Talk:Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)

Initial discussions

EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses, which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics.

Someone care to outline the philosophy of science challenges opened up by this work?

there are none. the issue is that if you propose a theory and offer nothing of substance to back it up, it must be "mainstream science" that's wrong to complain. Maury 23:49, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

good article! stays pretty non-judgemental until the last paragraph.

I agree although it seems to be a bit biographical - couldn't some of the later paragraphs be moved to the page about the person rather than the theory? User:Btljs

This article could do with some headings. Ben Finn 12:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His fundamentalist approach to the scientific method, based on Darwin's careful observations, took him further away from molecular biology and the focus on gene, enzyme, protein and cell functions.

What is this "fundamentalist approach to the scientific method", how is it based on "Darwin's careful observations", and how did it lead him anywhere ? Taw 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm...

I forgot when it was... but I searched Wikipedia for "Morphic Resonance" and got nothing of Rupert Sheldrake. But just today I found out yall put him in T_T. So nice. Anyway, back when I came to study up on Rupert's ish on his site, www.sheldrake.org, the essays, research papers, even some wordy confrontations with skeptics... I soon found myself applying my whole search for the conscious and subconscious part of the mind. I mean, yes, I already had theories and my own homemade explanations of the brain as extensions from some of Rupert's concepts; I just applied Da Vinci's diagram, http://www.rec.uba.ar/Imagenes/da%20vinci.jpg, and also fields created by electricity because of the brain in its physical self uses electricity via synaptic firing and whatnot. Anyway, with both of those half ish concepts and Rupert's, I mapped out where the fields of conscious/subconsciousness are in this diagram. http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/yourHEROICA/art/DIAGRAMFUFU.jpg. BUT, it is outdated.

Anyway. Yes yes, wanted to say I'm glad Rupert is on Wikipedia... kind of irked he's under pseudoscience >_<.

Statement of opinion vs. NPOV

"Sheldrake first published his ideas in 1973, offering a selection of seemingly disconnected bits of evidence in support."

This is my first attempt at participating in the article editing process, so I apologize in advance to the original editors of this article if I've misunderstood Wikipedia standards. I just wanted to point out that it seems to me that the phrase "seemingly disconnected" is a biased way of making this statement and implies that Sheldrake's theories were poorly presented/supported. This strikes me as the article taking a viewpoint regarding the scholarship of Sheldrake's work instead of merely discussing the theory and presenting others' opinions of it. From my understanding of Wikipedia standards, whether or not Sheldrake's theories truly were poorly presented/supported is irrelevant. To imply that they were in fact (as opposed to just the fact that the mainstream scientific community thought they were) would be departing from NPOV (or would be a violation of the prohibition against Original Research, possibly, in that others need to have published this conclusion regarding this evidence, rather than the analysis being original to Wikipedia) unless citations were included in which others have previously discussed the disconnection of the evidence Sheldrake supplied. It could be that the references sited include such discussions, but I cannot be sure as none of the article has been footnoted, or Harvard cited, or individually cited in other ways as to inform the reader as to what parts of the article are drawn from what portions of the references.

I realize, as I have seen tags on other articles that indicate citation needed, that there are ways of tagging the article itself to indicate that the statement in question needs a citation, or needs a NPOV correction, but I am not yet aware of how to insert such tags in the main article, nor am I sufficiently confident of my understanding of Wikipedia policies to make a definite claim visible to all readers that the article has a flaw. So instead I have created this Talk Page entry hoping for comments by other editors, and, if warranted, the insertion of appropriate tags into the main article and/or the actual making of necessary changes to the article to remove this possible problem.

Cadrac 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

headline of article Morphogenetic field is not correct

Morphogenetic field is not morphic field. Concept of morphic field was introduced by Sheldrake, whereas concept of morphogenetic field is much older and is used in developmental biology. See paper: Gilbert Scott, Opitz John, and Raff (1995 in Dev Biology

Yes, Google Scholar would appear to back that up: "Morphogenetic field" gets real hits (compare "morphic field" which gets fewer hits, not all of them relevant, and some obvious fruitcake journals, but nothing mainstream. — Dunc|☺ 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move the content to morphic fields then? The Shelldrake stuff is clearly garbage, but it does appear that the name is being used for an entirely different purpose in developemental biology. Jefffire 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. What intrigues me is that there are also relatively few hits for "morphogenetic field" and those hits that do exist are fairly old, which would seem to indicate that it's not a term used widely in developmental biology. So the next question is what to do with it. — Dunc|☺ 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sheldrake's definition, morphogenetic fields are a subset of morphic fields.

From Sheldrake's book The Presence of the Past:

"The term [morphic field] is more general in its meaning than morphogenetic fields, and includes other kinds of organizing fields in addition to those of morphogenesis; the organizing fields of animal and human behaviour, of social and cultural systems, and of mental activity can all be regarded as morphic fields which contain an inherent memory."

Morphogenetic fields is a term used in developmental biology.

In 1950 Needham defined morphogenetic fields to explain embryonic phenomena.

(see http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=3&id=18)

What is very confusing about this article is that it contains information about morphic fields in general (but uses the term morphogenetic), some biography of Sheldrake, Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, and some bits about morphogenetic fields as viewed from the perspective of biology.

The article should be clarified (and parts moved to morphic fields) to properly use the terms morphic fields or morphogenetic fields.

At the very least, this article should be updated to specify the perspective of biology vs Sheldrake with regards to the definition and extent of use of the term morphogenetic fields. As it is now, it appears as though morphogenetic fields were invented by Sheldrake, and only exist within Sheldrake's domain.

HeatherFields 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I added a note referencing Gilbert's article. This whole entry should (IMHO) be re-titled something like "Morhpogenetic Fields (Sheldrake)", but I'll leave that to someone else. As a slight aside, I found this entry by reading about the Sokal_Affair, in which a physicist published a satirical (and knowingly erroneous) humanities article citing Sheldrake in order to critique sloppy thinking on the parts of editors of scholarly journals. As a result of Sokal's stunt, while Sheldrake's ideas may not be mainstream science, they do have cultural importance to mainstream academia. --Ajasen 09:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no objections are raised, I plan to carry out the above plan tomorrow. Jefffire 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This page is somewhat POV, but it looks generally well written and informative. It really, really needs sources though. If no one objects, I plan to do some editing, which may seem rather severe. A large part of that will be to make it NPOV, but an even larger part will be because there are far too few sources. I think there is also a problem with two headings for notes and references. So, I'd like to invite the authors to object here, or to find some refs. Sheldrake deserves them. See Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

Martinphi 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

There's currently a slight but noticeable bias towards Sheldrake/against the scientific community in this article; it doesn't seem to acknowledge the pseudoscience nature of this article in such a way as I'd expect from an article in the category (indeed, referring to pseudoscientific methods as Darwin-based methods seems rather misleading). The frequent use of skeptic as opposed to the less perjorative critic is also troubling. 90.192.138.75 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldrake is part of the scientific community. This page is not in the pseudoscience category because it is necessarily pseudoscience, but because it is called that by some. If you want to see the reason they're called Skeptics instead of critics, read this transcript [1]. If you have objections to the science, why don't you write them up? Anyway, I may delete most of this for lack of sources. Martinphi 00:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Morphic field

This should clearly be merged with morphic field, and made into a minor subsection indicating Sheldrake's notion that the conventional understanding of morphogenetic field can be sensibly considered a subset of his own fringe ideas. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As explained by Sheldrake in his Presence of the Past book (the quote on wikipedia's Morphic Field entry) Morphogenetic Fields are subset of Morphic Fields. They are NOT synonyms. Thus there shouldn't be any merging between the two but should exist as seperate entries. We have for example seperate entries for ellipse and circle, although circles are special case (subset) of ellipses. And no one with clear mind would suggest that the wikipedia's entries for ellipse and circle be merged into one entry. So why on Earth some Sheldrake-hating people keep suggesting the merging between morphic and morphogenetic field entry! And why do we have on the other side this splitting the morphogenetic entry into 2 seperate entries like it just happened, so we have now 2 entries for the SAME thing (morphogenetic field). If wikipedia follows the logic that there should be non-Sheldrake-morphogenetic-field entry, and Sheldrake-morphogenetic-field entry as separate, then by that same logic there is thousand times less reason and validity to merge morphic field and morphogenetic field into one entry! Ndru01 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not merge the 2 morphogenetic field articles. It makes much more sense. Same name, same subject, and the new morphogenetic article is much shorter than this morphic field article. 'Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)' should be a section of that article, and not of this article. Anyone that thinks logically should conclude that, and not this what you propose. Ndru01 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for flagging the merge proposal

I will be requesting a neutral third party to consider whether or not we should leave a flag in place on this article in indicate that a merge has been proposed. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag issue resolved; the merge itself remains disputed, and discussion is open at the talk page of Morphic field. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of the two morphogenetic field articles proposed

Please discuss if you for some reason don't agree with the merging! Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

Disagree. The concepts are radically different; which is why the page on Sheldrake's morphic field related concept was moved. Sheldrake's notion of a morphogenetic field has not as yet identified a physical basis, and many supporters see it as a kind of non-physical influence extending beyond the body, and allowing influences from one body to another mediated by this field. The notion used in conventional biology, on the other hand, is based on chemistry within a developing embryo. The developmental biology concept has a longer history, extending before and after Sheldrake without any impact from Sheldrake himself.[2] Sheldrake's proposal was a distinct and independent notion. There now seems to be a developing consensus for a merge of Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) with Morphic field, with Ndru01 so far as the only voice against. That discussion, as indicated above, is still active at talk page of Morphic field. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 06:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you object this merge, then you must object the merge of the morphic and morphogenetic fields articles as well, since that merge is less logical than this merge, whether someone thinks those two articles cover 'sillier' subjects than some other articles or not. Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

I don't agree. The two morphogenetic field articles are for two distinct and unrelated concepts. Hence they do not belong together. The article on Sheldrake's conception of a morphogenetic field is describing a special case (subset, as you put it) of morphic field, which is a very close linkage indeed. There is real benefit for understanding Sheldrake's ideas on morphogenetic field and morphic field respectively if they are handled together. This is demonstrated plainly by the inclusion of so much information on morphic fields right now within this article on morphogenetic fields sensu Sheldrake. Silliness judgements have nothing to do with it, and is not any part of my reasons. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 12:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely wrong! The two morphogenetic fields articles cannot simply be 'distinct', when they cover exactly the same subject. The aspect is somewhat different, but the CONCEPT is SAME, since it is related to the same idea, the idea of something with developmental potency (of organic forms). And it should be actually welcome to have in one article more than one aspect of the SAME concept. Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

That is false; and you should stop changing ~~this article~~ the morphogenetic fields article to replace the definition used in developmental biology with something intended to make a spurious linkage with Sheldrake's ideas, which are covered here. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would say that a merging is not a good idea. Firstly Sheldrake's ideas have enough um, "merit" to stand on their own article, especially as his ideas have caught on so well in other pseudoscientific fields. But at the same time, I would like to see Sheldrakes ideas in the main MF article in a more distinguishing way. That would help the reader understand the difference between legit sci ideas and spurious or exaggerated pseudoscience. In this way, it may even make it acceptable to have the pseudoscience category in the MF article itself. As long as the article showed there is a big difference between the PS Sheldrake version, and the sci accepted version, then it makes it a useful article for the pseudoscience category (to help readers search articles with the PS issue). OK the cat is just an option, but the distinguishing section should definitely be part of the main MF article, together with a seperate article. Docleaf 05:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the discussion on merging this article with morphogenetic field taken place at the talk page of morphogenetic field, in line with merge guidelines. As with discussion here, the clear consensus is against the merge; and as indicated 24 hours ago in the other discussion, the flag for that merge is now removed. The discussion for merge of this article with morphic fields is still open, and seems to be approaching consensus for a merge. See that discussion at talk page of Morphic field. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lancelot Whyte

I am making some clean up. I have deleted a reference to Lancelot Whyte. Whyte is an unusual character, who does indeed have some similarities to Sheldrake. However, his book cited here does not use Sheldrake's work. In fact, Whyte refers to morphogenetic fields in the same sense as used in conventional biology, meaning a physical region within the embryo. The term appears only on page 86 of his book (published in 1948 or 1949) where Whyte says:

The morphogenetic field. This is the unitary resultant field arising from the polarisation vectors of the individual protein molecules, and all changes in the field (i.e. in the polarisation of the molecules) are due to its own self–normalising tendency. The normalising process of the field is a spatially directed one–way process composed of individual pulses. The original source of the field is to be found in the intrinsic polarisation of– the external membrane of the ovum and in external factors acting on the ovum prior to and at fertilisation. But in embryonic development the morphogenetic field probably first acquires –its property of anisotropic evocation of synthesis in one dominant formative region (possibly at the dorsal lip of the blastopore).

Since this is not Sheldrake's notion, I am deleting the reference. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Morphic field

As explained in the talk page of Morphic field, all content originally in this page is now merged into the page on morphic fields. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]