Talk:Robert Lanza

Request For Comment Robert Lanza
Should the section Robert_Lanza on Robert Lanza be:

Please note I have a conflict of interest, disclosed below in the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * A. I have a conflict of interest because I have a personal connection to Lanza and he has asked me to review this page for problems. I am unpaid. Please note that after reviewing the issues, I am offering the proposal (below) in order to correct mistakes and improve this section.  First, the theory is not accurately summarized so the subsequent criticism and support of it does not have the proper context. I am offering a correction to the summary. Second, most of the support and criticism improperly comes from blogs and self-published sources, including the Forbes contributor platforms. I did not include blogs and an email comment. Instead, I left in criticism and support only from what I believe to be reliable sources, at least for opinion in the criticism/support paragraph. Third, I have tried to shorten this section relative to its importance based on actual reliable sources while preserving a balance of criticism and support. I tried to keep in mind that this is a biography about his life, including the popular press about his work, not a full-length article about this theory. Popular press coverage seems appropriate since this a biography of his life, not a full article about the theory. Thank you. Sapphire41359 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Please note that I have substantially revised this proposal based on the feedback of the editors below and at the suggestion of Guy Macon. The revised proposal is in the Discussion section. Sapphire41359 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In 2007, Lanza published, “A New Theory of the Universe,” in The American Scholar, an essay in which he proposed his theory of biocentrism. He argues that the grand theories offered by physicists to explain the ‘origins of everything’ fall short, because they do not take into account the essential role that biology plays in creating a conscious perception of physical reality. Lanza engages theories such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle  and  Einstein’s spacetime hypothesis to support his argument showing how both ideas depend upon our “animal sense perception” to exist. Lanza subsequently published several books that further developed his concept of biocentrism including a 2016 book, Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death, and a third, The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality, published in 2020.
 * Lanza’s biocentrism hypothesis met with a mixed reception. In a review of his book ' 'Biocentrism' ', Johns Hopkins physicist Richard Conn Henry comments that the Lanza’s theory that the “animal observer creates reality” is  “factually correct”, if not novel, and worth exploring because it’s what physicists “only whisper… in private.” Physicist Stephen P. Smith wrote that the  ' 'Biocentrism' '  “is not rigorous scientific treatment, but the science he refers to is rigorous” and accessible to non-experts. Critics of Lanza’s hypothesis center on “scientific over-simplification” and he “accepts gut feeling over ‘complex’ and therefore not possible fundamental mathematics.”  In an October 2020 review, Kirkus said his co-authored 2020 book, The Grand Biocentric Design, tries to move from hypothesis to hard science by linking the theory to “observable, replicable experiments” but it will not be persuasive to everyone, although it is “thought-provoking.”


 * Oppose I have to say, I'm not a fan of the proposed revision, and I think this verges on being an ill-formed RfC thanks to the vagueness of option C ("changed in some other way"). A blog post by Steven Novella is, per WP:SPS, a better source than an unsigned book review in Kirkus (who may or may not have bothered to find anyone with any relevant expertise to write a review for them). The Forbes item used in the current text is marked as "staff", rather than "contributor", so WP:FORBESCON does not apply. (The multiple uses of it should be consolidated, though.) Nor is there a reason to omit the commentary by David Lindley, who is qualified to provide an expert view. As for the new sources offered, there's no indication that the Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research is a reliable source; in fact, looking over what it has published, it seems to be total dreck (Pitch Inverted Songs as Affirmation of Panpsychism!). The Journal of Scientific Exploration is also extremely dubious. Wikipedia articles are not written to provide "a balance of criticism and support"; that way lies false balance and the golden mean fallacy. Instead, our policy is to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The current text is closer to this ideal than the proposed replacement would be. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A note on sources. My aim was to find all usable sources, whether critical or positive, and omit sources that don’t pass the test of WP:RS, including sources that were supportive of Lanza’s hypothesis.


 * 1) The Forbes column is labeled “Former Staff” and has the “Follow” blue button at the bottom of the column which appears only on content within the Forbes Contributor network. So it is not allowed under WP:FORBESCON, since we do not know if it was vetted at all. The author of this column is a journalist, not a  subject matter expert in physics.  The same Forbes source is used three different times in the criticism section, paragraph two: for quotes from E. Donnal Thomas in sentence two and three; Lawrence Krauss in sentence four and five; and Daniel Dennett in sentences eight, nine and ten. The first of these statements is positive and two are negative.


 * If we really want to use the source, then there are additional positive comments that should be added from it:

[Michael Lysaght, director of Brown University's Center for Biomedical, who] says that he thinks the essay is "a masterpiece," says that he views it more as a work of philosophy than of science, as well. "I don't think he's convinced me my desk and chair are not really there. I do think he has laid down enough of a challenge."


 * 2) After further close review, I agree the Kirkus Review source can’t be used because it is labelled “Kirkus Indie” on the bottom. As per,, Kirkus Indie should not be used.


 * 3) The hyperlink for the citation on the first sentence of the second paragraph does not work on the article or proposal. Here it is again with corrected citation: Lanza’s biocentrism hypothesis met with a mixed reception.


 * 4.) The David Lindley quote is an online comment/email responding to a USA Today article. It is misrepresented on Wikipedia as “In USA Today Online, as though it is its own article or column. On the website, it is published without any header or branding from USA Today, but there is a description saying it was a private email published online with permission - but clearly not as an article or column. It does not even have a date. It is impossible to even know what the email is responding to since there is no link to the USA Today article and after an extensive search, I cannot find it on Google, ProQuest, archives.org or USAToday.com. Especially out of the context of the main article, it does not qualify under WP: RS. Maybe someone else can find it. At a minimum, the quote should be identified as it is described on the source:  “e-mail message” to the author of a USA Today article (citation missing) or an online comment to an article  (citation missing).


 * 5) The Journal of Scientific Exploration has been discussed multiple times on RS noticeboards and the general consensus is that it can be used as a RS for the opinions of its authors, but not for scientific fact.” )  The source is used here as an opinion from an author, the well-respected physicist Richard Conn Henry, not to establish facts, so it is usable.  In any case, the same quote from the same physicist is used by the NBC Science editor in an article on NBC News. So we can add NBC to back the statement with an additional citation showing it is reputable enough to be used by a very mainstream source.


 * In a review of his book Biocentrism, Johns Hopkins physicist Richard Conn Henry comments that the Lanza’s theory that the “animal observer creates reality” is “factually correct”, if not novel, and worth exploring because it’s what physicists “only whisper… in private.”


 * Alternatively, we can quote or add a paraphrase of the following sentence from the NBC science editor: “Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.”


 * 6) The Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research is a peer reviewed journal published since 2010. See the JCER’s Editorial Pages and . There has never been any challenge to its use according to a search of the RSP noticeboard archives WP:RSPMISSING In any case, this is a book review used for opinion of the author, a physics professor, not to establish facts, so falls it does not need to pass the highest bar for WP: RS when used for fact.Sapphire41359 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Herper is marked as "former staff" because he left Forbes for Stat in 2019 . At the time of the item in question (2007), he was on the Forbes staff, and so WP:FORBESCON does not apply. As for quoting more opinions from it... Why would we want to quote the opinion of a biomedical engineer about the foundations of theoretical physics? At least with Dennett, we can say that he's a philosopher of consciousness and thus has professional expertise on something pertinent. There's no problem with USA Today printing an e-mail from Lindley; he sent something, and they found it worth distributing. At worst, it's equivalent to an op-ed. On the other hand, a consensus about the Journal of Scientific Exploration that's nearly a decade old (2012) could well be too stale to be applicable. Even assuming it to still be valid, we'd need evidence of work in the relevant field [that] has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Looking over his CV, I'm not seeing that, just ordinary astro-stuff in ordinary journals and the occasional (ahem) eccentric item in Journal of Scientific Exploration. Language like "the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed" is so vague that it means absolutely nothing, and we should not propagate that. The Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research is a garbage pile in the shape of a journal. It would be unsurprising if it had not been discussed at RSN, because it's so obviously bad that discussion would not have been necessary. It deserves neither our time nor our respect. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose with prejudice due to WP:REDFLAG wording: "Lanza engages theories such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Einstein’s spacetime hypothesis to support his argument showing how both ideas depend upon our “animal sense perception” to exist." The uncertainty principle isn't so much a "theory" as it is a "principle". How does Lanza engage with it? Well, he doesn't engage with it in any way that independent sources have noticed. So, no, we can't trumpet this engagement in Wikipedia. How does Lanza engage with "Einstein's spacetime hypothesis"? Again, no independent source seems available to explain this, nor why this is being considered a "hypothesis" when really spacetime is an outcome of certain principles upon which special and general relativity were built. I believe that we may be looking at an issue where there are ideas which have not been noticed enough to be included here. jps (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:GEVAL, WP:PARITY and the excellent previous comments. Adding:  yes and no, in any case that's more for psychology and neurology to assess as far as the brain and mind are concerned.   one's own, perhaps.  If one's perception altered actual reality, magic would happen and work, based on transformation of impressions, enhanced perception by technological means (including electronics and psychedelics) or neurological disorders and damage, events like births and deaths, etc.  The above proposes appealing to popular scientists and discoveries and interpret that to suggest conclusions they do not support.  It is also difficult to disconnect biocentrism from the BLP article, considering that it is what Lanza writes on.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this suggestion, but think that Sapphire41359 can create a new suggestion that will be acceptable. Writing a good encyclopedia article is hard. In my opinion if Sapphire41359 takes the above comments to heart and tries again with a new suggested version that addresses these problems, there is a good chance that it will be accepted (or possibly accepted after a few more tweaks). I encourage Sapphire41359 not to give up after one try. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the rationale above. Sea Ane (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As suggested by User:Guy Macon, I’ve created a revised proposed draft below. It removes the sentence about Heisenberg and Einstein, as suggested. I have taken to heart that suggestion this entire passage should be minimized because there isn’t much discussion outside of articles in mainstream media. That's true, but the coverage of the scientific merits that has been in the mainstream media is more balanced than the Wikipedia section. There’s an article from Wired UK, two from NBC News and one from Forbes. Respected scientists like Nobel-laureate E. Donnall Thomas, physicist Richard Conn Henry , and former Brown University professor Michael Lysaght ) take the theory seriously. So the section should not be weighted heavily toward criticism -- although it should be included as it is legitimate too. But please keep in mind that Lanza is one of the leading biologists in the world , so his ideas on the role of biology in the theory of the universe are rooted in a serious scientific background. This is a theory that blends biology and physics - so critiques from recognized experts in both fields are valid.  I have kept the first existing positive critique in paragraph and the first existing negative critique. I don’t think we need more than that.


 * Oppose - it's fine for noted scientists, philosophers, and others to be cited to their blogs, we know their opinions to be relevant, considered, and noteworthy. The emasculated text is not more accurate, it's just shorn of meaning and lacking in breadth and balance. That is called making a decently neutral section worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * oppose per all above editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose in line with all the "oppose" votes by different editors above. Idealigic (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

'''This RfC is moot in light of the proposal and discussion in the immediately following section so I have withdrawn the request. Sapphire41359 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)'''