Talk:Project Alpha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary on the to do list to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
To-do list for Project Alpha: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Other:
    - Suggestions and contributions are always welcome!
    - Rating article as "B-class" according to the following standard:
    - Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.
    -Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.


Contents

[edit] Steve Shaw?

Wikipedia's Steve Shaw was born in 1975 - he was six years old when Project Alpha was in its hot phase. --Hob Gadling 14:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Different Steve. This one most often goes by his stage name Banachek. -- Krash 13:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "ignored as bunk"

I removed this line from the end of the Project Alpha wiki: "and the field [of parapsychology] is generally ignored as bunk by many." This seems obviously biased and representative of a POV. -Redxela Sinnak 16:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That seems to be a factual statement to me. Don't many people ignore parapsychology as bunk? Bubba73 (talk), 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wishful thinking

That some scientists were possibly interested enough in obtaining a positive result, that neutral judgement and precautions, and good experimental planning, were sidestepped and inappropriately favorable interpretations made without due critical review.

Sounds a lot like the scientists studying global warming. They're ready to believe Mann's Hockey Stick graph, but show very little interest in reviewing his methods. Mann has refused to allow anyone to see his data, or the computer programs he wrote which analyze them and produce the graph. Uncle Ed 21:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

-that's a bullshit analogy, and Mann's data is not the sole source of evidence for global warming.

[edit] Neutral?

Randi decided to finally end the project, and announced the entire affair in Discover magazine — at that time a fairly in-depth magazine. The resulting crash of the parapsychology field was immediate and deep; many of the researchers who tried to get in on the feeding frenzy after the August meeting were now burned in the process. One went so far as to claim that the boys really did have psychic powers, and that they were now lying about being magicians! Although the McDonnell Lab was by this time running considerably better experiments, the bad press was so widespread it was shut down

That's not neutral language. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be rephrased. Bubba73 (talk), 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The use of "feeding frenzy" and the exclamation point may a little "colorful," but I don't see anything that doesn't fit a neutral viewpoint (in so far as there's such a thing as a neutral viewpoint). KarlBunker 12:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That's basically what I meant - tone it down a little. Bubba73 (talk), 05:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. I've rephrased "feeding frenzy" and removed the exclamation point. KarlBunker 13:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link

External articles
*The Project Alpha Experiment, Part one and part two. Skeptical Inquirer. Summer and Fall, 1983.

This link is dead, because that site is beeing updated, it needs to be reviewed when the site is back up and running. --Topstar 00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is now located at http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/project_alpha.htm. Morganite 17:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colloquial language

"The Project Alpha hoax was clearly a successful experiment in demonstrating the flawed methodology of at least some PSI investigators. It also had the effect of casting a chill over the entire field. Many other experiments were killed off in the aftermath of the Alpha debacle."

Nothing really wrong here, but when you say "killed off", do you really mean it? Again not a criticism, I actually want to know.--MyNameIsNeo 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That was pretty "rough & ready" language, and also makes a statement not supported by Randi's article. I rewrote it. KarlBunker 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, back after a long time. This is an interesting point, because if you were around at the time (I entered U just after these events) you would know this was the case. Every university I visited (three) prior to starting school had some sort of paraphyscology lab, recently closed. I know this wasn't entirely due to Alpha, perhaps even not at all (the 70s were ending), but certainly the field became "tainted" as a result of the project. Now getting a ref for this is essentially impossible. I know of no study called "number of parapsychology labs in operation before and after project alpha" and doubt that one exists, in any diluted form either. Yet I'm sure many other readers of my age remember the same events taking place. So what to do, leave out this important event because there's no ref and likely never will be? Seems like a shame. Maury 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
How about newspapers of the time? Didn't they publish related articles? If there aren't any references, I doubt the notability of the events. Surely at least closing of the departments were reported somewhere? -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 23:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Bad Vibes" from cameraman

The excuse that the observant cameraman was giving "bad vibes" seems to contradict what one of the young men said in this video. Does anyone have sources for the claims currently in the article? Perhaps did they use the "bad vibes" excuse at a different point in time than the time the guy was talking about in this video? 138.89.122.55 07:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The (para)quote in question comes from the Skeptical Eye article from Discover, at least as I remembered it at the time. You're right, it does seem to be at odds with the description in the video, as does the description of a hole being cut (as opposed to the bell jar not actually being a bell jar). Consider both to be highly suspect. Maury 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis, NPOV and sources

While very interesting this article includes a lot of value judgements and analysis within the main text and especially in the the Aftermath section. All value judgements and statements of what the incident meant in a greater context require sourced commentators. I'm going to slowly go through and make my changes. If anyone objects, please use this talk section.Ashmoo 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with what you've done so far. Bubba73 (talk), 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I chopped this text from the Aftermath section as it seems to be pure opinion, unsourced and not attributed to any commentator.

It might seem that the whole affair can be written off as a couple of magicians fooling some well-meaning but gullible scientists. This would not be entirely accurate, however, nor reflect the serious issues underlying these events, the key ones being:

  • That some scientists were strongly motivated to obtain positive results in PSI experiments, with the result that poorly designed experiments and inappropriately favorable interpretations were made without due critical review.
  • That sleight of hand and other deliberate deception to fake PSI powers were not being sufficiently taken into account when planning scientific tests.

Many of the experiments seemed to go out of their way to allow for some sort of "way out" and thereby guarantee a positive result. Certainly the completely uncontrolled picture viewing experiments falls into this category, but it would seem that deliberately cutting holes into "sealed containers" does too. The experimenters appear to be either under the influence of an extreme case of self-delusion, or entirely aware of what was going on and unwilling to admit it.

Ashmoo 01:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProject_Alpha_5f24.html"