Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Anthony Peake

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The author of this wiki has made the statement "Peake has no education or qualifications in science (he has a bachelor's in sociology and a master's in economics)". I hate to break it to you (author) but Sociology is by definition a science. This is a fact irrespective of what you may think of this science or the scientific integrity of Anthony Peake. You have, therefore, made a blatantly false statement. This is entirely a reflection of YOUR integrity and therefore the integrity of RationalWiki itself. Peake may or may not be a hack but you have made absolutely no contribution what so ever as to enlighten anyone one way or the other. You state your opinions as if they are the same thing as facts. This is nothing more than narcissism. Narcissism is the root of every problem of the human condition. Your statements have only exacerbated that reality.

This article grossly misrepresents what Anthony Peake wrote. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It would help if you could actually read. RationalWiki narrowly defines science as natural sciences (see the science article); sociology isn't a natural science. Its also impossible to test the "after-life", so by definition Peake's theories are pseudo-science anyway.Asgardian (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This 'rational' wiki and its talk page (which is readable by the general public) is full of petty digs and total untruths about Anthony Peake: It is libelous, slanderous and completely nonfactual. It attributes motives to and purports to speak of Peake and his readers regarding things for which there is no factual basis or evidence. This will be addressed in the future. It is suspicious that every contributor on this page has "retired" and wishes to be "left alone". Randall7 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7

Thank you for your valuable feedback nothing. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 01:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC) everything written on the page is factual about Peake, you obviously have not listened to his interviews. This is not suprising becuase most "fans" of Peake have actually not listened to his interviews. In every interview he has done he contradicted his ideas and moves goal posts about his hypothesis and tries to merge it with all kinds of pseudoscience. In his latest skeptiko interview he actually came out of the closet and admitted his hypothesis can never be tested or proven and that he believes in God in the form of pandeism. Also see his other interviews on youtube where he has supported the intelligent design of Frank Tipler, supported idealism of George Berkeley and supported the Ervin Laszlo "Akashic field" idea, he also describes himself as a "dualist" yet provides no evidence for this view except his belief in a "daemon" a metaphysical spirit which he believes lives inside of people from their past lives. If you want to believe that is science than you can fool yourself but Peake is a sausage pretending his ideas are scientific to make money. DinoCrisis (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
My sincere thanks to "DinoCrisis" for this talk entry. It's one of the few items I've come across questioning the work of Anthony Peake, who seems somehow "hands off" to criticism about what he claims. Why is that? Why isn't there a LOT MORE questioning about Anthony Peake? And if there is, where is it on the "blogosphere"? FCBertrand (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Peake changes his views every few months to get more money from his readers. Similar to David Icke he is just out to cash in on gullible readers, mostly from the new age crowd who have no scientific education. Peake endorses everything from chakras, pineal gland mysticism, akashic field energy to the matrix simulation hypothesis (how do all these fit together?). He links these ideas with quantum woo. He has fooled himself if he actually believes in anything he writes about. Peake also abuses people who don't "buy" into his hypothesis, and he is even on record for calling others anti-scientific! By the way his forum is also filled with arguments and trolls. Ecologist (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


Deleted by Randall7

Why is it that everyone on this talk page is now "retired" and wants to be "left alone"? I find this very suspicious.

1. A lot of this "talk" (which is readable by the general public, recall) is libelous. Calling Peake "a conman" and saying he is motivated by money, and that he attacks anyone who doesn't buy into his theory : All is ad hominem, libelous, slanderous, because absolutely untrue.

2. This is being looked into and will be pursued: It is unprofessional, unconscionable, and intolerable to publicly promote these falsehoods about a man you do not know .

3. Suffice it to say that this "Rational Wiki" page is nothing of the kind: It is unbalanced, it is unfair; and it is a skewed representation of the author. It purports to know what Peake's "fans" do or fail to do, and what motivates the author and his publishing agents and companies. And it is suspect in the extreme that all who contributed to this slanderous page have conveniently "retired" and wish to be "left alone". It has been duly noted and taken well under advisement. Randall7 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7


Many thanks for allowing that to stand (I thought I had to delete it as I have made an additional statement on the top of this page which has the same content but is condensed. ) Very best regards - Randall7 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7

Peake is doing pseudoscience pal, end of story. Science is testable, repeatable, should be falsifiable, makes predictions etc, nothing Peake writes in his books meets this criteria a 10 year old could tell you this. How is a "Daemon" falsifiable? !! You should also STOP sock puppeting and trolling, you already have another account on this site and you were reverted. The person spreading libel is yourself. There is NO libel on the article, it is sourced to his interviews. Gord (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This site TOLD me to open a new account because I couldn't retrieve my old account's log in information. The talk page is readable to the public and is libelous and slanderous, and will be addressed, as will be the petty and personal motives for the page in the first place. Randall7 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
I presume "Randall7" is just another sockpuppet of Anthony Peake who is well known for his internet trolling activities. What page claims are unbalanced, biased or libel?
  • Biography ("Peake has no education or qualifications in science")

- Mr. Peake indeed has no background or credentials in science. He holds a bachelor's in sociology & history and his only award was "Author Of The Month Award (April 2009): The Graham Hancock website". Graham Hancock is a crank author and pseudo-archaeologist and this "award" isn't even genuine - it was a made up over the internet.

  • Hypothesis

- This section just gives a few of Mr. Peake's theories. Where is the libel?

  • Peake and science

- Peake's theories are irrational. Contrast Peake's theories about spirits, daemons etc to science. Where's the slander?

My only message to Mr Peake is: don't write complete crazy stuff about spirits and then expect to be taken serious. It is not libel to present your claims as quackery. Orangina1 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Peake has no "sock puppets"; he just has his loyal defenders. If anything he is too passive about people's machinations against him. If you would read, the libel is in this talk page above (which the general public has access to): Saying that he is a "conman" and changes his ideas "to make money and sell books". (This used to stand on the original Rational Wiki page until I pointed out that it was libelous; upon which it was hurriedly taken down. It should be taken down here as well.) Too bad the persons who say this have "retired". Randall7 (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
You claim "This used to stand on the original Rational Wiki page until I pointed out that it was libelous; upon which it was hurriedly taken down." This is a lie because the edit history of the page is open and the article never described Peake with those words and nothing was "hurriedly taken down". You are a pathological liar. Stop trolling, nobody is taking you seriously. Orangina1 (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't lie and have no need to. I do recall a year or so ago making a note that saying Peake was using unscrupulous means to "sell books" in the article was false and libelous and certainly not objective. And I do see now that it no longer stands in the original article. I don't see a record of my edits from back then, either. Perhaps someone has taken them down. Randall7 (talk)Randall7
What is your actual complaint? It doesn't seem to be about the article itself but the talk-page lol. So let me get this straight you want "conman" removed from someone's opinion on this talk-page. Orangina1 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Right. Because the talk page is accessible to the public, all sentences which are false ("Peake is a conman", "Peake abuses all who do not buy into his theory", "Peake engages in trolling" ) should be deleted. For some odd reason, all these Talk contributors are now mysteriously "retired" so cannot be contacted for a cease and desist.Randall7 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
And of course there should be a record that these comments were noticed and removed. Randall7 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
In closing, I think it bears mentioning that I have yet to see any qualified scientist writing under an actual and not pseudonym, attack Anthony Peake. Peake is a professional member of the international Medical and Scientific Network, so there are plenty of them who know him, and yet no one takes up the pen against him, except here. The fact that Rational Wiki is a site which: 1. Asks no one for their scientific credentials and 2. requires no real names or email addresses, testifies loudly to the fact that it is not a serious Inquiry site, but more or less an anonymous place to let off steam or voice one's resentment. Randall7 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
Assuming that you mean The Scientific and Medical Network, then that doesn't seem to me to be any sort of reasonable qualification. In fact it looks like something that deserves its own woo article on here. I shudder when I read "Spirituality", and "Transpersonal" has much the same effect. Scream!! (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Randall I have changed the above editor's word to "sausage" to put your mind at rest... will that do :) Orangina1 (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Just so long as there is nothing which calls him a con-man, or abusive, or out only to sell his books.

As far as the S & M Network, I know only Peake and have no interest in spirituality. I advise others not to libel anyone, and to write actual pieces under their own names and listing their true qualifications if they want to offer valid refutation. Cheers Randall7 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7

You seem to be under some misconceptions about how science works. No scientist is going to take their time writing papers refuting Peake's opinions because his opinions are not scentific. Yes, I use the word "opinions" on purpose, as anecdotal evidence is not acceptable for any kind of scientific pursuit. To be blunt, Peake's opinions do not deserve refutation by the scientific community. As to your comment about listing qualifications, Peake has none (relevant to science), so it seems a bit strange that you require his detractors to name theirs. - Grant (Talk) 16:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
No. You are the ones who made an issue of his "lack of qualifications". Indeed, Peake never made any claims to be a professional scientist or to having any formal education in this area. He is a self-taught thinker who maintains a liberal and generous mind: Truly a theorist and a philosopher. Since you make such an issue of formal education, and declare him to be a quack, perhaps you could kindly show your own qualifications? But of course this will never be forthcoming. Randall7 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7

Edit break[edit]

Peake's opinions are "undeserving of refutation from the scientific community"? Thank you for admitting that Rational Wiki is NOT the scientific community! Cheers Randall7 (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
Did we ever claim to be? If one tenth of what we've got is true then Peak is a twonk of the first order and his disciples (you?) likewise. Scream!! (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
(EC) You just said above that you think anyone refuting Peake should display their own qualifications and write a paper refuting him. That sounds to me like making an issue of his lack of qualifications.
As it happens, I would be happy to provide my qualifications. I have a MSc. in physics, with my research roughly evenly split between experimental NMR and theoretical models of non-Markovian quantum processes. I've also dabbled a bit in solid state physics, as my research briefly touched on the potentially interesting quantum properties of graphene and the artificial formation of 13C enriched diamond. The goal of the two solid state research topics was to find and explore NV-centers in diamond.
RationalWiki is indeed not the scientific community. There are some scientists here (myself included), but to form a scientific refutation of Peake's opinions does not require a scientist, as his ideas are simply not scientific! That is refutation alone. - Grant (Talk) 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It is easy enough to provide qualifications when you are under a pseudonym. I thought this site WAS claiming to be a site of scientific inquiry - now that it's members are openly admitting it is not, the whole thing is deflated for me, as it were. I see how little it really matters. I don't know what a "twonk" is because I am not from UK or Europe. I am not a disciple. Very best regards. Randall7 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
Actually, I'm not under a pseudonym. Also, I can provide plenty of evidence that I know what I'm talking about, which you would be free to take to your favourite physicist of choice and have them vet. Suffice it to say that I'm more than capable of proving that my knowledge matches my qualifications.
I would highly recommend you (and Peake) stay well away from any sites of "scientific inquiry", as you will likely be disappointed as well. While the language used may be less snarky, I think you'll find the response to be similar to what's written here: Peake's ideas have no scientific basis whatsoever. That is the only refutation you'll likely receive. - Grant (Talk) 17:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry: Twonk = total idiot. Thought you might have got that from context. Scream!! (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Why did Peake even receive a refutation here? He made no claims to be either a scientist or a rationalist, and yet he gets refuted and libeled here in a most unseemly and unprofessional manner. (which tells me that the original poster had a personal beef, and this did not occur to the rest of you). If no scientist would bother to refute him (and indeed, he never expected that they would, nor did they) then why on earth would a group of rationalists trouble themselves to do so? Does a tennis champion refute a skier for not using a tennis racket? Does a vegan refute a professed meat-eater? Only if they are at loose ends and have no true purpose. And if one thinks someone an idiot, use that word. Randall7 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
I wouldn't know, and I have no vested interest in this topic. However, you do seem to be jumping around quite a bit. My first response was meant to address your point that scientists should display their credentials and write a paper refuting Peake's ideas, as you thought this was a site of "scientific inquiry" (whatever that means - that's not how science works anyways; it doesn't establish sites of "scientific inquiry" to validate/invalidate hypotheses). Now you say this is entirely unnecessary because Peake himself does not believe his ideas are scientific. Which is it? - Grant (Talk) 17:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
He doesn't care what reductionist thinkers think of him. Just don't libel him, and all will be well. Very best regards. Randall7 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
Randall (Peake?) a few things. There is no libel on the article and even yourself have acknowledged this, it's all sourced to his own interviews. You claim the original poster had a "personal beef" but there is no way of knowing this. Have you read what rationalwiki aims are? Refuting pseudoscience and crank ideas so this article was spot on. Peake claims a "daemon" lives in people and that people live there lives over and over in some sort of simulation or something... it's not science pal lol. Like a user said above what testable predictions has he made? Orangina1 (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
GrantC as you have education in physics, can you review this essay by Peake? It seems to be quantum quackery to me... Chi, Akashic Records, psychic energy, zero point fields... and other nuttiness [1] says it all really. Orangina1 (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to take a look and post my findings. The title alone makes me thing your initial assumptions are correct. - Grant (Talk) 18:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so virtually everything he says about physics is wrong. How handy that this so completely lies within my area of research (quantum mechanics is my specialty, after all). I have a meeting to run off to shortly, but I've bookmarked the essay, and when I return I'll talk a bit more about everything that's wrong with the essay. - Grant (Talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd watch it, Grant, bullshit quotient over 80%. Scream!! (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; the idea that a laser can be considered a Bose-Einstein condensate is mind-boggling. Even worse is the concept that absolute zero is three degrees warmer than the vacuum of space. Seriously? Given that absolute zero is defined as the temperature at which all molecular vibrational motion ceases, such a feat would be quite impressive indeed. - Grant (Talk) 18:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Oraginal, You need not worry that I am Peake: He has neither the time or inclination to drivel on here (but I obviously do ;) ) - Your view of reality is quite different to his and others. Facilitating debate would be far more interesting than dismissal and "talking about everything wrong". You will be preaching to the choir, I'm afraid; Your conversation will be limited to others who are just as yourself - as no one else is interested. Very best regards Randall7 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
I'm sorry, but anyone claiming they have a proof linking physics to anything needs to show some scientific evidence supporting such. While I'm all for philosophy being as zany as it likes, trying to connect such a thing with science requires more than just baseless assertions and hand-waving philosophical arguments. - Grant (Talk) 18:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid you will be wasting your time Grant: Not only does Peake make no claim to any proof whatsoever, but he says in the piece that his is a purely hypothetical model. Later, he will claim that out of body experience is not empirically real. To try and rip to shreds a contemplative piece which makes no claim to proof is like spitting into the wind. If he were trying to prove a cure for cancer or something, I could understand the upset. This just seems sad, as though a mystic had ruffled you. Very best wishes Randall7 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
It's not merely his claims that are problematic. He also says quite a few things about physics that are just plain wrong. He claims, for example, that lasers are Bose-Einstein Condensates. This isn't some contemplation, but rather a factually incorrect statement. We know that lasers are not BECs, as they do not behave like BECs or have the properties of BECs. - Grant (Talk) 19:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you contact him , then, and try and be helpful? He is a very modest man, and would appreciate some really helpful constructive criticism. It seems to me this would be far more constructive than simply bashing him here, where he will never see it. Very best, Randall7 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7

To put it as kindly as possible, he is not RationalWiki's audience. Readers come here for, among other things, a third-party view of pseudoscientific writings they may find elsewhere. If Mr. Peake wants to educate himself about physics, there are any number of venues for that, including brick-and-mortar universities. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, what Sprocket says is correct. Once I post my criticisms, he is welcome to come here and look at them if he really wants to do so. Explain to me why it is somehow my responsibility to contact him for a discussion on this? I've been asked to voice my refutations here to better explain to the RW audience which of his statements are factually incorrect, and that is what I will do. It's up to him to contact me or someone else with knowledge of physics if he wishes to better his own understanding. - Grant (Talk) 19:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, dear. You misunderstood me. I never said it was your responsibility; I said it would be a nice and constructive thing to do. I think people interested in Peake would never read here, and vice versa. Best regards, Randall7 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
Nice and constructive, yes. Time consuming, also yes. Time that I do not, in fact, have. I can reach a wider audience here than I can by contacting Peake directly. You're welcome to direct him to my criticism if you would like. I can also refer him to some good resources for learning how physics actually works. Again, you'll have to direct him here for that, because I'm a busy man. Posting some thoughts here takes a minimal amount of effort, since this is all stuff I know quite well. Having a back-and-forth exchange with some gentleman I know nothing about is another story entirely. The resources will be posted here, and if he would like them, he can come take a look at them. It may be that those interested in Peake will not come here, but if even one person does so and realizes that Peake's thoughts on physics are incorrect, that's enough for me. - Grant (Talk) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, are you on a mission to save souls or something? Why would one person realizing Peake is wrong (if indeed he really is) be enough for you? What will you have saved that person from? A belief in Nietzsche's eternal recurrence? How do we even know that yours is the only interpretation of the matter? I am sure Peake has taken the time to do his research. It's not like he's trying to build a spaceship or anything. Ha. Best, Randall7 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
He makes statements about physics in general, and quantum mechanics in specific, that are plainly wrong. This has nothing to do with interpretations. If you told me that gravity didn't exist, you would be wrong. It's that simple, and in several places that kind of thing is exactly what Peake does. If he really wanted to take his time to do research about physics, he should probably have pursued a degree in the subject, since I doubt he has the prior knowledge required to understand the math behind the theories he's erroneously quoting. I'm on no mission to save souls, but I'm passionate about science and my field of research. Is that really surprising, given that I've devoted six years of my life to my degree and have made this my career? You don't make it very far in graduate school (at least in the hard sciences) without a genuine passion for your research. - Grant (Talk) 20:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Randall you wrote "He made no claims to be either a scientist or a rationalist" which is true considering all the wacky stuff he believes in but why does Peake put science in the title of his books? Example Is There Life After Death? The Extraordinary Science Of What Happens When We Die. So you admit he isn't a scientist and is not qualified as one, so why is he writing books with "Extraordinary Science" in the title? It's been some time since I was in school but a scientific hypothesis surely must be testable ? None of Peake's paranormal claims are scientific nor testable, so he isn't doing science... yet he still puts science in his title for his books :) You see the contradictions ? So which is it ? Are you happy to accept Peake is doing pseudoscience ? How can it be anything else ? BTW look up the definition of pseudoscience if you need to. Orangina1 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't need to look up the definition. Peake was labeled a pseudoscientist on Wikipedia and it didn't bother him. What was bothersome were the lies and character assassination here. His publishing company chose the title: He had no say in it and didn't especially like it. I doubt if belief in Peake will lead to alcoholism or car accidents or anything. His is an alternative view just as natural doctors reject the main stream medical purview (and are abused for doing so.) My very best wishes, Randall7 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7
A person Wikipedia labels as a pseudoscientist can expect much harsher treatment here. They use kid gloves, we use boxing gloved. We didn't assassinate his "character", he did... "His is an alternative view just as natural doctors reject the main stream medical purview" is an argument for incompetence. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. "Natural doctors" who "reject the main stream medical purview" get people killed. Earlier, you mentioned that at least Peake wasn't advancing some theory that hurt people, and now you draw an analogy between Peake and people whose wonky ideas actually do hurt people. - Grant (Talk) 05:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

My dear man: You are gravely naive if you believe that mainstream medical doctors do not kill people; they do all the time. And many, many natural doctors are healers: I know people who are living proof. You have bought into the propaganda and I'm afraid you cannot debate on this issue. You give proof to the idea that hard science is a biased view of the world and delusional in its own right. Very best regards, Randall7 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7

review of article[edit]

I am offering to review any complaints about this article. Please make a clear statement following this on SPECIFIC items in the article which are unsuported by the sources used. If Mr Peake has changed his views then please post a link to any public statement of those changes and I will add a section to the article. Hamster (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

some points
  • [Peakes website]
  • "Using the latest findings of neurology, quantum physics and consciousness studies,"

This suggest Mr Peake is qualified to assess those fields specified on his oown website.Hamster (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'm going to comment on the essay linked to me above (I ended up being far too busy this evening), but from what I've read, Peake is certainly not qualified to say anything about quantum physics (surprise, surprise). A good refutation should be fairly easy for me to come by, and perhaps I can spin off a couple quick points to add to the article. - Grant (Talk) 05:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I only opffered because of a post in the saloon bar. A quick look at the article didnt show aqnything that was unsupported by references. Is it worth taking more time on this ? you and human seem to have things well in hand. Hamster (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak to Peake's philosophical ideas, as I'm no philosopher. The sources seem sound, and certainly the article's comments on his interesting "physics" are good (in fact, I don't think they go far enough, but I'll add more on that tomorrow). I'm not sure this article needs much in the way of the review, and Randall7's complaints seemed more rooted to a few comments made on this talk page than anything else. - Grant (Talk) 05:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in seeing your review, and appreciate your making the effort. Insofar as Peake being "unqualified" to comment on quantum physics: He cites others (David Bohm, and many others) quoting them and relating their own interpretations to his readers. Just as someone who has a degree in Marine Biology could nonetheless correctly quote Nietzsche and explain his theory regarding the geneology of morals, or quote Hegel and explain his dialectic of history (providing, of course, he had taken the time to read and understand these men and their theories). Does one have to be a medical doctor or psychiatrist to understand the etiology of clinical depression, and come to know what medications work and what their known risks and benefits are? There is such a thing as self-study, and we should not fulfill the prophesies about the arrogance of specialization. Peake is a Renaissance man; He nowhere claims to be a scientist. Cheers. Randall7 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7

Interpreting the work of others is one thing, but as I've mentioned several times, there are quite a few places in that essay in which he is fundamentally wrong. It has nothing to do with interpretations at that point. - Grant (Talk) 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I bow to your far greater expertise. As for Peake, I have never seen him unwilling to correct an error or admit to a mistake; he is constantly learning and growing. He is not arrogant in the least, which is why I defend him. He is a big enough man to modify anything which needs correction. Best, Randall7 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Randall7

Subject responds in own forum[edit]

[2] - any criticisms there worth addressing? - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read his works, but he seems to largely agree with the article's comments regarding quantum mechanics (aside from our claim that he has no science education). Of course, if he is indeed an autodidact, it would be nice if he published a peer-reviewed scientific paper or two to reflect that. As it is, I believe that statement in the article should still stand. Either way, it seems like he's mostly railing at the insinuations being made (e.g. that he's in it for the money), which I can't say much about. In terms of scientific merit, his claims that overlap with quantum mechanics are dubious at best, and I haven't seen any scientific sources showing otherwise. - Grant (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the comment on the Copenhagen interpretation actually seems to be superfluous in the article. I haven't read his book, but any scientific discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics is somewhat moot. These are only interpretations, after all, and they have no bearing on the physics involved. Moreover, at the moment there's no reason to believe it's possible to "prove" which interpretation is correct, so levelling the criticism that he relies on a literal interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation is a weird thing to do (and apparently, as per him, incorrect). I'm not about to buy his book(s) to find out what he really claims his views are, but either way the interpretations themselves don't provide much of scientific value. - Grant (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)