Talk:Parapsychology

Wasn't me

Ghostbusters in Popular Culture new heading?? Wasn't me, guys. Just wanted to say so. I sign my work as a rule.--nemonoman (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an FA article, and must be treated as such. Really contentious edits, since this is a contentious article, should be discussed first. Or, if reverted, discussed then. I have reverted to a much more consensus version, though not all the way back to where it became FA. I will insist that this article is well treated, and that consensus editing is observed from now on. I will ask for mediation later today, if it is not. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Strassman

Strassman doesn't think that DMT causes NDEs, he thinks NDEs are MEDIATED by DMT. That is, he thinks that DMT facilitates the spirit's entry into and exit from the body. For Strassman, NDEs are essentially veridical perceptions of what is happening to the spirit near the point of death. It is quite wrong therefore, to portray Strassman as suggesting that NDEs are essentially hallucinatory dream-like states.AidenCoyle (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

quite right. I think the changes reflect his position more closely--that was careless of me, sorry.--Asdfg12345 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientists don't reject life after death

Look, I'm agnostic/borderline atheist, but it can't really be claimed that scientists "reject" life after death[1] when about two-thirds of scientists believe in a god according to a recent survey published in Live Science[2]. According to the survey, only 38 percent of natural scientists, those who would be predisposed to being philosophically materialist, "reject" God. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I would never have thought that. There seems to be a bit of a assumption among laypeople that all scientists are atheist.

Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Trying to make a statement about this idea at all is silly in a way because "life after death" is an oxymoron in the observable sense in the same way that "existence after annihilation" is an oxymoron. On the other hand, for those who believe in "life after death" for religious reasons, the term "death" itself is a misnomer. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source on Categorizing Parapsychology as Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Parapsychology category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Parapsychology category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Start with references 10 & 11. — Scientizzle 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you. I can see that from those 2 references some scientists and educators call parapsychology pseudoscience. By your understanding does that mean it is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community? This would be the requirement for sustaining the Pseudoscience category to this page and category by WP:PSCI.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're correct or not in your interpretation. The arbitrators were so darn vague I don't really know what to think. For example they could have said "no, you don't need comprehensive sourcing" or "yes, you do." However, just a comment: source 10 is to be taken out- a quotation confirming it says what it is supposed to say has been requested multiple times above, and the request utterly ignored. Therefore, I conclude it probably doesn't say that. Source 11 is a blog. And FYI, no, per the sources parapsychology is generally considered science, not pseudoscience. I refer to Hyman, Alcock, Randi, and others. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More on referencing

Cosmic Variance is generally enjoyable and I usually find it accurate. That does not make it WP:RS for other than that Carroll has come to the conclusion that parapsychology is PS. If there are no objections, I will remove the source in a day or three.

The Layton citation is, I believe, doi:10.1080/03057267408559816, and I think first appeared here back in February. The Centre for Studies in Science Education website does not mention parapsychology or pseudoscience. (In other news, this article gets far too many edits, making WikiBlame annoying to use.)

I am wondering if we can apply a little simplicity to eliminate or minimize instances of "science" and its derivatives; even from a 'let us use this article as a vehicle to promote rational conjecture woo-woo paranormal suXors' perspective, the NAS 1988 quote in the lead is far more powerful. Obviously it is possible to conduct well-designed experiments to test for lawful (or at least probabilistic) paranormal events; discussion of the character and results of the experiments that have been conducted forms the bulk of this article. Equally obviously, most scientists do not consider paranormal hypotheses (intention to treat notwithstanding), and "most scientists do not believe that psi exists" (Druckman & Swets 1988, p172). Whether rigorous experimental design to test hypotheses which contradict or ignore the vast interconnected tapestry of prior knowledge and have to date not produced any results that are both encouraging and trustworthy should be characterized as "science" and those who do so as members of the "scientific community" I think should be left as an exercise to the reader. Let us describe the evidence base, relate the relevant opinions and conclusions, and move on.

The NSF's Science and Engineering Indicators reports regularly conflate paranormal phenomena with pseudoscience (e.g. [3], [4]). Obviously the category is appropriate.

The APA indexes a number of psychology journals. These are almost unanimous (a few articles and editorials out of hundreds of hits; a comparison of journal quality and scitation index might be instructive here but would be WP:OR in the article) in treating paranormal phenomena as 'how interesting that people believe things for which there is neither evidence nor rational mechanism' rather than as themselves a subject for research (representative examples: [5], [6]). - Eldereft (cont.) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't deal with this today, but I'll get back to you. "Both encouraging and trustworthy" see the last Hyman quote in the analysis section of the Ganzfeld article. I am in the process of reaserching the NAS thing. The problems are numerous, but I'm not sure how they translate to wiki: they broke their rules by not having any psychic researchers on the committee. They had 2 CSICOP researchers on the committee, who had already written previously the committee's conclusion. They tried to eliminate positive papers. The paper authors complained. And it is dreadfully out-dated. etc. The NAS report is what we consider the bestest of sources, as it gives a wonderful sound bite, and it's from NAS. Yet being a fair editor, do you think any of these things matter in WP? Especially being out-dated.

Pseudoscience category: don't care.

I do object to the way that parapsychology is not considered a good source. They have peer reviewed journals. Since we are not going to be stating facts, and can attribute everything, why are we made to stick to articles which have appeared in non-parapsychological journals? Why are writers in the field like Radin not considered good sources? There is no other science article where we ignore journals, textbooks, and expert-written books specially dedicated to the subject. I can only think it's merely because editors think parapsychology is pseudoscience. I don' think we can assume that as wiki writers. Again, this promotes no view: it's about the subject, and everything attributed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is possible that you may have taken that more negatively than I intended. And please, take your time - I have no interest in tearing the article apart before the deadline.

I should clarify that I think that Category:Pseudoscience does not need to be on this article as long as Category:Parapsychology is a proper subset thereof. I originally wrote what became the start of this section as a reply to the preceding section about the category, and appear not to have edited sufficiently after I decided that it really exceeded the remit of that section. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not concerned about the category at all. That is an analysis for another day far in the future when other things on wiki are straightened out. Maybe I'll get to it in a year. I do think there is a problem with having "parapsychologists" under "parapsychology" when "parapsychology" is under "pseudoscience." But nevermind.

The thing with calling it pseudoscience, is that I can round up plenty of skeptical sources saying it isn't pseudoscience. So we could easily say something like that skeptics disagree on this. But that would get attacked over and over again, and it would be better to just leave it out. So I guess we agree on this.

I think that "science" should be part of the definition. That has remained fairly stable for quite a while. It also has plenty of support, though a few wiki editors object.

Basically, I don't think we need to treat this one instance as different from other instances of science. For instance, Alcock says

"As a result, parapsychologists and skeptical scientists most often speak to each other in a dialogue aux sourds, a dialogue of the deaf. Yet, it is always a good thing to try to build bridges in the hope of bringing intellectual protagonists together, and this special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, which includes articles by some of the leading proponents and critics of parapsychology, may help build such a bridge. As much as they may differ in terms of their views on the paranormal, it is important to note that the contributors are ‘all on the same side’ in at least one important way: all share a deep respect for science and are committed to the scientific method as the appropriate approach to exploring reality. They are all seeking truth, not delusion; fact, not fiction. Arguably, the only significant differences that distinguish the proponents from the sceptics in this collection of articles are in terms of their a priori subjective weighings of the likelihood that psychic phenomena exist, which in turn may influence their evaluations of the adequacy of the research protocols that have been employed in parapsychological research and the quality of the data thus obtained."

That's from Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi which is a classic skeptical tract. What I would like to do is to cover parapsychology primarily, not how parapsychology is viewed from outside . That should also be covered, but it is a separate topic (yes, we do mainly cover parapsychology, but the tone isn't too consistent especially in the lead, and many sections which ought to be there have been left out because of the attacks). The main bulk of parapsychology is what the field has done, and the views of people outside the field are a very significant view to be covered. But they should not be the bulk of the article, nor should we write the article through that lense, as if everything has to be positioned relative to that POV.

In a very basic way, we need to get away from viewing parapsychology through the eyes of truth. We should not deal with whether or not it is science, just like you say. But, we should also not make a conscious effort to avoid treating it in the same manner as any other science. It is intrinsically a scientific subject- you can't treat it as a topic of culture, for example. I believe that while noting and describing skepticism, and also noting the reaction of the scientific community outside the field, that we should treat it like any other science, and that we need to go around to other science topics and look at them. For example:

"Psychology (from Greek ψῡχή, psȳkhē, "breath, life, soul"; and -λογία, -logia) is an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including issues related to everyday life (e.g. family, education, and employment) and the treatment of mental health problems. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of these functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the underlying physiological and neurological processes. Psychology includes many sub-fields of study and application concerned with such areas as human development, sports, health, industry, media, and law." [7]

In this article, of course, criticism is much more notable, so we give it part of the lead. Let's model this article on that or something similar. Let's try to minimize the differences between this article and others. I think this article, at lest in the lead, somehow has a distinct attitude of strain and non-professionalism which has come about through the stress of trying to write it through the filter of "what would the skeptic think." Note this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Alcock quote:

"Those in the scientific community who have little familiarity with parapsychology are often unaware of the wide spectrum of opinion, expertise and degree of respect for science, that exists amongst those who call themselves parapsychologists. At one end are those described in the last paragraph, of whom some have contributed to this volume. At the other are numerous writers and researchers who view science as an inadequate tool for grappling with the mysteries of the paranormal, and who base their beliefs in the paranormal solely on the kinds of experiences served up by trance mediums, putative apparitions, and so forth. Their writings are not to be found in this Special Issue, nor are the writings of those who believe that the verdict is already in, that parapsychology has long since established a sound scientific footing for paranormal phenomena and no controversy remains. (Indeed, this touches on a demarcation problem, in that scholarly, research-oriented parapsychologists reserve the label of ‘parapsychologist’ for themselves, and do not consider members of the general public who use this title to be parapsychologists. This important distinction is often difficult to make for those outside parapsychology.)"

This article only covers academic parapsychology, not the non- or pseudoscientific kind. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will grapple with this more fully when I am not baking, but one quick question - where do we treat the "other" kind of parapsychology? And what about the people who study magical thinking? As you (MΦ) know, I am new to this article, but I can certainly see the point to separate the people who make systematic investigations from the people who say that an out of focus bug on a video lens is proof of ghosts. Really, the only point which at this point I know will brook no compromise is the fact that most scientists do not think that psi exist. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most scientists don't think that psi exists. Not that they studied the matter. I don't know why 1) a scientist who hasn't studied the matter would have such a strong opinion, except for psychological reasons, or 2) why people here think it is such a big deal: who ever thinks that the opinion of a group of non-experts is such a big deal? You should read some of the criticisms they get- dreadfully ignorant. But anyway....

We treat the other aspects in articles like Orgone, Ghost, Ghost hunting, Evoip, etc.

BTW, the name was because way back when I started out editing the Phi losophy article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, see, we are in the midst of an argument between religion and science, and that is why such strong feelings accrue to this subject. Any such things are considered religion masquerading as science. I think we need to stay as far as possible from those feelings. They aren't appropriate to the article or the discussion. You have to ask why people are so bent on flinging accusations? You have to ask why the real skeptics like Randi and Alcock don't fling accusations, but say "no, actually it's science." You have to ask why Nature would publish an article called "A book for burning" about a parapsychologist's book. This relates here because our question is, "how do we want to build the article relative to that" and "do we want to let that influence the coverage." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should also cover the non-scientific kind of parapsychology. The word "parapsychology" is in common use for two somewhat-related purposes. Readers will hear of the non-scientific "ghostbusting" variety of parapsychology and come here to learn more. This page should inform them, in a section dedicated to the subject. That section should make clear the difference between parapsychology that uses the scientific method and the other sort. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That Tart

Copied from my talk. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only Charles Tart is given extra credit for composing parts of "FAQ about Parapsychology", which is the origin of this statement. I think it is important to learn more about Tart and his reputation: especially concerning remote viewing. Thus the Tart link. Well maybe " According to Charles Tart and other parapsychologists." Kazuba (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but the organization of that page certainly seems to imply endorsement by The Parapsychological Association. I have not found any major dispute to the point that most parapsychologists believe that the existence of psi is supported by the evidence, and the current language clearly indicates that this consensus is within the parapsychological community only. There is some dispute as to whether parapsychologists tend to test neutrally for the existence of psi or set out to prove the same, but that is a different point. I have no objection to mentioning Tart at an appropriate juncture in the article, but I am not convinced that he is prominent enough to the subject to be singled out and cited in the lead. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fraud

What's going on with the recent edits in the Fraud section? The edits by User:Kazuba seem bizarre, and I'm not sure if other editors have entirely fixed them. The phrase "Although no formal statements or publications from the McDonnell laboratory supported the likelihood that the effects demonstrated by the two magicians were genuine" remains removed, when it seems very relevant info. After irrelevant additions about "mania" were removed, we're now getting another seemly misleading addition about the use of trickery in psychology experiments. What gives? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Project alpha was not quite the success some claim so its important to not present it as if it is completely agreed upon. The stuff about trickery is about a totally different point and should go. And the stuff about numerous psychology text books - a source would be nice. Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to the version before the weird edits started. If anyone wants to change this, please make one change at a time and give clear reasons. The text may not be perfect, but many of the revisions seemed to be making it worse. Please be ready to explain edits here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some [weird?] questions: Where were you and how much interest did you have in parapsychology in the 1970s? It was out of control. I gave a source for a psychology text book containing Randi's expertise as requested by Landed little marson. Parapsychology likes to compare itself to psychology. There is a world of difference. Only psychology, and not parapsychology, has made any progress in the last hundred years. It is unlikely to change. Parapasychology has a very difficult time accepting that mania and delusions really do exist. There has to be PSI. Does there? Why? Oh yeah, Jesus had psychic powers. WOW. Project Alpha was not only about bending metal. Go read about all of it. My favorite is the spit on the camera lens.Kazuba (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you have strong opinions on this matter. The thing is, it is hard to tell how your edits are relevant to the subject. The word "mania" has a number of meanings. It is very unclear both a) what you meant by it in this context, and b) whether it was a word used by any of the people involved in the events being described, or by any other reliable source in reference to these events. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your personal opinions, there is a policy against that called no original research. Our job is to relate what reliable sources have said about parapsychology, and about the specific event under discussion. It is not at all clear that you have been doing that. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a look at your latest edit Kazuba. It's much better, it's now clear what you are saying Randi claims. You're saying that Randi claims that project alpha succeeded at fooling parapsychologists with demonstrations of fake psychic abilities. The text previously said that project alpha failed to deceive the parapsychologists. I do not know the history of these experiments, I was only commenting that the text had previously become an unreadable mixture of seemingly unrelated assertions. But I see now that the version of events you've written will be controversial here, because some people edit here to defend parapsychology. Do you have a quote from the Randi book saying that project alpha was a success? That would help, and we could also rephrase the text to say "In X book Randi claims Y". That way it's clear who the source of the assertion is. If there are published sources that disagree with Randi's assertion that project alpha was a success, then other editors can cite them too. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. In the mean time ask yourself this question: If Randi's hoax had not been a success why were the "psychics" tested for three years? It used to be thought by parapsychologists that if you searched a subject's pockets you could avoid being taken by a magician's wiles. The craft of magic is much more than what is in your pockets. Muggles wholly under estimate con artists, like us. Most likely they always will. They have yet to learn how to sink to our level. Check out Ingo Swann and my user page. Kazuba (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Thalbourne source on the project alpha page shows clearly that Randi's account is far from the whole story. If alpha is to be discussed then it needs to be covered accurately. For example, only informal testing was done, that's why there are no published papers alleging psychic functioning by the hoaxers. Success? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on who you believe. Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a controversial issue. It is not up to us to decide the facts of the matter. We just cite reliable sources, in order to make it clear where each point of view comes from. If Randi makes claims in a book that are pertinent to the subject, then that book is a reliable source of information about his opinions, which can be quoted. If someone else makes relevant claims in a reliable source, then their point of view can be quoted in opposition to Randi's. So long as we make it clear who each POV belongs to and we don't introduce uncited POVs, then we are following WP:NPOV correctly. Even if we can't find reliable sources for opposing POVs, we can still cite Randi. There is no requirement to balance each statement with a counter-statement, if no reliable source can be found to support the counter-statement. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've attributed the claim of success to Randi. Is there any controversy over the statement that "The McDonnell laboratory did not make any formal statements or publications suggesting that the effects demonstrated by the two magicians were genuine"? If so this statement will need a cited attribution too. Are there any claims that the parapsychologists were not tricked, that have been published in reliable sources? Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Thalbourne. Long ago Thalbourne send me a copy of his paper. I sent a copy to the Skeptical Inquirer magazine. They refused to print it. Paul Kurtz went bonkers. (There is more to this story) It is true only exploratory testing was done. Why for a period of three years? According to Randi: "The Washington University staff initially reported to their colleagues on this remarkable set of miracles, they wrote many varieties of psycho-kinetic results had been obtained in their lab. They even presented a slide show and a videotape to prove their case. But when I was allowed to participate by showing a videotape of admittedly faked psychic trickery-some of which had been used by the Alpha subjects in the in the Washington University tape-the written report was hastily recalled and modifiers like "purportedly" and "apparent" were inserted in the formerly naive account. My Alpha experiment was remarkably well received by PA members. It had consisted of planting two "moles" in a exceedingly well-funded parapsychology lab to see if the researchers were really as naive as they seemed. They were. As a result, we can hope that future experiments will be better controlled." The Skeptic's Handbook of Parapyschology, edited by Paul Kurtz, Chapter 14, The Role of Conjurers in Psi Research by James Randi, Pages 341 and 342, Prometheus Books, 1985. Parapsychologists have long claimed they are a part of Psychology. Deception is often used in psychology experiments. This time it was used in parpsychology experiments. Not everyone saw that the deceivers had kept within the proper boundaries demanded by science. Thalbourne claims Randi and his duo stepped outside the proper boundaries. The duo even broke into the lab at night. (A professional con artist does not care much about boundaries; take Ingo Swann for example) It is best to gather as much data as possible when examining a mystery. Enjoy the detective work. Don't be in a hurry to believe things. The more data the more complex. Kazuba (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the statement that "The McDonnell laboratory did not make any formal statements or publications suggesting that the effects demonstrated by the two magicians were genuine" is disputed by Randi. Do you consider that it is highly disputed and should be removed, or that it is mildly disputed and we should mark it as requiring a citation? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is in a hurry to say they, scientists, blew, what was it $500,000? and got fooled by a couple of kids and an old cranky magician. The McDonnell laboratory just closed up shop. Grant money for parapsycholgy in US universities turned into just a tiny trickle, labs closed up, and it has stayed that way. I think that says something. Just like the Stargate Project that blew 20 million dollars on remote viewing. No one wants to look foolish. Best to say nothing. Especially if it involves your reputation, ego and money. Kazuba (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What you say may well be true, but you need references to put those kind of statements in a Wikipedia article. We need to be able to say "X said Y" and cite a source, as per the verifiability policy. I gather from your user page that you like to see yourself as a maverick, but it's tiring reverting edits that don't follow policy so please find sources for your assertions before adding them, and cite those references against the statements you add. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not like to see myself as a maverick, but as a puzzler. It just turned out that way. Like I wrote, I have a bad habit of not recording the sources for everything I read. I like to read for fun. I list the cited sources when I (kind of easily) can. But I am not going to add a cited source for every sentence I contribute. I think that is asking for too much. Some of it is just common sense. I have strong doubts anyone examines my cited sources to check them out anyway. And cited sources just don't seem to matter if what I contribute is not pleasing to the reader. It is just deleted. I don't feel like arguing and fighting about this stuff. That is why I created my lengthy user preservation page. I try to do my best. Kazuba (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only asking you to follow policy. If you add something that you think is common sense and people revert it, then it needs citation. People's ideas of common sense differ, especially in controversial topics like this. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is not controversial to me. [It may be controversial to those who know very little about it] It is the same old, same old. Psychology has made many advances in the last hundred years. Parapsycholgy has only added statistics. With fellows like Dean Radin, and his gently touched bent spoon, at the top, praise for the latest quack, and a continued disregard for the advice of professional magicians, parapsychology is going nowhere. Parapsychology will remain a deviant science. Thalbourne really got burned. First Uri Geller and then Project Alpha. I just like magic and its history. Check out our boy Derren Brown. I'm outta here. Take care.Kazuba (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy means people disagreeing on something. You have firm beliefs on the subject, other people have opposing beliefs = controversy. Saying "it's not controversial to me" is meaningless, unless you're in the habit of disagreeing with yourself. It sounds like you know a bit about the subject, at least enough to identify sources. If you could follow the neutral point of view policy then you could be an asset here. Point of views need to be presented as such, not as "fact".Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in agreeing or disagreeing. I like to investigate. Just for the joy it brings me. I have watched parapsychology get no where for the last 45 years. Psychology has made advances in the last hundred years. Parapsychology has made none. They have only added statistics. Some parapsychologists (not all) do not use the same statistics as everyone else. They only use the ones that will make themselves look good. These are facts. This is not a point of view. Watch it for the next 50 years yourself and you will see what I am talking about.Kazuba (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Article too long

Shouldn't we collapse this article to just a sentence? I mean, we all know it's a pseudoscience, let's just call it that, everyone who works in the field a quack, and state that if you believe it's a science, you're a dumbass. An article like this isn't helpful if it's as long as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenada4fun (talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom redux

I have filed a request for amendment related to the Paranormal arbitration case. All interested parties are invited to respond. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sourcing

Could someone clarify for me the definition of a "reliable source" when it comes to paranormal articles on here? I came across the fact that a blog was considered a reliable source for an article. If I'm understanding this correctly, skeptical sources are reliable because they are skeptical. If this is the case, could someone confirm this for me? Because if so, I intend to remove any articles written by a parapsychologist or by a proponent of parapsychology from the references. Like it or not, skeptical IS neutral, and as long as one editor agrees, I intend to make sure that this article stays neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.73.101 (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the relevant policy is Self published sources. The Parapsychological Association is perfectly appropriate for sourcing the claims of parapsychologists. Independent, third party sources (such as skeptical sources, though they still need to be [[WP:RS|reliable in the ordinary sense) are required for contentious statements, such as how everyone else receives their work. Fringe theories and Verifiability#Redflag also provide useful guidance. Please propose specific changes before wholesale gutting the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources because they are self-published. The exception is that "material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication". In other words, if the author of the blog is an accepted expert on the specific subject, then their blog may be acceptable as a reliable source. Your understanding that "skeptical sources are reliable because they are skeptical" is definitely incorrect. All sources, skeptical or otherwise, must meet the same standard as reliable sources in order to ensure verifiability. Do not remove all the parapsychology sources, instead please read the neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia's definition of neutral point of view is that all significant points of view must be presented. It is true that this is an article about a fringe science so we need to be careful of how assertions from pro-parapsychology sources are presented. However, all sides of the story must still be told. You might want to have a good read through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before starting into major edits - the ones I've linked to above are a good place to start. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:124.171.26.66

This anonymous user has made good-faith edits cutting out some references and changing wording, claiming to be enforcing WP:NPOV, from the edit summaries. Some objections:

• There is no reason for the number of references on one side of the debate to equal the number of refs on the other, especially not when one is a mainstream scientific position and the other is not.
• The references "for" Psi from respected sources should be edited in, not contrary references edited out. Otherwise, people can just claim to have respectable sources for whatever they want without producing them.
• The "scientific community" can have a position without that implying that every scientist takes that position.

Edits reverted but you are invited to have another go at improving the text with the above considerations in mind. Cheers,MartinPoulter (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

Hi,

in the introduction, I found the following note:

In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences produced a report that concluded that there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." (Druckman, D. and Swets, J. A. eds. (1988). 'Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories and Techniques'. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.. p. 22. ISBN 0-309-07465-7.)

Is this really neccessary for an introduction part of an article? This statement says that scientific research is only justified by it's success. Take another example: since the advent of the universities in ancient medieval times, theology has it's place at university. Saint Thomas Aquinas discussed in the 13. century in deep the question "utrum sit theologia scientia?" (why theology is a science?) in his Summa. Theology is derived from the greek word θεολογία, theologia, from θεός, theos or God and λόγος or logos, "words", "teachings". In scholasticism, several proofs of God were discussed, but the existance of God is not proven until today due to the divine properties which exclude him from the visible world (Immanuel Kant). Nevertheless, God is a topic of scientific research in theology until today, and theology remains a science.

Psi phenomena are not God. They are not as "hard" as matter. In parapsychology, one knows about the difficulty, to prove psi with traditional scientific methods: "Does Psi Exist and Can we Prove It? Belief and Disbelief in Parapsychological Research. In: European Journal of Parapsychology, Volume 21.1 (2006), 38-57.). Why is parapsychological not justified while theological research is justified at the universities for many centuries? In the same manner, I could ask, whether psychology, the "words or teachings of the psyche, soul) has proven the existence of the soul. Nevertheless, psychology is unquestioned. Why parapsychology? --yagosaga 09:30, 29. Jan. 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.133.68.184 (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

recent changes

I don't think the recent changes to the introduction are acceptable. As Ryan noted, the view that parapsychology is pseudoscience is disputed and should not be presented as fact. The sources are also not the best and it would be interesting to see what they actually say. One appears to be about psychoanalysis rather than parapsychology. Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the word to discipline. The article as a whole is already heavily and obviously slanted against the subject, I don't think it helps any to throw this in the lede. That's apart from how it steps on NPOV policy etc..--Asdfg12345 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Blitz article is a good reliable source regarding the scientific status of parapsychology, and we should find a place for it in the article. It is a well-considered discussion of the argument of Mario Bunge that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, in a psychology journal. Blitz takes a nuanced position that "Rhinean" parapsychology could now be considered a pseudoscience, because it has had enough time to prove the existence of what it is studying and has failed to do so, but that originally it might better be considered a "quasi-science", a field of study for which the outcome was at that time unknown. I'll have a look at the other sources, too. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not able to access the "Battling pseudoscience" article from "The Futurist" online, through the academic databases I can access. If anyone finds a link for it let me know. But I'll add the Blitz source to the "pseudoscience" statement in the second paragraph of the lead, it's a solid reliable source and it does conclude that parapsychology is now a pseudoscience. Of course, that conclusion is just a point of view, and is a debated perspective among academics. Which is why it definitely should be described in the article, but shouldn't be used to define the subject as if it were established fact. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the "Battling pseudoscience" article can be retrieved here if you're a resident of the US or Canada, which I'm not. Ironically, when I view that page it comes complete with advertisements for paranormal services. ;) Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In an objective sense, parapsychologists are conducting experiments on physical phenomena. It can be said that their conclusions are bunk, that the reasons they attribute for the results they get are stupid, or whatever, but the basic idea is to at least characterise the practice they are engaged in accurately at the start. It's not pseudoscience in and of itself--that's someone's opinion. What they are doing in the real world is carrying out experiments of various sorts. It strikes me as simply too strange to not acknoweledge this at all, and instead come with the ideologically charged labels as though they were objective descriptions. It doesn't make sense, and it makes wikipedia look bad. I don't really care about this, by the way, and I'm not going to revert again, but I just want to state my opinion very clearly that I believe this sort of behaviour compromises the integrity of the project.--Asdfg12345 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) By the way, I'm only talking about including this in the first line. Of course the reason parapsychology is considered a pseudoscience by those who consider it a pseudoscience should be elaborated in the appropriate section, but shoving it in the first line as the most basic characterisation of the subject is arrogant, ideologically-driven, and violates wikipedia's NPOV policy.--Asdfg12345 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If there was more universal scientific consensus that parapsychology is a pseudoscience then I could see the argument for giving that perspective more prominence. But from what I've read, including the article by Blitz that was used as a reference for the recent change, it's more accurate to say that the demarcation of parapsychology is disputed in the scientific community, with some considering it valid science so long as it uses valid methods, others decrying it as complete pseudoscience, and many considering it "borderline" science. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How many more sources would I need to cite to start stating it as fact? AdamChirnside (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As many as it's needed to fulfill WP:RS and WP:CON. Shot info (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a question of how many, but what how strongly and most especially what proportion. Because rather like meta-analysis, it matters just as much what papers you exclude as what you include. Rather than searching specifically for articles that call it pseudoscience, it's better to search for any articles that attempt to assess its science status in order to find a more representative sample of academic opinion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added quite a few for you to peruse. AdamChirnside (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The adding of more and more sources is beginning to make the article look a bit ridiculous. Are we now to see who can compile the longest list and try to skew the article that way: in the blue corner, "some scientists think para is ps" followed by 75 sources, and in the red corner,"some scientists view para as legitimate science" followed by 74 or 76 sources. Why not just pick one or two good solid sources and be done with it. It should also be noted that some sources currently cited are not obviously scientists or science educators in any official capacity . Landed little marsdon (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that piling up sources against individual statements clutters the article. Articles that solely and directly address the question in detail with reasoning, go into pros and cons, and are published in scientific books or journals would be preferable. Ideal sources would also take other sources into account, so a review of literature would be excellent if one exists. The question is really one of philosophy of science, so that perspective might be valuable too. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All these sources might be needed for a section in the article about the status of para, but we surely have enough at the moment to make the point clearly in the intro that some scientists think it's legit while others think it's pseudo. No?Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Let's look at each article and decide whether it belongs, and if so where. And let's see if there some articles out there arguing the other side. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the articles:

• The Broch article does refer to parapsychology as a pseudoscience, and is written by a science educator. However, the article is not concerned with discussing the merits of parapsychology as science, non-science, or pseudoscience. Instead, it starts from the assumption that parapsychology is a pseudoscience and then goes on to document the level of belief in the paranormal in France and experiences with pedagogic techniques for teaching students that apparently paranormal effects can be explained by natural phenomena. It does support the statement, but it's not an ideal reference because it does not explore or discuss parapsychology as such, it focuses on the non-existence of the paranormal. Assuming we have two or three better references then it could be dropped or moved elsewhere in the article, or perhaps to another article about teaching skepticism. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Likewise, the Kapitza article starts from the assumption that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, the subject is not explored and no reasons are given. The article is chiefly a lament for the rise of freedom of the media in Russia after the fall of the USSR, which has allowed for more free discussion of subjects that the scientific community find pointless. Such references do support the statement that some scientists have called it pseudoscience, but references that actually give their reasons and seriously discuss the demarcation issue would be far preferable. As described in the Blitz article, the USSR also called Mendel's theory of genetics a pseudoscience, and one scientist who discussed it died in jail for his transgressions. So Soviet definitions of pseudoscience, so dogged by dogma, are clearly problematic. Less polemic, more considered references would be preferable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not look at any of the articles in detail, I simply read the abstracts, so I apologize if one of them was a humour article. Marsdon, I was not trying to promote the viewpoint that "some" think it is a pseudoscience, that is a weasel word when considering the evidence. There are no articles that go into detail about the reasoning behind parapsychology being a pseudoscience, because it isn't normally necessary to go to such lengths. A definition is a definition. AdamChirnside (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen plenty of articles that go into detailed consideration of the demarcation of parapsychology. One of the articles you cited, Blitz, goes into some detail and gives reasons. I'm surprised you're adding references just based on abstracts, that's very bad practice. Would you use a citation you hadn't actually read if you were writing a science journal article? It's equally inappropriate here, because you can't assess a whole article just from the abstract. Also, you seem to have ignored my suggestion to take a more balanced approach to searching for articles about views on the demarcation of parapsychology. It does seem like you're only interested in papers that support your view (or at least appear to, from reading the abstract), and you don't seem to be filtering those articles for quality or level of relevance. If you want to properly document the perspective that parapsychology is pseudoscience, you would be better served by doing better research that will stand the test of investigation by other editors. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I were to cite articles that ran counter to my position, I would most certainly NOT be taking a more balanced approach. In fact, I would be skewing this debate even more in favour of the position of yourself, Marsdon, and Asdfg. Let's face it, your "test of investigation" is a bit of a farce, filtering out as much as possible that promotes my opinion. However, I will do some more research, and filter more scrupulously for your benefit. AdamChirnside (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no farce, I'm genuinely interested to see which of those articles are good references for the subject and I've given my honest opinions of them. I'm interested in helping this page to present a neutral point of view. I don't have a strong personal position on the status of parapsychology. All I want is for the article to reflect the range of verifiable opinions out there, especially those that consider the subject seriously and in depth. I'd be very happy to see a solid presentation of the "pseudoscience" perspective in the article. If it can be shown that the pseudoscience perspective is more prominent than the article currently makes clear, then I'd be happy for that perspective to have more prominence. Please stop assuming that everyone here must be pro or anti parapsychology, and consider the possibility that some people just want a good article on the subject that follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In other words, please assume good faith. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Alcock article, like the Blitz article, is discussing Bunge's description of parapsychology as pseudoscience. While Alcock is critical of parapsychology in the article, he doesn't call it pseudoscience. He characterises Bunge as calling them "pseudosciences", in quotations, suggesting that he might have a more complicated view. I don't think this article supports the statement that some scientists describe parapsychology as pseudoscience, except to the extent that it points out Bunge thinks its pseudoscience, but then the Blitz reference already covers that ground. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• The Kreweras article is also a commentary on Bunge. Kreweras doesn't say whether he considers parapsychology pseudoscience or not, but he does suggest that he thinks that it would be worth the while of scientists to cooperate with willing parapsychologists to help make their methods more rigorous. So it doesn't support the statement at all, in fact it is almost an example of a scientist (actually, a mathematician) saying that parapsychology is rehabilitable as a science. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the citations about "pseudoscience", removing some and adding one that many of them referred to. I did find problems with some of the articles being used in the manner they were as outlined above, but bear in mind that I didn't create the problems. I'm just the messenger, reading the articles and reporting back whether they're relevant and suitable. I think the subject of whether parapsychology is a science, a pseudoscience, a protoscience, or some other demarcation is pretty fascinating, and could be explored in more depth in the article provided that there are good references for it. Unfortunately, the controversy has rather blown over now that there is much less funding for parapsychology, so I don't know if we'll be able to find recent sources that review the literature. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be carefully with the term pseudoscience. The terminus pseudoscience is controversial by itself. There is no agreement in the scientific world what a pseudoscience is or not. So, it makes no sense to call a discipline a pseudoscience. Due to the controversial nature of pseudoscience, it is NPOV to say only, that some scientists call parapsychology a pseudoscience. More informations are here: Robert L. Morris: Parapsychology and the demarcation problem. In: Inquiry. 30, Nr. 3, 1987, pp. 241 - 251 (doi:10.1080/00201748708602122); Marie-Catherine Mousseau: Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science?. Journal of Scientic Exploration, 17/2, 2003, pp. 271–282. --Yagosaga, 17:35, 4 February 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yagosaga (talk • contribs)

From another perspective, these labels are a sort of unhelpful and a slightly lower-level form of discourse. It seems to edge more towards the gossip magazine flavour, if I may put it that way. More time should be spent on the findings, methodologies, and perhaps theories on the subject, than on simplistic labels. The view of the scientific mainstream should be hashed out, but these things should be given nuance where appropriate. It's a disservice to readers to use a broad brush on the subject right at the start, to paint it into a corner without explaining things clearly. Anyway, all this typing doesn't end up to much, just wanted to share this idea anyway.--Asdfg12345 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yagosaga's point is well made, and those look like some of the sources on demarcation I've read in the past. Pseudoscience is contentious and hard to define, because the definition of science itself is a debated subject. That's something a lot of science proponents (which I'd count myself among) don't have their head around: there's a whole field of philosophy about definition the methods and boundaries of science and the kind of information it can recover, science is not as clearly defined as commonly thought. Asdfg - I think it's important that we make clear what scientists think of parapsychology. I know what you mean about pseudoscience being a "label", which is why I have a preference for sources that also discuss their reasons for calling it that. Talking about their reasons brings the subject back to specifics, rather than broad labels. For example, Bunge talks about how the idea of psychokinesis breaks the law of conservation of energy, and how science can't study immaterial subjects because it is founded on materialist assumptions. I don't think the article currently contains that sort of fundamental criticism of parapsychology as a science, and perhaps it should. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For comparison: The "Brockhaus", one of the most famous German encyclopaedias, used the term "discipline" instead of "science" for parapsychology. IMHO this is a good choice to avoid the problems of declairing it as a science, a protoscience or a pseudoscience. When you check the academic realms of parapsychology, you find, that it is often labeled as anomalistics or psychology.

Another issue: Citation from the introduction of the WP parapsychology article: "... although there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Such research is usually published in parapsychological publications, and some articles have appeared in more mainstream journals." First, I count in total 30 universities worldwide, which offer PhD, students courses or research in parapsychology. Who did mention that fewer universities did "actively sponsoring parapsychology research today"? My references are: Bernard Carr (2008): The Growth of UK Academic Parapsychology. The Paranormal Review. The Magazine of the Society for Psychical Research, 48, pp. 23-25; Parapsychological Association (2009): University education in parapsychology; Institut Métapsychique International(2008): Le Livre Blanc de la Parapsychologie. Second: The other sentence, "Such research is usually published in parapsychological publications, and some articles have appeared in more mainstream journals" is trivial. Botanists publish their research usually in biological publications, geophysicists in geophysical publications, and so on. Cut this sentence. Yagosaga (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction: Fewer Laboratories?

In the first paragraph it states, "Laboratory and field research is conducted by privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world, although there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past."

This statement is incorrect. Parapsychology has never been so widely distributed in universities as it is today. I recommend that we remove the word "some" and the phrase beginning with "although there are fewer..." Because of my position in the field, I request that another editor besides me perform the edit if there is consensus.

Here is a current list of universities with parapsychological projects:

  1. Melbourne: Deakin University
  2. Budapest: Roland Eotvos University.
  3. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam
  4. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University
  5. Lund, Sweden: Lund University,
  6. University of Philosophical Research
  7. Japan: Meiji university
  8. University of Edinburgh, UK
  9. University of Northampton, UK
  10. University of Manchester, UK
  11. University of York, UK
  12. Liverpool Hope University, UK
  13. University of the West of England, UK
  14. Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
  15. University of Derby, UK
  18. University of Gothenburg, Sweden
  19. University of Adelaide, Australia
  20. University of Virginia, USA
  21. Coventry University, UK
  22. University of Greenwich, UK
  23. Boumemouth University, UK
  24. Queen Margaret University, UK
  25. University of Hertfordshire, UK
  26. University of Central Lancashire, UK
  27. University of South Pacific, Fiji Islands
  28. University of Bergen, Norway
  29. University College London, UK
  30. University of Tasmania, Australia

Refrences: - Bernard Carr (2008): The Growth of UK Academic Parapsychology. The Paranormal Review. 48, S. 23-25.

- Parapsychological Association (2009): University Education in Parapsychology.

- Institut Métapsychique International(2008): Le Livre Blanc de la Parapsychologie

--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "although there are fewer," should be removed unless a reliable source can be produced for it. However, I think that "some universities" is a reasonable characterisation of 30 universities. It's not a lot. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that 'some' is too vague. How much is 'some'? 5? 10? With an up-to-date source like the one published at the Parapsychological Association, we could easily say "approximately 30" and reference the document. However, it would be fine to just remove "some". --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Approximately 30" would be fine, with appropriate sources. Just removing "some" would not be okay, because it would leave the impression that they are commonplace at universities. Compared to other departments such as psychology or theology they're rare internationally, so that would be an inaccurate depiction. It's interesting how few US universities have them. Perhaps that's what is behind the "fewer" clause, assuming there used to be more present in the US. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I inserted the Carroll source that indicates that the US universities have essentially all been shuttered. Additionally, many of the universities listed above are of dubious reputation. It's best not to enumerate unless we have some criteria for what constitutes a legitimate university and a legitimate program. I would not take the Parapsychological Association's word for it. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Which universities in the list above do you consider illegitimate, and what criteria are you using?Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You got it backwards. I don't have to provide illegitimacy criteria. Those arguing that we should include a number of universities must themselves provide legitimacy criteria for both the universities and the programs. To show that I'm not just whistling Dixie, there is at least one university listed here that is accredited by DETC: an organization that is itself somewhat questionable. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deakin Uni ?? My I didn't know that. Mind you, there isn't too much on their website. [8] Shot info (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have to give up something to go on. You (ScienceApologist) claim that many of the universities listed above aren't legitimate universities. You can't seriously expect us to address, what is on the face of it a preposterous claim, without giving us some indication of which you think are illegitimate and why. What, for example, would you accept as a criterion of legitimacy? And do we have to go through the whole list? Are there any you would count as above board right now?Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW the PA is using weasel words when it says "projects" (whatever that means) as at least two of the Australian Uni's don't and only UTAS allows research as part of philosophy (at least that's my understanding of looking thru their various websites). Shot info (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is really whether there are fewer now than before. This list strongly suggests not. So, absent some reliable source clearly saying there are less now, that dubious claim has to be removed.Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the list strongly suggests that the PA is clutching at straws since it isn't cooberated by information from the actual Universities themselves (the Australian ones at anyrate). But you are correct: There should be an RS if there is a claim, like any claim in WP. It should be noted that (in the context saying "more or less") the list produced by PA actually doesn't say anything ,and you agree since you use the phrase "suggests". If it "suggests" then it is or isn't saying whatever is "suggested". Wikipedia calls this something. Shot info (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The document supporting this list is quite specific about what kinds of educational/research opportunities are offered at each of these universities, as well as contact information for those interested. Feel free to dig further. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Annalisa, this pdf seems to clash with the above list (wrt Australian Unis) as it only refers to Deakin Uni and misses out on the other two. Also the link to Deakin provided (ie [9] doesn't substanciate the claim (perhaps this lecturer offers lectures in the material, either way the offered RS' don't support the claim(s) made). BTW I'm only looking at the Australia ones at the moment as I'm the most familar with them (so if there are better/worse info wrt other countries, then I'm confessing my ignorance). Shot info (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Shot, the list above was drawn from several sources (as cited above) sorry for not being more specific. If you scroll down to the bottom of this page, you can find contact information for researchers at Adelaide and University of Tansmania. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Errr, I'm confused, is UA and UTAS offering the courses? The PA info infers that they are, but this other link states that they are supported by a third party (admitably with lecturers who are employed by those Unis, but this is by-the-by). Shot info (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused too. What PA info? The list I provided above was a list drawn from three sources, including a PA doc. As you pointed out, the PA doc does not discuss the above two universities. Also note that the heading of the PA doc says that the listing is not exhaustive, nor does it imply PA endorsement. As far as I know, neither Australian university offers courses. One university has a research unit, the other has faculty available to supervise a thesis. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk |}

Contribs) 04:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the only reason I provided the link was that it provided contact info for researchers at both universities, for you to investigate further if you so choose. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, given that the discussion is about RS supporting a viewpoint, I made the mistake that your list was sourced from a source not collated together by yourself. Shot info (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The list was presented here on the TALK page as a talking point to question the legitimacy of an unsourced phrase that found it's way into the introduction of the topic article. Nothing more than that. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The overall subject is the degree to which parapsychology is treated as an academic subject by academic institutions, and how this has changed over time. There are several related questions that it would be useful to have reliable sources for. 1) What status does parapsychology hold at universities? 2) How common is it for parapsychological research to be conducted at universities? 3) What changes have there been in the status and amount of parapsychological study and research at universities over the course of the field's existence? In terms of status, I mean is there a parapsychology department, a unit within a department, or just a small group of academics who do some research on the side without any explicit support from the university? Is it only research, or are they teaching papers? Let's get sources that answer these questions to everyone's satisfaction and then get across the whole picture in a couple of sentences. The section "Parapsychology today" gives us some idea of the situation, but there's room for more clarity. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, the document supporting the list, might help in answering questions 1 and 3. As for question 2) parapsychological research is quite uncommon in universities. Unfortunately, I think that the topic article suffers from being North-American (and anglo) centric. The idea that parapsychology is waning in academia is probably a reaction of the much-publicized closure of the Princeton lab last year. The picture is quite different if you take a global perspective. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that document appears to be a poor source for Wikipedia. It's just a list without any discussion, so we couldn't draw anything from it without infringing WP:OR. It's also questionable whether it would qualify as an WP:RS, as the independance of the source is dubious. That would be less of an issue if it had references, but it doesn't, making the verifiability of the information very weak. I followed the first link, and the academic's profile doesn't mention parapsychology. In some cases, it's questionable whether the subject under discussion is parapsychology as discussed in this article. "A general psi component", "anomalous experiences", and so forth could well describe subjects other than research into the existence and nature of psychic abilities and life after death. Finally: if we were to use this document as a source, which we shouldn't, and we were to draw a conclusion from it, which we shouldn't, the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn from this list is that the academic pursuit of parapsychology is in a very bad way. The list draws a picture of an uncohesive and barely-studied field with only a fingernail grip on the fringes of academia. Which is not at all the impression I got from your post. Surely there are better sources than this? Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And do you think that the source that Science Apologist just squirreled up for the phrase in question is reliable? If we could return to the intent of my original posting, I am suggesting that we remove (what was) an unsourced phrase in the introduction. I'm not suggesting that the document (which is simply a resource for students interested in studying parapsychology) should be introduced into the article, nor should the list that I provided. It was simply a talking point. As it stands, the introduction to the topic article is misleading, and it's up to you guys if you want this article to be accurate or not. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW WP:TALK doesn't recommend "talking points" but rather encourages discussion of article improvement. Shot info (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Shot info: I understand Annalisa's use of the term "talking point" here to be referring to a small piece of information that is useful and relevant for editors to consider. I don't understand that she meant it in the trivial and irrelevant sense of the term, as one would use "talkings points" to fritter away the time at a cocktail party, for example. Was this unclear?--Asdfg12345 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Asdfg. I'm no newbie here and I know that if I had mentioned that there were 30 universities with educational/research opportunities, I would've been asked to list them. I don't see why there should be a problem with attempting to make a case on the talk page with specific and relevant information. I've seen this page littered with much worse. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's remove the unsourced claim that there are fewer universities now since it is a) unsourced, and b) almost certainly false. That is the central issue here.Landed little marsdon (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The PA document lists only few universities. Most of the academic projects, institutes and so on are located in Great Britain. The article by Bernard Carr (2008): The Growth of UK Academic Parapsychology. The Paranormal Review. The Magazine of the Society for Psychical Research, 48, pp. 23-25, lists in total 21 British and worldwide universities, I can extract them if you want. yagosaga (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2009 (CET)

@ScienceApologist wrote: "... I inserted the Carroll source that indicates that the US universities have essentially all been shuttered." You should not forget that an English article does not exclusively reflect the United States status quo. There are many other English-speaking people in the world, and this article is also destinated to the British readers. yagosaga (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2009 (CET)

Noting Annalisa's request...and.... There is no evidence of sock puppetry at this point .... if such proof comes up then a revert might be in order.(olive (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Annalisa - I've just gone over the source that Science Apologist added. It appears to be published as part of The Skeptic's Dictionary, a skeptical website (and subsequently a book) run by the author of the piece, Robert Todd Carroll, and therefore self-published. So the source would only meet WP:RS if Carroll is a recognised expert in the field with similar publications in independant sources with editorial oversight, which I am not sure of. It's a superior source to the document you linked to because it actually discusses the topic and has references, but it may well not meet RS because it is self-published. I'd be interested to hear from SA where in the article it says that academic parapsychology has died back, I couldn't find that statement. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If we can't find some RSs on this contentious subject then we should just eliminate mention of it from the article until such sources become available. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As luck would have it, I now see we already have an excellent reliable source on the subject, the article "The lab that asked the wrong questions" published in Nature. Here's what it has to say on the subject:

The status of paranormal research in the United States is now at an all-time low, after a relative surge of interest in the 1970s. Money continues to pour from philanthropic sources to private institutions, but any chance of credibility depends on ties with universities, and only a trickle of research now persists in university labs.

Elsewhere the field is livelier. Britain is a lead player, with privately funded labs at the universities of Edinburgh, Northampton and Liverpool Hope, among others. Parapsychologist Deborah Delanoy at the University of Northampton suspects that the field is stronger in Britain because researchers tend to work in conventional psychology departments, and also do studies in 'straight' psychology to boost their credibility and show that their methods are sound. "We're seen to be in the same business as other psychologists," she says.

But parapsychologists are still limited to publishing in a small number of niche journals. French thinks the field is treated unfairly. "I'm convinced that parapsychologists have a hard time trying to publish in mainstream journals," he says, adding that he even has difficulty publishing his 'straight' papers on why people believe in paranormal events: "Simply because the paper mentions the word telepathy or psychokinesis, it isn't sent out to referees. People think the whole thing is a waste of time."

Let's agree on a paraphrasing of that and use it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, and doesn't need to resort to the "talking point" noise that is clogging up the talkpage at the moment. Shot info (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead reads fairly well now. I think the quote above does summarize the status of the field well when it comes to US and Britain, but neglects to discuss non-English speaking countries. If this is summarized and used, I hope that editors will be specific about what parts of the world are being discussed. Also, material like this is good for the 'Parapsychology Today' section, but does it belong in the lead? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should be specific about locations, given that the history in the US and the UK seem quite different. The Nature article suggests that the UK is currently the main international location of parapsychological research in academic circles, which seems to agree with the list you put together. There's no need to mention academic research in non-English speaking countries if we don't have appropriate reliable sources for it. I do think it's valuable to summarise the history and status of academic research in the lead as well as in the History section. The history and current status of parapsychology within academia is sufficiently important to be covered in some detail in the body of the text, so is worth summarising in a couple of sentences in the lead. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Using the Nature article quoted from above as a source, how about this:

Original text

Laboratory and field research is conducted by privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world, although there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Such research is usually published in parapsychological publications, and some articles have appeared in more mainstream journals.

New proposal

Laboratory and field research is conducted by privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world. University involvement in the US peaked in the 1970s and is now very slight, and privately-funded units at universities in the UK are now more active. Parapsychology research has sometimes been published in general science publications, however most studies are now published in a few niche journals.

Is that a fair summary of the source? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good but would appriciate comments from the others. Shot info (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The source says that there was a 'surge of interest' in research in the 1970's, but not necessarily that the interest was within universities. I also find 'very slight' to be unnecessarily vague. Also, 'niche journals' has a negative connotation whereas 'parapsychological journals' is more neutral. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The source says "The status of paranormal research in the United States is now at an all-time low, after a relative surge of interest in the 1970s. Money continues to pour from philanthropic sources to private institutions, but any chance of credibility depends on ties with universities, and only a trickle of research now persists in university labs." Taken in context, that's completely unequivocal. If only a trickle now persists in university labs, then the surge in the 70s clearly relates to university research. "Very slight" is my paraphrasing of "only a trickle". If you'd like it to be more specific, we'd need a more specific reliable source regarding university research in the US. "Niche journals" is a direct quote from the source, and in my opinion not perjorative in this context. Neuropsychology research gets published in niche journals, but it also gets published frequently in broader psychology journals. If you have thoughts for rewording while maintaining accuracy to the source, I'd be interested to see them. Bear in mind that "neutral" on Wikipedia only means presenting all sides, it doesn't mean watering down reliable sources. Even if "niche" could be seen as negative, it's the term used in the source cited and thus the most accurate possible presentation of the source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence: "University involvement in the US peaked in the 1970s and is now very slight, and privately-funded units at universities in the UK are now more active." This is not correct since it carries forward common the U.S.-funding system on British ratios. The vast majority of British universities are state financed, with only one private university - the University of Buckingham - where the government does not subsidize the tuition fees. So omit the words "privately-funded".

The sentence, "Parapsychology research has sometimes been published in general science publications, however most studies are now published in a few niche journals" does not contain a valid statement. Botanists publish their research usually in niche biological journals, geophysicists in niche geophysical journals, and so on. So, my suggestion: Omit this whole sentence. yagosaga (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2009 (CET)

Please have a look at the source provided. Shot info (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article states Britain is a lead player, with privately funded labs at the universities of Edinburgh, Northampton and Liverpool Hope, among others. Someone more familiar with the British model for funding science may correct me, but I read this as indicating that the researchers are funded by private philanthropy rather than government grants. It does not say anything about the existence or quality of peer review embedded in that private funding (and neither should we without a source), but the authors did feel that the funding source was worth mentioning.

Niche journal is not really a pejorative (except maybe from a tenure review committee), it merely indicates specialized interest - it is the difference between Physical Review Letters and Journal of III-V Semiconductor Applications. The latter allows for more detail and technical discussion, while the former publishes articles of interest to the wider physics community (with a frelling four page limit). RP's summary accurately conveys that parapsychologists rarely produce results of interest to the wider community.

I endorse Ryan Paddy's proposal as an accurate summary of the relevant part of the article. The range of opinions on the merits of PEAR (from 'damaged the reputation of the host university' to 'risky but could be interesting as long as they are rigorous') can be cited elsewhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, the article you are summarizes speaks of both private labs and university research when it states that there was a surge of interest in the 1970's. Your summary states that university involvement peaked in the 1970's. I believe this misrepresents what the article is saying. I do not endorse this proposal. The original reads just fine if you simply remove the phrase, "although there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past." --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that the source goes directly from talking about the surge of interest in the 70s to the remaining trickle of university research, I really don't see any other way to read it except a peak of US univerity interest in the 70s that has now all but sputtered out. Do you have specific reasons to suspect this common-sense reading of the source is incorrect? Do you have personal knowledge that university research didn't peak in the 1970s, which is making you think this reading is bunk? Personally this reading seems uncontraversial to me, it doesn't seem to be in conflict with other sources and it seems the most obvious reading of the source, so I'm having trouble understanding the basis of your objection. Bear in mind that we are talking specifically about the US here. As for going back to the original text, that fails to recognise the progress we've made here in identifying a reliable source on the subject and the decision to use it as our source. As editors we don't just decide which text we like the best, we base our text on the best reliable sources we can find. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is particularly hard to fathom in light of this edit, where you use the source we are discussing to draw the exact conclusion that you are objecting to here on talk. The only difference is that you draw the conclusion in the body of the article, not the lead. Colour me extremely perplexed. Perhaps you could offer a suggested text for the lead based on your so subtly different reading of the source? Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I can make this more clear. In the history of parapsychology, in addition to research being conducted in universities, it has also been conducted in private research institutions that have no university affiliation. Currently there are private research centers like the Institute of Noetic Sciences or the Rhine Research Center (just to name a couple) that are active in the US. This has been the case for much of the history of parapsychology. In the Nature article, the author is speaking generally of 'the status of paranormal research' and not specifying what kinds of institutions they are speaking of when they talk of this 'surge of interest in the 1970's'. Your summary in your proposal suggests that university research peaked in the 1970's. That is not what the article says. It does not specify what kind of research they are discussing. Neither should your summary. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, you're reading the words but not the whole paragraph and how its parts relate. 1) Read it again, with particular focus on the words "status" and "credibility". Status and credibility mean the same thing. The author says they are reliant on the tie to academic. They used to be better in the 70s because parapsychology was tied to acadamia, now they are at an all time low because it's not. Private research institutions are a red herring, as the author clearly says they have no bearing on credibility. 2) The edit you recently made, that I linked to above, is based on my reading of the source and contradicts yours. So why are you arguing the point here? 3) You haven't answered my question, which is do you actually think that the 1970s wasn't a peak time for parapsychology at universities in the US? Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying again:

Original text

Laboratory and field research is conducted by privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world, although there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Such research is usually published in parapsychological publications, and some articles have appeared in more mainstream journals.

New proposal

Laboratory and field research is conducted by privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world. In the US, interest in research peaked in the 1970s and university-based research is now marginal. Privately-funded units at universities in the UK are now lead players in the field. Parapsychology research has sometimes been published in general science publications, however most studies are now published in a few niche journals.

Does that text address the concern that the source could be read as not stating that academic involvement in the US peaked in the 70s? Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Approve of this. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an improvement and I believe more accurately summarizes the source. Grammatically, I recommend putting a comma after '1970's' and a 'but' instead of the following 'and'. However, the Nature article is not accurate in describing the UK labs as privately funded. At least two of the UK labs it discusses receive state funding. What is the Wikipedia policy for something like this (when a source is wrong)? One of us could call up Northampton and Liverpool Hope to verify this, but obviously that would be original research. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source demonstrating that the source we have is wrong on this point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the unnecessary focus in the lede on parapsychology in the US other than as a device to accommodate yet another negative point about parapsychology. It seems this is just a remnant of the previous false negative claim about less research, once sources emerged showing it to be false. A sort of "this is the most negative we can justify given the sources" approach. Surely the only important figure here is the worldwide one. I mean, what has geography got to do with parapsychology.Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I.ve now removed the section on geography since nobody has offered any reason for keeping it.Landed little marsdon (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please revert, this has been discussed in teh section below, along with other topics, and several editors have updated and restore this text recently. Your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. You should have prosed the removal first, which the comment from yesterday (which I missed with it being away from the current discussion) did not propose removal, just asked for relevance. I feel it is relevant, I'm sure the other editors involved below probably agree. Please be careful not to give the appearance of gaming the process here. Verbal chat 12:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

second paragraph of lede

Sorry if this has been discussed, just thought I'd raise this. It seems that the second paragraph of the lead is hopelessly biased, and needs the response of the parapsychologists about the status of their research (like, I once read that the statistician woman, I can't think of her name now, said that the case for the anomalous events is proven, it's now just a matter of identifying the 'how'), and the reasons for its continued non-acceptance in mainstream science according to parapsychologists--i.e., because of stigma, or whatever. There are people in this field who have said both these things, the sources would be simple to find. It would show both views of the matter, not only the Truth^TM according to the skeptics, as it is currently. At the moment I believe the lede is biased and misleading and needs to be fixed. I tried to put a sentence there before but Martinphi deleted it and gave an explanation I couldn't understand. I was unwilling to persist in argument then, but isn't it clear to anyone that the second paragraph is just one side of the story, and needs some balancing with the pro viewpoint: that they claim there is actually conclusive evidence for the phenomena, but that stigma, bias, and marginialisation are afoot? Don't both sides get a say, according to NPOV?--Asdfg12345 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

About a year ago, editors of this article agreed to avoid the criticism/response format in order help keep it stable. The general structure is that parapsychology is thoroughly described, followed by a section that covers the basic criticisms of the field. Parapsychology states its case, the critics state theirs. End of article. This has worked well for the article so far. As tempting as it is to want to answer to these criticisms, I think it's best to maintain this structure. Since the lead is supposed to reflect the body of the article, I think this structure should remain intact. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The staticisian I was thinking of is Utts. She's referenced in the article, but not the remarks I referred to. The problem is that there is nothing in the article at the moment doing much to show the results of these experiments, and presenting the explanations of parapsychologists as to why they are still not accepted as legitimate. It appears that the results of the PEAR experiments are missing from the article, for example; I'm talking about the ones where it shows the deviation from random results for the psi-influenced random number generator experiments, there are a bunch of archived pdfs on their old website showing all this. Unless they fabricated the experiments (how many millions of trials), that information is obviously notable to the max. Just changing the lede along the lines I mention wouldn't solve the problem, I acknowledge that. The lede should reflect the article. What is missing is an actual presentation of the results these experiments have gained, any response to the criticism at all (it seems), both in terms of specific things, and also generally, like, comments on the bias of scientists against parapsychology, which are generally along the same lines of the scientists against parapsychologists (something like, "you believe this already so then you just say stuff to make what you believe seem truer.") Is the problem as I see it, or am I ignorant of something, or is it just not worth the trouble? Aren't these two elements highly relevant, able to be sourced to an acceptable standard, and do they not belong in any serious article about the subject?--Asdfg12345 07:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article does have a section on remote viewing (which I understand is what Utts was commenting on) and another section on "Psychokinesis on random number generators". Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The results of meta-analysis of the ganzfeld, remote viewing, pk, and bio-pk research programs are all summarized in the article. Keeping in mind that this article is for general audiences, I think that statements like "parapsychologists found the results to be statistically significant" is sufficient. Interested readers can follow the references to learn more. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I would support a greater illumination of the results of the experiments, as I think what's there now is insufficient for readers to get to grips with, and secondly, would support comments from parapsychologists about the status of their research among scientists, just as there are currently quotes about this from critics. Are those two changes forseeable?--Asdfg12345 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

US National Academy of Sciences Report

I see a real problem with the following statement in the second paragraph of the lead:

"In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences produced a report that concluded that there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."

Here is a copy of the report. In the same paragraph, it goes on to say:

"We do recommend, however, that research in certain areas be monitored, including work by the Soviets and the best work in the United States...Monitoring could be enhanced by site visits and by expert advice from both proponents and skeptics. The research areas included would be psychokinesis with random event generators and Ganzfeld effects."

Based on the above, I recommend that the statement in the topic article either be removed, or balanced with additional information from this report. Additionally, if the material were to remain, it should be summarized rather than quoted. Cherry-picking quotes like these to support one viewpoint or the other is dangerous to the stability of this article. The editors who brought this article to featured status last year agreed to avoid the use of lengthy quotes for just this reason. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The two quotes from the source are independant. The first says that no evidence of paranormal has been found to date (in 1988). The second says that ongoing research should be monitored, presumably in case some evidence of the paranormal does get found in the future. In the second paragraph, the first quote is being used to support the argument that the scientific consensus is that evidence of paranormal has not been found. This is entirely consistant with the second quote. The quote is short and precise, so it is not too long. It is being used in an appropriate manner, and not out of context. It is not being used to imply that there is no value in parapsychology. The second quote could be used in the article as an example of a scientific body expressing interest in the ongoing results of parapsychology, but that doesn't seem necessary in the lead. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't completely disagree with you. However, my take would be that the discussion on the report is more suitable for the body of the article rather than the lead. Additionally, it should be summarized, not quoted, and when summarized, done so in a more complete manner. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph makes an appropriate and very important point that the general scientific consensus is that parapsychologists have not found evidence of the paranormal. It is important to make this point, clearly and with good references, in the lead of the article because it is a service to readers interested in what the scientific consensus on evidence of the paranormal is, which is a matter of central importance to the mission of parapsychology. As a scientific endeavor, it would be fair to say that parapsychology will not have "succeeded" until the supposed subject of its study is accepted to have been proven to exist by the wider scientific community: until that time parapsychology will be regarded as a discipline studying something that probably doesn't exist. The quote from a major scientific body on precisely that subject is a perfect reliable source to support that statement. If it wasn't there, people would be complaining that the statement is unsupported. The fact that the source also makes other points that do not contradict the point in question is not relevant. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan Paddy: the conclusion of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report is more than 20 years old, and does not reflect the actual state of the parapsychology. Imagine, somebody would write in the lead of an article on geography the statement regarding continental drift from 1943: "The fact that almost all paleontologists say that paleontological data oppose the various theories of continental drift should, perhaps, obviate further discussion of this point and would do so were it not that the adherents of these theories all agree that paleontological data do support them. It must be almost unique in scientific history for a group of students admittedly without special competence in a given field thus to reject the all but unanimous verdict of those who do have such competence." (G.G. Simpson, "Mammals and the Nature of Continents", American Journal of Science, 241:1-31) OK, you could say, this was 1943. But today, the continental drift is well established in science. Do you know, that the idea of the continental drift already comes from medieval times? And do you know, that Alfred Wegener's theory about continental drift in 1915, was claimed quackery by Hans Stille, Hans Cloos, George Gaylord Simpson, and other skeptics? The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. Wegener died in 1930. The continental drift was kept for pseudoscience for many decades, and was finally buried in oblivion. In the 1960's with the discovery of the plate tectonics, the idea of the continental drift was revived, and was accepted from the mainstream science as recently as in the 1970's, more than a half century after Wegener has published his theory! The reason why the continental drift was not accepted was, because there was no explanation for it. No one could imagine that the Earth's interior forces were strong enough to move whole continents. It was plain unthinkable. This is the same reason, why the existence of psi is controversial until today. In both cases, in psi like in continental drift, there was evidence for them from the very beginning. But evidence was not taken into account since there was no explanation of the phenomena. What I want to say: be cautious with such a several-decade old statement like the conclusion of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report. A Wikipedia source for mentioning in the very important lead of an article should be reflect the recent status quo of a science or discipline. Or it should be dispict in a chapter of the history of the discipline. Baring from the case, that the the conclusion of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report brings other sciences into miscredit which could not prove the existence of their subject-matter for centuries, like theology, i.e. the existence of God, or psychology, i.e. the existence of the psyche, the soul. yagosaga 16:09, 12 February 2009 (CET)

Unless you have a source from a major scientific body stating that they now believe parapsychology has provided sufficient evidence to conclude the paranormal exists, there is no reason to suspect that position has changed since 1988. Such sources for continental drift are a dime a dozen. For parapsychology, on the other hand, it's harder to find recent sources from major science bodies - I gather because most consider it a research avenue well past its expiry date. Unless you're saying that scientific consensus on parapsychology has shifted the same way as continental drift, your analogy has no value. For certain, the consensus could one day change. But for now, it has not, so the 1988 reference is still perfectly relevant today. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since 1988, enough new studies provided evidence for parapsychological topics. Here is a a very quick list:

E. Cardena, S. J. Lynn, S. C. Krippner; American Psychological Association (APA, ed.): Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence. Washington, DC, 2000.

D. J. Bern, Ch. Honorton: Does Psi Exist ? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer. In: Psychological Bulletin. 115, 1994, pp. 4-18

P. van Lommel, R. van Wees, V. Meyers, I. Elfferich: Near-death experiences in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands. Lancet 358, 2001, pp. 2039-2044.

Irwin, J.: On Paranormal Disbelief: The Psychology of the Sceptic. In: Zollschan, G.K.,Schumaker, J.F., Walsh, G.F. Exploring the Paranormal: Perspectives on Belief and Experience. Channel Islands: Guernsey Press, 1989, pp. 305-312.

G. Groth-Marnat, R. Summers: Altered beliefs, attitudes, and behavior following near-death experiences. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 38(3), 1998, pp. 110-125.

H. Knoblauch, I. Schmied, B. Schnettler: Different kinds of Near-Death Experience: a report on a survey of near-death experiences in Germany. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 20, 2001, pp. 15-29.

Parker, A. & Brusewitz, G.: A compendium of the evidence for psi. European Journal of Parapsychology, 18, 2003, pp. 33-51.

S. Schouten, I. Stevenson: Does the socio-psychological hypothesis explain cases of the reincarnation type? Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 186 (8), 1998, pp. 505-506.

J. Mauro: Bright lights, big mystery. Psychology Today, 25, July/August 1992, pp. 54-57

J. Milton, R. Wiseman: Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replikation of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer? Psychological Bulletin 125, 1999, pp. 387-391.

L. Storm, S. Ertel: Does psi exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman’s (1999) meta-analysis of ganzfeld research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 2001, pp. 424-433.

I. Schmied: Jenseits der Grenze - Todesnäheerfahrungen in Ost- und Westdeutschland. In: D. Pollack, G. Pickel (ed.): Religiöser und kirchlicher Wandel in Ostdeutschland 1989-1999. Leske+Budrich, Opladen, 2000, pp. 328-347

S. Schmidt, R. Schneider, J. Utts, H. Walach: Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: two meta-analyses. In: British journal of psychology. 95, London, England 2004, pp. 235–247

W. von Lucadou: Psi-Phänomene - Neue Ergebnisse der Psychokineseforschung. Insel, Frankfurt am Main und Leipzig 1997.

A. Parker: We Ask, Does Psi Exist? But is this the right question and do we really want an answer anyway? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 2003, pp. 111-134.

Do you need more references to recognise that the situation changed considerably since 1988? yagosaga 21:49, 12 February 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.133.108.73 (talk)

If you want to challenge the statement in the article that the scientific consensus is that evidence of psychic abilities and life after death is unconvincing, then you'll need reliable sources representative of the broad scientific community. Whereas what you have presented above looks like studies by parapsychologists. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What you decribe is exactly the problem, faced to Wegener by the scientific community, I have described above. You criticise that parapsychologists are cited in my list. Please, imagine, what you demand! Should philologists decide in future what might be acknowledged mathematics? Should biologists assess what has to be proven astronomical evidence? - Who other than the parapsychologists could be the experts on the field of anomalous experience? Read the study of the American Psychological Association (APA): Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence; and I assume, you will find enough stuff which exceeds the statements of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. But you have to read it. Reasoning alone will give no wisdom. Yagosaga (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (CET)

I am always open to reading new sources. However, I prefer to just read the relevant sources - your previous list contains an awful lot of noise, and very little signal, in regards to the specific question at hand. You cannot make a point with a torrent of irrelevant material. We are not discussing whether the scientific community at large is correct in concluding that evidence is lacking. Only whether it does conclude that. WP:NPOV only requires that we present the various relevant perspectives accurately. I'll read the source in question and come back. But bear in mind, when we're talking about the overall scientific consensus then individual papers are less relevant than the statements of major scientific bodies such as national academies, and what is taught in universities. If you are claiming that these days the scientific consensus is that parapsychology has demonstrated the existence of psychic abilities and life after death, then why isn't that position widely taught in science classes in universities? Whether you consider it reasonable or not, the scientific consensus has clearly not changed. If the scientific consensus one days does change, then the paranormal will become bigger news than anthropogenic global warming, a subject that there truly is a scientific consensus for the existence of. In the mean time, you'll have to settle for occasional scientists seeing merit in it, just as some scientists still deny climate change. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence is a book, and I can't see any way to preview it online in detail. Amazon's limited preview gives me the impression that the books is about "anomalous experiences", i.e. mundane psychological explanations for seemingly paranormal experiences. That subject is completely off the current topic. I'm starting to feel like this discussion is a huge waste of time, so can we please skip to the part where you provide a quote from that book, or any reliable source, that indicates that the current scientific consensus is that the evidence suggests that psychic abilities or life after death exist, which is what we are actually discussing here? I would really appreciate it if you could focus strictly on the subject at hand, please. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan Paddy, the term „parapsychology“ was introduced by the psychologist Max Dessoir in 1889, and was mentioned the first time in the theosophical journal "Sphinx". Dessoir defines parapsychology as follow:

„Bezeichnet man ... mit Para – etwas, das über das Gewöhnliche hinaus oder neben ihm hergeht, so kann man vielleicht die aus dem normalen Verlauf des Seelenlebens heraustretenden Erscheinungen parapsychische, die von ihnen handelnde Wissenschaft „Parapsychologie“ nennen. …Das Wort ist nicht schön, aber es hat meines Erachtens den Vorzug, ein bisher noch unbenanntes Grenzgebiet zwischen dem Durchschnitt und den abnormen, pathologischen Zuständen kurz zu kennzeichnen.“

- „If one ... characterizes by para- something going beyond or besides the ordinary, than one could perhaps call the phenomena that step outside the usual process of the inner life parapsychical, and the science dealing with them parapsychology. The word is not nice, yet in my opinion it has the advantage to denote a hitherto unknown fringe area between the average and the pathological states; however, more than the limited value of practical usefulness such neologisms do not demand."

To the "phenomena that step outside the usual process of the inner life" also belong the phenomena of Mesmer's magnétisme animal, and also hypnosis. Today, they are called "anomalous experiences", and whoever evaluate them is doing parapsychological research.

This is the exact definition of parapsychology, and it's topics. There is absolutely no doubt, that the phenomena that step outside the usual process of the inner life do exist, and my list of references demonstrates how the knowledge about these phenomena that step outside the usual process of the inner life growed in the last decades. So, how can somebody draw the conclusion, that there is no progress in parapsychology?

The term ψ (psi) is the first letter of the greek word ψυχή (psyche), and stands for all anomalous experiences, which are research topics of parapsychology. There is no supernatural or metaphysical meaning included, is is absolutely open whether such psychic phenomena can be explained by conventional means or by still unknown laws and frameworks. See for example the ψ (psi) phenomena of hypnosis. No one could explain it in the early days of parapsychology. In the later years, hypnosis was more and more understandable, and today it is an acknowledged topic of scientific research. Other ψ (psi) phenomena like Kirlian photography are obsolete today. ψ (psi) phenomena like psychokinesis remain controversial. Or take the ψ (psi) phenomena of near death experiences. They are a large field of research today. There is no doubt today, that phenomena that step outside the usual process of the inner life, i.e. all phenonema which are desgnated with the greek letter ψ (psi) do exist. Does this help you in understanding, or do you still need more background informations? Yagosaga (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 07:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 08:55, 13 February 2009 (CET)

This article currently makes no mention of anomalous experiences as an aspect of parapsychology. If you wish to add that subject to the scope of the article, this is a strange way to go about it. The text in question currently reads as follows: The position of many parapsychologists is that the existence of some forms of psi such as psychokinesis and ESP has good supporting evidence,[5] although the general consensus of the scientific community is that no conclusive evidence for psychic abilities has been produced.[6][7][8] In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences produced a report that concluded that there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."[9] The U.S. National Academy was talking about the paranormal, and specifically psychic abilities. The unfolding position of the sciences on anomalous experiences, a subject entirely unrelated to psychic abilities from the perspective of the science of psychology and more closely related to abnormal psychology, does not contradict the statement of the US NAT in any way. If you would like to introduce the subject of anomalous experiences to the scope of the article, let's discuss that in another talk section. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue that there is scientific consensus that psi abilities exist because there is not. I will argue, however, that the second paragraph of the lead is rather poorly written and that a direct (and misleading quote) cherry-picked from 1988 violates the editorial consensus that helped bring this article to featured status. The discussion of a 30 year old report is material for the criticism section, not the lead. The lead is not the proper place to introduce material not discussed in the body. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just noticed that the criticism does provide a complete description of the report. Still I would like to see it summarized and not quoted in the lead, if it must remain. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already replied to your concern that it is "cherry-picked" at the start of this discussion. Given that no other part of the report contradicts the part quoted (as you have already "not completely disagree"ed), it is not quoted out of context and therefore it is certainly not misleading. There is no requirement to summarise every source, especially not in the lead. This specific quote is perfectly on-topic in the second paragraph and an excellent illustration of the general scientific consensus. As for the process that brought this article to feature status, the phrase "feature status" is not a genie that will make all of your wishes come true. Consensus changes, common sense applies, and this specific quote works excellently in the service of the paragraph even if other quotes may have been problematic. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The citation of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report in the lead of the article does indeed disrupt the stylistic character of a lead. Take a look at the leads of other articles like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, and Philosophy for comparison. They are short and kept in general terms without name dropping and citations. There is enough room for citations and discussions in the more elaborated chapters of an article. The lead should only give a short, general survey, and nothing more. This is my opinion. Also, the name dropping in the sentence "Psychologists such as Ray Hyman, Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology, stating that methodological flaws may explain any apparent experimental successes" does disrupt the stylistic character of the lead. This does not fit in a stylish lead. One may ask, if these people are mentioned here, why not other people? I think, this is highly problematical. Make the lead short and stylish with some general words like in the other articles mentioned before. For comparison, take a look at the German article de:Parapsychologie. Yagosaga (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 23:05, 14 February 2009 (CET)

I imagine the reason those people and groups are mentioned by name is that some editors called weasel when the statements were made without saying who said them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Anomalous experiences

Some editors have stated that the study of anomalous experiences, that is experiences of subjects not explained by science (e.g. experiences of seeing "ghosts"), is an aspect of parapsychology and should be covered in this article. Is this the case? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan Paddy, you wrote: "This article currently makes no mention of anomalous experiences as an aspect of parapsychology." IMHO this is the problem. As far as I know parapsychological research, - and I can only report what I know about it in Germany, - it always deals with anomalous experiences as an aspect of parapsychology from the very beginning. This is the main topic of the different societies of psychical research, and this is also the topic of the various academic projects, mainly in Europe.

The term psi is coined many decades later after the advent of the parapsychological discipline. While many parapsychologists in the U.S. for example speak freely about psi, the term psi is often avoided by European parapsychologists. Parapsychology was founded in the last decades of the 19th century, the term psi was coined a half century later by Thouless, R. H. (1942). "Experiments on paranormal guessing". British Journal of Psychology, 33, 15-27. While most of the people focus on psi, they forget the original goals of parapsychology. IMHO one reason for this unbalance is skeptical propaganda. What do you think when I suggest to write a paragraph on parapsychology and anomalous experiences, and I present it here in the discussion? I am just working on these topics since I have rewritten the German version of the Wikipeida article about parapsychology with importing a translation of the English version. Yagosaga (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many parapsychologists study psi and anomalous experiences concurrently. (For example, most of my own research falls along the lines of anomalous psychology with a small psi component and my blog also covers both approaches). There is a small 'anomalous psychology' section in the article, it could be expanded. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the "Anomalous psychology" section until now. That kind of makes this discussion moot. Ryan Paddy (talk)

A Brief History of this Article

It's been a while since I've edited this article, and I can see that most of you are new, so I would like to share a little bit of history. Around a year ago, I was part of an effort to rewrite this article and bring it to featured status. The editors who worked on it were, like yourselves, a mixture of skeptics, proponents, and agnostics who previously had spent long periods of time arguing with each other on the talk pages. Yet we still managed to come together and build an article that satisfied everyone involved, and we did it (in part) by adhering to a few general guidelines. They were:

1. Use only secondary sources or mainstream scientific journals. For example, this means that Journal of Parapsychology is not an appropriate source for this article, but neither is The Skeptics Dictionary. We found that there was plenty of material to build an article with sources like Nature, and the British Journal of Psychology or textbooks and edited compilations on the history of the field.

2. Avoid the call criticism and response approach. This means that parapsychology gets to state its case, then the skeptics state theirs. The end. No point-counterpoint arguments, they only make the article read like an argument rather than describe the topic.

3. No direct quotations. This goes along with the above. If one quote is allowed to remain where so-and-so or such-and-such committee is praising the results of parapsychology, then the temptation is for another editor to find a quote to counteract it (and vice-versa). We agreed that adhering to this rule would help keep the article stable.

4. We also agreed to a number of smaller things, like keeping the external links to a minimum, and making sure that the lead summarizes the body of the article, and etc...but the above were the big 3.

Obviously, the editors who agreed worked with these guidelines are no longer here (so you can take them or leave them), but much of the article still is. I don't have the time to edit Wikipedia like I used to, so I hope that the present editors will consider adopting these guidelines so they will have a common ground to work on. It worked pretty well for us, so hopefully it will work for you. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Annalisa, thank you for updating us with the history of this article. These are high valuable informations. We had a similar discussion on the German discussion page regarding parapsychology. Some editors would exclude the Sketpical Inquirer for example, while said, it is important, for example to verify the discussions between Leonard Angel and Ian Stevenson. But I have to learn that the English Wikipedia has other rules than my German Wikipedia. Yagosaga (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (CET)

I think that as a general rule we should use the best sources we can lay our hands on (per WP:RS) and get rid of the poorer ones (including parapsychology journals and self-published skeptical sources), avoid the article sounding like an argument, and use paraphrasing rather than quotes as a general rule, while always allowing for occasional exceptions where a quote explains a perspective the best. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see how it would be good to keep the article from becoming like a back-and-forth argument, where the reader doesn't really find stuff out, but I also don't understand why each of the main claims of each side (there really are two, polarised sides here) get an airing? What about Radin's remark, for example, [[10]], [[11]]--is this kind of thing inappropriate or irrelevant?--Asdfg12345 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I read, Use only secondary sources or mainstream scientific journals. This seems to be a good rule for editing articles in view of NPOV. But when I review the list of references, I find very much JP papers, notes from the PA website and citations from the Skeptical Inquirer. How does this fit into this guideline? Yagosaga (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's aspirational. We should move towards the most reliable sources, replacing the poorer ones as better ones become available. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I also don't quite understand how Nature fits into the equation as a neutral source. One of the main editors wrote an article about how Sheldrake's book should be burnt. The journal appears to be firmly establishment science, biased against parapsychology. Is this view mistaken? Anyway, since they are firmly mainstream though, I guess they are the most reliable sources on this subject. NPOV requires explaining the core, competing viewpoints. Wouldn't to neglect that of parapsychologists entirely be against this requirement? --Asdfg12345 17:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's like Ryan says, the use of mainstream and secondary sources is what we should aspire to. It looks to me like some of these JP and Skeptical Inquirer citations have slipped in here since I was last active at this article. Just a quick glance tells me that many of them can be replaced. Look for instance at refs 3-5, what are they there for? As for Nature, I too believe that it is biased and the article that we source here has a number of inaccuracies, but Nature is a mainstream scientific journal, and it's publications like these that shape the public's understanding of parapsychology. That's what we're supposed to reflect here. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi to all. I suggest to add a disambiguation like that: Template:This2 due to the interchangeable use of the words esoteric and parapsychology to makes it clear, that this article here is about the discipline and not about esoterical parapsychology or esotericism. 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (CET)

Don't think these words are at all interchangeable in English, in fact esotericism means something almost entirely independent (roughly, it means the pursuit of "little-known" or "hidden" information). Do you have an English-language reliable source suggesting they are confusable terms? The content of the article esotericism bears little relation to this article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are 78,700 English-language sources: Google. Yagosaga (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please identify specific reliable sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Paddy, check the Google search. It cleary demonstrates that the word parapsychology is often used in the colloquial context of esoteric. I don't want to write an article about esoteric and parapsychology for which you need specific reliable sources, but I want do provide a service for those hundred thousands of people which don't want to learn something about parapsychology in scientific context but rather looking for esoterics like crystal ball gazing, occultism and furtune-telling when searching for parapsychology. Many commercial esoteric publishers do publish esoteric parapsychology, which is quite different from the research discipline. 84.133.76.83 (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just want to pop in here and quickly point out that a Google search is not good evidence of anything nor can it be considered a reliable sources. Brothejr (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So, help me in finding a reliable source for an everyday life's matter. Yagosaga (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Try searching Google Books or Google Scholar and look for articles with reputable publishers that make your point. If it's a valid point about colloquial uses of the term, someone will probably have made it somewhere. It's amazing the range of topics discussed in academic circles. If such usage is common, it raises an interesting point. If "parapsychology" is commonly used to mean things other than the attempt to scientifically demonstrate the existence of psychic abilities and life after death, should the article clarify its scope? For another example, "ghost-hunters" sometimes refer to themselves as parapsychologists. I think this would depend on whether there widespread recognition of a "real" meaning alongside various "mis-uses" of the term, or whether the term is genuinely multi-meaning. It's my impression that the term has a real meaning, the one we define here, and a number of mis-uses. But I haven't encountered reliable sources on the subject, and in any case I don't think WP:NAME makes such distinctions between "correct" and "incorrect" usage and only relies on "the most widespread recognisability" for titles. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In Germany, many titles are protected by law. One can call her- or himself a psychologist when he has studied psychology at university, and has received a certificate. The same is with a pohysician or a doctor. But parapsychology is not protected, so everyone can call her- or himself a parapsychologist. As a result, many fortune-tellers and esoteric mystics call themselves parapsychologists to give themselves the appearance of a scholarly standard. I am not familiar with titles and laws in English-speaking countries. What's your opnion? Yagosaga (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

pseudoscience

With all the searching for sources to support the pseudoscience contention, I think it's easy to forget the obvious fact that many high ranking scientists regard parapsychology as legit. The affiliation to the AAAS is just one thing, take a look at the chairs of the SPR if anyone is still in any doubt. We have to reflect this viewpoint as well. Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of sources. Please provide a reliable source stating that "some/many scientists regard parapsychology as a legitimate science". No reliable source, no cookie. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Source that the PA is affiliated to the AAAS already there, and copious to choose from for the legit claim.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then please choose one or more references and put them against the statement, or remove the statement per WP:V. The statement is extremely contentious, and will not stand without its own reference. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Membership of the PA in AAAS does not confer "scientific status" upon parapsychology. I have seen no sources which indicate this. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course membership of the AAAS does this. It's an association of scientific bodies. Lol. And that is all the evidence that's needed to show that parapsychology is regarded by many scientists as legit.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source that membership in the AAAS confers a "scientific status" upon parapsychology. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the text to just cover the fact of affiliation.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a number of changes to the second paragraph. This paragraph presents the POV of the general scientific community, per WP:NPOV and per WP:WEIGHT. As an additional bonus, this paragraph now reads much better than before. I did not make the changes to make it read better, but because a new reliable source was found that provided a clearer description of the views of the general scientific community than we have previously had. If you have objections to specific aspects of the changes I've made, please raise or edit the statements relating to those issues - reverting all the changes I made involves deleting new reliable sources. I think there is room for the paragraph to present a statement that some in the general scientific community consider parapsychology to be valid science, so long as such a statement can be referenced. The only reason I haven't included such a statement in the paragraph as edited at present is that I don't have a good source for it. The closest source I'm aware of is Flew, which considers both sides of whether it's pseudoscience or not, but doesn't reach a conclusion. Let's see if a stronger source for the "valid science" perspective of the general scientific community exists, and incorporate suitable statements if it does. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've had to tag the article because the views of one or two writers are now being presented as the views of the scientific community as a whole, while, for example, membership of the AAAS is being hidden and there is on mention of any scientific support for parapsychology either in terms of a legit science or as having demonstrated anything. Indeed, the idea that on good evidence exists is now elevated to the status of a fact - almost as if Utts never existed.Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Membership of the AAAS is covered in "Establishment of the Parapsychological Association", it is not hidden. It never appeared in the lead before you added it a day ago. The only substantive change to the lead is that it no longers says that some scientists consider parapsychology a pseudoscience, it nows says that many scientists do so, and says why they do. This change was made because a new, recent, reliable source became available that describes the views of the scientific community thus: The essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal.

The changes were made to incorporate that source. Please find reliable sources presenting the view of the scientific community that parapsychology is a valid science that has found credible results, and we'll incorporate those too. Without reliable sources, no such statements can be made. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the 100 year line. And, more importantly, so do many scientists. Utts for instance. It is their views the lede ignores while treating the opposite view (your view apparently) as the truth. Thus the tag. I also think there have been many more changes which have all slanted the lede away from neutral. Again, this is why it's tagged.Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Our opinions are irrelevant, all that matters is reliable sources. Please note that I've always fought against depicting parapsychology as pseudoscience beyond what the sources do - see the "recent changes" section on this talk page where you and I agreed on that. I am not an unthinking critic or POV-pusher, please assume good faith. The "100 year" line is based directly on the source quoted above, a source that describes the position of "a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists". It's a well-sourced description of the point of view of many people in the scientific community. The "100 year" line describes why many scientists consider parapsychology pseudoscience, according to the source. I won't be removing your tag because I'm too involved, but I'm fairly confident that other editors will see my edits for what they are: a fair description of the sources we have available, that follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As I have said repeatedly, the second paragraph is very open to a more broad depiction of the general scientific community's POV on parapsychology, if reliable sources for it can be found. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cordon for me is very convincing for a couple reasons - the publisher is quite reliable (Greenwood Publishing Group), it's very explicit, it's a tertiary source meant to summarize a broad field, and it gives a very specific reason why it's considered pseudoscientific. There's certainly room for other, equally explicit sources that state it's not a pseudoscience, but since the source is explicit about representing a majority opinion, I think it's pretty clearly undue weight to portray this as anything except a fringe theory. Basically what would be needed here would be a source saying "the majority do not consider parapsychology to be a pseudoscience. That would go a long way towards changing my mind on this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've toned down quite a bit of the skeptical rhetoric and clarified some of the opinions that were dressed up as facts, but I still think the pro science views that are found in the body need to be covered in the lede.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Landed little marsden - I want to assume good faith, but your recent edits have shown a complete disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:RS. You continue to make edits that contradict the sources cited, that downplay the cited perspective of the general scientific community, and that unduly promote parapsychology without adequate sourcing. In combination these edits appear to be in violation of WP:FRINGE. Please stop, as multiple editors are having to spend time reverting your edits and it's a waste of their efforts. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say I am bringing the article into line with npov by presenting more that one viewpoint; by correctly reflecting the sources (e.g., Carr who has been misrepresented as saying there is less research now when he talks about an increase!); and by making clear that opinions, especially disputed opinions, are portrayed as opinions rather than as facts. Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what your edit comments say. But the actual edits are another matter. Here you make an unsourced claim promoting parapsychology. Here you removed well-sourced information from Nature and replace it with unsourced opinion. Here, the same. Those are just the most recent, most of your edits over the last few days violate the WP:RS policy, and other policies. Please stop. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The first one is sourced to Bernard Carr; the second IS what the Nature article says when you ignore the irrelevant issue of geography; and the third is a summary of what all the various sources listed above say again minus the misleading geographical bias currently slanting the lede. All my other edits are likewise drawn from sources cited in the article and are intended to offset the obvious bias that has been introduced into the lede.Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a Bernard Carr source anywhere. "Sourcing" does not mean that you know a source exists. It means citing the source after the statement, so that readers and other editors can assess the nature and quality of the source. You say you are editing to "offset imbalances". So you think the recent change I made to the article, based on a new reliable source, have biased the article towards presenting the view that many scientists see parapsychology as pseudoscience, and your response is to edit other parts of the article to promote the view that parapsychology is a healthy growing science. That approach is an unacceptable violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. We can only report what the sources are saying, we can't "spin" the article to promote a perspective. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Carr source is one of the many sources that Annalisa posted here. One of my main points is that those have been systematically ignored in favor of a geographically irrelevant claim used only to bias the article. Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't use sources without citing them, it violates the verifiability policy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit to the lead that I reverted certainly did not bring the article more into line with policy, and I was about to take similar action to that of SA and Ryan for similar reasons. Verbal chat 21:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Verbal. Your wording is a little ambiguous, can you clarify your position on the edits of Landed little marsden, SA, and myself? Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was agreeing with your edits (not LLMs). Verbal chat 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi WLU, A reliable source does not mean that the statement in it is correct. Cordon, in your opinion, assesses, why parapsychology is considered pseudoscientific. But did you check his arguments? Are they OK? First, the definition of what is Pseudoscience#Criticisms_of_the_concept_of_pseudoscience is very controversial in science itself. So, logically, you can't use a controversial term to define another controversial science. Second, and I repeat what I have already mentioned, Cordon says that scientific research is only justified by it's success. Compare this with other disciplines: since the advent of the universities in ancient medieval times, theology has it's place at university. Saint Thomas Aquinas discussed in the 13. century in deep the question "utrum sit theologia scientia?" (why theology is a science?) in his Summa. Theology is derived from the greek word θεολογία, theologia, from θεός, theos or God and λόγος or logos, "words", "teachings". In scholasticism, several proofs of God were established and discussed, but the existance of God is not proven until today due to the divine properties which exclude him from the visible world (Immanuel Kant). Nevertheless, God is a topic of scientific research in theology until today, and theology remains a science although there will be a lack of progress forever. Why is parapsychological not justified while theological research is justified at the universities for many centuries? In the same manner, I could ask, whether psychology, the "words or teachings of the psyche, soul) has proven the existence of the soul. Nevertheless, psychology is unquestioned. Why parapsychology? Yagosaga (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cordon, and the statement drawn from it, does not assess whether parapsychology is pseudoscience. It merely states that a large portion of scientists, including most research psychologists, consider it to be pseudoscience, and why they do. As for theology: I'm afraid I can't imagine a worse way to make your point. It doesn't really bear elaborating on, but in brief: theology is not considered a science by most scientists either, and for the same reason. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What evidence does Cordon cite in support of his extraordinary claim that most research psychologists hold that parapsychology is pseudoscience quite specifically because it has failed to produce and has conducted experiments for too long now, rather than on more theoretical grounds, or not at all. This is, after all, a very nuanced, some might say obscure, position. How does Cordon support this extraordinary contention? With surveys for example? Or are his readers required, like Wikipedia readers now that the article treats it as a fact, to take this preposterous claim on faith.Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that contradicts the statement in Cordon that "a large portion" of scientists see parapsychology as pseudoscience? If not, I see no reason we should view the statement as preposterous. We work from reliable sources, not from editors opinions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever a source says something we can either treat it as true or as something that may be true but which we know has been said. You are now treating every negative claim you find as true and every positive claim is treated as something that has been said. The implication of this bias is that lede of the article now presents your skeptical view as true and the views of prominent scientists like Utts as false. That is, it takes as a fact the claim that no good evidence exists when the opposite is precisely what Utts concluded in an official report . This is against npov which specifically says we should not present one side of a dispute as true. You also treat the claim from Cordon that all scientists think exactly the same obscure thing as true. I am not saying it is definitely false I just think that we need more than someone saying it to treat it as factual. Npov says that we should allow readers to judge, but by presenting your/Cordon's view as fact you are telling them that your highly unlikely view is true. Landed little marsdon (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think it has any bearing on the current edits in the article, I do think that the position that parapsychology is a pseudoscience because it continues to investigate a hypothesis that a long period of investigation has not adequately demonstrated to exist (in some people's view) is very interesting. It's actually exactly the same argument that Blitz uses to conclude that it's a pseudoscience, and his is a very considered, balanced, and rather philosophical article. It may seem counterintuitive that a field that seems to be using the scientific method could be a pseudoscience purely because the subject hasn't been proven to exist. Isn't using the method enough? But to draw a parallel, what if instead of psychic powers the field had been scientifically studying demonic possession for the last century or more? Or fairies? A lot of people believe in and report the existence of those things. You could, perhaps design experiments to detect them. And if you hadn't detected them to the satisfaction of the scientific community for over a hundred years, perhaps many scientists would start calling the field a pseudoscience. That is, a field with the trappings of science but none of the results. While I hadn't really looked at it that way before, it is rather compelling. And I imagine, it's the main reason for scepticism of the field by many scientists and non-scientists alike: they just don't think a science can study something that long efforts have not demonstrated to exist. So the argument that the statement in the source is "extraordinary", "obscure", and "preposterous" really doesn't stand up to common sense. But most importantly, as I said before, contrary reliable sources would be needed to throw doubt on it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Common sense throws doubt on it big time. Knowledge of parapsychology makes it preposterous. Most research psychologists will probably think nothing much about parapsychology as a discipline. They will also probably, as surveys show for scientists and post-grad students, believe in psychic functioning in quite high numbers. It is therefore hard to immediately see how there could be such agreement on something right throughout science that all previous indications have on inkling of. I ask again, what evidence does Cordon provide? Or does in just say it, and since you believe it,in it goes as a fact. Landed little marsdon (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't "believe" it. I know a few psychologists (it was my major), but I've never asked them their opinion of parapsychology. I never thought much about parapsychology before coming across this article, and when I did so I was more convinced by the "borderline science" arguments than the "pseudoscience" - go back and check the talk page archives. I was just pointing out that it's not an absurd statement, it's quite plausible. The lack of evidence is certainly the thing that casts the most doubt on the field: if there was in-your-face evidence then all the other arguments for it being pseudoscience would be irrelevant. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing "Issues" tag

Puhlease. There are issues? Spare me.

Unless consensus is reached on this discussion page that an Issues tag is relevant, meaningful, and/or helpful, I'll be removing it whenever it appears. --nemonoman (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We know that more univertities than ever before are conducting parapsychology research yet the article strongly implies the opposite.

High ranking scientists like Jessica Utts are described as "believers" and their credentials hidden.

Poorly sourced bizarre claim that virtually all scientists think the exact same obscure thing is treated as fact.

This article sure has issues.Landed little marsdon (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there some double-standards here? SA made this edit [12], but I believe that there are numerous instances in the article where the opinions of other sources are quoted as facts. In which cases should this happen, and which should it not?--Asdfg12345 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to check the "and some universities" statement in the lead. The cited reference leads to a page with 12 institutes and centers, including four with "university" near the title. The reference also says "Scientific parapsychology is a minuscule field, with only a few dozen people in the entire world working in it". I looked at one of the listed universities and the home page of Prof Richard Wiseman (mentioned in the reference). Wiseman's research interests include "Deception: including the psychology of conjuring and behavioural correlates of lying. Parapsychology: The skeptical examination of evidence supporting the alleged existence of, and belief in, paranormal phenomena.".

These checks show that the cited reference does not justify the "and some universities" statement in the lead. This talk page has a list of 30 universitites with parapsychological projects. I tried to check the first (Deakin University). All I could find was a page for Dr Adam Rock with research interests including shamanism and qualitative phenomenological analysis. --Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Nature source backs up the statement that some universities have units doing parapsychology. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

dispute resolution

I think we need to get some formal/informal dispute resolution since there are now a number of highly dubious and misleading claims being presented in the article as fact. Discussion here does not seem t have made any difference.Landed little marsdon (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to start an RFC, although wording should be agreed on. Please do not tag the article unnecessarily. Verbal chat 10:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was tagged justifiably in my view. It's obvious from this talk page that others think likewise. Also, please discontinue the personal attacks like those made in your recent edit summary. Thanks.Landed little marsdon (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits have been disruptive, I'm sorry to say. Your edits have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, the only constant in the dispute is your editing. That was not a personal attack, it was a comment on your edits I'm afraid. It would be much better if you tried to get consensus for your suggested changes rather than forcing them on the article and then attempting to justify them afterwards. If you could please justify them with good WP:V and WP:RS that would be great. Repeatedly editing against the apparent consensus is always disruptive and never helpful. Please do start an RFC if you feel it is warranted, but suggest the wording before taking it live so it can be discussed. Or simply justify the changes you want made to the satisfaction of a majority of editors. I will bring this to the attention of WP:FT/N to bring more new eyes to the article. Verbal chat 10:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus other than the one you are currently imagining. Lol. There are clearly about three or four editors on either side of some of the issues raised here. Landed little marsdon (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Rather than argue with me, why not demonstrate your case by making well founded arguments based on RS for which consensus can be established. If the consensus is to change the current wording then that is fine. By the way, your first line above is very close to a personal attack, by addressing my state of mind rather than my edits. For the wikipedia definition of consensus, which includes things to do with policy and guidelines (such as NPOV, undue and fringe), see WP:CONSENSUS. If you want to discuss my understanding with me please do it on my talk page rather than disrupting this page, thanks. Verbal chat 11:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been making arguments based on the sources. See above for example for why it is wrong to talk about less university based research rather than more.

Re the consensus issue: given that there is obviously no consensus on talk and that two groups of editors, including you, have clearly been disagreeing in the last few hours on this very page; how did you come to mistake that for consensus? Landed little marsdon (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the changes you are proposing, which seem to be against policy unless you can back them up with the requested information. Please continue that discussion, if you have the sources. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed there was a consensus. You falsely claimed the consensus was with you. Be that as it may, the sources for the increase in university based psi research are cited above. You are free to look at them at any time.Landed little marsdon (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LLM, if you want to use a source you need to put it in the article. You can't cite an article that's only referenced on the talk page. A lot of readers never read the talk page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

geographical analysis & publication location

I removed what I feel are trivial points about the amounts of psi research conducted at various locations over the last 30 years or so, and about psi research being published in psi journals. My view is that they were clogging up the lede unnecessarily. I think it flows much better now. Verbal thinks these points should be included. If anyone else feels these views should go back in then I will put them back and we can discuss it here. Landed little marsdon (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The global analysis and publication information is not trivial, it is actually very important, and should be restored to the lead. Verbal chat 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I will put the trivia back in, but I can't even guess at how the publication stuff is necessary. So psi research is published in journals which publish psi research. Whatever next? Some people use an upper case P when starting a sentence with the word "parapsychology". Well I never!Landed little marsdon (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is it is rarely published in non-niche journals, this is important. Verbal chat 13:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

like almost everything else in the world you mean?Landed little marsdon (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not true for most valid scientific fields (cf. Cold fusion, a similar field, compared with physics, psychology, philosophy, maths, medicine, computer science, etc., and their valid sub-disciplines such as nanoscience, quantum computing, dependant types, fusion, etc., etc.) Verbal chat 13:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What??? Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority of medical research is not published in niche medical journals. And the same goes for all academic disciplines. Probably to a far greater degree in terms of percentage than parapsychology. Landed little marsdon (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No that isn't what I'm suggesting. There is a lot of medical research (etc.) in more general journals (eg Nature) and in journals with high impact factors and sinificant respect, etc, while this is not generally the case for cold fusion and parapsychology research. Verbal chat 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot more medical research. In percentage terms parapsychology could well be top of the tree.Landed little marsdon (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, amount of research, quality of research, quality of publications, and quality of journals are all important factors. Parapsychology is lacking in all of these respects. I'd like to see a WP:RS for such percentages. Verbal chat 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest: the "journals" parapsychologists publish in aren't really journals at all. They're akin to other fake publications of pseudoscientists like Galilean electrodynamics or the Journal of Creationist Studies. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. This is for discussing now to improve the article rather than sounding off about great perceived wrongs that some feel wiki should right. Keep on topic please.Landed little marsdon (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing why your edits are not supported. If you have RS for your claims please add them, as has been repeatedly asked. SA is right that many of the parapsychology journals are little better than newsletters and websites. This information is important, and is neutrally presented in the article and the lead. In fact it might need some expansion. Verbal chat 15:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

These changes were introduced after being discussed at great length in the talk section Introduction: Fewer Laboratories? and crafted and commented on by editors of various opinions. As parapsychology claims to be a scientific field, it is highly important how it compares to other scientific fields. To what extent it is studied or researched in universities, and to what extent the research is published in general science journals, textbooks, etc, is extremely relevant and informative to readers interested in its status as a science. As was pointed out in that talk section many, many times, all areas of science research are published both in niche journals and in general science journals. Not being published in general science journals is an indication of the lack of acceptance or interest of the scientific community. Any attempt to bias this article to make it appear more like the scientific community accepts parapsychology than it actually does, is an enormous breach of WP:NPOV. Neutral point of view does not mean "balance" - there is no wikipedia policy that calls for balance, rather all views should be given due WP:WEIGHT. In this instance, that means giving the view of the scientific community that parapsychology is not mainstream science, which is amply demonstrated in the reliable sources we have available, the due weight it deserves in a "science"-related article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What you and you're cronies are engaged in is the systematic destruction of a featured article. If the scientific community really feels the way you say they do then how did the PA gain and retain affiliation to the AAAS? You have one terrible source for your "every scientist in the world believes it is pseudoscience" claim and you are milking it for ten times its worth while ignoring everything to the contrary in clear breach of npov. Fair enough, you have more than enough allies to write whatever you want and to misrepresent things to your heart's content. I will not stand in your way. One benefit is that by making the article as biased as it is, nobody will be fooled into thinking it is neutral and so most interested readers will try to find a better source. Feel free to archive the entire talk page stuff involving me, I will no longer be taking any interest in this article and have removed it from my watch list. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have cronies. And the page as it is now, is only very moderately different to when I made the edit to add a new source that started this kerfuffle. As for only having one source... the whole second and third paragraphs are replete with sources regarding how scientists view parapsychology, all I did was add one more. I would be interested in a source saying why the affiliation to the AAAS stands, just as I'd be interested in any source where general scientists laud parapsychology. Anyone have some? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

5 Ws

I believe the 5Ws are relevant for the lede. Who, what, where, when and why. Stating who is doing the research and where they are doing it seems relevant to me. As such, I have reverted the removal of the discussion of the time the interest peaked and the general categories of labs doing the work. I have also included the caveat that Zener cards test for possible telepathy - again, the null hypothesis is that "you can't tell what's on the cards," so stating they test for telepathy is poor. The cards themselves test for "can someone tell what's on the cards" not "is someone psychic." Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't Zener cards have problems insofar as they aren't shuffled after each test, but the analyses presumed that there was a 1 in 5 chance for any card throughout the deck? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

issues

I see we are now even hiding from readers the fact that anyone thinks that the research shows anything. At some point the tag has to in back and mediation must begin.Landed little marsdon (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The research shows that parapsychology is a pathological science, I suppose. But that's fairly obvious from what I read. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SA, keep it civil please. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be in there. Ryan's recent edit restored it. Phil153 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

We should avoid cherry-picking example quotes to put in references from sources to support a POV that may not actually be endorsed by the source. Verbal chat 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the quotes. If we want to go this direction, then let's pull the huge number of quotes that say parapsychology doesn't exist, etc. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have used briefer quotes from the sources, and not included the source's interview quotes. But that's not an excuse to remove the whole reference. Somebody has now restored it without the sub-quotations, which is how I should have done it in the first place. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

US research

There's an over-generalisation from the WP:RS in the current text, where it says that "in the US interest in research peaked in the 1970s and has declined significantly since". The Nature source cited only says that research in universities has declined, it says that private research institutions are still going strong. What's the best way of making this distinction? Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops... I described the source slightly wrong above, it's more complex. Me and Annalise had a long conversation on this above and I forgot the outcome. The source says that interest in research in the US hit a high in the 1970s (presumably both in university and private units, but that is not made explicit), that university research is now minimal, but that private research is now well-funded. The problem is, it could be seen as an inference that academic research has slumped, as the source doesn't state it as explictly as that. Personally I see the latest edit as accurate to the source, but Annalise saw that reading as an undue inference and I'm inclined to respect her doubts on it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried a half-dozen rewrites to try to shoehorn all this info into that itty-bitty paragraph, but it's ten pounds of data in a five-pound sack. The paragraph now is pretty good but not perfect, but it gets the points across in a reasonably non-POV way, and if someone wants more info, there's the refs to find it.--nemonoman (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't stand pretty good, and had another go. Now it's more accurate and sucks. --nemonoman (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Have made an attempt. I think this is the content of the source in brief. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Recently Revised Lead

I'm liking the new structure of the recently revised lead because it better reflects the structure of the article. However, this last sentence needs to be removed (or put back to how it was originally stated) because it is certainly false:

"Recent parapsychology research is published only in journals dedicated to the field.[18]"

Most (if not all) of the research that is discussed in the body of the article comes from mainstream journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology Let's not contradict our own article in the lead. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Foundations of physics is not a real physics journal. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict

I am removing for now, the sentence as requested by and for Annalisa since she has taken a strict position on her editing. Beyond noting that the line presents an obvious ambiguity with other info in the article, and compromises the article's clarity creating a definite possibility for confusion in a reader's mind, I'll leave the discussion of this to more knowledgeable editors.(olive (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm the IP making edits of this one line above.... I seem to not be logging in automatically as I have always been able to do...didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Sorry.(olive (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)))

scientific belief

As the survey cited in the article (but censored from the lead) makes clear, there is significant belief amongst scientists in the reality of psi. It is therefore almost impossible for Cordon's opinion that almost all scientists think parapsychology is pseudoscience because there is no evidence to be true. When one also considers that virtually all the more recently conducted surveys of, for example, doctoral students (tomorrow's scientists), show a similar level of support then we can see that Cordon's nonsense is simply unsupported wishful thinking. If such rubbish has to be included in the lead of a featured article because some here would also really like it to be true, at least have the dignity to treat at as opinion rather than fact. I.ve offered you all known surveys as evidence that Cordon is wrong. What does Cordon offer as his evidence for his extraordinary claim? Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean the 30-year-old survey from a period when interest in the field was at its most intense? Nice cherry picking. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

All the surveys we have of scientists, students, postgrads etc., all show the same significant support for psi. A support that seems to increase with an increase in education. Cordon's fantastical claim on the other hand has nothing to support it other than the fact that he claimed it. Not even a cherry to be picked. More of a prune o be discarded but, unfortunately, since it tallies with how many here desperately want the world to be, it is cited as a fact. Lol.

And btw cf, the "obscure" journal the original survey was published in was called New Scientist! Lol lol. Landed little marsdon (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you've changed your mind about not editing this article any more, welcome back. Apart from the survey in the 70s, which is obviously outdated as a source of information about modern scientists' views, what other surveys are you referring to? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, as the owner of the article and as one of the select few permitted to edit, you should check it out. Maybe invest in a book by Dean Radin, for example and see what he says about public and private belief. Or just google "survey" and "esp" and you'll find plenty of reason to doubt Cordon. Landed little marsdon (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think there's a book by Dean Radin that constitutes a reliable source and contradicts the statement in the article, then you should cite the source. Waving your hands and saying "there are lots of sources that contradict this, you should go look for them" is not even slightly convincing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, i'm citing New Scientist. You're the one waving your hands and dismissing it because it's a few years older than the twenty and thirty year old sources currently used as sources for the current scientific consenses. Lol.

And btw, for the fourth time, what EVIDENCE does Cordon cite? I mean, he surely doesn't just make the bald claim and expect people to take it on faith that he somehow knows these things. He must surely refer to some study or some survey or the like.Landed little marsdon (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cordón does not cite sources for this information. The statement we have quoted is made at the end of several pages covering the history of parapsychology. Presumably he is describing his conclusions from his readings on the subject, given that he also describes recent experiments such as ganzfeld as having received a chilly response from the scientific community. While a more academic article with plentiful citations is always preferable, Cordón is typical of many reliable sources intended for a lay audience in not providing his sources. If a reliable source on the subject with a more academic approach to sourcing become available, we would use that, but for now Cordón is the best reliable source we have on the subject of what modern scientists think of the science status of parapsychology. If you have concerns about the reliability of the source that you don't feel are being addressed, you could take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you haven't the faintest idea whether what Cordon says is true or not, or whether he is honestly mistaken on all or any count, or whether he is deliberately stretching things a bit, or, as the surveys suggest, whether he is cutting his account from nearly whole cloth ("almost all research psychologists" my ass). You can "presume" whatever you like, but here, particularly on well known controversial topics, we really should only present as fact what are pretty clear facts that are backed by more than the say so of one hitherto (and henceforth) unknown and complely inconsequential author. So you believe Cordon with all your heart; so what? Strong belief does not a fact make. Let's acknowledge the actual fact that some have claimed this and stop pretending to readers that something is a fact when for all we know Cordon just made it up on the spot.Landed little marsdon (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if you haven't the faintest idea whether what Cordon says is true or not, or whether he is honestly mistaken on all or any count, or whether he is deliberately stretching things a bit, or, as the surveys suggest, whether he is cutting his account from nearly whole cloth. Is it an RS...yes or no? Shot info (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You write as if everything we say in an article has to be treated as a fact, when, in fact, one of the core policies called WP:NPOV says the complete opposite. Lol again. Landed little marsdon (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You dodge the question and then pose a non sequitur - why is that? Shot info (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I directed you to the relevant core policy which renders your point worthless. We are not duty bound to present things as fact even if someone in an rs says it. If you want to change core policy to that effect then be my guest, but in the meantime there is no point discussing your fantastical interpretations of policy, your nonsensical questions and your misunderstanding of what a non-sequitur is. Landed little marsdon (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:NPOV you will understand how it applies to an article - not to sources. Since you seem to have misunderstood such a fundamental policy of WP, here is the first sentance after the lede - The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. So now that we have your non sequitur out of the way, shall we ask once again if the source is reliable or not? Once we answer that one, we can then ask a second question, is the viewpoint expressed in the RS significant in the context of WP:NPOV. Shot info (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And we are writing - drumroll - an article! Npov makes absolutely clear that simply appearing in an rs is no guarantee that a claim is factual. As such it is pointless to keep banging on about the source being an rs. If you have a real point to make then please make it, I have no interest in further discussing your ludicrous misinterpretations of policy. Landed little marsdon (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)