Misplaced Pages

Talk:Institute of Noetic Sciences: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:15, 12 May 2007 editNealparr (talk | contribs)6,895 edits →Intro sentence: r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:23, 11 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,238 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(69 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{oldafdfull
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
| date = October 22, 2006
{{WikiProject California|importance=Low|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=mid}}
| result = '''keep'''
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=low}}
| votepage = Institute of Noetic Sciences
{{WikiProject Paranormal |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Parapsychology |importance=low}}
}} }}
{{Image requested|in=Marin County, California}}
{{Old AfD multi
<!-- 1st -->
| date = October 22, 2006 | result = '''keep''' | page = Institute of Noetic Sciences
<!-- 2nd -->
| date2 = September 24, 2013 | result2 = '''keep''' | page2 = Institute of Noetic Sciences (2nd nomination)
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(730d) | archive = Talk:Institute of Noetic Sciences/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 6 }}


==Co-founder?==
No! The article ] should not be merged into this article !!!! I beleive noetic is an old word, used in religious and philospohical literature long before there were astronauts or instutes of neotic sciences.] 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
These sources all say ] was the founder, ''not'' the co-founder:

* Time Magazine
:Seconded. The Institute of Noetic Sciences is a specific organisation devoted to the study of what many would call ] or transpersonal psychology. (The reason the designation "noetic science" (or, noetic scientist) is used is because not all individuals involved in frontier consciousness research are themselves psychologists - many are statisticians, biologists, medical doctors, physicists, etc.,.) The word ] itself is a philosophical term and merging these articles would be utterly illogical.
* BusinessWeek

* ABC News
::The second above is not exactly correct. The mission of the Institute is "Exploring the frontiers of consciousness to advance individual, social, and global transformation." This includes parapsychology, but the Institute is interested in a broader range of topics. As just one example, from its beginning IONS has studied the role of consciousness in healing. From its early research came today's mainstream interest in mind/body medicine, the health effects of meditation, and psychoneuroimmunology. As often occurs when a previously controversial topic becomes mainstream, the origins of these concepts are forgotten. <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' {{user|24.5.167.35}} (the ''ca.comcast.net anon'')
* NY Times

*--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Does anyone have an idea why there's a neutrality tag on the article? The article seems to be a pretty straightforward description of what the Noetic Institute studies, and there doesn't seem to be any controversy here in the talk section.] 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I can't recall whether I add the tag (which someone must have removed) but if I did, I probably meant that the sentence claiming that this organization ''uses science to explore'' yadda yadda should be neutralized, perhaps by a quotation of the mission statement. My point: it is not clear to me that mainstream scientists would uncritically agree with the implication that ''Noetic Institute'' is a ''scientific'' organization.

::::Also: ''ca.comcast.net anon'', not everyone would agree with your claim that the topics you mentioned are entirely "mainstream".---] 23:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== Quackwatch ==


==Primary sources tag==
I would suggest moving the following to a new 'criticisms' section of the article: ''The skeptical organization Quackwatch lists IONS as a voluntary organization it views with "considerable distrust."''. Quackwatch are no more reputable than many of the organisations they criticise, they are hardly notable and little more than a personal project for ]. They are also through Barrett closely linked with ] who are also far from neutral. In light of this to place them in the first paragraph of this article is far too ], that is why I attempted to make the addition more ]. Thanks - ] 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Those editors interested in upgrading the article with secondary sources so that the tag can be removed may find these books to be good resources: --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
:I don't know much about the organization honestly, but they do seem to be at least a little controversial. I don't have a problem with moving the critique from the intro to the next paragraph, but there ought to be some sort of critical voice in the article. &mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:You need independent sources so those would be fairly crummy to use, ] (]) 09:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::I'm okay with the line of criticism not being located in the intro paragraph, but I'm not okay with it being relegated to the very bottom of the article. One line doesn't deserve its own section header, and I believe integrating criticisms into the article text is preferred rather than dividing it up into a separate section. &mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


== Quackwatch again==
:::It is usual practice to place the criticisms after the main explanation. But at present I'm not even sure why this statement has been included, Quackwatch have no real relevance and they don't even make any direct statement to do with IONS, they have just been included in a list. You admit you don't know much about Quackwatch, so it just looks like an attempt to add criticism to the article for the sake of it. I think in situations like this it may be better to see if we can gain a consensus on how to include the information if at all. I would like to invite other users to comment maybe a post to both project Rational Skepticism and Paranormal might help. For now I will leave it as is until some other members comment. - ] 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I know there are a number of Skeptic's papers out there, one of those might be an appropriate source for criticism... but the lack of criticism in the article isn't necessarily an indicator of a POV article. ---] (]|]) 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(resetting indent) I agree with Solar that the criticism should be at the end. It's common practice to at least let the reader know what's being criticized before doing the criticizing. For the moment, I've only moved, and slightly expanded the passage, but J. Smith is right that there should be other references that could also be cited. I agree with E. Ripley that the article, as it currently stands, is so short that there's no need for a separate section head for criticism. ] 11:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Quackwatch is an award winning website and is perfectly reliable for its own list, ] (]) 22:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing in principle wrong with talking about criticism of this pseudoscientific society. However, criticism needs to be referenced and verified. There's also nothing in principle with letting readers now that quackwatch has tagged IoNS as such, but there's not much more that can be said about it other than the tag has been applied. I would say it is not appropriate to remove designation from the article and hopefully adding to the criticisms of this institute will take place as the article develops. Having a stub-section for criticism is fine too. --] 15:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:Possibly. Can you elucidate? But first look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=wp%3Aquackwatch&title=Special%3ASearch. Thanks. ] (]) 05:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:I'm pretty satisfied with the way it's treated now, I just wanted to see some critical voices in the article. We could stand to explain their tenets a little better in the intro paragraph, though. I may work on that later. &mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 16:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::if you question quackwatch itself, there are many reliably published sources that cover quackwatch's assessment of IONS . -- ] 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Good starting points for an addition to this article. I am interested, too, in the idea that QW "is perfectly reliable for its own list." Is there a ] that applies? ] (]) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::A source is reliable for the existence and integrity of its own list. We aren't commenting on the quality of the list, merely noting that quackwatch lists it. Also note that ] has consistently found that Quackwatch is fine to use but sometimes it's tone is an issue (rather than content itself). On the list of the archive, I'd suggest having a look at some of the RSN threads. ] (]) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Yes, Quackwatch would be a reliable source for what appears in Quackwatch, but the two follow up questions are: 1) are Quackwatch's opinions /analysis generally considered reliable? and 2) is Quackwatch's opinion about the subject an opinion of note that should be included? Given that other reliable sources have covered Quackwatch's opinion, I would say the answer to 2) is: yes. And apparently the RS notice board has generally stated that the answer to 1) is also yes.-- ] 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::] may or may not apply, but somebody could try adding something about the Quackwatch listing and see if it sticks. ] (]) 03:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


== Wernher von Braun ==
:Why is this notable? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="2" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


It said ] was one of the founders, with reference ref name="Xiong2009". I see no mention of WvB in that reference, so I have removed von Braun. It is plausible he might have been part of the founding, so I hope someone will provide a good reference. ] (]) 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:: Why are you trying to remove every wikipedia link to quackwatch? ] 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:::Just the gratuitous ones and the ones with articles that aren't reliable. But yif you check my history, you will be surprised to see that I have added a couple of Quackwatch links as well! BTW, I completely agree with Solar's assessment above. Why is it notable that IONS is included on the blacklist of an unlicensed psychiatrist? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="2" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
==Intro paragraph==
Well, I took a crack at cutting to the heart of what the group seeks to do in the intro paragraph instead of the old, soft language about love; take a look and see what you think. &mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:The article still needs work. I'd like to see, for example, a critique of their AIDS study. ] 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::If you can find one, feel free to cite it and work it in the article somehow. Also, I admire anyone who is strict about sourcing, but did you actually search for sourcing for the items you're questioning before you put in a fact tag? It's considered proper etiquette to at least try to search for the answers to questions yourself before putting up a fact tag, especially on such mundane items that I'm quite sure can easily be found among IONS' own literature online. &mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 15:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I admit that I did not search all of the literature. I was in a hurry. ] 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::It's OK. I have some time this afternoon and I'll see if I can turn up a few links. &mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I've added them, even though I think they're a bit superfluous given that it's readily available. Still, no harm done. Thanks Michael. &mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
==Skeptical Section==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131012050457/http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/9/17/space_explorer_touches_down_this_weekend.htm to http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/9/17/space_explorer_touches_down_this_weekend.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
I have removed the skeptical section because the statements provided were not merely the opinions of a few individuals, but more importantly they were *factually* incorrect. E.g., IONS regularly publishes its research in scientific and scholarly peer-reviewed journals; it was founded by an astronaut/scientist, and it continues to advocate and practice scientific research and discernment. IONS also publishes articles and a magazine intended for the public, but obviously those materials are necessarily less technical than the scientific work.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
The fact that one individual who runs a self-appointed "quackwatch" website is skeptical of the organization is insufficient reason to list it here. If the Misplaced Pages allows anyone offering an opinion about someone else to be used as a reference, without providing reason to believe that the source is both informed and credible, then this site is no better than a gossip magazine. ] 03:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:There are three separate groups cited as criticizing the IONS (four, if ] and the person quoting him may be counted separately). Kurtz, the CSICOP, and, yes, ] have considerable authority as skeptics. Quackwatch is not 'one individual who runs a self-appointed website': it was founded by ], who has roughly 40 years of debunking health fraud. Barrett is more controversal than some skeptics, but that he has singled out the IONS is notable enough for inclusion.
:Regarding Dradin's statement that the article is factually incorrect, he must provide ] to support his claim. If the article is in error, it must be fixed, but I note that even if his above claims are correct, it does not mean that the article is incorrect. And Mitchell's scientific credentials are meaningless when it comes to judging his later conduct.
:Given his close connection to this article, I ask that ] cease editing the main page and confine his contributions to talk, in accordance with ]. ] 04:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 02:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this request is absurd and I will continue to revert the article. If people who are close to a topic, and therefore know it better than anyone else, are prevented from editing these pages, then the encyclopedia is guaranteed to devolve to the lowest common denominator. It's like insisting that all textbooks be written by people who explicitly do not understand the topic, because they might be biased! In my last edit I provided links to demonstrate that the skeptical comments offered are unfounded or suspect. ] 19:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


== Intro sentence == == External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I'm still having issues with the intro sentence. In particular, it isn't at all clear what "consciousness and its potentials" means. Is there any way we can restate this? Does IONS restate it anywhere? ] 05:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what the objection is to listing the paranormal things they study. A quick glance at their website's list of research turns up ESP, presentiment, and psi. --] 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
There's a whole list of things they do at IONs and it's predominantly consciousness research. I don't understand why the lead sentence jumps to paranormal stuff. In their list of research, they include:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605210243/http://www.biogenesis.com/corporate_information.html to http://www.biogenesis.com/corporate_information.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061203013528/http://www.noetic.org/about/history.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/about/history.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070513104943/http://www.noetic.org/research/programs.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/research/programs.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130073352/http://www.noetic.org/about.cfm to http://www.noetic.org/about.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127145826/http://noetic.org/library/publication-newsletters/ to http://noetic.org/library/publication-newsletters/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127145941/http://noetic.org/library/publication-magazines/ to http://www.noetic.org/library/publication-magazines/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
*Extended Human Capacities
*Creativity
*Meditation
*Psi Studies
*Wisdom Capacities
*Subtle Energies
*States of Consciousness
*Death, Dying, and Beyond
*Integral Health and Healing
*Biofields
*Distant Healing
*Global Medicine
*Integral Medicine
*Mind Body Medicine
*Extended Survival
*Placebo Expectancy Effects
*Emerging Worldviews
*Integral Intelligence
*Science of Wisdom
*Gaia Theory
*Transformative Practices
*Cultivating Spiritual
*Awareness
*East/West/Indigenous Practices


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
It's, like their "about pages" suggest, consciousness research in general from a spiritual pespective. That's also reflected by quick searches on Google . New Agey certainly, but the intro here makes it sound like they're all about paranormal research. I find that to be extremely unlikely since their search engine only returns 39 articles out of 1547 containing the word "paranormal".


--''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:23, 11 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Institute of Noetic Sciences article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCalifornia: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconParanormal Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconParapsychology (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology
It is requested that an image or photograph of Institute of Noetic Sciences be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.Upload
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Co-founder?

These sources all say Edgar Mitchell was the founder, not the co-founder:

Primary sources tag

Those editors interested in upgrading the article with secondary sources so that the tag can be removed may find these books to be good resources: -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You need independent sources so those would be fairly crummy to use, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch again

Quackwatch is an award winning website and is perfectly reliable for its own list, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. Can you elucidate? But first look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=wp%3Aquackwatch&title=Special%3ASearch. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
if you question quackwatch itself, there are many reliably published sources that cover quackwatch's assessment of IONS . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Good starting points for an addition to this article. I am interested, too, in the idea that QW "is perfectly reliable for its own list." Is there a WP:Policy that applies? GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
A source is reliable for the existence and integrity of its own list. We aren't commenting on the quality of the list, merely noting that quackwatch lists it. Also note that WP:RSN has consistently found that Quackwatch is fine to use but sometimes it's tone is an issue (rather than content itself). On the list of the archive, I'd suggest having a look at some of the RSN threads. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Quackwatch would be a reliable source for what appears in Quackwatch, but the two follow up questions are: 1) are Quackwatch's opinions /analysis generally considered reliable? and 2) is Quackwatch's opinion about the subject an opinion of note that should be included? Given that other reliable sources have covered Quackwatch's opinion, I would say the answer to 2) is: yes. And apparently the RS notice board has generally stated that the answer to 1) is also yes.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:Otherstuffexists may or may not apply, but somebody could try adding something about the Quackwatch listing and see if it sticks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wernher von Braun

It said Wernher von Braun was one of the founders, with reference ref name="Xiong2009". I see no mention of WvB in that reference, so I have removed von Braun. It is plausible he might have been part of the founding, so I hope someone will provide a good reference. GangofOne (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Institute of Noetic Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 02:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Institute of Noetic Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories: