Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
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.

Contents


[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!?

[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

Some find the movie one-sided, though the article itself is onesided in its obvious agenda against the message of the film. 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)

No, protoscience doesn't fit. Science is based upon things that can actually be observed again and again. The hypotheses of science must be stated in ways that allow actual testing that would either confirm or contradict the hypothesis. There is nothing at all scientific about the movie. It's not just a matter of "give it more time" - because there is no scientific method being used in the film; the film contains no research; the film, as noted before, doesn't even contain adequate and honest citations for the material that it presents! Everything about the film goes against the fundamental principles underlying science - look in any book on scientific research methods or the philosophy of science and you will see that this is so... ~~M

[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.

Ugh! What a mess here! Let me see if I can help offer some clarification, if I can. First of all, the notion of "opinion" versus "fact". Philosophers of science have explored these terms and it is important to note that they DO have distinct meanings, (and yet they are not normally used by scientists to describe the results of their own work). To call something a fact presumes that there is a substantial degree of available evidence (and widespread recognition of the quality of that evidence) that a thing exists or has a particular characteristic. While it is improper to claim that any statement has the merit of eternal, unshakeable truth, it is also improper to dismiss the amount of evidence behind a statement and call it mere opinion. Thus, to state that Canada lies North of Mexico is a statement of fact, because of the agreement about what these words denote in the English language. While one may also reach Canada by traveling South from Mexico, over the poles and eventually wrap around to it, the definitions of North and South have an extensive history in our geographic and language traditions. The fact that the parallels and directions might have been defined in some other way, or given other names has no bearing on the fact that the statement accurately reflects the actual conditions of location that it intends to describe. Now it is true that many concepts are not so widely understood as North and South, and that some words are confusing because of multiple definitions, misunderstandings, misuse, and connotations; in such cases it should be wikipedia's task to clarify common misunderstandings and misuses and to state which definitions and POVs are most appropriate to allow the meanings to be understood. One reason why "fact" and "proof" is a problematic way to describe things is that one can always find some joker who is able and willing to deny believing in anything, and if the terms "fact" and "proof" presume a totally objective truth incapable of being rationally denied, then it raises new problems about assessing the rationality of the "deniers." In science, everyone has the right to question everything, but there are standards set into the scientific method that repeated empirical observations and clear definitions are of more merit and usefulness than unrepeatable intuitive impressions. And that theory construction involves not only a set of reliable observations (that have been confirmed through repetition or multiple independent observers) but the creation of a logical framework that shows the relevance of those observations for existing ideas and frameworks that are similarly based upon a reliable history of empirical evidence. It doesn't solve the problem to simply ask for citations in "scientific journals" because there are many "journals" of highly dubious quality - it raises the question of who decides which journals and which articles and studies are more meritorious - and not all topics have been investigated scientifically and then written up in journals, anyway. In science, the answer is that each scientist judges for him/herself, while exploring and researching, which views seem most reliable and productive, and these tentative preferences are used as the basis for hypotheses and the testing of those hypothesis, and the reporting of all relevant material (theoretical background, operational assumptions, methods of observation, methods of analysis, self-criticism & areas for improvement and future research, and the researchers' own conclusions). This is where wikipedia can reasonably be expected to run into trouble - from where would wikipedia develop criteria to assess which person is more of an authority on a subject, which journals or individual studies are to be given preference when they report (or suggest) different conclusions or even contradictory observations? There are obviously a lot of non-experts who change the articles all the time, and also a lot of non-experts even on these talk and review pages, and that isn't to say that the discussion isn't very sophisticated and intelligent - sometimes it is - but it is clearly limited again and again by the lack of the participants' specific training in the fields of study that are most relevant to the topic.

[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.

Yeah, bullshit, buddy. Any sort of argument you can conjure up about "reality" is so abstract and meaningless that there is no explanation other than subjectivity. But when we start getting into specifics, into the concrete and real world, we find Darwinian natural selection; we find patterns in nature that are most decidedly OBJECTIVE. How you can justify such a ludicrous view that nothing real is real insofar as existing, which REQUIRES objective and empirical proof and observation to have any meaning? The vast majority of aspects of reality outside the human spectrum are INDEED OBJECTIVE.

[edit] Protest to "Featured Scientists" as headline

Resolved 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)
Also since you are discrediting Emoto, I thought I should add that Dr. Dean Radin has found validity in Emoto's claims in a double blind experiment he conducted. The results were published in the Explore Journal Vol 2 No 5. See point 37 for more info. AS 61.68.191.123 06:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the most non-NPOV I have ever witnessed on Wiki. There is no mention of Ramtha, Atlantis, Or 35,000 y/o warriors in the movie, yet that concept dominates the article. As far as I can tell, there isn't even a link to them from the films website. While I have no burning desire to plop down $750 for a lesson in spiritual enlightenment and I hold a disdain for such things, it doesn't make the message any less meaningful. References to the Maharishi and his being a spiritual guide to the Beatles has nothing to do with the film either. (They weren't in it). This is simply a cheap attempt at defaming the film by way of Western Cultural bias against Eastern ways of understanding. It's no wonder then that you with a bias against the film can not imagine how the Indians couldn't see the boat. You are as naive to it as the Indians were to the boat. For some insight into how culture affects our reality, try Wade Davis. http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=w_davis

As far as quantum interpretations, the article could use a few. I'd like to see some experts listed from both sides of the aisle. So here's a start:

Wolfgang Pauli- Developed exclusion principal-1925 Pauli was instrumental in the development of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. In particular, he formulated the exclusion principle and the theory of nonrelativistic spin. Postulated the neutrino 1931. The Pauli effect was named after his bizarre ability to break experimental equipment simply by being in the vicinity. Pauli himself was aware of his reputation, and delighted whenever the Pauli effect manifested. As Pauli considered parapsychology as worth serious investigation, this would fit with his scientific thinking. He could be scathing in his dismissal of any theory he found lacking, often labelling it ganz falsch, utterly false. Carl Jung- Synchronicity is no more baffling or mysterious than the discontinuities of physics. It is only the ingrained belief in the souvereign power of causality that creates intellectual difficulties and makes it appear unthinkable that causeless events exist or could ever occur. But if they do, then we must regard them as creative acts, as the continuous creation [creatio continua] Try David Bohm or Fritjof Capra or Nick Herbert (physicist) or F. David Peat

Just to name a few.

Stephan Hawking- Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. Many scientists are like Einstein, in that they have a deep emotional attachment to determinism. Unlike Einstein, they have accepted the reduction in our ability to predict, that quantum theory brought about. But that was far enough. They didn't like the further reduction, which black holes seemed to imply. They have therefore claimed that information is not really lost down black holes. But they have not managed to find any mechanism that would return the information. It is just a pious hope that the universe is deterministic, in the way that Laplace thought. I feel these scientists have not learnt the lesson of history. The universe does not behave according to our pre-conceived ideas. It continues to surprise us.

Pasted from <http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice2.html>

And even the debunking reference[3] has this to say:

Fred Kuttner Bruce Rosenblum It's not the student's fault. For the most part, in our teaching of quantum mechanics we tacitly deny the mysteries physics has encountered. We hardly mention Niels Bohr's grappling with the encounter between physics and the observer and John von Neumann's demonstration that the encounter is, in principle, inevitable. We largely avoid the still-unresolved issues raised by Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, David Bohm, and John Bell. Outside the classroom, physicists increasingly address these issues and often go beyond the purely physical. Consciousness, for example, comes up explicitly in almost all of today's proliferating interpretations of quantum mechanics, if only to show why physics need not deal with it. The many-worlds interpretation, for example, is also referred to as the many-minds interpretation, and a major treatment of decoherence concludes that an ultimate understanding of the implications of quantum mechanics would involve a model of consciousness.

Pasted from <http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-59/iss-11/p14.html>

But I guess your right. "Most" scientists get squeamish when they see the rabbit hole get too deep. Kevinpedia 21:55, 20 March 2007 (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)

Just wanting to throw in my two cents. Cucumbers composed of 90% water. I think it would be fair for wikipedia, while acknowledging different styles of data interpretation, to note how ridiculous this claim is, or at least the way in which it was presented (don't get me started on the context). You wouldn't know of a source where the director's clarified the water percentage, UTC? Thanks -THobern-80.199.157.175 20:36, 27 March 2007 (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 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)

I'm watching it right now, and I'm at the part where she's photographing the people with the dog and umbrellas, then she gets a call from some guy yelling at her to get to the studio (possibly her manager?). He's on video so she might be able to read his lips, but might it be more difficult for her to read lips if it were on the screen and he was yelling? I'm not really sure. 70.224.205.12 11:28, 30 January 2007 (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.


Agreed it is ridiculous but the statements about the Arawaks are incorrect : there are native american oral traditions even to this day - but the idea they couldn't see a huge ship is not evidenced in any oral traditions known to anthropologists , there are still Arawaks in Puerto Rico and their descendants are to be found all over the south American rain forest as is shown by a cursory glance at etymological studies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.15.240.229 (talk • contribs).


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)
>>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.)

Just because people are exploring things outside the box does not make them any less credible. There are still many things we do not understand and have no comprehension of. They are studying facts also, and just because their perspectives fit outside your world paradigm, it does not make them automatically wrong. Your perspective of "legitimate scientists" seems to be only those that study what is perceived within the expected norms. That is an inaccurate position. Science is fuelled by curiosity of all phenomena regardless of how 'wacky' they may seem. AS 61.68.191.123 07:06, 25 December 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)

I don't know if I'm posting this correctly but I edited the yoga/DC thing. The crime rates of the previous years are irrelevant since they only meditated for 2 months in the middle of the year. It's like saying "In Jim's neighborhood there was a slight breeze on monday and a stiff breeze on tuesday. On wednesday, a tornado tore threw his neighborhood which he dispelled by pure force of will, but since there was more wind activity on wednesday than the previous days, Jim was ineffective." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.67.2 (talk • contribs).

The crime rates in the previous years are most relevant, because they define the variability in the crime rate. Your analog above is not apt. A better one would be: 'There were clear days and stormy days, and several of Jim's neighbor's houses had been knocked over. One day there was a tornado, and Jim prayed and his house was not knocked down'. There is no necessary causal connection between Jim praying (or forcing his will or focusing his qi or mediatating), and his house not getting knocked down, and the past weather patterns make this clear. The problem with the study is that they had an even chance of the crime rate decreasing spontaneously, so half of the time they would get false positives. This is unacceptable to prove anything. See the 'water crystal' discussion below for a more detailed description of the flaws common in the studies cited in this movie. Michaelbusch 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you regarding the relevance of the previous years, but am not sure about your characterization of the problem of the study. As I understand it, they used time series analysis to determine the expected rate of crime for that time of year using the five previous years as a baseline. There are predictable patterns to crime rate. For example, crime increases as the temperature increases. They were able to show a correlation between a decrease in the expected rate and the presence of the group practicing the TM-Sidhi program. Here's a related point from one of the researchers regarding whether levels of crime rate can be predicted that I posted on another Talk page.[1]
For the most part this section is fairly accurate. But the last sentence is somewhat irrelevant. That the crime rate was 15% higher than in past years was due to the fact that overall there was a 30% increase in the crime rate that year. But that doesn't change the fact that during the 8 weeks of the study, the crime rate was lower than what was predicted using time series analysis.
Unfortunately, though, my knowledge of this is quite limited. I'm already in over my head. But your comment about the problem of the study stirred me to try to make a point. And I guess I'm uncomfortable with the characterization of this study as pseuodoscience. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and has been replicated a number of times.TimidGuy 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The peer review was suspect and the replications approximately at the rate expected by random chance. Again, see the water crystal section. Michaelbusch 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Note also: the crime rate in the two month period of the study had a 50% chance of being higher than the annual average and a 50% chance of being lower. The authors found the second and claimed success. But they don't report the times when they failed. This is selection bias. Michaelbusch 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It also looks like they did not do many trials. I'd like to see them try a uranium test (described below). Michaelbusch 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the evidence that the peer review was suspect?TimidGuy 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The journal the study was published in. There is a thing called variously 'the gray literature', 'shadow literature', or 'bullshit journals', which consists of journals that accept almost any paper, put them through something that is not really peer-review because the reviewers are overly partial to the work concerned, and are consequently generally considered unreliable and never cited. The paper itself also bears the marks of bad referees. That problem is not confined to unreliable journals. Occasionally papers that are obvious bollocks get published in even the most reputable of journals. Michaelbusch 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
In this case the editors and peer reviewers weren't overly partial. They were extremely critical. From what I understand, it took the researchers many iterations to address and resolve all their challenges to the statistical methods, etc. The journal is based in the Department of Political Science at Yale University. I could find out who the referees were. Is this worth following up on? Is there any chance you could be convinced that it's not pseudoscience? Would you be willing to look at the evidence?TimidGuy 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
See last sentence above. The authors of the study have a history of publishing in the gray literature, and that they had to iterate many many times doesn't inspire confidence. I have looked at the evidence presented in this study, and it in no way supports the conclusions (see my statements above. The CSICOP did a similar analysis). As I have stated, there is an acceptable test of the proposition that the human mind can control random processes. Make a 250 gram chunk of depleted uranium have a decay rate ten percent higher than it should have, all other things being equal. Or, even better: make the sub-critical core of a fission bomb sponatenously detonate or suppress the chain reaction when a critical mass is assembled. Michaelbusch 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it could be said that the iterations help insure quality. : ) In any case, thanks. I won't follow up. I'm pleased to hear that you've looked at the evidence. I may, though, send your comment about selection bias to one of the researchers for comment. Regarding CSICOP, I wonder if you're referring to Park's analysis.TimidGuy 22:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea is that good researchers do the iterations themselves. This is always a pain, but it is necessary. I don't recall who did the CSICOP analysis, but they were not merciful. Michaelbusch 01:28, 2 January 2007 (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 [2] 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: [3]

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 [4] , 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" [5]

also, here is an article I have found written by Dr Manjir Samanta-Laughton from Cambridge University's 'The Naked Scientist' group. [6] 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)


Unless they are giving the accepted names and terms for accepted scientific theories and phenomena and giving different accounts of them, they aren't misrepresenting a theory, but stating their own. I'd have more sympathy for the detractors if I hadn't looked into quantum theory for a bit. It's alot more flimsy and, well, theoretical than the "experts" make out. So much so that I think it's kind of laughable for one qualified quantum theorists to write another off. When you look at the actual hard data they have quantum theory/physics isn't that far from a "pseudo-science". More of a circumstancial-science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.67.2 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your edits. Quantum theory is one of the best-supported theories in existence. Wikipedia could not operate if it were not correct to high precision (your computer works, no?). You confuse physics and metaphysics. Michaelbusch 19:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that my PC ran due to a solid factual grasp of quantum physics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.67.2 (talk • contribs).

Your PC runs because the semiconductors in it operate according to quantum mechanics. Transistors don't function if quantum mechanics isn't correct. Your CD drive works using ruby crystal lasers, which are perhaps one of the best illustrations of quantum mechanics. Modern atomic clocks, which are essential in high-precision work (such as GPS), have been used to test quantum to something like 19 places. Michaelbusch 23:08, 29 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)

Wiki's Definition for Ig Nobel Prize states: The first Ig Nobels were awarded in 1991, at that time for discoveries "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced." ....

With the exception of three prizes in the first year (see Administratium, Josiah Carberry, and Paul DeFanti), the Ig Nobel Prizes are for genuine achievements.

So I changed it for accuracy. Kevinpedia 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect, if you read the IgNoble prizes that have been awarded. Of course, what constitutes a 'genuine achievement' is open to some debate. Michaelbusch 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The cited page doesn't carry the wording that's in quotation marks in the article -- "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced." The Ig Nobel page itself uses the other wording. TimidGuy 19:01, 20 March 2007 (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:[7] 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)

[edit] Expansion to the water crystal formation section

Hey all. I have edited the water section in the What the Bleep article on the 23 of December to include the latest data on research conducted by Dean Radin, however today someone deleted the entry (or the article reverted back to its previous version). If there is a problem with the new data feel free to discuss it with me otherwise I will update it again.

The gist of the new information concerned the findings of a double blind experiment conducted by Dean Radin testing Emoto's claims. It has been found in the study that there is a connection between outside influence (a prayer of gratitude from a group led by Emoto) and the aesthetic appeal of the crystals formed in water. The results are published in the Explore Journal Vol 2 No 5 pp 408-411.

I added this information to the contraversal studies section to give another perspective on Emoto's claims. Again if there are problems with this information being placed in the article let me know.

Cheers. AS 61.68.191.123 05:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes, a problem is that there is no WP:Reliable Source for this claim. — coelacan talk — 05:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The Explore Journal should be sufficient. It is a scholarly journal, and I am referring to an article from there.
Are there any other concerns?
AS 61.68.191.123 05:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Explore Journal is dubious in and of itself. It may be kindly referred to as 'the grey literature': their peer-review is suspect and papers there are very infrequently cited by anyone because they are as often as not incorrect. In addition, the particular article you cited is bad. They suffer from flaws in the double-blind method (there are many potential breaks, particularly with respect to the conditions the samples were kept in), a small sample size, and reliance on subjective criteria (what consitutes 'aesthetic appeal' as applied to ice crystals?). I don't have all the details on hand to do a CSICOP-level debunking, but the first author of the paper, Dean Radin, has had a history of producing bad results, and his co-authors are all BAs with no training in, for example, material physics or anything that would qualify you to comment on ice crystal morphology.

Three word summary: reference is bollocks. If you want a general discussion, see my user page. Further attempts to add this bollocks to the article will be rejected without further comment. Michaelbusch 17:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


>>Further attempts to add this bollocks to the article will be rejected without further comment.
This is vandalism. If you are unaware of Wikipedia rules and regulations I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.
I have little time for your unfounded bias, however in light of your conviction I will address it below.
>>The Explore Journal is dubious in and of itself. It may be kindly referred to as 'the grey literature': their peer-review is suspect and papers >>there are very infrequently cited by anyone because they are as often as not incorrect.
Apart form not making sense, this accusation is severely biased. Claims of 'suspect peer review' (and I assume you mean) 'incorrect paper results' are founded on personal prejudice. The article published is found in an accepted peer-review journal and your personal dislike for the content is not going to make it go away.
>>In addition, the particular article you cited is bad.
At the moment I am reporting documented, factual events (as in did the experiment take place? what were the outcomes? etc). Your personal opinion on the issue is of little interest, as it does not disprove the fact that the experiment occurred or the results that were obtained.
Your best bet is to argue the wording of the section I've added. Like I said, I am reporting the fact that the experiment occurred and the fact of the results of the experiment obtained give credit to Emoto's hypothesis. Nothing more. Both these statements are undisputed facts.
Oh and your assertion that you can do a CSICOP-level debunking lead me to question your authority. I am more inclined to believe a Doctor than a Wikipedia enthusiast.
In the future before you vandalise the article, discuss your proposed changes here.
Thanks
AS
61.68.119.205 22:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the water crystal debate should be taken over to Masaru Emoto's article. The basis of the claims and the objections to them should be discussed, but any in-depth material, such as follow-up experiments, do not belong here. Bennie Noakes 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, however in this case both the criticism and the experimental results should be moved, otherwise both sides of the argument are not adequately represented in this article. As I am reluctant to remove the criticism without widespread consensus, I will include the experimental results in the current article, to present a more complete picture of both sides. If you believe that specific sections of the experimental details are not necessary, I am willing to collaborate in a rewording of the status quo.
I do agree with you though, that detailed developments concerning this issue definitely do not belong on the What the Bleep page.
Thanks for your feedback.
AS 61.68.119.205 00:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
For the benefit of readers and to keep everything in one place I have copied and pasted the discussion I am still continuing with Michaelbusch.
AS 61.68.119.205 09:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I provided adequate explanation, if you read the talk page. I was as objective as possible in evaluating the material you added, and feel quite justified in removing it as nonsense. I did not conduct a full analysis, because I found sufficient evidence to dismiss the article you cited (author with history of bad results and no significant sound ones, flaws in double-blind, lack of control experiment, small number statistics, uncertain evaluation criteria) I admit to one bias: removing of pseudoscience from Wikipedia. This is a good thing. I do not feel that I have compromised Wikipedia policy in any way.
You seem to have a problem playing well with others. Please exercise restraint and responsibility in your editing. I also recommend that you establish a user account, rather than shuffling between IPs. Michaelbusch 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: you do not seem to understand one of the fundamental rules of science: that something was published does not make it a reliable source. What makes a reliable source is standing up to peer review, scrutiny, and repeated testing. The article you cite has so many flaws in it that it is complete nonsense. Saying that because it was published it is reliable is like saying that Hwang Woo Suk's papers are reliable because they were on the cover of Science. Michaelbusch 03:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You have not provided me with any sound reasons that discredit the findings to date. Your accusations of "nonsense" and "so flawed that it is patent nonsense" as well as "bollocks" are based on your opinions that have no place in the scientific community. I appreciate viewpoints that are based on research and study, viewpoints that provide sound proof of another explanation. None of these were or are presented by you. So far you have only attempted to discredit the author, the process and the paper. These accusations are based on personal dislike, as no factual material has been provided to date. There were also no other explanations to the experimental results. Consider this: if the next triple blind experiment proves that Emoto is a hoax, will you agree with the results and the method? Now consider that the next experiment results are exactly the same as of the reported experiment i.e. Emoto is right - what would your opinion of the results and the method be now? If your opinions are any different then you have a serious bias. Let state that again – saying that something is right and something is wrong upon predisposition is a bias. Period.
Removing pseudoscience is a positive thing - it clears up confusion. However dismissing evidence that cannot be explained and calling it all bullocks is unscientific. All evidence needs to be examined, and currently conventional science has no plausible explanation for the experiment. This fact alone does not make the experiment a hoax or nonsense. Rather it needs to be pursued with an inquisitive mind. Consider the following; one day we may create a time machine, then again we might not - it may be simply impossible, at this moment we simply don't know. The fact that we don't know does not hold us from trying to understand what time is. So why should this be any different? Hey there may be 'wacky' and 'crackpot' things out there and maybe there aren't. We don't know until we study and examine all the possible scenarios. I am presenting the results of an experiment that does not fit the current scientific paradigm. There is no reason to believe (prejudice aside) that it is gibberish until we are certain of it. This is the policy of CSICOP mind you – see their website.
Furthermore, noone can deny the occurrence of the experiment nor can the results obtained be denied. Again I am merely reporting the results. Sweeping the results under the carpet will not solve this matter nor will it answer the questions posed. For this reason I do not see any justification as to why the information should be removed.
One last thing, what makes you decide which sources are reliable? Hwang Woo-Suk was a reliable source until he was exposed as a fraud. Are you claiming that Dean Radin is a fraud? If so then what is your evidence? I want evidence before I will start taking you seriously.
Simply stated - it happened, it is a proven fact, it should be reported. Simple.
So far there is no case for taking the addition off the site. Not liking something is no reason why it should not be reported. If you want to be taken seriously provide meaningful criticism, at the moment you are behaving in pseudoskeptical fashion.
Cheers
AS
P.S. Oh and regarding your ‘playing well with others’ comment. Well I have no problem playing well with others, when there is mutual respect between the parties involved.
61.68.119.205 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is not a reliable source, because it is so flawed that it is patent nonsense. The 'experiment' may have taken place, but it in no way adds support to the proposition. 61.68.119.205, you need to review Wikipedia policies, particularly those with respect to consensus and reliable sources. Michaelbusch 02:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Note also: the statements about peer review being suspect and results being non-reliable are objective: they are part of the statistics kept on the journal. Elsevier Press is many things, but they are good at keeping records of who reviews what, how they review it, how the editors react to reviews, how many papers are retracted, and how many papers are later discredited. I did not give my personal opinion on the experiment, but merely applied standard tests for quality of work. Saying that this represents personal bias is roughly equivalent to claiming that statistics, physics, and the scientific method are all invalid. I find this attitude discouraging. Michaelbusch 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

>>The article is not a reliable source, because it is so flawed that it is patent nonsense. The 'experiment' may have taken place, but it in no >>way adds support to the proposition. 61.68.119.205, you need to review Wikipedia policies, particularly those with respect to consensus >>and reliable sources. Michaelbusch 02:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence is a biased as you are not supporting your claims like I have been stating all along. Your second sentence is incorrect. The experiment directly supports Emoto’s hypothesis as the results of the experiment suggest. Please see the experiment.

In response to consensus, I think you are misunderstanding the term. The perception that I get from your posts is that consensus means that your opinion is the only accepted and correct one, when in fact this is contrary to consensus. Consider, - “However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.” More so I believe that this section applies more correctly to this particular article – “At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.” I honestly believe that there is an undue weight on a specific point of view in this section, namely yours, as it is clear that you are unwilling to accept another point of view, which has sound scientific evidence.

In regard to reliable sources - this is a scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia relies on scholarly articles, so there is nothing inherently wrong with the source. More so Dean Radin specialises in investigations of this nature, therefore his lack of expertise in the field cannot be cited as an issue. Also note that I am not stipulating that his results are the only possible explanation; I am simply informing the reader of the experiment he conducted. I am presenting another view, which at the moment has merit and has not been disproved. You can add your concerns to the article, but this does not give you grounds for deleting the section all together. If you are unhappy with the number of discredited papers and retracted articles in the journal provide the link to the website where you found these statistics so that I can compare their levels to other journals. Without a link to a page on the elsevier website this claim is unfounded.

Due to the fact that you are not open to discussion and revert to deleting sections of the article that you do not like based on personal beliefs I am intending to issue a formal request for mediation. I am more than happy to work with you constructively to reach a consensus and let an independent third party examine the body of evidence present. My question to you is wether or not you are willing to cooperate, so that we can reach a consensus to this question?

AS 61.68.119.205 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Positions prior to formal mediation
Prior to formal mediation I want to put a summary of our argument in concise format. Michael, feel free to edit this page to submit your evidence.


Proposed addition:
The gist of the new information concerned the findings of a double blind experiment conducted by Dean Radin testing Emoto's claims. It has been found in the study that there is a connection between outside influence (a prayer of gratitude from a group led by Emoto) and the aesthetic appeal of the crystals formed in water. The results are published in the Explore Journal Vol 2 No 5 pp 408-411.


Objections presented by Michaelbusch
Author - claims that the author has a history of bad results and no significant sound ones.
Evidence provided (to date) - none
Process - claims that the process was flawed citing errors in the double-blind experiment, lack of control experiment, small number statistics, uncertain evaluation criteria.
Evidence provided (to date) - none
Journal - claims that the journal is part of 'grey literature', suspect peer-review and is infrequently cited.
Evidence provided (to date) - none
Arguments for inclusion:
1. The article appeared in a scholarly (peer-reviewed) journal, which is the basis of most trusted additions to the body of science.
I have explained that the bare fact of something being published does not make it reliable, that this particular journal has a history of publishing bad results, and that the article in particular is bad. Michaelbusch 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, you said that before, now point me to evidence that supports your claims. At the moment you are expressing an opinion. Where are the statistics that publish bad results of the Explore Journal, where is the evidence that supports your claims for poor peer-review. You said that you had evidence. Produce. AS 210.10.150.170 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Dean Radin is an accredited PhD and has studied similar occurrences before. He therefore possesses adequate knowledge in regards to conducting experiments in this field. He has also presented around 100 talks, wrote two books and over 200 articles.
If you review the history of Radin, you will find that the vast majority of his work has never been replicated and a large portion discredited. That he has written many papers does him no service in establishing authority. It acts against him: he keeps making mistakes and does not learn. Michaelbusch 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. Can you be more specific, where I can find more info on the subject? Can you give me books, journals or accredited websites, written by people with similar qualifications? Again at the moment this is just an opinion. AS 210.10.150.170 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Only the experimental process and results documented in the paper are presented in the water article in Wikipedia. There have been no explanations offered to determine the disparity of results found in the experiment from alternative sources, making the presented explanation plausible. This constitutes to commenting on the experimental findings in the Wiki article.
See my user page under objection 0, regarding Wikipedia and science. Michaelbusch 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
From your own web page - "Wikipedia has become such a commonly used reference that whatever science it contains must correspond to present understanding." I have explained why the current article does; you have not provided evidence to the contrary. This is not a conspiracy theory as your reference points to, rather a report on facts. This is official publishing of accredited PhD's in a peer-reviewed journal. Don't mix things up. AS 210.10.150.170 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
4.Propesed addition is not stating that it is the only possible explanation for the findings, concequently I am not deleting your explanation however in light of the lack of counter evidence for the current experiment all explanations need to be offered.
No. NPOV is not the same as offering all points of view. We owe it to Wikipedia's readers that we only include accurate material. There does not need to be counter evidence for the 'experiment' you cite: it is its own counter-evidence because the method used has so many flaws. Michaelbusch 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This is accurate material for reasons stated above. You have not provided backed evidence to the contrary. Your statement - "There does not need to be counter evidence" is blatant bias. On the same note I can say that I am the reincarnated soul of Einstein. AS 210.10.150.170 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

AS 61.68.119.205 14:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You may request arbitration, investigation, or moderation at any time, as may any editor of Wikipedia. However, from my experience with this process and the material of this incident, you would lose and that quickly. I am not alone in rejecting your additions: at least two other editors have done so. This is also a warning that you will have difficulty getting any support for your material, but you may try for consensus. There are several ways that this can work. You can keep adding the material back, but further additions without consensus would consitute vandalism after repeated warnings, and be treated as such. You can request moderation, in which case the article will be locked pending resolution. I would prefer that you accept that your additions are contrary to both the regulations and spirit of Wikipedia, and cease attempting to add the material.

It is possible that I have violated 'don't bite the newcomers', but your apparent familiarity with some aspects of Wikipedia policy (but not all of it) seems to indicate you've edited before. Michaelbusch 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

At the moment you are citing personal opinion and present no facts. I honestly believe that you are standing on a very slippery slope. The reason why I got into a discussion with you in the first place is because you seemed to have sound knowledge of scientific principles as your occupation suggests. Just because something may seem bollocks at first glance, it may not necessarily mean that it is so. I mean hey, the standard cosmological model seems like complete bollocks and yet there are arguments on both side of the camp. I mean, the idea that 96% of the universe is invisible to us seems pretty wacko, yet there you go. (You probably know a lot more about this then I do since you are a professional astronomer and why I chose the example). It is a theory though and is presented as such. I do not see why Emoto's hypothesis is any different. At the moment it is only a suggestion with some evidence. The evidence may be proved wrong eventually, though at the moment its not. So I think it is in everyone’s best interests to present what we know. Nothing more.
It is its own disproof. We know nothing, other than that the authors of the paper have yet to learn proper experimental controls. Michaelbusch 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I will be gone for several days, however I'll be back. I'll talk to you after the New Year. Have a good one.
Cheers
AS 210.10.150.170 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Why is this MichaelBusch allowed to do this? He's obviously incapable of unbiased interaction. He's also a bully and an ass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.67.2 (talk • contribs).

I agree. MichaelBusch needs to be investigated and warned by higher authority, he is attempting to manipulate formal process to suite a biased agenda. I've read others encountering this individual in above discussions ('vigilante wiki policing' & 'consensus for intro' for instance). this kind of user is the downfall of wikipedia. 24.69.248.224 07:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The higher authority on Wikipedia is the Arbitration Committee, and I can assure you that an ArbCom decision on the matter would be far more likely to commend Michaelbusch's efforts than warn him. Furthermore, it would be very helpful to everyone if you were to create a user account. While Wikipedia does allow editing without one, editors are far more likely to discount the edits and opinions of IP users.
As for my opinion on the disputed section, I believe Michael is being too lenient. According to the ArbCom Pseudoscience decision, a topic needs sources in a reliable and reputable scientific journal or textbook if it is to be presented as scientific, and I do not see any such sources cited for the water crystal work. Therefore, the view that sees Emoto's work as being scientific should not be presented at all, and means that, as a description of a media topic, criticism does not need to be held to the standard for scientific sources. The section, and indeed the whole article, could be made much more critical while still satisfying WP:NPOV, and in my opinion should be made so, in order to better satisfy WP:V and ArbCom precedent. --Philosophus T 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I should also mention in a rather late response to accusations of vandalism made against Michaelbusch that per WP:Vandalism, vandalism only refers to edits that are made to intentionally damage Wikipedia. This definition does not include edits made by those with biases, nor in fact any but a very specific type of edit. Vandalism is an offense that can result in blocking or even banning, and claiming that the edits of a legitimate editor are vandalism is tantamount to a personal attack and failure to assume good faith. Please take care to understand the offense when making accusations in the future. --Philosophus T 09:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If Wiki is backing this joker than it deserves the lack of credibility it has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.71.100 (talk • contribs).

Who is the joker? Note also: 68.166.71.100 removed a great deal of content from the article, claiming that it violated NPOV. I have restored it. This material is essential to maintaining NPOV, because it describes the problems with the movie, which are its main reasons for being at all noteworthy. We are not here to approve of the movie, but to describe it fairly. That a fair description is that it is bollocks does not alter that fact. I ask that all editors here review and understand WP:NPOV and set up user accounts. Michaelbusch 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious who the joker is. The point of the article is not to rant about what you find wrong with the movie. This is not a site for film reviews. I'll edit this page to death if I must. It's important that people like you are reigned in here.

I edited the TM section. The fact that the crime rate was higher the year they did the study but violent crime still went down during the meditation is a credit to the study's validity if anything. In a year where crime was much higher than average, crime was much lower than average during the study. With crime during this period being low and crime for the year being high, it would suggest that the time the study took place was the most peaceful time of the year. Obviously it's all coincidence but in the sake of fairness I reworded it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.71.100 (talk • contribs).

There is no such ranting in the article. This movie is bad enough that it has been debunked by a very large number of scientists. Their statements are the basis of the article, and are required for NPOV. I have reverted your edits to the TM section. See the relevant section above, but the important thing is to stress that it is coincidence. Being fair does not imply removing information in someones disfavor. This is the essence of NPOV. Michaelbusch 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's up to the reader to decide if it's coincidence. That's what you don't seem to grasp in general. Leave conclusions to the reader. You're wording it to intentionally sway the reader. NPOV means highlighting data that both supports and discredits the study if available. The crime rate was lower than average for that period despite taking place in a year with higher crime. I'm changing it back and I'll do it again if I have to.

"The crime rate during the study was lower than rates from that same period of previous years but the overall crime rate for that year was higher." What's POV about that? Also, why is "higher" in bold? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.71.100 (talk • contribs).
No. NPOV means presenting valid statements, and there is also WP:V to consider. The data does not support the study's conclusions, therefore the study is not valid. This must be made explicit to the reader or we are presenting WP:BOLLOCKS. Objective conclusions are not to be left to reader because the reader may mis-interpret the information. See above. And sign your posts. You keep reverting, we keep restoring. Either you get support for your actions on this talk page, or you are vandalizing Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the quantum physics section until it can be addressed. It's without ctation and it's unclear what all that sciency-talk is supposed to convey. It also repeatedly refers to "psysicist" and their apparently universal opinion. And I'll do it again.

State the facts objectively and then explain its flaws. I propose that a completely opinion free page be made for the movie and then a page on the contraversy be made so you can pound your chest and howl at the moon.

As several people have stated on the page, the article is clearly NPOV at first glance. I don't care how many nerds you have on here backing you. I'm not going to let you run free on this site. If wikipedia and handlers won't do it, I will.

I just caught this gem. "I am not on a slipperly slope. If you're going to use dark matter and dark energy as an example in your 'favor', you have much to learn. They have been tested and verified."

Do you know how dark matter was first proposed? When a scientists applied accepted theorum and formula to real world observances and found huge inconsistencies. In order to explain these inconsistencies he theorized dark matter to make the theorum and formula he had fit. Now dark matter is considered common sense by people like Busch; why? Because it makes the theorums and formula we have work.

In order to explain observed occurences a person came up with a theory of an invisible force, omnipresent force. Fancy that.

And that's all quantum and astro physics are. Making wild guesses and filling in the blanks with theories that fit. And that's cool. That's what science is all about. You have to make assumptions to make progress but these fields are based waaaay more on assumption that it's "experts" would like to admit. That's why I find it funny when they dismiss other views so aggressively.

Let's make it clear, I don't think the movie has much merit, but in a field that's so flimsy as far as hard evidence (And it is, whether you like it or not) the film and its views shouldn't be attacked like this on an encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.71.100 (talk • contribs).

You are not listening, and have started to become insulting. This discourages me. Stop now. Any further attempts to remove content will be treated as vandalism. Michaelbusch 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Splitting the page in that manner would essentially be a WP:POV fork and a violation of WP:NPOV, since it would mean omitting the highly significant problems with the understanding of science in the film. There are innumerable editors here who have tried to stop proper editors from 'running free on this site', and they have in general ended up being banned. As for Michael's use of dark matter as an example, I can assure you that he knows about the history of the model, as do I. Your explanation of the support for dark matter and dark energy is highly flawed. Λ-CDM is accepted as the best model right now because it is supported by very many experimental results in a wide range of areas. String theory might be wild guesses (and the fitting part doesn't really matter there), but quantum mechanics and astrophysics are not, and have strong experimental backing. --Philosophus T 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is my explanation flawed? Where was I wrong? What do you mean by "experimental backing"? It supports other theories which are supported by other theories? Have fun weaving your mythos.


"A-CDM is accepted as the best model"... So becuase something is accepted as "the best model" it gives you the right to attack people with other views/theories? When "the best model" didn't work in the real world before someone came up with the model we're discussing. Right or wrong?

That's what's funny about people like you. All you have going for you is being a know-it-all, yet you don't "know" shit.

No, I also have my other credentials going for me - I'm an Einstein's Witness and cyber clown. But this talk page really isn't the place for arguing over the validity of the scientific process or modern cosmology. It is for discussing the content of the article. I'm considering relegating all of this arguing to a sub-page. --Philosophus T 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The sturdiness of these scientific processes and understanding of cosmology are relavent to the article. How can you attack people for stating certain opinion when you can't provide any hard evidence to counter it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.71.100 (talk • contribs).

It is not relevant to this article. If you want the evidence for modern cosmology, I suggest you read Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'm going to check into the existing cosmological articles to make sure it's made clear what is fact and what is simply accepted theory. And Shaquille O'Neal couldn't block me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.71.100 (talk • contribs).


Continuation of discussion with Michael

Before we continue our discussion it is important that you understand the following conditions prior to citing materials.

Accepted References

All references cited MUST come from respectable sources as I have stated before, and is outlined in Wikipedia. When you criticize members of the scientific community such as Dean or other researchers I am not in the position to accept references to Wikipedia articles. Please cite appropriate BASE sources, such as other respected researchers, scientific papers or e-journals. (Note I will not accept Randi as he doesn’t have scientific credentials). I will also accept hardcopy evidence in books, papers and journals. Please have a specific look at Wikipedia:Verifiability - Burden of evidence "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

References I still need from you 1.Dean’s history of bad results. 2.Please provide a direct link to Elsevier Press Statistics – I want to make a statistical analysis to back or disprove your claims.

Now back to what you wrote. AS 61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not cited personal opinion. I have provided the reasons the article cited is invalid, three times. Here they are again: journal is unreliable (Elsevier Press statistics), authors have history of bad results (see previously linked Wikipedia article), the methodology of the experiment is completely flawed. Because the first two are only circumstanstical, I will expand on the last point, at the risk of you claiming that these are personal opinion and not fundamental physics and adding more material to this page. Some flaws with the 'experiment':
See references section above AS 61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There was no control. They did not, for example, put several sets of samples through the double-blind study without any 'focusing' from Japan but all other variables constant and see if the reviewers identified any particular site as making more pleasing crystals. This is most important because of factors affecting the structure of ice crystals (next point).
Addressed under the next point AS 61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They did not control properly for things that can affect the structure of ice crystals. These include, but are not limited to: the pressure in the sample chambers, the temperature as a function of time as the water cooled, the design of the sample containers themselves, slight differences in impurities in the water, handling of the containers, vibrations of the sites. 'Electromagnetic shielding' is the least of the problems. I lack the data to establish which of these would matter.
All samples were packed at the same temperature and pressure. Design of containers was the same. Vibrations? I’m not aware of anything out of the ordinary during the freezing or unfreezing process otherwise it would be cited in the method. Impurities of water will be covered below, however what is important is that all water came from the same source. AS 61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On a higher level, the double-blind was not in fact double-blind. The handlers of the samples knew which one was from where. This introduces a communication bias, which I do not have the data to quantify more precisely. There is also a possible handling bias if the handlers knew which one was being 'focused upon'. I suspect they would be especially careful of that sample, and handling might be different.
No communication between different parties during the experiment took place. That is the point of the double-blind test. Are you suggesting that the handlers specifically compromised the experiment? You’re not being very reasonable here.
  • The choice of evaluation criteria is dubious. The beauty of ice crystals is a matter of dispute, and if, for example, the containers were not identical, one might appeal to the examiners more than the others.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to say what you like more. However for this very reason 100 independent judges were selected. AS 61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The probabilities are impossibly against them. The paper quotes 'P = 0.01' that there results are due to random chance. Even assuming that the systematic errors (described above), and the statistical errors (due to the finite number of samples) were treated properly, this probability is far too high to be convincing. The authors have tried tens of similar 'experiments', with negative results. If the probability of random chance giving what they call a 'valid result' is 0.01, the odds are high (~40%) that randomness would have produced what they saw by this point. If the probabilities have not been computed properly or the systematics corrected (they have most likely not, see above) then the probability of a false positive is very much increased.
*Sigh* and you are the guys that will be on the cutting edge of science for the next ~40 years. Ok lets start with a bit of education.
First check your sources. P=0.001 NOT 0.01 - see http://www.explorejournal.com/ Vol 5 pp 408-411.
Also see the results found at http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/image/68488129/original.jpg
Ok on with the discussion. Any random variable, whose values are measurements, as opposed to counts, is a continuous random variable. Consequently aesthetic appeal is a continuous random variable. Most random variables observed in nature possess a frequency distribution that is approximately bell-shaped or, resembles a normal probability distribution. In other words the aesthetic appeal of ice crystals can be described by a normal distribution. This will become important later, when conducting the one-tailed test.
Every time we collect a random set of sample data, that set provides us with an estimate of the true mean and standard deviation (s.d.) for the population of interest (which is the aesthetic appeal of tested water in this case). If we were to go about collecting more than one set of data, it would be very unlikely (because sampling is random) that any given set would give us the same mean and s.d. as any other set.) This means that multiple estimates of a mean are a continuous variable in themselves. Therefore multiple estimates of a mean are normally distributed. This is expressed in the rule called the Central Limit Theorem. Simply put, the mathematical average of aesthetic appeal of both samples, should itself fit within a normal probability distribution, if the samples came from the same source.
Where I’m going with this is fairly straightforward – I want to find whether or not the two samples fall within the overall normal distribution of aesthetic probabilities possible for the population. So lets now discuss the chance that possibly the two samples came from the same population.
If we view our mean comparisons in terms of hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis is H0 were the mean of sample 1 = mean of sample 2. The alternative hypothesis, H1, states that mean of sample 1 does not equal the mean of sample 2. In certain circumstances, however, we can be more specific about the relationship between the means of sample 1 and 2. We may only care, for instance, about wether mean of sample 1 is greater than mean of sample 2 (as is the case here). If we are only interested in one magnitude, i.e. greater or smaller, then we use a ‘one tailed’ test.
To do this we must look at the experimental results (link given above). Feel free to check what I’m doing to verify my results and reasoning. This is a list of all sample numbers and associated values I used in calculations. Treated Sample (S) 1 = 3.4, S2=2.35, S3=3.75, S4=4, S5=3.8, S6=4.25, S7=1.95, S8=1.35, S9=2.7, S10=3.15, S11=3.4, S12=2, S13=3.05, S14=3.2, S15=3.05, S16=4.15, S17=2.5, S18=1.4, S19=2.45, S20=3.85, S21=0.85, S22=2.7, S23=3.9, S24=21, Control Sample (CS) 1=3.1, CS2=1.25, CS3=1.8, CS4=1.15, CS5=1.5, CS6=1.2, CS7=2.25, CS8=1.75, CS9=1.8, CS10=0.85, CS11=1.3, CS12=1.9, CS13=4.2, CS14=3.5, CS15=1.4, CS16=1.05.
Now based on these results it is quite easy to determine the mean and s.d. for sample 1 and 2. Mean Sample 1 = 2.883 Mean Sample 2 = 1.875. Standard Deviation for Sample 1 = 0.947, s.d. for sample 2 = 0.949. Based on this we can now determine that P=1.2*10^-3 when we know that mean of sample 1 is greater than mean of sample 2 (one tailed test). Based on this reasoning we know that the alternative hypothesis that the water has in fact changed its aesthetic crystallisation properties is 99.88%. There is only a 0.12 of one percent chance that the water remained unchanged. I.e. This is a very convincing claim especially considering that the alpha error is allowed to be ~1% for similar experiments (hence accuracy being 99% not 99.88%).
Alternatively said, your claim that the results obtained were achieved by luck are statistically disproved above. There has clearly been a change in the aesthetic appeal of crystals formed in sample A as opposed to sample B, and statistically it is a scientifically proven claim.
Oh and can you explain your 40% error assessment? To me it is a statistical mystery.
Also please back up your claim that the authors (Dean Radin in this case) has tried “tens of similar 'experiments'”. As far as I know he conducted one study (so far) and published his findings. Feel free to prove me wrong. AS 61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want more, perhaps the CSICOP will debunk this bollocks again. They have a higher tolerance than I. Alternatively, I would accept it if it passed James Randi's challenge. Randi is irascible and at times a jerk, but he is good. I suspect that a good test would be the following: on a desk on the second floor of the physics building at the University of Minnesota, there is a chunk of depleted uranium. We will put this into a sealed lead box with a Geiger counter of known properties and measure the decay rate for a few days. Let the thinkers think at it and make the decay rate increase by ten percent for one hour. This would be repeated by several different groups of thinkers with several different chunks of uranium in many different places.
I don’t even know if I should address your test suggestion. We are looking at liquid changes of structure upon changes in state after external stimuli, focussing on water. What has uranium got to do with it? AS61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not on a slipperly slope. If you're going to use dark matter and dark energy as an example in your 'favor', you have much to learn. They have been tested and verified. The papers on it check out down the line. The water crystal 'experiment' does not.
Another unsubstantiated claim. AS61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If you refuse to accept the reasoning I have given above, you may do so. But don't add the material back. Also, set up a user account. You've used a total of roughly 10 IP addresses that trace to many different servers. This makes your contributions hard to track and difficult to comment on. I would also like to know who you are. Michaelbusch 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
In regards to your comments on dark matter and energy, like I said I used the example because you should know more about it (being an astronomer), especially as it is one of the recent major developments in that field of study. Last time I spoke to an accredited physicist (MASc) on the subject about 6-7 months ago, he was convinced that the theory was inconclusive. Either way I find the idea that we can't see most of our universe intriguing to say the least.
The only thing stopping me taking you to Mediation at this moment is the Elviser Journal Statistics, which I have not seen as of yet. Please post a direct link. I have built a solid case against all your other arguments presented so far.
AS 61.68.120.191 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have built no case, your arguments are flawed four times in succession, and I do not have the time to keep debunking. You are flaming. End this now. Further flaming or vandalism will be reverted without any comment whatsoever. And what does it take for you to stick with one IP, set up a user account, and take responsibility for your actions? Michaelbusch 06:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection In light of all of the disputed edits from IP users, I have requested semi-protection for this page. Michaelbusch 06:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I've said I am open to discussion. Are you willing to participate? Otherwise you are the one flaming. I have backed all my edits with discussion. You aren't. As far as I can tell you are the one vandalising and simply deleting what you don't like. I am intending to formally issue intervention for mediation. Will you participate to reach a constructive solution or keep dodging answers? How credible are you if you are afraid to stand up to scrutiny?

Also, Michael, if you have no time to keep discussing you have no right to keep deleting. Either stop vandalising articles or prove your point. AS Tinsue 11:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Michealbush. Wikipedia needs more people that make sure everything is NPOV and thus in sync with mainstream science. And this movie is not only false science, it is also cult propaganda. A long time ago this article reflected neither. But it is slowly getting a little better thanks to people like Michaelbush. I understand that members of the Ramtha cult are trying to prevent this to get more members and thus money.
--80.56.36.253 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experts vs. Methods

These two subheadings are redundant. From Experts: "Critics have voiced concerns that the film is disingenuous and that it selectively presents information while not presenting contradictory information." from Methods: "The film does not present any contradictory evidence or discuss any contrarian point of view, nor does it discuss how certain conclusions were reached."

from Experts: "Arguably, their presence in the film represents the filmmaker's efforts to find people who are sympathetic to the film's ideas and largely the people in the film do not represent the general scientific community's views since they do not use the scientific method in their experiments nor do they present their experiments in peer reviewed journals." from Methods: "Ideas which have little acceptance in the mainstream scientific community are portrayed as fact, despite many of them being contradicted by evidence. Many identified as scientists in the movie provide evidence from experiments that were carried out improperly or without due consideration of error propagation, casting serious doubt on the results."

Point 1: There are no contrary points of view. Point 2: Scientists in the film don't use traditional scientific techniques, thus are criticized by traditional scientists.

Do these points really need to be repeated? Or are their inclusion just more contempt for this movie? 67.10.194.54 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article seems to have been hijacked by editors who do not assume good faith, resulting in a very POV article. 59.101.176.223 01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] yellow and red umbrellas in Elliot and Amanda's cups at the wedding party

I wrote this out, but I can't get it to sound smooth enough to include in the actual article under a new category, possibly "mistakes". Please clean up the text below and add it to the article when you see fit.

Thanks!

When the Elliot takes the drinks, he hands her a cup with a yellow umbrella in it and he holds the red umbrella in his cup. Elliot takes a drink, and Amanda holds the cup against her face. She breathes, and the yellow umbrella in her cup falls on the floor. He picks up his red umbrella out of his cup and places it in her cup. At this point we should assume his cup is empty and her cup has the red umbrella. Immediately after he says "that was in my mouth...forget it" we see Amanda with a YELLOW umbrella in her cup and him a RED one in his cup, just like how that scene started. The camera angle changes, we briefly see Amanda holding a cup with a RED umbrella, then the angle changes back and she's holding a cup with a YELLOW umbrella. The camera angle changes back and the umbrella is RED. After a brief shot of some dancing we see Amanda helping Elliot with her camera and she's holding a RED umbrella. Then Elliot turns and takes another 2 cups from the waiter, in his left hand is a cup with a yellow umbrella and in his right a red umbrella. She accepts the cup with a YELLOW umbrella. A few seconds later she's looking at Elliot holding a glass with a RED umbrella! Then we see Elliot holding the red umbrella glass in his right hand and the camera in his left. Then we see Amanda holding up her hand trying to prevent him from taking her picture and she's clutching the yellow umbrella cup in her left hand. She's still holding the yellow umbrella cup when she makes a toast to the groom.

The sequence was obviously shot out of order and some of the situations can be excused because perhaps they were served extra drinks during periods of time the audience doesn't see, but often the scene happens live and they're seen holding very different colored umbrellas. TheCleanUpCrew 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not suitable for inclusion in the article. See WP:FICTION: we aren't supposed to provide such detailed descriptions of a movie. I'm also not sure that this is notable. There are much more serious errors in the movie. Michaelbusch 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pilosophy of Science Issues to Potentially Include in the Article

Some authors and articles to include are below and this list should be added to.

Karl Popper - Falsifiability

Francis Bacon - Scientific method

Paul Feyerabend - scientific anarchism / "anything goes" ------- Hopefully this will help satisfy some of the NPOV issues that are going on in the talk section and the article itself.

Thomas Samuel Kuhn - Protoscience / Normal science ------ also note that there is no link to protoscience in the Kuhn article. It needs some editing


There is a lot wrong with the film itself from an philosophy of science point of view. The epistemological problem that exists in this film that has lead to some particularly harsh words up above this really comes from the gap that exists in how experts present information and how lay-people interpret the information. The problem exists in jury trials in the United States with some regularity. Expert witnesses (e.g. scientists) present information for the jury to interpret. Often Lawyers will attempt to skew the information to support one point of view or another. The makers of the film have really done just that.

I care about wikipedia's articles and the information presented in them. The National Academy of Sciences refused to debate creationists and proponents of intelligent design. I would recommend following the same course of non-debate with the proponents and makers of this film. Help flesh out what is important - such as the list that I started and add improvements as they are necessary/ ready to be published.

DrSocc 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your zeal and sentiment, but I suspect that anything like the above is probably a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Note that the NPOV disputes are mostly people claiming that the article is too criticial of the film. I do not agree with that assessment. Michaelbusch 04:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I never meant that my own take on the film be put into the argument or that any original research be put into it. The concepts that are listed up above are definitely pertinent to the creation of a paradigm for readers to follow and can be used throughout the article. They should be used within the article - they do not require an extensive explaination - they do need to be linked appropriately. The demarcation between science and psuedoscience should be pointed out within the article (as there are bits and pieces of both strung together in a difficult to follow outline) and the reader should at the very least be linked to the resources to understand where the demarcation exists.DrSocc
If scientists and philosophers of science cared about the topic at all, they'd fry it and we'd have lots of nice criticism in this regard, but the truth is that this movie is so not that popular and so stupid that they haven't bothered. Unfortunately, that makes our job a bit difficult. JoshuaZ 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hence the OR concern. The major criticisms of the movie are already cited, and are sufficiently damning. Michaelbusch 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements about quantum physics

Isn't this section, Statements about quantum physics — in its current from — mostly original research? For example, "essential aspects of quantum mechanics are bypassed in the movie" [first sentence in this sub-section]. Who is making this claim? The editors of Wikipedia I suspect. To be in Wikipedia, this (and other statements) need to cite a reliable source. Wikipedia Attribution policy states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.

A sometimes painful reality of Wikipedia editing... —WikiLen 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't the "what the Bleep Do We Know" documentary itself serve as the reliable source? Do they or don't they discuss the relevant aspects of quantum physics you need in this case, like e.g. decoherence etc? Count Iblis 23:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The movie serves as a primary source. Wikipedia policy states,
Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
See Wikipedia policy on Primary and secondary sources. —WikiLen 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The movie doesn't discuss quantum physics: it ignores it completely (and the movie cannot be described as a documentary). This is not original research: it is described in many of the cited reviews of the movie. Michaelbusch 01:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, patently obvious stuff does not need to be cited. This section, however, goes well beyond the patently obvious. Think of it this way. Imagine a quantum physicist reading this article and finding an interesting point being made. He/she then might like to know who is making it so that he/she could study it in more detail. This cowboy approach to knowledge exhibited here is just not going to make it — not serving the advancement of knowledge. WikiLen 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/a/Talk%7EWhat_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21__5bf3.html"