Talk:Law of attraction (New Thought)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Criticism/Integral theory authors

Bestlife removed two links that I used, stating that "personal blogs do not count." The links were used to substantiate statements on that some spiritual authors criticize the magical thinking of LoA. The links were:

I would like any other comments as to whether these might be suitable links. I thought Ken Wilber might be a recognized authority within the meaning of WP:EL? (unsigned)

Wikipedia: External Links restricts the adding of links to personal blogs. So I believe the removal of the links was correct.Halil1 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

I have gone through and tried to clean this article up. Post here for comments, suggestions, questions, complaints, ect. Tmtoulouse 15:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, this entire section needs to be rewritten. It's ridiculous how poorly explained it is. Here are my comments and suggestions:
  1. I read that at one point this article was too 'in favor' of this principle, but now I think we'll all agree, it's clearly against it. If people would like there to be a criticism section - fine. But the opposite of Critiscism isn't "The Principles"...The opposite is PRAISE. There better be a PRAISE section that directly quotes people who have purposely used the LoA or seen its evidence and they recount their stories. LoA examples aren't just good things...I've personally seen it's effect the other way and that still supports the principle.
  2. The Priciple section should not use the word "claim". The principle doesn't 'claim'...the principle 'states', 'says' 'describes'...anything that is neutral. Claim suggests doubt and there is no doubt with the LoA's principles. The doubt lies in the criticism....so lay that word all over that section if you want. Then in the PRAISE section, we can see words like "fact" and "undeniable" and "total lack of evidence to the contrary"...then in the neutral parts you should only see neutral words. Are you getting a better picture of how this article should look?
  3. Also in the Principle section: "Thoughts are claimed to have energy" is this a joke? Thoughts have energy and they're directly related to the emotions a person feels and emotions are directly tied to the functioning of the human body - look up neuropeptides and their effects on the immune system, cardiovascular, and specific organs.
  4. Why is Deepak Chopra - a KNOWN physicist - not mentioned? I will bring quotes if necessary.
  5. In the opening paragraph - "The law of attraction states that you get what you think about...." Thanks for using a neutral word "states", but that part of the sentence isn't accurate enough. In fact, in "The Secret" (which only barely explains the law) a fair amount of detail explains that you don't get every thought you think or you'd have an elephant instantly in your living room if you thought it. Instead: "According to the Law of Attraction, you will experience the corresponding manifestations of your predominant "thoughts, feelings, words, and actions."
  6. Explanation should be given as to how thoughts affect emotion and then how emotions directly affect the body's function. it's scientifically verifiable and supports loa at least as it relates to our bodies.
That would be a good start to a more complete and balanced article. -Brendan Chicago, IL—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Businessviking (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
The first thing is that everything has to be sourced with something that meets WP:ATT and also it is important to read WP:UNDUE. We do not have to treat this with "balance" but rather as NPOV that reflects the predominate view points. So we can say out right that no credible scientist accepts the claims about quantum physics that proponents put forward, or that thoughts create external energy. I have reverted your changes because they added reams of totally unsourced material, changed directly quoted sourced material and totally abandoned NPOV. As far as whats not in the article, the point is to build it, different people with different expertise come in and slowly converge on a definitive article. So if Deepka Chopra, who is not a physicist, belongs in here find a good secondary source and put it in. Please continue to edit and offer feedback but you MUST use secondary sources and please do not change material that is correctly sourced. Tmtoulouse 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Brendan that this article is biased. I think a section supporting the Law of Attraction is necessary. It also has been proven that thoughts have energy. I don't have references available with me at this moment, but this is a discussion page so I don't believe they are immediately necessary. I think the time and effort Tmtoulouse has put into revising the article should be commended, but I think other editors need to be allowed input. After all, the idea behind Wikipedia is that people will come together to produce the encyclopedia. Halil1 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have never attempted to shutdown collaborative effort at all, and have always welcomed constructive efforts. I have encouraged people to edit this article, just use WP:ATT sources and we can work it out. Since no sources have been brought out about thoughts and energy we can address that when sources arrive.Tmtoulouse 23:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


I hope this gets noticed. First: Who are you Tmtoulouse to delete anything? Unless you own wiki or are employed by them, do not speak anymore as though you are an authority. Certainly, you are not one on this subject and much of what you deleted of mine makes what is currently on the page inaccurate. As to your "it doesn't have to be balanced" bullcrap...let me destroy that right quick....
According to the No-Point-of-View Policy: "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."
Do you understand what that means? Couple things. First, there now...absolutely MUST be an "in favor" section inserted into this article. Furthermore, until both are ready to be published, you should probably delete the critical aspect of the article, because that gives "undue weight" to one point of view.----NOTE----I'm deleting the critical aspect after writing this and I fully expect not to see it again until there is also a 'support' section included at the same time as per wiki law. If you have a problem I suggest you write to wiki.
Lastly, maybe you should gracefully bow out of this article all together - you're clearly against it, you know very little about it, and the resulting article you've somehow 'adopted' is completely inaccurate. This is a huge blunder during what you'll soon see is the Daw of the Law of Attraction. It's only just now being introduced into the mainstream. It's a little baby and needs to be handled delicately. You're not clergy and the LOA isn't Gallileo - stop trying to stamp out new ideas - especially when you're so clearly ignorant about them.
I'll do the research and report back.
--Unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/24.13.173.130
The rule is Neutral Point of View not no point of view. You are asking Tmtoulouse to bow out due to his point of view, but I note that you exhibit just a little bit of bias. If you think that Tmtoulouse should bow out, you'd better bow out yourself too. Personally, I think that the entire point of the WP rules is to ensure that the viewpoint of editors doesn't unreasonably impact the articles.
Do as you think best and I will do as I think best, if you take a deep breath and chill we can even talk about it rationally and maybe even arrive at a consensus! But I am not going to respond to personal attack and anger. Tmtoulouse 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I will go ahead and respond to a few of the points related to the article. First, removal of sourced material is normally a bad idea, particularly when the reason for that removal is not the material itself. If you want to add a section that is more "positive" then go ahead and be bold. But remember that everything you add must be sourced using a source that meets WP:ATT criteria. If it does not then it will be removed. Also, anything you add is likely to be edited and change around to some degree, so you need to expect that and be willing to work with us. As far as undue weight is concerned my main point is that involved with the "science" of the LOA. In reality LOA is pseudoscience and we can call it as such. We are not obligated to present LOA as valid in terms of its strange quantum thought energy pseudoscience. Now if you want to talk about how certain people really like it, okay, just find sources. Tmtoulouse 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Tm, LOA is 'pseudoscience'? Did you forget that part of the No Point of View Policy that says: "None of the views should be asserted as being fact...."? So that's fine if you THINK it's pseudoscience, just keep all those types of suggestions to yourself or strictly to sthe "criticism" part of the article. And whoever the unsigned person is...I don't want him to bow out because of his views, it's just that he clearly lets his personal skeptical view leak out of the "criticism" section into every other area.
Again, about the undue weight thing: We, at wiki, aren't obligated to present LOA as fact, however we are obligated NOT to present it as fiction. You see, calling it fact would be what one side says and calling it fiction would be what the other side says. When you think it's ok to present it as 'pseudoscience', you're giving undue weight to what one side of the debate says. Don't you see that?
I shouldn't bow out because I think this would be a fair article structure:
Introduction
Principles of it
History
Criticism
Praise
Sources for Further Study.
NOTE: Every section should be devoid of a viewpoint except for the 2 obvious sections of Criticism and Praise.
Last bit - we need to take out the word "proponents" because it suggests a point of view. For example - Proponents of addition say that 2+2 is 4. VS. According to the principles of addition, 2+2 is 4. "According to..." is more neutral.
As I said before, I'm on the job of fact-finding. And I'm not angry, I'm just right. -Out-


If you'll all permit me my 2 cents worth... I shall not edit anything in this page as I do not feel I have the full knowledge on using these tools as of yet. So here are some comments/suggestions that may be of help to you:

1) The number of books listed in the Further Reading is limited - there are many books out there on or about the Law of Attraction (this isn't a newly discovered philosophy) -

Here is a list that could be added to your suggested readings:
"Ask and It is Given; Learning to Manifest Your Desires"; Esther and Jerry Hicks [The Teachings of Abraham]; Hay House Inc. September 15, 2004; ISBN 1401904599
"The Law of Attraction: How to make it Work for You"; Esther and Jerry Hicks; Hay House Inc. September 25, 2006; ISBN 1401912273

2) I believe there should be an extra subheading (or perhaps an addition to Further Reading) - Other resources. The Law of Attraction is described by many Quantum physisits as "Quantum Thought". In essence, there is no such thing as an neutral observer, by observing something, we affect it. This implies that by observing something, we are 'thinking of a possible outcome' and, therefore, we affect it.

Here are a few books that deal with Quantum Thought:

"The Field"; Lynn McTaggart; Harper Collins July 24, 2003; ISBN: 0060931175
"The Intention Experiment: Using Your Thoughts To Change Your Life And The World"; Lynn McTaggart; Simon & Schuster January 9, 2007; ISBN 0743276957
"The Divine Matrix: The Pure Space Where All Things Begin"; Gregg Braden; Hay House Inc. December 31, 2006; ISBN 1401905706
"MindLight: Secrets of Magick & Manifestations"; Silver RavenWolf; Llewellyn Publications 2006; ISBN 9780738709857 (Falls into the 'Esoteric' line, but the author mentions it is more Quantum Thought than 'Magick')

There are many more, though they are written in other languages (French, Spanish, Italian...) by other authors.
Regards, Marek-Arawn 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input here on the talk page, if you are unsure about editing the main article feel free to do as you have done here and tell us what information you would like to see added and those of us familiar with the system can input it. I have several concerns about the information you have submitted though at this point. Wikipedia is not really a repository of list for websites or books, and any addition to external links and further reading should be there for specific reasons, not just because its about the topic. Its important that there be a compelling or vital reason why a particular book is listed. I am not familiar with the relative importance of the books, if you have any information that might help us in deciding what is important and what is not please let us know.
My other concern is in the discussion of quantum thought, which is probably best handled on a wikipedia article that deals more specifically with that issue. I will poke around and see if we might want to add a link in this article to such an article but significant discussion probably would be off topic in this article. Thanks again for your input. Tmtoulouse 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Marek-Arawn there were other books listed. There was a lot of information that used to be listed. If you look at the history of the article, a lot of what you believe should be there was there until Tmtoulouse removed it. Halil1 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It was removed for the reasons I stated above, which are valid reasons, offer compelling reasons to add additional works if you want to add more. Tmtoulouse 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Take a look at Wikipedia:External links my feelings are that all the external links currently present should just be removed. They do not offer anything that this article could not offer at FA status, they are misleading and factually inaccurate. The link to the book would be appropriate for an article on that book. I am for removing all links until someone comes up with better ones. Tmtoulouse 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I also disagree with a lot of your edits. I believe they introduce bias to the article. Your edits also need to be edited for grammar. I feel as if the only opinion you are allowing on this article is your opinion. I feel as if you have made yourself the "editor-in-chief." Bestlife 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Bold. Tmtoulouse 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read it? You've attacked me, but are stating I need to use good faith. You state that people should be bold, but are only allowing your opinion. Bestlife 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please point out an example where I have attacked you. You are only reverting changes other editors have made and are not discussing on the talk page. Tmtoulouse 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed it on your personal talk page. You have stated that I am wrong. Basically, we disagree and are always going to disagree. I believe you are wrong. You believe I am wrong. No-win situation. But, at some point, more than one person's opinion needs to be allowed as to what should be in this article. Bestlife 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats not true, we use wikipedia guide lines to decide disputes. I have solved many editorial disputes by talking to out, point out policy and rewording issues till they are resolved. Thats the heart of what it means to be a wikipedia editor. But you are not required to participate. Tmtoulouse 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the two of you need to calm down a bit. As for Tmtoulouse's original statement as to whether the links offer anything, I think the first link to the article on about.com is ok. Some people consider about.com to be more reputable than Wikipedia because it cannot be edited by the general public, like Wikipedia can. As for the second link, I added it. I came upon the site one day and thought it was valid. It provides articles on the Law of Attraction and is updated on a regular basis. It was determined in the past that the link meets Wikipedia:External links standards (specifically those under the headline "What should be linked") because the information is copyrighted and the amount of detail makes it a good resource for people who want more information on the Law of Attraction. As for the link to the book, I don't think it is necessary because there is already a reference to the book under further reading. For the reasons mentioned, I will restore the first two links. Halil1 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not revert your edit today, but as it stands I still disagree. The links violate several WP:EL criteria. First, they do not contain material that a FA quality article on the subject would lack, and second they are misleading and non-factual. The link to energymanifesting is clearly a commercial link and selling a product and does not belong at all. The about.com site, maybe, but needs to be labeled as a pro site, and we need links to sites that debunk the whole thing. I guess thats the angle I will take at the moment adding skeptic sites. Tmtoulouse 23:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Analysing all external links currently in the article, and the external link added:

  • The about.com page uses factually inaccurate material, or at least unverifiable research". Sites with content like that should not be linked per WP:EL and WP:RS. Just about everyone can write pages on about.com with a little effort. One could use the article as a source of what proponents of the Law of Attraction claim.
  • Skeptic's Dictionary is a reliable source. Use a better format for the external link though, linking the Wikipedia article on Skepdic as well. It also is of good value for further reading, as allows more detail than this Wikipedia article.
  • The William Walker Atkinson link is good for historical interest only. It is of little value for further reading, because most of it has scientifically been superseded by other theories. The author would probably not have heard of the mass-energy equivalence, for example, nor was that theory generally accepted then. Use it as a reference for a history section in the article.
  • http://www.energymanifesting.com/ is a self-published source with unverifiable research trying to sell a product. This is about as bad as it gets with WP:EL. (Well, linking porn ads in a human anatomy article would be worse ... )

--User:Krator (t c) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Krator's analysis is spot on and informative. I don't think we have any EL that have to be on here right now. The article needs a lot of work in many areas, and too much time has been spent dealing with EL. I think the best thing to do is just remove all EL while we work on expanding article. Once we have the article up to the point that we are happy with it we can see more clearly what kind of information an EL will have that can be helpful. Tmtoulouse 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

September 10 2007. The link in Reference 3 did not work for me today. {Watkin, T. 'The Secret': Ask. Believe. Receive. That's the mantra. The Courier Journal, April 22nd 2007} I did not remove it because these links seem to be 'controversial. Wanderer57 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How to structure this article

Wikipedia is not a "he says this, she says this" structure, nor is it sympathetic view point. The WP:UNDUE clause means we do not have to pretend that the Law of Attraction has any basis in science since no scientist of note accepts its principles. Now that said, expansion on who the proponents are, what they say and what they are doing is fine. Take a look at other pseudoscience articles and things like Young Earth Creationism for how those are structured. Thats the sort of thing I would be looking for. Tmtoulouse 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to expand the principles section to more fully describe what it is proponents say about this theory. What are the beliefs, practices, expectations, ect. Since I am obviously a critic of of the Law of Attraction I would really prefer if some of the supporters took a hand at writing this sections. Please keep in mind that material needs to be sourced with WP:ATT sources. If no one is forthcoming I will take a swipe at it, but will hold off for now. Tmtoulouse 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Outrage

I am both shocked and annoyed that users (namely Brendan Chicago, IL — user Businessviking) could take it upon themselves to turn this indifferent article inot one that is obvoiusly heavily biased. I will proceed by examining each of the changes that have been made. (Sedecrem)

Brendan Chicago, IL Comments:

1.I read that at one point this article was too 'in favor' of this principle, but now I think we'll all agree, it's clearly against it. If people would like there to be a criticism section - fine. But the opposite of Critiscism isn't "The Principles"...The opposite is PRAISE. There better be a PRAISE section that directly quotes people who have purposely used the LoA or seen its evidence and they recount their stories. LoA examples aren't just good things...I've personally seen it's effect the other way and that still supports the principle. (Businessviking)

I agree with the comment that the opposite to criticism is praise however praise differs from principles. Principles are the basis of the philosophy and should also be included, simply stated. Comment should only be made (positive or negative) in the criticism and praise sections respectively. Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

2.The Priciple section should not use the word "claim". The principle doesn't 'claim'...the principle 'states', 'says' 'describes'...anything that is neutral. Claim suggests doubt and there is no doubt with the LoA's principles. The doubt lies in the criticism....so lay that word all over that section if you want. Then in the PRAISE section, we can see words like "fact" and "undeniable" and "total lack of evidence to the contrary"...then in the neutral parts you should only see neutral words. Are you getting a better picture of how this article should look? (Businessviking)

Brendan Chicago, IL cannot definitly prove the LoA and therefore doubt is present even if it is not in hos own mind. Brendan Chicago, IL cannot use the words 'fact', 'undeniable' and 'no evidence to the contrary' as this is heavily bias to his personal beliefs. The article is not the views of one who lives the LoA but information on what it is. Additionaly the complete lack of proof from the part of Brendan Chicago, IL creates further doubt. The reader should be free to make their own decisions based on neutral evidence and testimonies. Opinions such as Brendan Chicago, IL's belong in a blog, not in an informative resource. Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

3.Also in the Principle section: "Thoughts are claimed to have energy" is this a joke? Thoughts have energy and they're directly related to the emotions a person feels and emotions are directly tied to the functioning of the human body - look up neuropeptides and their effects on the immune system, cardiovascular, and specific organs. (Businessviking)

Same old stuff here. Brendan Chicago, IL lets their personal beliefs obscure the wording of the article. The LoA cannot be proven and therefore all principles associated are claims. As for the neuropeptides analogy, these are chemicals which cause chemical reactions and chemical responses. To claim that thoughts have energy would require the most succinct definition of 'thought'. Brendan Chicago, IL cannot provide this, nobody can and therefore Brendan Chicago, IL cannot state that thoughts have energy. Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

4.Why is Deepak Chopra - a KNOWN physicist - not mentioned? I will bring quotes if necessary. (Businessviking)

I would like to see these. Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Although i dont know what help bringing a scientists testimony into this would be considering the lack of scientific theory on either side. Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

5.In the opening paragraph - "The law of attraction states that you get what you think about...." Thanks for using a neutral word "states", but that part of the sentence isn't accurate enough. In fact, in "The Secret" (which only barely explains the law) a fair amount of detail explains that you don't get every thought you think or you'd have an elephant instantly in your living room if you thought it. Instead: "According to the Law of Attraction, you will experience the corresponding manifestations of your predominant "thoughts, feelings, words, and actions." (Businessviking)

Sounds like the recriutment slogan of a scientologist sect. Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually no, that would be a really bad analogy. Regardless of if you believe in either or neither of these teachings, Scientology and LoA are 180° opposite of each other and completely incompatible. LoA teaches people a technique called "affirmation" to focus on things and events desired (the positive) and to avoid thinking of undesired things. Scientolgy on the other hand teaches people a technique called "auditing" to focus on problems and unwanted barriers (the negative) until these negatives becomes disempowered (thus freeing the person from them). According to the idea in the LoA if a person focuses "thoughts, feelings, words, and actions" on negative problems and barriers then that person would experience more problems and more barriers. -- Low Sea (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

6.Explanation should be given as to how thoughts affect emotion and then how emotions directly affect the body's function. it's scientifically verifiable and supports loa at least as it relates to our bodies. (Businessviking)

If you make the claim that this is scientifically proven then you should indeed display the proof that is accepted by the scientific community, not the ramblings of a crackhead with a PhD. looking for his next hit. Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that this really covers most of the dispute here. I am reverting the article back to it's original, unbias, wording and hope that common sense will prevail in the future. Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made some small deletions as described in the editing comment. All of these are completly justifiable and if you have any quams place them here before you propragandiate the article.Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Even A Law

This "law" is not even a law, so calling it a law in Wikipedia is plain wrong. The evidence for the "Law of Attraction" is illogical and so it doesn't deserve this article. The article either needs to be greatly modified so it is completely neutral and only states FACT, or it should be deleted.

Sedecrem 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The supposed phenomenon is known as the "Law of Attraction" to its believers. Regardless of the fact that it is complete bullshit, this article should exist under this name. However, I think that there needs to be much more of an indication that the "law of attraction" is a complete fabrication and has no basis in reality. This article gives too much weight to this "law" being real and not enough to the criticism. The only reason that this article is allowed to exist in its current pathetic state is that it is not an important enough topic to gain the attention of the people whould could do something about it. Imagine that the article on Astrology or Phrenology were given the kind of treatment that this article gets. Wikipedia would become a complete joke.

I don't think that deletion is the answer because it's more important that people be able to find it here. However, it does need to be more factually accurate. It's a lot better now than it has been in the past but it still has a way to go. Thankfully, there are many people here monitoring it and removing spammy links and outright fraudulent statements. It still does not go far enough to make it clear that this "law" does not exist in reality.

--Rdnzl 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sedecrem, it's important that this article be here so that people can have a source of objective information about this material. This page is the first result in a Google search for Law of Attraction. The more time you spend guarding this page against pro-Secret bias and marketing activities, the better it will serve people who come here in search of objective information. And don't think every position counts equally on Wikipedia and give up. It is a violation of policy to misrepresent the mindshare of a position, and tiny-minority positions need not be represented at all. So a Secret supporter can't come in here and quote some unknown or dubious physicist and state "many physicists believe that wishing something can make it so." If they do you can revert it, and the more people available to revert it, the stronger the defense against bias will be. dircha 09:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To Rdnzl: What is reality? A perception, of a person? You? Your reality is mine our theirs? Reality is what you make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.155.48 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Documenting the hypothesis' scientific (falsifiable) claims

The Secret video makes a lot of scientific (falsifiable) claims about how the Law of Attraction works, such as that the electrical energy of your brain waves significantly influences long term macro outcomes, as well as specific claims pertaining to quantum physics. I believe these are important claims to document. Because the Law of Attraction hypothesis makes scientific (falsifiable) claims and characterizations of well known scientific theories, it opens itself to substantial criticism.

But I'm not sure whether citing from the video would be appropriate. I've heard there is a The Secret book out there now too. If those claims are reiterated there about the Law of Attraction, or in any of their other marketing material, we should get them documented and cited here so that we can start to pull in citations from secondary sources and other Wikipedia articles to address them point by point. Does anyone here have the book?

dircha 09:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, the problem is that wikipedia has a policy of no original research. The Secret book would count as a primary source, and any other sources we cite to refute a primary source would be synthesis of two different sources above and beyond what either says. The best approach is to try and find secondary sources that meet WP:ATT criteria that discuss these issues. I am sure someone has addressed this somewhere on the internet. Tmtoulouse 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a couple of secondary sources that I think meet WP:ATT that contain a little bit of what you are talking about [1] and [2]. How do you want to parse this information in the criticism section? Maybe sub-headings? Have like a general criticism sub section and a scientific criticism sub-section? Tmtoulouse 16:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism contains original research

Most of the criticism section is original research. Reliable published citations need to be supplied and any summaries of material in the sources must not be unpublished synthesis of published material. —WikiLen 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point to some examples of the original research? Much of the criticism is well sourced. Some specifics would be helpful. Tmtoulouse 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research noted in criticism section

At the request of Tmtoulouse, I am giving specific examples of original research in the article. This addresses every sentence but the first sentence in the Criticism section of the article as of 16:04, 12 June 2007 version. My comments are in italics. The "source" used in the article is The Montreal Gazette article. I quote the best sentence(s) I can find in the source to support each sentence in the article. Most of the original research in the Criticism section is in the form of unpublished synthesis of published material. I think the ideas used by the editors of this section are fine. [On further analysis I find the intent seems sound but the writing incompletely expresses the intent and fails to achieve NPOV.] Unfortunately, it appears the editor's ideas are what is driving the content. I suggest instead that the ideas be used first to find multiple sources to support those ideas. Then, with sources in hand, let go of the ideas and let the sources drive what gets put in the article. —WikiLen 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SOURCE: What about people who live in poverty and with illness? Are they responsible for their misery?

ARTICLE: If the Universe manifests abundance at a mere thought why is there so much poverty, starvation and death?

The source is asking, "should we blame-the-victim?" The article is asking, "should we believe in this princple?" Also, where does "starvation and death" come from? —WikiLen 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SOURCE: These concepts [Law of Attraction] are not in the scientific community," said Ali Alousi, a physics teacher...it's just not measurable.

ARTICLE: Scientists are critical of the lack of falsifiability and testability of the claims.

Source makes no mention of scientists being critical." Source says one can't find scientist saying anything at all about LOA. —WikiLen 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SOURCE: The Secret's interviewees don't pretend to have empirical evidence that the Law of Attraction exists.

ARTICLE: All of the evidence is both anecdotal and, because of the self-selecting nature of positive reports as well as the subjective nature of any results, highly susceptible to misinterpretations like confirmation bias.

Original research way beyond synthesis. Virtually none of this is in the article. —WikiLen 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SOURCE: "Brainwaves have an electrical signal, but whether they have any effect outside of the body is questionable," Alousi said.

ARTICLE: The few claims by proponents that seem to reference modern scientific theory remain questionable.

Synthesis: The source only talks about 1 claim and only Alousi questions it — no mention in source of other scientist thinking the same. And "remain questionable" — where does "remaining" come from? Such implies a whole history of being "questionable" — not covered in the source. —WikiLen 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SOURCE: Thoughts have energy, and energy has a resonance, a vibration...
SOURCE: Every thought is attracted to other thoughts of the same vibration," ... For many in the science community, the concept is hard to believe.
SOURCE: "Brainwaves have an electrical signal, but whether they have any effect outside of the body is questionable," Alousi said.
SOURCE: The Secret's interviewees don't pretend to have empirical evidence that the Law of Attraction exists.

ARTICLE: While brainwaves do have an electrical signal, there is no empirical evidence that supports the idea that thoughts possess energy fields that can vibrate with the universe or that the principles of quantum physics behave the way proponents of the Law of Attraction claim.

At best, a synthesis from source. That "no empirical evidence" exists is not mentioned in the source. Minor point: the source mentions "energy" not "energy fields". —WikiLen 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ARTICLE: The use of the term "Law" and the vague references to quantum physics to bridge any unexplained or seemingly implausible effects are hallmark traits of modern pseudoscience ideas.

No citation to support this. —WikiLen 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ARTICLE: Within spiritual circles, the Law of Attraction has been criticized for conflating ego with the higher self, narcissism and promoting thinking that supposedly was humanity's leading edge several hundred thousand years ago, but now is a developmentally early cognitive stage.

Yes this needs citation(s), as noted in the article. I know sources exist for the "narcissism" point — not sure about the rest. —WikiLen 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to read the full sources in more detail again, but on my first-pass reading, I'm not sure that I agree with you. The article doesn't sound like it's a word for word copy or absolutely minimal re-phrasing of the sources, but that's not what it should be. The article seems consistent with the meaning that I got from most of the sources that I read. I'll try to comment more fully shortly when I have time. Bhimaji 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "absolutely minimal re-phrasing of the sources" the limit to strive for? Otherwise, aren't we are doing original research, in the form of an "explanation or interpretation of published facts"? — see this policy. Also, this policy advises that the best approach is to "let the facts speak for themselves". —WikiLen 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, you mention, "consistent with the meaning that I got from most of the sources that I read". Do you mean there are other sources one needs to use to verify this Criticism section — sources not cited here? This quote below from the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy should be is the driving force: —WikiLen 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was, I read numerous sources about the Law of Attraction before I looked at the article on Wikipedia. When reading the article, I looked at some, but not all of the sources cited in this article. The information I read in the article was consistent with my understanding of the sources. I did not do a formal, line by line analysis; I most definitely wasn't intending to suggest that other sources were necessary. I also wasn't saying that other sources weren't needed. Rather, I was saying that I believe that some rewording and source research is likely what is needed to fix the problems - the content is consistent with what I've seen about the subject. (Bhimaji)
Thanks for the clarification. —WikiLen 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that minimal re-phrasing of the sources is something to strive for. Wikipedia should not simply be a collection of articles, each of which is a re-write of the best article somebody else has written on the subject. It should be entirely consistent with the facts and meaning of the sources that have been accepted as reliable, but I would not be surprised to see a section with, say, two sources that said the same thing in slightly different ways. It would seem more reasonable to me for the Wikipedia article to include a statement that is agreed to be consistent with both articles; including paraphrased quotes saying almost the same thing from two different articles to ensure that the Wikipedia article was as grammatically close to the original sources as copyright law permits seems like a bad idea. It would lead to very difficult to read articles. (Bhimaji)
I am not that rigid — not into "very difficult to read articles". It's just that I find sources need a much higher priority than the truth (what I think to be the truth). This way, my bias's are less likely to enter. —WikiLen 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a list, from The Secret (2006 film) article, of sections that I wrote — or did the final edit on — using "minimal re-phrasing of the sources":
How well do they read to you? :) —WikiLen 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Check out this bit in NPOV policy. (I know, I already mentioned this, but it is worth repeating). I can't overemphasize how brilliant and right-on this is: Let the facts speak for themselves <— read that link! —WikiLen 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the appropriate no original research policy is that it is wrong to take a collection of independent facts and draw a relationship or conclusion from them that is not present in the sources. For just about any topic, however, there will be some fact that is stated by multiple sources. Stating that fact in a way that is consistent with all sources but not absolutely semantically identical with one specific fact is not the same as, for example, "Source A says that pigs are pink", "Source B says that pink things can fly", "That means pigs can fly!" This would be an interpretation that would be inappropriate - for example, the original sources may have been slightly imprecise in their statements, and this imprecision may be sufficient for a conclusion drawn from the independent sources to be wrong. (Bhimaji)
Agreed. It's just that if you are being "consistent with all sources" then you must cite those sources so any reader could verify that you are being consistent with those sources. —WikiLen 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope this makes my thinking a bit clearer. I would be very happy to see a section of this article that covered evidence in favor of the LoA. I haven't found enough material beyond individual anecodotes, unfortunately. Bhimaji 23:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, difficult to find positive stuff — here are some it took me many hours to find while editing The Secret (2006 film) article. They also apply for LoA: (WikiLen)
Note: Only some of the above were used in The Secret article, as of this date. —WikiLen 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

There are several additional problems with the Criticism section — of an over-all nature: (WikiLen)

  • It uses only one source [except for the 1st sentence I added] — how can it represent what reliable sources are saying since there are surely many more sources critiquing the Law? —WikiLen 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • On the source is uses, it only presents the negative portion of the critique, not the positive. An undue weight problem. —WikiLen 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It assert opinions as if they are facts — see this in NPOV policy. For example, this opinion (as if it is a fact): "...there is no empirical evidence that supports the idea that thoughts...". This could be fixed by saying "Stephanie Whittaker of The Gazette, states there is no empirical evidence that supports the idea that thoughts...". That converts an opinion to a fact. Unfortunately, Whittaker does not say that, so the statement remains an opinion existing as original research in Wikipedia. —WikiLen 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the time and effort that took to do. I am going to try and rework the criticism section shortly, I have several other sources that deal more directly with the scientific criticism and I want to restructure it separating out more general criticism and criticism by science. I am, unfortunately, not going to be able to do this till early next week. If others want to work on it I encourage them to do so, but if no one else has I will take your ideas into consideration during my reworking. Tmtoulouse 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the positive critiques. —WikiLen 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
While some of what you suggest I generally agree with, others I am not so sure about, particularly your view of what the policies of undue weight, NPOV and original research actually say. It will be my hope though that reworking the criticism and bringing in more sources will alleviate much of these concerns. Tmtoulouse 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your regard on the feedback I gave. I recognize my reading of policy may be off. I am confident your "reworking the criticism and bringing in more sources" will improve the article. I repeat my suggestion: (WikiLen 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC))
Use one's deeply-held ideas to drive the search for multiple sources to support those ideas — revising those ideas as the sources teach you. Then, with sources in hand, detach from the ideas and let the sources drive what gets written into the article.
It works really well, as coached by this in the NPOV policy: Let the facts speak for themselves. —WikiLen 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddha

What does Buddha have to do with that? So he said "What you have become is the result of what you have thought." This is a rather obscure sentence that can mean a bunch of things, and it doesn't necessarily relate him to the Law of Attraction. A.Z. 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I made changes to the article related to this. [3] A.Z. 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Selection bias as a criticism

[Regarding this edit ]

This line of criticism has been deleted:

The line had been inserted with this in the Edit summary: "selection bias with confirmation bias, which is widely discussed online." —WikiLen 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes online discussions do mention selection & confirmation bias however, for Wikipedia, such discussions are not considered reliable sources. I find no published reliable sources claiming "selection bias" regarding the Law of Attraction — Wikipedia guideline on Generally unacceptable sources states: "self-published material is usually not acceptable as a reliable source". Online discussions, blogs, and personal web pages are all self-published material. —WikiLen 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By that definition, Most of the content you can find online after 2002 is "self published". that's the point of the internet. Moreover, the "law of attraction" IS THE DEFENITION of a biassed outlook of things, be it confirmation biass or otherwise. it is not taken seriously even by the detractor of this argument. this is probably the silliest philosophical argument I've ever read here. --Procrastinating@talk2me 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
We go by the definition for "self-published" that Wikipedia uses — see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper):
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
An exception is made for self-published material by reliable sources. —WikiLen 01:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Quantum and the Observer Effect

Looking at Observer effect: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:

"Thus, the uncertainty principle deals with measurement, and not observation. The idea that the Uncertainty Principle is caused by disturbance (and hence by observation) is not considered to be valid by some, although it was extant in the early years of quantum mechanics, and is often repeated in popular treatments."

It is inaccurate to suggest that quantum physics demonstrates that the consciousness of the observer has an impact on the results of an experiment. All measuring devices have an impact on the physical system being measured, and at the quantum level this impact is significant. Bhimaji 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote of Proverbs seems invalid - Removed

I removed the reference to Proverbs 23:7. I looked up Proverbs 23:7 in my NIV Bible, and it did not have anything similar to what was quoted in the article:

The article read: In Hebrew Scripture, Proverbs 23:7 states: "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he."

In the NIV translation of the Bible: Proverbs 23 Verse 6: Do not eat the food of a stingy man, do not crave his delicacies; Verse 7: for he is the kind of man who is always thinking about the cost. "Eat and drink," he says to you, but his heart is not with you. Verse 8: You will vomit up the little you have eaten and will have wasted your compliments.

As I understand, these verses are giving advice about not eating with someone (presumably the host?) who is stingy and worried about the cost, and so "his heart is not with you."

The King James version seems to read much differently, but the entire verse in the King James is as follows: 23:6 Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. 23:8 The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.


The NIV is translated to be read in modern English, and while the King James may be accurate, it seems to me that the meaning of this verse may be misinterpreted in the article, and so I removed it. James Lednik 21:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean?

I went to the article on "Law of Attraction" with an open mind, to learn what it is.

To me, the big problem with this article is that it is unclear and vague in its description of the "Law of Attraction". To give an example, here is a quote from the article as it is today. "thoughts have an energy that attracts like energy".

What do people who believe the Law of Attraction mean by this and other statements in the article? The vagueness of the description allows people who are inclined to believe it to accept it easily, and allows skeptics to write it off as meaningless. For this reason, I think debate about the article is unlikely to be settled one way or another. Wanderer57 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is proponents are vague and obfuscatory in their descriptions of LoA so reporting on it in this article is going to be vague. Now there is a reason they make it vague (not the least of which none of them know the first thing about quantum physics or energy) but thats not really a talk page topic. Until proponents actually bother with a detailed description we are left with new age woo. Tmtoulouse 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What the statement you quote basically means is:

Think about bad things (illness, poverty, misery) and that is what you will find attracted into your life;
think about good things (health, abundance, happiness) and that is what will be attracted into your life.

No one here has yet cited any conclusive evidence that this "Law" works, and I doubt they ever will. Remember this "Law" is part of a philosophical/theological teaching (New Thought) and as such is vulnerable to the same lack of scientific support as any theological teaching. Can anyone provide scientific support for virgin birth, miracles, reincarnation, karma, etc? It is important however to remember that in science, the "lack of a proof" is not the proof of error. There is of course the idea that many doctors subscribe to that a patient's psychological outlook affects their success rate when fighting life threatening conditions, but as we all know, psychology (study of the mind, which is the seat of thinking) is an inexact science. Low Sea (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Catholic Church says they have evidence of miracles. Many Buddhists say they have evidence of reincarnation.
Regarding the impact of your psychological state on recovery rates for some serious medical problems - that is something that has been clearly scientifically proven. There are grey areas, many details are imprecise, but the basic principles are quite clearly proven.
The law of attraction is claimed by its proponents to be an objective law that is scientifically provable. I see no reason to re-write their claims for them. Bhimaji (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unclear opening paragraph

Paragraph 1 begins:

The Law of Attraction is commonly associated with New Age and New Thought theories. It states people experience the corresponding manifestations of their predominant thoughts, feelings, words, and actions and that people therefore have direct control over reality and their lives through thought alone.

The second sentence uses the word "corresponding". It does not say what corresponds to what.

This makes the first part of the sentence, up to the word "actions", pretty much meaningless.

I would delete it but decided to first ask if anyone knows what it is supposed to mean. Wanderer57 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The grammar is a bit odd but the sentence does provide the answer. If I reword the sentence you get: "The predominant thoughts, feelings, words, and actions of people produce corresponding [to whatever the person is thinking/feeling/saying/doing] manifestations. People therefore have direct control over reality and their lives through thought alone." ie: Think "I don't feel well" and you won't, think "I feel better" and you will. Emotions, words, and actions all follow and/or reinforce thoughts. Low Sea 07:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs)

A New Approach

I have taken a new approach to this article: (1) i have placed the material in historical and dated context, with an abundance of wiki-links to articles on the people named in the History sub-section. (2) i have taken the time to focus on the word "Law" in both religious and secular contexts, and explained that the use of the term "Law", especially among the denominationally-identified New Thought adherents, refers to matters of faith, despite being stated as a scientific principle. (3) I have left the Criticism section alone as it speaks for itself. cat Catherineyronwode 07:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to belatedly say, wtg cat, excellent work as always. Thanks. Eaglizard (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What it does mean

The problem with this article, like so many articles on esoteric subjects, is that authors vibrate between those who see the ideas as powerful explanations, and those who see them as innately unscientific (& hence worthless). Both camps are approaching the subject incorrectly. All we're supposed to be doing here is reporting about what notable thinkers have written or said on a subject. Whether we adhere to or abhor said subject isn't the least bit relevant.

I've done a bit of cleanup on the lead, to this effect, and I might do some more to the rest. In particular, the theories associated w/ this phrase apart from the New Thought & The Secret versions are fairly poorly represented (I'm most familiar w/ the versions by Alice Bailey, which differ significantly from the concept presented here.) I'm waiting to see if any other editors will have any active interest in this page. Eaglizard (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

NB Looking at the History section, the phrase would appear to have been generated from thin air in 1906, but I'm pretty sure it was used in Rosicrucian and Golden Dawn writings before then, and I think there's older ones too. The Theosophy usage would be older, but I'm not sure there's a good cite to Theo. lit on this. I'll do some research, but I'm really not particularly swift at that, so if somebody else knows more, pls add to the article. Thanks. Eaglizard (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Basis

I think that the claim that "no such basis" exists for the law of attraction is perhaps too strong a claim. While there are certain aspects of this law, if it is interpreted in certain ways, that might appear violate modern science, many aspects of the law of attraction are consistent with and can even be partially explained in the context of science. Some of it might even go so far as to being called common sense. For example, the phenomenon of Priming (psychology) could certainly explain how thinking about a given event happen would make it more likely to see and take opportunities that would lead that event to occur. Many of the things advocated by proponents of the law of attraction are strikingly similar to Cognitive behavioral therapy, which is beginning to be widely accepted as one of the most successful types of treatments for depression. Let's make this article into a real article instead of just a bunch of new-age hype! I think there is some real core content that we can tie this material into and failing to do so is a huge omission! Cazort (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Garbled prose

This paragraph borders on incoherence, but I don't know enough about the topic to edit it:

"This however, is explained within the confines of the law of attraction with; abundance alone is not manifested by thought, but the thoughts themselves. Be them positive or negative. In the 2006 film The Secret. "If you're anti war, be pro peace. If you're anti hunger, be pro more than enough food" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathdrive83 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the LoA says that your thoughts and/or desires directly influence what happens in the world. Not just, "I think about the camera lens I want all the time so I'll notice it in a shop window on sale", but my thoughts can actually make it appear somewhere. The question that is often asked is, then, don't we all want to have lots of money and food and peace? The answer from LoA advocates is that the Law does not make your desires manifest, but rather the LoA makes your thoughts manifest themselves. If you are always thinking about your bike getting stolen, then you'll "attract" that event.
Essentially, your actual desire doesn't matter. What matters is the quality and frequency of your mental image. Frequent mental images of starvation will cause starvation. I'll see if I can re-word the text in a day or two, but please feel free to work on the phrasing if you would like to. Bhimaji (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the rebuttal from the main article for now; it was a train wreck. I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not an expert in LoA, so I'll leave the rephrasing to you or someone with more familiarity on the topic. For the record, for those looking for where the rebuttal was, it came right after Larry King's observation in the criticism section.
I think I at least have a better way to transcribe the quote from The Secret. How about: "If you're anti-war, be pro-peace. If you're anti-hunger, be pro-more-than-enough [sic] food." I'm including the sic because I had to wonder in the original rendering for a minute whether there was a transcription error and loss of meaning. RemiCogan (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As A Man Thinketh

I feel the assertive phrase "most influential modern book" needs to be revised. While Allen certainly wrote a powerful book on the topic, it is neither a modern book (106 years old) nor do I believe there is verifiable support for the assertion. I would think the "most influential" writings on the subject would be those of Phineas Parkhurst Quimby. Since Byrne (author of The Secret) admits inspiration by Wattles's who in turn, as an early adherent of New Thought, was inspired by Quimby's ideas. While Allen's book predates Wattle's by eight years, Wattles wrote a great deal of New Thought articles before and after these dates and if he had read Allen's book (uncertain) it would only have supported what he already believed. As far as modern books go, probably the most influential is by Norman Vincent Peale: The Power of Positive Thinking which has reached across many socio-cultural lines influencing entrepreneurial, psychological and theological thinking. Low Sea (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • adding {{peacock}} to section. Low Sea 07:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Introduction Paragraph

In my opinion, the introduction paragraph still does not explicitely state the law itself, or rather, it could be stated in a more concise manner.

The phrase Law of Attraction has been used by many esoteric writers, although the actual definition varies greatly. Most authors associate the Law of Attraction with the saying, "like attracts like", usually as applied to the mental life of human beings: that a person's thoughts (conscious and unconscious), emotions, beliefs and actions attract corresponding positive or negative experiences. This process has been described as "harmonious vibrations of the law of attraction", or "you get what you think about; your thoughts determine your experience."

Someone who already knew what the Law of Attraction was would understand that, but it doesn't get its point across well enough to actually explain what it is. This is how I would write the paragraph:

The 'Law of Attraction, altough used widely by esoteric writers, does not have an agreed-upon definition. However, the general concensus among New Age thinkers is that the Law of Attraction takes the principal "Like Attracts Like" and applies it to conscious desire. That is, a perrson's thoughts (conscious and unconscious), emotions, and beliefs cause a change in the physical world that attracts corresponding positive or negative experiences, without or without the person taking action to attain such experiences. This process has been described as "harmonious vibrations of the law of attraction", or "you get what you think about; your thoughts determine your experience."

I did not change much, but I believe that the concept of the Law itself needed to be put in more terse, less weaselly terms. I will not change the paragraph myself, as I just came back from a year-long wikibreak and I am most certainly not in the right mindset to be writing unbiased material. GofG ||| Talk 04:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change it. GofG ||| Talk 16:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Some versions are trivialy true

I noticed some commenting on this subject that it attracts the skeptics and the fantatics only. I think there is one reason for this depending on the formulation of the law.

I would add somewhere in the article some formulations of the Law of Attraction, like for instance, the way you think is how you gone feel, is trivially true and by default not a secret. So by the ambigiuty of the law between absurd scientific analogies and by formulations that are trivialy true some will find it breathtakingly true or patheticlly absurd.


--RickardV (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of the "a middle path" section

The now-removed "A Middle Path" section was riddled with unencyclopedic language and what I read as apologies as to the lack of scientific evidence. "Sorry there's no scientific evidence yet, guys, but this still works." I removed the entire thing. I don't want to repost it here, in the interest of space, but I suggest we work on it. I will contact the original author. I would rewrite it myself but as a skeptic and hater of New Age thought, I doubt I would do a very good job at being neutral. GofG ||| Talk 19:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Rewrite of the "a middle path" section

The comments I made regarding a "Balenced Approach" legitimately add to the topic. We are talking about a subject that many people belive in spite of the fact that the "scientific" explainations offered by its proponents are anything but scientific. You claim to be a sceptic, but your summary of my addition as "Sorry there's no scientific evidence yet, guys, but this still works." shows that you did not even read what I wrote, let alone approach with an open, unbiased mind. What is your take on the scientific studies conducted by psychology professor, Robert Emmons, from the University of California-Davis relating to gratitude and Sonja Lyubomirsky's work on happiness? What is your take on the distinction between objective knowledge and subjective knowledge? What do you belive are the limits of scientific inquiry that may make finding an absolute answer to this question difficult or impossible? If you feel that my addition needs stylistic changes, then by all means, share your comments and I will do my best to incorporate them. But to just come in and delete the whole section with a vague comment like it needs to be reworked, is simply inappropriate. I am putting it back with some revisions and would appreciate your keeping it there while the editing process continues. I look forward to hearing your specific constructive criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akirwan (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of our original research policy you don't understand. It's fine to post a few quotes from a notable book or reliable source. Posting long treatises is not, especially given the obvious conflict of interest issue here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Akirwan, the entire text of the paragraph I deleted is available at User:JohnWittle/loa. Put in references and any OR problems will be fixed. Rewrite it to avoid the word "you" entirely and to avoid saying things like "The law of attraction will be very important in the future", and all the style problems will be fixed. I am open to helping with the rewrite, if you would be up to working with me on AIM or IRC. Right now, you have a tough time, as most scientists who believe that the Law of Attraction exists as anything other than a placebo are not accepted by the general scientific community and therefore not allowed as a reference without major notification of their position. If, for instance, you wanted to work something in about Deepak Chopra's research, you would have to note that his positions are unique in the scientific community. I would love to help you so that I can be sure that I have no problems with the rewrite, but mainly so that it's easy to obtain a consensus on how it should be written.
I am sorry to see that you got banned for 24 hours; I don't believe anything you did warranted any sort of ban, aside from the 3RR violation. Your input as the sole proponent of the LoA currently is necessary to keeping this article neutral.
Jamie, I would appreciate if you would assume good faith in Akirwan. He's fairly new and as such there are extremely complicated policies formed over years of needless bureaucracy that he doesn't know, but at least he has the article's best interests in mind. JW ||| Talk 05:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that he's here to plug his own book (see here). It's also obvious that he's blatantly ignoring the original research policy (in fact, he pretty much admitted in an edit summary that it was OR). Sorry, but not much good faith to assume here. I don't think there's much to the section that's salvageable; throwing in a few references won't fix the "synthesis" clause of the original research policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"human beings actually know very little about the universe they inhabit" brings up an immediate red-flag. It is an argument frequently used to justify claims with no evidence. The obvious fact that there are many things we don't know does not justify any specific claim.
Regarding Emmons and Lyubomirsky - I haven't found anything in their work that relates in any meaningful way to the LoA. Their work deals with psychology and human mental states, whereas the LoA deals with physical changes to the external world caused by mental states. I haven't read much of their work, but I suspect that it would actually be part of an argument against the LoA - or, at least, an argument about how easy it is for LoA practices to mislead you. The LoA explicitly states that your thoughts will influence the physical world; understanding the immense psychological benefits that come from a positive outlook could go a long way to explaining how people can delude themselves into believing that all good things in their lives were Attracted into them, despite their being no correlation. Bhimaji (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the great examples, Bhimaji; that's precisely what I'm referring to as a violation of the synthesis clause of the OR policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
At the time of writing the above post I was unaware that he was the author of the book mentioned in the paragraph he wrote. JW ||| Talk 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_of_attraction_(New_Thought)/Archive_2&oldid=1136896391"