Talk:Controversy in parapsychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Frankly, this page scares me 2 Good topic, bad format 3 Pro & Con format 4 The Question Is... 5 Ideas to improve the page 6 Minor move 7 Removed Cheerleading

[edit] Frankly, this page scares me

This reads more like a blog or discussion page than a proper encyclopedic entry. The use of the "one crit. one rebuttal" format is potentially misleading, and the tendency on this page to make blanket generalizations about what one or the other side believes is dangerously close to the kind of straw-man arguments commonly used by TV pundits. I would recommend deletion, because the topic of the page is presented in a non-Wikipedian way (Wikipedia is not a blog, or a site to respond to criticism). Noclevername 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scares you??? There is a real need for an overview of the criticisms and responses between parapsychology and its critics. The format isn't quite as simple as it seems. Criticisms which have no response -or which no one has formulated a response to- can be placed under the heading "Other criticisms". This is not really an article unto itself, but a sub-section of the main article. There is a huge need for this format, because if you put the criticism and response in separate sections, it is very difficult to evaluate whether the response really is adequate to the criticism- or even to follow the argument at all. I couldn't, when they were separate. I also believe that most of the criticisms are sourced or could be, and many have quotes, and nearly all the responses are sourced. So it isn't really that generalized. It is only split from the main page due to size. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All that is true, but beside the point. The need for a page like this may exist, but not in an encyclopedia. This page is a collection of arguments, and I believe it violates the spirit of Wikipedia. That's what scares me; not the subject matter, but the entire format and concept of the page. WP is not the proper setting for settling debates. Noclevername 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"This page is a collection of arguments":

Don't you think it is appropriate to describe debates in Wikipedia? That is a lot of what it actually does. And debates are composed of pro and con arguments. There are different formats for portraying debates, and in some cases it is fine to have them in different sections (as with all the other paranormal pages). But I believe that in this particular case, the thinking reader would be best informed by comparing the criticisms directly with the responses. This is the least confusing way of doing it in an extremely confusing debate. The reader who hasn't studied parapsychology simply cannot grasp the field without some sort of point-by-point comparison. Anyway, the critics could "win" on this page, so it isn't a defense of parapsychology. All we need is a really good critic. What would happen if Hyman himself took an interest in this page?

"WP is not the proper setting for settling debates.":

Yes, that's true, but there are various ways of describing controversy, and one of them is to compare directly, point for point. When you do that, you aren't trying to settle a debate, you are just reporting that "so-and-so says this, and the other so-and-so says this back." You can have it in different sections, or look at the points one-for-one.

Also, this page does not settle debates. It has a section for unanswered criticisms. Also, some of the responses essentially agree with the criticisms, such as about the abuse of quantum physics, The psi assumption, and that The paranormal is culturally very popular and profitable. So it isn't as if "the parapsychologists have an answer for everything."

Yeah, I know it's an unusual format. But I think the subject and milieu within which parapsychology lies require it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not certain I'd agree that Wikipedia is a place to describe debates about controversial subjects, at least not in such elaborate detail. The main Parapsychology page does a good job of summing up the general state of the debate, with a few well-chosen examples; to fill a page with them seems excessive. I agree that too much detail is better than too little, but there are limits (see What Wikipedia is not for guidelines). Is this page encyclopedic? According to the definition as I understand it, no. Noclevername 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"at least not in such elaborate detail."

Parapsychological topics have about 20 or 30 pages on Wikipedia. So the objections which cover them in general need to be in one article, not spread around in each.

I just don't know what you mean about encyclopedic. Could you point me to the definition you mean? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Critics could "win" on this page, so it isn't a defense of parapsychology" -- ?? If a format lends itself to one or another side possibly winning, then it's the wrong format. I stumbled across this article expecting to find find out what both sides believed. Instead I found an article that appears to attempt to "clear up common misconceptions about parapsychology". Not that such an article is a bad thing. Just that it more rightly belongs on a private website. -- LuckyLouie 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be correct. But, two things: first, no one's winning or losing. That's why I put scare quotes around "'win'". If the page "clears up common misconceptions about parapsychology" then that is just what it's for. It is to clear up any ignorance or misconceptions the reader may have about the debate.

"If a format lends itself to one or another side possibly winning, then it's the wrong format."

Of course. I said "Anyway, the critics could 'win'" because I though it was the impression that this was a defense of parapsychology. It is not. If there are unanswered, or poorly answered criticisms, they must be included. There isn't censorship in favor of either side. There's a section for unanswered criticisms, and there were some for a while.

"I stumbled across this article expecting to find find out what both sides believed. Instead I found an article that appears to attempt to "clear up common misconceptions about parapsychology"."

The page is indeed meant to explicate what both sides believe about the other, NPOV. The format is debate. If you found that there are not unanswered or poorly answered criticisms, perhaps that means something also (and I assume here that the objection would be that there must be some criticisms which are unanswerable). This is also valuable information. Either the skeptics on here are lazy, or parapsychology has a good defense. Either way, the reader is informed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It seems to me this is a question of format, not content. There haven't been questions of NPOV, or censorship. Is there anything against a pro/con format in the Wikipedia rules? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. LuckyLouie, I respectfully propose that if you din't find out something of what both sides think about contentious issues, you didn't read the page. This isn't a page meant to deeply evaluate issues, but to cover common criticisms and responses. Perhaps the title needs to be changed to reflect that: "Common criticisms and responses in parapsychology". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The statement "Either the skeptics on here are lazy, or parapsychology has a good defense" is both entirely non-NPOV and factually inaccurate; The article contains only carefully selected statements which do not fully or objectively present the views of either side. That is the main problem with this type of format; the tendency to fall into a competetive pattern with the advantage going to whomever has the last word. It is not a scientific approach, relying more on anecdotal statements than on hard data. Noclevername 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Either the Skeptics on here are lazy, or parapsychology has a good defense" is not only a very Non-NPOV statement, it is also totally inaccurate.

Talk pages don't require NPOV.

The statements on this page are a selectively chosen few of the many professed viewpoints and sources of evidence (both biased and Un-),

Such selection is part of what we do on Wikipedia, in accordance with WP:V etc.

and therefore does not give a full and impartial view of the topic.

Fine. Edit away.

The article does not therefore fit the Wikipedia criteria for NPOV.

Great. Prove it and NPOV it.

Incompleteness is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason for improvement. This is the first substantiative reason for deletion I've seen. But it doesn't work. It seems to me this is a question of format, not content. Is there anything against a pro/con format in the Wikipedia rules?

LuckyLouie, I respectfully propose that if you didn't find out something of what both sides think about contentious issues, you didn't read the page. This isn't a page meant to deeply evaluate issues, but to cover common criticisms and responses. Perhaps the title needs to be changed to reflect that: "Common criticisms and responses in parapsychology".Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good topic, bad format

I do believe that there is a place on wikipedia for an article that discusses the issue of the types of criticisms directed towards parapsychology, the intensely personal nature of that criticism and it's relation to certain belief systems such as Skepticism, Atheism etc. As an anthropologist, I am often disturbed by the exchanges I see in the literature and in skeptical publications which I read. It is clear that for some skeptics, no amount of scientific testing or experimentation will ever be enough and what research is done is eagerly greeted as an opportunity to impune the motives of the parapsychologist doing it, their scientific training, their methods etc ad infinitum. I have seen my fair share of savage attacks on academics by colleagues but with topics that fall under parapsychology, the overwhelming majority of criticism comes not from peers or colleagues but from a group of scholars whose criticism seems to be motivated by more than just scientific interest. There are sketpics and then there are activist skeptics who treat any research in these areas as a personal affront. I personally see it as no different than a biblical archeologist attacking any findings that might suggest there was never a global deluge as described in the Noah story. The difference being that to certain skeptics, anything that clashes with their belief in a non-theistic world or rational and explainable world is intolerable.

So, I say good topic, but bad format. The whole tit for tat style is tedious and incomprehensible to the average reader. I would encourage the original editor to rethink his/her approach to this and look for good sources that evaluate the tone of skeptical criticism towards such topics and consider whether their tone is any different than the one they use to attck the validity of religious topics. Of course, he/she might also want to look at source material that seeks to determine if there IS any discernable difference between Parapsychology and religion. Some argue there isn't much of a difference. Look at Carl Sagan's Demon haunted World and Mike Dash's Boderlands. There's good material there. Lisapollison 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro & Con format

Ah, that's where it is! Someone on the Deletion discussion page found the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Pro & con lists. I knew it was out there somewhere, just couldn't remember where... Absentmindedly yours, Noclevername 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article and the discussion on the talk page and AFD page reminded me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments for and against the single european currency?, which is where I'd seen that guideline. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my dropped ball, ONUnicorn. And may I add, d'oh! Noclevername

[edit] The Question Is...

Ultimately, can this page be salvaged? In order to make it properly Wikipedic, it would require a total rewrite; The format and even the name would need changing. Better to scrap it and start fresh from the ground up, or just let the main Parapsychology page sum up the matter of common criticsms, etc. Noclevername 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be salvaged. Like I said in my comment at AFD, there's lots of good, useable content here in the form of sources and quotations, and it's clear that a lot of work went into this and it'd be a shame to scrap it all. However, it does need to be totally re-written. Martinphi seems accepting of a move to userspace and a re-write; see this comment on my talk page], but doesn't think he (she?) can or should do the re-write, but is willing to host it in his userspace. I think merging it all into Parapsychology would be a mistake - summary style exists for a reason. Should we go ahead and move it now, withdrawing the AFD in the process, or should we wait for the AFD to run its course? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; The contents of this page could be moved to Martinphi's Userspace, and in its place, a comprehensive rewrite of the article, with a link to Martinphi on the Parapsychology Category page. That way, all the work that went into this particular page won't be lost, the info here will still be available, and this page gets a fresh start. Sounds like a plan! Noclevername 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas to improve the page

I think the arguments against parapsychology need to be divided up along lines of

• Rabid scientism orPseudoskepticism-- arguments against research --I'm sure that most criticisms come from these people, but I don't know if you could find a source that says so.
• Arguments against the evidence
• Arguments against methods --which can give evidence of the good methods used in some research as well as the bad methods used by some researchers.
• Some mention of amatuer researchers
• Legitimate questions (ie. Occam's razor, confirmation bias)
• The general scientific opinion--Why, despite all the criticisims, Parapsychology is considered a valid field of study regardless of whether ESP is true or not

I also think a historical section would be fun to write, but it might fit better in the main article. Puddytang 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks good... also

• Objections about the misuse of physics
• About the lack of theories

Not all the legitimate crits are already in the article. Some from Hyman need inclusion. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Pseudoskeptics arguements should be the least emphasized things here, if even mentioned at all; I'd much rather see statements from solid scientific sources than a page of angry Penn and Teller quotes! -- Noclevername 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So we'll go with peer reviewed journals, and how about Truzzi, one of the founders of CSICOP, who popularized the term? Would they do for a discussion of pseudoskeptics? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor move

For anyone who wants to tell me tha moving a page is not a minor edit- I must have checked the box by accident. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stragely enough, I've found that the software automatically marks all moves with the m, just like minor edits. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Cheerleading

I took out the bit about skeptics using skeptical commentaries since it was written by a believer using a believer's commentary. Additionally, it added nothing to the argument other than beg for sympathy.

The second part I took out because it was stating the obvious. Also it claimed that skeptics and pro-psi proponents said this, but then gave only a pro-psi source.

Also I took out the bit about precognition since it seemed like a non-sequitor. One minute we're talking about whether or not there is a psi presumption, then we read a quote from Radin saying that "the experiments prove it" and by the way have you seen these results about precognition?

Well, I shouldn't revert, perhaps, because I'm not sure what is going on in this article now. When I wrote it, it made sense, but maybe it doesn't anymore. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is going on with article, it can't stand the way it is presently. Adding litle responses to the end of each criticism isn't NPOV. It simply makes it look like all the arguments have been successfully rebutted by the paprapsychological community, which they haven't. Radin's dig about "armchair scientists" has no place in this article. Ersby 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and have a whack at it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that you deleted a pro-sci section because it didn't have a corresponding anti-psi section. As per Wiki-norm, deletion should only be used as a last resort or in the case of a factual error. As an editor, it's our duty to balance out arguments by adding to the weaker side, not by deleting the stronger (larger) side. Deleting one side of the argument because there isn't another side (yet) leaves us open to claims that we are trying to conceal the fact that there is an argument.

perfectblue 11:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the quotes "answering" the criticisms was that they seemed to have little to do with the argument itself. For example, the "presumption of psi" article used to run as (1) people have argued it is wrong to ascribe curious results to telepathy, (2) but this lab got curious results, (3) and look at these papers here - they seem to prove presentience. Numbers 2 and 3 don't seem to answer point 1, and are just there to... well, I'm not sure why they're there. Similarly, that quote "Selective and historically uninformed "armchair cheerleading" and "armchair skepticism" are equally useless in all fields of inquiry and science" was deleted by me since it was just stating the obvious at best and finger-wagging at worst. Ersby 20:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. I could've sworn I deleted that bit. Must be getting old... Ersby 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)