Talk:Bruce Lipton

This article about Bruce Lipton is so much better than the one in german. Thanks for it. And for making it very clear that his work isn't pseudoscience, but is only called that by people, who seem to be too afraid of the possibility that accepting overdue changes in science and scientific procedures could shatter the very world view they've grown too used and attached to, to let it go. (My first time...hope this works. Got no clue whether I should have deleted the looking like some code stuff above or not.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarisSleepyStorm (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Unjustified Discreditation

All scientists have views or opinions that mainstream people who have zero knowledge or have done zero studies or examinations have conflict with. This is includes Einstein, Oppenheimer, and much of the prominent scientists of our era. Scientists of all ages have had views that which were outdated, OR, proven later to have validity. This is no reason to markedly discredit someone on an academic intentioned website such as wikipedia. Such action is cowardly and unscientific by nature and does not contribute to global understanding of the sciences. If there is something you disagree with, add to the discussion, provide counter arguments, but not remove someone's works and well-deserved research. If you disagree with his anti-vaccination views, then provide pro-vaccination arguments. This is unscientific and makes wikipedia an unreliable reference for gaining insights and information on people who may or may not be correct on matters, and that is the majority of scientists. 2600:1700:612:4D50:B83B:30AB:35B5:3E63 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

A key virtue in the design of Wikipedia is that it routinely rejects the burden of determining fact, notability and viewpoints by relying on reliable secondary sources to do that, and instead includes their conclusions in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia itself does not do research or judgement, and instead relies on summarizing and presenting those sources that are purposed and equipped to do that work. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Your logic fails. See Galileo Gambit.

Also, your logic is irrelevant because Wikipedia articles are not based on what Wikipedia users think. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This person is correct. This is erasing history that started in the 60s because someone BELIEVES something NOW is pseudoscientific. Someone or a group of close-minded people had a bone to pick with Lipton or whatever group they associate him with. 104.175.201.138 (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024

Remove "...advocates various pseudosciences, including vaccine misinformation." Biographies of living persons policy, libelous information (such as calling someone 'pseudoscience') must be kept out of such biographies unless very well-referenced. Student2067 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Now correctly attributed by GiantSnowman. Tollens (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Bad article

Close-minded. The article completely discredits any of Bruce Lipton's pioneering work in epigenetics. Work he was ridiculed for... Do you see a pattern here? Perhaps what he suffers from is being ahead of his time, and people being unwilling to consider that very smart people may have views that contradict theirs and the norm. That those ideas may have validity. Attaching a label like psuedoscience is just that, a label. It's rhetoric. "Science" is a human construct like anything else and prone also to cult-like behavior. I expected better of Wikipedia. 104.175.201.138 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Its not pioneering if people ignore it is it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Everywhere else credits him with his groundbreaking work in epigenetics. 104.175.201.138 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In the very least the article should have a proper introduction paragraph. The first paragraph just sounds like bashing Bruce Lipton instead of giving an overview of who he is. Nplonka (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A highly biased opening paragraph

Why is it staying in place?

I am not competent to write according to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic style to rewrite it.

Just remarking that that paragraph nearly prevented me from finding out more about Lipton as a scientist. Janosabel (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2025

The author mentions that Bruce Lipton's arguments exemplify the "naturalistic fallacy" (that something is good because it is natural [sic]). This is incorrect. The "naturalistic fallacy" is a philosophical argument first made by G.E. Moore to point out a common logical fallacy in normative reasoning; that of arguing from descriptive premises to normative conclusions. See the relevant entry on the "naturalistic fallacy" in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Bruce Lipton's fallacious argument (that if something is "unnatural", then it is damaging to the organism) is of a different kind, unrelated to the naturalistic fallacy. 37.6.73.92 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ASUKITE 20:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Shocked by how bad this listing is

I’ve never before encountered such a poorly written/haphazardly thrown together article in Wikipedia. Very disappointed, which undermines my confidence in the knowledge coming from WP, and my desire to use it in the future. Poorly done! 50.53.104.210 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)