Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Keilana's proposal

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k) πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film that combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative, discussing quantum physics, existential philosophy, and the possibility of connections between science and spirituality. Computer-animated graphics are featured heavily in the film. The film intersperses interviews about quantum physics and spirituality, subjects heavily addressed in the movie, with the fictional story of a deaf photographer, played by Marlee Matlin, as she struggles with her life. The film employs a panel of interviewees who speculate about the impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry, including mystics and scientists, many with a connection to New Age movements, others holding doctorates or other degrees in their fields. One notable mystic featured in the film's interviews is Judy Zebra Knight, who claims to channel Ramtha, a spiritual entity.

Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. However, some members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience—ideas that are not currently supported by modern science. The film presents ideas which are not currently supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related (a part of quantum mysticism), and the idea that macroscopic entities such as ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film. Nonetheless, the film received extensive praise from New Age communities and authors; one BBC reviewer stated that "This [What the Bleep] is a challenging, fascinating, intellectual roller coaster of a movie."

Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. A moderately low-budget independent production, the film was promoted using unusual grass-roots marketing methods and grossed over $10 million.

Comments

Thank you, Keilana for doing this. Hopefully, we can come to some sort of consensus on the lead and this should help.(olive (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

What's with the "macroscopic entities" stuff? Microscopic entities cannot be influenced by thought either. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I said that it posits that macroscopic entities can be influenced by thought. What's wrong with that? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it also posits that microscopic entities can be influenced by thought. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you look at draft one on the other page, you'll notice that ice crystals is replaced with water molecules which is truer to the scene in the film. Did you look at that draft? It may give you some good ideas for improvement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This version currently panders way too much to pseudoscience and offers a ridiculous definition of pseudoscience. It's not just that the ideas presented in the film "aren't currently accepted": it's that they directly contradict the sum total of scientific observations. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ramtha bits are currently spread out throughout this intro in a problematic way. Try pushing them together. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We need stuff on transcendental meditation reducing crime. Please put that in. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in the lead are a bad idea. They go against summary style. Why just single out that particular quote, for instance? Please consider removing it. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The "some members" is unnecessarily equivocal. Do you know of any members of the scientific community who have commented on the film and haven't criticized the film for doing this? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of redundancy in this version. "The film" is repeated over and over again. Try to make it less mechanical. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The "doctorates" being held is an unwarranted "appeal to authority". Many of the people may have doctorates, but they are not active researchers or they got their doctorates from third-rate institutions, for example. Also, this version tends to imply that some of the people interviewed with doctorates don't have connection to New Age groups. That's not true. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptably soft in the criticism section. "Some scientists" is weak for reasons we have discussed ad nauseum, and "not currently supported" makes it sound like science will get around to it someday. If this stuff is ever supported by science, we can come back and edit the article.Kww (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)