User:Hickorybark

__NOINDEX__ It's nice to be joining this community of editors. I'm looking forward to some interesting topics! My wife is also on Wiki, as Rose Gardens.

Please post messages to me on User talk:Hickorybark, rather than here. I will respond as soon as I can. Thank you. Hickorybark (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

= From the Transcendental Meditation Arbitration Case =

Misguided Effort by User:Will Beback to skew the TM-related articles
In my four decades in scientific academia, one of the most popular of any of the courses I teach, and one that I teach at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, is the one on scientific method. A primary theme is that, although a host of sociological pressures impact the progress of science, ultimately scientific method is an objective phenomenon based on standards of verification and falsification. In actual practice, these standards have developed into a system of rigorous academic training, well-defined methods for theoretical progress, controlled experimentation free of tester bias, and the peer review process. Generations of scientists have cultivated this system, which places science on an objective footing, and frees researchers from arbitrary efforts to foreclose scientific debate or discredit peer-reviewed research based on who is conducting the research and other subjective criteria. Scientific legitimacy is earned through hard work and adherence to rigorous practices. That said, no important research takes place in science without a passionate interest on the part of the investigators, and it is a common mistake on the part of non-scientists to think that it does. Who would spend years or decades of their life developing and testing their theory otherwise? But this interest does not compromise the scientific legitimacy of the project, because standardized, content-based procedures for evaluating scientific legitimacy must be adhered to, independent of the personal interests of the researchers themselves.

With regard to the research on the Transcendental Meditation program, scientific legitimacy has been earned through the substantial body of peer-reviewed publications, over the last 40 years, leading to tens of millions of dollars in competitive research grant funding. In saying, “Most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM,” Beback seeks to invalidate this peer-reviewed research, overriding the judgment of hundreds of journal editors and reviewers, as well as numerous grant referees. Further evidence that the Transcendental Meditation movement has earned mainstream credibility is the increasing use of the TM technique as an educational tool at numerous schools throughout the world, as well as at Maharishi University of Management, accredited since 1980.

The issues about consciousness and its relationship to matter are the defining frontier of scientific research today. Because it’s too early for the scientific community to have arrived at an established, mainstream consensus, it is imperative that we adhere to the foundational principles of scientific method, the free and courteous exchange of ideas, as well as the highest standards of encyclopedia scholarship. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy concludes its article on Consciousness: “A comprehensive understanding of consciousness will likely require theories of many types. One might usefully and without contradiction accept a diversity of models that each in their own way aim respectively to explain the physical, neural, cognitive, functional, representational and higher-order aspects of consciousness. There is unlikely to be any single theoretical perspective that suffices for explaining all the features of consciousness that we wish to understand. Thus a synthetic and pluralistic approach may provide the best road to future progress.”

As we continue to sort out these issues, and how to present them in Wikipedia, we can use as our guide Jimmy Wales’ understanding of the three broad categories of theories: (1) “the majority  view of a broad consensus of scientists,”  (2) “a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter,” and (3) theories  “held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials ….”

The four decades of TM research documents the value of meditation for stress relief, health and personal development and falls squarely into category (1); it is supported by the vast majority of scientists familiar with the field. Newer concepts, such as the Maharishi Effect, according to which consciousness is a field whose influence can be transmitted nonlocally, are still under investigation and fall into category (2). It represents a minority view by researchers who are highly trained and respected scientists.

What has led Beback astray, I believe, is his apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientific method, one of the consequences of which is his failure to distinguish interest in a subject matter—even passionate interest—from conflict of interest. This has resulted in (a) his reluctance to defer to the mainstream institutions and procedures for conferring scientific legitimacy, believing he has insights into conflicts of interest that the peer-review process has overlooked, and (b) his intolerance of editors with whom he disagrees, assuming they are motivated by a COI. Needless to say, casting mud at other editors does nothing for the advancement of the Wikipedia project.

Of course Beback is very familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines on pseudoscience and fringe theories, but he uses his facility to further his partisan agenda. The standards for scholarly objectivity are not served by dismissively labeling peer-reviewed research as “pseudoscience” and “fringe,” or the TM organization as a whole as a “cult.” Moreover, in the editing on the John Hagelin page, by effectively helping to block any context for Peter Woit, who characterized Hagelin’s views on consciousness and physics as “nonsense” and Hagelin himself as a “crackpot,” Beback was more indirect. But these kinds of epithets have no place in the scientific enterprise, and finding sources for slanders is no substitute for good judgment.

The Arbitration Committee faces a real dilemma: In keeping with the implications of Beback’s indictment, do you want to limit contributions to editors who are either ignorant or outright hostile? It’s the readers who would, sadly, pay the price. Or will editors with a certain amount of expertise be permitted to continue editing? The material needs to be presented in an accurate, factual and straightforward manner. In the concrete ways described above, the TM scientists, Maharishi University of Management, and the TM organization as a whole have, over an extended period of time, earned mainstream legitimacy. I think this should be reflected in the Wikipedia pages, and I hope the Arbitration Committee will take this into consideration.

I am not a "sockpuppet" and I believe that the quality and objectivity of my edits speak for themselves. They are directed solely toward improving the value of the information we provide to Wikipedia’s users. In initiating this hearing, Beback appears to be seeking administrative license to dominate the TM-related articles by suppressing responsible, informed contributors and asserting his own opinion, unimpeded. My hope is that the Arbitration Committee will be cognizant of how this would undermine Wikipedia’s mission to provide a reliable reference.

@ User:Fladrif
Yes, I think your TM-related editing is "mistaken and misinformed;" but my primary objection is that you give too much prominence to sources who are hostile, and excessively so.

@ User:Tuckerj76
Thank you for your little list of references. I will assume that it was just an oversight that you neglected to include Carl Hempel, the single most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century.

@ User:Andrew Skolnick
It seems that we are in agreement on just one point: that the TM organization has acquired “the appearance of scientific credibility” in the mainstream scientific establishment. Although you allege that this is the result of a “long-standing and widespread campaign to infiltrate and deceive,” it behooves us to be particularly sensitive to and skeptical of conspiracy theories relating to a targeted group. Additionally, as an editor, you may be aware that Wikipedia’s mandate, as a tertiary source of established information, requires that we defer to the judgment of the mainstream scientific institutions and publications and not assume that they have been “bamboozled” on a massive scale, as you suggest. Also, thank you for disclosing the extent of your conflict of interest in these proceedings—your having been party to a lawsuit is particularly relevant, as you yourself observe.

@ User:David Spector
I appreciate your desire for evenhandedness, but the truth doesn’t always lie midway between opposing camps. In particular your discussion of the TM research does not accurately reflect its favorable reception within the mainstream, and several of your comments are mistaken:
 * • “... easily dismissed as being bad science....” is way too breezy.
 * • “100 good studies”— There are about 350 mainstream, peer-reviewed publications.
 * • “This isn't enough, though, to convince mainstream scientists and medical researchers”—$24+ million in NIH grant funding says otherwise.
 * • You don’t think there’s controversy “concerning the Darwinian theory?”
 * • I don’t know what you mean by “dangerous medical claims.”
 * • “pseudoscience”—this term is being bandied about on WP much too indiscriminately.

Wikipedia’s guidelines are that, although both POVs should be represented, proportionality in content and tone should reflect the mainstream position, as reflected in reliable sources. We are not mandated to “state the limitations of the research.”

Additional Evidence of Anti-TM Advocacy
Will Beback on more than one occasion requested more evidence from me:. Actually, the first sentence of his Opening Statement itself indicates a prejudicial POV: “The Transcendental Meditation movement is often considered a new religious movement, has been called a cult, and has been accused of promoting fringe theories and pseudoscience, including dubious medical treatments.” These labels and accusations are all potentially defamatory: “Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander … and libel …—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim … that may give an individual … [or] group … a negative image.” So we must take care to protect the project from appearing to endorse or legitimize them.

Of the 11 articles Beback listed as primary, the John Hagelin article was the one I was active on, and my contributions were confined to the five days from December 26 to December 30 of last year.

Handling defamatory material
John Hagelin is universally acknowledged, even by his critics, to be a superb physicist. But the reception of Hagelin’s identification of pure consciousness with the unified field of physics is more controversial and, in some cases, quite heated. How should we present this controversy? My understanding of WP policy is that the general tone should be courteous and respectful, while stating and documenting that intentional action at a distance is a minority viewpoint among scientists. We can explain the criticisms without giving prominence to defamatory statements. Although we should diligently present both sides of the controversy, in no way should we seek to legitimize raw epithets such as “crackpot,” “pseudoscience,” “nonsense,” and the like. Nor should we legitimize patently false slanders. WP:BLP policy is perfectly clear on this.

Although Beback’s defence of “crackpot” came before my time, it is noteworthy. His argument that WP should reflect the majority view of scientists is correct, but misapplied in this case. The majority of scientists may think it unlikely that Hagelin will be proven right about action at a distance, but very few of them consider Hagelin to be a crackpot.

Beback’s proposed compromise, settling on the slightly less provocative term, nonsense, as in, “Woit asserts that most physicists think Hagelin's views are nonsense,” is hardly much of an improvement. Something simple and factual, like “Hagelin’s views are not widely accepted in scientific circles,” would have been better. Moreover, Peter Woit has attained notoriety, in the physics world, for his belligerent attacks on string theory and his liberal use of charged words like “nonsense,” “pseudoscience,” and “crackpot” to characterize many of the leading physicists of our time.

The Reception Section
The section entitled, “Reception of Hagelin’s connection of unified field of physics to the Maharishi Effect,” begins by citing three defamatory sources:
 * • Peter Woit, who asserts that most physicists think Hagelin’s views are nonsense.
 * • Christopher Anderson, quoted as saying that Hagelin’s viewpoint on physics and consciousness “disturbs many researchers” and “infuriates his former collaborators.”
 * • Jonathan Fox, who said, "Once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him …."

Of these three, I thought the first two should be retained with qualifying context. Peter Woit is noteworthy as an outspoken critic of string theory and the particle physicists who endorse it (most of them); Anderson because he obtained a damaging quote from John Ellis, the head of the Theory Division at CERN. (The fact that Ellis may not have known how his disparaging remarks about his former friend and colleague were going to be used is beside the point, they are still noteworthy.) But Jonathan Fox is not a science reporter and his remarks are patently false and are not noteworthy; they should be removed.

In a series of edits designed to present this controversial material in a neutral manner, and to protect WP from the appearance of endorsing slander, I:
 * (1) provided context for Peter Woit (“Woit also thinks that superstring theory itself is nonsense.” ),
 * (2) cited Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow as representative of the actual mainstream view of Hagelin (“His papers are outstanding. We read them before he went to MIU and we read them now.”)
 * (3) noted that Dimitri Nanopolous, one of Hagelin's former colleagues and the fourth most cited High Energy Physicist of all time, is himself an active contributor to quantum brain research (also here),
 * (4) provided a list of articles Hagelin coauthored after his peers had supposedly ostracized him and, finally,
 * (5)removed the Dallas Observer quote.

Of these five remedies, only the list of articles (4) remains in the current version.

Beback and Fladrif, in what could easily be construed as team editing, opposed the inclusion of my explanatory context for Peter Woit culminating in Fladrif’s three reversions   and. Here Fladrif removed my sentence (2) quoting Glashow and here he removed (3)about Dmitri Nanopolous. Beback’s complaint that excessive “balancing material” indicates “POV editing” is worrisome because, as in this case, balancing material is a way of protecting WP from the appearance of endorsing one-sided or slanderous material. Fladrif also reinstated the Dallas Observer quote three times and. Beback is not directly responsible for Fladrif’s contentious editing, but as the Administrator on the scene, he watched the page degenerate and did nothing.

Robert L. Park: Physicist and prominent skeptic
Although willing to characterize Hagelin as a crackpot, Beback was commendably fastidious about Robert L. Park, who described Hagelin’s Maharishi Effect research as “a clinic in data manipulation,” and accused Hagelin and his team of scientific misconduct. In an edit titled “revert ad hominem” Beback reverted my characterization of Park as “a retired physicist who is noted for his critical commentaries on alternative medicine and other topics he judges as ‘pseudoscience’,” And in a second edit titled “replace prejudical and unsourced characterization of Parks [sic]” Beback reverted my characterization of Park as a “professional skeptic,” despite the fact that promoting skepticism is Park’s current occupation and he has been a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry for the past 6 years and is well-known as a skeptic of paranormal phenomena, alternative health claims and many other areas that he regards as “pseudoscience.” In any case, the characterization is not pejorative, since Park takes pride in his skeptical vocation, having published two books in that genre: “Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud” and “Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science.” Beback’s concern with COI is not even-handed. People understand the ideological commitments of skeptics and debunkers; by informing our readers we are empowering them to draw their own conclusions.

Fales and Markovsky
A major problem with the anti-TM editors is that they focus mainly on the pejorative or insulting character of the critiques they want to highlight, frequently at the expense of other aspects of encyclopedia scholarship, such as clarity of presentation. Fales and Markovsky’s critique of the Maharishi Effect research, together with Orme-Johnson’s rebuttal, is a heated debate, to be sure, with plenty of spicy insults. But it is also a debate with intellectual content with importance for scientific method as well as consciousness studies. Our readers may be interested in more than the relative balance of insults. With this in mind I rewrote and clarified the text, and was surprised when Beback immediately reverted me. Firstly, contrary to scientific method as well as common-sense fair play, he challenged our even discussing Orme-Johnson’s rebuttal on the grounds that it was published in a “dubious publication”. Secondly, he moved the text over to the Maharishi Effect section of the TM-Sidhi article. I accepted the reasons he gave, for why the text belonged over there, but I was quite puzzled that he said nothing when Fladrif immediately swept in and deleted it without discussion. It had the feel of a team play.

There has been little activity on the John Hagelin article since the end of December, until very recently, when Askolnick weighed in on the description of the IgNobel parody prize. His stated purpose was to highlight the “negative nature” of the award. Askolnick said that he was reverting the edits of "one or more parties intent on neutering the article in the guise of making it 'neutral'" by deleting the more moderate description of the award’s purpose to “first make people laugh and then make them think." Hickorybark (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Arb Talk
Courtesy notice: There is a discussion at the Arbitration Committee talk page concerning evidence pages created by participants in the TM ArbCom. The outcome of the discussion may impact your user page content (sandboxes) from that case. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)