Talk:Michael Persinger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Disputed science infoboxes
infobox on disuputed science could apply to many many articles and is not helpful. what we should be doing is pointing out in the body of the article, with refs, exactly what areas are in dispute Mccready 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the infoboxes are helpful. Please see Green Cheese for an example of how they are intended to be used. ---CH 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed until discussion on this page sorts it out. Seems to me that two groups and two groups only are in dispute: Persinger and Granqvist. I have searched for other refs, but to no avail. From a rational scientific view, which I uphold, I don't have enough info to prove Persinger is wrong on this one (though given the company he keeps and his views on other matters, perhaps he is wrong - but these are not sufficient arguments). So, Hillman, pls provide some info which would clarify. Once again, I find the general smear within the box unhelpful, yet am happy to leave it if persuaded. I might also say that as far as I can see he doesn't claim to have found the seat of spiritual experience. He merely says he can create conditions in the lab under which people report experiences which are reportedly similar. Mccready 04:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems that this is an up and coming topic in Neuroscience and Neurotheology I got here because he is referenced by others. I do wonder about the pseudoscience categorization that some seem to be applying and as to what motivates the assessment as such. Needless this is very early research and may change soon as genetic origin of religion seems to be of more interest to the secularist trying to eliminate deity from the equation Alan Kroeger 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If possible please hold up on deletion as I believe I can make enough correction to make this article close to acceptable. I found some of the citations and will endeavor to get it done in the next couple of days. I found the source of the Susan Blackmore citation now all I have to do is figure out how to do this properly. Hey was this there before they deleted the controversies section? http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-10_pf.html Alan Kroeger 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bio
A long time ago (in a galaxy, well, here) in a magazine article on Dr. Persinger I read that he originally emigrated to Canada to avoid the draft. If someone could run this down to determine that it's a fact it might be added as a line to his bio. I do not think it affects the legitimacy of his work. -Wfaxon 06:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It was a Wired article, titled (I think) "This is your brain on God".64.235.195.113 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This biography seems to have been written by a partisan rather than any kind of neutral party (particularly the final section on "Recent Controversy"). That makes it not trustworthy as an encyclopedia article. The subject, Dr Persinger, may certainly merit a bio in Wikipedia, but it should be unbiased, which this one does not seem to be.
I agree - the tone of voice of "Recent Controversy" is way off for an encyclopedia. I made a very conservative edit, and changed an exclamation point in this section to a period, because the exclamation point is indisputably inappropriate. 68.122.124.191 04:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Recent Controversy" section should be completely rewritten or deleted. As it reads right now, it's very biased and doesn't even approach objectivity. I would agree with the above statement that it is completely inappropriate and potentially slanderous.
[edit] Range and Scope
It seems to me that this article is much too narrowly focused such that it lacks range and scope, further exacerbating the POV bias that has been mentioned above. Persinger has done much more than is mentioned. His theories, while controversial, are interesting and deserve to be taken seriously by Wikipedia. I was seriously disappointed when I called up this article as a reference. It was neither useful nor useable... Who is working on this article? Please sign-in and "sign" your work. Thanks, Emyth 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
