Talk:Robert Lanza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Alternative Views
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request For Comment Robert Lanza

Should the section Robert_Lanza#Biocentrism on Robert Lanza be:

  1. revised, as proposed below
  2. left the same
  3. changed in the same other way.

Please note I have a conflict of interest, disclosed below in the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • A. I have a conflict of interest because I have a personal connection to Lanza and he has asked me to review this page for problems. I am unpaid. Please note that after reviewing the issues, I am offering the proposal (below) in order to correct mistakes and improve this section. First, the theory is not accurately summarized so the subsequent criticism and support of it does not have the proper context. I am offering a correction to the summary. Second, most of the support and criticism improperly comes from blogs and self-published sources, including the Forbes contributor platforms. I did not include blogs and an email comment. Instead, I left in criticism and support only from what I believe to be reliable sources, at least for opinion in the criticism/support paragraph. Third, I have tried to shorten this section relative to its importance based on actual reliable sources while preserving a balance of criticism and support. I tried to keep in mind that this is a biography about his life, including the popular press about his work, not a full-length article about this theory. Popular press coverage seems appropriate since this a biography of his life, not a full article about the theory. Thank you. Sapphire41359 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Please note that I have substantially revised this proposal based on the feedback of the editors below and at the suggestion of Guy Macon. The revised proposal is in the Discussion section. Sapphire41359 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2007, Lanza published, “A New Theory of the Universe,” in
Einstein’s spacetime hypothesis to support his argument showing how both ideas depend upon our “animal sense perception” to exist.[5][3]Lanza subsequently published several books that further developed his concept of biocentrism including a 2016 book, Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death, and a third, The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality, published in 2020.[6][7][8]
Lanza’s biocentrism hypothesis met with a mixed reception.
Kirkus said his co-authored 2020 book, The Grand Biocentric Design,[8] tries to move from hypothesis to hard science by linking the theory to “observable, replicable experiments” but it will not be persuasive to everyone, although it is “thought-provoking.”[13]

References

  1. ^ Rowe, Aaron. "Will Biology Solve the Universe?". Wired. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  2. ^ Lanza, Robert (1 March 2007). "A New Theory of the Universe". The American Scholar. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  3. ^ a b Boyle, Alan. "Theory of Every-Living-Thing". Cosmic Log. msnbc.com. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  4. ^ Eckelbecker, Lisa (6 October 2009). "Reality's Reality Probed". Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  5. ISSN 2153-8212
    . Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  6. ISBN 978-1-933771-69-4
    .
  7. ISBN 978-1942952213
    .
  8. ^
    ISBN 978-1950665402
    .
  9. ^ Log, Cosmic. "The universe in your head". NBC News. Retrieved 2016-12-14.
  10. ISSN 0892-3310
    . Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  11. ISSN 2153-8212
    . Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  12. ^ DeBakcsy, Dale. "Through Me, the Universe: A Stroll through the Curious Solipsism of Biocentrism". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  13. ^ "A thought-provoking dispatch from the frontier of physics – Kirkusreviews.com". Kirkusreviews.com. Retrieved 2020-12-19.
  • Oppose I have to say, I'm not a fan of the proposed revision, and I think this verges on being an ill-formed RfC thanks to the vagueness of option C ("changed in some other way"). A blog post by
    talk) 22:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A note on sources. My aim was to find all usable sources, whether critical or positive, and omit sources that don’t pass the test of
WP:RS
, including sources that were supportive of Lanza’s hypothesis.
1) The Forbes column is labeled “Former Staff” and has the “Follow” blue button at the bottom of the column which appears only on content within the Forbes Contributor network. So it is not allowed under
WP:FORBESCON
, since we do not know if it was vetted at all. The author of this column is a journalist, not a subject matter expert in physics. The same Forbes source is used three different times in the criticism section, paragraph two: for quotes from E. Donnal Thomas in sentence two and three; Lawrence Krauss in sentence four and five; and Daniel Dennett in sentences eight, nine and ten. The first of these statements is positive and two are negative.
If we really want to use the source, then there are additional positive comments that should be added from it:
 [Michael Lysaght, director of Brown University's Center for Biomedical, who] says that he thinks the essay is "a masterpiece," says that he views it more as a work of philosophy than of science, as well. "I don't think he's convinced me my desk and chair are not really there. I do think he has laid down enough of a challenge."
2) After further close review, I agree the Kirkus Review source can’t be used because it is labelled “Kirkus Indie” on the bottom. As per, [1], Kirkus Indie should not be used.
3) The hyperlink for the citation on the first sentence of the second paragraph does not work on the article or proposal. Here it is again with corrected citation: Lanza’s biocentrism hypothesis met with a mixed reception. [1]
4.) The David Lindley quote is an online comment/email responding to a USA Today article.
WP: RS
. Maybe someone else can find it. At a minimum, the quote should be identified as it is described on the source: “e-mail message” to the author of a USA Today article (citation missing) or an online comment to an article (citation missing).
5) The
Journal of Scientific Exploration has been discussed multiple times on RS noticeboards and the general consensus is that it can be used as a RS for the opinions of its authors, but not for scientific fact.” [2]) The source is used here as an opinion from an author, the well-respected physicist Richard Conn Henry
, not to establish facts, so it is usable. In any case, the same quote from the same physicist is used by the NBC Science editor in an article on NBC News. So we can add NBC to back the statement with an additional citation showing it is reputable enough to be used by a very mainstream source.
In a review of his book Biocentrism, Johns Hopkins physicist Richard Conn Henry comments that the Lanza’s theory that the “animal observer creates reality” is “factually correct”, if not novel, and worth exploring because it’s what physicists “only whisper… in private.”[3][4]
Alternatively, we can quote or add a paraphrase of the following sentence from the NBC science editor: “Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.”[5]
6) The Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research is a peer reviewed journal published since 2010. See the JCER’s Editorial Pages [3] and [4]. There has never been any challenge to its use according to a search of the RSP noticeboard archives
WP: RS when used for fact.Sapphire41359 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Boyle, Alan (16 June 2009). "The universe in your head". Cosmic Log. NBC News. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
  2. ^ "Exclusive: Response to Robert Lanza's essay". Usatoday.Com. 2007-03-09. Retrieved 2009-08-17.
  3. ^ Boyle, Alan (16 June 2009). "The universe in your head". Cosmic Log. NBC News. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
  4. ISSN 0892-3310
    . Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  5. ^ Boyle, Alan (16 June 2009). "The universe in your head". Cosmic Log. NBC News. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
Herper is marked as "former staff" because he left Forbes for
talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • As suggested by User:Guy Macon, I’ve created a revised proposed draft below. It removes the sentence about Heisenberg and Einstein, as suggested. I have taken to heart that suggestion this entire passage should be minimized because there isn’t much discussion outside of articles in mainstream media. That's true, but the coverage of the scientific merits that has been in the mainstream media is more balanced than the Wikipedia section. There’s an article from Wired UK, two from NBC News and one from Forbes. Respected scientists like Nobel-laureate E. Donnall Thomas [6], physicist Richard Conn Henry [7], and former Brown University professor Michael Lysaght [8]) take the theory seriously. So the section should not be weighted heavily toward criticism -- although it should be included as it is legitimate too. But please keep in mind that Lanza is one of the leading biologists in the world [9], so his ideas on the role of biology in the theory of the universe are rooted in a serious scientific background. This is a theory that blends biology and physics - so critiques from recognized experts in both fields are valid. I have kept the first existing positive critique in paragraph and the first existing negative critique. I don’t think we need more than that.
  • Oppose - it's fine for noted scientists, philosophers, and others to be cited to their blogs, we know their opinions to be relevant, considered, and noteworthy. The emasculated text is not more accurate, it's just shorn of meaning and lacking in breadth and balance. That is called making a decently neutral section worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in line with all the "oppose" votes by different editors above. Idealigic (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is moot in light of the proposal and discussion in the immediately following section so I have withdrawn the request. Sapphire41359 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Lanza&oldid=1195557937"