Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

Please read before starting

Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Sheldrake's work in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:

Also of particular relevance are:

In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rupert Sheldrake article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parapsychology (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Section: In popular culture

I've trimmed it back to remove the portions not clearly about Seldrake. The rest should be incorporated into other sections of the article, if due any mention at all.

As for the Y: The Last Man mention: This is a WP:BLP article about Sheldrake, and MOS:POPCULT applies as well. Even if we had an article about morphic resonance, such sections are questionable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting bias

I was personally informed by Sheldrake that this article is biassed, so I have added reference to Nicholas Humphrey's more positive reception of morphic resonance theory to make this article more balanced. I have also added a quote from New Scientist to which Sheldrake drew my attention. Vorbee (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee:, if you have been 'personally informed" by the article subject and asked to edit, you have a WP:COI and need to disclose it properly.
I have already reverted the addition because you did not properly source it. A vague handwave towards a source is not a citation.

I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbee, I suggest refraining from editing the article directly, but rather use edit requests on this talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening claim re pseudoscience

Hi - this article makes an opening claim that Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance is pseudoscience, and cites an article from 1981 by John Maddox in validation of this point.

I assume this is the John Maddox who according to Wikipedia wrote in 1983 that there was "No Need for Panic about AIDS", stating that "for strictly prophylactic purposes, male homosexuals should be persuaded to change their ways ... The pathetic promiscuity of male homosexuals is the most obvious threat to public health, but is probably no more serious now than it was before homosexuality ceased to be illegal." He described AIDS as a "perhaps non-existent condition."

Do the editors who cite John Maddox as a scientific authority here also endorse his views on AIDS and homosexuals above? Interested to hear more as I am new to the wikipedia community. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Quest (talk • contribs) 12:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place to discuss editors' beliefs. Alexbrn (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response Alexbrn. I'm so sorry, I'm still not clear of the logic here.

The claim that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience is justified by two footnotes. Footnote 5 cites a remark made by John Maddox 40 years ago, who himself sponsored what I'm sure we agree was a pseudoscientifc claim that AIDS was caused by 'pathetic' homosexuals being promiscuous. Footnote (6) refers to a book called 'The Quest' published by the Theosophical Society in America which does not accuse Sheldrake of pseudoscience.

Is there any more scientific and neutral citation that the editors might use here?

Also you mention that Talk is not the place to talk about editors' beliefs - is there another area of wikipedia where we can talk about such questions? Please let me know and I will also have a look there too.

Many thanks again for your reply - cheers, Miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Quest (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not really the place to discuss editors' beliefs, as it is not a social media site. As to Maddox, that cherry-picked quotation from an early paper isn't very useful. He is remembered today more for his later role in defending science against AIDS pseudoscience.[1] Notably, he opposed Peter Duesberg ... you see, Rupert Sheldrake's wasn't the only pseudoscience he sniffed out. Alexbrn (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Quest, scientists are allowed to be wrong. What they are not allowed to do is to remain stubbornly wrong in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Maddox is now known for his work in opposing pseudoscience around AIDS. Sheldrake has reacted to refutation and failure to replicate by doubling down and accusing science of doing it all wrong. That is why morphic resonance is pseudoscience. That's pretty much the canonical definition of pseudoscience, in fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Alex for taking the time to reply again. I totally agree about cherry picking quotations from early sources not being useful. But I'm still confused. Is a cherry-picked quotation from 1983 re: AIDS less useful than a cherry-picked quotation from 1981 re: pseudoscience? Also footnote (6) cites a book that doesn't accuse Sheldrake of pseudoscience at all, so isn't even cherry-picked, just redundant. It strikes me as important that articles debunking pseudoscience should be scientific themselves, otherwise they become part of the problem not the solution. Thanks again for debating this with me Miles Quest (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Quest, now would be a great time to list some high level peer-reviewed publications that have validated the claim of morphic resonance. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy - thanks so much for your responses and for engaging with me on this subject. I totally agree about the importance of high-level citations, that was really my point. At the moment the claim about pseudoscience is footnoted to one cherry-picked quotation (which Alex has mentioned are not useful and I agree) and one book which doesn't even mention pseudoscience. It would be a very good idea to replace footnotes (5) and (6) with reference to some high level peer-reviewed publications. Credible footnotes would make the opening para more scientific. Thanks again for taking the time to respond Miles Quest (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Maddox quotation on Sheldrake isn't cherry picked (i.e. lifted out of context to misrepresent); it represents his consistent position on Shledrake and is representative of mainstream thinking which is not opposed in reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, Thanks for your reply. I'm undoubtedly being new but I still don't understand why the pseudoscience charge can only footnote a journalistic editorial of 40 years ago and a random book that has nothing to do with pseudoscience at all?! What about, as you say, reliable sources or as Guy says high-level peer-reviewed sources? If none can be found then this should be stated for the sake of neutrality.

Also (with apologies also for being new) I don't quite understand why there isn't a bit more discussion of the cultural assumptions intrinsic to this article - especially in a global commons like Wikipedia. For example, we might not believe in telepathy in the secular West but the argument that any enquiry into telepathy is ergo pseudoscience suggests that we only countenance scientific enquiry that reinforces narrow cultural assumptions. Which is not very scientific. But I'm sure that's enough for today! With thanks again for your time and all best Miles Quest (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start at WP:5P to start learning about how Wikipedia works. The essence here is that we reflect accepted knowledge as found in reliable sources. Source are all. If you think anything has changed in the last 40 year a source would be necessary to support that, similarly for "cultural assumptions". Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex. With the greatest respect I think quite a lot has changed in 40 years - including that we now understand that the paternalistic European worldview is just one of a plurality of cultural assumptions. You'll know of course that the archetypal profile of wikipedia editors is older, white and male, and it's interesting to consider why the profile is so homogenous. If queries about homophobia are instantly dismissed as 'not very useful' then will queer people, for example, feel welcome in the wikipedia community? Meanwhile 'accepted knowledge' is a vexed term as I'm sure we agree - and the accepted knowledge of one era may be the obsolete prejudice of the next. But doubtless this term and others are constantly debated on this site, so wikipedia doesn't merely memorialise the worldview of the constituency that edits it. Cheers, and thanks for the link - I'll take a look Miles Quest (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your twisting of words is noted, and makes me begin to suspect you are WP:NOTHERE. As I say, sources are all. If there are none in play, there is nothing to be done. Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, your threat is noted, as well as your consistently bullying and aggressive tone. (Not to mention Guy's!) Do stop these attempts at intimidation. Encyclopaedias are not built by aggressive people threatening to censor those who ask mild and deferential questions - I assume. Vade in pace, and do stop attacking me - cheers Miles Quest (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC.

I agree that this seems to be a NOTHERE situation.

Miles Quest: I suggest making an edit request if you decide to proceed further here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal Thanks so much for this. It's really interesting to see how wikipedia works. But you've all jumped to conclusions - I have lots of plans to edit elsewhere but Alex and Guy kept sending me intimidating replies, so I felt bound to debate with them to try to get things on a more civilised basis. (Failed alas.) Do I have to request your approval to edit anything or just Sheldrake? (No intention btw the way to edit Sheldrake - that is clearly a world of pain!) Would you like to see a prior version of any edits I intend to make? Then you could let me know if they are approved. Do let me know - thanks so much again and cheers Miles Quest (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]