Talk:Deepak Chopra

message: The articles introduction has a heavy negative bias. It should be reviewed to ensure it presents a balanced view. 2603:7000:8500:11D0:5503:BAAE:8623:432E (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I have reviewed the article, which imho describes Chopra and his life quite accurately according to the sources. I will not be recommending any changes, or making any. -Roxy  the grumpy dog. wooF 13:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the last sentence of the lede paragraph has all the editorial grace of Donald J. Trump. It is crappy writing, just the way Wikipedia likes it. WP is now a quasi-authoritarian power, pretending to offer balanced and comprehensive info, but in effect PASSING JUDGMENT on the SUBJECT, by policy. The reader is too stupid, apparently, to formulate their own opinion. -- Jack B108 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

text:  um, let get this right. This article is poorly written, partly because it makes a desperate attempt to cram in as much materialistic criticism of Chopra's work from old-guard, scientific reduction adherents as it can. This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's own stated policy on remaining neutral on controversial biographical entries. So what you're saying is basically if something is controversial, even if millions of people accept it, including scientists, if it's not 96% reductionist and materialistic, Wikipedia editors won't even allow any discussion of the editorial comment. I would say apart from the pure bias of this Chopra article, which I imagine even Albert Einstein would chuckle at, it's just got a lot of uneven writing. And relying on criticism saying "physicists" or" physics" agree Chopra is fluff is childish, as any reasonable observer of physics knows, as if you had to sign a dogmatic vow of materialism to do research at CERN or DOE Nat'l Labs. Many physicists [of which Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are not] have no real problem with the ideas of Deepak Chopra, or at least would allow them to be given a fair shake in an encyclopedia. Jack B108 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand WP:NPOV. You should actually read it. Also, WP:FRINGE. There is no  because Chopra's ideas are far outside real science. If you asked Chopra to write down the Schrödinger equation, he would fail. His version of QM is just a layman's bad misunderstanding of bad explanations written by people who know physics only from heavily dumbed-down popular science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

text: "Many physicists [of which Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are not]" - yes, I do not believe you should shoot your mouth off about poor writing. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:20A8:B888:AFB9:D07 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, we would need a reliable source for the names of those "many physicists" who have no problem with Chopra's pseudophysical bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: PseudoPsycical perhaps? - Roxy the dog  16:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative description 

message: The reader may be left with the impression that a few scientists are upset because he abuses physical terminology. Now it is true that he peddles nonsense about quantum this and that, but he does so only because of the perceived prestige of modern physics. If the general public held French Lit in high esteem, his prattle would be shrouded in words borrowed (badly) from French Lit. In this sense, debunking his pseudo quantum theory is of minor importance. Indeed, there is so little there (nothing really) that ironically the lay reader may rather overestimate the importance physicists attach to his fringe ideas. If we take away the pseudoscientific jargon, what is left? Besides the usual guru variety of self-help and self-actualisation, there is medical quackery, which hinges on the familiar notion that a mind-that-is-one-with-the-cosmos can create a reality, notably one in which the sick punter is not really sick (or ageing or losing his hair...). Now, medical quackery is dangerous, and by being drawn into the idea that the quackery can only be addressed by repudiating the quantum woo, the debate drifts into a smokescreen that can only benefit him. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:20A8:B888:AFB9:D07 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commingled criticisms