Talk:Morphic field

message: I see the link to Bohm is also removed again (it was at the bottom of the article). Sheldrake explains similarities of his theory of Formative Causation with Bohm's theory of Implicate Order, and some agreed views of the 2 scientists on pages 305-306 of "Presence of the Past". The reason why I put the link to Bohm (with TAS in brackets after his name) is the 'Thought as a System' on his wikipedia entry (since that is what we are concerned the most from that article, regarding morphic fields), plus the important paralel between thought being a (mental/abstract) form (Sheldrake), and thought being a system (Bohm). And since we know that every form is a - system (with some sub-forms as its elements/sub-systems), I'm sure the reasons for displaying the link to Bohm (TAS) are understandable.   03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Bohm

message: I added this tag due to numerous problems with the content.  The topic is presented as if it were uncontroversial, when in fact it's considered pseudoscientific.  There is absolutely no neutrality to the article, and it's full of weird, uncited statements, such as "It is similar to the scientifically accepted unified field theory, the substratum of the physical world."  There are also general quality problems, incuding poor organization and language.  And this is just in a stub!  If it grew without a clean-up, it would only get worse. Al 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's terrible.  The article on its father Rupert Sheldrake (a potential redirect target for this article) is probably just as bad, since the intro manages to redefine science and weasels its way out of criticism by saying that he is merely "shunned" by "some" in the scientific establishment. — Dunc|☺ 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is already tagged with 'pseudoscience'. So whatever that meant to be, that tag is more than enough to point that the subject is somewhat of a 'controversial' nature (and to many 'disputable' for various reasons). If something is badly worded (or 'incorrect english'), the person that can word it better is welcome to do so. But from relevancy aspect, the information in this 'stub' is simply not 'disputable'. The text was already shortened and reviewed recently and agreed on.  19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on?  Not by me.  There are still major problems, even though it's a stub. Let's resolve them! Al 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed 

message: Discuss in talk page.  My edit line was munged.  ---CH 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't remove the flag 

message: Does Sheldrake say "morphic fields are defined as the universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms"?  The term database seems an odd choice to me.  Also, someone needs to add a bibliographic citations to the quoted book by Sheldrake.  Are there even any published "research" papers on this stuff?  The article doesn't make clear how large the implied literature is.  Also, I challenge use of "theory".  What characteristics make Sheldrake's ideas constitute a "theory"? ---CH 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Sheldrake refers to them as a 'database' many times. That word is not 'odd' at all. Where are your (one's) memories? How can you or anyone remember or learn anything if there is no 'database' where all the info are stored. So, biology does refer to 'database' also, which is perfectly logical. Sheldrake's books 'A New Science of Life' and 'Presence of the Past' are the 2 main books on 'this stuff'. And the use of word 'theory' was not with capital T, so it isn't a problem. Even Sheldrake's biggest critics refer to his stuff (cynically or not) as 'theory'. 209.135.115.121 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still problematic because a scientific theory is much more than a mere conjecture.  It makes specific predictions that can, at least in principle, be tested and falsified.  It is not clear that this in any ways applies to Sheldrake's ideas, which is precisely why they're considered psuedoscientific. Al 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As it was discussed here earlier, Sheldrake DID test through numerous experiments his theory, and the results were significantly in his favour. 209.135.115.121 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further work needed 

message: This user seems to be a repeat offender wrt various policies.  See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd). ---CH 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what offender? I'm just the most reasonable and most cooperative here...209.135.115.121 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest concentrating on the content of the subject and the quality of presenting. That is the only thing that matters on wikipedia. Regarding violations, administrators are the greatest ones here, exercizing their vanity over ruining the efforts of those editors who do understand the subject that they don't, plus even offending them like I was offended by some at least once. btw, you cannot call someone a 'troll' who is the most productive on the article, and basically the author of it (of all these sentences now here only two are not mine (more exactly one and a half), since the one with unified field theory and substratum is removed, not by me, and that was the third one that was not mine). Troll can only be someone who tends to ruin it like you do with your bad-intention 'pseudo' inserts and removing sentences. 209.135.115.121 06:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no 'trend'. The article was ok for weeks, before some of you touched it with your 'pseudo' insert in the 2nd sentence (the tag pseudoscience was already at the bottom) and removed that sentence about substratum and my sentence about environemental biology. So I had to support that claim on environmental biology better (with listing the 3 names, mentioned in Sheldrake's Presence of the Past in chapter 6), and to make a reasonable compromise on 'pseudo'-alternative thing by mentioning the 'non-accepted by mainstream science' in a neutral way. And this sentence at the end with 'form tuning into its field' was my sentence, and I was just additionally correcting my own sentence (and it was kinda funny that it looked like you don't even allow me to correct myself). There were 2 more paragraphs where this 'collective-field' issue is better explained (see this discussion at the beginning, where they are pasted like they were), but couple of weeks ago Goethean removed them since he thinks it is 'too-OR' and I just gave up at the end. But I think that from those 2 parapraphs something could have been put back, not everythink can be just written off as 'too-OR'. If you read these too paragraphs (starts with "Morphic fields, as a storage of information related to all the forms..." - ends with "....all-connected and perfectly organized morphic fields database"), you can see that from them it is much better understandable that the forms don't all have their individual morphic fields, but similar forms are tuning to the same morphic field.... So, all in all, I wasn't 'trolling', I was just defending (again) my own article (which was already reviewed and shortened) and trying to improve it. Anyway, thanks for the positive comments. Ndru01209.135.108.110 07:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ndru01]], aka the ''Bell Canada GT anon''

message: Why was the 'fact' template removed? Do some editors here not need to support their opinions with sources? — goethean ॐ 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Alienus removed it inserting 'pseudoscience' instead. The tag was to point out that Sheldrake isn't enough distinguished from mainstream science, but now with that sentence in the 1st paragraph it is clearly stated that he is not (presently) accepted by mainstream science.  Anyway, that tag as it was, has no purpose now. 209.135.115.121 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template: fact 

message: This page belongs in the paranormal project, not under general science.  Put it there, and then you won't be violating POV by calling it pseudoscience without proof that it is.
Martinphi 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong place 

message: * Votes for the merge: Duae Quartunciae, Anville, MarcoTolo, DGG, Jefffire, alteripse, Martinphi
* Votes against the merge: Ndru01. Also sloth monkey in a comment at  talk page of morphogenetic field.
That is a clear preference for the merge, so I am going ahead with it. I will be doing it as carefully as I can, so that people can see the process in a number of distinct edits. I believe the result will benefit this article, and retain the recognition of morphogenetic fields as an important subgroup within morphic fields. The process will go as follows.
# All links to "Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)" will be removed from this article here.
# All the content originally at "Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)" will be made into a new section here, with no change in content.
# The page "Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)" will be made to redirect here.
# The content will be rearranged a little to follow the structure of a single article.
# A polished edit will be applied so that the final article has a good level of quality.
# The final result will remain open to more editing and correction as any other editor deems useful.
Thanks all. Stand by for merge... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge process 

message: I think that the text "Sheldrake's theories have received criticism by some members of the scientific establishment, have been ignored by others and have been taken as a possible new line of research by borderline researchers. The overall impact of these theories in mainstream science can be considered as a general rejection." summons up the whole impact. JennyLen☤ 09:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are "borderline researchers?"  Sounds like "borderline schizophrenic."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Borderline defines a limit imposed, therefore borderline researchers are within the scientific community those researchers who dare to research in the borderline of what may be seen as unorthodox research. Those researchers make a balncing act between staying out from the label pseudoscientists but somehow daring to try to repeat or to go further  into controversial theories. It is a common label used  among the scientific community JennyLen☤ 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no such thing as "borderline reseachers" and there is no such label used in the scientific community.Capeo (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have restored the "totally disputed" tag. The introductory paragraph, and indeed the article, give the impression that Sheldrake's research is taken seriously by a significant section of the mainstream scientific community. The paragraph, and the article, also understate the criticism of Sheldrake - "have received criticism" would be more accurately written as "dismissed as pseudoscience". LeContexte (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that sentiment. As you'll see in my edit a few days ago even Sheldrake admitted that most biologists did not agree with the reality of his theories. He was aware of the subjectivity of his ideas, even if his disciples aren't.  Someone needs to tackle the POV issue here in all seriousness.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've also flagged the Evidence section as being entirely unsourced. At bare minimum it needs to be wikiverifiable if it is to remain.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A concise description 

message: I won't attempt to say anything about the biological aspects but I do have a doctorate in chemistry and can speak to the chemical "example".
I have over the years made many brand new compounds. It's not hard to do. Many compounds form crystals but crystal formation can be very idiosyncratic. That is, some new (and old) compunds form beautiful crystals quickly and easily while others require some coaxing. This is inherent in the material not the number of times it is made. If crystal formation becomes easier in subsequent syntheses it is because I have learned how to do it better. In my opinion this example is just not true.
Nmrtian (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me for jumping from the concrete to the abstract. My issue isn't about whether his conjecture is true or not but whether the article writers can rewrite the section in such a way so as source their assertions. The section is now written so as to make a good number of jumps which may be his actual theories and may instead be an unpublished synthesis of information. (see WP:SYN) (Such unpublished information synthesis in wikipedia seems to not follow laws of chemistry but rather laws of psychology and communication theory.)Trilobitealive (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: The concept or assertions of a Morphic field conflicts with conventional science in the fact that it is not falsifiable.  Further more it makes not predictions that contradict any conventional theories.  In this way the idea resembles the untestable idea of "Intelligent design".  There is no evidense that anyone in the main stream scientific community is working on Morphic fields or that a grant has ever been provided to study them.  I plan to split the "Critical reception" into a scientific reception and popular reception to further highlight this distinction.  Please direct any concerns over these edits here.--OMCV (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict with Conventional Science 

message: The "research background" section lacks references. Jayen466 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tag 

message: There is a significant overlap between the content of this article and the Rupert Sheldrake article. I'm not sure how it's best resolved, but hope someone will do it. Ben Finn (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rupert Sheldrake]] article 

message: 143.48.24.13 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of Rose's view at the end, none of the scientific sources make any mention of Sheldrake or morphic fields. Thus they are not 'critiquing' Sheldrake/morphic fields, it is you who is constructing/'synthesising' your own critique on the basis of their statements. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Critique 

message: This article seems to be about one person's idea, pet theory, whatever. Is that really important enough for its own article. Why not merge to his own article?  He is notable for this idea, the idea is notable for being his. Two articles do not seem to be needed. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The possibility of merging was recently discussed at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake#Morphic field article. I'm in favour of the idea. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that and don't understand why the merge wasn't done. Most editors seem to dislike him, or anyway disagree/disrespect.  Why have two articles about something you dislike? Northwestgnome (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Laziness? Low attention spans/other distractions? The fact that the thread evolved into merger, rather than started with that aim? Take your pick. If you want to be WP:BOLD & merge, or be less bold and make a formal merger proposal, I think you've got more than sufficient cover. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've formally suggested the merge. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I preformed the basic merger.  Any help that could be offered in fixing cleaning up the merger would be appreciated.  I really don't know how or if this will be challenged. I suspect there are about five editors familiar with policy who will surely support this course of action.--OMCV (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable