Talk:Holism in science

message: In the present form the text sounds like nonsense babble. It does not make any sense to me. Cacycle 19:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed the ballast and rewrote the article, reducing it to a stub. I have no knowledge of the subject other than what I garnered from a Google search and some brief skimming. --Smithfarm 19:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable article 

message: I don't see a difference between holistic science and holism, so the few facts, links, and see-alsos in this article should be merged with that article and holistic science should become a redirect to there. Beside that this article in its current form is a highly biased pseudoscientific rant full of weazel phrases and still without a clear and encyclopedic definition. Cacycle 13:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you're opposed to holistic science, then. That is your POV. If you can help make the article more NPOV, please do so. Might I also suggest that you do some Googling for "holistic science" and "reductionist science". Just because you don't agree with something or think it can't be precisely defined, doesn't mean there shouldn't be an encyclopedia article about it. It may be meaningful to others. --Smithfarm 17:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: That would go along with the changes that I made yesterday to Holism. --Goethean 14:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[holism]] 

message: Much of this article discusses examples of fields that are holistic in one way or another.  That does not make them their own discipline.  Other parts of the article discuss "Holistic Science" as though it were its own discipline.  I don't know what that discipline would include, or what its tenets would be, but the article must first distinguish these two threads before it can better describe its subject.  +sj + 10:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguish holistic ideas w/ Holistic Discipline 

message: I really think this article should be renamed to "Holism in science" with a redirect from "holistic science". This has been discussed above on the page and will allow the article to remove the "disputed"-tag (if this can't be done already). Ben  please vote! 13:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
: Is anyone besides Cacycle disputing this article? Smithfarm 14:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved/renamed the article and removed the tag. --goethean 15:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: renaming

message: I just changed the first sentence to conform to a more neutral POV. There are plenty of other problems, but I'll refrain from tagging the article until I can make a list of them. --ScienceApologist 14:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article isn't NPOV

message: Before we get into a revert war, let's try to work together first. ScienceApologist, your idea of calling it "fringe science" is not going to fly. Can you add anything constructive to the article? --Smithfarm 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with fringe science? Do you object to it being so? --ScienceApologist 20:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a loaded question, a type of logical fallacy. The claim that holism is a fringe science is false.  — goethean ॐ 20:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? Why do you say that holistic science is not fringe? --ScienceApologist 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot find any reference that shows that holistic science is mainstream, but I can find plenty of incredulity with regards to the subject. By definition then holistic science is one of the fringe sciences. --ScienceApologist 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way here is a somewhat balanced article that admits that holism is associated with a "lunatic fringe"  --ScienceApologist 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a blog entry. — goethean ॐ 20:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not recommending we include it as a reference, I'm simply refering to it as an example which supports my point. --ScienceApologist 20:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I will object to anything that sounds pejorative. (We've already been around this block with pseudoscience and "fringe science" is equally derogatory.) Do you object to describing it as a paradigm? Have you read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions? --Smithfarm 15:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is fringe science pejorative? Objecting because something "sounds" pejorative hardly strikes me as reasonable. I do have a problem with paradigms because in the Kuhnian sense it is impossible for two paradigms to exist simultaneously in science, which is what this page is claiming that holism is acting in. --ScienceApologist 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure plenty of people would agree that "fringe" is most often used in a pejorative sense. That's why it sounds pejorative. As for paradigms, the whole idea is that holism is a different paradigm that threatens the dominant paradigm (reductionism). Until the challenger completely supplants the dominant paradigm, the two exist side-by-side. That's why it's controversial - because reductionism feels threatened. Whether you call it a paradigm or an approach is irrelevant, though, so I don't object to the first sentence as you have it. --Smithfarm 14:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal for calm 

message: Why is this a problematic statement? --ScienceApologist 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not controversial; look at the list of names in this article like Gellman. Other than that, it's an unsourced POV claim. — goethean ॐ 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of names hardly indicates whether a subject is controversial or not. The fact is that there is plenty of criticism of holistic science (though this article lacks a lot of the criticisms). The descriptor "controversial" isn't exactly a POV when there is a controversy over the subject. The article even admits as much (though in a not entirely sufficient fashion). --ScienceApologist 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holistic science is controversial

message: In articles about subjects like this which are fringe science, it is important to let the reader know what the mainstream view is right off the bat. This isn't currently done, so we need to develop a sentence that NPOV illustrates the problems perceived by the mainstream with holistic science. Any suggestions before I take a crack at it? --ScienceApologist 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your position going to be that holistic science is not "real" science? (On a related note, did you insert the "under the guise of science" bit?) --Smithfarm 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my position that holistic science represents a research program that is either disparately married or fringe science. Many of the claims made by those who support holistic science are not supported by consistent evidence and some of the claimed "holistic" researchers might take issue with categorization with others listed in this article. --ScienceApologist 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with these sentiments completely. However, the way you rewrote the intro was confusing and did not convey the meaning you allude to above. I feel that the previous intro did a better job at describing the differences at the very least, but I understand your critique. --ScienceApologist 10:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph views

message: Science measures patterns; Holism is the exploration of patterned Charge.. Charge is unification, therefore; there are no patterns = dialectic (paradox, dichotomy, controversial, cause~effect, wave~partical duality, etc.).
The implication of unified Charge defies our own bodies - something many of us are not very comfortable with. Negotiating Relativity with Quantum Mechanics (Planck State?) is a wonderful (spiritual?) exercise.. and if we can integrate Charge into our dialectical processes; we can persist in flexing spacetime (Hegel flux?) more valuably.
Before you suppress (repress your own Flux/flexibility?); explore this:
Modeling Causality
Thank you. --Dialectic 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Integral theory is a philosophy that attempts to harmoniously integrate science with other disciplines. I changed the Aurobindo reference to Gebser, a more relevant author. — goethean ॐ 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holism (Holistic) versus Science = controversial (dialectic) 

message: A scientific method of sorting out the holism-reductionism dichotomy is to
have a discipline where both reductionistic and holistic mathematics have
been developed.  This is finally available after my development of 
quantum number theory.  The topic describes analysis and predictions of 
holistic properties of the natural number system defined as a quantum
object.  Classical number theory is based on Peano's axiom where properties
of standalone integers are manipulated.
With quantum number theory, one can also analyse and predict exactly
analogous to that in classical number theory.  I hope that holistic scientists will
reorientate themselves to provide analysis and predictions instead of 
statistical correlation.  If one believes in Hopperism, statistical
prediction is not a science.  So what if one could predict that the Sun
will rise from the East 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the time.
It would be falsified if the Sun rises from the West tomorrow.  I am not
running down holistic sciences because from this month onward I am
a converted holist. I do not believe that only reductionistc science
is falsifiable science and that holistc sciences cannot match them in
future breakthroughs.  So please visit
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~topchoice
the homepage of Sequence Algebra and Quantum Number Theory for enlightenment.
:I suggest you integrate your findings with the synthesis process of the cyclic dialectic where axiom*atic spin advances another thesis. Consider the irrefutable laws of physics and the difference between general and special relativity in the equation. You may find that a slow flux of persistence (oscillation) is our nature - not vacillating patterns. Flexing spacetime?
:In a universe of flux; Whole is an absolute - which defies the transition of spacetime. These same*ness§unique*ness, subject*ive§object*ive, divers*ity§un*ity, contrac*tion§expan*sion, etc. exercises equate to a flux in spacetime - the give-and-take of reality ∞.
:Reductionism§Holism is a dialectic, transitive flux. The "dichotomy", "paradox", or dual*ity; can be balanced by single*ity (singularity). This is why your "99.99999999999999999999999999999999%" or any other number is a probable*ity, not an absolute. --Dialectic 04:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now there is classical number theory and quantum number theory =

message: Hi all.  I added the pseudoscience category as there is a clear pseudoscience issue in the article. This does not mean that Wikipedia is calling the subject pseudoscience. The cat includes many scientific subjects that have pseudoscientific issues, e.g. hemispheric specialization. The category is to help the reader browse articles that help them to understand issues of pseudoscience. Please read the description of the category for further information. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your just the next in a long line of ps-ists in wp. It's on. You're clearly misinformed. If you want people to "understand the issues of pseudoscience" direct them to Black supremacy. opps! that may be for real too... Prove your takes and justify your edits with refs. Thanks for playing. --RealDefender 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem at all. Refs provided as requested. KrishnaVindaloo 06:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue of pseudoscience

message: The section on Opposing views seems to make no sense at all. The fact that fringe scientists might use holistic arguments says nothing negative about holistic ideas: if a creationist uses scientific arguments, this doesn't make science creationist; this is merely attempted denigration by association.
The second section is strange, it cites a 1996 book written by a journalist that achieved brief notoriety for its soon recognised absurdity in concluding that very soon we would know everything there is to know. 
I suggest deleting this section as WP: BollocksGleng 13:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree It's the same weak arguments with little, if any backing. The whole idea of including pseudoscience in holism in science is a reach. As it is, it was added by one editor who clearly has a narrow point of view. There has to be some underlying motive. --RealDefender 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the information is reliable and verifiable. It belongs in the article. The title states opposing views, and the information does make a distinction between holism in science and holism in pseudoscience. I don't think any proponents of legitimate holism in science are going to worry about it. Adjustments can be made, but it complies with NPOV policy to the letter. KrishnaVindaloo 03:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing views?

message: The article is conflating two things: 1. The actual scientific field of systems science. 2. Pseudoscience that uses the word "holism". Conflating the two acts to make the pseudoscience seem more respectable; thus, this article is a POV fork and a WP:COATRACK for the ideas of Sheldrake etc. Fences and windows (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV fork

message: I've tried to make some cuts here and there, but I think this article is not doing its job in reflecting the world out there. "holism" is a banner which many new age groups will be happy to walk under, but as is typical of new age it has picked an eclectic collection of concepts from different cultures and time periods. Some of the pieces reflected in this article are:
* Postmodernism. An intellectual movement in the 20th century that among other things questioned absolute truth.
* The modern study of complex systems. One central property of this study is that the interaction between components in the system take centre stage.
* Emergence, the appearance of complex and structured behaviour from a group of simpler components.
* System dynamics and its sister field cybernetics, focus on feedback loops over linear causal chains and on the self regulating property of some feedback loops. 
* Critiques of reductionism as a scientific method and pointing out of its shortcomings.
* The observer effect in quantum mechanics
* Multidisciplinarity. In science it refers to work that transcend academic boundaries. In management studies the similar call for breaking down the "silos" call for more efficient project work by integrating people from different departments and with different educations.
Having read some amount of papers from these fields, it is my impression that hardly anyone outside the new age clique leans on "holism". Engineers doing cybernetics have no want nor need to use vague analogies to quantum mechanics to justify their work. It may have been different in the past, but this article should at least reflect the situation of today. A situation which is much more receptive to "holistic" ideas than before, one may add. EverGreg (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a practically working logical positivist POV. Practically working scientists generally don't do philosophy, and logical positivism as a methodological working set works for some sciences, not all of them, especially not social sciences. Your phrasing "hardly anyone outside the new age clique" seems to entail a circular selection classification bias based on a certain preset POV. Nevertheless your characteristics of the parts of the article is valuable, and I'm going to read the article with your list in mind. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

text: BTW, I would regard Hermeneutics a fairly established methodology, as holistic in its approach. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say it's the majority POV. It's part of the never-ending discussion about how to give a neutral point of view without also deceiving the reader about what the "general opinion" is among experts. This is especially difficult in an article like this, where there is no division between some factual object and a community's opinion of it. EverGreg (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call it a day? 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Holism in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.santafe.edu/research/indexResearchAreas.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027162506/http://www.resurgence.org:80/resurgence/issues/goodwin216.htm to http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/goodwin216.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027162135/http://www.resurgence.org:80/resurgence/issues/goodwin201.htm to http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/goodwin201.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060328191842/http://www.albany.edu:80/cpr/sds/index.html to http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is still a bad paragraph. The complaint is not against holism in itself but against the application of the word "holistic" to any old bullshit. I will try to correct this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Holistic science is controversial" 

message: Are there any sources for the "Two central aspects of Holism"? The first sounds reasonable, but the second is postmodern bullshit: "there is no objective reality". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for aspects? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Holism in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306032539/http://www.resurgence.org/index.htm to http://www.resurgence.org/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306032539/http://www.resurgence.org/index.htm to http://www.resurgence.org/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm considering copying over a chunk of the Indications of holism in physical science section and the social science section from the holism page to here and improving the prose and citations for it. That stuff links to here as the main page and I think a fleshed out version of the material ought to be here. Thoughts?  Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and did it. The last two sections are still not sourced correctly. having a burn out moment on getting them done. Will circle back at some point. Unless someone else gets to them or removes them for poor sourcing. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy over and fix 

message: It seems likely that the early idea of a soul is in reality what we define today as the self. It is actually a result contained within the the body of a living creature. A yet to be explained astonishing organic process produced by the brain. It is well known that environment and injury to the brain can alter personality, awareness, behavior, etc. It is likely that death brings an end to the organic process of the self. You are terminated. Adios amigo.
Dualism is a fantasy. See:Psychiatry for Social Workers by Alistair Munro
M.D. and Wallace McCulloch M.Sc., Pergamon Press,London,1969, page.109 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4iGKjO9A-g  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miistermagico (talk • contribs) 13:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Organic Self 

message: Psychobabble and Biobunk: Using Psychology to Think Critically About Issues in the News by Carol Tavris, Pearson, 3rd edition, 2010 is informative.
A critical examination of Andrew B. Newberg, M.D., Neuroscientist, Director of Research for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies, Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and his connections to What the Bleep Do We Know? and J.Z. Knight are a bit ODD. I am reminded of the strange
deep waters where Elizabeth Kubler-Ross went under. So it goes..Miistermagico (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychobabble, Newberg,  J. Z.  Knight and Kubler-Ross