Talk:Paul Stamets

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the first paragraph of the intro describe Stamets as a mycologist? Dialectric (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The article on Paul Stamets has described Stamets as a mycologist in the lede since the article was created in November 2004‎. The talk page shows no concern about the word prior to September 2019, WP:RS references use the descriptor, and the notable work he has done involves mushrooms.

An editor recently removed 'mycologist', arguing that Stamets' lack of academic credentials or affiliation is justification for removing the description. Stamets does not have an advanced degree, but he has (1)coauthored peer reviewed papers in the field of mycology including Extracts of Polypore Mushroom Mycelia Reduce Viruses in Honey Bees published in Nature Scientific Reports (2) discovered and named several mushroom species including Psilocybe azurescens (Michael Pollen for the Atlantic). (3)written widely read technical books on mushroom cultivation (4)participated in a “diverse array of experiments — often in tandem with researchers at universities or nonprofit outfits” (from Discover Magazine).

Stamets and his work with mushrooms have been covered by numerous articles, which describe him as a mycologist. These include the Seattle Times, the NY Times2Discover Magazine and Nature Magazine. Stamets does promote mushroom supplements, and definitely has unorthodox views, some of which fall into WP:FRINGE, but this is also true of some more credentialed scientists, and concerns about this aspect of his work would be better addressed by addition of WP:RS criticism than removal of well referenced content.Dialectric (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support - While I understand while some would consider the use of the term wrong, since he doesn't have a degree, I think the word can be used due to his extensive work in the field. His lack of credential could be, should be and actually is mentioned in the article, however. Describing him as a "self-taught mycologist" sounds pretty good and immediately gives the general idea. On the other hand "self-taught botanist on mushroom topics" sound horrible and just makes it seem that whoever wrote that paragraph doesn't know the word "mycologist" and had to improvise. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Mycology is one of a few fields with heavy support from amateurs (another being astronomy). He does not have the typical academic credentials, but that is a separate issue. His whole career is mycology. --Nessie (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Better to just remove the term and focus on what he does as an advocate of bioremediation and medicinal use of fungi. The rather short section above, Talk:Paul_Stamets#Mycologist addressing this (this looks like a premature RfC with so little discussion), sums up my views already. The sources given like the Seattle Times, NYT, etc. really aren't that great for this content when a more self-stylized description without credentials runs into problems, not to mention that WP:ONUS policy is clear that the existence of sources doesn't guarantee inclusion. Being a coauthor on academic papers doesn't make you a biologist if you're a chemist, etc and don't have higher-level training as a biologist. You really need to pull from academic sources in such a situation when dealing with someone involved with WP:FRINGE topics where a person's description matters too. If it weren't for the fringe aspect, then the titles wouldn't matter as much, and comments like NessieVL's would carry more weight.

In short, there's no compelling reason to call him a mycologist given his background, and there are easy fixes to get around that which I just took a stab at. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - (I was asked by Zefr to comment here. I don't know why as I don't seem to have been involved with the article in any way. In any case, I disagree with Zefr so I don't see a foul here.) The Seattle Times, New York Times and Nature directly, without equivocation of any kind and in their own voices say Stamets is a mycologist. If your opinion runs counter to those of Nature and NYT, that's fine, but Stamets is verifiably a mycologist. While I understand the various arguments about whether or not it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. But if Nature says it's a duck, its a duck. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Except that doesn't address the main policy issue. WP:ONUS policy is very clear that being sourced isn't enough. Not to mention that Nature itself doesn't say what you claim. Barbara Kiser writing for them was reviewing a book that just namedrops Stamets. That's barely a tangential look at his credentials, so we can't really be making a statement that Nature says so. The question this RfC really should have boiled down to if it wasn't started prematurely is whether there's any legitimate reason to include calling him a mycologist in the article itself. So far, there isn't anything that tries to justify that other than saying sources exist, which violates WP:V policy, and we already have solutions that negate the need for this RfC anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

While I understand that verifiability does not mean it will be included, the three sources I mentioned (Seatle Times, New York Times, Nature) don't merely mention it in passing, it's their primary -- their only -- identification of him. Yes, a source might mention that Meryl Streep was once a waitress (I'm making this up), but I'm sure multiple sources identify her as an actress. So, Nature gives no other identity to Stamets than "mycologist Paul Stamets". Similarly, Discover has "crusading mycologist Paul Stamet" in the secondary headline, and by the second sentence he has become "the mycologist". Seattle Times labels him as "Paul Stamets, mycologist and Fungi Perfecti owner." For the New York Times, he is "Paul Stamets, a mycologist in Olympia, Wash." Against all of that, we've decided that he is an "author, blogger, and an advocate". I'm sure he's all of those things, but that large, flap-eared, tusked, land animal in the room is pretty clearly -- and verifiably -- an elephant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons given in my edit above under Mycologist and for the reasons presented in these RfC comments by Kingofaces43. The edits to the lede and other article sections yesterday and today leave the article in better shape. SummerPhDv2.0 said Stamets is verifiably a mycologist, but my point in the discussion above is that there is no academic verification of Stamets as a degree-holding mycologist, an academic title and discipline that would require earning a PhD. There is no WP:V for him as a mycologist (he apparently has a liberal arts degree with no major). WP:ONUS requires those wishing to call him a mycologist to verify his academic credentials. Stamets is a hobbyist with enthusiasm for mushrooms the way a gardener (with no botany degree) has enthusiasm for flowers. --Zefr (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Stamets is a professional and is widely recognized. It's hard for me to understand statements like the above from Zefr that say "Stamets is a hobbyist with enthusiasm for mushrooms the way a gardener (with no botany degree) has enthusiasm for flowers." Utterly ridiculous. Stamets is clearly not a hobbyist, as he is published, engaged in scientific peer-reviewed research, and has been running a succesful mushroom business as well as educational courses for many years now. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep a healthy skeptical view here, and challenge the IP user to look closer behind Stamets' marketing strategy of his mycologist reputation. The title mycologist implies a scientist's adherence to rigorous principles and practices, as expected for people who have actually earned an advanced degree for the title, mycologist. Breaking the code of scientist conduct just once - such as by teaching or publishing false information - can stigmatize and negatively isolate a career forever in the science community. Stamets' and his company advertise mushroom products as having diverse health benefits, such as here for several elaborate, unproven brain benefits (see diverse other false health claims under the tab, Benefits, for each of some 45 other "Host Defense®" mushroom products), none of which is proven by science or approved by the FDA. It's just a scam of made up nonsense sales-speak to impress upon unwary consumers that the self-described "mycologist" - whom consumers visiting his business site are asked to trust before surrendering their money - has discovered and proven all these countless health benefits of mushroom extracts or powders. He has not, and no one has. A true degree-holding mycologist wouldn't engage in reckless lying to scam consumers. Reviewing his business website and seeing the scam is why I came to this article and challenged his title of "mycologist". --Zefr (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Mushrooms have been used in traditional healing practices for quite a long time. And while all of the benefits may not be scientifically proven, Chinese medicine has, for example, made use of a variety of mushrooms for different purposes. Regardless, it is undeniable that in order to run a successful mushroom grow operation, a lot of science is definitely involved. To propagate mushroom spawn, maintain a sterile environment to prevent contamination, etc., some of these aspects literally require a laboratory environment, and repeatable refined practices are necessary. I would say that if there are concerns about some of the health claims that Stamets makes, then that deserves some space in the article. But while some perspectives may be fringe or controversial, that doesn't make him any less of a mycologist ... that may make him a somewhat controversial mycologist, but a mycologist all the same. For an analogy: I would argue that most farmers do not hold advanced degrees, yet we still consider them farmers ... a lot of them hold very different views, but at the end of the day, they are growing and producing food. If The New York Times considers Stamets a mycologist then perhaps we should take pause. Controversial, somewhat fringe, outspoken and kinda weird, etc.? Maybe so. But Paul Stamets is still a mycologist. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: Anyhow, you seem concerned about the reputation of Stamets more than anything. Please don't overlook the recently published peer-reviewed actual scientific work that he has participated in: Extracts of Polypore Mushroom Mycelia Reduce Viruses in Honey Bees [Nature]. The research study shows significant immunological benefits derived from mushrooms that aids bees and helps them to resist viral loads. Some real science there. I have read that report! Cheers. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: Further, I would like to ask if there are any reliable sources that challenge the credentials of Stamets, the viability of his work, or refute his published materials? We cannot rely on our own original research here at Wikipedia. Please provide references to any reliable sources that back your position that Stamets is somehow not a mycologist. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support of course. The article's subject is clearly an amateur mycologist, having no formal, academic credentials for it. It beggars credulity to see an RfC about such a trivially obvious issue or rather a non-issue. -The Gnome (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. He may not have an advanced degree in mycology, but the current wording of the article goes way too far the other way. I wouldn't characterize somebody who has written 19 blog posts in 24 years as a blogger. The article is now using a source that calls him a mycologist to support the statement that he "has a layman's interest in mushrooms". I don't think that anybody who makes a living with mushrooms whether by farming them, or foraging them to sell, is accurately described as a mycological "layman"; although I would not call all such persons "mycologists" (and a professional gardener isn't a layman with an enthusiasm for flowers). Stamets was the recipient of the Mycological Society of America's inaugral Gordon and Tina Wasson award (for nontraditional mycologists). While a PhD is now the usual route to expertise in a scientific field, it is not the only route. Christiaan Hendrik Persoon mycological expertise was self-taught. And having a PhD doesn't mean that somebody necessarily continues to work in the field of their degree (I have no objection to Mayim Bialik being called a neuroscientist, but she hasn't contributed to the field since receiving her degree). And having an advanced degree is not incompatible with making fringy claims or recklessly lying to scam consumers (cf. Mehmet Oz). Stamets is described as a mycologist in many sources (which often mention his lack of formal training), and he has been recognized by a major scholarly society for academically trained mycologists. "Self taught mycologist" is a fair way to describe him. Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Mycologist" is a title without professional or legal regulation. We have reasons to restrict use of the terms "physician", "lawyer", "professor", and similar to those people who get the institutional recognition which those titles imply. In contrast, all sorts of people are mycologists, so we do not need to restrict use of the term. Even if there were restricts, Stamets has an unusually prominent public image as a mycologist. I lived in Seattle in the 2000s and Stamets was a regular at all sorts of events in that region in that era where he spoke on the topic of mycology. The region has a culture of presenting pop science conferences and he was a regular presenter at those. There are many mycological societies in the region, and for example everyone at the Puget Sound Mycological Society where I was a member knew of him and his works and the fact that he lived close and so frequently spoke on mycology. To the extent that there is a culture of mycology, Stamets has been the biggest contemporary name in the field for the longest amount of time, especially in the popular perception and public visibility. I would expect that no one has presented on the topic of mycology at more conferences and public scheduled events than Stamets. Most of this was in the era just before online documentation. If all this happened now the online media record would be easier to find. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Perspective: Bluerasberry, your description of Stamets' reputation in the Pacific Northwest is well-known from public media, and convinces that he loves mushrooms with diverse knowledge about them. But such background is unrigorous for an encyclopedia to define a "mycologist". It is more consistent with a Woozle effect, i.e., a "rural legend". While the majority of this RfC sides (as of 10 Sep 19) with calling him an "amateur mycologist", let's consider the bios of professional mycologists, such as USDA's Lodge or university biologist, Hibbett, both of whom would have spent 10+ years earning degrees in biology/mycology and scientific careers over 2-3 decades of peer-reviewed publishing to be recognized among professional peers as mycologists. In contrast to Stamets' undergraduate degree, hobby, and supplement business with mushrooms, the examples of Lodge and Hibbett are benchmarks for defining a mycologist. SummerPhDv2.0: in the pseudoscience of Stamets' speeches and business, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a quack (WP:QUACKS). (Paraphrasing from Jimmy Wales in QUACKS) "If science rejects your favoured mushroom therapy, Wikipedia is not the place to fix it. Instead, come up with robust, replicable scientific evidence, published in reputable journals, and then we will tell the world all about it." This RfC will support calling Stamets an amateur mycologist, but there is no rigorous peer-review to call him that (WP:ONUS). --Zefr (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: You raise various issues which I do not immediately see as relevant to this discussion. I think that your primary argument is that "mycologist" is a title which requires a credential to claim. Do you have any source to back up the idea that there is any formal or informal regulation on the use of titles like "mycologist", "biologist", "scientist"?. If any sources call a person "mycologist", then why challenge them when the term does not have a deep or formal meaning? You seem to be framing this as a discussion about the regulation of a title. If this is not about regulating the use of the title, then what are the important issues here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no WP:RS source defining that a mycologist is an informal title for hobbyists equal in WP:WEIGHT to the formal professional mycologist title. In science and medicine, having an "ist" at the end of a professional title means something. Biologist, chemist, pharmacologist, cardiologist. Titles earned by more than a decade of higher education, achievement of advanced degrees, appointment to a reputable institution, peer-reviewed publishing in quality journals, competitive grants with concrete outcomes, promotion to higher ranks, international respect from peers in the same discipline. Do we know if the international community of professional mycologists sees Stamets as a peer mycologist? There's no evidence that they do, especially if having reviewed the blatant fraud of false health claims on his business website and bizarre delusions in his speeches, both of which disaffirm his credibility and title as a scientist or mycologist. WP:ONUS is about consensus on reliable sources, but no article source has critically assessed Stamets as a mycologist (SummerPhDv2.0). WP:REDFLAG applies: "claims (of his being a professional mycologist) that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" (of professional mycologists). --Zefr (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be asking that reliable source cite sources and provide backup for their statements and respond to your definition of terms. (This, of course, would demand that the sources' sources cite their sources and so on, down the rabbit hole.) Essentially, you seem to be saying that your opinion that he is not a mycologist should replace the judgements of Nature, Seattle Times, New York Times and Discover (among others) that he is a mycologist. Are you really saying Nature and the New York Times determinations should be superseded by yours?

Your borderline WP:BLP-violations in this discussion could easily be applied to deny the credentials of numerous credentialed media personalities. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, Nature, Seattle Times, New York Times and Discover (among others) do not merely mention at some point that Stamets is a mycologist, they define him as a mycologist. Milla Kunis is an actress, Stamets is a mycologist, the large animal with a trunk in the room is an elephant. Whatever the quality of her work, we aren't going to avoid calling Kunis an actress because she doesn't have a PhD, her work is weak and you want more than Nature and the New York Times calling her an actress. The sources say Kunis is an actress, she is verifiably an actress. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - On paper he may not have the qualifications but his extensive work in the field certainly qualifies him as one. It is not our position to decide whether he is or isn't qualified. Let's report what reliable sources have to say. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:No original research is a basic and important principle to how Wikipedia functions. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as lower-case "mycologist" but not "Mycologist." As mentioned above, some professions are licensed and some self-proclaimed. Stamets can be a mycologist even though he has a dietary supplement business that rests on dubious science. In the U.S., the entire dietary supplement industry is only lightly regulated. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support, with some caveats It's a tough call, I have to say. As a general matter, I think its problematic to include a title which imparts to the reader an implication of a certain degree of formal training in an empirical biological field where no such formal education and traditional credentials exist. On the other hand, as others have noted already, at the end of the day this is a WP:WEIGHT matter, not one to be determined primarily by our own idiosyncratic breakdown / original research as to what qualifies the article's subject to hold this or that position. Now, one might argue that meeting WP:V is not in itself sufficient to justify inclusion of particular claim or label (see WP:ONUS) and that the label might be omitted, even if arising out of WP:RS, if we feel that it would be misleading to the reader in some way. So I did go back and forth on the matter as a consequence of that legitimate concern. However, when considering the full context of the label and the quality of the sources, I have to lean towards inclusion.

However, its worth pointing out that we should probably be considering the question of whether to include it in full context, so we know exactly what is being said regarding the main's professional and academic status, rather than !voting the inclusion of the word itself up or down. I'm concerned that a number of editors, even when supporting using this title for the man, have alluded to the WP:fringe status of the man's views on the field, and yet I see no mention of any of this in the article, and thus (as someone unfamiliar with his work, claims, or business ventures) would be completely unaware of these facets of the man's notability from reading the article alone. Using a formal title typically restrained to trained academics possessing advanced degrees in a scientific field and doing empirical work at an independent research institution does run the risk of bootstrapping the credibility of the subject some. So either further discussion of any controversial statements the man may have made in his relationship to the field might be necessary if we are to label him with said formal title.

However, again, even better would be to look at specific wording relating to how the title is applied. If it's a matter of sticking it (unqualified) into the lead sentence, extra care will need to be taken to make sure the information noting that he holds no degree related tot he field (currently in the awkwardly titled "Mushroom interest" section) is not thereafter removed, and also to keep an eye on any claims relating to scientific topics which may arise in the article in the future. Context is important here, and while I appreciate the straightforward RfC prompt here, I think we need to be careful of not losing site of the forest for the trees. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You partly summarize why this RfC is moot. It doesn't address specific content, and it was launched before a content-specific question could be crafted in normal discussion to fine-tune language. Even with that in mind, we've already moved beyond the question of whether to call him a mycologist with content like this or this. The focus should indeed be more on what he does rather than title, but that's better left for normal editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Actually, we haven't moved beyond the question of whether or not to call Stamets a mycologist ... though it would seem there is a fair amount of support for referring to Stamets as a "self-trained mycologist" as specific academic credentials are not required for such a designation. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"We are biased towards science." There's something more at stake here than just deciding whether Stamets can be called a mycologist. Reviewing several videos of his speeches reveals a brilliant mind and memory, extensive knowledge of mushroom species, charisma, arrogance, fast talking, and evangelist-like persuasion of the audience to applaud his discoveries, showing outrageously how "mushrooms can save the world" (reminds of WP:FLAT). The videos also display him as a lunatic (lunatic as in WP:QUACKS). He says mycelia are "sentient", comprise a "neurological network" that can communicate with humans, have "intelligence", and are a "defense against smallpox" (globally eradicated in 1980), among other bizarre delusions presented in the 2013 Discover article and elsewhere, and mentioned in this RfC comment (mycelia are related to dark matter, his mushroom hat is medicinal, mushrooms cure cancer). Stamets himself admits his ideas are weird, and Pollan sensed the implausible grandiose theories.

Snow Rise inferred a caveat that we are obligated to identify negative attributes if we concede to calling Stamets a mycologist. Like those of a snake oil salesman, Stamets' public speeches are laced with technical terms that fly fast and high over the heads of his lay audiences, while making leaps of interpretation to impossible conclusions intended to impress and create agreement, and probably, new customers for his falsely-advertised mushroom supplements. The caveat is needed for context of how Wikipedia should present an amateur mycologist (or any supposed scientist) who is also a huckster peddling unproven natural products advertised as disease preventatives, example here under "Benefits".

On Wikipedia, we don't give light to charlatans without using prominent caveats, such as in the articles of the con artists, Joseph Mercola as a "radiologist", Luigi di Bella as an "oncologist", or Mehmet Oz (Dr. Oz), as a trusted "internist". Guy Macon wrote: Yes, we are biased. Paraphrasing, Wikipedia is 1) biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience scams and mushroom products advertised with outlandish, unproven health properties; 2) biased towards evidence-based medicine, and biased against homeopathy using mushrooms to cure cancer, smallpox, or other diseases; and 3) biased towards medical treatments proven to be effective by high-quality clinical research, and biased against supplements advertised to prey on vulnerable and gullible consumers persuaded by a "mycologist" to use his mushroom products and ignore physician-prescribed medicines. Mushrooms and Stamets don't have the category visibility to attract critical attention as Oz or Mercola have, so WP:RS sources are absent to uncover his delusions and deceit. This RfC will democratically identify him as a mycologist, but a caveat is needed to show that this title enhances his credibility and opportunity to deceive consumers of his company's products. --Zefr (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - first paragraph of the intro describing Stamets as a mycologist. Actually, it's difficult finding any source that doesn't describe him as a mycologist. A couple found through Google Scholar (out of many) - Paul Stamets...has been a mycologist and mushroom enthusiast for more than 30 years. and Paul E. Stamets, DSc (Hon) mycologist, author and advocate of bioremediation and medicinal mushrooms. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is far out of proportion. Forget it and get real. It's not as though we were saying "THE mycologist". Walls of text on a matter that hardly demands a discussion at all! JonRichfield (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support with qualifications. I think it would be better to write "self-taught mycologist" rather than leaving the impression that he is an academically trained mycologist. ("Amateur mycologist" appears incorrect as he has a related business.) But he has clearly published on mushrooms; that is enough to make him a mycologist, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. A person who heads a company dealing with mushrom and who has written several books on the subject by definition deals with Mycology, which makes him a mycologist regardless of an official degree. “WarKosign” 05:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry I am new to Wiki edits, and posted my response in the wrong section of Talk. I was searching for Paul Stamet, and was a bit shocked to see him listed as just an American Businessman in his introduction, when his life's work has been in the field of Mycology. The Cambridge Dictionary definition of a mycologist is; "a person who studies mycology (=the science of fungi). For over 40 years Paul Stamets has indeed studied fungi, cultivated mushrooms ( and patented new cultivation techniques) , worked with numerous reputable institutions researching fungi, holds several mycological based patents, has discovered and named several mushrooms, is referenced in many distinguished journals and articles as a mycologist, and has been referenced by many current academically and amateurly trained mycologist as their inspiration in the field. I would not simply leave this argument claiming Paul Staments is in fact a practicing mycologist, I would argue that he is the preeminent mycologist in the United States. If you are going to contend that Paul Staments is not a mycologist, please edit Jane Goodall's wiki page as well. By the logic of those opposing Staments as a mycologist, Goodall is not a primatologist or anthropologist as stated in her wiki. Who arbitrates this dispute? I also think whomever changed my edit has something against Mr Stamets. Listing him as a businessman instead of an author, entrepreneur, speaker, and Mycologist seems to have a negative connotation the way it is written. I think a review is in order and call for a resolution. Clearly, the vast majority of people on this thread list Mr Stamets as a Mycologist. --Yousavvy (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Keithdyer101 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)