Talk:Holographic paradigm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_paradigm#_note-10

For a controversial claim ("work being actively suppressed") this is not a valid citation. I can't find the specific style guide now, but I believe sources must be cited from published works. You just can't say "Private correspondence". I wonder if this whole article is actually "original research". Some of the other references actually seem to be to privately published sources, although I may be wrong about this.

Statement of intent: I am curious about the subject of the article and would like to see a better article. I'm sure there is accepted work out there that could be put into it. I cannot ignore the Wikipedia guides that, if followed, actually lead to much better articles. DJ Barney 01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is very reminiscent of pseudo-science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.19.173 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I second the idea that this article should include reference to the fact that this is not widely considered to be a genuine scientific theory. I understand it to have a wide enough following to escape being considered 'original research', but there's definitely good grounds for it being considered pseudoscience. The part of the holographic model dealing with the brain and the genome doesn't make testable, falsifiable claims, and apart from a few instances in psychology journals in the late 1960s, it does not appear in mainstream peer-reviewed journals in either molecular biology or neuroscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.9.167 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Holographic principle?

This article might make a good subsection there...thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)