Talk:Biocentrism

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Explanation

I'm having trouble understanding this term. If you center your worldview around the "whole universe", then how are you really centering around anything at all? Isn't this essentially (to coin a term) acentric? Sarge Baldy 20:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Please read any of the references (for instance Ref 2 in "The American Scholar"). Mainstream science has forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe. According to biocentrism, a more accurate understanding of the real world will require that we consider it biologically-centered. It’s a simple concept: Life creates the universe, instead of the other way around. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held puzzles. Biocentrism incorporates the living universe and allows the observer into the equation as the late Nobel laureate John Wheeler insists is necessary. In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regener (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see first reference (there's a whole book on it if you really want to understand :) Actioncat3 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On biocentrism or futurism

Let me try again:

NO DIRECTION HOME

You know, stones tend to fall down, they usually do. Unless you launch them with a certain speed, which is called escape velocity, at least 7,9 kilometer per second. When Hitler launched his V-2's, his so-called Vergeltungswaffen, on London, he wasn't thinking of spacecraft and exploring the universe, but his scientists led by Werner von Braun were aware of the possibilities of the immense speed those rockets were capable of. Now let us look at history, the whole, seemingly complex and chaotic road that led to the firing of this weapon in the beginning of 1945 which could, launched out of The Hague, reach London in about five minutes. One may ask where to start this history, in the Renaissance, in Old Greece, or with the caveman, maybe with the extinction of the sauriers or even further back in time. I suggest we'll go as far as the first unity capable of duplicating itself and thus setting into motion a biolocigal mechanism, skip all the details and facts of evolution and also the details of human history, horrible or not, many, maybe too many books have been written on the matter of coincidence or a more or less logical or even determined route with just a few sidesteps, like the nose of Cleopatra. Let us just jump into the reality of today. For example, the actual state of space investigation and the posibble development of space colonies in the next, let us say, 30 years from now. It is clear that if people are to survive in such a condition outside the motherplanet for a lifetime, their environment will have to be a small copy of their natural environment and that is why experiments on this project were called, for example, Biosphere II. This may come true and be reality within 50 years, who knows? Let us suppose it does happen in that not all too far future. Does it ring any bell? Is my association with procreation pure madness or just what one politely should call a hypothesis and nothing more. (Since I am working on this idea for quite some time, before I had a letter published in Nature, correspondence, 7 january 1982, containing in other words the same, I am aware of the reactions. People seem to think that a certain plan is necessary but, sorry, reality does not work like that; it is just a biological mechanism if it works out or not.) It seems hard to understand, this possibility of a determined process leading to independent copies of the biosphere – very basic and in this this case on a planetary scale. This defenitely is not a metaphore but analogy and language cannot do without it. The main problem, I suppose, is the unwillingness to accept the idea of being an instrument of living nature rather than the steward. Maybe the right subject or category should be not “biocentrism”, but “futurology”

I would like you to take in consideration that it maybe wise for a prisoner to know his whereabouts. And not being just a rolling stone.

Roeland A. de Bie, july, 6, 2006, Amsterdam

86.82.24.167 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Ecocentrism?

Is there any difference between this and Ecocentrism? Perhaps they should be merged. --Salix alba (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Eco and Bio are usually interchangeable to a degree. However, I don't think eco-izing everything is the proper way to go about it and biocentrism is the term that should be used in place of 'ecocentrism'. Eco is about as abused as sustainability and green are at this point. (J03K64 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I would be opposed to a merge in light of the different definitions biocentrism has. --Loremaster (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you check "Bicoentrism" on Google, you'll see that most of the literature on this has absolutely nothing to do with ecocentrism. Actioncat3 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange letter

An anonymous user appended the following text to the article, with the edit summary on "biocentrism", a discussion started on the Erasmus University Rotterdam in 1980.

Van: "roel de bie" <roeldebie@hetnet.nl>
Aan: <Wikipedia.nl>
Onderwerp: Biocentrism
Datum: zondag 2 april 2006 2:40

Dear Sir,

" Reffering to the word 'biocentrism", I may remark that the word was used in a letter to Nature, january 7, 1982. (Following, if you wish, hereafter). As far as I know the word did not exist at that time, but that is of no importance, so the more the contents. The crucial statement is: mankind and all its cultural products are an integral part of the overall living system, the biosphere. So mankind is in no way the caretaker or even gardener of this planet but a functional part of it. My statement is: every living planet, every biosphere will eventually develop a species able to create a biosphere II, a child, just as the very beginning of life did, but on a totally different scale. We call it the development of spacecraft and the possibility of self-supporting spacecolonies. It may also be an inevitable and necessary process and a logical outcome of the beginning of all life: reproduction, finally on a planetary scale. Maybe hard to accept but at least worth a discussion."


© Nature Publishing Group 1982

For some  reason I do not understand , I am not able te copy this article, this letter in correspondence, Nature, january 7, 1982. But it does exist. Probably has to do with copyright, not my bussiness.

I have no idea what the context of the letter is, but it clearly didn't belong in the article, so I moved it here. Wmahan. 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is bordering on being incorrect

Biocentrism is primarily used in the context of ethical theory, not ontology as the term "existence" implies. Unless someone can make a strong argument for leaving it as existence, I think it should be changed to "moral concern."

I agree. Feel free to make that change. --Loremaster 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the section regarding the transgender flavor of the word should be transported to a different page, they have no bearing on one another.

I disagree. I think we should simply mention that biocentrism has several meanings. --Loremaster 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Loremaster 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This topic is completly wrong. According to Tyler - Millers book In Living in the environment(2000)biocentrism is explained as being Atomistic (individual centred), where the primary focus is on the individual species or organism. It places emphasis on human management and stewardship - which is human centred - or Anthropocentric.

What the author of this post is refering to is a more holistic approach, or Earth Centred. WHich means that the definition provided is more suited to defining Ecocentric worldviews. 14:49 EST 19 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.221.3 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Trans

Well, trans women can't have kids and still have XY chromosomes, so they really aren't quite "full women". 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Neologism template

I removed the neologism template as the term has been around since 1885-90. [1]—Morning star (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and separating science from moral philosophy

The first section should be a historical etymology of which uses came first and how they developed. Also biocentrism as a scientific view should be separated from the two other moral philosophy view points in the longer descriptions and probably have its own larger page - when someone is ready to write it. Will put on my long list of things that I think should be done! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Biocentrism attribution to Lanza.

Nope. He just made it notable. I won't war over this, but this just isn't new. It is just new that anyone took it seriously enough to lampoon it in the press.- sinneed (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these sources are not wp:RS or promotional... Lanza's own site, for example. These probably need to be ELs instead of inline citations. A lot of it should point either to the article or to the book or to coverage of those in the wp:RS instead. I'll chew through them as I find time and interest. :) Or someone else might. :)- sinneed (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am curious about your statement that Lanza did not coin his meaning of biocentrism in his 2007 article: That is: “The scientific theory positing that life creates the universe rather than being part of the universe.” (There are earlier definitions of “biocentric” -- not “biocentrism” -- in dictionaries: (1) OED has “Centering in life; regarding or treating life as a central fact”; (2) Merriam-Webster: “Considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value”, (3) Encyclopedia Britannica: “claim[ing] that nature has an intrinsic moral worth that does not depend on its usefulness to human beings”… but these are obviously different senses.) Again, Lanza’s IDEA that “life (or human life) creates the universe rather than being part of the universe” may itself be a very old idea, but it has not before been associated with the word “biocentrism”. Lanza should get credit in the article. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:NOT a dictionary. We are not talking about who coined the term. We are talking about the scientific theory.- sinneed (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write a section on the etymology of the term, then maybe, but that is not the THEORY. That is the use of the word.- sinneed (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a sentence crediting him with the usage of the term, with a CN flag. Better?- sinneed (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, dubious-flagging the cosmological...that one just isn't getting it for me. :)- sinneed (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Irritable, aren't we? Dogwood123 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Please wp:AGF and please see wp:talk: focus on the content, not the editors.- sinneed (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters much, but it's clear that no one ever used the term "Biocentrism" before to describe an all-encompassing theory that lays out how animal life is the basis of space and time, qunatum phenomenon, and the structure of the universe itself. Staff3 (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cosmological?

No. It has as much to do with a ball-bearing rolling around the hub of a wheel on my old clunker. Other alternatives you might find acceptable, please?- sinneed (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed I did not mention why I dropped "biocentrism": wp:MOS - no need to repeat the title. If we DO need to repeat it, it won't need the ""... or more exactly, please explain why we would need them.- sinneed (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception section removed

Please explain what the objections to this germane, sourced, content that is focused on the science.

I will not immediately revert the removal, but I will restore this eventually unless there is a reason for the removal. I look forward to "hearing" any concerns. Especially, what changes would make the reception of the theory acceptable? I understand the objection at the article about the author... that is the article about him, and the reception was of his book/essay/proposed theory, not of him. This is the article about the theory. - sinneed (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose to re-add the following subsection next week:

Reception #1

Reception of Lanza's article and book on "biocentrism" has been mixed. Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine) E. Donnall Thomas stated that "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss believes that “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science. In an opinion piece for USA Today, David Lindley, a Cambridge University astrophysicist, argues that Lanza's essay contains no theory, calling it "...vague, inarticulate metaphor..." and stating "...I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?" Daniel C. Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, says he does not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory either. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all," Dennett says. "He's stopping where the fun begins."

Any concerns? All I have seen so far is that at least one anon editor does not wp:LIKE the content.- sinneed (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It needs balance

It’s not neutral adding three quotes in a row that make biocentrism look nutty. There are LOTS of other top scholars and scientists in the world who think very highly of biocentrism. Here are just a few (I recommend the first four quotes be added for balance):

"Having interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence." - Deepak Chopra, one of the top icons of the century (2)

"It is genuinely an exciting piece of work.... The idea that consciousness creates reality has quantum support and also coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesn't really move but we do (we are the active agents), so [it is] suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality." - Ronald Green, renowned scholar, Eunice & Julian Cohen Professor, and Director of - Dartmouth College's Ethics Institute (1, 3)

"This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come." - Anthony Atala, internationally recognized scientist, W.H. Boyce Professor, and Chair and Director at Wake Forest University. (1,3)

“Reading Robert Lanza’s work is a wake-up call....” - David Thompson, astrophysicist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (3)

“I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me. The essay is definitely of the former kind.” - -R. Stephen Berry, James Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry, University of Chicago (3)

“It’s a masterpiece-truly…magnificent. Lanza is to be congratulated for a fresh and highly erudite look at the question of how perception and consciousness shape reality and common experience....his arguments [are] both convincing and challenging.” - Michael Lysaght, Professor of Medical Science and Engineering at Brown University and Director of Brown’s Center for Biomedical Engineering (3)

“Like A Brief History of Time, it is indeed stimulating and brings biology into the whole…. Most importantly, it makes you think.” - E. Donnall Thomas, 1990 Nobel Prize (3) “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University (4)

There lots of possible references, but these 5 cover all the above quotes:
1) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1933771690/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
2) http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/health-care/dr-robert-lanza-featured-guest-deepak-chopras-sirius-xm-stars-radio/
3) http://www.moxiestudio.com/designsamples/BenBellaBooks_Spring2009_Catalog_Final.pdf
4) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/biocentrism.pdf
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.252.120 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Above list reformated for readability by - sinneed (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, so if I re-add the content, and if you can beat the edit-warriors to it, you can add wp:BALANCE if you are interested.- sinneed (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well. Someone decided to wp:be bold and add a good bit of content without discussing. I would not have recommended that, at this point. I "softened" the language a bit, focusing the addition on the theory rather than the theorist and trying to avoid leading the readers.- sinneed (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good now. Personally, I would consider an endorsement by the great Deepak Chopra as a negative, rather than a positive, but whatever.... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, as agreed, this was not supposed to go up yet. We are still working on this Staff3 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I stated my intention if no one objected. Very different.- sinneed (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If a consensus can be reached, I agree with Sinneed, who above said "I propose to re-add the following subsection next week" Staff3 (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, there is a consensus of 1.- sinneed (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Grrr. Please state your proposed alternative, or, if you simply can't, then please state your objections. Clearly you object, as you removed the content. If you don't have an objection, then you appear to simply be wp:edit warring. Do you just not wp:LIKE the addition?- sinneed (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To explain further, you just threw away my work, and the work of the anon. You have not objected to it, you just ... Threw... It... Away. Essentially you declared it to be vandalism. Please revert your edit.- sinneed (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no - what you wrote is a good start. I was working on it as well, but its very late at night now. Can you give us some of us others until tomorrow before posting? Staff3 (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You can have all the time you want, always. And when you are ready to take part, do. But Do Not again revert and say something like "see talk" when you aren't talking. That is wp:edit warring... revert...revert...revert...revert.

Sinneed - please allow everyone to reach a consensus? I agree with Staff3 - you folks are in a rush that will lead to another edit war. Please let everyone weigh in first before posting it. I propose the following modification (let me now what you think). Actioncat3 (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actioncat, please wp:AGF. Also, thank you for joining the discussion, albeit by assuming wp:bad faith and with discord. "you folks" - don't do that again. "rush" - no... don't do that again. "edit war" - no, don't do that again, and there will be no edit war. "weigh in" - Yes, thus a week. Plenty of time for everyone to weigh in.- sinneed (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception #2

Biocentrism has triggered debate by scientists and thought-leaders.

Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine) E. Donnall Thomas stated that "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science. However, Wake Forest University scientist Anthony Atala disagrees, stating "This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come." “But in a email message posted online, USA Today astrophysicist journalist David Lindley responded to Lanza’s essay, calling it a "...vague, inarticulate metaphor..." and stating "...I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?"[29] David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center thinks the “work is a wake-up call.” Daniel C. Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, says he does not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory either. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all," Dennett says. "He's stopping where the fun begins."[30] Noted author and Indian scholar Deepak Chopra stated “Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence."

Sinneed, one more thing. For those who are counting, I would not consider Richard Henry’s quote one for the positive aisle– he says “What Lanza says in this book is not new.” On the other hand, he doesn’t dismiss the idea. It’s a good quote, but it definitely cuts both ways. Thus, if you want to exactly balance things, you could replace the Thompson quote with the Henry quote. Thus, the score would be 3 for and 3 against (and one split) Not that anyone is counting lol Actioncat3 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

positive and negative ... Some are going to see some of these as positive and others will see them as negative.- sinneed (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"debate" - What is your objection to the proposed wording? The reception to the theory has been mixed. Debate? I haven't seen debate. I have seen mostly idle chatter.

"thought-leaders" - I would cut if added. Best to avoid leading the readers: they can decide if someone is a thought-leader for them or not. "scientists" - some yes, some no.

"However, Wake Forest... disagrees" - if placed I would drop "however" and "disagrees", let the reader decide if the two conflict.

I remain dubious of leading with the Nobel guy. wp:undue- sinneed (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Erk. I missed the CN bits. I can't support adding anything here that does not have a wp:RS... too contentious. I don't expect to kill it just because it is unsourced unless it looks like it might hurt wp:BLP, but I oppose adding it.- sinneed (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything you say is reasonable. Let me give it another whirl. Actioncat3 (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if this works. Hopefully, it addresses the concerns your raised. Actioncat3 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception #3

Lanza's article and book on "biocentrism" has received a mixed reception.

David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center thinks the “work is a wake-up call.” Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine) E. Donnall Thomas stated that "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science. Wake Forest University scientist Anthony Atala stated "This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come." But in a email message posted online, USA Today astrophysicist journalist David Linley responded to Lanza’s essay, calling it a "...vague, inarticulate metaphor..." and stating "...I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?"[29] Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, says he does not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all. He's stopping where the fun begins."[30] Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, points out that Lanza's theory is consistent with quantum mechanics, “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!” Other scholars have also weighed in, including noted author Deepak Chopra. Chopra stated “Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence."

This is better. Just this minor modification - I'll put aside my other objections to avoid further disagreement. Staff3 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to encourage everyone to explain their thoughts. Consider please: NO ONE has articulated any objection except "needs balance"... but if that were the only problem, then surely rather than wp:edit warring, the various individuals would have simply ... added wp:BALANCE.- sinneed (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current version is acceptable. (3 for, 3 against.) But as I've said before, I don't think each & every argument has to be "balanced". Would you say a discussion of "Holocaust denial" should be balanced? Say, 3 for, 3 against?? An extreme example, I grant... This case (Lanza's "biocentrism") is a situation in which, to be blunt, virtually the entire scientific world has ignored it. No reputable physicist (except the incendiary Henry, if he is reputable) agrees with it... This kind of pseudoscience often gains credibility by the fact that major thinkers are silent about it. But they ignore it because it is ignorable & unimportant. Will Steven Hawking weigh in on Lanza's ideas? No, because he has better things to so then debunk marginal material of this kind. But Lanza obviously has his fans on Wikipedia. So be it. But at least present those few reputable thinkers who have bothered to publish opinions (Krauss, Dennett, etc). And by all means include Deepak! His endorsement puts Lanza's ideas in the most appropriate context of all. It is classic "New Age" buffoonery.... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The current version is blank... no content. Please see wp:talk and please PLEASE avoid things like most of your post "It is classic "New Age" buffoonery" - that has no place here on the talk page. Pleas focus on the content of the article, not the subject of the article.- sinneed (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I said exactly what I meant: If Lanza's "biocentrism" is buffonery, one should be able to say so. And I will say so without apology.... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And on some other website, you are certainly welcome to say it. But it fails wp:talk. It does not belong here.- sinneed (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed (or someone else from Wiki), please help. What am I supposed to do - someone added their own "reception section" to the official page. Can it be deleted, or should the newest one everyone is working on added instead? Staff3 (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no one "from Wiki". We are all just users of the web site. Even admins are selected by and for "we, the editors"... Wikimedia staff with the exception of the lawyers stay out (well Jimbo weighs in but I don't think this one is going to lure him in). What is wrong with the version in the article? No one has objected to it. Why does (did) it need to go? Why not (insert strong language here as you wish) explain what you object to, and then let the adding editor reply?- sinneed (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime will add this version, as everyone so far has said it is accpetable. Again, not sure how this is supposed to be handled. Staff3 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. It was not added. A shadow of it, with damaged format and no sources, was added.- sinneed (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I continue to oppose adding the unsourced content. I also added a {{what?}} for the "Other scholars have also weighed in" bit. We already have an intro. It seems to lend wp:undue weight to the author.- sinneed (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - went ahead and deleted it.Staff3 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

This article appears to be about two completely different concepts: "Biocentrism" as a rather vague ecological or environmental ethos honoring life; and "biocentrism" as a recently named philosophy or theory that "life" & its awareness of itself "creates the universe". Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Propose split with Biocentrism as the disamb page. Discuss. Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. - sinneed (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My only concern is very minor: Both will be small articles, and the current structure, though unattractive, does put all the (small amount of) information in one place. Is there a need to split it out, and make those (I suspect rare) people searching for it drill through the disambiguation page to find it?- sinneed (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I proposed the split is that the two "biocentrisms" seem to be *completely* unrelated. Just accidentally named the same. That seems to make the split justifiable. Valerius Tygart (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the Lanza biocentrism article will be longer than you think. I notice there is an "interesting" recent history on Wikipedia.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Splitting the article does bring up the issue of what to call the disambiguated articles. Ideas?- sinneed (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How about Biocentrism (Lanza) and Biocentrism (ethics)? 96.231.137.242 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I will strongly oppose tying Biocentrism to Lanza. He has his own article.- sinneed (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But Lanza invented "biocentrism" in the sense that we are discussing. He already IS tied to it.... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No wp:RS I have seen says that. He may or may not have even coined the term for this usage. He most certainly did not come up with the idea. If you find an RS that says he did "invent" biocentrism, then that, of course, changes things. It seems to me that it is older than he is. I know it is not new. The wp:burden we be on the one trying to give him that credit.- sinneed (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No one used the word "biocentrism" in the Lanza sense before Lanza did in 2007. The burden of proof is on anyone who would say that someone used it in that way before he did. (And, if true, it should not be hard to prove...) 96.231.137.242 (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the wp:burden is on the editor adding the content. If one wants to say, in the article, "Lanza invented biocentrism" that would need a source, if the content is challenged (it would be). If one wants to say "Lanza coined the term biocentrism in 2007", then one will need a source, if the content is challenged (it would be).- sinneed (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, if one adds to the article "Lanza neither coined the term biocentrism, nor produced anything new in his theory of biocentrism." that would also need a source if challenged, as it would be.- sinneed (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is the 2007 article in which Lanza introduces the term in the new sense. (You have read the article, haven't you??) 96.231.137.242 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case, as I read the article. The article talks about a new theory, not the etymology of the word. Very different. I have requested a quote. Talk:Biocentrism#Challenged content- sinneed (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

May I propose "Biocentrism (cosmology)" and "Biocentrism (ethics)" to break the logjam?? Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be careful using "(cosmology)", since much -if not most- of of biocentrism focuses on the microworld of quantum phenomena. Regener (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Science" is best, as it proposes a new 'all-encompacing' foundation for science, that includes quantum mechanics, cosmology, physiology, neurobiology, animal sense perception etc...Regener (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Sinneed has now yielded on the issue of whether Lanza "coined" the word, perhaps we could reconsider Biocentrism (Lanza). He certainly claims to have originated the concept! (Also, his detractors would [& do] dispute that it is "science"...) 96.231.137.242 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus that “biocentrism” in the Lanza sense and “biocentrism” in the politico-ecological sense are completely unrelated concepts, and since there is not yet agreement on what to call an article exclusively devoted to the term in the Lanza sense, I have made bold to simply break out the ethical (politico-ecological) concept into its own article & leave Lanza’s biocentrism behind under “Biocentrism”, while cross-reference tagging the two at the beginning of each article. This is done under the presumption that Lanza’s Biocentrism will be getting the great majority of hits from searchers. I hope this meets with the approval of other editors. Dogwood123 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Introducing Lanza

Is "Biologist" the best way to sum up what he is/does professionally in this context? His article uses "American scientist"? I don't object to "Biologist", but I am a bit dubious. I did add M.D. - sinneed (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the objection to "physician", exactly??? He is an MD....Valerius Tygart (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not strictly correct - although an MD, he was never a practicing physician, but instead (after getting a degree in biology at UPenn) pursued the biological sciences his entire career. Staff3 (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I gotcha! He's the rare case who got into & went thru med school, but bailed before internship & his medical license. Thus, paradoxically, he's an MD, but not a "doctor" or physician.... Another example was Michael Crichton. I agree, no "physician". Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objection to the wording at his article "American scientist" rather than "Biologist"? As before, I don't object, but... Biologist? I see someone studying snakes in jars and dissecting frogs when I think "biologist". Probably just me, though.- sinneed (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "American scientist" would be correct. Actioncat3 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This does seem to be the best description. Do I have permission to change "Biologist" to "American Scientist" on the page? Staff3 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

None of us is an admin, so can't give or deny permission. The most we can do is support or object, with or without reverting and with or without grumpiness. :)

I have not seen any objection, so it seems a reasonable edit, in my opinion, and I support it. The editor who changed it isn't talking that I can see. So that editor must not care much.- sinneed (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Damaged "Reception" section added

It appears to be a paste of a text copy. No sources. Please repair it.- sinneed (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems better now.- sinneed (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed - source was this page. Didn't realize references wouldn't transfer Staff3 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Challenged content

I have challenged the bit about Lanza coining the term. We seem to be missing one another, as you restated my objection. To be clearer than I can in an edit summary:

• Source: Here is a new theory of Biocentrism.
• WP article: Lanza created this use of the word Biocentrism with this new theory.

Very different. The article says the 1st, and not the 2nd. It may indeed prove challenging to find the etymology of this (possible) neologism in a wp:RS, in which case it will need to stay out of WP.- sinneed (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The book blurb itself says "Lanza has teamed with Bob Berman...to produce Biocentrism, a revolutionary new view of the universe."... Isn't that enough. I think both Lanza's fans AND his detractors would agree that he coined the term in this usage... Only you, Sinneed, seem to have a problem with it. Lanza's concept may be cockeyed, but com'on! Give him credit for naming his New Age silliness... (And, no, the fact that his philosophy is "anticipating Kant two hundred years after the fact" as one reviewer noted, doesn't apply to this particular point....) 96.231.137.242 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you or I came up with a new Theory of Relativity, it would be a new Theory of Relativity. Wikipedia firmly does not care what we know. It cares what the wp:RS say. That one says he has a new theory he calls "Biocentrism". Nothing to do with the etymology of the word. Someone with access to the online OED might see what it says. That, for example, would be a generally reliable source. I don't have the access. Online OED meets wp:V nevertheless.- sinneed (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "The American Scholar" a reliable resource? It says its 'a new theory of the universe' 93.187.17.200 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you echoing my words back to me, but seeming to state that we are disagreeing. Yes, he came up with a new theory.

No wp:RS says he coined the term for use in reference to a scientific theory. If one does say so, someone will surely be able to provide a quote.- sinneed (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this the quote that you’re looking for? In the 2007 Scholar article, it says “This new view of the world – biocentrism – revolves around the way a subjective experience, which we call consciousness, relates to a physical process.” This is clearly coining the term for use in reference to a new scientific theory. Any search of the literature will confirm this is the first time this term was used in this context.Staff3 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be wp:synthesis. And no search will help prove a negative.- sinneed (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think someone who is interested in the history of words will lay an OED ref on us eventually. There's no rush, as far as I know. This is one of those points (I should think) that is of academic interest only. I just wish OED online wasn't so very expensive. Any interested university students or profs here? I can't imagine any university that doesn't have an OED subscription now days.- sinneed (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I already laid an OED ref on you a few days ago (above). Never mind the Online OED, I have the paper one right here (Second edition, 1991). First, there is no entry for "biocentrism" as such. Second, the entry for "biocentric" is “Centering in life; regarding or treating life as a central fact”. There are quotes from 1889, 1899, 1904, 1913 & 1952 for this sense of the word. The form "biocentrism" does not appear in this entry at all. It is painfully clear that Lanza's usage of "biocentrism" -- meaning that the *entire universe* (space-time, matter, energy) only exists as a phenomenon secondary to life -- is his own. He totally deserves the credit (or blame) for using the word in this way.... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here’s a 3/14/2007 quote in USAToday by science editor Dan Verganio saying he coined the word for his theory [[2]] “Lanza, who is best known as one of the scientists behind a 2001 attempt to clone human embryonic stem cells, calls this theory "biocentrism" and in the article he points to the well-known weirdness of quantum mechanics, the basic rules of particle physics, to make his case.”Staff3 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"saying he coined the word for his theory" - Well. We are it appears reading very different things when we see those words. I read about a theory, you read about a word. The content is in the article.- sinneed (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dropped the flag. Folks with what appear to be relatively strongly opposing views disagree on the need for the flag. I yield. - sinneed (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Not every damn thing requires a source.... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:talk please. I just noticed that the reason I felt comfortable removing the flag was then immediately removed from the article. I have restored the caveat and the flag.- sinneed (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: I propose to drop the CN flag on the 1st use of "biocentrism" to mean a biocentric theory of the universe as long as it is simply clearly stated that it is a possibility, rather than an established fact. I continue to object to its inclusion, as it is not sourced and I believe it is misleading... dubious unsourced content may be removed at any time.- sinneed (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

While here, this seems to be the only actively contested issue left. One possible solution: Sinneed, you were gracious enough to drop the flag at one point. If 96.231.137.242 agrees to the original wording [“American scientist Robert Lanza may have coined the use the term biocentrism as a scientific theory in 2007"), including adding back the critical “may have coined,” would you agree to remove the flag. Will that work for everyone here? Actioncat3 (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That is my proposal, yes.- sinneed (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - hopefully that resolves it Actioncat3 (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Chopra

Please keep Chopra's intro very short to avoid giving wp:undue weight (or with diminutive wording doing the opposite). Please stop reverting one another and talk. Please give wp:RS for those qualifications. if there is an objection, please flag it instead of reverting it. I have put in a {{CN}}. These are only requests... I am just an ordinary editor like everyone else here.- sinneed (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - it should be very short. I suggest just "Noted author and physician" or just "Noted author." No need to skew it with any qualifiers at all (if that's a word)Actioncat3 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Either of these works for me. WikiWatch31 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is "New Age" pejorative? And is Chopra indeed a "New Age" figure? He is in the "New Age Movement" infobox on his own article & is in the NA article itself. In fact, Chopra is well known as a New Age physician and guru. Everyone knows it. I have restored to my original. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many online references to Chopra as a "New Age physician". I have referenced one in the article. (BTW, how silly that I have to reference this.... )96.231.137.242 (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you knock of the agenda – you ignored the flag saying not to revert. There are hundred’s of references saying he’s an "Indian physician” - but it is entirely unnecessary as the opening line of the “Deepak Chopra” Wikipedia link associated with his name says he is an “Indian physician and author” Actioncat3 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, 2 sets of edits were made continuing to revert, and not providing a source. wp:CIRCULAR... WP is not a source.- sinneed (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, 96.231.137.242 it is not silly you have to reference this, and you don't "have to". You are quite welcome to leave the edit unchanged and unsourced, if you are dropp8ing your objection to the content. You are wp:edit warring yet again, though you are talking, you are doing so in in wp:POINT fashion.- sinneed (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested reference has now been added now - I had tried several times previously without any luck. Wiki blocked it for some reason, so I added a different reference. Sorry about that. Actioncat3 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW I could add references citing Chopra as an "Indian scholar" or "Indian philosopher" etc, but have not because that would bias the reader. Likewise, I hope others will leave this generic --can't we all agree that he's an author and physician - no need for either side to add "new age" or "scholar" or "philosopher" or "genius" or even as TIME magazine called him an "American Icon" :) Actioncat3 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I can safely say that you will find little support for considering piczo.com a wp:RS.- sinneed (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly better luck with the direct link to http://www.moviezen.com/celebrity/deepak-chopra/biography. Or it may be that it stands as it is.- sinneed (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with a CNN reference - does that do it? There are hundreds, just not sure which Wiki prefers.Actioncat3 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer, here's one from the United Nations calling him an "Indian physician and writer" http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ohrlls/Statements/hr%20message%2001%20Dec%2004_world-peace_puerto%20rico-details.pdf?eventID=421&action=eventDetailsActioncat3 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if he is listed as bleu-cheese-only vegetarian,(though that might be offensive and need a couple of sources wp:BLP) as long as the squabble stops.- sinneed (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if I were trying to get "Indian physician and writer Deepak Chopra" to stick, I would also cite the UN document with a "quote=Indian physician and writer Deepak Chopra" parameter. But that is just my own approach, no idea if it is a good one.- sinneed (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your advice.Actioncat3 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please look the changes I have made over, and see if they are acceptable to you. Easily reverted if not and I have no objection to your doing so, I just wasn't being clear here, I think. I find the "quote=" parameter very useful, it lets other editors see exactly what part of the source one thinks supports one's words.- sinneed (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lindley

WikiWatch31 has claimed that Dr Lindley is a "full time reporter for USA Today", rather than a guest editorialist once. He is not a full time reporter for USA Today. WikiWatch31 says: "Lindley's position is in the opening line of the reference that is cited. It says 'astrophysicist and science writer'". He is indeed an astrophysicist and science writer.. There is no evidence that he is on the staff of USA Today even though he wrote an op-ed piece for them. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the content. What change is proposed? What content needs to be changed?- sinneed (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article and reference are VERY clear. Here is the opening line to the piece "Astrophysicist and science writer David Lindley's full response to Robert Lanza's article. This is an e-mail message that was sent exclusively to USA Today's Dan Vergano and is posted here with Mr. Lindley's permission: " Actioncat3 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This last post in in reference to "140.139.35.250" - who just changed the article to read that it was an "Op-Ed" piece. This is inccorect - "Op-Ed" pieces in USA Today (and other major national papers) are highly prized slots, and this is not one of them. Actioncat3 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting - a request

I want to encourage avoiding reverting immediately in the article. This is JUST MY PERSONAL request, I hope it will be considered by each editor.

Instead, unless the edit is simply unacceptable... breaks wp:BLP or violating some WP rule, please consider leaving the edit in place, challenging it on the talk page, and marking it with an article flag... perhaps {{dubious|date=August 2009|This seems excessive, and may either lend undue weight or be seen as diminutive by readers}}. Then, if the editor does not have a good argument, wp:consensus will still prevail against the edit. Simply reverting immediately can quickly lead to an wp:edit war, and make reaching a consensus difficult.

If the article becomes a battleground, I have great confidence that it will be locked, and offending editors may be blocked.- sinneed (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have "dubious" tagged the reference to Lindley's essay being sent by email (who cares) to USA Today which published it as an op-ed piece & also the allegation that Lindley (an astrophysicist & book author) is a USAToday writer. He is not. Unless someone can cite a reliable source that Lindley is a USAToday staff writer, I will soon change it back. On the "email" referenece, there is no justification for that. It has no place unless you want to trivalize his essay & protect Lanza's reputation (which, of course, you do ;-)...) 140.139.35.250 (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wp:AGF - Focus on the content not the editors. - This was directed at all who were participating in the revert-revert-revert nonsense.- sinneed (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

More revert-revert-revert nonsense. "USA Today's Dan Vergano" it may be argued did a poor job in simply quoting the email, while neither giving the author credit for writing an opinion piece, nor writing one of his own. Nevertheless, it seems very misleading to call this overuse of quotes "an email posted online". Perhaps "USA Today's Dan Vergano quoted whatevertheheckintro Lindley as saying blah blah blah." I am not touching this edit war. Please don't call reverting one another corrections, that is misleading.- sinneed (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical criticisms

There are some very interesting philosophical criticisms of biocentrism on the part of Pope Benedict XVI which were published in December 2009. They could perhaps be cited in an eventual criticisms and controversies section of the article. [3][4] ADM (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Pope was talking about biocentrism, not biocentrism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.84.104 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to Mention of Kant

I removed some original research from the article and User:Sinneed reverted my change. If no source has explicitly compared the theory to Kant's then it is original research for the article to do so. Unless a source for the comparison is added to the article, the content should be removed. — goethean ॐ 03:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it original research, or synthesis for that matter. The sentence is stating a scholarly fact (which isn't at all controversial), and no new knowledge comes out of this association to the theory. The sentence only points out that the concept is not entirely new. It provides historical perspective, and I don't see why an encyclopedia article shouldn't do that, or why its veracity could be disputed. -Jordgette (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Goethean here. The Kant reference is free floating and seems to be attempting to give more credibility to the the ideas. Without a third party reference it should go. --Snowded ^TALK 10:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the comparison is not entirely correct. Kant was a transcendental idealist, but an empirical realist. He believed that the world we see does not go away when we don't see it. His position is more nuanced than "space is a form of perception", I'd advise against referencing him here.86.62.106.225 (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have removed the revert text, since I did not revert. There is no comparison. There is no original research. Please restore the statement. While it is not well-tied to the article, simply deleting it because you don't wp:LIKE the mention is not correct. The sentence probably needs to be better tied in... but it is covered by the source, it is relevant, and thus should not be deleted.- Sinneed 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What source? The Kant text was cited to two articles on Kant. I'm guessing that the Kant articles don't mention Lanza. Without a cite to a source which specifically compares Lanza's theory to Kant's, the Kant text is indeed WP:OR. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please expand. The INCLUSION is OR?
• " Without a cite to a source which specifically compares Lanza's theory to Kant's" - There is no comparison in the text I placed in the article. Unless there is some reason to leave it out, I expect to restore it. It is relevant, the sources were given. The text is covered in the source. If you need quotes added to the citations, I can do that.
• Snowded's "to be attempting to give more credibility" seems reversed... if the concepts were the same, it would simply mean that whats-his-name's theory isn't his at all, rather than lending credibility. And... how would it lending or detracting credibility be a reason to NOT include? We let our readers decide if things are credible, based on the wp:RS. Is the argument that the sources are bad?- Sinneed 20:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If the deletionist is claiming original research, then he/she should explain how the sentence is original research. In an article on the JFK assassination, I might expect mentions of past presidential assasinations, whether a 3rd party has "compared" them or not. Mentioning them in the JFK article would merely demonstrate that there has been a history of presidential assasinations, an uncontroversial fact. Is there any new, disputable knowledge put forth in this article by mentioning Kant as a historical precedent? -Jordgette (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any response to IP86's valid comment that Kant was an empirical realist and the quote used is incomplete. I think you could find isolated quotes from many a philosopher which would use similar words, but deeper study would indicate a very different context. I am also not sure that given the originals of Biocentrism which are "modern" it makes any sense to have this link with Kant. Overall I would remove it. However you are right, per WP:BRD when Goethean's removal of the material was challenged, then the matter should be discussed here before further edits took place. What is clear is that connections with the ideas or thinking of other philosophers would need third party references showing a linkage and I can't see any of those. --Snowded ^TALK 06:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• wp:SOFIXIT - Which part of "Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in the late 1700's: that space is not objective or "real", but a product of the mind." is innaccurate?
• wp:talk page guidelines - are quite clear, this page is not for discussion of Kant's philosophy, but of the content. The anon made no suggestion for content change, (other than words to the effect of "it is wrong kill it" and thus needs no response at this time. While interesting, the remarks do not belong here. Wikipedia cannot assess correctness, only whether or not the content is based on information in published, generally wp:reliable sources. Please focus on the content, not the underlying issue.- Sinneed 15:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is very simple. No cited scholar has compared Kant's theory to Lanza's — except you. That is why the text must go. — goethean ॐ 13:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• "except you." - wp:talk Please hew closer to the truth. I have not done so. There is no comparison in the article. This article is not about Lanza's theory, and I feel his theory has wp:UNDUE weight. Focus on the content, not the editors.
• Please identify which part of the text "Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in the late 1700's: that space is not objective or "real", but a product of the mind." fails wp:NOR. Again, if you feel this is not covered by the source, I can help by providing quote= params. If your objection is to the source, I may even agree, but I need to hear your objection. I will remove the tag promptly otherwise.- Sinneed 15:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixing it is removing it. Its a quote out of context, with no third party source to link it to the article. The way to address an issue of [[WP:Weight}} is not to throw in random quotes but to find relevant and reliable third party sources that deal with the subject. You do need to respond to the IP by the way, s/he knows what they are talking about and it impacts on your proposal. --Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I lost this edit before, trying to recreate it, essentially: I am not going to restore this again. It was originally added by an anon, arguing that Lanza had stolen the theory from Kant. I deemed that to be wp:OR, and rewrote it, leaving in what seems to be factual, relevant content that appears to be covered by the sources. Since this seems to meet the requirements for inclusion, I support it.
• "Its a quote out of context..." - it isn't a quote.
• "with no third party source to link it to the article" - True but... so? - Sinneed 17:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please hew closer to the truth. I have not done so. There is no comparison in the article.

Really? Then why are you mentioning Kant's theory in this article? If there is no implied comparison, then the text has no content and can be removed without harming the article. — goethean ॐ 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Then why are you mentioning Kant's theory in this article?" - because it is relevant, factual, and covered by what seem at first blush to be wp:RS.
• "If there is no implied comparison, then the text has no content and can be removed without harming the article." - The entire article can be removed without harm to the article... it will simply contain less information. There is no implication. There is no comparison. - Sinneed 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) - As I understand it, the objection here is that Kant should not be mentioned because his arguments are not called "Biocentric". Is that correct, and is there any other objection?- Sinneed 17:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You have to find a third party reliable source that makes the connection, its that simple. --Snowded ^TALK 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparing to Kant or even mentioning Kant is a tricky issue. I agree that without a reliable source claiming some similarity that it is OR to include it. But (and I don't want to step on anyone's toes here) I think that because the issue of whether Kant is mentioned is a bit of a lightning rod for Lanza supporters and opponents, extra care needs to be taken to keep the article neutral. It seems to me (from Internet discussions outside Wikipedia) that any people who don't like Lanza like to compare him to Kant, using an attack on his originality as a proxy for an attack on whether he is right. Supporters of Lanza see this as the attack it is and so try to defend Lanza by rejecting the comparison. But I think (I hope) there is a neutral middle ground that not only can be found, but that can be reliably sourced.

A claim something like this: "The theory follows in a philosophical tradition that goes back at least as far as Kant" acknowledges the similarity while leaving room for the view that it is not just a rip-off. I think a statement like this can be sourced to Lanza himself. In his 1997 article in The American Scholar,[5] Lanza wrote,

"Biology should be the first and last study of science. It is our own nature that is unlocked by means of the humanly created natural sciences used to understand the universe. Ever since the remotest of times philosophers have acknowledged the primacy of consciousness—that all truths and principles of being must begin with the individual mind and self. Thus Descartes’s adage: 'Cogito, ergo sum.' (I think, therefore I am.) In addition to Descartes, who brought philosophy into its modern era, there were many other philosophers who argued along these lines: Kant, Leibniz, Bishop Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Henri Bergson, to name a few."

In a press release issued by The American Scholar to publicize this article[6] they wrote, "According to Dr. Robert Lanza in 'A New Theory of the Universe,' science is proving that consciousness actually creates reality. Philosophers since Kant have been arguing this case, but Lanza rolls out the new scientific evidence for it." I think this sufficiently sources a claim to there being some connection between Lanza's ideas and Kant's ideas to allow mention in the article. Since Lanza himself mentions Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson, they might also be worth mentioning. I leave this to others to decide. 99.192.89.45 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be enough to say something generic like:

Lanza compares his theory to those of Kant, Leibniz, Bishop Berkeley, Schopenhauer, Henri Bergson and other philosophers.

In order to add more specific comparisons, other sources which actually make those comparisons are needed. To be clear, I am neither a supporter nor a denigrator of Lanza or his theory. I'm simply someone who was reading this article and saw that it did not abide by Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 22:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Goethean here. The above statement is accurate (if referenced to Lanza's work) and could be added (although I don't think it is particularly notable. Taking one quote from Kant in isolation is however original research. --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are close to something that could be called a consensus on the issue here. Snowded, the reason I think it is notable to include a reference to philosophical history is because for someone who knows a bit about philosophy but has never heard of Lanza or his use of the term "biocentrism" (like me a couple of months ago - I was looking to see what Wikipedia said about biocentrism and I got this article instead), it can be helpful as an entry point to knowing what the view is.

Goethean, while I like the idea of trying to make the reference to the past thinkers a short one, I am not sure that just saying he "compares" his ideas to those of the named philosophers quite gets the idea. It also sounds like something that the most strong supporters of Lanza might read as suggesting "he admits that rips off these people's ideas". I certainly don't think that's what you meant, but I do think some might read it that way anyway.

I'd like to suggest the following inclusion in the article. The first paragraph in the "Theory" section currently reads: "The central claim of biocentrism is that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.[7]" I recommend it be changed to read as follows:

"The central claim of biocentrism is that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.[8] Lanza suggests that this idea is part of a philosophical tradition of thinkers such as Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson that acknowledges "the primacy of consciousness"[9]

I like the quoted words at the end because it makes it clear what he sees as the link among all these philosophers and his view, and it makes it clear that the suggestion really is Lanza's since it uses his own words to report it. Thoughts? Objections? Suggestions? 99.192.52.82 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Snowded has this theory that unless six editors agree on something, it's not consensus, but you can take that up with him.

Actually, all that Lanza said about Descartes & Co is: "philosophers have acknowledged the primacy of consciousness—that all truths and principles of being must begin with the individual mind and self." So you are attributing to these figures more than Lanza did. However, the promo mat'l claimed that 'Philosophers since Kant have been arguing that consciousness actually creates reality.' I think that you should be careful about this, because you don't want to put words in Lanza's mouth, esp. an interpretation of important philosophers. — goethean ॐ 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethean, I am not sure I understand your concern here. First, the longer quote you give does not read to me as a more restrictive claim than the shorter quote I used, so I don't see how it is less accurate or puts words in his mouth to use the shorter quote. Can you please explain this to me again? Second, the press release does say "Philosophers since Kant", but that does not preclude the claim that philosophers before Kant have done so as well. But even if it did, I am not sure how that would present a problem for the wording I have suggested, since all the philosophers named there are ones Lanza names. So I'm a bit confused here. Can you help me out? Is there an alternative wording to what I cam up with that you can suggest? Thanks. 99.192.52.82 (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

{A little maturity please Groehean, I've merely pointed out that a 2:1 vote coupled with a refusal to discuss any compromise is not a consensus and that you need to adopt a less aggressive editorial style and work with people from time to time)

To the main point, I think it is OR to attempt to attribute a current controversial theory to historical philosophers. Asserting the primacy of consciousness a few hundred years ago does not endorse or create a precident for the fews of Lanza. If Lanza drew on those names and claims to be their inheritor then that claim is relevant. If a reliable third party has made the link then its also OK. However its not OK for an editor to make that link and put it on to the article. --Snowded ^TALK 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, since the suggested passage I wrote starts with "Lanza suggests that..." and there is a citation to back that up, am I right in thinking that you are ok with the change I recommend? I just want to be sure here. 99.192.52.82 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the quote your are relying on says: Ever since the remotest of times philosophers have acknowledged the primacy of consciousness—that all truths and principles of being must begin with the individual mind and self. Thus Descartes’s adage: “Cogito, ergo sum.” (I think, therefore I am.) In addition to Descartes, who brought philosophy into its modern era, there were many other philosophers who argued along these lines: Kant, Leibniz, Bishop Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Henri Bergson, to name a few. I don't think that supports your claim. I think you could say Lanza argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson. He sees this as supporting his central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.[10]. Hope that helps.--Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, your suggestion looks pretty good to me, but since the placement of the passage is at the start of the section explaining the theory, the first sentence as it reads now (starting with "The central claim of biocentrism is ..." should probably remain unchanged. So how about this: "The central claim of biocentrism is that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.[11] Lanza argues that "the primacy of consciousness" features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson and he sees this as supporting his central claim.[12]" 99.192.52.82 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How about: The founder of biocentrism, Laza argues that the primacy of consciousness features in .... He sees this as supporting the central claim ....

That way the sequence follows the source. --Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Snowded. 99.192.76.96 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Better see what G thinks before you change it --Snowded ^TALK 19:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I approve. — goethean ॐ 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Change made! Thank-you both for the work on this. 99.192.67.156 (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sinneed. There is only one "biocentric" theory. This page is about "BIOCENTRISM" - many such a Kant claimed it was human (anthro)-centric, not bio (animal) centric. Thus the word biocentric would be wrong to use in these cases- That is, unless you can find a reference where they used the word "biocentric" or "biocentrism" 24.91.254.16 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are not agreeing with me. You were not agreeing with me when you reverted my edits. I request that you not assign your opinions to me.- Sinneed 15:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

?

"According to biocentrism, life creates the universe rather than the other way around." - according to who?

"In this view, current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness." - again, according to who? is this merely an attack on rational, science-based views? we can't explain consciousness, so there must be some supernatural explanation? is that it? as long as we can't explain consciousness, then there must be some God of the gaps?

this whole article seems to be a red herring, designed in response to the obvious observation that humans place greater importance on themselves than they do on the world around them (i.e. anthropocentrism)... is it religiously motivated? is "biocentrism" some type of new-age rationalization, designed to explain our lack of understanding of the natural world?

my opinion: this article is pure nonsense. life is part of the universe, not vice versa.

"...his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence." - so, i can will objects into existence? my consciousness becomes reality? wow, what a revelation. now i can effect world peace, and make everything perfect.... if only cause and effect were reversed! ... to any clear-thinking scientist, consciousness is a result of the physical world... the physical world is NOT a result of consciousness! that's Solipsism. Fuzzform (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, Solipsism is a philosophical argument, that *there is only the mind of the individual*... that there is no universe other than the entity that thinks when one "says" "I am thinking, therefore there must be an entity to BE thinking, and this proves that I exist."
• This is a (in the opinion of its progenitor and some others) scientific theory.
• I would point to the previous discussion, and to wp:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the content of the article, and it is therefore not usually practical to thoroughly source the lead... a large article might need more text for citations than for the text of the lead, making it impractical to read.
• I have to agree that a lot of stuff has been added that is pure hyperbole, but I hope some other interested editor will apply the editorial hatchet. If not, mine is sharp, I'll revisit eventually.
• "smokescreen" - whether some theory is right or not (or even whether it is a theory or not) is interesting to oneself, but WP "cares" only about what is published in the generally wp:reliable sources.- Sinneed 15:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for revised lead

A couple of weeks ago an editor said that the lead on this article wasn't very good. Although he retracted his comment, I agree. Also, the editor who added the previous section seemed confused by the article, and I think the lead is partly to blame. The first sentence should clearly identify the subject as a scientific theory. (The theory is what this article is about, yes?) I propose that we replace the current lead with the following one:

Biocentrism (from Greek: βίος, bios, "life"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") is a scientific theory proposed in 2007 by American scientist Robert Lanza. In this view, life or biology is central to being, reality, and the cosmos — life creates the universe rather than the other way around. Biocentrism asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness.

Lanza's biocentric theory builds on quantum physics. Biocentrism places biology before the other sciences in an attempt to solve one of nature’s biggest puzzles: the theory of everything that other disciplines have been pursuing for the last century. Lanza argues that biocentrism is falsifiable, and that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.

Let me know what you think. Jordgette (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess that the question is: did biocentric theories exist before Robert Lanza's? And do we want to mention that in the lede? — goethean ॐ 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something about the fact that physics is currently the foundational science and that that is what Lanza intends for biology to supplant? You kind of dance around the issue already. — goethean ॐ 00:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing --- when we were describing multiple types of biocentric theories, we needed the "life or biology or nature" and the "being or reality or the cosmos" language. Now, if we are only describing Lanza's theory, we can reduce the "or" terms. — goethean ॐ 15:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing --- it's a philosophical theory as well as a scientific theory. — goethean ॐ 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no serious objection, I will now replace the lead with a variation on the above, based on Goethean's comments. I don't know if we have a source that it's considered a bonafide philosophical theory or position...but tweak away. -Jordgette (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, the only mention in the article of a source that speaks about whether or not it is a philosophical theory is Dennett. The passage reads: "Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, said he did not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. 'It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all. He's stopping where the fun begins.'" So unless there is some other source that says it is a philosophical theory, I'd say there is good reason not to count it as one. 99.192.56.143 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What's going on here?

The main biocentrism page has been changed. Does one individual have the authority to make this decision? Over 90% of material and entries on Google and other major search engines refer to biocentrism in the scientific/cosmological sense of the word. And the audience profile of the "Biocentrism" page (for Wikipedia as a public resource) tracks precisely to articls that apear about biocentrism (the scientific theory). The decision to change this shouldn;t depend on one person's bias and/or prejudices (or whether they personally like the idea or not). Staff3 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Until someone opposes the change, sure. WP works on wp:be bold (if needed: wp:BRD) and wp:consensus. I think giving Lanza's proposal/book/article/etc. its own article seems appropriate, and it is appropriately linked in what I see as a neutral way at the top of the article. At the moment I think this change seems to be a good idea and has my tentative support. The present article is ugly, but it is a start-class article, so that seems reasonable. - Sinneed 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. This change doesn't make sense. Most people refer to this page look for information about Biocentrism/biocentric universe (the scientific theory). Isn't that what Wikepdia is about - providing information about the topic they're looking for.72.165.90.110 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The move was improperly done. The talk page and article history was lost. I have undone the attempted move. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Goethean! I, too, was wondering what happened. WikiWatch31 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with above. I just checked the page statistics - last month there were (14,189) people who viewed the Biocentrism (Cosmology) page versus only 462 people who viewed the Biocentrism (ethics) page. 24.91.254.16 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

About the move

Sorry about doing the move improperly, I didn't realize that I couldn't do copy/paste -- I have read page move guidelines now, and know what I need to do.

As far as my reasoning though, Lanza's use of the term biocentrism is both far less common and newer. For example, if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Biocentrism, you'll see that an extremely large majority of the Wikipedia articles (e.g., anthropocentrism, Murray Bookchin, Eco-terrorism, etc) that link to biocentrism are talking about it in the ethical sense, not in Lanza's cosmological/spiritual sense. Likewise, if you do a google search for "biocentrism", then you get 142,000 results, "biocentrism -lanza" gives 99,000 results -- that is, Lanza's use of the term makes up a minority of the uses. The word biocentrism has been used for decades to refer to the ethical/political sense.

As far as the page use statistics for biocentrism vs. biocentrism (ethics) -- of course biocentrism has more traffic than biocentrism (ethics). When people search for "biocentrism]] on google, they are going to end up at biocentrism, regardless of which one it points to. And all of the articles which wiki-link to biocentrism (thinking that they are linking to the ethical/political sense, probably having never heard of Lanza) will point people to biocentrism, regardless of which one it points to. That doesn't mean that Lanza's sense is the most common (it's not) -- it simply means that Lanza's sense is (inappropriately) what is represented in the article which is most commonly linked to. If anything, the page use statistics represent the problem that I am talking about -- i.e. people are hearing a word used in the ethical/political sense in many books, Wikipedia articles, etc., and when they come to look it up on Wikipedia, they get an incorrect definition (in the sense, that it is not what the author they are reading intended) of the term. The only thing that the page use statistics show is that Lanza fans are misleading thousands of people per month.

Biocentrism should point to the most common use of the term (the ethical one), so I support moving Lanza's version to Biocentrism (cosmology, and making Biocentrism (ethics) --> Biocentrism. Anyhow, sorry again about the improper page move -- I'm still learning, and it won't happen again! Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think that biocentrism should be a disambiguation page, and that that dab page should link to the ethical and the philosophical articles. I don't think at this time that either usage is dominating. However, I am willing to be convinced otherwise with the use of reliable sources or of Google Scholar/Google Books search results. — goethean ॐ 20:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with having it be a disambiguation page. Lanza's sense is far less common, and much more recent. I think we should just have a disambiguation link at the top of biocentrism pointing to Biocentrism (cosmology).

As far as Google Scholar and Google Books, both (like the Google search results -- more so in fact) support my statement that Lanza's sense is less common:

Google Scholar

• biocentrism -- 6880 results
• biocentrism -lanza -- 6760 results

That is, in scholarly papers, Lanza's sense is 67 times less common.

Google Books

• biocentrism -- 818 results
• biocentrism -lanza -- 813 results

That is, in searchable books on Google Books, Lanza's use is over 100 times less common

Google (web search)

• biocentrism -- 142,000 results
• biocentrism -lanza -- 99,100 results

Again Lanza's sense is in the minority, and only makes up a larger portion here due to WP:Recentism and marketing. As you can see from scholarly treatments, Lanza's sense is basically never used by anyone but Lanza and Lanza fans.

Given this, I am going to go ahead and do the move (properly this time... ) Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your resarch. However, given that four editors above plus myself appear to oppose the move at this time, I request that you gain consensus befor moving the page again. — goethean ॐ 20:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize that I can't move it anyway. So, I am going to request a page move from an admin. Given that Lanza's sense is far less common by all measures, and that most articles on Wikipedia are attempting to link to biocentrism (ethics) when they link to biocentrism, do you have any reason why it should not be moved? That is, why do you oppose such a move? Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Biocentrism → Biocentrism (cosmology) — See talk -- currently, biocentrism points to a very minority sense of the term (I've measured this via Google web/books/scholar results for each sense) Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Biocentrism (ethics) → Biocentrism

• Oppose move. Support moving Biocentrism to Biocentrism (cosmology), oppose moving Biocentrism (ethics) to Biocentrism. Biocentrism should be a disambiguation page given the recent page hits on the Wikipedia article for Lanza's philosophical biocentrism. — goethean ॐ 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've already responded to this above -- I'll repeat here: As far as the page use statistics for biocentrism vs. biocentrism (ethics) -- of course biocentrism has more traffic than biocentrism (ethics). When people search for "biocentrism" on google, they are going to end up at biocentrism, regardless of which one it points to. And all of the articles which wiki-link to biocentrism (thinking that they are linking to the ethical/political sense, probably having never heard of Lanza) will point people to biocentrism, regardless of which one it points to. That doesn't mean that Lanza's sense is the most common (it's not) -- it simply means that Lanza's sense is (inappropriately) what is represented in the article which is most commonly linked to. If anything, the page use statistics represent the problem that I am talking about -- i.e. people are hearing a word used in the ethical/political sense in many books, Wikipedia articles, etc., and when they come to look it up on Wikipedia, they get an incorrect definition (in the sense, that it is not what the author they are reading intended) of the term. The only thing that the page use statistics show is that Lanza fans are misleading thousands of people per month. - Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't explain the giant recent increase in page hits alleged by the biocentrist proponents above (I haven't checked it out myself). — goethean ॐ 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't explain it, nor does it claim to. The increase in page hits is irrelevant. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM -- of course a link from a highly trafficked website such as the Huffington Post is going to temporarily cause a spike in visits to this page. It does not at all logically follow that the most common use of the word "biocentrism" is the one used on the Huffington Post. By far, the most common use is the one that has been used for decades, and is present in 6700 out of 6800 scholarly articles, namely the ethical/political sense.Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• And by the way, I do support leaving a disambiguation link pointing to the Lanza's less common sense at the top of biocentrism (which should point to the content from biocentrism (ethics)) Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The number of page hits for the Biocentrism page (at least for the last couple of years) DIRECTLY relates to the publication of Lanza’s book “Biocentrism” and to articles, blogs and media surrounding the cosmological concept. The public wants to understand the idea. Its not just the recent Huffington Post stories, but there is an absolute hit correlation with articles that appeared in, for instance, in Discover magazine, MSNBC, etc. Each time the number of people directed to the Wikipedia page has steadliy increased. Prior to these developments (and the cosmological concept of biocentrism), the biocentrism page received less than 10 hits a day (most of the time 3 or 4/day). This is not an accident Staff3 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already responded to this several times. Please see my response to User:Goethean above. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative support- I would like to see this discussed or at least left up for comment for a several days. If there is an urgent problem with the article, perhaps it can be addressed while interested editors have a chance to check in, and weigh in if they choose to do so.- Sinneed 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support (as nominator) -- see reasons above. Lanza's use is far less common -- biocentrism is almost always used in the sense of biocentrism (ethics) -- 67 times more (as in "multiplied by", not "an additional" 67 times) in scholarly works, and over 100 times (as in "multiplied by", not "an additional" 100 times) more in Google Book results (again, see above). The only reason that Lanza's use makes up about 20% of the Google web results is due to extensive marketing, booksellers like Amazon, book reviews, etc. -- these carry far less weight than uses in books and scholarly papers. Also note that the term "biocentrism" has been used for decades, always in the ethical/political sense, until a few years ago when Lanza wrote his spiritual/cosmological treatise. The large majority of Wikipedia articles that link to biocentrism are using the word in the ethical/political sense (and aren't linking to biocentrism (ethics), probably because they've never heard of Lanza, or assumed that biocentrism would point to the commonly accepted usage of the word). - Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, you made the nomination. I think it's assumed that you strongly support it. — goethean ॐ 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • yes, I just wanted to explain my reasoning more carefully -- hard to do in one sentence for the request move template Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually explain that in the support/oppose line ("Support as nominator" or "Neutral, nominated for userx"), and put my line 1st. That way I can be neutral in the nom, and give personal opinion in the Vote!.- Sinneed 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed it. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By most analyses, this is not correct. Yes, you can plug in certain words and terms in Google to come up with whatever statistics you want. That being said, I’ve done research as well and come up with totally the oppose conclusion. Any scan of Google will immediately reveal the scientific/cosmological concept is far more common. I recommend anyone who’s interested to confirm this for themselves. As far as scholarly papers, Wikipedia is a research tool for everyone, from all professions and walks of life (not just scholars and Ph.Ds). Believe it or not, there happen to be a lot of people interested in understanding the universe and consciousness. You cannot infer that these people don’t matter because they don’t publish in scholarly/academic journals.Everyone is equal here (even bloggers, New Agers and Buddhists). Staff3 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer4/Staff3 --

• I’ve done research as well -- please link to it, as I did to mine.
• Any scan of Google will immediately reveal the scientific/cosmological concept is far more common -- actually, the opposite is true, please see the results that I linked to above.Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• As far as scholarly papers, Wikipedia is a research tool for everyone, from all professions and walks of life (not just scholars and Ph.Ds) -- yes, but scholars tend to hold more weight on Wikipedia, since it is an encyclopedia. Please see WP:Reliable which states Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. In this case, 6700 out of 6800 academic sources have it defined in the ethical sense.
• Believe it or not, there happen to be a lot of people interested in understanding the universe and consciousness. -- Indeed there are, but that is not relevant here.
• You cannot infer that these people don’t matter because they don’t publish in scholarly/academic journals. -- I didn't infer that they don't matter, merely that their definition is clearly not the primary one. Nor did I only consult scholarly/academic journals -- I consulted books, web results, and "what links here" and all of them point to the fact that biocentrism (ethics) is clearly the primary topic here.
• Everyone is equal here (even bloggers, New Agers and Buddhists). -- please see WP:Weight and WP:ReliableJrtayloriv (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv – this is becoming redundant. Again, you can play with numbers all you want. For instance, if you type in “Biocentrism” in Amazon, seventeen (17) of the top twenty (20) book listed refer to the scientific (not ethical) concept. Or go to Google if you will: Biocentrism (ethics) gives 124, 000 hits versus Biocentrism (science) which gives 286, 000 hits. But this is all game playing. Bottom line: as already cited very clearly, the Wikipedia audience statistics tell it all (its not even remotely a close call as to why and when people come to the Wikipedia biocentrism page as a resource or for information). Staff3 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it is becoming redundant. Again, I've already responded to the Wikipedia article traffic non-argument several times -- it's redundant for you to repeat it, unless you've got something new to add to it.
• As far as your example with "Biocentrism (science)" and "Biocentrism (ethics)", that is not a valid argument. Most books that discuss biocentrism (i.e. the ethical perspective) refer extensively to ecology/environmental science, so all of those are included in "Biocentrism (science)" -- so your results are greatly inflated.
• As far as Amazon, try sorting the books by copies sold: results. You get an opposite result then -- i.e. large majority of the top books are not talking about Lanza. Also note that the large majority of the remainder of the results (i.e. those following the top results) in the results from Amazon are also talking about the ethical sense. Again, your example with Amazon, like the one with Google, was logically invalid.

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose – I just did a quick search of the top hundred (100) entries on Google. Seventy-one (71) referred to the scientific/cosmological meaning of the word biocentrism. However, only eighteen (18) referred to the ethical/political meaning of the word. Regener (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't find myself swayed by the google numbers. wp:NOT news. Possibly learned journal counts might be interesting. Possibly press counts. I am more swayed by the note that most of the biocentrism wikilinks seem to be related to the older meanings. I rather like the disambiguation page idea put forward by Goethean. This will still leave the linking articles needing some cleanup... but not making them misleading.- Sinneed 21:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Example of top google web results is not apt here -- this is due to WP:recentism and heavy marketing ... again, note the total number of results, for each version, and the overwhelming use of the ethical/political sense in scholarly works. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also, as far as disambiguation page: Please see WP:Disambiguation page#Is there a primary topic -- since the most common usage (ethical/political) is "more common than all other uses combined", it should be considered "the primary page". Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also see WP:Disambiguation page#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links -- If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. ... thus, I still stand by my suggestion above, that it is OK to just include a link to the cosmological/spiritual sense at the top of the primary article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• oppose - This is a 'no brainer' - look anywhere on the web and you'll get your answer. Jrtayloriv clearly has a baised agenda. When he/she changed things, stated as a reason that it was "New Age Fringe theory." Others, including Nobel laureates disagree Reviewer4 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Did a minor reformat to standard on that.

No Nobel laureate in physics has been cited as disagreeing that this is a fringe theory.

"biased agenda" - wp:NPA would be a good read. Content, not editors, is key here.

I promise this is not a 'no brainer': calling it so is very likely to be offensive to your readers who find it worth their time to consider, and is unlikely to gather support for your position.

wp:sock might be a good read, as well.- Sinneed 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I said "Nobel laureate" (see quote in the article). Note this is a theory of "BIO"centrism (that is, biology). So its not appropriate to dismiss a Nobel laureate because he's not a physicist. BTW The are other physicist quoted that support this. You obviously have strong personal feeling about the theory, (many other people also have strong feelings one way or the other)Reviewer4 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• "You obviously have strong personal feeling about the theory" - Please remove your focus from editors, and place it on the content. I promise you know nothing whatever about my personal feelings on this issue. Stop now.
• mentioning the Nobel laureate is a propaganda technique. A laureate in physics has no more credibility commenting on literature than anyone else.- Sinneed 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit I do have an agenda -- namely, making Wikipedia a useful and accurate research tool. I've also got other motives such as following WP:Recentism and WP:Weight -- basically, I'm heavily biased towards improving the accuracy of Wikipedia ... note that my motives are not defending a book that I am a fan of with a squadron of sock puppets. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed - you cannot just dismiss the reason Wikipedia exists – as someone said above, Wikipedia should furnish the public the information they’re looking for. Jrtayloriv tried to dismiss the number of people viewing the biocentrism (cosmology) page vs biocentrism (ethics) page. He’s blantantly wrong. Take just one example— Lanza wrote a piece on biocentrism (on his cosmology theory) for the Huffington Post on December 9th - the number of biocentrism page views expodentially surged from around 100 to over 2000/day. In fact, in the week or so it ran (from Dec 9 to Dec 18) there were 9,535 page views – more than all the ethic/political page view combined for the previous year or two before. 72.165.90.110 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, the page views are irrelevant in this case, for reasons I've already described, twice. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Since no one has made such a proposal (" dismiss the reason Wikipedia exists"), that isn't an issue. The sudden-hit-surge on news is addressed in wp:NOTNEWS.- Sinneed 22:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed: Jrtayloriv, you say you have an “agenda” … “-- namely, making Wikipedia a useful and accurate research tool.” In case you’re unaware, Lanza’s book is used in classrooms across the country (in fact, it’s on the official reading list for the State of Texas). Sorry, but I think you’ll find a lot of people would disagree with your assessment as to what’s “useful.” Are you inferring that the biocentrism (cosmology) page is not accurate and of no value?Staff3 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• And I can guarantee you that since scholarly works use the ethical/political sense 67 times as much as Lanza's, that there are a lot more books on "reading lists in classrooms around the country" that use "biocentrism" in the former sense, than books which use it in Lanza's. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• And I'd also like to note that there are a striking number of sockpuppet-esque editors (all of the "oppose" votes, with the exception of Goethean), with 100 or less edits, that are commenting on this. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• And, no -- I'm not implying that the article is inaccurate. I'm implying that having it as the primary article for biocentrism is inaccurate, since the large majority of people who come here either from another Wikipedia article or in a book that they've read will be looking for the term in the ethical/political sense, since that's how most authors scholarly and popular use the term. It is inaccurate to have most of the Wikipedia articles which link to biocentrism point to the wrong article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Jrt, I would encourage not focusing on the editors, thus avoiding the potential trap of wp:PA (iffy: "probably thinking that Wikipedia is a democracy and that they can just avoid reasoning and vote their way out of this"). This distracts/disrupts, and since some of the SPAs are already indulging, it may encourage the behaviour. I was simply going to put a "wp:single purpose account may be worth a read" under each of the SPAs. wp:SOCK would be good reading for the SPAs as well, as it relates to groups "in the real world".- Sinneed 22:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sinneed -- Sorry about that. It was indeed disruptive and inappropriate. I've removed the offending bit. Thanks for remaining calm, levelheaded, and respectful, and for your constructive criticism. I'm going to go let my head cool off for a while and go for a walk. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you’re incorrect about the number of books in classrooms (please cite even a single book that exists about the ethical/political concept of Biocentrism). I personally know several college/university classes that are using "Biocentrism" (the scientific book, since I'm unaware of any others). Also, you keep hammering on “scholarly works” Biocentrism (the scientific concept)is much newer. But again, Wikipedia is a resource for the whole society, not an elite class of people who might or or might not belong to old-school and conservative schools of thought. Society grows and evolves even if there are those who resist change. 24.91.254.16 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A single example? How about 813? Note that all but 5 of the 818 books listed here are talking about biocentrism (ethics). This has nothing to do with "old-school" thinking, or "resisting change" -- it has to do with making a usage of the word that is much more common the primary article on Wikipedia, rather than a view that is much less common. Please look at the 800 or so books that I just linked to, and note how they define biocentrism. It's the sense covered at biocentrism (ethics). Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support moving Biocentrism to Biocentrism (cosmology), oppose moving Biocentrism (ethics) to Biocentrism. I agree with goethean. Biocentrism should be a disambiguation page. I disagree with his reason, however. The number of page hits is really immaterial. The popularity of searches for different items comes and goes. What is indisputable, however, is that both the ethical and the cosmological use of the term are well established enough to merit articles, and pissing matches about which one is more important to deserve the title Biocentrism without qualification are silly. A disambiguation page that points to separately labeled "ethics" and "cosmology" pages is the only idea that makes sense. 142.68.40.117 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lanza's personal viewpoint is clearly far less common though, and given WP:Disambiguation page#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links, we should not have a disambiguation page, but instead, should have a link at the top the the cosmology page. This is not a "pissing match" -- it's a clearcut case of one of the senses being much more common. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I still stand by my vote. I really do think it's a pissing match. One use of the term has been around a lot longer and is the far more common usage in scholarly work. The other is very recent, but the most common popular usage currently and has the more popular Wikipedia page. There are people who give good reasons for counting one as the primary meaning and people who give good reasons for the other. There is no need to pick one or the other. The disambiguation page suggestion easily sidesteps the issue and allows anyone using Wikipedia to find what they want quickly and easily. It is only people who really care about one meaning winning over the other who could have a problem with that solution. 99.192.50.55 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (aka 142.68.40.117)

• Mild oppose -- I don't believe citing WP:recentism is appropriate here. The book is three years old and the Discover article two years old, and the cosmology meaning is still generating regular press. And no, this is not due to marketing; the same could be said about any three-year-old topic in which 3rd-party sources are still interested. I do, however, oppose moving Biocentrism (ethics) to Biocentrism. The splitting of an earlier version of this article was discussed on this page last year, and there was little or no support for Biocentrism (ethics) getting the Biocentrism page. Finally, I'd advise editors against tipping their biases with phrases such as "new age," "fringe," and "spiritual" -- according to the 3rd-party sources, this is considered a falsifiable scientific hypothesis, and editors invite personal remarks (and weaken their own argument) by representing the topic in a less neutral manner. -Jordgette (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:FRINGE bears discussion, if applicable. I can't support discouraging that, at all.- Sinneed 03:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh? You'll have to do better than that. — goethean ॐ 03:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your remark appears to be addressed to me and I don't understand. Better than what, and in what way? I do not support suppression of discussion of relevant WP guidelines.- Sinneed 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, reading Jordgette's comments, I guess I see what you are saying. However, no evidence has been given that the subject of this article falls under WP;FRINGE. — goethean ॐ 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception section does.- Sinneed 04:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Sinneed, but I don't think the editor was citing WP:Fringe at the time. He/she was casually using the word to smear the topic of the article in a general, non-neutral way. -Jordgette (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree.- Sinneed 07:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose moving "ethics" to the prime location, support moving the "cosmology" article to a disambiguated form. Place a disambiguation page at the primary location. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lanza's personal viewpoint is clearly far less common though, and given WP:Disambiguation page#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links, we should not have a disambiguation page, but instead, should have a link at the top the the cosmology page. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Biocentrism (cosmology) and a disambiguation page at biocentrism. --Swift (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lanza's personal viewpoint is clearly far less common though, and given WP:Disambiguation page#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links, we should not have a disambiguation page, but instead, should have a link at the top the the cosmology page. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• wp:IAR - wp:consensus >> what we usually do. WP's rules describe what is done, rather than what "must be" done.- Sinneed 21:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that they aren't "laws", but guidelines. However, generally editors are required to provide some strong reasoning for why they have decided to go against guidelines. Other than the article traffic and top google search results arguments, which I have responded to several times, and yet to receive a counter-response for -- the editors above are not providing reasons why we should violate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:Disambiguation page, WP:Recentism, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Weight, AND WP:Reliable. Nor are they providing solid evidence to support their claims. I have provided ample reasons based on Wikipedia policy AND evidence supporting the move, and I feel that in order to violate several Wikipedia guidelines, the editors should have a very solid case, which in this case they don't.
• And as far as WP:consensus, note the following:
  • Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons.
  • Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.
  • Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important if the community is to have confidence in them.
  • In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority.
• Also note that having a large collection of users (from either anonymous IPs or with 100 edits or less) repeating the same points can give the illusion of consensus. I've already responded to their points regarding the article traffic and web results (which are the two major points that have been made in opposition), yet they keep getting repeated. The fact that there are a lot of user accounts repeating something over and over again does not imply consensus.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I argued against WP:Recentism; see mild oppose above. On a related note, I think you should stop calling it "Lanza's personal viewpoint." It was a personal viewpoint four years ago. Now it's a concept that has generated interest and continues to be mentioned in reliable 3rd-party sources. BTW I didn't realize the article was violating WP:Reliable. -Jordgette (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I did see your response regarding WP:Recentism above, and have not gotten around to responding to it yet. I did not think it was apt. biocentrism (ethics) has been used for decades and is still by far the most common use, as the evidence I've provided clearly shows. Lanza's sense is a few years old, and is less commonly used. Focusing on a less commonly used, much newer definition at the expense of the most commonly used, standard definition is WP:Recentism. As far as WP:Reliable, please see my response regarding academic/scholarly works vs. popular sources (news) above -- basically, we have the cosmological sense mentioned only in book reviews, newspaper/magazine articles, and bookselling websites, whereas in the ethical sense, it is used in all of those types of sources (and to a much greater extent), as well as scholarly papers and other books. In this case, WP:Reliable points out that since there is a clear academic consensus that "biocentrism" means biocentrism (ethics), not giving those sources more weight would go against reliable sourcing guidelines. WP:Reliable states Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available, yet even though 67 times as many academic sources use it in the ethical sense, several editors are claiming that the least common sense is the primary definition. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• At present, I think a disambiguation page at biocentrism would be best. If the article traffic statistics provide any clear trends, the question of whether there is a primary topic can be revisited. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my responses to the article traffic arguments above -- I've covered this several times. Also, I am not implying that older = wiser, as I've pointed out several times before. I am saying that not only is the ethical sense older and the standard academic definition of the term, but it is also much more commonly used today as you can see from all of the statistics I've provided above. Take a tour through, Special:WhatLinksHere/Biocentrism for example ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. What we have here is a term acquiring a new definition, and a few people seem to resent this, as evidenced by this discussion. Those in favor of the move are defenders of the older, more traditional definition of the term. (I am using plurals loosely, as I count that 40 of the last 89 edits to this page were made by one individual, who proposed the move.) In the 1940s, most usages in the literature of the word "computer" probably referred to people whose job it was to make calculations. At that time, the new definition was emerging, but was coming on strong. Not to make a direct parallel here, but the case is similar. Most or all of the "support" arguments are frantic appeals to tradition in one way or another, and Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. PorkHeart (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Those in favor of the move are defenders of the older, more traditional definition of the term. In the 1940s, most usages in the literature of the word "computer" probably referred to people whose job it was to make calculations. At that time, the new definition was emerging, but was coming on strong. Not to make a direct parallel here, but the case is similar. -- It's not only "older" and "more traditional" (i.e. the standard definition, used for example in the Encyclopedia Britannica), but it's also the most common CURRENT usage as well. Thus your computer example is not apt. A more apt example would be if someone today were to write a book called "Computer science" that was a spiritual/cosmological treatise, had a few reviews and mentions of it in a few newspapers, magazines, and "spirituality" books, and then we moved computer science to computer science (machines) and had computer point to the spiritual sense of the word, even though everything from scholarly papers, to book results, to web results showed that the spritual sense was far less common.
• Most or all of the "support" arguments are frantic appeals to tradition in one way or another -- rhetoric. Most of the "oppose" appeals are all from users that are ignoring Wikipedia policy, without specifying any reasons for doing so -- most of whom are either editing from anonymous IPs or have 100 or fewer edits, and many of whom having strikingly similar names like Staff3, Reviewer4, and ActionCat3 ... I've called for mediation to get some more experienced editors in here, and have also requested sockpuppet check to make sure that this gets dealt with.

-Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment you seem to be approaching violating WP:BITE with this repetitive commenting on the usefulness of new users, and you should read WP:IP!=VANDAL in relation to IP editors. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment your account seems to be less than a year old... so you yourself are not a longtime user of Wikipedia. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moderately Oppose moving "ethics" to the prime location for many of the same reasons articulated by Jordgette above.213.175.203.74 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)