Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 4

message: I've just deleted what I feel is a problematic phrase in the lead: "that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics." It may put undue emphasis on Ramtha. (I just did a search on What the Bleep in Google News archives. It turned up 1,900 articles. Then added Ramtha to the search, and it turned up 96 results. So about 5 percent of the articles mention Ramtha.) And it may by misleading by implying that the featured individuals are associated with Ramtha and are parroting Ramtha philosophy, when it's likely that none of them knew about the directors' affiliation. Also, it's not clear which parts of the film repeat the beliefs of the Ramtha school. I'd like to see a source which details this. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might just say New Age philosophy then since it is a bit broader. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just go back to the way I put it to begin with, which was NPOV? ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, that wasn't NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: IIRC the fact that JZK was speaking "as Ramtha" is in the end credits of the movie itself 1Z (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramtha in lead 

message: ...(ec) apparently User:JzG was adding sources on this question at the same time as I wrote this, so there is plenty to work with...
Regarding the secondary question posed in the RfC, of how to address the pseudoscience issues in the article about this film, several people mentioned that what is needed are verifiable sources with qualified third parties making those statements.
I did a bit of research and found sources.  I don't have time to work on integrating these into the article, so instead I'll list them here to make them available for use by any interested editors.  These are just URLs, I'm not formatting the citations, but they appear to me to be reliable sources that can be used within policy:
* Discarded Science: Ideas That Seemed Good at the Time... By John Grant - see page 110 etc  Google books link (search term inside book: "what the bleep")
* Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness By Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner - see page 4 & 165 Google books link (search term inside book: "what the bleep")
* Bleep review on website of the  Institute of Physics includes many quotes from scientists about the film, at URL:  http://www.einsteinyear.org/bleep/
:::One example of a quote from this webpage:
:::Raj Persaud, Gresham Professor for Public Understanding of Pyschiatry and Consultant Psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital, said: "I thought that the film made a lot of statements about quantum physics, but also on neurobiology, the brain and the mind. Most of these statements are gross distortions of recent scientific findings. For example, there was a claim that the latest brain scanning research suggests the brain could not distinguish between reality, memory or imagination and this is simply not true."
* Bleep review on Skeptical Inquirer website.  The review was written by a scientist, Eric Scerri,  lecturer in the Department of Chemistry at UCLA, where he also teaches philosophy of science.  See URL: http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html
:::Example quote from this review:
:::I want to focus a little on the science, because this is where I believe the film is at its most disingenuous. Each of the physicists interviewed trots out a sound bite or two about how quantum mechanics supposedly shows that objects can be in two places at once, that matter is mostly empty space, or that all parts of the universe are deeply interconnected. The existence of a reality that's independent from the human mind as usually understood by scientists, or indeed by any rational person, is repeatedly assaulted to the point of being mocked
That's all I have time for right now.  I hope this is helpful for editors working towards NPOV in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much, Jack-A-Roe, your contributions to the article have been very helpful. Drop by again when you have the time.  Dreadstar † 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition to the above, there are the Physics Today and American Chemical Society pieces that have been discussed ad nauseum. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bleep pseudoscience sources 

message: * I just re-read the Grauniad review; "I despise What the Bleep Do We Know!?, because it distorts science to fit its own agenda, it is full of half-truths and misleading analogies, and some of its so-called scientific claims are downright lies. Worse still, having achieved cult status in America, this film has already duped millions into mistaking pure claptrap for something of cosmic importance." (Simon Singh) Fantastic!  Couldn't have put it better myself.  So all we need now is sources linking this to the precise pieces of the film which are complete bollocks and we're done.  We already have sources for the basketball analogy being bogus, so let's lok around for the others. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great lead! "What the Bleep Do We Know!?... distorts science to fit its own agenda... is full of half-truths and misleading analogies, and some of its so-called scientific claims are downright lies." Straight from a reliable source, too. Beats things like "some parts cross the line into pseudoscience" six ways from Sunday.Kww (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is important when discussing articles that have provoked controversy (although for the life of me I still don't really understand why this article is considered controversial) that we do not get stuck a rut of arguing old disputes that have already been settled.  The article does not say "some parts cross the line into pseudoscience". No reasonable person could possibly read this article, or the lead to this article, and come to the conclusion that any of the ideas in this movie have any scientific validity.  How many blows do you intend to rain on this dead horse? What will it take for you to accept the reality that you have won this battle and (I suppose) move on to another one? Dlabtot (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Dlabtot. This feels like a hit "over the back of the head with a two by four" The article and the lead must have some balance per WP:NPOV..."representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias ...  This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles." Is it the job of the editors to  present a completely damning view in the lead thus influencing the reader even before the article is read, or to present a balanced lead and balanced article, no matter how much one dislikes the movie? I think the answer per Wikipedia standards is clear.(olive (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I lost track of how much the lead has improved. Went back and looked it over, and I'm happy.Kww (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!(olive (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Dlabtot, it's controversial because it mixes science and nonsense and pretends the former supports the latter. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the movie mixes science and nonsense and pretends the former supports the latter.  At least, that's what the article says about the movie - I haven't seen it.  What is the controversy?  Dlabtot (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More sourcing

message: On the subject of the Native American's "perceptual blindness" to European ships. It is also important to note that the idea was introduced by Candice Pert with her confirming it as a belief that she held as true. I would like to argue for an extension for that particular section explaining that Candice said that the story of the Native American's "perceptual blindness" is actually a story that she believe it to be true and not something she is confirming as fact. Simply by stating it as an unreliable source in the Wiki, I believe, would suggest that the film was treating the idea as fact and not a belief held by an expert. I shall include here Candice Pert's exact words on the matter:
“Well, the way our brain is wired up, we only see what we believe is possible. We match patterns that already exist within ourselves through conditioning. So, a wonderful story, which I believe is true, is that when the Native American Indians on the Carribean islands saw Columbus’ ships approaching, they couldn’t see them at all, because it was so unlike anything they’d ever seen before. They couldn’t see it.” 
As you can see, she confirms it as a story, which she believes is true; rather than a statement of fact. Tom2351 (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Tom. Good point. I would support rewriting those two sentences so that they more accurately reflect the presentation in the movie. It could be something like, "In the film during a discussion of the influence of experience on perception, Candice Pert notes a story, which says she believes is true, of . . . " TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no reason to even mention 'perceptual blindness' in the article. However, if something could be cited to a secondary source it could be included.  Otherwise it's just our original research, no matter what wording we come up with. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference got deleted somewhere along the line. http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/20/questioning_perceptual_blindness.html discusses WTB and the perceptual blindness issue directly and in detail. It was included in the Oct. 19th, 2007 version of this article. It is also mentioned in the ABC article, even though they just point out the unlikelihood of Candice Pert knowing anything at all about this issue.Kww (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey that was a pretty fun article to read, thanks. Dlabtot (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject: Native American's "perceptual blindness" to European ships

message: *This rewrite does not have references added, necessary now that most quotes have been removed or paraphrased.
*I am not attached to this in any way.Please feel free to edit.
*I removed two points in the section: one on Hobbs .... we don't need three pieces of info from one person and one on Joao Magueijo. They could certainly be added in again but this section is really tedious as one finds when working through it so perhaps we can remove these two bits. 
*The addition on John Hagelin is highly over simplified and an inaccurate view of the research and "cherry-picked" if you will. I will probably be seen as having a COI on this bit so another editor may want to look at this research.
*Last paragraph on Candice Perth from my view is not particularly accurate . Perth's name is never mentioned in the article, although  the movie is in the intro to the Fortean Times article. I personally consider this to be poorly referenced because the conclusions drawn do not reference Perth directly.I would either find some other reference or remove it.This seems particularly inaccurate: 
"Hambling says it is likely that both the Hughes account and the story told by Pert were exaggerations of the records left by Captain Cook and the botanist Joseph Banks." There are some jumps made here I didn't see in the article in the Times .... did I miss it?
I didn't rewrite this part, but would be happy to do so once a consensus on the material has been reached. 
* I Didn't "block quote" this to make further editing on "talk"  easier.
*there may be  copy editing needed . I can't "see" it right now so feel free. 
In the scientific community, the film has been criticized for invoking quantum physics to promote pseudoscience. A letter published in Physics Today describes the movie as moving from acceptable “pedagogical exaggeration” to the nonsensical “quantum channeling of Ramtha”, and says that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins”..
Other scientists who have commented on the film have expressed similarly unfavorable views. Richard Dawkins concludes the film is “tosh”, and the hype surrounding the “genuine mystery” of either quantum theory or consciousness to be needless.
Professor Clive Greated writes that confusion arises out of the detail paid to “thinking on neurology and addiction”, coupled with the  lack of follow through in the movie of early comments on quantum physics.  Despite his caveats, Greated hopes the movie develops a cult following in the UK because references in the movie to Science and engineering, could engage viewers in an increased understanding of the importance of these two important sciences. Simon Singh calls the movie pseudoscience for its claims regarding the effect of observation on molecular structure. The movie suggests that the observation of water can change its molecular structure, concluding that, by observing themselves, human beings can also physically change themselves. Singh labels this idea "ridiculous balderdash." The American Chemical Society's review criticizes the film's suggestion that people can travel backwards in time, describing the film as a "pseudoscientific docudrama".
A science writer with ABC Science Online, Bernie Hobbs, explains, "The observer effect of quantum physics isn't about people or reality. It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's about the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles... this only applies to sub-atomic particles - a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It's there. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." Hobbs also mentions John Hagelin's experiment, using Transcendental Meditation to attempt to reduce the rate of violent crime in Washington, D.C. Hobbs says the number of murders actually increased.What the Bleep are they On About?! Australian Broadcasting Corporation
David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics is linked with consciousness, when in fact he does not endorse this theory.
In the film, during a discussion of the influence of experience on perception, Candice Pert notes a story, which she says she believes is true, of Native Americans being unable to see Columbus's ships because they were outside their experience.  According to an article in Fortean Times by David Hambling, the origins of this story likely involved the voyages of Captain James Cook, not Columbus, and an account related by historian Robert Hughes which said Cook's ships were "...complex and unfamiliar as to defy the natives' understanding". Hambling says it is likely that both the Hughes account and the story told by Pert were exaggerations of the records left by Captain Cook and the botanist Joseph Banks. Historians believe the Native Americans likely saw the ships but ignored them as posing no immediate danger.http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/20/questioning_perceptual_blindness.html Fortean Times—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive_oil (talk • contribs) 
:In the physics community should be, in the scientific community, since multiple scientific groups (physics, chemistry, science journalism, etc) have leveled criticisms. Antelan talk 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I am using the wording present now in the article. I didn't so much edit as condense. Feel free to edit yourself as well.(olive (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Problem with article - missing text .The section "Academic" seems to be missing the heading (subheading), and the first paragraph although the edit page has this text in place . Not computer savvy enough to fix this or to know what happened.Can someone fix this? Am I seeing things?(olive (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it olive, it was obscured by an incorrectly formatted ref link.  Dreadstar † 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dreadstar.(olive (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I don't care much for this change. It makes it sound like we have some reason to doubt David Albert's veracity.Kww (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *If he says he does not endorse something, he does not endorse it. We can remove the intermediary, since he would be his own intermediary in this construction. Antelan talk 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I put this intermediate statement in as a more neutral phrasing but I see that it could be read as less neutral, and is unnecessary anyway.(olive (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you caught that inaccuracy, TG ...That was a mistake on my part(olive (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite - Reception: Academic, rough draft