then there would be more of us in agreement. All you have now are a few editors prone to sarcastic remarks rather than constructive input.

You also said: "...your problem not ours. " That is not the kind of verbiage one would expect from a neutral admin. Please stop making content comments under authority of your charter as an administrator. All you are doing is intimidating rather than reasoning. Tom Butler (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely the sort of statement you'd expect from a neutral admin, not that I'm positioning myself as one especially. I am telling you how it is here. It's impossible to have a policy-compliant version of this article that the Sheldrake devotees will like, because the consensus view in the scientific community is that Sheldrake is a crank. We have to reflect that, he doesn't like it, he will continue to agitate in order to try to drive more sympathetic editors here to try to skew the article, and our job as long-time Wikipedians is to patiently explain to these people why endlessly making the same demands is disruptive and needs to stop, not to give them a platform for endlessly making them. For us it's not personal, for them and him it is. That's the entirety of the problem over the last few months: a small group of pro-Sheldrake editors who obdurately refuse to accept Wikipedia's accurate reflection of a real-world consensus they don't like. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out that this discussion is not a single admin with a personal opinion, I want to make it clear that I entirely agree with Guy. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Primarily on the basis of this discussion and my related edit to the article, JzG has posted a complaint about me so as to have me banned from the article. The complaint, including my response, is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Alfonzo_Green. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not banned, just topic-banned. You'd still be able to edit other articles, just as long as you don't advocate pseudoscience. I can't find any edits you've made that don't, so you might want to try it. You might even become a useful member of the Wikipedia community. And no, not based on this, based on the fact that you are a single purpose advocacy account and always have been, and you have come out of semi-hibernation in order to not only propose yet another go round the pseudoscience discussion, but to insist on it, which is disruptive and obstructive. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you are expressing your prejudices under cloak of admin authority. What you seem to be warning us about is that any article you and your cohorts deem to be about pseudoscience is off limits for anyone to discuss content unless they are agreeing with the skeptical editors. While it is true such a rule would save man-centuries of discussion time, it would also assure that no frontier subject is explained in a balanced way. That is a chilling thought. Tom Butler (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Guy It's odd that you would add "and always have been," since I've edited lots of other articles, just not recently. See WP:SPATG. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

2/3 of all your mainspace edits are to this article. Many of the balance boost pseudscientific ideas including MR. Others here have a much wider edit base. Guy (Help!) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Butler that there's an implicit mandate being established that editors can be punished not for disrupting WP, but for being involved in topics that are controversial. As typified by the above and tRPoD's AE statement that anyone who doesn't call Rupert Sheldrake a pseudoscientist should be banned, the mood of this article is becoming hostile and stifling.

Guy, with all due respect, it's not possible for you to weigh in on this issue without bringing the weight of an admin, and your personal opinions on this topic are well known enough that impartiality is not very feasible. It would be conducive to the continued civility and productivity of the page to be considerate of the fact that your words carry more authority than most, and with that authority comes a responsibility to use it judiciously. The Cap'n (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I take on board your point, though I am amazed that anyone would think I have any particular influence here. I would reiterate that my point was not an appeal to authority, but a statement of the base of experience I have: my first brush with a really contentious biography was before I was an admin, and before WP:BLP even existed. Jimbo bought me a beer on the strength of it :-) My point is that I completely get BLP, and I deal first hand with hurt angry people. I am unlikely to place any policy above that. That doesn't mean my judgement is always good, but experience indicates that where consensus goes against me it is always (I cant think of a counter example) in favour of including more negative material that the subject dislikes. I am really rather conservative when it comes to tricky biographies. BLP is the only argument against inclusion of negative material about morphic resonance; in my view it doesn't wash. MR is plainly nonsense, even some of the pro-Sheldrake camp acknowledge this. Sheldrake wants his Wikipedia biography to serve his agenda, according to the press coverage I've read. He can whistle. We will be fair and accurate, and a far and accurate biography will clearly show him to be a man who has raised conjectures that are poorly supported, and challenged science outside his field of expertise because it shows his conjectures to be wrong. That's not science. That genuinely is dogma. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A modest proposal re: facts

This revert was done on the basis of some rather poorly argued justifications. Energy is conserved. That is a fact. Perpetual motion is impossible. That is a fact. When Sheldrake contradicts them, he is contradicting facts. People who think that these are not facts are wrong, and the best way they can disabuse themselves of being wrong is by, for example, taking an introductory physics course at their local college or university. That's the essence of WP:COMPETENCE. jps (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have an 1880's set of encyclopedia which state as fact that heavier than air flight is impossible and will never happen. Fact ! 81.4.142.94 (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are talking about something which you do not understand. Principles such as conservation of energy are facts in the context of known physics and within the bounds of the physical. I have a lot more than an introductory education in physics and have no problem agreeing that, if bounded properly, the principles hold true.

You get into trouble with your bold statement by ignoring the scope of Sheldrake's hypothesis. It is more related to mind which, without even resorting to some hypothetical subtle energy space, is an intangible. Even in reductionist views, mind is a derivative property and one cannot assume that it is subject to physical principles since it is not seen as being bound by the body--even as a product of brain.

In the simplistic view, morphic fields can be modeled as derivative properties of life. That means some physical proprieties may not directly apply. just as Newtonian Physics was fact in the general sense, the mass-acceleration equation had to be modified to accommodate new understanding from relativity.

I believe that all Sheldrake is trying to do is address the implications of morphic fields. In the context of the Hypothesis of Formative Causation, some physical principles may need to be modified a little to accommodate a broader view. You, nor any editor here has the authority to edit his proposal. All we can do is report. Reporting reaction is fine, but I am really tired of editors here pronouncing under some undisclosed authority that they are smarter than the person they are reporting on. Tom Butler (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So Sheldrake says "the law of conservation of energy is not a law" and means "the mind is physical, but the mind isn't a physical because that's reductionist thinking". Thanks Tom Butler (talk · contribs), makes perfect sense now, as long as we ignore the change of subject and contradiction in the second part. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are only 5 million sources for "law of conservation of energy", [7] so I guess it's up to the editors here to argue it out. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe's removal of the phrasing altogether. That said, my competence is not at all an issue here. Scientific law is not synonymous with scientific fact. A law can still be falsified, however unlikely it may be for that to happen, but a fact can not be falsified.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(I made this point a little while ago.) Originally the text mentioned that perpetual motion was a pseudoscientific concept. Indeed the citation, which explicitly states the perpetual motion is pseudoscience, is still there in the article. Trying to soften the lead, I removed the "pseudoscientific" clause, but this left open a hole where the mainstream view was not stated per WP:PSCI. One way to avoid the "fact" word while presumably satisfying jps is to revert back to the original, something like, "He advocates questioning conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices, a position regarded as pseudoscientific." vzaak 04:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The context of the paragraph seems to make it clear enough that his views on these issues are in opposition to accepted science. I mean, the sentence starts out with "Sheldrake also argues that science has become a world-view bound by a set of dogmas rather than an open-minded method of investigating phenomena" and the next sentence says "He accuses scientists of being susceptible to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience" and says "the biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers" in principle, leaving only the details to be worked out." Anyone who doubts it even after reading all that can look at the articles, which make it fairly clear how strongly these views are held within the scientific community. No reason to insist on tacking labels to things.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know any competent scientist who claims that "science already knows the answers in principle, leaving only the details to be worked out." That sounds to me like a ludicrously absolutist position, put up as a strawman. Yes, scientists get irritated by people who put forward complicated, non-logical theories for phenomena which can't be shown to exist. But absolute knowledge is the domain of faith and religion, not science. Sheldrake makes these claims about scientists, but they are not really true. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, a primary reason that the article is controversial is because is these things are not widely understood. The article should assume very little about the reader. vzaak 06:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to say that Sheldrake, "questions" two things: "the conservation of energy" and the "impossibility of perpetual motion", we have to basically explain what about them he is questioning. He is not questioning, for example, their lexicography. Nor is he questioning the appropriateness of the context where these points are made. He is, according to the very source we cite, questioning whether they are true. That is, he is questioning whether they are facts. It's a simple as that. The wording as currently offered simply does not explain what he is questioning. We could rewrite it as, for example, "advocates questioning whether the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices are facts", but leaving it without categorical identification is too ambiguous, and simply does not explain the situation as we are commanded to do by WP:SUMMARY and WP:ASSERT.

What we certainly cannot say is that he advocates questioning LAWS since the impossibility of perpetual motion devices is not a "LAW" in the proper sense (that fact is actually based on the three[four] laws of thermodynamics). Something's going to have to change, and not on the basis of the erroneous claims above that facts "cannot be falsified" which is not only shoddy science, it's even shoddier argumentation in light of how falsification works. Here's a scientific fact: "Liquid water, when starting at STP, will freeze at 0 degrees Celsius". This fact can be falsified by a single observation that shows this not to be true. If you think facts can't be falsified, you are not competent enough to be editorializing here. Sorry.

jps (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) Supercooling violates your "fact". (2) Scientists thought that radioactivity violated the law of the Conservation of Energy[8][9] (3) "In quantum systems the principle of conservation of energy can be temporarily violated."[10][11] also in respect to Hawking radiation[12] (4) Is dualism consistent with the Conservation of Energy?[13][14]. Do these sources suggest that anyone can question the law of the Conservation of Energy, except Sheldrake? --Iantresman (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, supercooling does not violate the laws of physics. It is a limiting case of the laws. Your arguments are precisely the kind of fringe bunk that we have to guard against: to say that because some quantum phenomena appear to violate the laws of conservation of energy locally and under certain circumstances, is akin to asserting that Heisenberg means we can't measure the position of a football in motion or that entanglement means you can split a football so it's at both ends of the pitch simultaneously. It's also ignoring the fact that these effects are known, by scientists who (unlike Sheldrake) are physicists, experts in the specific field, and they do not consider that there is a problem with conservation of energy or perpetual motion being impossible, because they (unlike Sheldrake) are following the evidence where it leads, rather than trying to construct support for a conjectural house of cards. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. I did not say that supercooling violates the laws of physics, I said that it violates jps's "fact" that "Liquid water, when starting at STP, will freeze at 0 degrees Celsius". Your comments on "fringe bunk" are offensive. --Iantresman (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No twisting of words is necessary. With 1) you spectacularly missed the point of my example and actually gave a good explanation for why we need to explain what Sheldrake disputes, 2) and 3) are typically shoddy red herrings, but may come in useful later on if you can reformulate them as facts so that people can see how they are falsified. jps (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with jps to the extent that using the word "law" invites precisely the kind of hair-splitting we've seen on this page for the past few weeks; conservation of energy is what it is. The name we apply to this kind of theory - law, principle, whatever - is largely irrelevant: the principle stands not because it is called a law but because no observation has ever contradicted it to the extent that it is called into question, and because science built on the assumption that it is true, has greater consistency and explanatory power than anything based on it being false. Same for perpetual motion. One decent experiment incontrovertibly demonstrating perpetual motion at the macro level, would overturn the law, but that has never happened, and each successive failed attempt makes it less likely that it ever will. It is unlikely that the reader will draw anything but the obvious conclusion from Sheldrake's questioning of the impossibility of perpetual motion. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no argument that the law of conservation of energy is valid and stands. I agree with you and jps. But the THREE exceptions I described (with sources), all consider the violation of the law. None of them state: violation of the fact, because this "hair splitting" as you call it, is relevant here. These violations are exactly why "principle" and "laws" are so named.

We can easily resolve this issue by referring to secondary sources that review Sheldrake's book, and see how they describe his views on the conservation of energy. --Iantresman (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Or we can accept that my recent edit cuts the Gordian knot by getting rid of the quibbled over phrase and move on. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You didn't expect this to be easy, did you? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am quite happy with Mangoe's edit.[15] I am unhappy with the reasoning for reverting to a phrase which is not supported by Sheldrake, or any other reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What you described there is not really a "fact" but a "law" as it presumes something that has not yet occurred will occur as similar things have occurred in the past. A fact would be a specific instance of water being frozen at 0 degrees. In common parlance we would dispense with such technical terminology and call the temperature at which water freezes a fact, but that would not make it a fact in a scientific sense. This article discusses things from a more scientific perspective and we should thus avoid such misleading terminology. Not sure what calling conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion facts would achieve except shoddy and misleading wording. Anyone who has had a basic course in science knows the law of conservation of energy well enough to know what it means for Sheldrake to suggest questioning it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is impenetrably mushy thinking on display. Tell me, is it a scientific law that all grass is grue? Seriously, go take some science classes. jps (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Selected material from Scientific law - "A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws.... Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply." Lou Sander (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, including the word invites precisely this sort of hair-splitting. But here's how it works: you advance a conjecture that conflicts with laws of physics. You have two options: one is to develop a proof that your conjecture actually doesn't conflict with the laws of physics, the other is to come up with a proof of your conjecture which is stronger than the evidence supporting the laws with which it conflicts, and which also explains all the observations to date. That's what happened with quantum mechanics: it succeeded as a theory because it was more complete than the previous theory, and was also consistent with all existing observations including those which were troublesome under the existing theory.

Sheldrake has instead chosen to merely repudiate the law of conservation of energy. Note that the existing anomalous observations are already scientifically known so are included in the broad class of what Sheldrake repudiates. He's basically saying that this theory on which great chunks of entirely valid physics is based, is simply wrong, but offers nothing in its place (not least because he's not a physicist).

Can you see why this does not work, regardless of the term we use to describe the law? Guy (Help!) 09:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is simple. Decent writing requires explaining what about these two ideas Sheldrake rejects. He rejects their factualness. That they are facts themselves is ancillary to the text in question. I'm adding the stuff back in since there is essentially no argument against it. Mangoe, thanks for trying to cut the Gordion knot, but your noble attempt really just made things a bit less clear to the reader. jps (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The body of the article says that Sheldrake "has stated that "the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak." He apparently formed that opinion when he was a scientist studying living organisms at Cambridge and having papers published in journals such as Nature. The living organisms stuff was formerly in the lead, as I recall. Lou Sander (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

He said that? Really? Where? If so, no wonder he's derided. That really is spectacularly silly. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@jps. The sources do not appear to suggest that he is checking their "factualness", a word that is not even mentioned in them. He does ask whether "The conservation of matter and energy seem like a mathematical truth"[16] which is not the same thing. The second references has nothing to do with Sheldrake. We can better refer to one of the several book reviews available. For example, "His intention is not to dismiss all conventional scientific ideas or cast doubt on every study but instead he insists on their limitations"[17], ie. he is questioning their limitations. --Iantresman (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian, your tiresome insistence on precise wording is indicative of a kind of myopia that has no place here. Searching for the word "fact" in the sources and complaining when you get no matches is just about the most brain-dead way to make an editorial argument, and you've been falling back on this research-by-search-engine approach entirely too often over your entire Wikipedia career. In any case, your final point that you think we're implying by the current wording that he is dismissing all conventional scientific ideas or casting doubt on every study is a somewhat tortured reading of the current prose, I'd say. Yes, Sheldrake is questioning the "limitations" of certain facts such as the ones outlined. Lou Sander, I would argue, makes this case rather nicely for us. He thinks that there is weak evidence that biological organisms obey the conservation of energy. This is a claim that questions, fundamentally, the factual basis of the conservation of energy. jps (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Here Ian happens to be right. The sources provided include a book that makes no mention of Sheldrake and one of Sheldrake's own books. Using those sources to state he questions "facts" is inserting unsourced personal commentary in contravention of BLP.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@jps. (1) I'm not asking for "precise" wording, but appropriate wording, supported by sources. The importance of good wording is due to yourself.[18] (2) I did not do any "research-by-search-engine", but checked refs #11 and #12 in the article[19], and one other Sheldrake offers on his own site. (3) My final point referred to a secondary source, I made no tortured reading; it said "limitations", and I said "limitations".

I am also quite saddened that an editor with your experience, expertise and background,[20] has had to resort to personal attacks again ("myopia", "brain dead")[21], bearing in mind your history,[22] previous sanctions,[23] and the very recent WP:AE case concerning Barleybannocks and TRPoD. --Iantresman (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs) - you appear to be casting WP:DISPERSIONS against {{user:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV]]. I suggest you provide diffs for this otherwise we can't stand for it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Just after ("myopia", "brain dead"), I have added the diff to my comment above, referring to the comment from jps that I replied to, just before it. I assume this is what you were referring to? --Iantresman (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. Okay, the point here is that what Sheldrake is doing is advocating that people (perhaps like himself, though that's not clear) be permitted to question scientific facts (such as the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion) without having to address the meat and potatoes evidence associated with them. So, for example, one might be able to claim a perpetual motion machine exists and have it investigated without having a physicist give you a thermodynamics lecture, I suppose. That's what he advocates. We can say this by simply writing what I wrote previously. The retorts to me are either missing my point (the word "fact" is a red herring and please don't just use FIND function to see if the source agrees with this, READ the source!) or are argumentative in ways that beggar belief (that BLP somehow immunizes an editor from making as many reverts as they like). I recommend restoring wording that is not confusing. jps (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is the source that says that this is what Sheldrake is doing? I think that what he said is much more subtle than that. I would expect a Cambridge don with a PhD in biochemistry to have a good grasp of basic thermodynamics, and for scientific authors to respect that. I think you can see that I would like discussion here to become much more evidence based. --Nigelj (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What he said wasn't at all subtle. He doubts that the conservation of energy works because he misunderstands it. He thinks dark energy violates the conservation of energy, but the principle of the conservation of energy as realized in the Einstein Equations does not show any contradictions between a scalar term (or even a term with a time derivative in w) and the fact that energy is conserved in the limit of Minkowski space (which is, indeed, the only place energy can be measured). So, what does this "Cambrdige don" do about this fact? Basically nothing, and the source goes on and on about how we should offer a prize allowing for the testing of this fact. We do. It's called the Nobel Prize. This discussion is fatuous. If you think conservaiton of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion are not facts, go ahead and read about them. I put in a citation. jps (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the subsequent change I made is more than sufficient and is clearly supported by the sourcing, unlike the change you want to restore. To be clear, removing unsourced or poorly-sourced information is exempt from 1RR, 3RR, and any other such restrictions on reverts. Just because you personally believe it is correct to say Sheldrake advocates questioning facts, does not mean you can insert that without a reliable source clearly characterizing his position that way.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake rejects/questions things that are facts. You may not understand that they are facts, but that doesn't change the plain fact that they are. It's not an opinion to state that the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion are facts. That's the end of the matter. jps (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not your place to say "this is a fact and should be stated as scuh in the article" because that is not appropriate on any article, especially not a BLP. You need reliable sources that say explicitly that Sheldrake advocates questioning facts.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The conservation of energy is a fact. End of story. jps (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, sorry but there's an epilogue. The conservation of energy is a law that is backed by empirical facts and is not a fact itself, but a fundamental principle/law. Double check your scientific terminology, or just peruse Conservation of Energy, where you'll find the idea is referred to as a law 18 times and never as a fact. If it would help I can flood this talk page with a few thousand sources referring to conservation of energy as a law, or a couple hundred sources referencing that a theoretical principle like CoE must be falsifiable, unlike an instance of empirical, quantifiable fact. The Earth receives light during the day = FACT, the Sun's nuclear fusion provides the vast majority of that light = THEORY. Just because something is common knowledge and factored in as the fundamental bedrock of other theories does not make it a fact, that's the uncertain nature of science.

The persistent push to label CoE as a fact, especially when it is not referred to as such anywhere else, seems like yet another attempt to cast Sheldrake's questioning of it in a more pejorative light (on another note, does anyone know exactly what he said about CoE?). Apparently the thinking is that readers might think Sheldrake is reasonable to question a law, but a moron to question a fact. That's what links are for, people. If you're worried readers don't understand how fundamental CoE is, you need to redirect them to that page so they can learn. A BLP is not the place to pursue a mission against pseudoscience, especially not by twisting terminology to make the subject seem more ridiculous. Let's use neutral, common usage terms and make a balanced BLP, not a rant. Don't worry, we can use normal, unbiased language without the minds of the world imploding.

Long story short, it's the Law of Conservation of Energy. End of chapter. The Cap'n (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, The Long story short: you're missing the point. The Conservation of Energy is a fact inasmuch as anything in physics is a fact. When Sheldrake disputes it, he isn't disputing its formulation (which is as a law) but rather its factualness... in a rather preposterous way too, I might add. That no one has written the essay, "The conservation of energy is a law and a fact" is likely due to the situation that essentially most people aren't this argumentative with physics, but no bother. You can get the flavor for how this goes from Evolution as fact and theory which basically is why the conservation of energy is a fact. And, that, as they say, is that. jps (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Coming back to the trainwreck

I just can't stop watching. I found an article today that I think helps put Sheldrake's theories in perspective without insulting his human dignity.

It puts Sheldrake's critique of science in the starkest terms possible: "What if the laws of nature vary throughout the day?"

Some have argued that this sort of edit "legitimizes" Sheldrake's ideas or "teaches the controversy." Please re-examine that stance. Is it at all likely that a wikipedia reader will read "What if the laws of nature vary throughout the day?" and think "Hmm, hey the guy's got a point?" I'd suggest that such a reader is ineducable, and editing to educate this straw man (or woman) is folly.

As longtime editors here know, my concern is that we treat this living fringe theorist with the deference to human dignity required by WP:BLP while not suggesting that his WP:FRINGE theory is supported by current, mainstream science. I think the "laws of nature" quotation, in the subject's own words, accomplishes both objectives. David in DC (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

In principle, David, I think we can all agree with you. Now it's time to practice. I tried to clean up some of the redundancies in the lede to conform to both WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. I think it rather uncontroversial that Sheldrake left "conventional" biology in 1978 and entered into the realm of "unconvential" biology in 1981 with his first book. I think that's the direction the lede should take. I also used your quotation directly to avoid the category error that was present in the previous version (the impossibility of perpetual motion is neither a long-standing principle, nor a law of nature: it is simply a fact). jps (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back DC Dave. I'm sure our article will be improved by your return. Remember not to allow this little corner of the internet to get to you as it has in the past. That was not our intention, and I was saddened by those events. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Josh, your change regarding the description of his views regarding conservation of energy was woefully inappropriate. A student newspaper piece seems like a questionable source for a BLP in the first place, but you aren't even fairly representing it as the piece does not say Sheldrake used the term "laws of nature" and it did not put the term in scare quotes. The term was in the editorial voice of the author. I am not sure why you undid my change to the first sentence of the lede.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If we want to characterize what the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion have in common, it is that they are both facts relating to physics. If you want to explain that somehow, be my guest. They are not "principles" nor are they "laws". I disagree with the article saying either of those things, but David would like to use a source that cumbersomely identifies Sheldrake's dispute with laws of nature, so there we are. As for your change to the first sentence, it seems to me that by putting parapsychology research at the end, you are skewing the article. Anyway, I was not appreciative of your recent round of edits, is all, as I see them as overly promotional of Sheldrake. Perhaps he's paying you to promote him? jps (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Except they are not facts in the context of science, nor are they described as such in any of the sources. The author makes no mention of conservation of energy or perpetual motion and even if the author did it would not change the fact that countless reliable sources use terms such as "principle" and "law" to describe it. You are presenting this as though it is some peculiarity unique to Sheldrake, when it is most definitely not. As far as "promotional" I felt it made sense to present it as him being a biologist who turned to parapsychology research. Part of the reason his ideas received some attention is because he did biology research in such prestigious institutions prior to advocating this idea. The notion that it is "promotional" is absurd.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that they are facts in the context of science and they are described as such in many different sources. No, not in Sheldrake's sources, but he's not the authoritative source on what these two things are. Indeed, it is extremely peculiar to describe the impossibility of perpetual motion as a "principle" or a "law". That's not a law in any textbook I've ever read. I agree that Sheldrake is taken seriously by certain muddy thinkers because of his credentials. That doesn't mean we have to pander to that kind of lazy argument from authority. jps (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Even the unrelated source you tried to insert before does not describe them as "facts", but uses the terms "principle" and "law" that you seem to think are so controversial that it needs to be put in scare quotes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you didn't actually read the source but merely used the find functionality. Also, you didn't read my comment which explicitly identified the impossibility of perpetual motion as being the problem here. jps (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A) Ummm, for what it's worth, "What if the laws of nature vary throughout the day" is a direct quotation. I'm not at all sure any of the edits following mine help, and I'll note that at least some seem to violate 1RR.

The lede is especially, ummm, prone to provoking worst instincts. It's part of why, while I put the ref in the lede to bolster the other ref, I didn't change the prose of the lede, preferring to add prose to the body of the article, which, I think, the lede is just supposed to summarize.

B) In my view, a direct quotation in The Oxford Student about a lecture given at The Oxford Union, from an interview conducted right after the lecture, is a reliable source.

C) Thanks for the "welcome back", Roxy. I'll heed your good counsel. David in DC (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A) and B) Seems good enough to me if somewhat problematic because the impossibility of perpetual motion is not a scientific law. Still, I appreciate this version over the one that identifies the impossibility of perpetual motion as a "scientific principle". jps (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are several reliable secondary sources referring to the "principle of the impossibility of perpetual motion: [24] [25] [26]. I have not found a single reliable secondary source calling it a simple fact.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to change principle to fact in your google search, isn't it? [27] Now, write me an essay on the difference between principles and facts so we know which to use. Using explicit argumentation and the theoretical frameworks of thermodynamics, please explain why the impossibility of perpetual motion is not a fact if you are inclined toward that opinion. jps (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Albert Einstein, 'What Is The Theory Of Relativity?' (November 28, 1919): "Thus the science of thermodynamics seeks by analytical means to deduce necessary conditions, which separate events have to satisfy, from the universally experienced fact that perpetual motion is impossible." - MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Josh, I have looked at those sources and none of them call it an unqualified fact. Even Mr. Einstein in the letter to the editor that Ollie provides threw in a whole lot of qualifiers and conditions. The point is that, despite your insistence to the contrary, it is not peculiar to refer to it as a "principle" as such a term has been used for it by many academic sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any qualifiers and conditions at all in the Einstein source. You're just gaming now. It's unbecoming. jps (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

My only real objection to the lede change by Josh is the restoring of the word "formerly" when that is redundant. We say he was x at a and y at b to years m and n, so it is already saying he was formerly x and y by mentioning the end-years of m and n. I don't think my change was otherwise an issue and was an improvement, but it also isn't terribly important. As to the Oxford paper, I don't take issue with the way you used it as it is just noting what he said without interpretation or implication.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty nitpicky to remove the word "formerly" when it is an accurate word. It's quite another thing to bury the paranormal research at the end of the sentence. I might even call it soapboxing. jps (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it "burying the research" to put it at the end of the first sentence of the lede? I honestly do not care too much about it and I just felt it was a better way to write what is currently a somewhat disjointed sentence. A number of sources I read have called him a "biologist turned parapsychologist" so it was consistent with that description.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, in light of your other edits it just comes across that way, is all. I would like what he is to be up front and what he was formerly to come later. The order is mostly owing to what I think the reader would want to read (I want to know who he is, not who he was). Going back and forth between the two temporal indicators seems a bit cumbersome. jps (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

David, please steer clear of emotive appeals. Sheldrake is a big boy, if he can't stand being told his views are nonsense then he's got much bigger problems than this article. I think you have the experience and perspective necessary to help improve the article, and the one-trick ponies are steadily dropping off, which I hope will improve the tone of debate as well. My advice to you is precisely the same as my advice to others: please detail existing versus new text proposed, list the sources that support both the text and its significance, and please don't endlessly rehash stale arguments like "is MR pseudoscience (yes, there are too may sources to ignore) or should we characterise Sheldrake as a biologist (probably not, because that's not what he's known for and the title obscures the problems with his conjectures).

I recommend starting at the bottom and working up, rather than fixating on the lede as many of the single-purpose accounts have. Guy (Help!) 01:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that's what I did. That's why I wrote:

"The lede is especially, ummm, prone to provoking worst instincts. It's part of why, while I put the ref in the lede to bolster the other ref, I didn't change the prose of the lede, preferring to add prose to the body of the article, which, I think, the lede is just supposed to summarize."

I think the Sheldrake/laws of physics quotation should stay in the body of the article, down where I put it. I agree with TDA that sticking it into the lede, in scare quotes, no less, is unwise.

jps took my addition to the body and added it to the lede. TDA corrected this error. Then jps violated the 1RR restriction to revert TDA. In my view, at least one "one-trick-pony" is still hard at work here. David in DC (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you need to stop with your accusations of policy abrogation. 1RR is not 0RR. Violating 1RR would be reverting twice, not once. jps (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Permissible change

"and advocates questioning long-standing scientific principles, such as conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices."

to

"and advocates questioning what he describes as the "laws of nature", such as conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices." [28], made at 10:15pm on 12/26.

TDA returns the phrase to the condition I found it when I added the ref

"and advocates questioning such long-standing scientific principles as the impossibility of perpetual motion devices." [29] at 12:40 on 12/26.

Impermissible change

"and advocates questioning what he describes as the "laws of nature", such as conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices." [30] at 13:11 on 12/26.

The relevance of this recitation to this thread is that hair-trigger reverts are one of the plagues on this benighted page. If you find yourself amending my edit at 10:15, and inserting your edit a second time - overwriting a second editor - at 13:11 on the same day, Please consider the First law of holes. David in DC (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:1RR is not WP:0RR. You are describing a change that would be impermissible under 0RR. Please try to keep up. jps (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what's being said here, David. What needs to change, in your opinion, and why? I have to say it reads oddly now, since the things he disputes are not things that Sheldrake calls laws of nature, but things that science accepts as laws. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is talking specifically about physics when he refers to the laws of nature, in a much fuller quote I put in the last graf of the "Debating and lecturing" subhed:

"In November 2013, Sheldrake gave a lecture at the Oxford Union outlining his claims, made in The Science Delusion, that modern science has become constrained by dogma. Sheldrake argued that these dogmatic constraints are particularly evident in physics. Despite the fact, he said, that scientists around the world consistently get different measurements for such "constants" as the gravitational force or the speed of light, they insist that the variation is attributable to experimental error or they "make up" proportions of dark energy and matter, assuring that the variations they've observed can be made to fit into the established paradigm. "What if the laws of nature vary throughout the day," Sheldrake asked.[15]"

I put the fuller quote, and its context, where they belonged, in the prose of the article.

I think the sentence in the lede should changed back to "and advocates questioning such long-standing scientific principles as the impossibility of perpetual motion devices." [[31]. That's after jps' first insertion but before the second. That's a good summary of what the reader will find in the body of the article, backed by two good refs.

The "laws of nature" quote, in its full, unvarnished, skeptical-about-modern-physics context: "What if the laws of nature vary throughout the day," Sheldrake asked" belongs in the body of the article but is out of place in the lede. David in DC (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a problem here: the impossibility of perpetual motion is an empirical fact based on the laws of thermodynamics. One can treat it as a principle, but Sheldrake is actually disputing it as a fact in the source given. So it's inaccurate for us to state that he advocates questioning the principle when he actually advocates questioning the fact. jps (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is this. In science, a law is established by reference to principles that hold in every experimental test. No experiment has ever produced perpetual motion - there is always a loss of some kind. Entropy always increases, and never increases in an isolated system. These principles have driven discoveries in many different fields. Sheldrake needs them to be wrong in order for his conjectures to be correct, therefore he disputes them. But that's not how you go about disputing a physical law. Sheldrake is not a physicist so I guess he can be forgiven for not understanding that physics is not like biology. In biology, a single discovery can move an organism from one taxonomy to another, but in physics, every type of energy is conserved, every isolated system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, entropy never decreases in an isolated system.

That doesn't mean physicists don't allow for the possibility that such a thing might happen, but that in order to be able to dispute it credibly, you need evidence of an extraordinarily high order. No morphic resonance experiment approaches the standards of rigour required.

It's like Deepak Chopra when he talks about "quantum" - his ideas are usually not even wrong and sometimes wronger than wrong.

You might as well tell a mathematician that because you believe time is cubic, so it must be possible to square the circle.

However, I digress. What I wanted to say is that your comment doesn't answer my question. What needs to change, to what, and why, based on what source? I'm happy to concede that the wording as I last saw it is clumsy. I'm all for clarity especially in the lede. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to answer it. I think this edit dealing what Sheldrake advocates questioning should be reinstated, both because it reads better and is more appropriate to the summary nature of a lede.

The last paragraph under the "Lecturing and debating subhed" fleshes this out, as the prose in the body is supposed to do.

I also think it should be re-instated because it was reverted twice in the period of a couple of hours, in violation of our rules.

I also think it should be reinstated because a sole editor is insisting on the version he WP:OWNs, drumming home his idiosyncratic view that "advicates questioning such long-standing scientific principle as" is somehow inadequete, and engaging in a slow motion edit war to keep the phrase out, with little in the way of consensus to support this stonewalling. David in DC (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the previous paragraph by David in DC re: idiosyncratic point of view by one editor, ownership by that editor, and little consensus for his views. I agree that Guy basically has it right about laws in physics, vs. the idiosyncratic views about them presented by one editor. I don't know that Guy has it right about Sheldrake not understanding physics; though Sheldrake's book details why he questions some aspects of physics, his reasoning is not presented in the article. Something that IS presented is that when Sheldrake was working in biology, he found little evidence for conservation of energy in living organisms. That was in the lead long ago, but for some reason was removed and replaced with the perpetual motion stuff. IMHO, that did not improve the article. Lou Sander (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to engage in character assassination, at least have the cajones to say who it is your attacking. In any case, I note that you aren't addressing my point which is that when Sheldrake questions conservation of energy or the impossibility of perpetual motion, he is questioning not their formulations (as laws or principles) but rather their factualness. This is indeed seen when he says without so much as an acknowledgment of how radical he is being, that he found little evidence for the conservation of energy in living organisms (what is this, inedia?). There are a lot of different ways to formulate what exactly he disputes in physics, much of it is so poorly argued that it becomes difficult to frame it properly. What I don't appreciate is the constant reformulation into some claim that Sheldrake is "doing philosophy" or alternative nonsense. Sheldrake is doing no such thing. He is engaging in an argument that is explicitly pseudo- or anti-scientific (specifically, an argument that is opposed to the science of physics and the full weight of essentially the entire subject). This is the sense in which we need to couch his arguments with respect to the conservation of energy or the impossibility of perpetual motion if they are to remain in the lede. I myself don't care that much whether these particular examples remain, but I don't think you guys have made a convincing case that he is not simply being a pseudophysics denier when he makes these statements. The easiest way to explain this is that he simply takes issue with certain facts. I don't really see why you guys don't understand this. jps (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Conservation of energy is a universal principle. It really doesn't matter how much orhow little evidence Shaldrake found for it in biological organisms, it can be shown to apply at every level of a biological organism. Remove the source of nutrients, the organism dies. Cut a plant off from UV light, it dies. There's some coverage of this in Biological thermodynamics though it must be said that when Sheldrake was at his most active in biology, the technology probably didn't exist to measure energy flows at the cellular level. I recommend watching the Nobel lectures of James E. Rothman and Randy W. Schekman for a flavour of just how tiny the energy flows can be, and how subtle the experiments are that expose them. This is science that has really only developed in the last 15 years, and it's incredibly specialised. So it doesn't matter if he thinks he saw "little evidence" of conservation of energy since (a) he probably wasn't looking that hard (people tend not to when it would wreck their cherished conjectures) and (b) even if he was, the instrumentation probably didn't exist, and the energy flows were probably not even understood anyway. So, I have no problem with saying this in the body covering his conjectures, but including it in the lede or the biographical section would make him look ridiculous so we should avoid it. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the editors could form some sort of consensus about that. It would be a good way to start off the new year. Lou Sander (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm staying out playing football in No Mans Land until somebody wins, (or one of Tom Butler's mines goes off) It would be a shame to call the match off early. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the organizing principle of keeping things out of the lede on the basis of those things making a person look ridiculous. Certainly if the only reason something is included in the lede is to make the person look ridiculous, that's a reason to remove the thing from the lede per WP:FRINGEBLP, but there is an interesting point here which is that Sheldrake disputes certain facts about the physical universe. That's the simplest way to put it, and I do think an argument can be made that this is a somewhat important point surrounding Sheldrake's ideas. I'm not at all sure that the current or any past wording does justice in either making or properly weighting this simple point, but it would be nice to see some alternative options as to how to present this (with an eye toward summary style, I would hasten to add). I don't even think this description of his advocacy needs to be all that controversial. I think most of his supporters and even he himself would probably agree that he disputes statements of fact that are made on the basis of physics which are from whence the most damning critiques of morphic resonance have come and why, for example, the comments and collaborations of physicists are of such interest to explaining the history of Sheldrake's proposals. jps (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

He would likely not consider it controversial to say he disputes things many scientists treat or state as fact, but I do not believe he would accept that he is questioning things that are scientific facts. I believe my formulation of "long-standing scientific principles" more than sufficiently covers his statements, is consistent with how he describes his views, and appropriately conveys the nature of his criticisms.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, someone who disputes a fact does not think it is a fact. Is that not obvious? Can you name a counterexample? It reads a little bit like you're trying to argue that we can't call these things "scientific facts" solely on the basis of the fact that Sheldrake disputes them. That doesn't sit right. Things are facts whether or not people disagree with them. jps (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who said he and his supporters would not consider it controversial. Saying he does something he does not believe he does would be controversial. The reason we shouldn't call them facts is because, to put it plainly, they are not facts and you have no reliable source actually disputing that point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The conservation of energy and impossibility of perpetual motion are plainly facts. Sheldrake cites no sources nor provides no convincing physical argument in opposition to this (no, dark energy does not violate the conservation of energy nor does it present an opportunity for perpetual motion). There's not much more to be said about this. It is equivalent to Gene Ray's assertion that -1 * -1 = 1 is wrong, evil, and stupid. There is no controversy. None. jps (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheldrake is not the one who has to cite sources here. You have to cite sources that would justify such a description. I really fail to see why you are so hostile to the notion of describing these things as "long-standing scientific principles" since that is accurate and can be explicitly supported by the sources unlike what you want to insert.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, please. Let's depersonalise this. A hypothetical person, Mrs X, makes a statement that is a clearly untrue, we state it's not true. We do not need to pretend that the statement might not be false so as not to upset Mrs X's feelings. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Per BLP, we need reliable sources stating this plainly. Our opinions, however well-informed, are not enough. As it stands, none of you even seem capable of citing a source explicitly supporting your description of these things as facts. The sources cited so far actually support my formulation more than yours. Personally, it was fine without any qualifiers or labels, but if we are going to have one then it should be supported by reliable sources and not just the opinions of editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I cite any entry level physics textbook which is backed up by a large body of research into this area. Google scholar reckons there's only 161,000 results [32]. See Why Wikipedia can't claim the world is flat - we can't even claim it might be flat because Mrs X thinks it might be. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to demonstrate there. I am not suggesting it is wrong, just that it does not fit the definition of a scientific fact and reliable sources have not been presented that describe it as such, certainly not in the nature of "Sheldrake questions facts" as Josh wants to say. Change your search parameters to "fact of conservation of energy" and I think you will find such a term is essentially never used, while "principle of conservation of energy" and "law of conservation of energy" are widely used. Josh's objection to using such terms and insistence on calling it "fact" is not based off anything but his own perspective.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, always remember when researching by search engine hits to specify the search term so it doesn't produce hits, before declaring that the lack of hits is significant. Let's go back to the elementary textbook, and have a look at what it says in detail. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

All you did was post a search for "conservation of energy" and that did nothing to convey whether it is most commonly referred to as a fact, law, or principle. You two are arguing that not calling it a fact is some POV issue, when the overwhelming majority of reputable academic sources do not refer to it as such. Neither of you have a source saying "Sheldrake questions these facts" to justify such terminology. Again, what is wrong with calling them long-standing scientific principles?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but then let's move on from the elementary textbook and pick up an astrophysics journal, where you will not find conservation called a fact. You'll find it called a law, or a theory, but not a fact. Facts are objective observations that lead to laws and theories like the conservation of energy. There are exceptions to rules/laws/theories, but not facts. Example: The flyby anomaly is a fact that has proven irreconcilable with general relativity and conservation of energy, and while it is a fact it does not negate the laws of thermodynamics. And since we can objectively observe apparent violations of conservation of energy, it is not a fact, but a law based on the overwhelming support of facts. These are technical terms, not just expressions of common sense. If we're going to speak intelligently about scientific topics, we need to elevate the conversation above an elementary school vocabulary. The Cap'n (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has found a single citation that indicates, reliably, that the conservation of energy is not a fact. The only people arguing such are ignorant people or cranks. No reliable sources. Meanwhile, we have plenty of sources which indicate it is a fact. So that's the end of this conversation, I think. When Sheldrake disputes them, it's on their factual basis. There's nothing left to discuss. The rest of this is just tiresome tendentiousness. Take it to WP:BLPN if you disagree. jps (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, come on now. Asking us for references for basic scientific facts/laws/etc is silly. Saying a law is a law/fact/whatever is not a WP:REDFLAG claim. So let's turn this the other way round - are there any seriously published academic papers published fairly recently in which the authors seriously question the law of conservation of energy? You are making a WP:REDFLAG claim that this is of serious academic debate. It quite plainly, even by stretching WP:FRINGE to fit around WP:BLP, isn't. And before scientists get unfairly accused of quasi-religious dogmata, scientists do question such laws, they do tests to test them, but if the tests affirm those laws, then the paradigm stays. This is exactly the philosophical mistake that Sheldrake makes - he mistakes lack of contrary evidence for lack of rigorous scientific scepticism. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No-one, including Sheldrake, is claiming that "the conservation of energy is not a fact". This is your wording. We just need one citation to say otherwise. So let's not put words into his mouth. Sheldrake actually asks whether "The conservation of matter and energy seem like a mathematical truth"[33] Secondary sources tell us that "His intention is not to dismiss all conventional scientific ideas or cast doubt on every study but instead he insists on their limitations"[34] --Iantresman (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ignorant crank here. You're missing my point and misrepresenting my argument, and that is getting tiresome. I'm not saying that this article should question the laws of thermodynamics, nor that Sheldrake has any validity to his questioning of them. I am not asking for sources stating that conservation of energy is not a fact, that's proving a negative that no academic source would have any reason to address (like asking for sources proving that general relativity is NOT a theory).

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter what Sheldrake is questioning, nor what type of consensus there is in academia about conservation of energy (spoiler: it's accepted by pretty much everyone). What aspect of the law Sheldrake is questioning is inconsequential to our encyclopedic description of the law itself. Conservation of energy is overwhelmingly referred to as a law or theory and almost never as a fact, so any encyclopedic entry that references it should do so as well. We can say Sheldrake questions the factuality of the law of conservation of energy, but it is makes no sense to refer to CoE as a "fact" in this context. That has never been accepted practice in science (the fact of gravity, the facts of thermodynamics, quantum fact, all these sound a little weird?), so why are we trying to insert it here? The only answer I can see is that it makes Sheldrake's doubt appear more silly and unfounded, but that's a biased approach and one that doesn't trust the reader to actually pay attention to the article and scientific pages linked to it, so that couldn't be it.

There's no dichotomy or debate here, we don't have to accept Sheldrake's arguments as accurate OR describe CoE as a "fact". We can accurately describe Sheldrake as questioning the factual basis of the law of conservation of energy, a scientific principle supported by the scientific community and overwhelming factual evidence. We can use proper terminology, remain encyclopedic and still reflect the controversial nature of Sheldrake's claims. If someone can explain why the phrasing above is not acceptable, I'm happy to adapt to feedback. I'm not some half-educated troll, I'm trying to work with you all to make this a better page. The Cap'n (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We can just say, "Sheldrake questions the fact of the law of conservation of energy." That's succinct, accurate, and unambiguous. jps (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We can just say "Sheldrake questions the limitations of the law of conservation of energy", for which we have two sources. I am not aware of any sources which suggest that Sheldrake questions the "fact". --Iantresman (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't "question the limitations". He believes that there are limitations... which is the same thing as questioning that it is a fact or a statement that is always true. jps (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So we can just say "Sheldrake insists that law of conservation of matter and energy has its limitations", or we can generalise a little, and say "Sheldrake insists that physical laws and principles, such as the conservation of matter and energy, and violation of perpetual motion, have their limitations"[35][36]. I have not found any sources from him or others which suggest he questions any "facts", unless you can help here? What sources are you referring to? --Iantresman (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Believing that there are limitations to the law of conservation of energy is the same thing as questioning that it is universally a fact. jps (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Questioning the limitations to classical physics[37] is the basics of philosophy,[38] as well as science:

Laws are not "facts", a point that Sheldrake makes specifically (they may "seem like a mathematical truth")[39] --Iantresman (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Red herring, this. Sheldrake is questioning the fact that energy is conserved. jps (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

An independent source says he's questioning its limitations.[40] What source are you referring to per WP:ONUS, and we may be able to included it? --Iantresman (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what the source says. It says that Sheldrake insists that those principles have limitations, and then includes an excerpt in which Sheldrake characterizes conservation laws as "more like rules of accountancy that work reasonably well" in certain fields. If you go the passage that is being quoted from, Sheldrake specifically gives biology as an example of a field in which natural phenomenon may violate conservation laws. So I don't see anything wrong with the current language in our article. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I also see nothing wrong with the current language in the article,[41] --Iantresman (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne

This addition by Josh cited a source purporting to be a piece in The New Republic to support material in the lede noting biologist Jerry Coyne described Sheldrake as a "pseudoscientist". Except, at the bottom of the page it is made clear that the piece was not originally published there, but on Coyne's personal blog. The only changes are him getting a few extra licks in on various people and some extremely minor rearranging. What makes this worse is apparently that Coyne cites himself as one of the people who got Sheldrake booted from TEDx. I do not believe we should be citing his description of Sheldrake as a person in the lede. This is just a self-published blog post that got reposted on TNR's website and thus should not be used per WP:BLPSPS. We don't even mention Coyne's statement in the article body.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I try to stay away from editing the article, but I'd like to see some more substantiation of the claim in this same sentence that "Morphic resonance is generally considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community..." Lou Sander (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to include Deepak Chopra's commentary, it's only fair that we include Jerry Coyne's commentary. After all, Coyne is an expert in the very field that Sheldrake is trying to critique, and so it is only right that we identify what experts think of Sheldrake's work. Chopra, on the other hand, is a guru. As to your prejudice regarding "self-published sources", it is not at all clear to me that this matters. If someone chooses to publish their work on a blog and then a mainstream publication decides to republish it, they presumably are verifying that the author actually wrote the thing. This is not a WP:SPS-style self-published source just because it was self-published as well as having been published by a third party (by such criteria, every article distributed as a pre-print would have to be removed from BLPs). jps (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The only time Chopra is cited directly is in a review of a book and the material is basically just praising him for his well-known views. Chopra is not making any opinionated claims about Sheldrake as a person, unlike Coyne. It is also not included in the lede. As to your comments on the BLP aspect of this, the policy is not about simply verifying the person published it, but about not using exceedingly opinionated sources for contentious claims about living people.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Chopra is in the lede. Don't know why you think it isn't. Exceedingly opinionated sources can be used if the source is reliable. The problem is when people use extremely opinionated sources that haven't been published by a third-party. Then it becomes an issue of whether the source is reliable. In this case, Coyne is about as reliable as they come for deciding whether Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist. jps (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is fundamentally in conflict with BLP. An article about a living person should not present one individual's opinion of the subject as a person unless that opinion has been discussed significantly. Most assuredly it should not be mentioned in the lede unless the individual's opinion is an important aspect of the person's life. Chopra's statement being in the lede (I had seen him mentioned, but not noticed that his review was also in the lede) is of less concern than Coyne's statement being in the lede for the reasons I mentioned. That said, if you think we should remove Chopra's statement from the lede then I would have no objection, though you should remove Coyne's statement as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The opinion that Sheldrake engages in pseudoscience is extensively referenced. Coyne is just a prominent example. jps (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We already say that his work is generally considered "pseudoscience", but that is different from calling him personally a "pseudoscientist" and I am sure you know that is the actual claim at issue here. It is unnecessary and smacks of a desire to figure out how many negative labels you can attach to him. Your conduct shows not an ounce of respect for the man's reputation or the policy on living people.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne is just about as good as it gets for identifying who is and isn't a pseudoscientist, especially when it comes to biology. jps (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that a self-published blog post being reposted on a news site does not magically change the application of BLP. Looking at BLPSPS closer makes this clear: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." It is obvious that this is not the case with this piece, which was just reposted with some additional negative commentary. Your argument is merely wikilawyering. Throwing in Coyne's labeling of Sheldrake goes directly against the spirit and letter of the BLP policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable publication publishes something under it's masthead, it's not a self published sourced, even if the content was published somewhere else previously. If this is a New Republic-hosted blog, that would be a different matter, though. But I don't see any indication of that on New Republic's site. Can you point out where they say that? - MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the good people at WP:BLPN can help you figure out that it is not WP:SPS. jps (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Classic wikilawyering. This is akin to looking for a "loophole" to get out of a contractual obligation. Your notion that because the self-published blog piece was posted on the website and it is not in a blog section of the site, it somehow is no different from a regular article published in the same is completely at odds with the spirit of BLP.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Go find someone who agrees with you. jps (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There's another Coyne piece that's not so different from the one we are discussing linked from the New Republic's front page as we're typing this. I see no indication that he's a blogger rather than a regular columnist. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why a major magazine publishing an article is not "publishing". That Coyne also presented the material himself is immaterial, and it isn't as though he hasn't the chops for this kind of criticism anyway. TNR's republication is a validation. The way the material is included is awkward tries to qualify the statement my implying that only Coyne thinks that way, which is a real problem, unlike the reference. Mangoe (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's a problem. However, there is some parallelism with the Chopra quote. We really need to be thinking about how to address this in the body of the article, I guess. jps (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

They themselves merely describe it as "republishing a highly critical blogpost" and I do not think "republishing a self-published source" should be construed as some magic loophole in the policy on BLPs. It would be the same as an Op-Ed, which is also not appropriate for making claims about a living person.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're gradually setting up a standard which cannot be met. I'm not wedded to having to get the magic word "pseudoscience" into the article, but untoward effort is being devoted to suppressing entirely true statements about how Sheldrake's views are seen by others. Coyne is a perfectly adequate reporter on this, and the editors of TNR use of him as an authority is perfectly appropriate. Pretty much everything "published" is first "published" to the extent that the proximate author writes it down somehow before the eventual publisher lets it loose. Keeping that process behind closed doors does not automatically validate material, and being able to see the process doesn't invalidate it. The magazine's editors can be presumed to have performed some sort of editorial review and deemed the material worthy. It is not the same as an op-ed, and it's not the same as a personal blog unvetted by anyone else. Coyne's tone is unremittingly negative and forsakes the language of Olympian neutrality, but technical quibbles concerning how his writing is transmitted to us do not impinge upon his authority as a reporter here. A neutral observer should see that he is accurately reporting a negative assessment by the scientific community of which he is a part; frankly, TDA, it's not credible that you hold a contrary opinion. Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny, and here I thought it was the other side with a dogmatic obsession with seeing "the truth" prevail. It is always credible to reject attempts by editors to misuse sources to push their personal negative agendas regarding another human being. At any rate, I am taking this to BLPN.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Being a routine contrarian doesn't get you anything either. I'm willing to discuss the wording of the passage, but not Coyne as a sufficient reference to the evaluation. He's good enough. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the Coyne statement at this point, but New Republic did indeed republish the content. I would want to see some independent source that judges the significance an validity of Coyne's opinion. In general this article does not have a need of self-published content, there are a lot of references from solid reliable sources, but we should follow what independent commentators say, not what we would like them to support. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference [86]

Reference [86] gives an external link to a review by John Greenbank of Rupert S's "The Science Delusion" in Philosophy Now. Only a paragraph of this review can be seen without subscribing.

A much better link to the same review is: http://www.pdcnet.org/philnow/content/philnow_2012_0093_0040_0042 The entire first page of the review is shown here, and this gives a much clearer impression of its tenor.

Please can someone change this external link? The reasons I don't want to do it myself are: This page is controversial; The information about the issue in which the review appeared seems to be different on these two websites (I don't know how to resolve this).

Thanks, (Peter Ells (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC))

Ditching the second paragraph

Since 1981 Sheldrake's main thing has been morphic resonance, telepathic dogs, and so forth. Then in 2012 he publishes a book about "dogmas", in which he wonders if perpetual motion machines might work and if inedia might be real. Does his 2012 stuff really warrant mention in the lead, in proportion to the rest of his career? Axing this paragraph would also (incidentally!) solve the ongoing dispute.

The current state, with "laws of nature" being in quotes and attributed to Sheldrake, is completely weird and does not serve the reader well. vzaak 16:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You do raise a good point. I think his views from 2012 merit some mention in the lede, but they could probably be reduced to essentially a sentence. He is noted as a long-time critic of materialistic/mechanistic views of science and suggesting a resurgence of more spiritualistic views, such as in Rebirth of Nature, and that aspect is not even explicitly mentioned in the lede. We could rejig the whole thing as a paragraph dedicated to his general criticism of the scientific establishment over the past few decades with The Science Delusion having only a sentence or two at best.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheldrake's point about materialism is very difficult to state briefly and accurately because (like his other criticisms of mainstream science) he's not actually criticizing a view held by mainstream science. It's another case of Sheldrake saying something that is just factually untrue. The body of the article counters with: "The mainstream view of modern science is that it proceeds by methodological naturalism and does not require philosophical materialism." If the evidence for morphic fields were really there, backed by (strong, independent, reproducible) evidence, it would be wonderful. Scientists would be ecstatic. There's no requirement in science that a brand new phenomenon be fully understood upon discovery. Think of electricity and magnetism before Maxwell. But the evidence for morphic fields isn't there, and it would appear that Sheldrake turns around to blame scientists for being "materialists". vzaak 10:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Kill it. It's not necessary. jps (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've axed the paragraph and added a sentence. As I mentioned above, it's difficult to deal with Sheldrake's idea of materialism in the lead, so I've avoided the topic (at least for now). vzaak 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone remember what the {{POV}} tag was about? Conservation of energy fact/law is the only active dispute I see. In any case, if anyone wants the tag then an explanation is needed per the instructions. vzaak 00:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that any removal would be challenged by Sheldrake's supporters. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right to challenge removal, of course. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk about "Sheldrake's supporters". I've not really ever seen anybody who is supporting Sheldrake as Sheldrake. Could you be more specific about what you mean by "supporters", how you identify them, etc.? Lou Sander (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The faux innocence does you little credit. You know exactly what I mean. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful to see it in your own words. Lou Sander (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered Lou, asked and answered. Look in the archives. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy is an administrator, and a very experienced Wikipedian. I'm hoping he's willing to help me out here, because I'm genuinely puzzled. Sorry you think I'm wasting anybody's time. Lou Sander (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Lou, you are straying very close to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. You may not perceive your input here as advocating for Sheldrake, but if that is the case, you lack self-criticism. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But Guy, Lou is not the one being evasive. It was quiet a reasonable query, and the best way I know to clarify it, is for you to state what you mean by "Sheldrake supporter", how we identify such an editor, provide some diffs as example, what the implications are, and whether this is a Wikipedia-wide issue. See WP:TALK#USE "Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you". --Iantresman (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian, I don't think Sheldrake supporters are an issue wikipedia wide, just on this page. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

But there re clearly certain editors that are anti-WP:FRINGE and anti-Wikipedia across the wiki. Some with long histories of being disruptive and topic bans. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Archives ...

Is where all my best work ends up. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So I added an archive box. The word archives in the archive box links to the index created by ClueBot III, the word index in the talk header links to a page where an index will be created by HBC Archive Indexerbot (Legobot). - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Adjusting some structure in the lead

I'm certain that one of these days we'll be able to do simple adjustments on this page without it being promptly reverted and requiring a wall of text to justify. Maybe that's today?

I feel the opening sentence places an unreasonable amount of legitimacy behind the "researcher in the field of parapsychology" title, particularly since the only sources that use that term tend to be criticisms of Sheldrake (I'm likewise not including the description of Sheldrake from friendly pages, either). Thus I'm simplifying it to the term "researcher," variations of which are used in neutral, objective sources from the Guardian to Scientific American. And before we start to hyperventilate, I'm simply moving the parapsychology reference to the end of the sentence to imply a generalized classification as opposed to a self-applied descriptor. The Cap'n (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally hit save instead of preview on that edit, my apologies that it was not explained in the summary. I corrected a grammatical issue immediately afterward and included the summary there. The Cap'n (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Last comment off of my own post for the night... Included link to staring page based off of the phenomena Sheldrake is referencing, replaced "paranormal" with "fringe science." Controversial, I know (what isn't on this page?), but I think the content warrants it. The lead of fringe science references its applicability to New Age and untested/untestable hypotheses, which seems to fit in which MR much better than paranormal's stated applicability to popular culture and folklore. It breaks down into which batch of listed examples MR fits into better:

Fringe Science: Immortality, Orgones (energy units that cause mental instability), Cold Fusion.
Paranormal: Ghosts, Aliens, Bigfoot

Fringe science seems a reasonable designation. The Cap'n (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the parts of [42] unrelated to the "telepathy-type interconnections" issue discussed earlier:

The source doesn't say that morphic resonance is parapsychological. I haven't seen any source that says that. The source says that he is a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology.
Remote viewing, precognition, and "the sense of being stared at" are not "fringe science". I've added sources supporting their parapsychological designation.

vzaak 14:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding periods inside or outside quotations, please see MOS:LQ. vzaak 14:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

True enough, that source at the top of the page doesn't fit with the rest of the section and the neutral tone we need to establish (I've been going through the sources, and there's actually quite a few using the term parapsychology for the work itself while differentiating Sheldrake himself). I'll find a better source to get some better BLP data in there, maybe focusing more on Sheldrake's personal conflict with the scientific community than the definitions of his hypothesis. Also, I agree that parapsychological is the better description that paranormal and is a good compromise with fringe.

Also, I did try to maintain period consistency in the pieces I edited, though I only got through a few. The Cap'n (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Context Matters

"Sheldrake proposes that it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".[7]

Has anyone actually read the source connected to this quote in the lead? This particular verbiage is in a paragraph where Sheldrake is comically remarking on how he imagines his detractors see his work. Its place here is out of context and implies this is how Sheldrake himself describes MR. If we're going to have a quote from Sheldrake about MR, it should be representative of how he describes it. Personally, I don't think we need yet another quote (we have four in just one paragraph), so I say we junk it altogether since it contributes little to explain either the hypothesis of MR or Sheldrake himself. If someone has an illuminating quote they feel is necessary to illustrate MR, I'm all ears, but this one is out of context and misleading. The Cap'n (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote is needed because it connects morphic resonance to telepathy and "the sense of being stared at". Without it, the reader is left wondering why Sheldrake is studying those things.

I find nothing comedic about the quote, and it looks accurate. For example in a reader participation section of Dogs That Know, Sheldrake says, "Please tell us about your own experiences that suggest telepathic or other invisible interconnections."

Could you please explain why you think it is misleading? Please fill in the blanks.

"telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____.
"collective memories within species" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____.

As you know, this issue has been discussed before. The original reason the (now-blocked) user gave for removing the quote was that it came from Michael Shermer, which turned out to be incorrect. While this feels like proxying for a blocked user, I shall assume this is not the case, but there should be a compelling reason to rehash the issue. vzaak 21:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the result of making an understandable but regrettable mistake resolving several thoughts that go from the basic statement "Sheldrake says X", which is cited and is obviously consistent with his published writings, to "Sheldrake says X, which is obviously not supported by current scientific thinking"; added to "statements that are not supported by current scientific thinking are stupid", leading to "Sheldrake says X, which is obviously not supported by current scientific thinking and this is a stupid statement". We then boil this down by taking out the middle to "Sheldrake is being stupid", add that to "saying someone is a BLP violation", more brain ruminations and we get to the Captain's marvellous conclusion: "Wikipedia cannot say Sheldrake says X because that's a BLP violation." This completely ignores the sources provided, involves much thought ruminations in the middle, and reaches the wishful thinking that (1) this is a negative statement (it isn't - it's a neutral, cited statement), because the point of the game if you're a self-appointed BLP warrior is to create BLP violations out of nothing, apparently. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney, you appear to fundamentally misunderstand my point. My "marvellous conclusion" is not that the quote is a negative violation of BLP, nor am I a "self-appointed BLP warrior" trying "to create BLP violations out of nothing". This is not, or at least was not intended to be, a controversial, partisan battle (nor did I mention anything about BLP). I'm pointing out that a quote in the lead is unhelpful and that to remove it would make the article more informative, flow better and avoid misconstructions. I opened this post with what I feel was a reasonable issue, respectfully presented and asking for feedback. How exactly does that provoke insults?

As far as vzaak is concerned, I do not think it is a quote from Michael Shermer, but feel it should be removed for the reasons I listed above and will reiterate now. It is misleading as a quote, redundant and an example of excessive quoting that does not improve the article.

Here is the context of that quote:

But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs. Not that they were aggressively hostile; they just made fun of it. Whenever I said something like, "I've just got to go and make a telephone call," they said, "Ha, ha, why bother? Do it by morphic resonance!"

It is inaccurate in that nowhere else in this article does Sheldrake describe MR as telepathic (it's irrelevant whether he's used in an interview, quotes should accurately reflect their particular source), and the context indicates he uses the term as what his opponents believe. If everything in this block of text is to be taken as Sheldrake's literal expression, we might as well include quotes describing MR as capable of replacing telephones.

As far as needing the quote to establish that Sheldrake includes telepathy and stared-at aspects, those concepts are expressed in the very next next sentence. How do the two following sentences offer distinct points?

Sheldrake proposes that it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".
His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as telepathy and "the sense of being stared at"[7][8]

They seem completely redundant to me, which is reason enough to get rid of the quote even if it wasn't misleading. Using this quote to argue that his purpose in that source was to describe MR as telepathy is contextually inaccurate, though stating the scientific community views his arguments as such is not. That's why the second statement is acceptable but the quote is not. Besides, why are so many quotes are necessary in the lead?

Lastly, much as I appreciate the veiled accusation, my reasons for wanting to delete this quotation do not stem from proxying. My goals are to establish a balanced, NPOV article that is succinct, accurate and informs rather than advocates. I have had a longstanding issue with the formatting of this article which I feel I have represented consistently, before, during and after Tumbleman's blocking. I would point out that it is possible for a person to disagree with the content of this page without being a troll, proxy, sockpuppet or fringe proponent. The prevalence of such charges have been and remain a source of concern for me. The Cap'n (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"nowhere else in this article does Sheldrake describe MR as telepathic" -- this isn't true. The article says, "Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic resonance is responsible for it".

It's a simple fact that Sheldrake believes that morphic resonance is responsible for telepathy-type interconnections between organisms. Have you looked at Dogs That Know? It's all about that. I gave an example quote from the book.

Until the following blanks are filled in, I just don't have any idea what you are talking about, sorry.

"telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____.
"collective memories within species" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____.

The two phrases you gave aren't redundant. The first describes the reason for the second. We can leave it to the reader to puzzle, "WTF? What does telepathy have to do with it? Morphic resonance is telepathy? What?" Or we can explain it. vzaak 23:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Barney and vzaak. The Cap'n doesn't seem to realize that Sheldrake believes in telepathic chickens. However, I replaced the sentence with another one with a clearer reference. Does that give similar information or should I find something else? It's not like there's a shortage of potential references. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Cap'n is right that it is a bit redundant. Further revisions should be made to eliminate such redundancy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dingo, I appreciate the attempt, but the new text doesn't quite match the source. In order to use that source we need to explain morphic fields, a complexity that has been purposefully omitted from the lead. (Also note that people are animals :) It has happened before that the original quote was replaced with other text, and accuracy was lost in that case as well. There is really no reason to avoid the quote. There has never been a cabal or conspiracy here, yet that idea seems remain present with some. vzaak 09:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with the original quote if you want to restore it. I was just trying to provide a clearer ref for telepathy (rather than telepathy-type interconnections). Can you really separate morphic fields from morphic resonance? They seem inextricably intertwined. But if you want to revert my edit, I won't complain. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We aren't separating morphic fields from morphic resonance, we're just eliding such detail from the lead while maintaining parity with the sources. Also, "telepathy-type interconnections" succinctly encompasses telepathy and "the sense of being stared at". I'll wait a bit for Askahrc to reply. vzaak 17:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Either way I think the point about redundancy is valid. To say it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections" and then say the idea encompasses telepathy is a tad redundant.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe to the ear, but "telepathy-type interconnections" doesn't necessarily imply telepathy. Sheldrake could have decided that it fell short of "conventional" telepathy, yet allowing "the sense of being stared at". vzaak 19:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding Sheldrake's use of telepathy in the source, though I still agree with Devil's Advocate that it's redundant and unhelpful given the multitude of other quotes and paraphrases that say virtually the same thing. If we're arguing that Sheldrake has clearly linked MR and telepathy (I'll look into that a bit deeper so I can weigh in with a properly informed opinion), then we don't need "telepathy-like," while if we're saying he delineates the two we shouldn't use the sources that say "telepathy." Either way, I really don't think we needed a fourth quote in one paragraph to help provide a broad summary.

As far as a cabal or conspiracy, I would point out that I have not accused anyone of being part of such, but simply referenced that certain (seemingly routine) editing approaches tend to draw disproportionately hostile reactions. I'm not sure I can remember the specifics, but I seem to recall someone who proposed trimming down excessive quotes that they thought were not informative, then was promptly implied to be a proxy violating WP policies and called some choice names. Without insinuating some nefarious League of Evil Wikipedia Editors, I think that trend is a recurring one and a problem that has stifled work on this page. The Cap'n (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, you came here claiming that "telepathy-type interconnections" is misleading. It looks like you are conceding that this is not the case (otherwise, please fill in the blanks I provided above). The argument is as incomprehensible now as it was when the blocked user made it. Please don't rehash old discussions like this without good reason.

Now you have moved on to a point about redundancy. But you see, that wasn't your original claim, and had you made the redundancy point from the beginning then there wouldn't be an issue. It's perhaps the most trivial point to grace this talk page.

"Telepathy-type interconnections" is fine description appropriate for the lead, where we should elide technical details about the distinction between morphogenetic fields, morphic fields, and morphic resonance.

I have restored the quote and made a change that addresses the redundancy concern. vzaak 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, the point about redundancy was in my first post, in which I asked why we need four quotes working to explain MR in one paragraph. I then brought it up again in my reply, and in every statement since then. Also, redundant statements in the introduction to an encyclopedic entry are not trivial. It is not trivial to have redundant-type statements in an encyclopedia entry's introduction. Examples of things that are not trivial problems in the introduction to an encyclopedic entry includes redundant statements.

I still do feel that using that quote from the citation is not representative of what the broader source was stating. As a side note, however, I don't agree with the principle that if I do not fill in the blanks to your statement my arguments are null & void. With all due respect, this is not your article, it's all of ours. Your decision that the quote is a "fine description appropriate for the lead" is just as valid as my decision to question whether that is true. I feel confident I have established over the years that I am not a troll, and if I have concerns about the quality of the article I will bring them up for examination by consensus, in accordance with WP policies. I'm not going to cross-reference my concerns with everything Tumbleman brought up months ago, both because these are issues I have with the current article, and because the fact that he was blocked doesn't mean that all of the topics he ever took issue with are now verboten.

For the sake of argument, though, here's my responses to your blanks:

"telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of __telepathy being the defining characteristic of MR, or that this quote comes from Sheldrake's personal definition of the concept_, while the correct idea is __using that very source to either include Sheldrake's stated definition or his personal paraphrasing__.
"collective memories within species" -- The quote suggests the wrong idea of _____, while the correct idea is _____. I don't know why this was asked. I never challenged this statement, tried to delete it or suggested its replacement. It's fine as is.

As always I look forward to everyone's feedback. I will continue to work to improve WP and assume we're all working toward the same end and can do so civilly. The Cap'n (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The point about "telepathy" being redundant was resolved with my last edit. I didn't say it was trivial -- I said it was perhaps the most trivial point to grace this talk page. It's the kind of thing that someone just goes ahead and changes, and that is what I have done.

Deleting the essential information that connects morphic resonance to telepathy is another matter.

Regarding the blanks, the source says (bold added),

But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs.

You say "collective memories within species" is fine. So do I. It's a correct and accurate phrase. It is Sheldrake's own quote, his own characterization of the concept. So why does this not apply to the phrase immediately preceding the quote, in the same sentence?

You say "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" suggests the idea of "telepathy being the defining characteristic of MR", but I cannot see how that could possibly be true. The article says,

Conceived during Sheldrake's time at Cambridge, morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".

Nothing here suggests that telepathy is "the defining characteristic" of morphic resonance.

You can learn about morphic resonance and telepathy in Dogs That Know; I provided a quote earlier. Sheldrake believes that morphic fields extend from an organism and connect to morphic fields that extend from other organisms, i.e., "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". Like the quote "collective memories within species", the quote "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" is accurate. For purposes of the lead, it allows us to avoid getting into the details of distinguishing between morphogenetic fields, morphic fields, and morphic resonance. vzaak 03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I still feel that the quote is not the most concise or representative example of Sheldrake's description of MR, given that he was referencing how others perceive it. If we're going to go through the trouble of including a direct quotation it should either be one of the many that includes Sheldrake's own definition or include some awkward proviso about the quote being referential to the views of others. This has been my ongoing concern with this quote from the beginning; whether or not a reasonable person could construe the words in the quote to be representative of MR, the context of the text makes it clear Sheldrake was referencing the views of others and not providing his own definition of MR. There are plenty of other quotes that could explain his own definition much more accurately, if you really feel the lead is lacking enough info on MR (a concept I find surprising).

I'll see if I can rustle up some representative quotes that fulfill both requirements, then we can set to rest the redundancy issue, contextual/intent problem and MR info matter at last. The Cap'n (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Put in a more representative quote in the lead. As far as the old one, I'd say the final nail in its coffin should be the fact that the passage it's taken from is quoted in its entirety further down the page. It seems to me we don't need the same passage to be quoted repeatedly throughout the text. The Cap'n (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be based solely on your idea that the quote represents how others perceive morphic resonance. This is rebutted by my previous comments, particularly my last one, and I haven't seen a response to those points. The quote has been in the article for ages; instead of trying to remove it in slow-warring fashion, please use this talk page to gain consensus for removing it.

Incidentally, I would point out that the source you inserted doesn't even mention morphic resonance, making your change unsupported: morphic resonance suggests "telepathy is a natural ability of animal groups, to communicate with each other".[43] This no longer matters because the text has been removed. vzaak 14:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My argument is based on the idea that a quote should represent the sentiment being expressed in the broader context and that it shouldn't be a smaller snippet of a fuller quote listed just a section or two lower. You mentioned that I didn't respond to your morphogenetic comment, which I did not because it was unconnected to the arguments being made, but the redundant quotes, unsuitability of this quote in the face of countless other sources and problem of contextual intent have been consistently ignored by you throughout, and they are very pertinent to this issue. I'm not sure if I'll continue struggling to justify this seemingly obvious point, as it appears to be just a time suck. Speaking of which...

I am not slow-warring, I am trying to add modest input to this page, make small changes and discuss possible negotiations. The fact you consider this inappropriate is bizarre. I have sought consensus and compromise at every turn, even searching for quotes that directly (and definitively) reference telepathy (the entire context of that quote was in reference to a MR question) to accommodate your concerns that this information be made clear to readers. So far your idea of compromise has been to blanket revert all of my work, plug in an additional citation or two to "explain" these actions and insist that nothing be altered on the page. This page has not remained the way it is for "ages" (what, a month?) because it is balanced, but because there's been such an incredible backlash against anyone trying to make even minor, balanced edits that everyone gives up. Look at the Talk archive and see the countless topic sections where established editors stated they were leaving the page in disgust. This is not a fruitful environment for collaboration, though FSM knows I'm trying. The Cap'n (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be we can't say "Sheldrake says X" (even though, clearly, he does) because X is so transparently stupid that for Wikipedia to say "Sheldrake says X" is tantamount to libellously accusing him of stupidity. The facts however are clear: He does say X, but we're not accusing him of stupidity, we can let the reader make their own minds up. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary and Conclusion

Although repetition should be normally eschewed, this thread has become so long that we need a wrap-up.

It is a sheer fact that telepathy-type interconnections between organisms is what Sheldrake is proposing. Sheldrake believes that morphic fields extend from organisms and connect to the morphic fields extending from other organisms. That's the medium for telepathy, according to Sheldrake. See Dogs That Know.
In the source, the phrase "collective memories within species" appears directly before "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms", in the same sentence. Askahrc has stated that "collective memories within species" is accurate (which it clearly is).
Sources that are sympathetic and supportive of Sheldrake use "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" to describe morphic resonance: books[44][45][46][47] and who knows how many websites[48][49][50].

From what I can tell, Askahrc's arguments have been:

The quote misleads. Contradicted by the above bullet points.
The quote represents the perspective of Sheldrake's detractors. Contradicted by the above bullet points.
The word "telepathy" is redundant in the lead. Fixed.
The quote should not be mentioned because it appears in greater context in the body of the article. Doesn't follow; no reason why not.
Other quotes exist. Perhaps, but the one given wasn't suitable for reasons that were explained.

The quote has been in the article for seven months, save for a period of about a week when it was removed by David, though David ended up restoring the quote himself. Askahrc needs to accept the consensus and stop pounding on the issue, please.

For the purposes of the lead, the quote succinctly connects morphic resonance to telepathy-related phenomena without getting into the details of describing and differentiating between morphic fields, morphogenetic fields, and morphic resonance. It would seem difficult to do better than that. vzaak 11:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

^ Sheldrake, Rupert; Fox, Mathew (1996). The Physics of Angels. HarperSanFrancisco. p. 19. ISBN 978-0060628642.

[1] Sheldrake, Rupert; Fox, Mathew (1996). The Physics of Angels. HarperSanFrancisco. p. 19. ISBN 978-0060628642.

[1]