User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This non-article page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
This page is an essay. This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.


Please don't edit the examples! They're supposed to be bad.


Contents

[edit] Quotations

I agree that the level of public discourse on controversial topics, including psi, is distressingly poor. From my perspective the majority of the sniping comes from people who claim to support rational inquiry, but in fact don't. Many of the snipes seem to originate from angry young men. Having been one a few decades ago, I remember the angst and arrogance of youth, and how that anger often manifests in supremely confident opinions that in hindsight are -- to be charitable -- naive.

– The blog of Dean Radin [1]

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis -- saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact -- he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."

– On Pseudo-Skepticism, A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi, founding co-chairman of Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, in the Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987 [2]

A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labeled as "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." In their most extreme form., scoffers represent a form of quasi-religious Scientism that treats minority or deviant viewpoints in science as heresies (Truzzi, 1996).

– The Perspective of Anomalistics By Marcello Truzzi [3]

[edit] Introduction

This essay is an attempt to explain why certain common edits used on pages of the Wikipedia paranormal project are often incorrect. It is addressed mainly to skepitcs, because skepitcs are more numerous on Wikipedia than those who think that psi or other paranormal phenomena may exist, and thus by force of numbers skeptics make the most mistakes.

This essay is written in spirit of skepticism. But it represents the skeptical attitude of CSICOP (now CSI) founder Marcello Truzzi, who left CSICOP because it was being usurped by what he termed pseudoskeptics. Truzzi stated,

They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them."

Thus, this is an attempt to introduce disinterested objectivity and verifiability into the presentation of paranormal articles, by making them fully NPOV.

[edit] The paranormal NPOV principle

Paranormal articles should be written strictly in accordance with the NPOV policy which states:

We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

" Extreme minority views" should not be in Wikipedia at all. If the subject is covered in Wikipedia, the above applies.

[edit] The paranormal lead principle

The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the lead should tell the reader what to believe. This is because the reader should be allowed to make up his/her own mind concerning the subject of the article. It is often very easy to tell a reader what to believe by presenting negative information: "To date, there is no scientific evidence for Astrology."

Assuming there is nothing factually incorrect about this statement, what is wrong with it? By creating initial bias in the reader, it makes it difficult for the reader to objectively consider the information in the article. A better sentence would be "Astrology is a highly controversial subject, and its scientific validity is often questioned."

While this still might create bias, it creates as little bias as possible while still accurately summarizing the contents of the article in accordance with Lead section guidelines.

Because there is an accurate substitute for the first sentense which still communicates the scientific concerns which will be presented later in the article, the first sentence is not neutral, and therefore violates NPOV

[edit] A summary is not a section

The summary is not the place to argue for or against the reality of a paranormal phenomenon. The summary should not go much further than merely stating that there is controversy. Some editors believe that it should be stated who believes in the phenomenon and who does not. This may be appropriate where there are specific people or institutions involved. For instance, the summary for Morphic field states:

A morphic field (a term introduced by Rupert Sheldrake, the major proponent of this concept, through his Hypothesis of Formative Causation) is described as consisting of patterns that govern the development of forms, structures and arrangements. The theory of morphic fields is not accepted by mainstream science.

This summary may be imperfect, but is good to state that Sheldrake is the progenator of the field.

This summary of the article on Creationism is also a good model of how to create a summary for an article on a topic which has little scientific support.

[edit] Appropriate sources

[edit] Parapsychology is a scientific field

Many paranormal project articles fall under the purview of the scientific field of parapsychology. The Parapsychological Association has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1969. Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus, which is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time (also see this). Thus, it is a misinterpretation of policy to say that articles dealing with subjects studied in parapsychology need to give equal time to skepticism. Also, they do not need to act as if, within the field, there exists no bias toward believing that the research results of parapsychology indicate the reality of the phenomena in question. This is so even if the skeptics are correct, and no such phenomena exist. Of course, skepticism should be covered as a matter of thoroughness. In fact, because there is usually so much more controversy about the paranormal than in most non-paranormal areas (mostly between people outside the field with people inside it), criticism should be given more coverage in parapsychological topics. But the skepticism need not be given equal time, nor is there any reason to avoid a bias which is pro-acceptance-of-parapsychological-research-results, as long as the article is merely presenting the scientific consensus in the field in an NPOV manner.

[edit] Belief

Some editors seem to think that it is relevant what the reader will believe based on an article. Of course this subject is covered under WP:NPOV, but I'll mention it here as well, because mention seems to be needed. Wikipedia is not the place to tell a reader what to believe or disbelieve, no matter how silly it might be to believe/disbelieve a particular thing. Wikipedia only tells the reader what others believe, and our statement of what others believe has to be verifiable.

For example, the Psychic detective of January 27, 2007 read:

A psychic detective (PD) is a person who claims to investigate crimes by using supernatural powers or magic. This is a popular feature in some types of fiction, but actually possessing such powers is unsubstantiated. However, the belief that some people posses psychic powers is a very real social phenomenon.

One good thing about this summary is that it refrains from saying "actually thinking that anyone could possibly possess such powers is too unimaginably ridiculous for words". However, the sad thing about it is that the editors did not say that. It seems as if they must have thought it, but refrained from saying it outright because they were aware of the NPOV policy.

[edit] Scientific consensus

Often when the scientific consensus is mentioned, it is often used in a manner which indicates that a particular paranormal phenomenon is thought by proper science to be non-existent. This may stem from an incorrect understanding of the term "scientific consensus" however. According to the scientific consensus page,

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

In many paranormal fields, no scientific consensus exists for several possible reasons:

  1. There are no scientists in the field.
  2. There may be scientists in the field, but the designation of "scientist" is in dispute.
  3. Where scientists have studied the field, the literature is too sparse to be reasonably called a consensus, because
  4. A consensus requires content, and in the absence of a considerable amount of literature, a consensus cannot be cited.

Also, in paranormal articles the scientific consensus is often used as if it were an argument against the existence of the paranormal phenomenon in question. However, a "scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument." Thus, it is not appropriate in Wikipedia use a scientific consensus as an appeal to authority, even where a scientific consensus exists.

[edit] Proof of the negative

It is a fundamental of scientific theory that it is impossible to prove a negative. This is what Truzzi meant by "But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis -- saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact -- he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."

As an example, examine this sentence:

Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor.

To clarify this sentence, write it thus:

Despite the evidence that all crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor.

Now, ask for citation

Despite the evidence that all crop circles are of human origin,[citation needed] various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor.}}

Can anyone prove that all crop circles are of human origin? No. So revise the sentence.

Despite the evidence that every scientifically examined crop circle has been of human origin,[citation needed] various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor.

This, at least, does not state that it has been scientifically proven that each and every crop circle is of human origin.

Now, on to Occam's Razor. This was sourced to a Scientific American article, so the source is good. However, science cannot give absolute knowledge. So revise the sentence:

Despite the evidence that every scientifically examined crop circle has been of human origin,[citation needed] various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these may violate Occam's Razor.

However, this can be improved:

Although many crop circles have been of human origin, paranormal explanations have also been proposed to explain their appearance. These include their having been produced by UFOs or freak wind patterns. However, such explanations may violate Occam's Razor.

For part of a lead, this isn't too bad. further explanation of opposing positions can be inserted later in the article.

[edit] Mainstream

Often the paranormal subject is said to be outside the "mainstream." This word is often used in such a way as to invalidate the paranormal phenomenon. In this case, it is a weasel word to be avoided. Mainstream is often used in paranormal articles as a codeword for the subculture of skepticism.

[edit] Community opinion

Often edits are inserted which try to speak for communities, for instance, the "scientific community," the "psychic" community, the community of "believers," the "magic" or "illusionist" community.

Such claims must be sourced reliably. This is accordance with WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:V

[edit] Words and phrases to Avoid

Because of the sensitive nature of paranormal-related articles, the policy of avoiding loaded weasel words must be strictly adhered to in paranormal articles. Such words and phrases are sometimes difficult to avoid in paranormal articles, and may even be necessary. However, they should be used in a context which limits their propensity to be derogatory or affirmatory. Such words include:

  • Claim
  • Self-proclaimed this is disparaging, yet hard to get around. There isn't a good substitute which merely communicates that a person has made a claim.
  • Alleged
  • Supposed

That said, there are some instances where, debatably, it might not be so bad to use words or phrases which one should usually avoid. For instance, it might not be bad, in some instances, to use the words "critics say," if a verifiable source can be cited to back up the statement. Sometimes there are a broad range of critics of a paranormal topic, and naming them would overload the reader with detail (especially in a lead). If the reader desires the detail, however, the source should be available.

[edit] An example:

The following lead has two weasels:

Russell Targ is an American physicist and author who was a pioneer in the development of the laser, and cofounder of the Stanford Research Institute's investigation of the alleged psychic abilities of Uri Geller's in the 1970s and 1980s with Harold E. Puthoff. Targ and Puthoff both claimed Geller had genuine psychic abilities.

Weasels:

  1. alleged psychic abilities
  2. Targ and Puthoff both claimed

It can be changed thus:

Russell Targ is an American physicist and author who was a pioneer in the development of the laser. At the Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s and 1980s, Targ and his colleague Harold E. Puthoff investigated the reality of Uri Geller's psychic abilities. Targ and Puthoff both said Geller had genuine psychic abilities.

[edit] Another example:

This lead:

Uri Geller (Hebrew: אורי גלר), (born December 20, 1946 in Tel Aviv) is a controversial performer and television personality, made famous by his claims to have psychic powers.

Geller rose to fame after performing a series of televised demonstrations which he said were paranormal performances of telekinesis, dowsing and mind-reading. His demonstrations included bending spoons and making watches stop or run faster. Geller says that these were done through will power and the strength of his mind.

Geller has a number of high profile critics, notably James Randi and Martin Gardner, who say he has no genuine psychic abilities, because magicians are able to render effects such as those produced by Geller by using the tricks of stage-magic.[1][2]

Can be revised to:

Uri Geller (Hebrew: אורי גלר), (born December 20, 1946 in Tel Aviv) is a controversial performer and television personality, made famous by his claims to have psychic powers.

Geller rose to fame after performing a series of televised demonstrations which he said were paranormal performances of telekinesis, dowsing and mind-reading. His demonstrations included bending spoons and making watches stop or run faster. Geller says that these were done through will power and the strength of his mind.

Geller has a number of critics, notably James Randi and Martin Gardner, who say he has no genuine psychic abilities, because magicians are able to render effects such as those produced by Geller by using the tricks of stage-magic.[1][3]

This still has one weasel word, but it is of the kind which is particularly hard to avoid.

[edit] The meaning of "paranormal"

Often when a subject of a paranormal article is actually described as "paranormal" edits are inserted which attempt to make it clear that the subject under consideration is not accepted by current science. This seems to occur either because the editors do not understand the word "paranormal," or because the editors believe readers may not understand it. However, according to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." [4]

This is not to say, of course, that all paranormal phenomena are actively disputed. There are many things that are still counted as being "paranormal phenomena" on the grounds that they happened and were once considered to be to paranormal in nature, but which were later found to be "contrived phenomena" (phenomena faked through hoaxes). There are also many paranormal phenomena that occurred in myths and legends which are only regarded as being myth and legend, and which are not being portrayed as real. Therefore they are not disputed. They are real legends. Equally, many phenomena have never been evaluated by science to a sufficient level for there to be any actual dispute between science and the paranormal. This isn't to say that the phenomena is genuine (or anything similar), merely that the scientific community has never paid enough attention to it to put up a scientific argument against it.

For example, native American hunter legends? How often does a Native American stand up and say that "Ancestor X was really lead to water by the spirit of Animal Y, teaching us lesson Z", only to have a scientist stand up and say "That's impossible because that kind of animal doesn't live in that part of the country"?

However, all paranormal phenomena, to the extent they are thought to objectively and scientifically exist, are either actively disputed, or would be disputed if anyone were paying attention.

[edit] The scientific viewpoint

Another common mistake on paranormal pages occurs when editors feel that the subject matter must be presented from the point of view of mainstream scientific consensus (whether or not such exists), rather than from the perspective of those who believe the field has merit. However, according to WP:FRINGE, "Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be treated excessively as scientific theory and handled on that basis." Thus, a subject ought to be presented impartially even when it is not under the purview of a scientific field such as parapsychology.

[edit] The source of skepticism

WP:FRINGE also says: "a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled as pseudoscience, unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

Thus, in a paranormal article it is appropriate to document that the paranormal idea(s) have been rejected by significant factions. This means two things: that the rejection should be noted in Wikipedia, and that the fact that the claim has been made should be given a reliable source. Simply saying that the paranormal idea has been rejected by "mainstream science," is insufficient.

[edit] Paranormal versus supernatural

It is a mistake to equate "paranormal" with "supernatural". Paranormal things are those which may be thought to be supernatural, but which are also thought by some to fall within the realm of the natural.

[edit] An example analyzed

This is an example of a summary which needs work:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive.[5][6][7]

Some who believe in the paranormal say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but mainstream explanations of claimed instances include such things as pareidolia or radio interference. [8] According to psychic enthusiasts Alexander MacRae and Judith Chisholm, EVP is a probe of the fifth dimension where spirits reside[9][10] [6].[7]. Claimed instances of EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[11] They are, without exception, in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[6]

As with all paranormal phenomena, the existence of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific. [12] To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, and no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence. [8]

The reasons this summary needs work include:

Some who believe in the paranormal say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits,...

Saying "Some who believe in the paranormal" is unnecessary, because EVP has already been defined as "paranormal." This casts the debate between believers versus the mainstream. It constitutes inappropriate attribution.

...but mainstream explanations...

The word "mainstream" in this particular case, could not be justified, because there is very little peer-reviewed literature on EVP. Further, the "mainstream" is not even designated as "scientific."

...of claimed instances...

The word "claimed" here is an instance of weaseling (see WP:WTA), since EVP has already been defined as "paranormal," and thus its existence as a real phenomenon is already known to be disputed.

...According to psychic enthusiasts This characterization is a violation of WP:NPOV. It is also an instance of inappropriate attribution.

...Claimed instances of EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.

The dual use of the word "claimed" seems only meant to discredit the subject. However the last use ("longer examples are also claimed") seems to be NPOV because it only makes clear that the examples cannot be verified by the authors of Wikipedia.

...They are, without exception, in a language understood by those present at the time of recording....

This statement cannot be supported, even if a source says so, due to the fact that disproof is scientifically/intellectually impossible.

...EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community...

This is justified in that skeptics of the paranormal, by definition, would dispute the existence of EVP. Note that this tacitly acknowledges that EVP is paranormal, and thus that the word "claimed" in the preceding sentences was unnecessary.

...and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific...

Another unsupported claim about the "mainstream", which is not attributed to the "scientific" mainstream. This is therefore a claim about what "normal people" think.

...To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, and no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence...

There is nothing in this sentence which is blatantly POV. However, this passage makes negative claims about the literature which would have to be updated the instant studies were done or literature was published. In this case, no source claimed (note a proper use of the word "claimed") a thorough search of all the literature and studies.
When this summary is viewed overall, another reason it is inappropriate is that it is overly detailed. It would have been better to merely define the subject matter. Since the subject is defined as paranormal, it is not even necessary to state specifically that it is controversial. However, in the interests of clarity this might be justifiable. It would be more appropriate to discuss the detailed state of the field in a subsequent section, where necessary nuance can be maintained.

A subsequent version of this summary read:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive.[13][6][7]

As with all paranormal phenomena, the existence of EVP is disputed. EVP researchers Alexander MacRae and Judith Chisholm hypothesize that it is caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits.[citation needed][14][10][7] Skeptics, however, say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio interference.[8]

Examples of EVP are typically reported to be brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also reported. They are usually in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[6]

This summary is not perfect, but it avoids the main NPOV problems and factual flaws of the first.

[edit] More examples

  1. Psychic surgery #Psychic Detective #Stargate Project

[edit] Notes to self

The page on True-believer syndrome says that " Keene, himself a reformed fraud medium,[1] exposed a number of other psychics, faith healers, and miracle workers." Note that no one bothered to call them "supposed" here.

[edit] nde sandbox

A near-death experience (NDE) is an experience reported by a person who nearly died, or who experienced clinical death and then revived. Popular interest in near-death experiences was sparked by Raymond Moody Jr's 1975 book Life after Life and the founding of the International Association for Near-death Studies (IANDS) in 1978. According to a Gallup poll approximately eight million Americans say they have had a near-death experience.[15]

Interest in the NDE was originally spurred by the research of such pioneers as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, George Ritchie, and Raymond Moody Jr. Moody's book Life after Life, which was released in 1975, brought a great deal of attention to the topic of NDEs.[16] This was soon followed by the establishment of the International Association for Near-death Studies (IANDS) founded in 1978 in order to meet the needs of early researchers and experiencers within this field of research. Today the association includes researchers, health care professionals, NDE-experiencers and people close to experiencers, as well as other interested people. One of its main goals is to promote responsible and multi-disciplinary investigation of near-death and similar experiences.

Later researchers, such as Bruce Greyson, Kenneth Ring and Michael Sabom, introduced the study of Near-death experiences to the academic setting. [17] However, although the research was not always welcomed by the general academic community, both Greyson and Ring made significant contributions in order to increase the respectability of Near-death research [18]. Major contributions to the field include the construction of a Weighted Core Experience Index.[19] in order to measure the depth of the Near-death experience, and the construction of the Near-death experience scale.[20] in order to differentiate between subjects that are more or less likely to have experienced a classical NDE. The NDE-scale also aims to differentiate between a true NDE and syndromes or stress responses that are not related to a NDE. Greysons NDE-scale was later found to fit the Rasch rating scale model. [21]

Among the scientific and academic journals that have published, or are regularly publishing new research on the subject of NDE's we find: Journal of Near-Death Studies, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, British Journal of Psychology, American Journal of Disease of Children, Resuscitation, The Lancet, Death Studies, and the Journal of Advanced Nursing.

NDE researcher Bruce Greyson says that "No one physiological or psychological model by itself explains all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function."[22]

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b The Skeptic's Dictionary: Uri Geller
  2. ^ Richard Feynman on Uri Geller
  3. ^ Richard Feynman on Uri Geller
  4. ^ Glossary, The Journal of Parapsychology, Parapsychological Association, accessed August 05, 2006
  5. ^ http://parapsych.org/glossary_e_k.html#e Parapsychological Association website, Glossary of Key Words Frequently Used in Parapsychology, Retrieved January 24, 2006
  6. ^ a b c d e About the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena: What is the Survival Hypothesis?. American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena (AA-EVP). Retrieved on 2006-12-01.
  7. ^ a b c d Chisholm, Judith (2000). A Short History of EVP. Psychic World. Retrieved on 2006-12-03.
  8. ^ a b c Baruss, Imants (2001). Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon (PDF). Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 355-367, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-01-07.
  9. ^ http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm
  10. ^ a b {{cite journal | last = MacRae | first = Alexander | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room | journal = Journal of the Society for Psychical Research | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = Society for Psychical Research | date = October 2005 | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate =
  11. ^ EVP Question Time. Fortean Times. Retrieved on 2006-12-01.
  12. ^ EVP. Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved on 2006-12-01.
  13. ^ http://parapsych.org/glossary_e_k.html#e Parapsychological Association website, Glossary of Key Words Frequently Used in Parapsychology, Retrieved January 24, 2006
  14. ^ http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm Report of an Anomalous Speech Products Experiment inside a Double Screened Room By Alexander MacRae, Grianan, Portree, Skye, Retrieved January 28, 2007
  15. ^ Mauro, James (1992) Bright lights, big mystery. Psychology Today, July 1992
  16. ^ Mauro, James. Bright lights, big mystery. Psychology Today, July 1992
  17. ^ Mauro, James. Bright lights, big mystery. Psychology Today, July 1992
  18. ^ IANDS, printable brochure
  19. ^ Ring K. Life at death. A scientific investigation of the near- death experience. 1980 New York: Coward McCann and Geoghenan
  20. ^ Greyson, 1983
  21. ^ Lange, Greyson & Houran, 2004
  22. ^ Greyson, 2001
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User%7EMartinphi_Paranormal_primer_d52c.html"