Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Contents 1 Selectively presents.... 2 Grammatical error 3 ... 4 What the (help w/ recovering article) 5 en:Special:Whatlinkshere/What the Bleep Do We Know!? 6 Criticism from User:Pmj 7 Propaganda and other criticisms 8 Quantum Aethism or Quantum Science? 9 Ad hominem 10 Whatever happened to NPOV? 11 Very Positional?! Is that Science? 12 Protest to "Featured Scientists" as headline 13 Quacks? 14 Can order of links be POV,too? 15 NPOV 16 Respected scientists/experts 17 Original research on the TM study 18 There’s a book as well... 19 Facts? 20 Brain cells do divide 21 CSICOP, and other NPOV concerns 22 Deaf or mute? 23 Minor error in Controversial Aspects of the Film Section 24 Here's my attempt at the title 25 Calling something propaganda isn't NPOV? 26 "What tнe⃗ ♯$*! D⃗𝞱 𝓌Σ (k)πow!?" (article title) 27 POV? 28 Remove NPOV tag? 29 Overall Edit Suggestion 30 Quantum Mechanics 31 A new way of looking at it? 32 There's a reason why Colleges and High schools dont allow Wikipedia quotes.... 33 Vigilante Wiki Policing? 34 POV Statement tags 35 Ig Nobel Prize"Peace Prize" 36 Consensus For Intro?

[edit] Selectively presents....

The article states that "Critics have voiced concerns that the film selectively presents favorable information while ignoring contradictory information".... I myself am strongly at odds with the material presented in the film, but this statement about "favorable information" versus "contradictory" information shows complete disregard for the very nature of documentaries. The article makes the "selective" presentation of "favorable information" seem to be a disgrace to the tradition of documentary filmmaking, when in fact it pretty much defines the documentary tradition. In other words, just about every documentary does it. Rarely does a documentary filmmaker feel obliged to give a fair presentation of "contradictory information"... Can we delete this sentence? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the controversy of this film is the faulty science, not the fact that it "selectively presents favorable information" like just about every other documentary.

[edit] Grammatical error

This sentence: 'Dr. Masaru Emoto his work to a scientific journal, "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine", Volume 10, Number 1, 2004 p. 19-21.'

Doesn't have a verb. I didn't know whether he submitted or published to the journal, though from context it appears as though he published his study to the journal. I'll leave it to someone who knows something to fix this. Troublekit

[edit] ...

This page should probably talk about some of the allegations that the film is advertisement for the Ramtha cult. If I have some time later, I'll try adding some content myself. --NeuronExMachina 19:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) (just took a closer look at the link... probably not the best one, but one can easily find others)

I'd like to see more of a discussion of the science and links into the wiki like peptides

This page is in desparate need of NPOV wikification. It's basically a promo for the film; it so lacks objectivity, their agency may as well have written it.

Also, there needs to be some critical analysis added of how this film represents, misrepresents more accurately, basic science and our present understanding of it and the universe. --FM 06:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seconded, this film is highly suspect and contains...very bad science (in my opinion). This article is NPOV

Siroxo, why did you redirect this to an empty page? I put back a new, sort of npov version of this... protohiro 04:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Siroxo was attempting to move the page to its correct title, and the symbols caused MediaWiki to get confused. The problem is being worked on to get the page back properly and fix the bug that causes it. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What the (help w/ recovering article)

I trie to move What the Bleep Do We Know?! to its proper title (What the #$*! Do We Know!?), but I guess the software couldn't handle the #. And so it "seemed" to move to What the, but as you can see there is nothing there. What the Bleep Do We Know?! has since been "restored" but only by an apparent copy paste from someone who had saved it. IE, the history is gone, and there is no record of deletion since it was intended to be a move. Anyone have any ideas on getting the history back? (I'm going to report the bug on sourceforge bugzilla right now) —siroχo 04:14, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

It's being worked on. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fixed by Kate. Hopefully the code fix will prevent it from happening in the future. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] en:Special:Whatlinkshere/What the Bleep Do We Know!?

• Halló! Many redirect pages used in varios other pages are pointing now (08:46, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)) to What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Maybe it would be best to use either What the Bleep Do We Know!? or the redirect without any special character What the Bleep Do We Know. Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 08:46, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism from User:Pmj

Pmj I saw a screening of this film in Melbourne, Australia two days ago (2005-04-26 16:30, Kino Dendy Cinema), with one of the directors in attendance. There is so much wrong with this film, I just don't know where to begin -- so I'll stick mostly to information gleaned from the director.

1. The film is funded by a millionaire Buddhist computer programmer (I know -- "millionaire Buddhist" is an oxymoron), to the tune of US$5M, plus US$3M for distribution and advertising. Said programmer is, of course, a Ramtha disciple. Box office takings to date have been US$12M.
2. 60 hours of interview footage were originally shot with the 14 interviewees. When Dr. David Albert was shown the rushes, and was extremely upset with what his footage had been made to say. Another 20 hours were shot, featuring some of the original participants. Which others was not stated, and it's possible that other participants were also dissatisfied with the result.
3. The director described some parts of the interviews that didn't get in as "drivel" -- and he wasn't referring only to JZ Knight :-) . The implication is that he left out what didn't agree with his views, which is pretty much what the intelligencia is saying about this film ...
4. A 5-DVD set is planned, with lots of extra material (using a "geek factor" setting, so the viewer can decide how technical and in-depth they want things to get). Obviously, 5 DVDs will not be sufficient to store all 80 hours, so there's lots of material locked away from critics. All that material could be used to make several good documentaries that actually tell the truth.
5. Two of my friends noticed subtle cuts in the film, during interviews. I did not notice, but they reported that it happened several times. Especially noticible with the man sitting in the desert (anestesiologist?) -- his head would suddenly snap into a new position, and his shirt would likewise move. The soundtrack was smoothly transitioned, as if he was just saying one sentence, but in fact we were seeing footage combined from different times.
6. The flashing sequences near the end are reminiscent of some brainwashing techniques.
7. The wrong people were often quoted; for example, most quotes on consciousness came from Knight and Joe Dispenza -- not from the anestesiologist who would be the obvious source since he himself states that counsciousness is his primary focus.

Feel free ton incorporate any of these points into the article. I am a primary source, except where mentioned. The IMDB entry for this film also has lots of great material.

In my opinion, this film is unredeemable. -- Pmj 23:37, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

I tried to make the page more NPOV but other people won't let me. I guess they didn't watch the movie or do not know what quantum mechanics is. *signs* Anyway, this movie is new age propaganda created by the Ramtha cult. Also, if you look at idmb you will see that people with a love for science have a hard time watching the complete movie. Yes, the disinformation is so vast it hurts you physically. So if you like science, don't watch it. Firsly, you won't learn any science because there is none in the movie. Secondly it will hurt your feelings badly. I guess the Ramtha point of view is neutral... BlackStar 8:08, 2005 may 7 (GTM +1)

[edit] Propaganda and other criticisms

I don't dispute the fact the movie is misleading and has mostly really really bad science; however, that can be stated objectively (which I have done so by the way) as one can clearly see from the article's history page. It may be propaganda, but this should be stated as Pmj in the comments above (much of which is in the article, or at least was until recently). Please, I do not want to be in a position of defending the film, but don't write the article with inflamatory language. Using the expression "propaganda" is inflamatory.--CSTAR 14:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Just want to let people know the article on Masaru Emoto, featured in the film, has been updated.--Niku 17:20, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Many of the criticisms of this movie will try to prick holes in the details rather than try to grok the point of the movie, which IMHO it puts across quite well. --User:mugwumpjism, 23:18, Aug 11, 2005 (NZST)

[edit] Quantum Aethism or Quantum Science?

""Critics have pointed out that there is not one scientist presented who does not try to tie quantum mechanics to spiritualism, despite the fact that only a small minority of physicists in the field ascribe to the view presented in the film. This is a common criticism of the film as it touches on other forms of science as well.""

I'm not quite sure this is NPOV. It implies that Quantum physicists are by nature not spiritual people. I think this is an unfair association to make. Also, only a small minority of physicists will ascribe to any view if you actually sit down and ask them, so that doesn't make this view any more different than those presented by such Physical Science novellists as Stephen Hawking.

• While it is true that many scientists are spiritual, for most, their spiritual lives are separate from their academic lives. The question that needs to be asked is not: "How many scientists are spiritual?" but "How many scientists subscribe to the views presented in this film?" And the answer is: very few. It is not a mainstream view. Your second statement is incorrect. Scientists do agree on many things. The vast majority of scientists believe the Earth orbits around the Sun, that evolution occurred, that the theory of gravity is sound. ----Bennie Noakes 02:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

so in other words perhaps the term protoscience would be more appropriate. Just as the theory of gravity, evolution and the earths orbit around the sun were also once protosciences, and were similarly labled by the majority of scientists as pseudosciences at their inception.142.35.144.2 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad hominem

I argued extensively against the improper use of the philosophical term, ad hominem, on the Jacques Derrida page and now it seems I'll have to here. Hopefully, we all can accept that the following is erroneous:

...whether or not this is the literary equivalent of an ad hominem attack remains to be seen.

This is problematic because "ad hominem" is emotive among lay-people (of course this isn't an instance of the ad hominem fallacy) and it remains to be seen what is "literary" about any of this. This movie isn't literature, its a propaganda film. I'm removing the sentence, and adding links. Maprovonsha172 16:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever happened to NPOV?

Using quotation marks on the word 'experts' is extremely POV and is terrible work on the part of the Wikipedians that are responsible. These people are experts, but this article hints that they don't know what they're talking about. Using words like "most" rather than "many" and giving no section of the article to the film maker's response to all of this criticism is extremely poor work. This really needs to be cleaned up, because this is possibly the worst POV article I've seen in Wikipedia to date. --Berserk798 03:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, the movie is scorned by experts. In the movie, various people posing as "experts" (many from J.Z. Knight's cult) pontificate crazy New Age Bullshit dressed up as science. It's not POV to call pseudoscience pseudoscience, or to call charlatans posing as experts "experts." Maprovonsha172 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to report FACTS Maprovonsha, NOT insult people or give slanted views of ANY topic! Who are you to say that this movie is full of bullshit? That's YOUR OPINION. YOUR OPINION HAS NO PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA. I SUGGEST THAT YOU CLEAN UP YOUR ACT RIGHT NOW, MAPROVONSHA. If there's substantial criticism against this movie--which there undeniably is--then we include it, but in order to maintain our NPOV we ALSO include the response to such criticism, do not insult people's expertise (even if they do only think up a bunch of "bullshit), and we remain respectful. I'm toning down some of the POV, and when I find time I'm adding a response section to this criticism. --Berserk798 00:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Saying it's my opinion doesn't make it wrong. If you think it's wrong, argue for it. By getting huffy about it without counter-argument just makes you like a duped cultist. I have provided facts. The notion of Atlantis comes from the writings of Plato. That's a fact. It's a fact that Atlantis is no more real than Plato's cave, or ever was. So J.Z. Knight is claiming to channel a spirit from a fictional place. The movie is based around the teachings of a person who claims to channel a spirit from a fictional place. Those are the facts. Maprovonsha172 15:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a problem. There is a problem when you put your opinion in an encyclopedia. Saying that the movie is questioned by certain scientists or even certain specific bodies of scientists is fine if you have that information to reference, but stating the opinion of a "majority" of scientists without any information to back it up is just your opinion.

It doesn't matter how right your opinion is, opinions have no place in Wikipedia. And you don't have proof that Atlantis never existed. Sure it's probably a myth, but you can't flat out say that there was never a civilised island that sunk into the ocean without some proof. Atlantis isn't proven to be fictional, so your entire argument and opinion is worthless. It doesn't matter what you think; Wikipedia reports facts. --Berserk798 18:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does report facts, that's why I have and am waiting for you to do so. Plus, all facts (no matter how obvious) can be contestable and can thus be called an opinion. If you don't believe me, check out the page for Breatharianism, whose followers claim that "Humans require food" is a false opinion. So everything on wikipedia is opinion, it's just a matter of making sure it's the right opinion. Also, I find it absurd that you say, "you can't flat out say that there was never a civilized island that sunk into the ocean without some proof." First of all, just because there is no proof against something doesn't mean it's automatically true. There has to be evidence for things if rational people are to believe them. Furthermore, Plato wrote about Atlantis as an allegory, not fact, not myth, an allegory. It's not to be taken literally. There is no more an Atlantis than there exists Plato's Cave. I wonder if in 2,000 years especially desperate people will be searching the true Lilliput, or perhaps the flying island of Laputa. It's ridiculous. That about proves it for me, especially since the Atlantis New Agers talk about is far different from the one Plato first wrote about (metaphorically), there doesn't seem to be much similiarity in their stories. Which one are we to believe? Science has to take in data and observe, to prove something about it-by the very limitations of induction science can't prove the non-existence of anything. Atlantis was first written about metaphorically, now it's taken literally (though Plato's Atlanteans aren't anything like New Age accounts, especially J.Z. Knight's whose account is by the far the most outlandish I've heard), and people are duped into believing it. You tell me I can't prove the non-existence of Atlantis, I say there is no proof for the existence of Atlantis. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. So far as I can discern, J.Z. Knight is a scam-artist who preys on desperate, weak-willed, feeble-minded people (indeed taking millions of dollars from them) and who claims to channell an E.T. "warrior-spirit" who moved to a fictional place on earth. One day pseudoarcheologists will no doubt be searching for Jack's beanstalk. Maprovonsha172 14:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This article, as well as many Wiki articles on similarly controversial topics, are very much NOT NPOV and in order for Wikipedia to become a serious source of information, Wiki writers MUST learn to write objectively, no matter what their personal opinions. At the very least, when presenting an opinion, a writer must supply evidence in support of that opinion. So, as an example, instead of writing "Humans require food" (this IS an opinion!) in a Breatharian article, the fair and ubiased writer should back that statement up with something like this: "Most people believe that humans require food as a result of upbringing and observations throughout many generations that a lack of food appears to cause starvation and death. However, some claim that with proper training a person can survive without food. Since a formal scientific study on this topic has yet to be performed, no objective statement on the validity of this claim can be made." Now, I know that most people reading this may think that it is ridiculous to have to back up such an "obvious, common sense" notion that human beings require food, but remember, it used to be "common sense" that the earth is flat or that people can't go to the moon! People, science is NOT about common sense!!! Science is about coming up with a theory, followed by coming up with a testable hypothesis, followed by experiment(s) to either support or not support that hypothesis (and by extension, the theory). THAT'S IT. If you shoot a theory down before it was ever studied even once with a testable hypothesis, just because it sounds like it's "hooey" or whatever, THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!!! That is religious dogma, masquerading as science! Please, dear readers, if you claim to respect science, stop treating it like a religion. Go take a few university classes in scientific method and statistical analysis. I know, it's dry, it's not as much fun as shooting down the "new-agers," but THAT is what science really is. The writer above is displaying exactly the type of dogmatic, uneducated "I don't believe in that hooey so I'm better than you" drivel that sometimes gives science a bad name. None of the above rant contained any actual content; it was no better than a fundamentalist religious rant trying to convince everyone else of their beliefs! "The burden of proof is on the prosection" ONLY in law, NOT in science. A true scientist knows that any given theory can never REALLY be proven or disproven; all that can be done is experimental results piled on over the years in support of, or in lack of support of, that theory. That's all. That may seem like a fine distinction, but it is very important to bear in mind, if we are to maintain a division between science and dogma. There is absolutely no reason to doubt, or not doubt, the existence of Atlantis. It's a non-question in science, since there is no testable hypothesis! And until there's a testable hypothesis, it lies purely in the realm of philosophers, not scientists. Therefore, non-scientists ought to be able to conjecture all they want on the existence of Atlantis in a philosophical context, without people who THINK they know science knocking them down at every turn. So, in an objective article about Atlantis, the word "science" should not even occur; all that can be presented is an account of opinions on Atlantis accumulated over the years, pro- and con-. And it should be presented as opinion, not as fact, since there is no fact here one way or the other. And that is how any Wiki article on such a controversial topic should be approached.

You actually show a real lack of understanding about science. One thing that I feel is really necessary to point out is that science never looks for or beleives it has incontrovertable proof, but that doesn't mean it operates with all those qualifiers for everything it ever says. Rather science speaks conclusively out of consensus. When science says that something "is" it is always willing to change that if the community's consensus changes. While everything may be opinion... scientific reasoning always privileges the consensus opinion of experts as fact. That is the way that any encyclopedia article should function as well. Kablamo2007

If this is your understanding of science, that its notions are dictated by consensus, then I wonder where you got your education. Science has always been about scientific METHOD, precisely because we have learned throughout history how wrong consensus can be! This is obvious even at the undergraduate level. If we define science as what the consensus believes, then it is no different from religion. The trouble with your definition is that the community's consensus will not change on its own unless some bold, think-outside-the-box scientist decides to challenge consensus through experiment. Think of history's most revered scientists: Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. Do you think they discovered such amazing things because they went with consensus? If all scientists were to follow your definition of science, then progress will be slow, indeed. And so, if we are to come up with an innovative new encyclopedia that encourages thought rather than promoting one group's religion, then this encyclopedia must represent ALL sides of the debate.

I have found that often on issues of pseudoscience, parapsychology and scepticism there is a small group who believe that Wikipedia should be based upon scientific fact. In reality Wikipedia is based upon showing both sides of an argument, both opinions whether proven or not. This is the case as many elements of Wikipedia are cultural and belief based rather than science based. It is also true as Berserk798 points out that many areas of parapsychology are hotly debated, and although they are minority beliefs they are within Wikipedia given due respect and space under general policy. I would like to request anyone who feels pseudoscience should not be included or not be treated neutrally to read NPOV#Pseudoscience, this is very important as it is Wikipedia official policy and any deviation from it undermines the structure of Wikipedia. - Solar 14:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just want to toss out the reminder: Wikipedia is NOT, I repeat IT IS NOT, based on TRUTH, CORRECTNESS, FACTUALITY, or any other such synonym. Wikipedia is based on an utterly NPOV and VERIFIABILITY. If someone can provide a scientific survey showing that "most scientists believe What the Bleep Do We Know? presents nothing but psuedoscience" they are welcome to show the reference. If someone want to link some prominent scientists offering counterpoints to the movie, they are welcome to that as well. As it currently stands, this article has been heavily marred by a dinstinctly SUBJETCIVE skeptical point of view. This is badly in need of cleanup and needs to leave out the vitriol of skeptics, the propaganda of believers and all other such subjective musings. 24.49.74.240 23:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out: in science, just as in law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Occam's razor tells us that the absence of evidence is indeed the evidence of absence, because the thing that requires the fewest number of assumptions is more likely to be true. Ignoring this, however, Wikipedia is not intended to be a statement of which beliefs are true, but rather which beliefs are. Whether or not New Agers or Breatharians are irrational or antiscientific is irrelevant. What matters is that they exist, and that they believe what they do. As such, it is a Wikiedian's duty to objectively report what they believe and why they believe it.--71.111.76.52 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The part of the article about the "agenda" is ad hominen (attacking the person rather than the argument) and thus I am deleting it. The criticism is philosophically fallacious because it attacks the philosopher rather than the philosophy. In other words: it is fallacious to attack Hitler's philosophy of genocide because "he's an evil guy who has an ugly mustache". The appropriate argument to make is that Hitler's philosophy is wrong because "it violates basic human rights". Therefore, criticising the arguments presented in the film because they are presented by "new age experts" is fallacious and holds no place in the discussion. Even "new age" experts can provide valuable arguments and in the philosophical arena deserve, like anyone else, the opportunity to present and have criticised their philosophy in its own right.

I am also deleting the line, "The three people who wrote, directed, and produced the movie are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment." For the above reasons.

[edit] Very Positional?! Is that Science?

As a student I have found Wikipedia a great resource for grasping general concepts that I'm new to. I saw this movie and wanted to know the different debates so I looked it up. I think the author's reaction to some of the discussion responses are a bit extreme - the use of inflamatory language and personal attack? Also, the author does not appear to have read all the discussion responses thorougly because Kablamo2007 clearly argues that the scientific method requires that hypothesis be made and then tested for viability,

"Science is about coming up with a theory, followed by coming up with a testable hypothesis, followed by experiment(s) to either support or not support that hypothesis (and by extension, the theory). THAT'S IT. If you shoot a theory down before it was ever studied even once with a testable hypothesis, just because it sounds like it's "hooey" or whatever, THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!!!" (Kablamo2007)

Yet the author replies by writing that science is about METHOD - exactly what Kablamo2007 wrote. So why respond with such hostility and criticize Kablamo2007's education? Clearly the author could do with a little meditation and relaxation.

I wonder why the validity of the ideas in the movie are being debated but the art of the movie has been entirely ignored. The criticisms about its supposed guerilla marketing promotion weren't sourced or explained. The author should practice what they preach about substantiating claims: were the supposed guerilla proponents just suppporters or actually involved in the production and distribution of the movie. Indeed that would be very hard to prove scientifically beyond any doubt. How can that hypothesis be re-tested? To lower the complete subjectivity of this article that promotion section should be removed.

This movie wasn't produced for Discovery Channel, or National Geographic. I didn't think it claimed scientific validity just support from some scientists. It wasn't presented as a scientific documentary. It is a movie for entertainment and it has an original, creative plot, it is very un-hollywood - to the point that its main character is unable to speak. Lets celebrate that for a moment! It has a positive message and is not full of violence. I wonder if the author of this article writes about the historical credibility of "The Gangs of New York" or the chances of there really being a "Matrix". I was looking for the "objective" side when I searched, and clearly there are questions about this movie's scientific validity but that doesn't mean it should be entirely discounted. It means that it should be further explored and studied. Isn't it worth considering and trying to prove that there is a possibility that quantum physics can be related to some kind of cosmic energy.

This world could use a little positive spirituality and a lot less weapons of mass destruction. I think if you can argue for the validity of the "placebo effect" you can find definite value in this movie - scientific and entertainment value. Still, this movie has many positive qualities outside of its scientific propositions that were overlooked by the author and useless information about supposed guerilla marketing should be deleted. If every 'thing' in this society was judged based on its marketing strategy we'd be living in a way different world.[User:70.68.32.48|70.68.32.48] 07:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Not a member.

Triumph of the Will also has a positive message and is not full of violence. What does your personal preference about WMD and positive spirituality have to do with anything discussed here? And regarding theories, CONJECTURE doesn't apply. Theory is only a meaningful term when it pertains to science, and the lack of a testable hypothesis or even a consistent description of the "theory" means that it isn't science, and therefore any attempts to merge it with actual science such as QM is patently futile. Contrary to its claims, this movie does not contain any science whatsoever, only the subjective opinions of scientists with dubious links to any semblance of sanity. The goal of Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, is not to provide an equal-opportunity soapbox for any opinion out there. Wikipedia cannot call someone an expert just because they claim they are. The physicists in the movie are mostly experts of quantum theory - yet they don't discuss things within their competence, but rather about their personal spiritual beliefs. A carpenter may be an "expert" at furniture making, but that doesn't warrant calling them an expert in theology or socioeconomic theory - that's why they call that certain Judean carpenter cum proselytizer the Son of God or a prophet, and not an expert. Unigolyn 12:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Triumph of the Will was full of violence...and also seems reasonable a carpenter may very well be an expert on both socioeconomic theory and theology. Isn't the point of quantum physics that there's not an objective opinion in the first place? I get the sense that you're appealing to authority rather than discussing fairly...

No, that isn't the point of quantum physics. Jefffire 12:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Quantum physics--where the observer has a measurable effect on what is observed...yes, that shatters objectivity. Objectivity definitionally means an object is the same whether observed or unobserved; that a given set of properties or characteristics are innate to an object. The finding that the observer is a part of the observation, in fact is essential to the observation, does ineed render objectivity...obsolete.

You are confusing exactly what is meant by objectivity and observability. Jefffire 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire is right. You have misunderstood this. Quantum Mechanics shatters determinism and tells us the world is build up of 'things' that are fundamentally uncertain, consisting of possibilities and sets of chances rather than of concrete things. It isn't that the measurements are subjective. It is that it cannot be measured because it does not exists. The act of measurement forced 'god to throw the dice' and this collapses the wavefunction and a particle is observed according to one of the possibilities.

I am also suprised to read that science isn't considered NPOV per definition according to wikipedia policy.

If the measurement destroys the context for everything which it measures - the position of the particle collapses the wave function, etc - then there isn't objectivity. The measurement isn't objectivity, it is literally a form of nothing. Reality does not exist objectively. Reality exists only as probability. The criticisms of this movie, a few of them above, that this movie is nothing but dolled up subjectivity, are authoritarian attempts to assert something objective - the shadow of subjectivity they see cast across this film is the critic's shadow.

[edit] Protest to "Featured Scientists" as headline

Resolved

Since HALF of the people listed there aren't scientists, but new age [quacks], there's no reason to use the headline "Featured Scientists", and something else should be used, i.e. "Featured People" or something else.

This has since been changed to "Featured scientists/speakers" —Pengo 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I dislike that, its wordy. Why not just "Featured speakers"? The article makes clear that some are scientists and some are not. JoshuaZ 05:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quacks?

Calling people quacks because they may or may not have a different P.O.V. from you is inappropriate.

People who espouse patently false and disproven methods of treating depression and other medical conditions for a quick buck are, by definition, exactly that. Note how no one is calling YOU a quack, only people who purport to heal others with their Points of View. Furthermore, this is the TALK page. Everyone is completely entitled to POVs here. Unigolyn 12:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, you should say that. How many doctors are you going to call "quacks" because they consistantly set forth IMMUNE SYSTEM DESTROYING treatments for HIV and claim without a single double blind study (semi-false, see end comment) that ALL of these "AIDS" deaths were caused by HIV and not the drugs? How many doctors are you going to call "quacks" when they give patients antipsychotic medications that work through almost completely unknown mechanisms and metabolism? Regardless, I agree people are welcome to their POV on Talk pages, but it's certainly inappropriate when those POVs bleed through to Wiki articles. (End Comment: The only full studies done with the antivirals used for HIV treatment have shown patients on those drugs suffer greater immune suppression than those not on them. This would lead to a conclusion that the drugs themselves could *possibly* cause "AIDS deaths", however every single such trial was ended early.) 24.49.74.240 23:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The notion of a quack doctor is simply a term used to describe the phenomenon of individuals selling a miracle cure without it being substantiated. The laws of metaphysics and the laws of science are not to contradict one another but actually complement. That said, there is nothing wrong with being an informed consumer because fraud is more rampant in the world than it isn't. Consider the following:

What the #$*! Do They Know? Reviewed by Eric Scerri

People who espouse New Age philosophies are not generally known for their knowledge of modern science or their respect for critical thinking. Ironically enough, though, when it comes to quantum mechanics, everything seems to change, and they embrace it wholeheartedly. Given half a chance, many of them have something to say on the subject. But what New Agers really seem to like about quantum mechanics is all those alleged bizarre effects that they mistakenly believe can be appropriated to support their views on the nature of reality and the cosmos.

It therefore comes as no surprise that the makers of a recent New Age movie making its way across the country decided to inject a massive dose of quantum mechanics into the film's storyline. What the #$*! Do We Know!? is packing them in. Many people who have seen the movie are already claiming that it has changed their lives. I tried to go to one of the first screenings in Los Angeles and was turned away because it was sold out. So what is this movie that uses quantum mechanics to change people's lives?

Filmed largely in Portland, the movie is a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense dressed up as modern science. The film oscillates between interviews with a number of so-called experts (especially in physics) and a rather flimsy storyline involving a deaf woman, played by Marlee Matlin, who is being encouraged to wake up and see life's full potential. A young basketball player who has taken it upon himself to enlighten her repeatedly asks her how far down the rabbit hole she wants to go.

An examination of the film's pedigree helps explain its peculiar approach. The three directors are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment in Yelm, Washington, which is run by New Age channeller J.Z. Knight. Knight claims to channel a 35,000-year-old warrior from ancient Lemuria named Ramtha (aka "The Enlightened One"), who dispenses wisdom through her. Ramtha's followers are said to include many people from the entertainment industry, such as actors Linda Evans, Don Johnson, Shirley MacLaine, and Richard Chamberlain. Knight herself appears in the film as one of the talking heads, and even holds forth on the subject of quantum mechanics.

Knight, who's been channeling her prehistoric alter ego since the 1970s, is paid as much as $1,500 by those who attend retreats held at her school.

I want to focus a little on the science, because this is where I believe the film is at its most disingenuous. Each of the physicists interviewed trots out a sound bite or two about how quantum mechanics supposedly shows that objects can be in two places at once, that matter is mostly empty space, or that all parts of the universe are deeply interconnected. The existence of a reality that's independent from the human mind as usually understood by scientists, or indeed by any rational person, is repeatedly assaulted to the point of being mocked. In addition, we are assured that when Columbus arrived on the shores of the Americas, the natives could not actually see his ships because it was beyond their paradigm of what could exist.

The fact that the science is being distorted and sensationalized here is not at all surprising. What puzzles me the most is that by making quantum mechanics the heart of the movie, the filmmakers have fallen prey to a crude form of reductionism which is usually regarded as the enemy of New Age ways of thinking. By focusing so much on basic physics, the filmmakers do not seem to realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot. One moment they talk about all kinds of emergent phenomena, such as global consciousness, that go far beyond the reductionist worldview. The next moment they seem to suggest that the physics of fundamental particles explains human behavior! Even if we grant that quantum mechanics tells us that particles can be at two places at once-which, of course, it does not-how can one then assume that such bizarre effects work their way right up to macroscopic dimensions with no attenuation in order to determine human behavior? As many scientists and philosophers now realize, even if matter is fundamentally governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, this does not entitle us to suppose that chemical and biological phenomena will follow those same forms of behavior. This is to say nothing of even larger leaps such as the question of whether human behavior is dictated by the laws of physics.

Reductionism works in principle but not in practice, even though all the branches of science are interrelated. If you want to perform a certain chemical reaction, you ask a chemist. You do not ask a quantum physicist, although, in many instances, the quantum physicists may have some very helpful things to say on the matter. If you want to study biological organisms, you do experiments on the biological scale instead of renting time at the local particle accelerator. The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big questions in life." But now their knowledge of quantum mechanics is even allowing them to become movie stars and, better still, in a movie that is changing people's lives!

After dazzling the audience with dubious pronouncements from quantum physics, the storyline returns to Marlee Matlin's character, who is having an ever-increasing number of mind-expanding experiences, culminating in her realization that she no longer needs her prescription pills and that she can toss them into a lake. What a pity that the appreciation of modern science shown by New Agers is restricted to the more esoteric parts which are seen as supporting their worldviews. Meanwhile, something as beneficial (and mundane) as modern pharmacology is viewed with utter contempt to the point that people are effectively being told to throw away their prescription drugs and to cure themselves by waking up to the real meaning of life.

---

Some of them definately aren't scientists, which is what the previous person meant by suggesting the change.

So I guess Magic Johnson is dead right? I mean because he taking those very same drugs to my understanding and he seems to be living fine. It is too easy to be all 'chicken little' about something you see as conspiracy and problems in medicine, but too many people are involved to cover-up flaws in drugs as blatant as you claim.

[edit] Can order of links be POV,too?

In the interest of NPOV, i would expect the link to the official site always first, then followed by the criticism of it. First let them speak, then argue. Should be applied to all other controverse topics as well, of course.

As much as I have problems with the movie, I agree. I reorganized all the links. The two categories that previously existed seemed to work well: after moving some non-movie links to related links, I then reorganized the movie-related links to be Official, IMDB, Reviews, Interviews/Critical Examinations, then a bit on the Extended version (which included a review and a separate entry). I also tried to clean up the descriptions for reviews to look more uniform. I added a few links as well. Bobak 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

To the editors who've put in the hard work so far: thank you. This is exactly the kind of article where Wikipedia should be the weakest- there is an activist minority with a perception of reality at odds from the majority belief of subject matter experts. For a science illiterate reader I think that the article (as of 1 June 2006) does a reasonable job of convaying that the film does not speak with scientific authority even though it claims to. In my book, that is a function of NPOV. Actually, I would like to see a stronger case in the article text for what the agenda of the Rathma community in making the film was, and why links between Rathma and WTFDWK were not explicit in the film. Consensus is possible if subscribers of the "action from a distance" wouldview would remember that their's is a minority posistion without any scientific support (by definition). Accusing the text of suffering from systemic bias is false: elements from quantrum physics are used to bolster a metaphysical argument in the film in a manner that is bogus. If elements of science are used to persuade, then that argument gets to stand up to scientific scruntity. The consensus of the scientific community is clear. I think that the NPOV tag should come down. Adelord 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I put in the NPOV tag and it looks like there's already been a lot of discussion. Nevertheless this article needs a whole cleanup. intro (two sentences with the word 'controversial' even there) - criticism - controversial aspects - constroversial studies - more controversy - film crew and other dry trivia has told me nothing about the film. I'm quite surprised at the low quality of this article to be honest. And no, I have no opinion on the film itself - I came here to try to get general information on it and have come away with nothing, which is why it fails. Mithridates 17:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's pretty evident here that whoever wrote this article didn't like the movie. There are no links to support statements, and much is assumed. Please, if you're going to contribute and be persuasive at least try to use facts.--Bigbadman 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"This movie wasn't produced for Discovery Channel, or National Geographic. I didn't think it claimed scientific validity just support from some scientists. It wasn't presented as a scientific documentary." Here is the problem. The movie WAS presented as a scientific documentary!!! And that is what it makes so dangerous and controversial. New age ideas are mixed with a few reliable scientific facts, stir it... and everything, the new age stuff included, seems to be reliable and true. Peter

This article is a great example of POV and systemic bias. The article should be rewritten to sound neutral and have a single controversy section with equal space given to the film's proponents and its detractors. Such a revision would actually benefit the detractors the most, because the article's current hysterical tone does them no service! --Smithfarm 09:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How on earth can you give equal space to the proponents of propaganda and its detractors? What the proponents propose is what the movie is about - and that's already described along with the movie. There actually aren't any "proponents" of the movie, at least no one doing anything but regurgitating the already mentioned talking points of the movie - their only actual argument is that any criticism should be toned down or removed outright. Also, do you go around the Talk pages on Holocaust denial or infanticide arguing that the "detractors' hysterical tone does them a disservice"? The movie is notable in the first place because of its claims about QM and consciousness, and its affiliation to the suspect Ramtha movement. The fact that these claims are baseless and therefore criticized, and the fact that the Ramtha movement is considered a cult have their place in the article, and aren't POV simply because Ramtha proponents find the truth uncomfortable. Unigolyn 13:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you read well on Wikipedia's policies, particularly about NPOV, before you post any further on the topic. (A primer on the basics of logical arguments might help as well.) You open up with an ad hominem slandering the film as propaganda (which is assuredly POV, no matter "how true" you "know" it to be). If you want to assert the film is propaganda, provide verifiable and reputable references declaring the film as such. Regardless, you follow that section with a comparison to HOLOCAUST DENIAL and BABY KILLING. That's about a good example of poor debating and subjective POV as you get. Also, it is considered a cult by SOME PEOPLE and that is far from a universal view. Such assertions of "culthood" should only be placed in articles with references and counterreferences, given the highly subjective (and inflammatory) nature of such a label. Leave your personal opinions at the door if you expect to get far as a Wikipedian. 24.49.74.240 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. When I first came here and gave the article a read-over the only impression I got was that someone who really hated the movie had a field day with the article and I didn't pay any attention to most of the criticisms, because that's all there was. The same reaction I would have had with a rant on a bulletin board somewhere. You roll your eyes and ignore most of the content. Mithridates 15:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The movie takes a new age religion and attempts to pass it off to the general public as science. The article reflects that. The movie IS controversial so why shouldn't the article state that fact? NSWelshman 22:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question NSWman. In the answer (perhaps) lies the key to a NPOV approach. It gets back to the issue of 'what should the article state?'. In a democratic Wiki sense - 'as much as we think is appropriate', which includes an obligation to report on things (or aspects of things) that readers are likely to coming to Wiki to 'get a viewpoint on'. But there is also an obligation to report on the 'core or fundamental aspects' of whatever the article is about. My sense of a successful NPOV strategy is to start with the 'bare facts' and then proceed (gradually) to the contentious aspects. In this case it means giving the details of the movie - production details (including cast), release details - at the beginning. Then move onto the plot. Then cover the 'themes' and also the 'intent' of the producers (if that is stated or apparent somewhere we can quote from). This includes possible reference to 'unstated intents'. Then cover the 'mechanism' by which the producers used the plot/production to present the themes or deliver on the 'intent' (this is where comments about 'hokey' science belong..). Then (finally) talk about what the debate (and audience reaction generally) and what it tells us about science/arts/culture. Essentially starting at the 'core' and working outwards. It's what I'd call a structured 'film criticism' approach, and (theoretically) should give someone who hasn't even seen the movie and good understanding of it.Tban 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What do wiki readers come to this article to "get a viewpoint on"? IMHO it is to determine if the link between the metaphysical events and the science of quantrum mechanics is true, as the movie argues. The concensus of those whose area of expertise is physics is "no". Again, the NPOV tag should come down. Adelord 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Respected scientists/experts

I think it is important to distinguish between scientists who have legitimately established themseves in their field, but may also be involved in speculative research (isn't all research speculative before it becomes mainstream?), and on the other hand, folks like Masaru Emoto who got his PhD from a university in India which sells them for $300 and one year "residency". Those people working at major universities wouldn't be there if they had not proved themselves. --Blainster 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You leave out the fact that previous academic credentials and/or extensive work experience are required for this "fast track program". You also neglect to mention that five published papers are required for the award of the degree. 24.49.74.240 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research on the TM study

I am considering whether or not the section on the TM study is really supported in a paper from a reputable publisher. Please provide the reference. In accordance with the verifiability policy I am allowed to delete that section, but I can wait a few days. --Lumiere 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This wouldn't seem to be OR under Wiki policy: the research is reported by the movie, not the editor (unless you are referring to the editorial analysis, which could be removed). So the "publication" of the TM study in the movie qualifies as a secondary source. Now its verifiability is another matter, and if no source is stated in the movie (or can be found on a literature search), then that fact should certainly be added to the section. --Blainster 05:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the editorial analysis from the wikipedian editor. The analysis of the wikipedian editor goes much beyond the movie. --Lumiere 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, as far as reporting what was said in the movie about the TM study, if we only use the movie as a source, I am not sure how much can be said about the TM study. I think that we cannot present a scientific content in Wikipedia if it is only sourced in a movie. We cannot say anything of a scientific value, negative or positive, about the TM study, if this is only sourced in the movie. A scientific content that was mentioned in the movie can only be presented in the article if it is available in some reputable scientific publication and relevant in the article (e.g. if there is a section about the scientific content per se.) I understand that it seems like a strong suppression of information, but this kind of suppression is necessary to maintain some quality in Wikipedia. --Lumiere 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I read more carefully your comment, and I see that you suggest that we can mention a scientific content that was mentioned in the movie, even if it does not have a reputable scientific source, as long as we say that such a source does not exist. Is it what you are saying? This seems akward. How do you say that some content does not have a reputable source? This statement (about the non existence of a reputable source) is impossible to source. The best one can say is something like "To the authors knowledge the study was not published in any peer reviewed journal". This does not seem a valid style for an encyclopedia. I think the most reasonable solution is simply to suppress any scientific content that does not have a reputable scientific source. We should not even mention the study unless there is something non scientific that is interesting to say about it, but I cannot see anything interesting about a scientific study that has no scientific significance. It maybe a strong suppression of information, but it is the price to pay to have a reliable Wikipedia that is not misleading --Lumiere 06:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that working with only a cite from a movie would be awkward, and a very unusual circumstance. But happily, we don't have to deal with it, because the cite for the primary source was easy to find. Now before I put it here, I want to say that I am personally neutral on the TM study (although I do take positions on some of the other issues raised by the movie). So here is the cite, and here is a link to the study web page:

• Reference: Hagelin, J.S., Rainforth, M.V., Orme-Johnson, D.W., Cavanaugh, K. L., Alexander, C.N., Shatkin, S.F., Davies, J.L, Hughes, A.O, and Ross, E. 1999. Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington D.C.: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June-July, 1993. Social Indicators Research, 47(2): 153-201.

Note that Hagelin is the lead author of the paper, not surprisingly. --Blainster 06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Hagelin is both author and speaker in the movie is irrelevant. What is important is that the publisher is an independent organization, which is part of what we mean by a reputable publisher. The other criteria is the relevance to the article, but because the presentation of a scientific content was partially the goal of the movie, it is relevant. Ok fine! Still, do you agree that without this publication, we should not even mention the study, unless there was something interesting and non scientific that can be said about it? --Lumiere 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need to discuss what is now hypothetical, because the issue is not straightforward, but I will correct the number of persons involved to what is posted on the web site reporting the study, and delete the editorial commentary in the article. You can take it from there. --Blainster 08:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is not hypothetical at all. It seems to be the situation for the water crystal experiments. The skeptic seem to present the "scientific" side, but in reality the whole thing is not the kind of science that can be included in WP in accordance with WP policies. --Lumiere 08:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant that this "study" has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It's not irrelevant that this study makes no hypothesis as to why the crime rate was reduced, it just assumes a logical fallacy. This experiment is not repeatable---it earned an Ig Nobel prize for that reason. There are no constants in this study. This study does not have a valid hypothesis in that it is not falsifiable. The statistics for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department show that since the study was conducted, the yearly amount of "HRA crimes" has fallen in every year but two. The study claims that their "24.6% reduction" is statistically extremely unlikely, which is clearly not the case. If the crime rate can vary yearly by almost 20%, then it is highly likely that during a given eight-week period the rate of crime would be considerably higher or lower than the average. The source in question is also not reliable, as it appears to be Hagelin's own private vanity press, and is not peer-reviewed. The "university" it is based at is also dedicated to promoting the same brand of pseudoscientific philosophy. They are accredited, but they offer as science degrees only Computer Science and Mathemematical Sciences---a degree in "Maharishi Vedic Science" is an Arts degree. That pretty much eliminates them as a reliable source. This study must not be presented as fact within this article. Tenebrous 15:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Likelyhood", for scientific purposes is determined by a statistical test, not by opining. Did you not read in the preceeding discussion that this research was published in 1999 in Social Indicators Research ?. SIR is published by Springer, a huge publisher of many scientific journals, for example: Applied Physics. Surely you are not suggesting that Springer is a vanity publisher. And many of the IgNobel awards are not for invalid research, but for research that the committee deems impractical or of doubtful usefulness. --Blainster 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, mentioning aspects as being controversial is not enough---There are a lot of names and concepts listed there, but the debate is not being characterized---why are these people and/or concepts controversial? The intro is also POV if it does not mention the controversy. Given the amount of space in the article devoted to it, it does not make sense to omit that information from the intro. Tenebrous 15:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There’s a book as well...

And not having seen the movie, I was interested in having a look at it. My God, they have one of the worst interpretations of "science" I’ve ever seen. They’re even worse than Answers in Genesis ;) porges 11:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts?

My problem is that the movie really gives wrong 'facts'. The movie states humans are "90% water". Well, If that 90% claim were true, there would be no way we could so much as stand up. Instead, to be more exact: newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55%. No way near that 90%.

And it’s just these kind of mistakes – where they don’t get the facts parted from fiction – that makes the movie just useless....

    Well I guess they might have meant the number of water molecules rather than the mass ratio. Those figures you attained are valid for mass proportions. 
    If you calculate the ratio of the number of water molecules in the body then you should end up with a figure like 90%.

This is precisely the arena where a site like Wikipedia could/should excel. Rather than debate the merit of the movie's (controversial) opinion, or hypothesis, I was hoping for an examination of that material which was presented as scientific fact. 68.8.12.35 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain cells do divide

I don't understand why the Wiki states that brain cells don't divide, this has been disproven! Don't take my word for it, read the following article:

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/02/the_reinvention_of_the_self.php?page=1

From Atkinson & Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology 14th Edition

"...recent results have questions the long-held view that the adult brain is incapable of producing new generations of neurons. In one recent study, investigators injected rats with a compound called BRDU that labels newly born neurons. After injecting the rats, they trained the animals in a classical conditioning task that requires the hippocampus. They found that rats that underwent training in the conditioning task exhibited a significant increase in the number of labeled neurons in the hippocampus (Gould, Beylin, Tanapat, Reeves, & Shors, 1999). Interestingly, training in a similar conditions task that does not require the hippocampus was not associated with the birth of new neurons in the hippocampus. More recently, these investigators have found that drugs that block hippocampal neurogenesis impair trace eyeblink conditioning. Collectively, these studies sugest not only that learning is associated with the birth of new neurons ina the brain bust also that neurogenesis may itself be essential for learning to occur."

New neurons are not derived from neurons, but from stem cells:

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/newbraincell/index.html

"The existing neurons in the adult brain cannot divide. Some progenitor cells, however, remain, and they can go through cell division to produce two daughter neurons, or one glial cell or neuron and one progenitor cell capable of further division. Apparently, in most parts of the adult brain, something inhibits progenitor cells from dividing to produce new neurons. No one knows exactly why neurogenesis continues in some areas and not others."

However, if the old neurons affect the new cells, the idea in the movie can be not completely incorrect.

[edit] CSICOP, and other NPOV concerns

1. Considering that there are already links to "Controversial," "Protoscience" and "Alternative, speculative and disputed theories," it the inclusion of the CSICOP seems rather unnecessary. Unless that organization specifically investigated this movie, there's no explicit reason why it should be linked to.

2. Another suggestion for establishing a more neutral point of view would be to shift many of the descriptions of the concepts and theories brought up in the movie in the "Synopsis" section. Currently, the section on the controverial elements of the movie dwarfs the rest. If the concepts questioned in the "Controversy" section were described in the synopsis, it might make the article as a whole seem a bit more balanced.

3. Certain elements in the "controversy" section seem particularly ungrounded. The sections on experts and methods, in sentences such as this one:

The film uses quantum physics as a medium to pass off their ideas as fact, despite the fact that all of their ideas contradict with evidence provided by real scientists. The "scientists" in this movie provide evidence from experiments that were carried out improperly or without any grasp of error propagation, thus making their results poor.

would be more credible if they contained more detailed references to the film. As it stands, they seem highly biased against it. While these statements may be correct, more evidence is necessary for them to meet Wikipedia's standards. -Cordialatron 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deaf or mute?

Resolved

I saw Astanhope had reverted my change about Amanda being mute, not deaf. I saw the movie, and she has a lot of trouble speaking, so she's not completely mute. But she certainly isn't deaf, at least that's what I think. The only example I can remember right now, is that she can hear the little boy on the basketball court speaking. From what I can find elsewhere, f.ex IMDB, this is also what others think. I'm going to change it to "a photographer with a speech disorder", please tell my if you don't agree. antabus 20:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she reads lips? GangofOne 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that may be. I changed it originally, since I don't remember anything in the movie about her being deaf, and thought it was an error. Maybe I missed something?

Astanhope convinced me I was mistaken, so I'll change it back to deaf.

she is most definately deaf, and says to her roommate "I can read lips" when she uses sign language in the beginning. there are many other references to her being able to read lips including camera shots focused on mouths talking. Also, sign language is used to talk to deaf people, and used by mute people to talk to others. 142.35.144.2 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor error in Controversial Aspects of the Film Section

Someone stated that the Spanish presence in South America led to complete genocide so that the movie was incorrect in relaying a minor fact in Aztec history. As there are many Mexicans with varying degrees of Aztec blood alive today, I removed the term 'complete' from 'complete genocide'. A.V.

Columbus encountered the Arawaks, not the Aztecs. The last Arawak died in the seventeenth century. None of their descendants survive today. That would be a rather complete genocide, in my opinion. Tenebrous 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't massacre everyone he met, though, so that can stay as it is. Tenebrous 21:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's my attempt at the title

Including the vector arrows and italic theta and changing the omega to mathematical script w: What tнe⃗ ♯$*! D⃗𝞱 𝓌Σ (k)πow!? porges 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling something propaganda isn't NPOV?

Then why does wikipedia call the 'Der Ewige Jude' propaganda? Surely something can be called propaganda and be NPOV. And surely one can argue this has to be the case for this movie as well. At leat call it '...is a 2004 film made by the Ramtha cult in order to promote certain new age concepts' or something like that. The article doesn't even mention the cult at all. Surely that is very POV. There is already a whole article on the Ramtha cult. And there are links that already have provided the facts conserning that this movie has been funded and created by people of the Ramtha cult. Furthermore, we already know that many claims made in the movie, or maybe things that are suggested, are wrong. Really, would NPOV require wikipedia to say on the scientology mythology page something like "Some people are highly skeptical about..." or "Not many people believe in..."? Wouldn't both the general consensus be that their myths are insane and that science knows their claims are utter rubbish? And therefore wouldn't it be NPOV to report this. Really, if such absurd claims are made and presented in a way that suggests they may be true, do we call that NPOV. I would call it POV because when you suggest something can be true while it isn't then this is just a false statement. And for all those people defending this movie, maybe you should try to watch it first, then read a book explaining scientific method, and then come back so we can work on this article.

Be Bold! Edit it yourself :) porges 08:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "What tнe⃗ ♯$*! D⃗𝞱 𝓌Σ (k)πow!?" (article title)

Sorry to spoil your fun, but I think it's fair to say the title containing various Greek- or math-symbols is merely an artistic rendering of the movie's title ("What the #$*! do we know!?"). Trying to use make the article name reflect this artistic rendering is unnecessary at best. Both the film's end credits and web site refer to the film without any Greek letters. The article should be moved (back?) to a more appropriate title. —Pengo 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is the way it is because the hash function is used for something in the wiki system, causing unpleasantness if an article name uses it, or something of that ilk. So we are forced by neccesity to have it the way it is. Jefffire 16:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the #/♯ problem, but to the rest of it, such as the pi for "n", and Sigma for "E" —Pengo 17:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, this should be "What the bleep do we know!?", as this is how the official page refers to it (and says it is trademarked as well). I think I may have been making a point with the title, but I'm not so sure... ;) porges 23:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. It's been put back to a more sensible title. Much thanks to NicholasT. —Pengo 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

I think someone should slap a point of view on the 'controversial' sections, or at least give some background.

It seems the original writer was intent on merely slamming WTFDWK, without giving legitimate justification for certain possible human errors.

For example, the brain is composed of 90% water/aqueous fluids, as as a majority of the movie relates around neuroscience, I believe it would be justified to put some sort of an explanation.

Furthermore, the statement on Native Americans not being able to see Columbus' ships seemed to be a completely ridiculous assertation - how does this belong under "factual errors", especially when whoever wrote the article can be no more right of the facts than the producers of the film!

Not providing contradictory information seems to be in the spirit of most films, documentary or not.

The links, I think, could be categorized into something that's more like "Movie links", "Links Dealing with the Controversy", "Other Links". As it is, it seems that the article links imply negatively towards the movie.

No problem with organizing the links, the other issues however, are not acceptable. What does the fraction of the brain that is aqueous matter? And the claim about native americans when we have no records of such is a factual error, since there is no way for anyone to determine its truth and the movie takes it as a given/claims that it is true. JoshuaZ 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove NPOV tag?

Is there consensus to remove the NPOV tag? If not, I would like to see the POV issue resolved before the movie fades to obscurity & the article stops getting traffic Adelord 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... you should probably as on WikiProject Pseudoscience and WikiProject Physics for a larger response. As for my opinion after a cursory overview, I'm actually rather suprised at the state of the article. It seems to do a rather good job at being NPOV. A few small problems remain - the "Featured experts and scientists" section seems to have some POV problems that are not mirrored in the rest of the article for example. --Philosophus ^T 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the experts section and took down the tag. Thanks for the feedback Philosophus. Adelord 14:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainly looks ok to me, however, I strongly prefer "claims to channel" which is more NPOV than "channels." JoshuaZ 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who channels a spirit or whatever, merely claims to channel. Other people choose to believe the performance or not. That is why I considered "claims to channel" redundant compared to "channels". My preference is mild though, so if you edit I won't edit back. Adelord 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The concern to me was that "channels" makes it sound like we are endorsing the claim. If you don't mind terribly, I'll will reinsert "claims to." JoshuaZ 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Adelord 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Edit Suggestion

My copy of the movie is on loan at the moment, so I'm going from memory. Please overlook any place where my memory of the movie fails me.

>> Physicists claim that the movie grossly misrepresents the meaning of quantum mechanics, and in fact is pseudoscience.

Are we talking about the one that complained? Or are there more? Links to bios? Names?

>> Reviews of the movie

If you're going to quote a bad review, quote a good one as well, and be honest about finding one that is actually good.

>> The movie also relates a story about Native Americans

Did the movie say that "some of the first tribes" had this experience or that "the very first tribe" did? Why would it have to be in Columbus' journals? The fact that the oral traditions were lost doesn't mean that hearsay wasn't still promulgated by interested parties through subsequent generations.

I think of the story as an anecdote meant to convey a point. Indeed, didn't the one speaker say "there's this story and I *believe* it's true"? Honestly, it didn't occur to me as any more relevant or factual than the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. Calling it a factual error is a bit nit-picky.

I suggest we strike this paragraph.

>> The movie states that if (human) cells are overstimulated by neurotransmitters they adjust through a process called down regulation.

The structures under discussion were neuropeptides in this case, weren't they? Neuropeptides, hormones, amino acids, and neurotransmitters aren't all necessarily interchangeable concepts. I believe that the word "neurotransmitters" in this sentence should be replaced with the word "neuropeptides".

>> Since this refers to the process of thought the movie must be referring to the brain.

I don't know that thought is strictly confined to the brain or even that it originates in the brain (and neither do you.) Wikipedia's article on thought certainly doesn't say that.

My read on the movie was that they were talking about cells throughout the body, not just those in the brain.

In any case, we can't assume what the movie "must be" talking about. If something in the movie is ambiguous, we should say it is ambiguous and leave it at that.

So, actually, I suggest that we strike this whole paragraph.

>> and those that do such research have complained that their views were deliberately misrepresented.

This is plural. Isn't it only one scientist that has complained? If so, I suggest that this sentence be changed to reflect that.

>>No logical proof connecting the findings of Quantum Mechanics(QM) with the movie's core message is offered.

What do you mean by "connection"? Causation? How would any movie prove that intent determines physical reality? All you can show are correlations. Like, thought is correlated with electrical impulses in the CNS, but that doesn't mean that one creates the other. So, there are those that believe that thought creates CNS activity and those that believe the reverse, and those that believe that both are independent and that the correlation is cooincidental. Who is "right"?

I think the subject matter precludes any means of showing a connection and one should not interpret the failure to present such a proof as a defect in the film.

My opinion of their presentation is: "Hey, this theory fits the facts (sort of). What do you think?"

I think we should strike the first and last sentences in this paragraph.

>>The idea that the measurement (observing capacities) of conscious observers creates reality is implied to be a widely held position in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.

I didn't infer that at all. Perhaps we should stick to what the movie says and not try to malign the producers (no matter how kooky they may seem) with assumptions of what they are trying to imply. I suggest we strike this paragraph.

>>Dr. Miceal Ledwith even asserts that human beings have the capability of walking on water. No evidence is offered.

Isn't he a theologian? Christians have been talking about Jesus (and Peter) walking on water forever. Their "evidence" is biblical. Why do you have to provide evidence for a belief based on faith?

>> In contrast, physicists do not believe this ability to freely choose the future to be true in anything other than a metaphorical sense.

How about "In constrast, there are physicists who do not believe..." or something similar?

>> aka snowflakes) — a step not disclosed in the movie

I confess that I am ignorant when it comes to chemistry, but how else would you get water crystals without freezing the water? It was obvious to me that the water was frozen before being photographed. I suggest we strike this sentence.

>> His work was never subject to peer review, and he did not utilize double blind methodology.

How would you perform a double blind study to test the effects of thought on water? How would you keep the thoughts of the handlers from contaminating samples? This is like criticizing a car because it has round wheels.

I suggest we strike this sentence.

...

And my comments on the general (highly amusing) discussion here for those who are interested:

I am amazed at Wikipedia. There is some really good stuff on this site, particularly in the areas of math and computer science. However, contrastring that are outright angry editorials like this one or the article on mucoid plaque.

I have degrees in math and computer science. I don't know much about quantum field theory or biology but I have been around uneducated people who misuse language in my areas of expertise, and yes, it's irritating. But that doesn't mean they're being dishonest or that what they have to say isn't valid. It just means that they're uneducated.

The movie basically says "you create your own reality" and it uses our contemporary state-funded, state-integrated religion (science) to make that point. (What religion calls "faith", science calls "axioms", but they're both the same thing.) Science, even if only regarded as an abstract methodology apart from its cult of practitioners, sciptures, scribes, priests and worshippers, is still highly subjective. I respectfully recommend that anyone who thinks that they somehow know what "pure science" is or even more arrogantly what "truth" is reconsider their perspective carefully.

Now, one might argue that the movie uses science like Fred Phelps (Baptist gay basher) uses the two lines of the bible that he's actually read, but let's not forget that everyone has a right to their opinion, that everything you watch on the boob tube is suspect and that everything in science, like religion, is subject to interpretation.

"Truth" is for God and philosophers. Science/Religion is to just keep the rest of us busy until we die. :)

---Thank you for you input User:Aevans1108 and congrats on making your first two edits to wikipedia right here on this talk page. Bleep has had many favorable reviews, including lines such as:

My pleasure, but I didn't make any edits to the article. I didn't even know I could do that. I simply made some suggestions. It's up to the editor to make the changes isn't it? (BTW: I'm an INTJ as well.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.60 (talk • contribs).

I left you a message on your talk page User_talk:Aevans1108 giving a better welcome. There is nothing stopping you from making edits to any article right now, but as a courteously please first take the time to look at some of the links I left on your User_talk:Aevans1108 page. Reading them will help you learn to efficiently contribute to articles, something few (especially me) have mastered. Adelord 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I've updated my user page per your suggestion and read some of the links you provided. I think I will wait until I get my copy of the movie back before I make my suggested changes to this article. I want to make sure what I'm saying is accurate. --66.82.9.63 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"What the Bleep Do We Know!? bombards us with in its fascinating exploration of quantum physics and the subatomic world’s omnipresent influence on every aspect of our lives." http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2004/1021/film6.htm

"What the #$*! Do We Know?! is a film that connects the mind, the body, the emotions and the spirit but it's not some airy-fairy undertaking or cultish outing. It's more like the spot where science and religion unite."http://www.whatthebleep.com/reviews/WinnipegSun.htm

"They really tried to present a view of the world that's not normally known to the lay public, quantum physics being the science that explains the microscopic level of the world. Quantum physics says we are all connected. There are many things in the movie that are speculation, but they're based on science we believe to be correct."http://www.whatthebleep.com/reviews/ajc_com.htm

---and some bad reviews as well,

"Beware: A ridiculous new science movie is coming to a theater near you. What the #$*! Do We Know?, an independent film slated for national release this month, pretends to be an exploration of the grand questions of science, reality and life. It jumps between a fictional story about a divorced photographer and snippets of interviews with authoritative-looking individuals. Although several of them have big bookshelves in view behind them, it quickly becomes clear to the attentive viewer that few of these talking heads are making any sense. They speak of “infecting the quantum field” and refer to bio-body suits and antigravity magnets without explanation. Not until the credits roll, when the “experts” are finally introduced, do we learn that the two people who do most of the talking about neuroscience and physics are not actually scientists. One is a chiropractor. The other is a 35,000-year-old warrior named Ramtha, who is being “channeled” by a blonde woman from Washington. Oh, and the chiropractor is one of her devotees. As are the filmmakers. In short, what we’ve got here are the musings of a cult masquerading as a science documentary. If the movie even has a central message, it could best be summarized as, “We don’t know #$*!”

Not everyone finds this amusing. One of the few legitimate academics in the film, David Albert, a philosopher of physics at Columbia University, is outraged at the final product. He says that he spent four hours patiently explaining to the filmmakers why quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness or spirituality, only to see his statements edited and cut to the point where it appears as though he and the spirit warrior are speaking with one voice. “I was taken,” Albert admits. “I was really gullible, but I learned my lesson.” Yet the real shame with this film is that it plays on people’s fascination with science while distorting and misrepresenting that science. Before its national release, the film packed theaters up and down the West Coast. Instead of stoking the curiosity of those moviegoers, What the #$*! numbed them with mindless quantum drivel." http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/463c0b4511b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

"The film was made basically to be an advertisement for her, said John Olmsted, an adjunct instructor in psychology at Portland State University in Oregon, who called the scientific experiments referenced by the film horrible jokes. "People who have the religious belief that reality is simply an illusion have taken bits of quantum physics and used them to prove what they want to -- that there's no material reality and consciousness controls everything." http://www.whatthebleep.com/reviews/miami-herald-may-28-05.shtml

"This woman, I later learned, was the psychic JZ Knight, who channels a 35,000-year-old mystical sage from the lost continent of Atlantis. Still later, a letter to the Answer Man from an actual physicist, Rubin Safaya, informed me: "The individuals who are quoted are pretty far from qualified experts on the field of quantum mechanics."http://www.whatthebleep.com/reviews/ebertreply1.htm

"For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll define “legitimate scientist” by the following: Being presently employed as a professor in the hard sciences at a research university (Albert, who is a professor of philosophy of physics, almost qualifies; there are a few other legitimate MDs at accredited research universities, but no PhDs and certainly no physicists) OR having published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in the last five years. As far as I can tell, the film contains few or no “legitimate scientists” besides Albert, though I’m open to challenges. Amit Goswami, Dean Radin, and William Tiller are all employed by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which, according to its website, “explores phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models.” (Mmm.) John Hagelin, a former Natural Law candidate for president, is a professor at Maharishi University of Management, where you can presently earn a PhD in one of two programs: “Maharishi Vedic Science” and “Management.”"http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/02/05-11.php

---it is also very interesting to read what the one featured scientist widely perceived as credible in a field of the hard sciences, Dr. David Albert, had to say about the movie and its' extended version. In his own words:

"When I was interviewed for the first film, I had no idea what sort of a film it would turn out to be, and I had no clue as to the background or the agenda of the producers. This may have been at least in part my own fault. I was not as skeptical, I was not as inquisitive, as I ought to have been. Had I known then what I know now, I would certainly not have agreed to appear in that film. Once that had happened, however, I decided to participate actively in the ensuing public discussion, and to do whatever I could to insure that the sequel (or the director’s cut, or whatever it is) contained at least a suggestion - however short and fragmented and out of context and pushed off to the side - of what an intellectually responsible treatment of these questions might actually sound like. Whether or not that attempt was a success, whether or not it did any good, whether or not it would have been better (in the end) for me to insist that I be withdrawn from the sequel altogether, only time will tell... I have seen the second film. It is swarming with scientific inaccuracies, and its overall thesis is (in my opinion) wildly and irresponsibly wrong. Let me elaborate on that a bit. The argument of these movies (and of the second one in particular) runs something like this:

Up through the end of the 19th century, science (and physics in particular) was at work on the construction of a thoroughly MECHANICAL, thoroughly CLOCKWORK sort of a picture of the universe - a picture that seemed to have no room in it for God and spirit and freedom and mystery and all sorts of other stuff that we thought we wanted. And in the 20th century, with the advent of Quantum Mechanics, there was a great crisis in that project, and there were announcements, from many quarters, that the project had broken down, that it was now at an end, that it would need to be replaced by something else. And the argument of the movie is that this crisis somehow obviously amounts to a dramatic and long-awaited re-affirmation of the truth of this other, ancient, pre-scientific world-view, a re-affirmation of the existence and of the centrality of God and freedom and spirit and mystery and so on.

And there are two very large and very serious problems with that argument:

1) The film neglects to make any mention whatever of the fact that there has been a growing consensus among serious investigators of the foundations of Quantum Mechanics for 30 or 40 years now that this crisis of mechanism has PASSED, that we now see a way OUT of it, that (in so far as we can tell at present) the original, mechanistic, scientific project is very much alive and well. (The second film actually does a reasonably good job, with some help from me, of explaining how that crisis arose. But, as I said above, it makes no mention at all of the fact that that crisis has now passed. All of my numerous attempts to explain to the producers how we have now found our way OUT of that crisis were cut out of the final versions of both movies.)

2) Both of these films are wildly wrong about what a collapse of the project of mechanism (if such a collapse had indeed occurred, which it did not!) would have MEANT. Both of these films are wildly wrong (that is) about where a collapse of the project of mechanism (if such a collapse had indeed occurred, which it did not) would have LEFT us. The film makers are apparently convinced that such a collapse would straightforwardly resuscitate the old metaphysics of God and spirit and so fourth, but they offer no reasons whatsoever for thinking that, and I cannot imagine what such a reason might be.

It seems to me that what’s at issue (at the end of the day) between serious investigators of the foundations of quantum mechanics and the producers of the “what the bleep” movies is very much of a piece with what was at issue between Galileo and the Vatican, and very much of a piece with what was at issue between Darwin and the Victorians. There is a deep and perennial and profoundly human impulse to approach the world with a DEMAND, to approach the world with a PRECONDITION, that what has got to turn out to lie at THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, that what has got to turn out to lie at THE FOUNDATION OF ALL BEING, is some powerful and reassuring and accessible image of OURSELVES. That’s the impulse that the What the Bleep films seem to me to flatter and to endorse and (finally) to exploit - and that, more than any of their particular factual inaccuracies - is what bothers me about them. It is precisely the business of resisting that demand, it is precisely the business of approaching the world with open and authentic wonder, and with a sharp, cold eye, and singularly intent upon the truth, that’s called science." http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/02/05-11.php

--- Adelord 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Mechanics

As long as there is a sub-section dedicated to Quantum Mechanics and its involvement in the film (and even expanding on ideas), there is definitely a key point that is missing(and SHOULD be included), decoherence. Particularly, decoherence and how it "fogs" a wave function, giving us the world run by classical physics. Those who understand where I am making my point with this will realize it implies a particular conclusion on human conscienceness and reality. Gagueci 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Although decoherence is most likely responsible, in some way, for the elimination of most quantum phenomena on the macroscopic scale, it's not really relevant to any of the points brought up in the movie. Whether the "collapse" of the wave function is a real (Copenhagen) like effect, or whether due to decoherence, the point is it's still probabilistic and we can't control it. What exact conclusion does decoherence imply for human consciousness? I don't think anything is considered clear cut just yet. Joel.Gilmore 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new way of looking at it?

Something tells me that when some of you skeptics watched the movie, you watched with the intention of disproving everything in the movie on mind. Of course, if you start out with the intention of proving everything wrong, you tend to pay too much attention on counter evidence and ignore the evidence for the movie's point of view. Just like the movie itself stated, our minds perceive what we want to perceive, so if you just want to prove everything wrong you tend to do just that. You tend to assume and think of any reason against the movie. Maybe there is truth in all you people's skepticism against the movie, but I'm asking for a new way of looking at it. Just like what the movie itself said, "Change your perception, change your reality." Maybe you people should actually try to prove the movie's accuracy instead of only focusing on what's wrong! Maybe you should give the movie a fighting chance, to at least try to prove things as true instead of automatically regarding everything as false! Maybe if you look at things in a different perspective, you will see things that you didn't see before! --Tobywashere 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This movie has the dubious honour of not only being Junk science (in the fact that it is actually a promotional vehicle for a cult), but also of being Pseudoscience and factually incorrect. For such a film, the article itself is extremely NPOV, so what else do you want? People can not help being skeptical towards a movie that misrepresents quantum mechanics (and science as a whole), is created by an organization with incredibly sketchy origins and plays on peoples innate thirst for knowledge by assaulting them with a barrage of meaningless fodder and wishful thinking.

[edit] There's a reason why Colleges and High schools dont allow Wikipedia quotes....

... and that's because most of the information on here is just stuff people got from websites. You could say that homosexuality is morally wrong here because you got a citation from www.godhatesgays.com and then say its true because the website said so. Wikipedia is about facts!? Come on, you're kidding me right? I watched the What the Bleep movie and I loved it, but on both sides of this situation you're saying that what YOU'RE saying is fact. How do you know? Most people know that there are websites out there (even government funded websites and websites made by medical communities too!) that are just propaganda. So my point is, Wikipedia is not a place for fact finding, and I irks me a tad bit to know that people actually read wikipedia a LOT and then think its all true and unbiased. It's not. Please find some other way to devote your time.

"Wikipedia quotes are not allowed" is what one of my professors told me. Think about why that is...

Is there a specific issue you have with this article, or is this just a rant? -Will Beback 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably just a What the Bleep Do We Know!? fanboy who read the criticism section. Please bear in mind that the talk page is for discussing the article, not expressing your opinion of the subject matter. Roffler 22:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigilante Wiki Policing?

I was threatened to be blocked today by this member: User: Michaelbusch here is a copy of our correspondence:

I removed the reference to JZ Knight in the first paragraph because it implies negative systemic bias. The details of creators/ contributors to the film may be included elsewhere in the article, not anecdotally in the first few sentences. This article is still very much lacking in it's neutrality. what is your role? Do you work for wikipedia? I apologize if my editing of the article appeared to be vandalism. I ensure you it was not intended. I am neither for or against the topic of the article in question, I was simply correcting a clear error in NPOV. 14:41, 28 November 2006

The blatant vandalism was not removing the reference to JZ Knight. It was deleting the text relating to criticism of the movie. The movie has had more publicity from that than on its own. I do not think the article is NPOV. I admit to bias to purge pseudoscience from Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, immediate criticism in the article with no references or citation implies bias. Such information must be placed under separate headings further along in the article. Stating one side of an argument in the first few sentences is not acceptable. And if such statements are to be made, references and citations must be provided, of which there are still none. You have just told me that my deletions were vandalism due to the 'fact' that the film has received more attention for criticism than praise; can you cite any statistical references? If so please include them in the article. If not, it is conjecture, and should not be admitted. Again, what is your role with wikipedia? Are you a private citizen? If your goal is to push your own take on 'the truth' you are doing the wikipedia community a disservice. You are accusing others of vandalism, when you yourself are exacting bias for your own agenda. This article is not the place to enforce your own views. It is on a controversial film. If this film contains material you do not agree with, by all means create an "Arguments" section. But policing how the article is edited to suit your own paradigm is an abuse of power. 15:07, 28 November 2006

Michaelbusch has since added a citation to the end of the statement "The film has received widespread criticism from the scientific community. Physicists, in particular, claim that the film grossly misrepresents the meaning of various principles of quantum mechanics, and is in fact pseudoscience 1." the citation links to a heavily biased opinion piece written under the "Letters" section of Physicstoday.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.82.18 (talk)

Mr. Busch says that he admits "to bias to purge pseudoscience from wikipiedia" has anyone else encountered this individual? are there steps one can take to deter bias abuse of power in wikipedia? 15:37, 28 November 2006

I may have been reverting vandalism too much lately and developed bad habits. I apologize if I offended 24.82.82.18. However, I think this editor may mis-understand the meaning of bias. Some biases are good for this encyclopedia and others are not. Linking to something that is heavily biased against the film is entirely legitimate, because the sentence refers to physicists disapproving of the film. 24.82.82.18 may also be unaware that Physics Today is published by the American Institute of Physics. I have a bias to purge pseudoscience from Wikipedia (User:Michaelbusch). I extend this to include making it very obvious when the scientific community considers something to be bollocks. This makes Wikipedia more reliable. Michaelbusch 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is routine to have an introduction to the criticism of a controversial topic in the opening paragraph. This is not POV. Michaelbusch's AIP link is appropriate. — coelacan talk — 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the link is appropriate to the claim, I also believe that opinions are vital to any article; however the importance of any singular argument is only valid when all majority sides are represented. I do not believe the immediate singular opinion presented denotes neutrality. We may be losing sight of the fact that the article is on a film, it's concepts and ideas may be stated, however arguments about the film, unless all majority sides are represented, must be placed under separate headings further along in the article, not in the first few sentences with no counter statements to neutralize the paragraph. It is one opinion, from one side, placed in the first part of the article. If one reads Wikipedia:Neutral point of view one would see that this article does not adhere to these standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.82.18 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2006

also, MichaelBusch has still not answered my question as to his status within the wikipedia community. Maybe my eyes are failing me, but I cannot find his name on the list of administrators. If he is not a Sysop, how is he able to flag and block users. Also, how can we flag this article for issues of neutrality until it has been fixed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.82.18 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2006

I'm familiar with WP:NPOV and I don't see what the specific problem is. Perhaps you can suggest what you think would be more NPOV. But you're wrong about opening paragraphs. Let me refer you to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#The rest of the lead section where it says If the article is long enough for the Lead Section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a sumary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any (emphasis mine).

If Michaelbusch believed you were vandalizing, then he was perfectly justified in warning you. Here is the template he used: Template:bv. If you think you see anyone vandalizing Wikipedia, you can use that template too. So he didn't do anything out of his authority. Please accept the apology he has already offered.

If you believe the article is too POV, the first step of the process is to discuss it with us here. If you believe that we are being unfair, then you can follow the steps of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. At this moment, I think we're well within the realm of reasonable discussion. — coelacan talk — 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, when you are signing your comments, please use four tildas, like this: ~~~~

Hopefully my comments thus far are helpful. If this discussion goes on for a while and I don't reply, feel free to contact me on my talk page. — coelacan talk — 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. However, perhaps you have not fully taken in what I have written, since you are asking what I think would be more NPOV. As I have said before, a Neutral Point of View would be if both sides of an argument were given equal voice, balancing the undue weight that exists with references to the opposing view as well. This is neutrality and equal weight. I do not see equal weight in the first paragraph, I, and any other discerning eye would see blatant bias. as I have stated before: opinions are vital to any article; however the importance of any singular argument is only valid when all majority sides are represented.

Secondly, you yourself have quoted the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#The rest of the lead section where it clearly underlines my point: If the article is long enough for the Lead Section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any (emphasis mine). These guidelines clearly state that the paragraph should give a clear explanation of the article subject. I think you would agree that the subject of the article is not it's secondary controversies OR praises. Therefore, as stated in the guidelines, valid controversies should be placed in subsequent paragraphs, with no argument given undue weight wikipedia states: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." it also goes on to say "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

Why then are you supporting the fact that undue weight has clearly been given to a specific viewpoint? Again, to be fair and as a service to the wikipedia community, I suggest the article be flagged for bias until the issue is resolved.

finally, I'm still learning the ins and outs of script, and I am not yet completely familiar with the proper way of formatting, but I'm learning. 24.82.82.18 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2006

Hello again. Thanks for reading and discussing the better article guide. We are still in disagreement but I think we can work it out by process. I do not agree that "the subject of the article is not it's secondary controversies OR praises." What made this movie well-known, and thus much of what makes it notable for Wikipedia, was its misrepresentation of quantum theory. Therefore this criticism is notable for the lead section, and is not going away. Although it's not going away, there is still the possible issue of undue weight. Less than one third of the lead section is about criticism, and I personally do not feel that this is undue weight. However, if you feel this way, I am certainly open to other changes. I welcome you to rework the rest of the lead paragraph that is not criticism, and try to improve it until you feel that your position is adequately represented there. It would probably be best if you cut and paste the lead section over into this talk page and then make your changes here; then we can tweak it until it looks great. Since you brought up POV-tagging again, I'll point you to the templates you would use, however, it is generally not good etiquette to use these while someone (such as myself) is working with you to try to reach a consensus. Generally you would save these templates until you feel there is an impasse. Here they are though: Template:NPOV or Template:NPOV-section. — coelacan talk — 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the templates, I have put them up not out of bad etiquette or intention to be rude, but because I feel that until the conflict is resolved, it is legitimate to notify editors and other readers of the possible current issues with the article. When you say that because only 1/3rd of the paragraph deals with criticism, it is not weighted, keep in mind that 0/3rds deal with an opposing point of view making it indeed an unbalanced argument. Again, as wikipedia states: "...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints...and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As for restructuring the paragraph, I welcome the offer, and will do my best with my time, however I may not be the best source of information since I am neither for or against the subject in question, I was simply pointing out an obvious flaw with the article. I'm sure I can find the lawyer in me however and try to come up with some vital points which may benefit recognition. In the meantime further contributions and edits are very much welcome in this regard. thanks again for your patience and assistance.(talk) 12:55, 29 November 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.233.239 (talk)

Okay. If you want the templates up that's fine with me. By the way, since you are editing from two different IPs, 207.6.233.239 and 24.82.82.18, it would be less confusing if you would register an account. You would also get a watchlist with your account and other useful things. See WP:WHY for an overview. It would let the other editors here know who you are no matter what IP you use. What I said about "one third" was only meant to apply to the opening paragraph. I didn't measure it all, but I think there's more criticism in the full article. I do consider the "summary" section to be "pro-Bleep" at the moment and the expanded list of personalities (unusual for most films' articles) is also clearly intended to weigh heavily for the movie's credibility. There is very little in the way of pro-Bleep science in the article, and I really don't expect this to change. If the pro-Bleep perspective can't come up with supporting arguments, that's not the fault or the problem of Wikipedia. Stephen Colbert reminds us that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" ... if reality has an anti-Bleep bias, then we just have to report the facts and let them stand. In that case the most NPOV thing we could do would be to simply be factual. — coelacan talk — 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

here is a first draft of possible content to include:

The central controversy of the film is rooted in the division between scientific, versus holistic perspectives among viewers. Skeptics have criticized the film for it’s reported scientific inaccuracies, dubious graphics and cinematography as well as its questionably credentialed cast of speakers. Proponents of the film argue that dismissing the film on these details alone would be missing the point of the film entirely, and that critics may condemn themselves to a limited perspective through their dismissal of philosophical concepts outside of traditional scientific method [1] see: protoscience. Proponents underline the fact that the movie is presented as a philosophical suggestion, which never claims its controversial concepts to be facts, presented rather as thought provoking questions and insights into the realm of cognitive possibilities. In contrast, opponents believe that the film is misleading in its reported scientific inaccuracies concerning the laws of physics as well as quantum mechanics, and condemns it as pseudoscience, a misrepresentation of scientific theory.

here is a link to public reviews illustrating the divide of public opinions: [2]

any and all feel free to comment. If it appears I have focused primarily on the proponent perspective, it is because this is the perspective that was absent in the introductory paragraph. modifications and additions are welcome. 24.82.82.18 07:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trouble at the first sentence. The film is claiming science as its own, so the issue is not one of "scientific versus holistic perspectives." The filmmakers are presenting their spiritual beliefs as scientific. It is thus a question of solid science or unfounded claims. I think the whole "missing the point of the film entirely" is misleading as is "never claims its controversial concepts to be facts", as one does not simply film a bunch of physicists to talk about the aesthetic beauty of the universe (poets are cheaper to film if that's the goal). The physicists are there to present scientific fact, or at least to give the appearance of such. Next up is the "limited perspective... traditional scientific method" which is a narrow caricature of the criticism. The problem is not philosophy outside of the scientific method. Scientists get along fine with philosophers who work outside of the scientific method. Scientists do not get along with philosophers who cloak their metaphysics in the veneer of science when the facts don't actually support them. The complaint is that the film makes claims from science onto metaphysics while the claims do not follow from the science. You can't claim the fruits of science unless you are willing to be bound to its roots. Finally, you're giving a lot of "proponents say..." but I don't actually see proponents saying these things. It sounds like you're attempting your own analysis, and that would be WP:NOR. — coelacan talk — 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and as for not providing links to support what "proponents say" you must have grazed over the link provided to a long list of public reviews [3] , many of which state the perspective illustrated above. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it is a perspective, and therefore must be included alongside your own. The speakers in the film state basic accepted quantum theories such as the Copenhagen interpretation as well as the metatheory of the many-worlds interpretation, then postulate subsequent possibilities; (something I'm sure poets would articulate with more eloquence, but slightly less knowlege, save for a few minor confusing mis-uses of terms, granted.) which, by the way is what quantum theory is all about. Theory. But this is besides the point. The point is the representation of paradigm, whether you subscribe to an opposing world view or not. please see epistemology and pseudoskepticism for insight.

"Marcello Truzzi (who himself was a skeptic), maintain that some debunkers are excessively and dishonestly skeptical, and thus not true skeptics but "pseudoskeptics". According to Truzzi, genuine skeptics are neutral or agnostic, often critical of new claims, but not vehemently opposed to them. They want better evidence. In contrast, pseudoskeptics are simply deniers with an agenda and often use unscientific arguments to debunk what they oppose. Truzzi argued that many things that pseudoskeptics label pseudoscience, could be more aptly be described as "protosciences" still struggling to establish mainstream acceptance. It is argued there are many historical examples of where pseudoskepticism seriously hindered scientific progress by unreasonably opposing introduction of radical new ideas. On the other hand, according to Truzzi, true skepticism would recognize the need for better evidence, but not actively oppose, ridicule, or discourage further investigation into any subject by serious and qualified researchers" [4]

also, here is an article I have found written by Dr Manjir Samanta-Laughton from Cambridge University's 'The Naked Scientist' group. [5] this article is an interesting read, I recommend it be included. 24.82.82.18 04:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that David Icke could watch this movie and come to the conclusion that its detractors are lizard-people trying to keep The Truth away from the public. This "perspective" would not be notable enough for inclusion in this article, however. If someone completely misunderstands the nature of science ("limited perspective", etc.), that is not notable. Misunderstanding the scientific method, or the philosophy of science, is commonplace and it happens every day. However, just because someone out there is doing that doesn't mean we have to report it here. Unless you can find some counter-criticism that accurately portrays the nature of the criticism, then you have nothing notable to include. You are misusing the word "theory", by the way. It does not simply mean, "some idea that someone had", which is how you appear to be using it. There is no protoscience here either, which you should recognize if you've read our article on protoscience. A protoscience would attempt to be falsifiable. Ramtha's disciples are not trying to present falsifiability. Therefore this is pseudoscience, not protoscience. — coelacan talk — 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Statement tags

I have reverted the recent addition of POV statement tags. These tags do not make sense, because the statements concerned are objective statements concerning the scientific community's view of the film. In particular, putting POV statement tags into quotes is meaningless. Michaelbusch 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ig Nobel Prize"Peace Prize"

I have never heard the Ig Prize called an Ig Nobel Prize "For Peace." I removed it and MichealBusch replaced it saying that is how it is listed on the website.... I browsed the website and could not find it, so removed it. If I am in error, please replace it AND provide the speicif page where it is listed that way. Thanks Sethie 01:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been added. For reference, the URL is http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html#ig1994 Michaelbusch 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like the Nobel Prize, the Ig Nobel is given out in many categories each year. For instance, that year W. Brian Sweeney won the Ig Nobel Prize in Biology. Hope that helps. — coelacan talk — 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sethie 02:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus For Intro?

Michaelbusch; please enlighten me as to what you find wrong with the revision. I have contributed a neutral and informative addition to the article in an effort to make it more NPOV. let's avoid an impass by backing up our claims with debate rather than tossing out contributions entirely. If you have a pseudoskepticle agenda I suggest you take it elsewhere, as wikipedia is not the place for representations of singular opinions or bias abuse of editing power.

below is the revised paragraph (the first half was written by other talented wiki editors), The goal of the revision is to improve NPOV by representing both sides of the film's controversy, rather than one side (the original paragraph). Comments and suggestions are welcome!

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a controversial 2004 film that combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative to posit a connection between science and spirituality based upon the teachings of JZ Knight/Ramtha, of whom the three directors are devotees.[1] There is also an extended 2006 version, What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole.[2] The topics discussed in What the Bleep Do We Know!? include neurology, quantum physics, psychology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, magical thinking and spirituality. The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality, interspersed with the story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her situation. The central controversy of the film is rooted in the division between scientific, versus holistic perspectives among viewers. Skeptics criticize the film for its reported scientific inaccuracies, dubious graphics and cinematography as well as its questionably credentialed cast of speakers. [3] Proponents argue that film is presented as a discussion on quantum possibilities, and is not intended to represent hard science, but rather proto-scientific theory.[4] see: protoscience. In contrast, opponents believe that the film is misleading and condemns it as pseudoscience, a misrepresentation of scientific methodology. A main point of contention discussed by the film which has caused a great deal of cognitive dissonance among quantum theorists (and subsequent viewers of "What The Bleep"); is the concept that according to quantum theory; concepts of reality may depend heavily upon an observer to manifest outcomes.[5] This theory originated from the Quantum Version of Thomas Young’s Double-slit experiment; named “the most beautiful experiment in physics” by the readers of Physics World in May 2002. [6] As well as the Bhor-Heisenberg Copenhagen interpretation. 24.82.82.18 08:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, last several sentences are complete BS. They imply that Young somehow advocated quantum mysticism, that the observer in a quantum system can affect the outcome, and that the film is somehow a grand conflict between science and holism. These statements are patently false, the first two because they directly conflict with quantum theory and the evidence therefore, which state that the outcome of an experiment can only be predicted in a statistical sense (that is explicit in the Copenhagen interpretation) and the third because this film has had a rather limited influence. Note also: there is no 'Quantum Version' of the double-slit experiment and the grammar of the last few sentences is rough.

Finally, the concept of 'protoscience' is also incredibly dubious (at least to me) and it certainly does not apply here. Many of the claims in What the Bleep are most obvious to disprove, which is something that did not apply to the Earth going around the Sun (which seems to be a favorite example here). Example disproofs: half the article and the CSICOP statements. Basically, I don't like this version because in attempting to be neutral, it allows false statements to be in the lead in. Please consider WP:BOLLOCKS and my user page. Michaelbusch 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do a little more reading. Thomas Young was the first to develop the double-slit experiment around 1805 in an attempt to prove or disprove the corpuscular theory ie: whether light is made of many particles. The quantum version of the experiment was executed with electrons in 1961 by Claus Jonsson, then again in 1974 when technology had developed to allow one electron at a time to pass through slits at the university of Milan by Pier Giorgio Merli. So yes in fact ther is a quantum version of the experiment. Secondly, Thomas Young wasn't even alive to know about quantum physics; it was the experiment that he developed (albeit for different purposes) which has allowed quantum physicists to unveil the current mysteries they are stuck with today. I don't know how you jumped to the conclusion that the paragraph advocates the idea that Thomas Young believed in mysticism. I get the feeling you are skimming over what has been written with a set conclusion of what is being said already established in your mind. Please read things with the same methodical scientific eye you claim to advocate.

As stated, obviously not clearly enough, is that the conflict among viewers is one between the traditional scientific mind and that of the holistic philosophical mind. this is true - read this discussion page; and any other on the subject. here is an example:[6] and another http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm this last link may be especially helpful to you.

I stongly suggest you do a little more research before claiming what has been written to be "bollocks". Also - when was there a consensus on what is there now? or did you just bully everyone else attempting to neutralize the paragraph. Clearly you are behaving in a pseudoskeptical manner. Please look it up. 24.82.82.18 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done research with the double slit experiment and know the system well. The 'quantum version' of the experiment is simply the normal experiment with the count rate of photons brought down to low levels. This was done with photons in 1909 by Geoffrey Taylor, and with electrons at the time you stated (the Wikipedia article on the subject, where you seem to have gotten your information, is in need of some editing). The problem with the wording is thus: "the concept that according to quantum theory; concepts of reality may depend heavily upon an observer to manifest outcomes.[5] This theory originated from the Quantum Version of Thomas Young’s Double-slit experiment". This states 'this theory originated', implying that Young or the double-slit experiment support this 'observer-manifestation' idea, which neither does. 'Observer-manifestation' falls under the definition of quantum mysticism, which is why I used the term. It may be that you intended for 'this theory' to refer to quantum, in which case the sentence is false on historical grounds.

'The conflict between the scientific mind and the holistic philosophical mind' is a grossly oversimplified mis-statement of reality. Science is neither reductionist or holistic and neither is philosophy. Reduction and emergent properties are key in both. Phrasing the controversy about the film in these terms is therefore inaccurate.

Wikipedia policy is for the existing version of the article to remain until there is consensus for any major additions. This is not an endorsement of the existing version. If you will check the logs, you will find that my edits to this article have been minor and largely restricted to reverting vandalism and major revisions that did not have consensus. I dislike the label pseudoskeptic, because it implies that I am taking a negative position when there is no evidence for that position. I do not know when I have done this. Michaelbusch 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

24.82.82.18, your accusation that Michael is a pseudoskeptic is a personal attack and a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Please cease. In the future, please also be aware that just because no one else comments on a talk page for a couple of days does not mean that consensus has been reached. My objections are still above in the other thread where I've replied to you, and I will add here a few things. The "laundry list" of topics discussed, although it is already included in the current introduction, is really not illuminating for the reader in any way (laundry lists usually aren't), so it's probably not appropriate for any part of this article, and certainly not the introduction, which should be concise. I also doubt that the introduction is a useful place to discuss the actual details of the physics, for the same reason. I've already voiced my objection to the "holism" and "protoscience" language above. — coelacan talk — 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank the person who finally managed to create an accurate intro for this article. I have been following this article for some time. It took a while but now it has been done. --80.56.36.253 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)