Talk:Noetics

message: Okay, as far as I can tell, the word "noetic" is used in this sense mainly by the Institute of Noetic Sciences (a New Age provider of seminars and workshops similar to Esalen), and has recently gotten a big publicity boost thanks to Dan Brown's new book, The Lost Symbol. Are there *any* other examples? If not, then the article needs to get rid of all the extraneous stuff about Thomas Aquinas. I mean, it's not like "Noetic Science" is an actual discipline of science, philosophy, or theology. --Dawud  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the merge tag be removed, then? Hepcat65 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: There are lots of unspecific complaints about the article. Let's discuss what's bothering those who tagged it, and what to do about it. Hepcat65 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues? 

message: I think the subject of this article is already being handled at nous. It seems a no brainer to merge it in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I see above that there has been discussion about this before and that in fact there might be a rationale to keep this article as long as it becomes an article about noetic theory as described in Dan Brown? But then we need to add appropriate warnings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge proposal 

message: Well, this is certainly a very short article.  Obviously heavily edited.  I deplore the tendency of wikipedia editors to eviscerate anything that does not meet their perfectionist quality standards, when a few annotations to indicate what is in doubt would be more than sufficient.  IMHO it is better to have something that is not completely documented than to have nothing at all.
The way this thing is written, it sound as if "noetic theory" is something like speculation about "telekinesis."  Is this correct?  If not, then the article has been edited into incomprehensibility.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: "Theory" has a specific definition in the sciences, and it's not clear to me that this set of ideas meets that definition. I'm not equipped to say, but I think it would be a good idea to look this over and add some clarification to the use of the word in the context of this article.
--96.35.163.157 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "those who are adept"... Who? I have to say this feels a bit like the Emperor's new clothes... 217.37.166.142 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this meet the definition of a theory? 

message: This article is clearly unsatisfactory, so I have been thinking about possible courses of action.
Some possibilities:
* Merge with nous. I don't think there is much in here that is worth merging, frankly.
* Delete. Probably not appropriate.
* Another approach. It is very hard to work out exactly what this article is about, I think because there are several separate topics:
:# A broad definition. This is done much better in nous.
:# The work of Richard L. Amoroso and the Noetic Advanced Studies Institute. This material would be better in that article.
:# A mention of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which in turn links to this article. This does not add anything and the institute does not seem itself to use the term Noetic theory.
:# A mention of The Lost Symbol, which again does not seem to use this exact term.
:# A discussion of Hindu scripture which I am not qualified to assess but which seems at best only tangentially relevant. If appropriate this would have a better home in Hindu texts.
:# A series of links - nothing that a normal Wiki search would not find.
:# References: mostly single issue or self-referential and could be moved to their 'parent' is necessary.
Once the above have been dealt with, this article could be be deleted or changed to a redirect to one of the above.
Any thoughts? Mcewan (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for refactoring this article 

message: What are the dodecahedra, blobs, and references to general relativity about? This article does not make sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesx12345 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Seriously though... Any employer who would fire you for non-conformist views isn't someone I'd want to work for. I happen to believe this whole topic is a steaming pile of wishful thinking, but that's only a personal opinion. The important thing is... Are there actually any facts or studies that can be referenced? Also, is it possible to summarise them in a way that's comprehensible? (And by that I mean forming proper sentences in English, not "is it too unusual to believe") 217.37.166.142 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  YES. I think this whole page needs modernized. It's a shame poorly supported ideas seem to come and go here, and leave the page only slightly better-off than the one on the Italian Wikipedia, which lists the entire subject as a "pseudoscience".  Here is a source tying it all together in a modern computer-science-related framework: http://www.academia.edu/933668/The_Noetic_Prism 67.163.161.226 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: This is the material under consideration:
:An individual can only truly understand the concept of Noetics through personal experience.  Noetics is a biological science of mind; to some a personal experience of God through revelation and therefore a developing conscious awareness of certain realities in an individual.  The personal revelation may be a first and unique to an individual (genius) but may also be shared by many individuals as time goes by.  The magic of Noetics is how the conscious awareness occurs in the mind (brain structures), through personal experience of environment and perceptual cues (man made or natural) experienced by the individual.  Ultimately experiencing Noetics (knowing) is a privilege because it would appear to bring you closer to God through pure, timeless understanding of truth and all things; achieved through bonding personal experience of the physical environment (which may be led by others) and the way the individual’s brain structures respond.
I could make no sense out of it, and it had no citations, so I removed it. It was then added back by Fallenangelius, who left this message on my talk page, which I couldn't understand either. It was then removed by other users, but each time added back by Fallenangelius. Instead of edit warring, let's discuss it here and reason it out. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If this is in fact a good explanation of Noetics, there should be references or citations to support it, and perhaps a clearer explanation. There seems to be a contradiction between calling it a "biological science" but saying it can only be understood through personal experience and revelation. That appears to take it out of the realm of science. There are hints of New Age religion and Gnosticism. While there is perhaps an effort at explanation, there is also an element of randomness, of various thoughts about various aspects of the philosophy. The bottom line is this, however, without citations and at least one valid reference, there is no way to tell whether believers, much less anyone else, would consider this a good explanation and not just a personal opinion. Why is there a refusal to provide citations? That is all the editors who have reverted this really want and are within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to ask for. Donner60 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The point of Wikipedia is to explain the concept in a way that readers can understand without further research. I will agree, that parts are comprehensible and probably salvageable, but it is very disorganized and not in an encyclopedic style (ex. asserts existence of God, which is not in line with the rest of the encyclopedia). To not put citations is also against Wikipedia:Citations policy. Your contributions are welcome, but they must conform to the expectations of the encyclopedia. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The first step to take is to get a source that back up what you are saying. If you do, then we might be able to help you rewrite the section. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

text: If this section is what you yourself have created, then it cannot be included because of Wikipedia:No original research. Encyclopedias are not the place for new discoveries or thoughts, they are compilations of ones that have been recognized by mainstream thought. Therefore, they must have a reliable source. You are in the wrong here. Iwilsonp (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Section added by Fallenangelius

message: This has been covered in several comments more than 12 years ago, but the current content of this article is misleading in several ways:
* It describes noetics as a branch of metaphysics, even though this is not an academic field by any means. There are no reputable peer reviewed journals on noetics, and it is not mentioned as a branch of metaphysics anywhere I could find. 
* It relates the lines of thought of several philosophers such as Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Locke, Descartes, Hegel, and Sartre as part of noetics, even though noetics is much, much newer and there are no clear relations to their thought. The explanation given is shallow and deeply unsatisfactory, and relies on confounding noetics with the much more general (and distinct) coverage of nous by some of these authors.
* The main claims in the article (relating to noetics itself) rely exclusively on non-academic sources which are already sympathetic to the ill-defined concept of “noetics” or “noetic science”. The only properly sourced claims in this article are those relating to the concept of nous, whereas the main source of this article is a book titled “Galilean pendulum” which is about the paranormal.
In general, my impression of this article is that it appears to construe academic backing of a pseudoscience by trying to confound it with related concepts in metaphysics. The Institute of Noetic Sciences (the only institution mentioned in the article) says on their “Science” page:
Our working hypothesis is that consciousness (awareness) is fundamental. From this perspective, consciousness is regarded as the most basic component of reality, more basic than physical concepts like matter, energy, space, and time. We investigate this hypothesis to better understand noetic experiences, like intuitive, psychic, and mystical states.
This is, clearly, an unfalsifiable hypothesis, as is the vast majority of the research they purport to do in their page. The term “noetics” as used by this organization seems distinctly different from the metaphysics of nous, consciousness research or other fields of science, and instead seems to have all the telltale signs of pseudoscience.
There seemed to have been a previous discussion defending it as a distinct academic field 8 years ago. However, the article described does not mention noetics and instead talks about the concept of “noetica” as relating to materials of computation, in the context of information science. This does not seem to be related to what is talked about in the article, rather referring to a framework for describing the relation of data, information, and knowledge.
My current action plan, based on previous editor consensus, is:
* Transform this page to be exclusively about the pseudoscientific, paranormal or alternative philosophy field under the name of “noetics” or “noetic science”, since I believe deletion to be unlikely (though I wouldn't rule it out). 
* Remove all content relating to Nous unless directly relevant to coverage of the previous topic. I don't suggest merging, since there doesn't seem to be any content here that isn't already covered pretty well in the original Nous article.
To this end, I've started by adding NPOV and unreliable citation templates. agucova (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: made some additional changes, its just so incredibly obscure that I can't find countersources, just more and more of the IONS' publications and some religious stuff from the 10's. 206.188.225.130 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I agree with the idea of transforming this page to be exclusively about the pseudoscientific tradition. The term "noetic" was a philosophical term before its appropriation by fringe writers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Omnipaedista Note that the page on Nous already covers that use of the word pretty well, making this page otherwise redundant in that regard. agucova (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and proposed deletion. To further explain my position, I think that as it stands, the article has little content left that is not much better covered elsewhere, and what is left seems to violate WP:NFRINGE.  agucova (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I agree. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute: Misleading content