Talk:David R. Hawkins/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

Short guidelines for quality to make the David R. Hawkins article better.

(Please add and correct this list and put your sign at the end. Discussions below if needed.)

  • The article is about David R. Hawkins, his life and his main work.
  • In a working field like this it is clear that Hawkins statements are not generally accepted.
  • His main work is about spirituality and consciousness. Kinesiology is a method he is using. (However, he added a more general view to that method.)
  • Applied Kinesiology and other general topics are discussed (and criticized) on their own entries in the Wikipedia, not here. Just make a link to those.
  • Keep it short.

Users who worked on the list:

  • --Paddel 10:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


I have added a cleanup tag to this article, on the grounds that I find it unclear at many points. Some of the sentences that stand out to me as examples that need rephrasing:

  • "Dr. Hawkins is nonetheless controversial with regard to the common thoughts and concepts of the West." (The "nonetheless" in this sentence is inexplicable in context. In the rest of the paragraph, it is unclear what makes his monistic beliefs controversial.)
  • "As a research method, generalized applied kinesiology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream Western scientists, including double-blind studies..." (What includes those studies?)
  • "The compelling integral theory concepts of the modern-day philosopher Ken Wilber are consistent with Hawkins' nonduality claims." (How? And why is the word "compelling" in this sentence?)

The rest of the article, in general, feels muddled and unorganized. It could be improved dramatically by thorough editing and the use of a wider variety of sources. --LostLeviathan 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


I started working on the "nevertheless controversial" part.... will take some time.. it's a mess! Sethie 07:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing a little pruning as well... I removed the following sentence earlier:
He additionally seeks to confirm the evolution of consciousness over eons of time via both its linear 
and nonlinear expressions, and then to correlate the emergence of spiritual awareness historically 
as expressed by the world's avatars, saints, mystics, and Enlightened Teachers over the millenia.
Can anyone tell me what the heck this means? What are 'nonlinear' expressions of consciousness? Expressions of consciousness that grow faster or slower than O(n), or that don't conform to the equation y=mx+b? I think that the second clause means that he wants to demonstrate the 'progression' of spiritual consciousness over time by referencing various religious figures- I'm guessing that he would like to find some increase over time in his 'calibrations'. I see that the quote was taken from an email or post by someone purporting to be Hawkins himself, but I think some explanation is needed- particularly of all this 'non-linear' business that seems to be floating around. --Clay Collier 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Scientific Perspective

A suggestion: Perhaps we could include a "Scientific Perspective" on the site that people agree not to delete? I believe this should be a balanced entry. Thank you.


(Note: This puts the below discussion in chronological order)

Apparently, some runaway M.D.-wannabe is vandalizing this content and stating opinions rather than facts.

It should be re-edited to contain factual statements, not puerile rants of some technician-in-training.

And of course, Mr. Anonymous knows the real and true facts. How about you get yourself a pseudonym and start politely discussing the issues, instead of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you? It would also help if you used edit summaries.--Prosfilaes 06:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I only just today discovered that it is possible to get a pseudonym for Wikipedia. I have stated more facts in this web site than anyone else, including the actual sources of his credentials (which you will note he himself does not do in his own books or on his web site).

Please look up ad hominem, appeal to authority, and ad hoc hypothesis.

You sound exactly like Hawkins though in your ad hominem attacks, so perhaps you should investigate the subject of cults. A great place to start is with the books of Steven Hassan.

If you would like to discuss this, I would be happy to. I studied Hawkins for years before discovering his Ph.D. is from a corresondence college that was shut down by judge. Maybe you could stop deleting that fact. Thank you.

Cheers, "Mr. Anonymous"

I was a little harsh below [now above](the signed part), but you need to learn about Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Lines like "This concept is hard for most followers to understand, as clearly Dr. Hawkins is God. If they pay more, they will eventually get it." are not neutral. Moreover, I wouldn't write that way even if I was writing for an encyclopedia that took a scientific view; it's mocking and rude and superior. Be calm, and dispassionate. His Ph.D. is valid, and the page on the University talks about the issue in far more depth and accuracy than this page can or should. --Prosfilaes 23:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do need to learn about Wikipedia, thank you. The comments that were not neutral came following legitimate facts being deleted by people unwilling to consider that their guru might be wrong about something some time. His Ph.D. is technically legal, he just missed the cut-off, but it is scientifically invalid. Evolved people are capable of distinguishing between rules and integrity. His entire system is flawed. If I had known the source of his Ph.D., I would not have studied his work as long as I did. The page discussing Columbia Pacific University is the party line from the correspondence college. Please see the Point Reyes Light articles regarding CPU, which give a better picture of the type of school it is. For example, a Ph.D. dissertation written in Spanish was approved by four faculty who do not speak the language. Dr. Hawkins is smart enough to know that the school is not up to legitimate standards; this is further evidenced by the fact that he did not disclose the source of his Ph.D. in his books or on his web site, though he sells his doctoral thesis on his site for $29.95. His faculty mentor was Sheldon Deal, a chiropractor who was the president of ICAK. The studies that came out of ICAK were found to have "no valid conclusions" (see the National Library of Medicine).

Thank you, "Mr. Anonymous"

PS Isn't forgiveness more important than a disproved pseudoscience?


[edit] Skeptic Dictionary

Please don't remove this link, except to replace it with one similar to it. It's fairly important, especially on an article like this to have links to websites for and against. --Prosfilaes 06:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The referred-to link has been removed as it constitutes a purely ad hominem attack by an atheist, and neither provides nor references any research...neither pro nor con. It is purely a puerile rant. Moreover, Dr. Hawkins is classified within Wikipedia as one of many religious people, and as such should not be subjected to ad hominem attacks from atheists such as the author of 'skepdic'. If atheists were allowed to roam the halls of Wiki and spray paint content of religious leaders, they could expect as much in kind...and what, precisely, would the point of all that be...? --66.69.219.9 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I see numerous quotes, references, and links on this page, http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter58.html#3. Nor is all of the criticism ad hominem. Wikipedia works on the basis of a neutral point of view, which means that all points of view need to be properly reported. Even Mother Theresa has detractors, and it's important to report their views too. -Willmcw 05:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
That all of the 'skepdic' criticism is not ad hominem does not diminish the substantial fact that a good deal of it is. Are Wiki articles considered "OK" if they are substantially but not entirely ad hominem? Nonsense. Moreover, Dr. Hawkins is classified as a religious person, and I would submit that it is best edited in that dimension. The 'skepdic' author is a well known atheist. I understand that the article needs to have NPOV, but including unsubstantiated arguments and/or ad hominem attacks is certainly not NPOV. Criticisms are fine, but they must have merit. --66.69.219.9 01:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
External links are not held to the same standards as Wikipedia articles. Atheists are allowed to criticize religious people, and religious people are allowed to criticize atheists. More broadly, who are Hawkins' principle critics? We should include their viewpoints, whoever they are. If not "skepdic", then who? Cheers, -Willmcw 06:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
There are already some substantially criticizing comments, ones which I have not only kept but in many cases authored, in Dr. Hawkins article. I note with alacrity that as much cannot be said for, say, Barbara Boxer's article...which lacks any objective criticism whatsoever. I frankly sense that you are an anti-religious, liberal, left-POV admin. Am I correct...? Also, how did you come about this article in the first place? Are you engaging in Wiki-stalking after seeing my comments on Rangerdude's talk page? --66.69.219.9 15:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any critical comments. Criticisms, like all information in the article, should come from verifiable sources. The Barbara Boxer article is a bad example, since it contains none of the criticisms that are commonly applied to her. On the other hand, the Sheila Jackson Lee article is a bad example too, because there is too much space devoted to criticism. The typical approach is devote a small section to notable criticisms. Mother Theresa is an excellent example. Again, if there is a better source of criticism than Skepdic, then we should add it. If there isn't, then Skepdics should remain. -Willmcw 22:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I take issue with your not answering my questions, but expecting me to answer yours. That's just not respectable or acceptable behavior.
Nonetheless, if for no other reason than the fact that I have not ever seen a credible criticism of Dr. Hawkins' philosophies, and only few with regard to his approach to AK, I went a Googling. The short answers are: (1) Hawkins' Philolosphy -- there are no particularly profound criticisms on this. This should come as no surprise because the man does not hold himself up to be some sort of savior, but instead refers to history and the most highly enlightened spiritual teachers. Were one to set up a philosophy that were in direct conflict with the precepts of Buddha, Huang Po, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, etc., well...do the math. It's hard to find descriptors other than 'satanic' or 'extreme low level of consciousness.' (2) AK -- Somewhat informed Hawkins-specific criticism is available via the readers of his books and their accompanying reviews. Some are more well-learned than others, but, frankly, the aggregate of the opposers clearly haven't either finished reading the book or have overlooked some critical elements of it.
The Skepdic author...who has clearly not read any of Hawkins books and is entirely shooting from the lip...should not be referenced until he does serious homework on Hawkins, which, if you read what the author has said, is not something that he's gotten around to yet.
I'm hesitant to refer criticism to book reviews on Amazon, et al, because somebody will whine that it is a back-door means of promoting Hawkins' books...but, in all honesty, those are where I was able to find the most informed criticisms.--66.69.219.9 00:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thiinks that "it constitutes a purely ad hominem attack by an atheist" is hilarious? The "by an atheist" part is classic ad hominem, so this sentence is the most concentrated hypocrisy I ever saw. Dear 66, you do obviously not understand what "ad hominem" means, or you overlooked that the Skepdic page

Questioning the motives of editors is considered poor wikiquette. We're here to discuss the article, not each other. (If you wish to discuss me, please come to my talk page). Criticisms do not need to be particularly profound, just significant. In other words, if there are widespread attacks on an author's books because of their jacket cover color, then we need to report it. If the Dean of Harvard Divinity incorrectly accuses the author of some transgression, then we need to report that too, even if the Dean himself is wrong, because it would be a notable point of view. Please read our key policy, "neutral point of view", to see the importance of representing all points of view. (The purpose of NPOV is to "...fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.")

Now that doesn't mean that we should create criticisms (or rebuttals). If no one criticizes Hawkins' philosophy then there is nothing to report. Let's put this another way - are there any people who have published reviews or comments about Hawkins, and have read the books, and who are not adherents of Hawkins? If so then we can summarize their remarks, good bad or indifferent. I've never seen Amazon reviews used as sources for articles, though I suppose if it was from a notable person with a real name then that would be different. In general they are similar to forum entries, which are not reliable sources. -Willmcw 01:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Until someone can find a valid criticism or research-based rebuttal, then I think we're at where we're at -- there's nothing to report. The Amazon reviews (144 of them as of today) for "Power vs. Force" average to 4 out of 5 stars. He has positive reviews from M.D.s and Ph.D.s, and he has a few negative from them...but personally I wouldn't ascribe any particularly superhuman powers to that group anyway, and in any case do not feel called upon to feature them just because of their years in academia. Either way, a balanced inclusion of Amazon reviews would strongly favor Hawkins, and with much more flowery language than is currently in the article. --66.69.219.9 01:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, wsince we can't find anyoine better I've re-added the link to Skepdic. In time we should summarize some of the criticism (profound or not) in this article. -Willmcw 05:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


The "A" of the previous discussions do not equal the "B" of your actions, which are in bad-faith given the above discussions. By his own admissions -- as I stated above -- the Skepdic author has not even read any of Hawkins books. It is nonsense to include his words as a criticism. Such inclusions only serve to "trash" encyclopedic entries. Would such a malformed criticism be found in a 'real' encyclopedia? Not. I understand your argument that the article needs some criticism, but what you've included is absolutely "made up" criticism that you have already said should not be employed. I've left the link for now (modified to correct the wrongful attribution to "The Skeptic Dictionary"...it is merely a web-based newsletter/blog by the same author), but only with the proviso that it maintains an appropriate disclaimer: "A web-based article/blog of opinion about Hawkins by someone who, by their own statements, has not read any of his books." --66.69.219.9 12:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Which "real encyclopedia" has an article about David R. Hawkins? Anyway, your disclaimer is fine. No, I'm not making up Skepdics, it really exists and I'm not its author. Making up criticism would occur if I wrote something like, "Hawkins can be criticized for his use of neologisms", if no one besides myself had ever done so. BTW, what does "integrous" mean? I can't find it in any real dictionary. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 20:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The "real" Amazon.com lists Hawkins book as being one of the top 300-500 books being sold. When you've published something that has that sort of level of achievement, I'll have enough empathy to laugh at your poor attempts at wit and sarcasm. The subject matter is not trivial; please consider acting as a grown-up. If you have a spark of intellectual curiousity in you, I highly suggest reading "Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics" by Thomas J. McFarlane [1] before engaging in any further puerile rants.
The Skepdics blog is not considered to be a satisfactory criticism. Find another one if you can. If there is not substantial disagreement to doing so, the Skepdics blog reference will be deleted in the next week or so. --66.69.219.9 22:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't even have articles about some authors who are in the top 100 at Amazon, and who have received Pultizer Prizes. In any case, I asked if there were better critics than "Skepdic" and you basically said "no". I'm sorry if you don't believe it is satisfactory, it's the best we've got. -Willmcw 23:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Dr. Hawkins voices his personal objections

I have withheld this letter from Dr. Hawkins pending an 'outcome' (if Wikipedia ever has such a thing) re. the use of 'Skepdic' as a criticism for Dr. Hawkins. The time seems apropos to make this public, and Dr. Hawkins has granted permission to publish it. My personal identifiers have been removed for now.--66.69.219.9 12:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED SPIRITUAL RESEARCH

September 13, 2005

To: 66.69.219.9

Re: Concern for Wikipedia

Dear 66.69.219.9,

It is assumed by its readers that Wikipedia is a handy online version of the equivalent of an encyclopedia, and that the information provided is authoritative and valid (i.e., calibrating in the 450-460 range as does the Encyclopedia Britannica). This function would thus be of a different category than just the usual run of bloggers. By research, approximately 50 percent of the information on the Internet is fallacious. Presumably, Wikipedia would be of a higher academic standard and not just a rerun and condensation of bloggerism.

To be integrous, the entries in Wikipedia should therefore be reflective of valid sources of information, such as the Britannica demonstrates. Thus, an encyclopedic section on the recent history of Judaism would hardly include, as an authoritative reference, information derived from the fallacious diatribe, The Protocol of the Elders of Zion (calibration level 90), although mention could be made of that hate propaganda as one of the ideology bases of Nazi genocide.

Similarly, as to the entry on me, the belated appearance of a blog site entitled “Skepticism” hardly constitutes an authoritative reference in lieu of the more integrous confirmation of my work (e.g., Dr. Wayne Dyer; nomination for the Templeton Prize; etc.).

The work of consciousness research and all the books I have written are to facilitate spiritual understanding and confirm the reality of spiritual truth in the individual as well as society, and to confirm the evolution of consciousness over eons of time via both the linear and the nonlinear expressions, and then to correlate the emergence of spiritual awareness historically as expressed by the great avatars, saints, mystics, and Enlightened Teachers over the millennia. My books and the lectures I have given worldwide for decades are not about kinesiology (I have written no books about that subject), but instead, they are about consciousness and the road to Enlightenment, of which I am an acknowledged teacher.

The Skeptics Dictionary (I have a copy) does not even have an entry on or about me at all and is therefore not a reference, as was incorrectly cited. There is solely a negative blog site of very recent origin by an author who has no listed credentials at all and who is critical of all spirituality or religion (he invalidates even the Buddha and other recognized spiritual teachers from an atheistic viewpoint). I would not list an atheist as a qualified critic of any spiritual or religious literature by any author.

The Skeptic author, web site, and purported “dictionary” are at calibration level 160, which is that of sophomoric egotism. Even the supposed negative reports on kinesiology itself calibrate at 160, as they are mere polemics derived from false premises in that they violate the requirements for consciousness research validity.

My personal concern has to do with alignment with the highest good which is served by verifiable integrity. Wikipedia should serve the highest good by providing valid information. That all discoveries have had their detractors is, of course, a valid fact, but their opinions did not disprove Galileo, Einstein, or Jonas Salk.

I found reading the Skeptics Dictionary to be entertaining. On some issues, the author is “right on” (e.g., fraudulent pseudospirituality). On other topics, he is very much out of his depth due to his personal bias. He is a materialist, and by mechanistic reductionism pooh-poohs the nonlinear (or anything that calibrates over 499). I recognize all of his arguments and even embrace some of them.

During my early years, I, myself, was an atheist. Although Carroll is supposedly aligned with philosophy, he exhibits no erudition about the subject at all, nor is he aware that he is merely parroting the arguments of dialectical materialism. Thus, he denounces metaphysics from which his arguments are derived for he presumes his arguments represent “truth” and therefore a metaphysical premise. The whole issue is a subject in itself (as described in Truth vs. Falsehood.)

Paradoxically, although the skeptic Carroll denounces faith, he exhibits great faith in his own views. The narcissistic core of the ego concludes that anything it cannot comprehend must be wrong, rather than grasping, via humility, that the subject is beyond it. This limitation is inherent to the would-be critics of subparticle physics, quantum mechanics, or the Theory of Relativity, and they are still unable to grasp the Heisenberg principle, which, for the first time in the history of science, delineates the impact of context and not just content. All the above is very interesting in that it exemplifies the dictum that each individual lives in the experiential world of their own specific level of consciousness. Thus, Mr. Carroll does not experience miracles or witness the impact of intention. Each person lives in a goldfish bowl of their own making. Of interest also is that Carroll avoids any examples that would nullify his positionalities, such as over a million recovered alcoholics whose miraculous recoveries from a medically hopeless fatal condition are based solely on living by spiritual principles.

Also of interest is Mr. Carroll’s naïve demonstration of the pitfall of Descartes’ differentiation of res cogitans versus res externa (i.e., perception is not essence), or Socrates’ dictum of the illusory good (i.e., one’s own opinions [perceptions] versus the “real” good [truth]). This error is also extensively analyzed in Section I of Truth vs. Falsehood as being consequent to the basic structure of the human mind itself (and thus the need for a science of truth).

Another rather glaring error of the skeptic’s rhetoric is that it violates a premise known to any schoolboy that a double negative does not disprove the positive; therefore, the well-known conundrum: Every statement in this book is false. Thus, my concern is to offset the possible loss of benefit of the work of many decades by the mechanism of inadvertently throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

My lifetime spiritual journey began 75 years ago, which includes 50 years of clinical experience and over 25 years of research to confirm spiritual realities. I therefore formally object to the inclusion of a blog-site reference from an avowed atheist who scorns all religion or spirituality. (emphasis added)

Wikipedia overall calibrates at 350. The proposed entry on me calibrates at 200. The entry, excluding the Skeptic web-site allegation, would stand at 400. Therefore, in the interests of truth and integrity for the common good, I request deletion of the reference cited as being disinformation and misrepresentation of my work overall.

Sincerely,

David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D.

DRH:smm


This begs the question. Robert T. Carroll is a Ph.D. and is, in fact, a philosophy professor. Related: ad hoc hypothesis, appeal to authority, ad hominem, and Columbia Pacific University (the source of Hawkins' Ph.D.) (unsigned comment by 66.30.238.136)

Dr. Hawkins wrote: "The Skeptics Dictionary (I have a copy) does not even have an entry on or about me at all and is therefore not a reference." Hawkins' official entry into www.skepdic.com is listed under "Applied kinesiology".

http://skepdic.com/akinesiology.html (unsigned comments by 66.30.238.136)

See also confirmation bias, burden of proof (science usage), Occam's razor, pseudoscience and scientific method.

Psychologist Ray Hyman offers insight into why pseudoscientists do not give up their delusions after their theories have been debunked by legitimate science:

Some Common Features of Ideomotor-Based Systems

Although the effects of ideomotor action have been understood for at least 150 years, the phenomenon remains surprisingly unknown, even to scientists. To conclude, the following are some of the psychological features that characterize nearly all the systems and schemes that have bases in ideomotor action.

Ideomotor action. To reiterate, all systems using the rubbing plate, the dowsing rod, the exploring pendulum, or related technique depend on an almost undetectable motor movement, amplified into a more noticeable event. The impetus arises from one's own subtle and unperceived expectations. Elaborate, grandiose theories are then devised to explain the observed effects.

Projection of the operator's actions to an external force. This is one of key properties of ideomotor action. Although the operator's own actions cause the fingers to stick, the rod to move, or the pendulum to rotate in a given direction, the operator attributes the cause onto an external force. Subjectively, that is what it feels like. Lacking a sense of volition, one credits unknown forces, radiations, or other external emanations.

The cause of the action is attributed to forces new to science and revolutionary in nature. This is implied in the previous point. Not only is the cause attributed to an external source, but each time the phenomenon is encountered anew, those who have not read their history attribute it to a force previously unknown.

Delusions of grandeur. Not only do the proponents insist that the cause is external, but they tend to see themselves as revolutionary saviors of mankind. They claim to have discovered new principles and forces, ones whose ramifications will transform contemporary science, not to mention society as we know it.

Delusions of persecution. Those who suffer from delusions of grandeur frequently exhibit delusions of persecution. Self-styled revolutionaries assert that orthodox scientists dismiss discoverers of breakthroughs such as radionic devices and the like merely out of envy, pig-headedness, conformism, or unwillingness to give credit to brave outsiders who are not part of the scientific establishment.

To be forearmed Is to be disarmed. Proponents of quack devices and procedures will often argue that they are aware of ideomotor action and the role of expectancies. They often assert that their awareness makes them immune from its effects. Many dowsers now admit unconscious expectations can affect the action of the divining rod. They assert that their awareness prevents ideomotor action and allows expression of the "true dowsing response." Unfortunately, the awareness of ideomotor action does not make one immune from its expression.

Self-sealing belief systems. Once the proponent becomes convinced that his favorite system "works," then the psychological forces discussed by James Alcock come into play. These self-serving biases serve to protect the belief system from falsification. Loopholism is one way proponents protect their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Saying "It is not the same thing" allows the believer to shield the system. Alcock supplies more examples of this ability to distort, forget, or ignore evidence. The true physician is aware of distortions of one's own judgement, as well as those of pseudoscientific competitors. [2]

I also wanted to note that the "more integrous" Wayne Dyer also promotes the work of Sai Baba, a pedophile who thinks he's God, and Gregg Braden, a pseudoscientist with odd religious beliefs about our DNA, among others. --66.31.144.141 02:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is not even remotely neutral in its point of view. It's filled with positive adjectives about Hawkins, his methodology, and his conclusions. There is no description whatsoever of contrary views of Hawkins, and a rationale presented for why the very skepticism about him shows that he's on to something. Apparently links to critical websites have been edited out. This article should be brought to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community. --Anlala 21:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's POV is showing now, Anlala? (This subsection was previously titled "An Atrocious violation of NPOV" -- the kettle/black metaphor comes to mind.) The "critical websites" you refer to (there was only one that was deleted) was in fact a purely ad hominem attack. Look before you leap.

Please do your own homework, comment & suggest edits as you wish, but steer clear of knee-jerk, artificial, and superficial critiques. Get specific. --66.69.219.9 20:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Watts

I strongly object to using Alan Watts in association with this work. Dr. Hawkins himself has never done so. I agree with Anala, this entry is filled with positive gushings and not reality. (unsigned comment by 71.137.214.125)

Dr. Hawkins has reviewed the article and finds it to be highly truthful, calibrating at Level 400, including the reference to Alan Watts. I am open to edits, but many of the statements (re. Dr. Hawkins' objectives, purpose, etc.) are in fact direct quotes from Dr. Hawkins. --66.69.219.9 20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as how Alan Watts cannot respond to Hawkins' work, I wanted to note that Watts was also familiar with what he called "Trickster Gurus" and people can consider this aspect of Watts' thought also, not just reference a book of his in supposed posthumous support of Hawkins' work. [3] --66.31.144.141 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In the lecture "Zen: The eternal now" by Watts, he states that he opposes supposed scientific ways of determining whether one "has it" or not (enlightenment), as he believes it encourages competition, which is not good for spiritual pursuits. I believe this is enough to take off reference of Watts on the Hawkins entry. Thanks --66.31.144.141 16:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I trimmed out the list of books with no apparent connection to Hawkins, and renamed the section "Works". "Reference" sections are intended to be used for sources that are used in the article itself, not books that the subject finds interesting. -Willmcw 21:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm OK with your editing with discretion, but please stop just whilly-nilly making changes with what appears to be superficial review. All of the books that are referred to in the article, or were used as a reference, have been restored.--66.69.219.9 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad you're OK with me editing. I'm OK with your editing too. Which page of Alan Watts book was used as a reference for this article? -Willmcw 23:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
You apparently haven't read Watts, or you wouldn't ask such a question...but, in an odd way, as I sense a lack of sincerity in your question, "thanks for asking." If you're truly interested it is not a bad place to start in all of this business, and it is addressed to a youthful audience, so that may be appealing to you as well. It begins: "Just what should a young man or woman know in order to be "in the know?" Is there, in other words, some inside information, some special taboo, some real lowdown on life and existence that most parents and teachers either don't know or won't tell...?"
At a high level, the entire book I've referenced (The Book) from Alan Watts is filled with apropos content in regard to nonduality, which should come as no surprise given both Hawkins' and Watts' heavy leaning toward Eastern philosophies. To narrow it down, and from a personal perspective, I'd pick Chapter 5 as being perhaps most centric, as I love the action-oriented, practical content much less the title: "So What?" --66.69.219.9 03:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
So it was Chapter 5 of "The Book" that you are using as a reference to indicate that Hawkins' ideas are similar to those of Watts? My point is simply that specific references should be specific. Probably even more important are the links to whoever makes the comparison, whether that's Hawkins himself or some other commentator. If it's just a Wikipadia editor who beleive so then that'd be original research. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, again, for asking. I'll expand the section in the article describing Hawkins' validation of Watts' concepts, with specifics re. nonduality and other concepts. It is hardly limited to Ch. 5, which my above language makes quite clear. Good evening, and have a pleasant tomorrow. --66.69.219.9 04:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Published Criticisms

This article is completely biased. It does claim David Hawkins' work is "only somewhat controversial" but even if that were so, you won't find any of the very legitimate critiques and criticisms of this author's work in it. David Hawkins gives a simple physical,scientfic method he claims can reveal the absolute truth or falsity of any statement. Simply claiming that he's religious is no excuse not to subject such an assertion to any form of skepticism or scientific review, A better, more neutral article would definitely have talked about the controversy and explained more about what scientists and people skeptical of "applied kinsesiology" have to say about it. (Unsigned comment by 69.154.246.9)

The article needs to reference published, well-founded criticisms, which appears to be the core issue of the above, unsigned comment. It is clear from the previous dialogue from the article's authors that there has been a largely unsuccessful effort so far to find any, with the apparent exception of blogged comments from the Skepdic author. While the Skepdic's author's comments have for some reason been included as an external reference, it is clear that a more scientific (whether reductionist science or complexity-oriented) foundation to criticism is being welcomed...just -- so-far -- not found. Moreover, none of Hawkins' books tend to be about "applied kinesiology" from any technical standpoint; that rather appears to be the expertise & domain of Dr. Diamond, the author of "Your Body Doesn't Lie." Perhaps AK criticisms should be directed there. I find the actual content of Dr. Hawkins' books to be most enlightening, and -- if anything -- there is actually too little information on AK in them. --AustinKnight 13:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conscious Multimedia Database

Is the "Conscious Multimedia Database" officially connected to Hawkins in any way? I'd assumed it was, but then an anonymous editor added a weird comment about it

  • A nonintegrous website that uses the work of Dr. David Hawkins to sell product, using false calibrations

Nonintegrous? Anyway, if it isn't directly connected to Hawkins it might not belong in his biography. -Willmcw 06:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at the calibrations and compare them to those in Truth vs. Falsehood, and one will be quick to notice that the calibrations of the items sold on this webiste are fake. Hawkins himself mentioned this website on (I believe) the 5/11/04 interview on Beyond the Ordinary, in which he states that they had a book on there calibrating at 9,000! Nonintegrous indeed.

"non-integrous" doesn't appear in dictionaries. What does it mean - "lack of integrity"? Anyway, Since the CMD does not appear to belong to Hawkins, or make relevant criticisms of him, it doesn't serve a purpose here. -Willmcw 21:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Errors and notes on this entry

Please provide an entry for the "Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research". This is something Hawkins invented and runs out of his home. It is Veritas Publishing, in other words, and he appointed himself the director. Please correct this if it is wrong, and create an entry for the "Institute".

The statement that Hawkins is an "internationally known authority within the fields of consciousness research and spirituality" needs to be supported, not just claimed. If you mean the scientific study of consciousness, this needs to be supported by actual scientists, not self-help gurus or businessmen. Claiming to be an "authority" in "spirituality" is clearly subjective, while in science it is not. You will note that Hawkins has not published one related article (if he has, prove it please) in a respected peer-reviewed journal, but instead publishes his own books or spiritual publishers do.

"He is unique in that a very advanced state of spiritual awareness occurred in an individual with a scientific and clinical background who was later able to explain the unusual phenomenon in a clear and comprehensible manner." This is clearly a matter of opinion. You cannot verify that he reached an advanced state, etc. This is PR to sell books, not fact.

"He additionally seeks to confirm the evolution of consciousness over eons of time via both its linear and nonlinear expressions, and then to correlate the emergence of spiritual awareness historically as expressed by the great avatars, saints, mystics, and Enlightened Teachers over the millenia." This makes it sound like this is a fact. It is rather an over-estimated opinion of the author.

"Applied kinesiology is a means of discerning degrees of truth" This is a declarative statement of the author. If we are to go on facts, a better statement to include would be the fact that every double-blind study done on AK has shown it to be false (Reference: The National Library of Medicine).

"available to anyone whose overall spiritual growth and awareness have achieved a specifically sufficient level of consciousness" This is an ad hoc hypothesis and begs the question.

"Hawkins' actual findings are only somewhat controversial" This statement is ridiculous. There is so much controversy surrounding this work, as is evidenced simply by reading this discussion page or many other sites. There needs to be balance on this entry, not zealots editing the page consistently in favor of their god.

"Applied kinesiology as a research method is fairly controversial because it is considered a pseudoscience by some scientists, including the National Library of Medicine." This statement contradicts itself. The scientific method itself shows AK to be "no more useful than random guessing." Therefore, ALL scientists (if the word is to have meaning outside of selling books) see AK as a pseudoscience. If this fact is not accepted by the faithful, the simple fact that the NLM sees it as pseudoscience shows that this is the mainstream (i.e., most scientists) view of AK. Please correct this to make it factual.

"studied psychiatry at Columbia University" Has this been verified? Please provide information. I know about his MD, and it is not from Columbia. Thank you.

"Dr. Hawkins...lectures widely at universities (Harvard, Oxford, et al)" Please prove this. If he lectured at these universities before, that is fine as he had some respect as a psychiatrist. If these lectures are on spirituality and AK, I highly doubt this statement. Please prove it, don't just claim it.

""Dr. Doctor David Hawkins's AK Quakery" A web-based newsletter by Robert T. Carroll, Ph.D, who, by his own statements, has not read any of his books." I updated this to include the author's name, and the fact that it is a newsletter that he sends out as part of the Skeptic's Dictionary. It is not opinion in that he provides information about Hawkins' Ph.D. from Columbia Pacific University, a known diploma mill, and simply states the scientific FACT that AK has been shown to be false repeatedly in double-blind studies. This is not opinion. You can look this up for yourself on the NLM web site.

There have been many instances of factual information being deleted from this entry, and positive and slanted adjectives and unverified information being promulgated as absolute fact, which is absurd. Please be "integrous" and report facts, not "ego" biases. Thank you. (Anonymous entry by 66.30.238.136)


I've taken the liberty of relocating this discussion to its appropriate position in terms of time-sequence. The above, anonymous, editor would do well to do his own homework, as his edits and suppositions show a multitude of errors and biases. Due to the disrespectful nature and tone of the above dialogue and virtual vandalism of the article by this same person, a point-by-point refutation is not in order. Since he is otherwise attempting to edit with aplomb, the use of an IP address only (66.30.238.136) appears to be a sock puppet attempt to smear the subject of the article. Should the same author step forward with a better attitude and tone -- accompanied by better research -- answers to more-considered questions will be offered in kind. This article has already been reviewed by an admin for NPOV...and so I, certainly, will not jump through hoops for some random anon's disrespectful jibes. --AustinKnight 20:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Classic ad hominem. Take up the issues. Please pinpoint the errors rather than make unsubstantiated, bold claims.

A previous editor, user:66.69.219.9, was also unregistered but no one questioned his good faith for that reason alone. The questions raised are worth answering. If we don't have supporting information proving assertions like "internationally known authority within the fields of consciousness research and spirituality" or "a very advanced state of spiritual awareness occurred" then those assertions should be removed. -Willmcw 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine, Sir Willmcw: (1) Sir Hawkins books are published in 17 languages; he lectures internationally on the topic of spirituality. That the Nobel prize-winning Mother Teresa has endorsed "Power vs. Force" is at least one indicator of its substantial international reach. Google for "David R. Hawkins" and you will find that most of the 53,000+ entries do relate to the Dr. Hawkins we're discussing and that only (so far) the Skepdic guy (the one who hasn't read any of Hawkins' books) has published anything critical of him...at least, in the first 150 entries that I reviewed. (2) What, exactly, do you consider to be "supporting information" for a person's level of consciousness, Willmcw? Perhaps we should find out if the Buddha page is making similar assertions and go a-questioning there as well? (3) Yes, the source of Dr. Hawkins' Ph.D. has been discredited...but his doctoral dissertation has not been. This topic has been covered before, and the consensus was to point people to the 'diploma mill' page and leave it at that, so I've reverted the entry to the previous consensus. (4) Not all of the questions raised are worth answering. Do I -- or any editor -- have to educate every anon with an attitude that Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Prize? Similarly, has anyone claimed that Hawkins was their deity, as said anon has alleged...? Again...if he'll ask reasonably researched questions, respectfully, I'll be happy to answer in kind. Mutual respect: that's the Wiki way -- or so I'm told. :-) --AustinKnight 03:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
1) 54,000 Google hits do not establish Hawkins as an authority in the field of consciousness research.
2) There is no supporting information for proving enlightenment. Therefore all we can say is that Hawkins claimed to have achieved enlightenment.
3) What consensus? I don't see that this has been discussed here before.
4) Yes, every assertion in this article which is questioned needs to have an answer. You are not required to answer them, but other editors are correct to remove unverifiable info.
5) Mutual respect is not earned by the types of comments you've made above. -Willmcw 03:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The lack of respect started with the anon, and has been picked up by you. Take a breather and come back with a clear head, Willmcw. --AustinKnight 03:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Which anon? There have been several on this page. I have not shown you any disrespect. Please show me the consensus about the Ph.D that you have referred to as the basis for removing the information about CPU. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Had to look it up...it is here, as asserted by Prosfilaes. Apparently, the unsigned anon comments were cluttered and out of time sync such so that no one knew who was talking to who, and this was corrected by clearing the talk page. --AustinKnight 03:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Some anonymous editor improperly deleted previous talk page comments. I don't see a consensus, I see one editor making an assertion that no one agreed with. -Willmcw 04:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Prosfilaes' point was clearly well taken and was not challenged. His point is still valid. His comment re. speaking with a cool head is also particularly apropos. And with that humble advice, I, too, am off to count zzzs. Good evening. --AustinKnight 04:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, whatever "consensus" may have existed no longer exists. Let's build a fresh consensus (one which involves more than one editor). If we mention that he has a PhD, then we need to mention that it came from a diploma mill which was shut the same year. Or, we can omit the PhD entirely. We also need to build consensuses on the other claims that user:66.30.238.136 has questioned. Sleep well. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with building a new consensus, and am actually OK with a brief mention of the problems with CPU provided that it is made clear that this is CPU's problem...not Hawkins'. In this instance, the dissertation drafted by Hawkins should be the focus since -- as Prosfilaes wisely points out -- this is an article about Hawkins, not CPU. Perjorative, belittling comments have no place in an encyclopedia in any case, and they diminish the reputation of the author more than the subject.
Going beyond all of this at a higher level of abstraction, I would observe that there is a systemic problem with this article (and perhaps Wikipedia in general) in that there is no introduction of any kind to the topic, and as a result it keeps getting stuck on something of a merry-go-round. The same issues keep getting rehashed: (1) usually by some 'new' anon, (2) sometimes with POV-oriented belligerence and disrespect, (3) sometimes with vandalism, and (4) commonly without substantially added value. In the case of the Hawkins article, this seems to be happening when people enter into the discussion with either a background in 'science' (however that may be defined, or limited) or skepticism, but without a background in mysticism or theology...both of which are the primary focus of Hawkins -- not AK. When backgrounds are highly orthogonal, the degree of consensus/agreement (or lack thereof) is likely to follow. There is perhaps...and thankfully...a crossover point, one form of which is the article on "Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics" by McFarlane. People who approach Hawkins with some sort of presumption of guilt would do well to start there, not with Hawkins, as the AK thing seems to mentally throw them in the ditch without any allowance for the possibility of its validity, which in any case misses the major points of Hawkins...which, in terms of gravitus, have little to do with AK itself. I'll give this some additional thought and draft an intro to this topic with the hope of level setting and providing alternative sources of information to consider before jumping into the deep end of the pool with Hawkins' analysis and synthesis, which when consumed too quickly are clearly too divisive to give due consideration. --AustinKnight 14:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As I was writing this someone deleted it! (AustinKnight) If you don't agree you can just delete. Great.

Anon -- You ran into an "edit conflict." We all do. I did not delete your write-up, the Wiki system went with what was written first. Also, look up at the second button from the right on your editing page: when you use this, as all of us should, it will automatically time-stamp and sign your entries. --AustinKnight 14:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

My point was that Mother Teresa did not get a Nobel Prize for science. The Buddha welcomed criticism and asked followers to question him so they could truly trust him.

I also gave information that is in your favor: Dr. Hawkins' degree is legal. Only degrees after 1997 are illegal. This does not change the nature of the school, and is therefore scientifically illegitimate.

See Carroll's Newsletter 58: http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter58.html#3

And most importantly the Point Reyes Light articles: http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/dec24/chileno.html http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/dec30_99/ruling.html

Anon -- Yes, CPU has been discredited. If you'll look at the Wiki article for Columbia Pacific University you'll find an excellent discussion of this. The article for Hawkins has a link to CPU. As stated above, it could use a respectful note to the reader that CPU was discredited after Hawkins was granted his Ph.D. in order to shed an appropriate but respectful light on this issue. --AustinKnight 14:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, AustinKnight.

"this is CPU's problem...not Hawkins'" I would agree possibly if Hawkins had ever made known the source of his Ph.D. in his books or web site. The fact is that it is substantial for him because he would have never received a Ph.D. in this subject from, say Harvard (in which case I am certain he would have boldly promoted this fact), but only from a "diploma mill" (per California officials) with "virtually no academic standards." If he were open about his credentials, it may have not been his problem as it would have been a clear sign of ignorance. But even then, the school is bogus and this is ultimately not a good argument (appeal to ignorance).

Anon -- There is no argument being made. As one reality is that Hawkins claims the title Ph.D. -- which was earned & granted -- and we're here to create an encyclopedia, my take on this remains the same as stated above: as long as Hawkins claims the Ph.D. title, he gets what goes along with that; i.e., a brief yet polite acknowledgement that the school lost its ability to grant Ph.D.s after Hawkins degree was granted, but that (with an explicit reference, title, etc.) Hawkins doctoral dissertation is available to the public. The internal link to CPU will otherwise more than suffice in terms of shared knowledge. --AustinKnight 18:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding CPU, it is not as if it was a highly respected institution that suddenly lost its credentials. Hawkins chose a diploma mill to pursue his degree, one so disreputable that it has all accreditation removed a year later. Hawkins is being described as a very wise and enlightened individual, so his choice of university is interesting. Since CPU is not a household name, it is necessary to also include some mention of its history here. (And btw, a degree from an unaccredite school might be invalid, but it wouldn't be illegal). As for the article overall, an Anon, user:66.69.219.9, seems to have written most of it. Would it be wrong to deduce that 66.69.219.9 and AustinKnight are the same person? In any case, if a better introduction is needed, let's work on the existing four-paragraph intro and see if we can improve it. -Willmcw 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The CPU section has been co-located with the rest of Hawkins academics. For the record, I do believe that Hawkins erred in selecting CPU for establishing his Ph.D. credentials. Lots of people make mistakes, including Hawkins, and including the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, who began its foundations in the porn industry. CPU was likely not Hawkins first nor last mistake...he's human. So, please, calm down, step back from the shrill pejoratives -- which do Wikipedia no favors from an encyclopedic standpoint -- and allow for the possibility that Hawkins was thoroughly vetted by the country of Denmark before it beknighted him. And as you say, in any case, let's focus on the first four paragraphs for now. --AustinKnight 15:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I am casting no aspersions on the Anon by calling him/her as much. A churlish referral to them would perhaps be appeal to ignorance...but the humor might be lost in translation, and I have not done so. I don't know how else to refer to them except as "Anon" (or to take the trouble, every time, to look up their IP address) since they are neither signing their entries as requested and politely educated, nor as encouraged by Wiki guidelines. If they will be so kind as to do so, I'll gladly refer to them as appropriate. Respectfully, --AustinKnight 15:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
"Shrill pejoratives"? What shrill pejoratives? And what does Hawkins supposed knighthood in Denmark have to do with this PhD? Calling someone an "Anon" is not an aspersion, writing " Since he is otherwise attempting to edit with aplomb, the use of an IP address only (66.30.238.136) appears to be a sock puppet attempt to smear the subject of the article. " is casting an aspersion. Please don't make negative personal reamrks like this about other editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Titles are appropriate in an introduction. Why do you keep deleting Hawkins title as "Sir" or otherwise description as having been knighted? These are of interest. Please don't delete facts simply because you do not agree with them. I am writing to the Danish embassy to confirm Hawkins' status, but I note with sadness that this is necessary; moreover, it is a demonstration of a lack of an appropriate presumption of my edits being in good-faith -- a violation of Wikipedia etiquette. BTW, use of the prosecutorial phrase "virtually no academic standards" is certainly pejorative; appropriate for a state prosecutor...not so much for an encyclopedia. --AustinKnight 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We haven't found an independent source for this information, see my question below. -Willmcw 17:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't doubt that you, AustinKnight, are editing in good faith. I simply doubt the source of the information. -Willmcw 17:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knighthood and Foremost Teacher

What order of knighthood was Hawkins added to? When was he knighted? By whom was he "honored in the East with the title "Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Tosa" (Foremost Teacher of the Way to Enlightenment)." and when and where did this happen? Thanks, -Willmcw 17:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

1995: "Officiated by the Crown Prince Valdemar of Denmark at the San Anselmo Theological Seminary, Dr. Hawkins became a knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem (founded in 1077) in recognition of his contributions to humanity."
1999-2000: "Invited by Dr. Jin-Hee Moon, former assistant to the Dali Lama, to speak in Korea and meet with government officials and many spiritual groups, including the Advanced Yoga Research Center in Seoul." In 2000, "Given the honor of being named “Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Tosa” (translated as “Great Soul, Foremost Leading Teacher/Scholar of the Way to Enlightenment”) in (Seoul), Korea."
Ref: http://consciousnessproject.org/page.asp?PageID=23
I am sorry if I have cast any aspersions on the Anon, but I, too, am human, and have some natural resentment for the disrespectful tone of his/her questions and the all-too-apparent lack of research on his/her part before giving a huge shopping list of to-do's. My time is at least as valuable as his/hers, and he/she should -- as I stated earlier, without rancor -- perform appropriate research before sending this Talk page into a whirl over sourcing information that is otherwise broadly available. --AustinKnight 18:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no "Crown Prince Valdemar of Denmark". There is no "San Anselmo Theological Seminary" (there is a "San Francisco Theological Seminary" in San Anselmo. The Danish "Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem" was founded in the 20th Century. Altogether, there are too many errors in this assertion, apparently sourced only from Hawkins, to believe this.
Regarding the "Foremost Teacher", so was it Moon who gave him the title? -Willmcw 00:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
See also: Knights Hospitaller#Mimic Orders. This is the chivalric equivalent of CPU. -Willmcw 00:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
We'll see. My query to the Danish Embassy in Washington has gone in. --AustinKnight 02:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have received additional information that clarifies the above post re. Dr. Hawkins knighthood, and...at the moment...it looks favorable for Dr. Hawkins. I am expecting additional information from the Danish Embassy and will post something to the article once I have that in hand. In advance of that, here is a name for others to perform (better) due diligence on: H.H. (His Highness) Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg - Lippe. Photos of the knighthood exist and are also being sought.

Similar supportive info/circumstances exist re. the Korean honors, which was apparently via a committee. The Korean event was also apparently reported in Seoul’s major newspaper including photos 9/16/00. Am also awaiting additional related information prior to posting to the article.

More later. --AustinKnight 02:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Check out this site. [4] Waldemar, born 1940, is apparently the younger grandson of a German prince who was deposed in 1918. There's no shortage of them, and selling titles is a popular method for former royalty to earn pocket money. The "Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem" itself may have been founded by a charlatan in 1956. This is getting good. -Willmcw 03:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. More info re. "Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem": as stated, I have more info to come in as yet, but, for due-diligence sake, at the moment the claim is that the order was established in the year 1070 and came to Denmark about the year 1164. --AustinKnight 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
According to this website,[5] there are many similarly named groups. "Some are clandestine orders of freemasonry, some are commercial, some are fraudulent and some are private philanthropic foundations that see advantage in using the name of the Order of Malta." The "Sovereign Order of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem" is based in Bellevue, Washington and is not recognized by the Vatican. "www.chivalricorders.org" says:
  • The high rent address leads one to suppose that, unfortunately, Wolff/Brancovan and Heisermann have once again found gullible victims for their scam. A later communication from this group, this time sent from a new address [11] where they have been resident since late 1994, came from "Sir Bernard Schuchardt", whose position in this "Order" was not stated. The stationary had by now been changed to "Knights of Malta / Sovereign Order of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem / O.S.J." and Schuchardt's letter enclosed two "Personal Biographical Questionnaires" for those chosen to be "Nominees for the Honour of The Cross of Merit of the Order of Malta". These documents did not demand much of the applicants in the form of biographical information but, mysteriously, demanded to know their height, weight, colors of their eyes and their blood group. It is likely that more will be heard of them before long. [6]
Any word back from the Danish Embassy? -Willmcw 06:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a preliminary acknowledgement. This may take a while. I've been to Denmark, and liked it rather well, but the sense of urgency on this topic is ours...not theirs. --AustinKnight 06:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If this turns out to be a false claim, I think we should note the claim and its nature in the entry. There appears to be a certain pattern regarding Hawkins: He has a Ph.D., but from a diploma mill; he was 'knighted' by a dubious source; his latest book is published by a publishing house (Axial Publishing) invented to publish only that book; he is the "director" of the Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research - something he invented, operates out of his home, and appointed himself director of; he lectured at well-known universities, but this certainly is when he was a psychiatrist, not a spiritual guru; etc. --66.30.238.136 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though we have to be careful about WP:NOR. If Hawkins had given the truth about the knighthood rather than the "Crown Prince of Denmark" bit then it would have been different. That appears to be an intentional exaggeration. Combined with the others activities it does create an certain appearance. -Willmcw 22:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's another interesting piece in the Hawkins pattern - Hawkins' website states: "Dr. David R. Hawkins is a nationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher and lecturer, as his listing in Who's Who in America amply attests." Take a look at the Marquis Who's Who Wikipedia article, which reads:

Some of these are vanity publications, where the inclusion criteria is the biographee's willingness to buy the book, and the business model consists in selling books directly to the biographees.

Marquis does offer some vanity features and merchandise to biographees. Tucker Carlson in an article entitle Hall of Lame that appeared in Forbes Magazine, writes that the selection process is neither rigorous nor meaningful, and self nominators and thousands of people not particularly notable are included, such a bowling coaches, teachers and landscape architects. Carlson also writes that Marquis makes money selling addresses to direct mail marketers. Yet another bunk source of credibility. --66.31.144.141 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Willmcw, do you think we have enough information to include in the entry? It seems this claim should be noted in some fashion as various web sites continue to claim his knighthood unchallenged. Another amusing note is that usually when the "foremost teacher" claim is mentioned, it is the context of "the Far East" giving him this title. I don't think a person or group based in South Korea should be referred to as "the Far East." Please include some mention of these important claims when you feel you have enough information. Thanks --66.31.144.141 20:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue. We can say that he claims to have received a knighthood from the Crown Prince of Denmark, and I suppose we can say that he has also said he received it from Prince Waldemar of wherever. We can list the order of knighthood and link to it (we only have an article for the main Templars, but it has a section on modern imitators). But we have to be careful about drawing our own conclusions. We can simply present the available, sourced material and let readers judge for themselves. As for the "foremost teacher" label, Korea is certainly the "Far East" from the conventionally Euro-centric view. I'm not sure that we have a good source for any info about it though. -Willmcw 00:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Tag Removal

Subject to further editing, certainly, -- as continually happens, of course, with every other Wiki article -- the NPOV tag is being removed. --AustinKnight 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll put the tag back until we've settled the issues that have been raised. -68.164.118.152 22:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And I will remove it again. As has been made quite clear, the foundations of the previous Anon's "issues" are what remains highly questionable, not the "Neutral Point of View" of the article. If there are some reasonably researched, meritable, specific issues that you find affect NPOV status, please state what they are and we will take them up. But, as written, the article meets NPOV. --AustinKnight 22:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AK -- under some conditions -- has been falsified

"The supposed "skeptics claim" gives zero indication that it used any of Hawkins' specific AK methodologies; it is a denial of one claimed type of AK, and has zero connection to Hawkins"

I'm so glad you brought this up, AustinKnight. His whole basis begins with this "type" of AK, which has been shown to be false in double-blind studies. It is equivalent to someone "building" on astrology, a pseudoscience. AK has been falsified (see falsifiability and scientific method).


Anon -- You're welcome, but frequently overreaching in your statements. Hawkins' AK methodology -- of which you are apparently uninformed -- is fairly explicit. If its tenets are violated, the AK tests will fail...as Hawkins readily admits. Please back up specific claims with specifics regarding Hawkins...not general AK claims. This is an article about Hawkins. Thank you. --AustinKnight 01:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite informed, actually. You'd be surprised. What you just wrote is an ad hoc hypothesis that Hawkins used to rescue his theory from refutation. It does not work, so he must come up with several reasons why it does not (ad hoc hypothesis). As you know, it used to be that anyone, anywhere could do AK, per DH. Then, only those "above 200" (ad hoc hypothesis). Then, he needed to remind how much time it takes to get good at it, that sometimes we are not "allowed" to ask certain quetions...and now in lectures he has literally reduced his use of AK to a "karmic inheritance". Scientifically this is meaningless. He has started a religion, not developed a new science. The very basis of research (see PvF) has been shown to be false.

Anon -- You seem to place an inordinate weight on tests that you clearly are unfamiliar with. Is 'astronomy' false because 'astrology' is false? Both look at the stars. Hawkins -- claims -- that he has found a method for AK via a specific set of criteria that works. Any 'number of scientific tests in a field can fail because they use the 'wrong' criteria...also known as "basis". Move on. --AustinKnight 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I am actually quite familiar with these tests. Please relax on the ad hominem and address the issues. Please make it abundantly clear in the article that Hawkins "claims" these things, not just in discussion. No, astronomy is not false because astrology is. This is a not a good argument from analogy as the proper example would be something more like Hawkins coming up with new Zodiac signs, or something similar. AK is false. Building on it is equally false. Astronomy is entirely different from astrology. (An excellent discussion on this subject is Sir Karl Popper's article listed under the AK entry.)

A better question for you is where is Hawkins' research and double-blind studies? He just makes bold claims.

We are using "basis" in a different way. You are referring to criteria. For example, to say that someone cannot make proper astrological predications as they are not using the right criteria is meaningless as the very basis - astrology itself (as with AK itself) - is false. Astronomy (see the Popper article) makes risky predictions that are capable of falsification. Astrology seems to work as it constantly looks for confirmation, not falsification (as does AK). See confirmation bias and falsifiability.

P.S. Frankly, I wish that the Hawkins-compliant tests that you state have been done actually had been. That would be quite useful. My support comes largely from the fact that I have seen these tests work, and, frankly, much to my own personal embarassment. Your challenges are good, but let's both work from as much truth as we can actually discern. If Hawkins is pulling a fast one with knighthood claims, for instance, I'll be the next in line to bash him for doing so. --AustinKnight 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just look up "applied kinesiology" under the National Library of Medicine web site.

When you do the tests - look for how many times it does not work, vs. how many times it seems to. If you do this honestly, you will find that probability will account for the apparent "hits".

[edit] More claims

  • He later resumed clinical psychiatry practice in New York City where he built the largest psychiatric practice in New York with 50 therapists and other employees, 2000 out-patients, a suite of 25 offices and laboratories, and 1000 new patients each year.

The largest in NYC? And let me guess- the only source we have for this assertion is Hawkins? -Willmcw 02:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In interviews he often says the largest practice "in the U.S." and I even heard him say "in the world".
  • Hawkins responds to such critics by pointing toward the 359 years of controversy, derision and even heretical persecution that Galileo Galilei met with after he first proposed truths -- ultimately proven correct -- that ran counter to common belief systems.

Where does Hawkins says this? I can't find it using Google. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In his books. It's there. --AustinKnight 04:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you please give us the quote that you are using as the basis for this assertion? Thanks, -Willmcw 07:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Why? --AustinKnight 14:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Because I don't believe that Hawkins has responded to critics who call his work "pseudoscience" by "pointing towards the 359 years of controversy, derision and even heretical persecution that Galileo Galilei met with after he first proposed truths". I'd like to see exactly what he did say. Until we get a source I'll remove the "quotation". Thanks, -Willmcw 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Does not provide any linkage to Hawkins' specific AK methodologies" Sometimes I do not respond to Hawkinazis (humor, no offense intended) as what they are saying is just so absurd. AustinKnight, just think briefly: Ak has been shown to be no more useful than random guessing for testing nutrients. This is what Hawkins incorrectly cited as "a well-established science" in PvF. So, it does not work for its initial purpose, testing nutrients (which I think you agree with), but by some magical leap it will work as a lie detector? Really? Thanks.

Regarding Orthomolecular Psychiatry not being in use currently, I found, for example, on amazon.com a medical historian wrote this:

An amazing collection of writings from some of the leaders of the "orthomolecular medicine" movement. It was co-edited by the movement's founder, Linus Pauling, who also wrote or co-wrote many of the chapters. Almost everything this book proposes in terms of diagnosis, causes and treatment of mental disorders has either never been supported or has been disproven by subsequent research. This is not a book to read for information on mental disorders and their treatment - it is for historical reference only. Like an ancient Egyptian medical papyrus, it is fascinating reading but has little or no valid medical or scientific information. It does, however, explain where some of the current medical nonsense seen in "alternative" or "complementary" medicine got its start.If you have an interest in medical history or the strange side-alleys of medicine, this is a book you'll want to have in your collection.

May not be considered "authoritative" as was asked, but is something in a way of a reference on this subject. Thank you.

Also: Orthomolecular techniques include juice fasting, megadoses of vitamins, and identifying allergies. Orthomolecular psychiatry is controversial, as it has not been evaluated rigorously through scientific clinical trials, and has in many cases, such as the use of megadoses of vitamins in the treatment of schizophrenia, been shown to be of no use. This is Hawkins' specific use of the subject. --66.31.144.141 20:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"The information is transmitted as a gift because it was received as such." Dr Hawkins. I just wanted to comment that one could easily spend thousands of dollars on Hawkins materials through his web site and lectures. A gift? It's expensive. Thanks.

AustinKnight, what knowledge do you have that it was a mutual decision when Hawkins left Margaret and his daughers when he moved to Sedona from New York? What are your references? Has Hawkins said this? Thanks.

"narcissistic care of the ego" is a typo in the original. Sorry, I thought it was an accident on your part. It appears it is Axial's error. When Hawkins refers to atheism, he mentions the "narcissistic cOre of the ego" denies God, not its "care". Thanks.

In light of new information, I wanted to comment on a few of Dr. Hawkins' statements that Dr. Carroll included in his newsletter.[7]

1) "That the university [CPU] collapsed some years later is their problem to handle."

As Dr. Carroll already noted, CPU was denied permission to operate in Dec. '95 (a couple of months after Hawkins received his Ph.D.). Only degrees issued after June 1997 are entitled to a refund due to CPU appealing the ruling. However, even then, this would not be "some years later," but rather about a year and a half later. Further, in 1997 California's Deputy Attorney General Asher Rubin called CPU "a diploma mill which has been preying on California consumers for too many years" [8].

2) "I was satisfied [with CPU]..."

This is perfect as the judge responsible in the case specifically commented on this exact statement:

In rendering her decision, Judge Duryee noted that the testimony of satisfied graduates doesn't amount to complying with the law. "The decision is not whether or not the students are dissatisfied," she said. "I mean that is not the test. It's like saying, you know, that prostitution should not be illegal because the customers are satisfied. It's not the test." [9]

3) "The 1st editions of Power vs Force did not even list a Ph.D. degree, but I was advised by the editor to add it as it was of interest to the public."

Of course the 1st editions of Power vs Force did not list a Ph.D. degree - the 1st editions were published by Hawkins' Veritas Publishing in June 1995; he did not have a Ph.D. until September 1995. --66.30.238.136 17:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia Pacific University

As is clearly indicated by even a casual reading of the CPU Wiki entry, this not a simple, white-and-black issue. It is misleading to pejoratively characterize CPU as "unaccredited", as this misses such important context as "the Department of Education cited CPU as comparing favorable with accredited programs in the US."

Let's please stop using pejoratives and let the readers educate themselves via the much more profound entry located on the CPU page, which appears to be very well done and balanced. We're not hiding anything in this article, but we're not going to be pejorative either...that would be unencyclopedic.

--AustinKnight 13:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not misleading to call an institute of higher learning that has no accreditation "Unaccredited". It is a precisely accurate and an important description. Most PhD-granting institutiions are accredited, so the presumption by a reader would be that this is an accredited university, which is why the truth about needs to be mentioned, albeit briefly. -Willmcw 20:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

We disagree. Again, in my opinion, you are being pejorative. The CPU dialogue is much more even-handed in its presentation. I reserve the right to raise this issue again later.

Separately, you appear to have the book and doctoral dissertation backwards in terms of time sequence. What is your source for alleging that the book preceded the doctoral thesis?--AustinKnight 03:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see how it is unnecessarily pejorative to acknowledge that the CPU was unaccredited. That's a simple fact, and is relevant to any mention of a degree from that place. Regarding the book, it was published in June of 1995, according to Amazon. When was his dissertation published? In any case, what's important is that he published the book for which he is somewhat famous, not for the dissertation. Putting the dissertation first in the discussion means having to put the whole CPU discussion before the book discussion. I'd think it makes your Hawkins look better to put the book first. However, if you want to lead the paragraph with the Ph.D. matter, then that's OK too. -Willmcw 05:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Good faith segue to a calm conversation: Will, you read way too much into my writings on Hawkins. You've likely looked around at my other edits and discerned my interests, and have seen that supporting charlatanism really isn't my gig. I'm just like every other person here in Wikipedia -- someone, as best possible, given their many human failings & flaws, who is searching for the truth. Writing to embassies to track down Hawkins' credentials really isn't something that I have time for, but...as I have said...if the man is bluffing/blustering, I'll be the next in line to bash, and am more than willing to go the extra mile to find out what's what. Having said that, I do have a huge issue with pejorative language, and try to avoid it myself as much as humanly possible...most certainly when it comes to language put into actual articles vs. talk pages; these two deserve 'firewall' treatment, otherwise Wikipedia starts to look like...well...a blog...one that does not reflect any better on the "pejorator" than the "pejoratee." One of my 'features' is that I assume good faith, even if mistakes (say, the ghost of CPU) have been made in the past...but the truth calls, and we're all on the hunt. Peace. --AustinKnight 06:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I shouldn't have said that he is "your Hawkins" as I don't mean to question your motives. My point was simply that, while a proper discussion of CPU is necessary, the book is more important than the dissertation. I don't know whether "unaccredited" is "pejorative" or not. But I do know that it is truthful and relevant. Integrous? I hope so. Why does any of this matter? On a basic level, at Wikipedia we need to make sure that all of our articles summarize verifiable information from reliable source in an NPOV manner. On a more esoteric level, those who claim great wisdom can expect to have the wisdom of their life choices examined. Even as far back as Socrates and Xanthippe, philosophers have been criticized for poor choices in their personal lives. Few philosophers or religious leaders can live up to the strictures of their own tenets, but that does not necessarily undermine the truth of their teachings. It does prove them to be human beings. -Willmcw 09:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for that honest appraisal, Will. To amend some of my own words, on further consideration I will not "bash" Hawkins even if his marketing of the knighthood connection turns out to be less than transparent. Perspective is important, and in balance he is simply a 78 year-old man who has devoted his life to discerning spiritual truths using the best tools that life has served him to the best of his judgment. I've yet to meet a medical doctor who knew how to do marketing, so this certainly wouldn't be the first instance of such. With respect to poor choices in personal lives, I have no doubt that many people have found God through having effectively "been called to the principal's office" rather than piety, and Hawkins does not exclude himself from the former group. And in the end, his very clear message is that our concept of God needs to be made larger and more symbolic, not smaller and more literal, and my sense is that this is on the right path. --AustinKnight 14:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

It's always nice to have a photo of a biographical subject. The ideal picture would be from someone who releases it under the GFDL (just like our text is). Much less ideal would be to claim a "fair use" exemption for a promotional photo. In any case, it'd be nice to have one. -Willmcw 04:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Studies on Applied Kinesiology

Double-blind Study on Materials Testing with Applied Kinesiology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16246943&query_hl=1

Test-retest-reliability and validity of the Kinesiology muscle test. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11926427&query_hl=1

Applied kinesiology unreliable for assessing nutrient status. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3372923&query_hl=1

A review of the research papers published by the International College of Applied Kinesiology from 1981 to 1987. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2351880&dopt=Abstract

Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16047707&query_hl=1

"Applied kinesiology" in medicine and dentistry--a critical review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15791778&query_hl=1

Unproved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to food allergy and intolerance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12840706&query_hl=1

[edit] New Age vs New Thought

An editor recently added that line to an external link. However a quick check of Google shows differently. ["David R Hawkins" "new age"] gets 34,000 hits, while ["David R Hawkins" "new thought"] gets just 1,700 (only 350 unique hits). Though Hawkins may see himself as a member of the New Thought Movement, others see him more as part of the New Age Movement. Since our own articles on New Thought place it a 19th century movement, perhaps we should be referring to a different movement. -Willmcw 01:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I may elaborate tomorrow when I have more time, but Hawkins disparages "New Age" concepts in Power vs. Force and other books (e.g., the notion that crystals have magical powers, etc.) as his research does not support New Age concepts in any fashion. The opposite is true for New Thought, and Hawkins has formal ties with Unity Church, the largest of the New Thought churches. So, notwithstanding broad misunderstandings of New Thought vs. New Age...as evidenced via Google...Hawkins is not considered a supporter of New Age. --AustinKnight 02:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S. As indicated above, the reason that I appended the original note (New Thought vs. New Age) was for clarity, not an editorial comment as you alleged in the edit summary. Please presume that I am acting in good faith...it's considered to be more appropriate Wiki behavior. --AustinKnight 02:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Editorial comments are not bad faith. We haven't yet established what Hawkins' type of "New Thought is, since it clearly isn't what the term now links to. The fact is that so many people and movements get lumped into "New Age" that it is an almost useless term. The place to discuss Hawkins' feeling about the "New Age" movement is not in the external links section. It apparently deserves a paragraph to talk about it and the New Thought movement. Do we have any sources for his writings on those topics? Thanks, -Willmcw 03:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, as stated, Hawkins books and research on New Age concepts (crystals, etc.) contain appropriate, and unsupportive, findings regarding New Age ideas. I'll dig up the quotes tomorrow, as time permits. The article may need some additional paragraphs to explain this, but Wikipedia's articles on "New Age" and "New Thought" are not a bad place to start -- thus the links. --AustinKnight 05:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Hawkins teaches at Unity Churches -- the largest New Thought church -- and the Unity School of Christianity provides continuing ed. credits for attending Hawkins lectures. More tomorrow. Have a good evening, --AustinKnight 05:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, so the old New Thought church is the same one then. Is Hawkins a Christian? -Willmcw 05:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Last one for the road: Yes, the New Thought churches (plural) started in the early 1900's, but continue today. And, yes, absolutely Hawkins is a Christian. His controversy -- in fundamentalist circles -- largely arises from the fact that he speaks to the metaphysical truths that Jesus was conveying, and that he discerns the harmonious truths in other faiths as well. You really should consider reading Power vs. Force...it would add much to the dialogue and the value of the article. --AustinKnight 06:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to comment that while Hawkins may not associate himself with New Age, he is certainly classified this way by others. Thus, I believe the tag is appropriate for him. Just as an example, Martin Heidegger and some others strongly disagreed that they were existentialists, but are nevertheless classified that way by other professionals.

For example, see "A Rough Guide to New Age Teachers" by Andrew P. of EnergyGrid: http://www.energygrid.com/spirit/guide/directory.html And of course Dr. Carroll's entry on applied kinesiology refers to Hawkins as a "New Age guru" http://skepdic.com/akinesiology.html (unsigned entry by 66.30.238.136)

Confusion of terms is not a logical or ethical rationale for continuing the confusion. We'll clarify this situation, not muddy it. Moreover, quoting an anonymous author as being somehow "authoritative" is insulting to the reader and Wikipedia. Carroll, on the other hand, is clearly being flip and loose in regard to terminology...which is not something that Wikipedia aspires to. --AustinKnight 23:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate to categorize Hawkins as New Age, but there is enough confusion that we should write a paragraph explaining that, while many people consider him as part of the New Age movement, in fact Hawkins has said X,Y,Z about it. Unless we clear up the confusion we're not helping. -Willmcw 00:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Very much agreed...and done. --AustinKnight 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those quotes, AustinKnight. I find it disturbing that he sees all of the typical New Age stuff as "pseudospiritual fantasy", yet does not see the "beam in his own eye" so to speak regarding AK. Thanks.

[edit] Axial Publishing

It appears that "Axial Publishing" publishes only one book: Truth vs. Falsehood. http://axialbooks.com/welcome.htm

I've never read a bio of someone where they mention that his publisher has published only one book. What is the importance of this? If i buy an easel and only paint one painting, and this painting becomes a respected work, are historians going to go back and find it of critical importance that I bought and utilised that easel for only one painting?

Some comments, similar to these, seem specifically designed to undermine his work. It's not the facts that are presented, its they way they are worded. I'm deleting the "which was started to publish only that book" comment.--Jimmy 13:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Calibrations" mentioned in article

It is important to make clear that these are his own "calibrations" - therefore there needs to be some mention that these are "claimed". Saying 'this calibrates higher than another' in the context of an encyclopedia is to incorrectly assume pseudoscience as fact. I request mention of "calibration" be removed, or clearly qualified (and not stated repeatedly). Thank you. (unsigned entry by 66.30.238.136)

Agreed in spirit. The article clearly mentions that Hawkins refers to his research in terms of calibration, and it is clumsy to keep beating the reader over the head with this as though he/she were incapable of remembering this. But I'll add some clarity. --AustinKnight 16:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Teachers

I added only three teachers (H. Po, R. Maharshi, N. Maharaj) that Hawkins specifically recommends reading. To copy information of various high-"calibrating" churches, etc., is to just copy his work. It is taking up too much space. See referenced "Suggested Readings" in Hawkin's books. Please don't just list his work on an encylopedia. (unsigned entry by 66.30.238.136)

It is highly encyclopedic to report excerpts of Hawkins spiritual findings. Otherwise, people can tend to engage in ad hominem attacks by "selective" (POV) quotes out of context. Your original entry of three teachers...whether intentionally or not...definitely comes across this way to anyone who is knowledgeable of what Hawkins actually reports. --AustinKnight 16:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That is news to me. Those three are ones he frequently mentioned and suggested reading repeatedly. It certainly was not intended ad hominem, as I personally appreciate those teachers. The selected list included other frequent mentions (Lamsa, Unity). I just think you have included far too much information. But, I am okay with it, assuming others are as well. I was intending just a quick note of other teachers he suggests reading, not a long list. Thanks --66.30.238.136 17:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds fine. BTW, --and I am not questioning your honesty, just your recollection -- Hawkins does not frequently mention any of those three that you mention (thus my earlier response). Unity Church is mentioned twice (once in one sentence in text, once in a table) and Unity School of Christianity is only mentioned once in the 496-page Truth vs. Falsehood. Also, Power vs. Force did not dwell on the three you mention. --AustinKnight 18:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking primarily of Eye of the I and I. They are referenced in the "Suggested Readings" sections (teachers), and I was thinking of Hawkins' lectures (Unity). We are looking from different angles, sounds like.

BTW - I am glad that you are not questioning my honesty. This creates a dilemma, though. For you, I must 'calibrate' over 200 (if I am honest). However, because I state honestly that double-blind studies have shown that AK does not work; that in essence all of Hawkins' research in this area is opinion and the result of confirmation bias and a lack of understanding of the philosophy of science, among other things, per Hawkins' claims on this page, I calibrate at 160. Which is true? ;) Thanks --66.30.238.136 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The question is clearly rhetorical, but, as I'm fairly sure that you are aware, individual statements are a subset of a person's overall calibration, and do not in and of themselves determine a person's calibration. A statement (thought form) may be tested in-and-of-itself, and an individual may be calibrated overall or in any number of dimensions (spiritual discernment, etc.). So...within the framework of Hawkins approach...it's not an "either-or" condition such as you are asserting. :-) --AustinKnight 18:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I was laughing at the first comments. Seriously, look up pseudoscience. It is made to sound scientific, while it is really meaningless scientifically. There seriously is nothing to say. I am thinking of AJ Ayer who stated that our complaint about the metaphysician is that they are using language that does not conform to a literal reality and are therefore committed to the production of nonsense. This is religion. Check out that Popper article under the AK entry too -- you can always rescue a theory from refutation ad hoc, but only at the risk of destroying its scientific status. This is pseudoscience. BTW - if Hawkins' book calibrated at 999.8 (just .2 away from the perfect human), and he states that a person can know the level of a teacher by calibrating their work, then he is at 999.8 (or was - I am sure by now he is 60,000 or so [tested this and equals "True"...]). It is just all meaningless. Thanks --66.30.238.136 18:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are clearly way into your own ego...which is fine. All come to God eventually. My overall response: "Physicists do not need Mysticism, and Mystics do not need Physics, but Humanity needs both." – Fritjof Capra ......... --AustinKnight 18:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

ad hominem and silly quote. Very rude assumption of my religious nature. Please stick to discussion, not attack. I have stated this many times. If I can "sign" my statements, perhaps you could deal with issues, not personal attack. --66.30.238.136 13:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Non-linear research"

Hawkins uses non-linear in an inappropriate, non-scientific metaphysical sense. It has a specific and appropriate scientific meaning. When Hawkins refers to archangels "calibrating" at 50,000 - we are clearly out of the range of science and in the realm of pseudoscience, religion, myth, and metaphysics. This is supposed to be an enyclopedia, not the gospel according to Hawkins. Thank you. (unsigned entry by 66.30.238.136)

Those are your opinions, ones which appear to be trapped in the paradigm that reductionist science is the only approach to knowledge. In many cases, the complexity of a system far exceeds anyone's ability to discern truth by taking a bottom-up, reductionist approach. Complexity science emerged as a result of this, and is formalized around the world, particularly at the Santa Fe Institute. --AustinKnight 16:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Absurd. "Paradigm" is used incorrectly by Hawkins, in an impossible ontological sense - reality must change for his disproved theory to work, rather than it shedding light on the actual nature of the universe. And, even if you have some merit in your argument (within the paradigm nonetheless of science), just think for yourself for a moment: Truth is only attainable by pushing on someone's arm? This is so absurd. Really this just goes back to burden of proof - it is not my responsibility or anyone else's to disprove Hawkins' theory, it is his (or your) responsibility to prove it. Talking does not make it so. Thanks --66.30.238.136 16:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, actually and quite honestly, to the 'young' spiritual seeker it does certainly seem 'absurd.' Since you put so much 'faith' in science, you should consider reading up on nonlocality, which makes it quite clear that every "thing" in the universe is completely a function of its total context...i.e., the rest of the entire universe.
Truth is not just obtainable "by pushing on someone's arm," and, as you should know, Hawkins does not assert this. He does assert that -- per non-locality and other, spiritual concepts -- truth pervades the entire universe, and that a live body has subtle reactions to being in a 'field' of truth or falsehood. --AustinKnight 16:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Pure gibberish and ad hominem. Are you indicating that you know my age? This is a perfect opportunity for you to prove to us that AK works. What is my age?
Using science to say that science is wrong is a silly argument. You have not proven anything, you are just talking. (Like Hawkins). --66.30.238.136 16:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but my own experiences with AK require the presence of 2 people that calibrate above 200 (per Hawkins' methodology) and I'm at home today solo. We might be able to revisit this later. There are some who claim that a single person can perform AK on their own, but I am wholly unconvinced.
You need to be intellectually honest about what you are defining as "science." Complexity science, an examination of what emerges from the complexity of complex adaptive systems, uses nonlinear methods (and linear, as well) to conduct its research. That's not just 'talk', that's a fact. You should look into it, as you're obviously approaching your knowledge from a single point of view. --AustinKnight 16:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read above, I have already answered this. --66.30.238.136 13:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous editor, please sign your entries

It's more polite and Wikipedian and compliant with their request. It makes the conversation flow more easily. The "signature" button is the second from the right on the top of an edit page. --AustinKnight 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not expecting to edit so much. I will have to get a signature, I agree, if I continue much longer. In the mean time, this could be a subtle ad hominem and a way to avoid real issues and concerns being brought to the table. Please respond, regardless of the person bringing up issues. Thanks. (yet another unsigned entry by 66.30.238.136)
Please slow down, and read the instructions in the previous paragraph. Even when editing as an anonymous (IP address-only) author, you can 'sign' your entries to indicate that they are yours. --AustinKnight 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks --66.30.238.136 16:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
And "thank you," as well. --AustinKnight 16:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested spiritual teachers

What's the souce for this? We should just link to it. This is not an appropriate use of this article. -23:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It comes out of Truth vs. Falsehood. It is absolutely an appropriate use of this article. It is one of the principle findings of Hawkins research. Why do you feel that it is inappropriate? --AustinKnight 02:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is not to give the principle findings of Hawkins. It is a biography. If you'd like to summarize in a short paragraph that he rates religions and thinks Buddhism is best, then that's fine, but we don't need all the details. Folks can find that in his book. -Willmcw 02:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This is hardly in high detail -- it is merely a list. Hawkins' dialogue and related measurements go into much further detail. It is clearly an interesting section, and encyclopedic. It is a small excerpt, and as such appropriate. Moreover, it seems fairly inarguable that the principal findings of Hawkins are controversial...and thus an appropriate topic for Hawkins biography. --AustinKnight 02:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Will, you're violating basic Wiki etiquette by deleting the section instead of editing it. If you feel it should be summarized, feel free to submit appropriate text. Your broad deletions border on vandalism. --AustinKnight 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not delete it, I summarized a very long list of POV information. This is not an article on Hawkins "calibtrations". The entire list does not belong in this article- it's source material. -Willmcw 02:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Will, you're the one whose POV is showing. I merely listed, FACTUALLY, what Hawkins reported from his research. You, on the other hand, have come to the POV conclusion that Hawkins is reporting his opinion. BIG DIFFERENCE. It was also hardly an "entire list." As I keep telling you, from referenceable material, it is a SUMMARY.
You also mangled the facts in your edit; Huang Po is NOT ranked above Jesus Christ/Christianity for instance. The subsections were in alpha order, as it would otherwise be too confusing to mash everything together. Please be more factual in your edits, and be willing to stand up and admit when your edits are in fact POV. --AustinKnight 03:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Both the Anon editor and myself do not think that this material belongs here. Should we get an RfC for additional input? -Willmcw 04:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL...."apparent consensus?" With 3 people so far weighing in, including an editing-involved admin, we now have an apparent consensus? Please do get an RfC going. That would be an interesting process to observe. BTW, the Anon editor you mention created this section, but...surprise of surprises...in a pejorative and POV fashion that tried to portray Hawkins as being focused merely on esoteric Hindu and Buddhist spiritual leaders. --AustinKnight 04:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
In the meantime, please stop reverting. You've done so five times in the last 24 hours. -Willmcw 05:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, I'll block myself for 3 days as an atonement...even if the reverts were each appropriate for their own reasons. --AustinKnight 06:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That's a nice gesture, but the standard "time-out" for first-time 3RR violations is 24 hours. -Willmcw 06:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

  • The subject is an author and spiritual leader. He has used his special technique to "calibrate" 33 sects of six major religions. Is it relevant to a biography to include such a list?

There seem to me to be several problems with the list as provided. First, I'm having some difficulty in discerning why these particular things are in this list; is it that Dr. Hawkins has asserted according to whatever method he professes to employ to have 'verified the truth' of these... things? I say 'things' because the contents of the list are incoherant to me. For instance, in the Buddhism section we have:

  • Huang Po, a teacher from the Zen tradition
  • Hinayana, a perjorative term for a number of schools of Buddhist thought
  • Mahayana
  • Zen (a Mahayana school of Buddhism particular to East Asia)
  • 'Lotus Land', a nickname for Vancouver, BC. Is this meant to be Pure Land instead?

and in Hinduism:

  • 'Senatana Dharma (Eternal Truth) of Rishis'- 'santana Dharma' is a Sanskrit term for Hinduism generally. Rishis are just seers or mystics. Not sure what this is meant to mean.
  • Dravidian, a family of languages spoken in Southern India
  • Aryan, a language family and a Sanskrit term meaning noble
  • Vedanta, the philosophical system of the Upanishads
  • two modern Hindu teachers

As it currently stands, I don't see any value in such a list. The elements in the list are confusing, and it is far from clear that their presence in the list has any particular meaning. This ranking or ordering just seems to be one of many teachings that Hawkins has propounded; it needs to be discussed in more detail and rolled into a larger discussion of his beliefs, or else cut loose. As it stands, without a clarification of the elements in the list and the reason for their presence, it seems confusing and doesn't really add much to my understanding of who David Hawkins is, what he believes, or why one should be concerned with his ranking or assessments of truth for what appears to be a grab-bag of religious topics. Could someone clarify any of these points? --Clay Collier 08:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Having studied some of his work, I concur that having this list in there is confusing.... it might be more helpful to just say: hey, he believes he can determine which traditions are most in harmony with "truth" and list a few that Hawkins considers to be the most pure.

~If the list stays, change Hinayana to Theravada, Lotus Land to Pure Land. ~"Sanatam Dharma of Rishis" could mean a lot of things... I assume by Hawkins adding on "Rishis" he is meaning a particulare part of Hinduism (maybe the Upanaishads?)

I'd just take the list out, state the fact that he believes he can "callibrate" which traditions are most true, and list a couple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethburt (talk • contribs) .

As a preliminary step, I'm going to cut out the things in the list that can't be identified. If someone can explain what they are (or what Mr. Hawkins thinks that they are), then they can return them, or this can be the first step in removing the list. --Clay Collier 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I went a step further and deleted it. This has been on RfC for over a week and no has come forward to say it is great value. -Willmcw 22:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to you for taking the initiative, for me it really didn't add much and actually took away... I may get around to checking out his book again and maybe I can summarize his idea on calibrating teachings.

Sethie 10:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The result of the debate was: Move of David R Hawkins→David R. Hawkins succeeded.—jiy (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dot after middle initial is standard, and is used on the covers of his books. [10] This requires a switch with the redirect.—preceding unsigned comment by LostLeviathan (talk • contribs) 15:40, November 27, 2005

[edit] Voting

  • Support—jiy (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is logical and consistent with other biographical articles. -Willmcw 02:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - No reason not to. --Clay Collier 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Psychiatrist?

The article makes it appear the Hawkins left an extremely thriving pyschiatric practice in 1979. Does he still practice? He's best known as an author and mystic/philosopher. The psychiatry seems minor. Any other thoughts? -Willmcw 04:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


He is best known as an author/mystic/philosopher, and apparently he was a very succesful pyschiatrist before hand. Sethie 05:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Has he kept his license? If he hasn't done it in 25 years then perhaps it should be moved out of the lead sentence. -Willmcw 06:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

got it.... yeah I concur Sethie 07:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This sort of fact-checking is easily done. That it was not done before editing the article betrays a certain POV...a not terribly honest one. Here's one link for showing that Hawkins has an active license. This article cannot improve unless it becomes more factual and stops being vandalized by juvenile, uninformed POV. As it stands, at present I have no plans to edit it any further, as it drips with nonsense (e.g., referencing a smoking habit, which may be destructive generally but not specifically -- many cases of very elderly people who smoke exist; Hawkins himself will soon turn 79), and is going backwards rather than forward with respect to factual, informed & spiritually erudite editing. --AustinKnight 11:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hawkins says that he works at a girls' ranch as a psychiatrist still. I heard this several months to a year ago, not sure if he is still doing. Could possibly find a reference on this by searching for girls' ranches near (or in) Sedona. He also said he passed some tests to keep his license. There is info on him regarding AMA that I found before. --66.31.144.141 18:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -Willmcw 20:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco smoking

What is the deal with Hawkins smoking tobacco? Is it verifiable? Has he done an AK evaluation of it? Of different brands? It seems at odds with what little I know of him, but maybe he has written something on the topic. -Willmcw 06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


The deal with Hawkins smoking is someone claimed he did, posted in in the wiki, and I took it out, because unless he was an avid anti-smoking campaigner, I didn't see the relevence. Sethie 07:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Ahh, and you think it is important. Ok..... How about doing something with it so it doesn't stick out as much? It is the first biography I have ever read which says, "And then he started smoking." Sethie 07:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


I propose we move the smoking and the scorpion bit to a criticsms and controversy section. I am not against the info being in the article, I just don't like how it currently is, doesn't flow for me. Sethie 07:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why smoking, much less fear of scorpions, would belong in a criticism section- I don't really see either of those points as being critical of Hawkins- or even particularly relevant. It seems more like weird trivia than something that really belongs in an encyclopedic article- are three quotations about the man's dislike of scorpions really necesary? --Clay Collier 08:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


I don't think so however Willmcw does at least on the smoking, so I was trying to do the best that I could under the conditions. Sethie 17:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless we have a source for his tobacco smoking then we shouldn't have it in there. If it can be sourced then it may well be worthwhile. As for scorpions, Hawkins wrote a whole book about them. His wish to exterminate a natural species that has lived in Sedona far longer than he has depicts a side of him at odds with other views. -Willmcw 20:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Why would it be worthwhile to mention that he smokes, even if it is sourced? Secondly, does he actually say that he advocates exterminating scorpions? The quotes listed seem to me to be the sort of humor-tinged derision that lots of people cast on things they dislike- plenty of people have said that the best lawyer is a dead one, for instance, but that doesn't mean that they actually advocate murdering anyone that passes the bar. Is there a more direct quote to back up this assertion? --Clay Collier 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone feels both are at significantly at odds with his teachings that it needs to be mentioned. However, my hunch is an RfC would throw it out as irrelevant, save for maybe a sentence mentioning his scorpion book.

That's my prediction for how this is gonna go down Sethie 00:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a moot point if we don't have a source for the smoking. Having an significant fear of scorpions, to the extent that he wrote a book about them and calls himself a "scorpio-phobe" is certainly notable in a biography. -Willmcw 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to meSethie 02:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Go to a lecture by Hawkins and you will see him smoke a cigarette outside. In PvF he mentions vitamin C is a way for smokers not to get cancer - completely contradicting evidence (thus, he has a motive to say this in his book as he is a smoker himself). In the video for PvF he calibrates organic tobacco as actually being positive and good for you. It is only in the late 1950's, I believe, that cigarettes started having chemicals added to them, which are negative for Hawkins. He calibrated Camel cigarettes, I believe, in the video as being negative, and he apparently grows his own organic tobacco on his ranch. --66.31.144.141 18:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If we've got a source then I think that's very interesting. Very few people grow their own tobacco and he apparently smokes in a "conscious" fashion. -Willmcw 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The source for growing his own tobacco is the PvF video. He tests whole organic tobacco leaves and mentioned growing them. The video takes place on his ranch, and is available from his web site. Other than that, just watching him smoke is evidence. As far as a web site specifically saying this, I don't know of one. But, he does indeed smoke. Will his own materials for sale suffice as a source? Thanks. --66.31.144.141 00:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly his videos are reasonable sources. I've added some text based on your report of the video, feel free to improve it. Thanks for the info. -Willmcw 02:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Does listing that he smokes, or that he is a 'conscious' smoker, really mean anything? What if he enjoy's Folgers coffee rather than Dunkin Donuts coffee? Does that become something involved in what strives to be an encyclopedic quality article? These things are fine as game trivia for Cranium, but aside from being 'interesting', it doesn't seem to approach important or really noteworthy.

Also, on a side note, I think you are mistaken with labeling organic 'positive'. It would be more correct to say that organic tobacco calibrates in the same range as food. Smoking will still irritate your lungs, and most likely influence athletic activity, even if it doesn't lead to cancer. The fact is, you can abuse food just as you can abuse cigarettes, and the outcomes will affect you physically.--Jimmy 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

It would be appropriate to have a section containing notable criticisms of Hawkins. It is not appropriate for us to create one with our own criticisms. We can report that he calibrates himself to 999, but we shouldn't comment on it. -Willmcw 02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is factual that 999.8 is a claim to divinity in his system. It should be clarified that he uses pseudoscience to claim godhood. Someone might not understand this explicitly, and there is nothing wrong with making it explicit. It fits the understanding Hawkins gives in his materials. I will add it back. As far as "Criticism," it seems there is much that could be added appropriately. I just wanted to get it going. I know that a lot of wiki articles have criticism sections; I think you pointed out that even Mother Teresa's entry does. Thanks --66.31.144.141 04:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, there's nothing wrong with a criticism section. But it should contain criticisms from people besides us. If Hawkins explicitly claims godhood then we should say so. But if he only implies godhood then we must be more careful. -Willmcw 09:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. In his materials, 700-1000 is "enlightened." 1000 is an avatar - if he is .2 away, he is saying he is God. This is already contained in his materials. To say 999.8 is to say "I am an avatar." It is the equivalent, just spelled out in English rather than gibberish. Further, Andrew P. of EnergyGrid pointed this out in his published criticism, that Hawkins calibrates at 999.8. Because Hawkins does not use English explicitly does not mean that intelligent critics or followers may not spell out in English what his pseudoscience is already explicitly stating. It is really just defining what his numbers mean, which is certainly appropriate, especially for those readers who are not familiar with his system and are trying to learn about Hawkins through wikipedia. Thanks --66.31.144.141 14:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC) As far as criticism from people other than us, the criticisms of Hawkins seem to be fairly universal. Like I said, I was just trying to start the section. I am sure that you could pull out some good published criticism points in Carroll's newsletter and Andrew P's review if you wanted to. Just seems to be a good idea to have a section. I'll leave it as is for now. Thanks --66.31.144.141 14:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hawkins' explicitly claims godhood in this quote:

Y [interviewer]: About this part, I have a couple of questions. At that moment, did you have a family? Were they worried about you?

DH: Yes. And there was this miraculous change, but there was nothing I could say about it. There is nothing one can say about such things. They are so far-reaching and of such a dimension, and so far beyond orindinary human experience that there is nothing one can say. One could not just walk down the sidewalk and say, "Hey, by the way. I just got enlightened yesterday." And the other person would say, "Yeah, right, sure. Does it pay anything?" Now everything is transformed and there is absolutely nothing one can say about it. It was like the inner part of me - whatever had been my individual self - was struck dumb with awe. It was awesome beyond all meaning of the word - to be the witness of the presence of that which is in its naked expression as all of existence. Although the mind is stopped, one is at one with all that is known, so there is, in the instant, the experience of those attributes of God described as omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. The power is infinite. The knowingness is also infinite. All things are known. It does not mean that all things are denoted by the intellect because one would have to have an interest in such things. It is like, in the presence of omniscience, all things are knowable; therefore, one does not bother knowing about the specific. Once you know how to make gold, there is no point in collecting it anymore. There is no point in collecting information. It is like you have the infinite computer of all possibility, so if there is anything you would want to know, all you would have to do is ask. And in that state, what do you suppose you ask? Nothing. There is nothing to ask! To ask a question is coming out of ignorance, is it not? In the presence of omniscience, there is no ignorance, so there is nothing to ask. So if you ask me what question would I like to know, there isn't any, to tell the truth. There isn't any answer I'm interested in, except to demonstrate [with the pseudoscience applied kinesiology] for a viewer. [11] --66.31.144.141 01:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


I would love to see a section on his teaching of calibration... No, he is not saying HE is an avatar, however, he is saying that his teachings are pretty close to the purity of an avatar. Sethie 19:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hawkins states that you can tell the level of a teacher by calibrating their work, therefore he calibrates himself at 999.8. Yes, it is .2 away from perfection, but that is essentially a claim to divinity. Afterall, 700-1000 is enlightenment. --66.31.144.141 20:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Criticism & Libel

I'll continue to personally boycott the editing of this article for the reasons stated above and below, but as 66.31.144.141 likely well knows, but does not have the integrity to mention, the numbers in Hawkins scale of consciousness are of a logarithmic scale. Moreover, Hawkins does not claim that either he or all of his work (he separates the two) are of the 999.8 "quotation," which is in any case taken way out of context. These are merely additional examples of the POV-pushing and lack of honesty & integrity that are actively exhibited in the on-going "editing" of this article. In some cases the information in the article is being mangled by people who clearly have no direct knowledge of Hawkins teaching, yet are moved to state factually-incorrect "examples" as though they knew what they were talking about. All in all, a sad state of affairs...but one consistent with the systemic Wikipedia problems that were featured along with Jimbo Wales on CNN last night. --AustinKnight 15:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out in that CNN article and video feature by an interviewee who was admittedly libeled by content on Wikipedia, "Wikipedia will either have to fix the problem or will lose whatever credibility it still has," he said."The marketplace of ideas ultimately will take care of the problem." In context, the meaning of the interviewee was that Wikipedia "facts" will be discounted and dismissed, and that Wikipedia will fail if it does not screen its editors and become more accountable. --AustinKnight 15:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To see the above CNN video, go to their website and search CNN for "Wikipedia." The resulting search-results page has the video link in the lower, right-hand corner and is titled "Wikipedia 'facts' debate (12.05.05, 10:40)." Observe the body language and eye movements of Jimbo Wales throughout...and, as best possible, honestly draw your own conclusions. --AustinKnight 15:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hawkins does not claim that either he or all of his work (he separates the two) are of the 999.8 "quotation," which is in any case taken way out of context." This is not true. Hawkins specifically says that you can tell the level of a teacher by calibrating their work. He calibarted a recent book at 999.8, and is therefore at that level (unless higher now). This is not taken out of context. The calibrations of his books increases over time, so 999.8 was the last and highest calibration of his work, and therefore himself per Hawkins, that I am aware of. But, I did hear it rumored that people are now going beyond 1000, maybe Hawkins is now above Jesus and the rest. --66.31.144.141 19:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You are deliberately non-referencing a single example (where are the specifics?) of calibration and overreaching to extend that claim to Hawkins himself, who would quickly disagree with you. Hawkins makes it very clear that the work of an individual and the individual themselves can have different calibrations, as, again, you well know or should. Individual calibrations can substantially diverge from the calibration of their work over time, as the individual progresses or regresses in their own alignment with the ineffable. Hawkins latest book (Truth vs. Falshood, though he has another coming out in the next 10 days or so) does not calibrate nearly as high as his earlier book I, for instance. --AustinKnight 21:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Intersting, I didn't know that TvF isn't as high. The reference is an interview from beyond the ordinary. He states that to know the level of a teacher, calibrate their work. That an individual and their work can have very different calibrations is not something I am familiar with, as I was going on Hawkins' statements from interviews. Thanks--66.31.144.141 21:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW - how do you know Hawkins would disagree? At least I am not claiming to know what he possibly would say, but try to reference claims. Another example is that he says his experience is similar to Huang Po's experience, who he calibrates (now, was in the 700's in PvF video, for example) at 960. Thanks --66.31.144.141 21:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that he would disagree with you because he makes it very plain -- even as early-on as Power vs. Force (1995) and reinforces in Truth vs. Falsehood (2005) that the teacher must be calibrated separately from their work. Given your strong POV on Hawkins, you should either know this or become better informed, as what I have stated is quite factual. If you do not know this...which I find incredible...you should stop editing the article until you become better informed, as you appear to be operating off of very old or incorrectly-recalled information. --AustinKnight 21:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"I know that he would disagree with you because he makes it very plain -- even as early-on as Power vs. Force (1995) and reinforces in Truth vs. Falsehood (2005) that the teacher must be calibrated separately from their work." This is not true. Where specifically does he say this? --66.31.144.141 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Do your own homework, 66.31.144.141...and please stop referring to things as "not true" when you, in fact, are the one in error. Your edits make it clear that you do not have a deep knowledge of Hawkins teachings, and I am not here to plug the manyfold holes in your body of knowledge. If you don't know what Hawkins teaches -- and you clearly do not -- then stop "editing" on Wikipedia. --AustinKnight 01:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am just going to ask again that if you see in error in the article, please bring it up for discussion. Thank you--66.31.144.141 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Individual calibrations can substantially diverge from the calibration of their work over time, as the individual progresses or regresses" This still indicates that an individual, at the time of writing, is at the level of their work. Is this correct? Therefore, you are saying that Hawkins has "regressed" as TvF is not as high as I? --66.31.144.141 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've given only one example, of an infinite number, as to how an individual's calibration can fluctuate over time, and even moment-to-moment. People can write down a thought that is substantially different from their overall calibration, which can itself be broken down into various measurements, such as those listed in Hawkins map of consciousness. Hitler, for instance, could write down a statement from the New Testament that would calibrate at around 1000...while, clearly, that's not where his head was at. If you don't know this, in all honesty you shouldn't be editing Hawkins article...this is basic stuff. --AustinKnight 21:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'll not be responding to your "quote " from an Amazon review, as it is clearly in the weeds on too many levels, and it is difficult at best to have a dialogue with an anonymous Amazon author on a Wikipedia talk page. If you cannot hold a conversation about logarithms (and that's nothing to be embarassed about...the Amazon author clearly didn't know mathematics very well, either) then cease and desist from writing about things that you do not understand. Alternatively, if you have a sufficient level of understanding of logarithms...which you deliberately ignored in the Hawkins article...then go right ahead and start your own, personal dialogue about the topic. I'd be happy to respond. --AustinKnight 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought the author presented the mainstream consensus and felt no need to add to it. His assertions would be mine as well, so please consider them as such and respond to his intial claims if you would like to, and I'll follow up if need be. Thanks --66.31.144.141 21:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. OK, let's go: Questions for you, Mr. Anonymous:
  • Where does Hawkins state that he calibrates at 999.8 as you state? I believe that this assertion is false.

He calibrated his book I:Reality and Subjectivity as being 999.8; on Beyond the Ordinary in an interview he stated that to tell the level of a teacher, calibrater their work. Further, in another interview he stated that his experience is similar to Huang Po's, who he calibrates at 960 (used to calibrate in the 700's though, like most other Zen masters, for example in the PvF video).--66.31.144.141 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Provide a quote, please, regarding Hawkins statement of 999.8 calibration for any of his work. I believe that this is an out-of-context assertion regarding some specific work, not the entire body of Hawkins work or his last efforts.

Please look on the back cover of I:Reality and Subjectivity - the book itself calibrates at 999.8 as written on the back of the book. This is one calibration of his work, however, it is a very recent one, and until TvF they were going up - PvF 850, Eye of the I 980 (or 950, depending on where you look). Therefore, his own calibration was rising (per Hawkins' statement in an interview), and the highest and most recent (save TvF) was 999.8. I thought Hawkins only goes up, but you say he has "regressed."--66.31.144.141 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Time for some math, Mr. Anonymous: what is the linear difference, in terms of ratio, between a logarthmic 1000 and 999.8?

This question is pointless. His scale is not logarithmic, and it really doesn't matter - 999.8 is .2 away from Jesus Christ. No one else on the planet calibrates that high. Are you really going to quibble over .2 to make a point? --66.31.144.141 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

--AustinKnight 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hitler, for instance, could write down a statement from the New Testament that would calibrate at around 1000" This is not a proper example. We are speaking of the person's own work, not another's. As far as whether I should edit this article or not, I feel I have contributed a number of facts to this article that were not there before, including facts Hawkins did not make available to consumers. If you would like to take any of the facts up, please do so. If I have a POV, it is simply that science should not be abused in the service of lies, exaggerations or omissions. Not to mention that I see a number of flaws in his spiritual teachings as compared to true teachers that he recommends himself (Maharshi, Maharaj, Po, ACIM, etc.) --66.31.144.141 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that Hawkins has been libeled? If so, please point out where so this can be corrected. Thanks--66.31.144.141 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] logarithmic scale

"the numbers in Hawkins scale of consciousness are of a logarithmic scale."

If a doctor were to tell you that your backache was caused by "halitosis of the femural artery located in the sternum", you would know that he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is exactly what Dr. Hawkins does with mathematical terms.

Dr. Hawkins rates everything in the universe on a scale of 1 to 1000 based on how good or bad it is. To explain this scale he uses a lot of technical-sounding mathematical terms, but he uses those terms incorrectly- to the point of being gibberish. Since he knows his discussion would be above most readers' heads Dr. Hawkins can get awy with it.

He claims that the scale is "logarithmic" and base 10, but in his explanation of what a logarithm is, he confuses logarithmic functions with exponential functions and repeats this mistake throughout the book. Essentially,someone at level 201 has ten times the power of someone at 200, someone at 202 has 10 times the power of someone at 201 and so on.

This "logarithmic progression" is then completely contradicted by his chart which states how many people at one level counterbalance someone at another level. One of the statements on this chart is that "12 people at level 700 equals one avatar at 1000". On his "logarithmic"(actually exponential) scale it would take 10^300 people at level 700(that's a one with 300 zeros in front of it) to equal the power of one person at level 1000. Since when does 12= 10^300?

He uses the calculus term "critical point" and claims that his scale has a critical point at 200. In mathematics a critical point is the point where the derivative of a function equals zero. On a graph, it is the point where the tangent line is flat-the point where you are neither rising nor falling. What Dr. Hawkins didn't realize was that neither logarithmic functions nor exponential functions have critical points. Their derivatives are always positive. In this case, he just threw in a mathematical term without bothering to find out what it means.

He discusses chaos theory, because it is new and trendy, but he misses the point entirely. He seems to think that chaos theory implies that the world is more orderly and easily explained than previously thought, when in fact chaos theory implies just the opposite.He does this because he likes the word "attractor" which he overuses throughout the rest of the book

In other cases, bad math like this could be overlooked. He is after all a psychiatrist, not a mathematician. In this book, however, the technical terms are used to impress the readers with how scientific the system is, and the claim is that it is based on research. If you can understand what these mathematical terms actually mean, it becomes clear by the gibberish that he is just making this stuff up. If his "mathematical" system was revealed to him through muscle-testing (as opposed to outright fiction), then it shows just how unreliable this system is.

Perhaps the most blatently incompetent statement he makes is that a loving thought has the energy of " 10^-35 million megawatts"(I'm using the symbol ^ because this this font won't allow superscripts) and claims that the quantity is "so enormous as to be beyond the capacity of the human imagination to comprehend" The truth is that this quantity is so miniscule as to be beyond our capacity to comprehend. 10^35 million is a one with 35 million zeros in front of it- a huge number indeed, but 10^-35 million is 1/10^35 million -- a mind-bogglingly tiny fraction. If you were to multiply the mass of the entire galaxy by a fraction that tiny, you wouldn't even have enough mass for a single electron. If the minus sign was a typo, without it the energy level described would be great indeed -probably be along the order of the big bang and our heads would have exploded (and caused a supernova) a long time ago. In this case, he just threw together the most confusing notation he could think of, without a clue as to what it meant. He did this to make it appear scientific. He figured that his readers would be too dumb to know the difference. I don't think this can be written off as a mere honest mistake

Other laughable statements are that organically grown tobacco is actually healthy, and that taking one gram of vitamin C per day will counter all of the harmful effects of smoking.

He also states that adrenaline causes the muscles to go weak. Adrenaline is the stimulant hormone associated with the fight/flight response and its entire purpose is to give you EXTRA strength and energy in an emergency. As a doctor, he should know this

This book would be funny if it wasn't so scary.This man claims to be an MD and as far as I know still has a license.

If you have a degree in math, physics, engineering or something similar, this book can pretty entertaining. It is fun to pick apart,but as a source of truth it is worthless. [12]--66.31.144.141 19:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I took out the above quote, since it is not a discussion, but someone'e opinion from an amazon.com review!

If you do or don't like Hawkins stuff and want to express your opinion, go somewhere else and do it. If you want to summarize who Hawkins is and what he teaches and some responses to his teachings, excluding wiki editors and Amazon.com reviews of it, please join in! Sethie 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is in discussion, AustinKnight just brought it up. Thanks --66.31.144.141 19:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Paddel, you may have pressed on a person's arm to distinguish the nature of Hawkins' scale as logarithmic rather than exponential, but I assure you that actual mathematicians will disagree with you and Hawkins. In addition to the above reference, here is another:

Numerous people have pointed out to me that Hawkins completely abuses the mathematics and physics in his book. He consistently refers to his calibration scale as "logarithmic" when it is in fact "exponential"; he uses the term "critical point" when referring to his exponential scales, when an exponential graph by definition cannot have a critical or "flat" point; and he uses leading-edge scientific terminology such as "chaos theory" and "attractors" in contexts that only demonstrate undeniable scientific and mathematical ignorance… which is rather strange considering that he calibrates his own books as the most "truthful" ever published. [13]

Also:

[Hawkins] displays a knack for obscuring the obvious by attempting to appear scientific...Power Vs. Force is filled with attempts to be scientific that wind up worthy of ridicule rather than respect. [14]

If you feel the scale is not exponential because the guru says so, I think that is fine if faith is what you prefer. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is best that it holds to higher standards. I will reinstate the mention of the scale as exponential. If you wish to back up your claim that it is not exponential, rather than simply delete what goes against your belief system, please do so. Thank you --66.31.144.141 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AustinKnight and ad hominem

AustinKnight, please cease your use of ad hominem attacks. This has been asked already, yet you constantly defend your position by attacking others. If you would like to take up a particular issue, please do so, but to attack another person's integrity is simply rude. Please try to be respectful, we are trying to get to the truth, and that includes balance, not just repeating everything Hawkins says as absolute truth. Thank you. --66.31.144.141 19:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And who was engaging in ad hominem in yesterday's CNN article -- the author who was admittedly libeled by Wikipedia "editors" (and who had some very unkind-but-accurate things to say about his slanderers), or the libelous editors themselves? I'm pointing out substantial deficiencies in both (1) how this article is being edited (e.g., deleting Hawkins' M.D. qualifications without the least (and very simple) effort to check them out), and (2) Wikipedia in general. Any moron (no personal disparagement intended) can edit on Wikipedia, and if the audience of uninformed admin-types or readers do not know that it is moronity...it stays as though it were a fact. It's a fundamentally flawed and weak approach toward getting to the truth, and this needs to be pointed out...or Wikipedia becomes presumed to be factual, even if it is (no personal disparagement intended) full of sh-t. I hope for the best for Wikipedia, but...as was the libeled author...I am seeing nothing done of any substance to prevent the on-going "impulse vandalism" (as Wales calls it) or the Niagra waterfall of ignorance from the unknowing. There's a fundamental point here: I don't think that Wikipedia intends to be factual and honest, any more than...say...Abercrombie & Fitch intends to be upright and respectable. Wikipedia takes delight in being a cauldron of ignorance, as that's where the mass of humanity is at. If Wikipedia didn't intend to be a mess, they'd simply fix the clear and now very public problems it has. Keeping anons from starting new articles is a ridiculous and ineffective fix...but Wikipedia's choice. --AustinKnight 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, if you would like to take up any of the issues in the article, please do so. As far as Wikipedia being so bad, I saw a recent interview of the founder who totally disagrees with you. He said that if it is like a public restroom, as one critic said, it would be the cleanest and in the nicest hotel, etc., and added that usually vandalism is fixed in a matter of minutes as others watch their favorite articles and keep them how they want them to be. Thanks --66.31.144.141 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that Jimmy Wales effectively began the underpinnings of Wikipedia in pornography, you might, again, want to do some fact checking before editing on the Wiki. You're welcome. Over...and out. --AustinKnight 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, your way of arguing is often either to attack someone who disagrees with you, or now to try to discredit Wikipedia. Please, if there is some frightful error in the article on Hawkins (this is about him isn't it?), please take it up. Thanks --66.31.144.141 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Why can't we include his letter

Hawkins rated both wikipedia and the article about him, which I find both an interesting piece of trivia, and a great example of him "calibrating" things. Why can't we include it? Sethie 23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead...it's not like you'll be hurting the "quality" or "NPOV" of the article. --AustinKnight 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Sorry- let me be more clear. I did include it, and infinity took it out, only saying "took out self ref." Sethie 03:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean, Willmcw? Oh yeah, he does that. He's an admin, and tends to delete content that he doesn't like, or disagrees with his point of view, rather than edit it as he is supposed to...usually with an off-subject/hyperbolic reference in the edit summary so as to throw others off as to what he's actually doing. As a Wiki fan, you should get used to this, as there is nothing that you can do about it. Maybe you should refer to the complaints page? Jimmy Wales said in the CNN transcript that Wikipedia is very responsive to complaints. Why don't you try that, as your complaint here was clearly otherwise ignored? "You should bring up these larger issues elsewhere." ;-) --AustinKnight 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My bad, it was willmcw.

I currently have no "larger" issues with wikipedia, I am working things out article by article. Sethie 06:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline against talking about Wikipedia in articles. Wikipedia:self reference. -Willmcw 08:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

At last, a breath of fresh air and a (much belated) admission on the part of Jimmy Wales regarding the extensive quality problems at Wikipedia. What in the world took so long to admit the truth...? Perhaps, a lack of it from the get-go...?

An excerpt from the article, quoting Jimmy Wales:

"Surprisingly, Wales agreed that the entries weren't up to snuff.
""The two examples he puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment. [sic] Bill Gates and Jane Fonda are nearly unreadable crap. Why? What can we do about it?" he asked.
"Traditionally, Wikipedia supporters have responded to criticism in one of several ways. The commonest is: If you don't like an entry, you can fix it yourself. Which is rather like going to a restaurant for a date, being served terrible food, and then being told by the waiter where to find the kitchen. But you didn't come out to cook a meal - you could have done that at home! No matter, roll up your sleeves.
"As a second line of defense, Wikipedians point to flaws in the existing dead tree encyclopedias, as if the handful of errors in Britannica cancels out the many errors, hopeless apologies for entries, and tortured prose, of Wikipedia itself.
"Thirdly, and here you can see that the defense is beginning to run out of steam, one's attention is drawn to process issues: such as the speed with which errors are fixed, or the fact that looking up a Wikipedia is faster than using an alternative. This line of argument is even weaker than the first: it's like going to a restaurant for a date - and being pelted with rotten food, thrown at you at high velocity by the waiters."


Regardless of Mr. Anonymous' contention, it's not like I'm being ad hominem on this -- even Wales admits to the serious quality problems at Wikipedia. I'm merely pointing out the glaring example of these serious problems via this article and the manner in which it is being "edited." If Wales was embarassed by the articles on Gates and Fonda, it's too bad that he isn't erudite enough to know just how bad the article on Hawkins has devolved. --AustinKnight 01:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Would you be willing to limit this page to discussions about the Hawkins article? Yes, I notice the word "Hawkins" in the last sentence, however, this issue seems to be about something else.

This article has enough challenges without taking on the issue of: ~fixing wiki as a whole ~decding whether wiki is good or evil Sethie 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Sethie -- this article is a perfect example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Specifically:

  • The Hawkins article is being subjected to on-going vandalism by a POV-pushing anon -- which is indisputeably the largest and most common problem with Wikipedia on the whole.
  • There is no threshold for the quality or degree of knowledge of the author. The above anon has repeatedly stated his prowess with respect to knowledge of Hawkins, only to time and again prove himself to be on some sort of anti-Hawkins rant rather than actually knowledgeable (or willingness to be honest) about what Hawkins actually teaches. This, too, is a core problem with Wikipedia.
  • "Admins" are relied upon to somehow honestly broker the content of articles, but as evidenced by Willmcw's slashing at content (e.g., Hawkins' very valid M.D. credentials), this is a false premise. If an Admin is not knowledgable about a subject, then they should only be allowed to supervise and not actually edit articles. This, too, is a broad problem within Wikipedia.

This is all absolutely about the Hawkins article. Question: How is it ever going to arrive at quality & truth if the above issues aren't addressed? Answer: It won't...! --AustinKnight 01:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


"Question: How is it ever going to arrive at quality & truth if the above issues aren't addressed? Answer: It won't...!"

The next question becomes- where to address it?

You seem to think this is the place. I disagree, hence I asked if you would bring up these larger issues elsewhere. Sethie 03:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to note that criticism of Wikipedia contradicts, once again, Hawkins' own claims on this page: Wikipedia overall calibrates at 350. The proposed entry on me calibrates at 200. The entry, excluding the Skeptic web-site allegation, would stand at 400. Wikipedia and this entry, per the guru, are "integrous."--66.31.144.141 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way are Hawkins' M.D. credentials incorrectly described in the current version? Where's the problem?
Oh, and speaking of veracity, how's that inquiry on the Danish Crown Prince coming? -Willmcw 08:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
As you're well aware, Willmcw, the article would still be vandalized re. Hawkins' M.D. credentials if I hadn't stepped in and pointed out that you deleted this information without first lifting a finger to perform the very simple validation checks beforehand. As regards the U.S Danish Embassy checks on Hawkins' claim of knighthood, the truth is I've not heard back from them...and, extending my honesty, I also truthfully do not plan to pursue it any further. Others are free to invest/waste their time as they wish, but I do not sense any fair play on Wikipedia that would otherwise make it worth the effort, regardless of the outcome. --AustinKnight 12:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please point out my POV. I included information that indicated that Hawkins is still a psychiatrist (at least per his own statements). I'm sorry of being guilty of thinking that an enyclopedia should include accurate science, not claimed junk. However, you do have a strong POV in favor of Hawkins. Willmcw, when he took off the "psychiatrist" mention, may have been going off of published criticisms that indicated he is no longer a psychiatrist - he is trying to be accurate, and is willing to go to that length to challenge a basic assumption regarding Hawkins, though it appears he may have been incorrect, and readily corrected the mistake. As far as knighthood, for example, I just took this for granted; Willmcw took it upon himself to question this for all of our benefit. You challenge our integrity in words, accusations, insults, round-about references and ad hominem, but you have no leg to stand on.

For the last time, if there are errors in the article, not some gigantic spiritual flaw in us, go ahead and point it out so we can correct it. This certainly is not the place for name-calling. I appreciate your perspective, and your edits (I certainly won't tell you to go somewhere else) and would appreciate any feedback you have as to the errors in the article, not in me or Willmcw or wikipedia. Just keep it to this article. It is good to have all perspectives. Thanks, AustinKnight --66.31.144.141 15:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Fact Checking -- Hawkins is not a director of Axial Publishing

This is another all-but-intentional error that was caused by deliberately choosing to edit before fact-checking. To source this info, a simple e-mail to Axial Publishing can confirm. Again...why are not the simplest fact-checking efforts being made? It's pretty simple: because that would conflict with the POV being pushed by Mr. Anonymous and Willmcw. --AustinKnight 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What relationship does Hawkins have to Axial? -Willmcw 16:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Whatever it is, and I don't know that there is one at all, I'd suggest that you do some fact-finding before "editing." --AustinKnight 16:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
"Axial Publishing Company is proud to present Sir David Hawkins’ most recent book “Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference.”" Sir David Hawkins? I love the irony. Someone with a fake knighthood and a fake degree is telling the public how to distinguish truth and falsehood. -Willmcw 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You are what you see & believe, Willmcw. Choose carefully. --AustinKnight 16:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, for you to unabashedly slam Hawkins seems like a pretty clear indication of your contempt for the man. I would personally question your interest in being a part of this article.--Jimmy 12:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_R._Hawkins_archive1_c05b.html"