Talk:Psychic/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] College student poll

Martinphi seems to insist on inserting this piece of information:

A 2006 poll showed that college seniors and graduate students have more paranormal beliefs than college freshmen.[1]

This may be relevant to "popular culture", but it certainly has no relevance to the science section. What students believe or do not believe and why is an interesting question, but it is independent from the reception within science, and more specifically, within the sciences of physics, biology and psychology. Moreover, the referenced website is rense.com, a source of conspiracy theories; it would be helpful to at least provide a precise reference --Eloquence* 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the poll was in the "Controversy and skepticism" section, which wasn't a "science section." You only recently added a "science" section, which did not include that reference. This is not a scientific article in a scientific journal, so the information is perfectly applicable to this informational encyclopedic entry. Perhaps a better reference can be found. Please tag such entries with the {{fact}} tag instead of outright deletion. It is the polite and recommended way to handle such entries. I know it's difficult to have the patience such a course takes, but I think we all ought to try and abide by that - unless of course the entry violates WP:BLP or presents a legal issue for Wikipedia. Additionally, the section you deleted titled "Controversy and skepticism" was an excellent addition to the article and should be put back. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction, the poll followed the phrase "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science." This is a non sequitur. If anywhere, this statement belongs in the "popular culture" section, where I've moved it. I don't doubt the claim, mind you, but if it is to be cited as a web reference, we need a better one than rense.com, ideally directly to the survey itself.--Eloquence* 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a better reference should be found. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Fate Magazine is the actual source, and it is indeed a WP:RS. I've added the citation. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"While only 23 percent of the freshman quizzed professed a belief toward paranormal concepts, the figures rose to 31 percent for college seniors and 34 percent for graduate students. The complete results of the survey may be found in the January-February issue of The Skeptical Inquirer." Perhaps we can find an online version in the Skeptical Inquirer. Definitely a RS. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If one reads the article in rense, and investigates what it says, it gets even better. One of the people who set up the poll is Bryan Farha, associate professor and chair, Department of Behavioral Studies and Counseling Psychology at Oklahoma City University. He regularly writes for CSI (formerly CSICOP) and SI! This poll is also mentioned (and well sourced) in the Wikipedia article, "Level of support for evolution": level of public support. That's sourcing, man. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
With this "newly discovered" involvement with CSI, it's now related to Scientific investigation - even if it's just a poll. Which suggests it is no longer just a "popular culture" reference. Dreadlocke ☥

Yes. . . but these scientists are investigating popular attitudes, not the question of whether psychic is real or not. Puddytang 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

(1) There is no evidence that the existence of psychics is accepted by even a tiny percentage of academic faculty. The sentence, "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science" is completely without merit. Self-appointed "paranormal" scientists do not count. If someone wants to put this back in, they're going to have to show significant evidence of belief in psychics by faculty at REAL academic institutions.

(2) "evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena is not universally accepted as valid" I think you're going to be hard pressed to find nearly anyone in academia beyond a few fringe figures here and there that believe this stuff is valid. "universally" is completely the wrong word to use.

(3) "many" is also an incorrect qualifier. Skeptics by definition believe that psychics are bogus.

I therefore revert. -- Mgunn 07:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychic phenomena are studied by parapsychologists, and the Parapsychological Association has been a member of the AAAS since, I believe, 1969. There are peer-reviewed journals of parapsychology. I'll revert. Please go for consensus here. I notice you don't have anything on your user page, so you're probably a new user. So, welcome to Wikipedia (: !
For an unofficial (and unfinished) intro to editing paranormal pages, go here. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You still don't have any documentation or citation to support the existence of psychics. The claim that the scientific community is torn over the existence of psychics is an extraordinary one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -- Mgunn 17:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
"The claim that the scientific community is torn over the existence of psychics is an extraordinary one."

Not at all. If the PA is a member of the AAAS, and the PA supports the existence of psi, then science is torn. This is not an extraordinary claim. However, that template is simply something one expects on these articles, especially because there are many people here who have strong opinions without having throughly researched the topic. I see no problem with it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you get a PHD in parapsychology? Are there parapsychology faculty at any prestigious University? Also, it is a complete illogical leap to go from "There exists an organization with the title "Parapsychological Association" to "The scientific community is split over hte existence of psychics." I'm going to revert to my version until you can come up with real research to back these assertions. -- Mgunn 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that one problem we're facing is that "controversial" must be quantified — controversial according to whom, exactly? Whoever "they" are, a source is, of course, necessary. (Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.") One could say the issue is "controversial among scientists" (or "controversial in the field of [psychology, physics, neuroscience, etc.]") and then cite a source. Meanwhile, whether parapsychology is a valid scientific field is a matter of some controversy (see Parapsychology#Status of the field), and I'm not sure that the PA's affiliation with the AAAS means there's a controversy about psi "in science". Perhaps we should simply say "The Parapsychology Association has been affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science sine 1969" and let the user decide whether that indicates the presence of a controversy in science. — Elembis (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi Elembis, I think this issue can be reasonably cleared up. The only way the statement could be incorrect is if a) parapsychology is not a science- but this issue is cleared up for Wikipedia by membership in the AAAS. b), that there were no scientists within or without the field, who were debating it. The reference to scientist Ray Hyman should take care of that objection.
So, parapsychology is a science, and other scientists debate its claims. They have controversy, and that's all we need to know. We don't need a source which says, in so many words "Parapsychology is controversial within science." Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And it doesn't qualify as OR to say "these people are debating each other," (ie. the subject is controversial) when the debate is cited. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus

Let's focus on this sentence, "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science."

Whether parapsychology is a member of AAAS, is irrelevent to the truth or falsity of the sentence above. (1) How many members of the PA are faculty members at a real university? (2) What evidence is there that PA members believe "psychic abilities are real." (3) Is there any PA research showing psychic abilities are real? Is this research cited in an affirmative manner by real academics at real research institutions?

For the sentence in question to be true, you need to show that approximately more than 15% of scientists think "psychic abilities are real." It might be borderline reasonable if you can show 10% of scientists think "psychic abilities are real." Anything less than that, and you don't have a controversy, you have a fringe view.

I'm going to revert to my version until you can cook up some evidence, and please don't edit war. -- Mgunn 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this objection is original research on your part. If you have anything to back it up, please provide links. In the meantime, wait for consensus before making this controversial change again. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You have a controversial statement and it is uncited. It is not more complicated than that. -- Mgunn 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all it is generally best to use a system of consensus when making changes to an article, especially when you are new, otherwise you could come across as a troll. As far as your points about controversy I will try and clarify; there are very few polls of scientist's opinions of psi, but what we do have demonstrates support above the levels you mention. For example a survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner &h; Monnet, 1979). [1] As this is an old survey I have looked into more modern examples, and found a 2006 poll by researchers Bryan Farha of Oklahoma City University and Gary Steward of University of Central Oklahoma, that showed that college seniors and graduate students have more paranormal beliefs than college freshmen, demonstrating that education and scientific awareness does not diminish a supportive view of psi. [2] So from the available polls it would seem that academic and scientific belief roughly matches the general public level of approximately 57% (with the exception of psychology). [3] As far as the level of scientists supporting psi, this is clearly not an issue, for example, there is Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson who works at Cambridge University, which is widely considered one of the best if not the best universities in the UK, Cambridge also has Rupert Sheldrake on its staff. Other Nobel prize winning supporters include Kary Mullis and Wolfgang Pauli. There is also Daryl Bem at Cornell University and eminent and respected scientists such as Hans Eysenck and Robert G Jahn, the list could go on. As far as evidence there are many sources you may wish to review, I would suggest reading the parapsychology article and following up on the papers mentioned there. That article also deals with the criticisms of the field and shows that is fair to say the area is controversial, although I would be happy to see this changed to something that reflects the levels of support the area also enjoys. - Solar 12:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Solar, that does make it very clear, though the objections raised by Mgunn really don't have anything to do with the sentence in contention (as I said above). Whether or not there's controversy doesn't relate to whether there's high level support, etc. etc.
Mgunn is not really new. He just hasn't altered his talk page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Martinphi, it was more of a general reply to Mgunn's points including the earlier points 1, 2 and 3, which are all clearly false, including might I add the third one "Skeptics by definition believe that psychics are bogus", in fact the real definition of a skeptic is one who maintains an agnostic position, a position of doubt, a skeptic that simply dismisses all psychics as bogus is a pseudo or pathological skeptic. - Solar 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just for the Record...

I think User:Mgunn pretty much has the right of things here. "the issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science" is an amazingly bold statement to make and I find it hard to believe that even a minority of scientists would have confidence in the existence of parapsychology. I really think that statment should be removed if (respectable) sources cannot be provided. – Lantoka (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a field called parapsychology, populated by scientists most of whom have confidence in the existence of psi phenomena. I think you would find it very hard indeed to find a scientist who would be willing to say that parapsychology did not exist. The sentence says there is controversy. Within science. Period. Nothing else. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. I don't debate the existence of the field of parapsychology (which even publishes its own academic journal, if I recall correctly). I've read the parapsychology article and I don't have any disagreements there. What I do have a hard time believing is that even a minority of scientists have confidence in the fact that the parapsychology exists (e.g. concepts of psi, telepathy, etc.). Sure, a scientific field exists to attempt to empirically test phenomena related to this concept, but that doesn't mean that even a minority of scientists believe in the existance of such phenomena.
Which is why I disagree with the statement above. It implies that there is serious controversy within the scientific community about the existence of paranormal phenomena. And based on everything I've ever heard or read, it seems to have been pretty thoroughly debunked by the scientific community at this point. The parapsychology article even talks about how scientists testing parapsychological phenomena are ostracized by the rest of the scientific community. The prevailing view seems to be that it is pseudoscience, and if that is true, then there isn't really significant controversy after all. – Lantoka (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes, but no one said anything about the size of the controversy (I may change this, just to keep people from complaining about it, but it is technically accurate as it stands). You should read Dean Radin's books if you're really interested. Strange as it may seem, parapsychology has gotten stronger and stronger, especially in the last 20 or 30 years. The skeptics keep helping them to design better and better tests, but the effects don't go away (they do decrease very slightly -"the decline effect"-, but in a manner similar to other conventional effects- see Radin). Even Ray Hyman, who is the most educated skeptic (rare in skepticism), has been reduced to calling for replications, or saying that Well, even if you can find an effect, can you really call it psi? So read up! There is a lot of reliable info about psi which has not made it to Wikipedia yet, possibly because no one here seems to have a membership in the peer-reviewed journals. Also read Solar's post above. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

i added a new link after getting consensus so on the Talk:Sylvia Browne page. Smith Jones 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed both links. There was not consensus on that page, there was just the suggestion that it might belong more here than there. Honestly, both seem to meet WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. That is, they have objectionable amounts of advertising (I'm getting popup warnings on Firefox and without Adblock, adverts are everywhere), and do not appear to be even semi-reliable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

HEY! just because the adverts are no treliable that doesnt meant hat that article is not nrreliable? Smith Jones 17:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ALSO, IF YOU CLICK ON THE LINKS SOME WILL VANISH. Smith Jones 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? And why are you yelling? – Lantoka (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
just click on the damn links —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 February 2007.

[edit] Parapsychology is not a field of science.

The article states "in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically." This is patently false. Parapsychology is not a field of science. It could be loosely called a "field of study" but it does not fit the definition of "science".Wikidudeman (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tone

This article has far too many "Pro psychic" websites and not as many "Anti-psychic" websites. It's TONE is also very POV suggesting bias towards the belief in psychics.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting some of that as well (as per my previous comments). This article could use some work. I might swing by later to work on it. And of course any help would be appreciated. =) – Lantoka (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can always add all the skeptic websites you wish, as long as they aren't sources for facts. This article is about a phenomenon which falls under the purview of the scientific field of parapsychology, and thus according to Wikipedia policy primarily presents the scientific consensus of that field, while noting other POVs. As with the article on evolution, it does not give as much space or credibility to POVs outside the field or outside the scientific consensus. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly...I can't present websites that are "sources for facts"? Huh??? Secondly, "Parapsychology" is not a field of science. It's a field of study but it simply doesn't fit the definition of science. Period. Thirdly, Evolution is science. It's a field of science. "Parapsychology" isn't.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


I will assume good faith re your response. I suggest that you study parapsychology before editing this article (or you may come to it with false assumptions). I also suggest that you respond, if you wish, to what I actually said, not what you think I said. I sorry this makes you angry, but those are the facts, and that is the Wikipedia policy. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith in what? In me holding a position? I'm sorry Martin but the ARTICLES are for NPOV not the talk pages. Talk pages are for discussing the articles and there is no limitation of POV on talk pages. Secondly, I have studied parapsychology very closely. I have also studied science. Parapsychology is nothing but a form of pseudo science if anything. I did respond to what you said. I refuted what you said. You made a comparison between "Parapsychology" and "Evolution" but the two are far from similar. One is a science, the other is not. See the Scientific method for an explanation of what science is and how it works. The closest thing parapsychology has to science are vague studies showing a 'statistical correlation' between so called 'psychics' and controlled groups. Interpreting this as evidence for psychic abilities isn't how science works. Numerous other studies have refuted these. Numerous other studies have shown that "psychic abilities" simply don't exist. To call "Parapsychology" a science would be like calling "dousing" a science or astrology. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't respond to what I wrote. I wrote that you shouldn't use skeptical sites to source facts. You acted as if I wrote that you couldn't use sites to source facts. It is fine to state that you don't think parapsychology is a science, though I doubt how closely you have studied it if you say that, because science is method not results. But I don't know why you would bother to say that because, if I am correct, we were discussing what could be done with the article. And of course, parapsychology fits the conditions for a field of science, as concerns Wikipedia, as of course you know.

I would suggest that since people are constantly taking issue with your way of presenting yourself on Wikipedia, that you look into what they might mean. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This article has gone from bad to worse. Now there is a "scientific consensus" that parapsychological phenomena are "well established"? There is not even a consensus that parapsychology has anything to do with science. We might be better off just deleting the whole thing and merging it into parapsychology, so that NPOV efforts can be focused in one place.--Eloquence* 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been shown countless times, on talk pages and on articles, parapsychology is a scientific discipline. It is recognised by the American Association for the Advancement of Science[4] the largest scientific organisation in the world. It also has a range of eminent scientists who have worked in the field or who actively support the field including Nobel laureates. On the other hand the kind of pseudoskepticism expounded by entertainers such as James Randi, Paul Daniels and Pen & Teller is not recognised as a form of science and does indeed fit the definition of pseudoscience far better than parapsychology, the previous is mainly based upon personal opinion and secondary knowledge, while the later utilises the scientific method in controlled laboratory conditions. Please see this to avoid the common fallacies of pathological scepticism. - Solar 11:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The scientific consensus within the field of parapsychology is that some types of parapsychological phenomena are well established scientifically. Read the source to the PA website. Again, Wikipedia articles follow the scientific consensus of whatever particular field they cover. The Parapsychological Association has been a member of the AAAS since 1969. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Martinphi, I should not use a "Skeptical site" as a source of facts? Well firstly that's totally false and no wikipedia policy comes even close to making that assertion. Moreover if I can't use "Skeptical sites" as a source of facts then you can't use PRO-Paranormal sites as a source of facts. That's only fair. Secondly, If parapsychology isn't a field of science then implying it is in the article won't work.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Solar, The "Parapsychological Association" as an "affiliate" of the AAAS. This does not mean the AAAS recognizes that association as a "scientific association", it just means the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the AAAS. Notice also that the "American Library Association" is also an affiliate. Does this mean that this is a "field of science" now too? Secondly, Appealing to the fact that it's a member of the AAAS does not imply it's a field of science. Even if the AAAS thought it was that doesn't make it so. It's a blatant fallacious appeal to authority. Thirdly. "Pseudo skepticism" is illogical skepticism in the face of evidence. I.E. skepticism of global warming or evolution. Not skepticism of unproven pseudo science like Parapsychology.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Martinphi, Since Parapsychology is not a field of "science" there can be no "scientific consensus within the field of parapsychology". There can be a "consensus within the field of parapsychology" but that "consensus" is anything but scientific. Wikipedia does promote scientific consensus. And the scientific consensus is that parapsychology is pseudo science.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikidudeman, As you seem unwilling to accept that parapsychology is a field of science, I would like to know your criteria for something to be considered a field of science, then maybe we can have a discussion. As far as I can see parapsychology utilises the scientific method and conforms to established experimental controls, this has not always been the case, but today with figures such as Daryl Bem and Edwin May etc., that does seem to be the case. The endless attacks on this area of research seem to border on bigotry and ignore the fact that scientists such as Brian Josephson, Rupert Sheldrake and Robert G. Jahn among many others consider not just the area valid but also the findings. I need to see some basis to your position, I have shown that eminent scientists and by extension the institutions they work for such as Cambridge University and Cornell University support this area of research, I have also shown that while affiliation with the AAAS may not prove a 'scientific' approach it does support the fact the area is respectable to a major organisation, and it seems unlikely they would deal with a pseudoscientific organisation. I do not accept your accusation that this is an ‘appeal to authority’ as I am simply establishing the range of individuals, organisations and institutions that do not support the claim you are making. I have seen nothing to support your position and as mentioned below criticism does require proof. As far as your comment about pseudoskepticism being "...illogical skepticism in the face of evidence" I must also disagree, if you read the article on the subject you will find the following criteria:
  • The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
  • Double standards in the application of criticism,
  • The making of judgements without full inquiry,
  • Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,
  • Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,
  • Presenting insufficient evidence or proof,
  • Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
  • Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof,
  • Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,
  • Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,
  • Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,
  • Tendency to dismiss all evidence
I suggest presenting clear and specific reasons you dispute the studies of people like Daryl Bem rather than simply trying to discredit an entire field and avoid dealing with the actual facts. - Solar 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Solar...Solars post in bold my response after. Dear Wikidudeman, As you seem unwilling to accept that parapsychology is a field of science, I would like to know your criteria for something to be considered a field of science, then maybe we can have a discussion. A "field of science" would be an area of science that studies a specific field of nature and follows the scientific method when coming to conclusions. Parapsychologists don't do this. Their conclusions are based on methodological flaws which violate the scientific method. As far as I can see parapsychology utilises the scientific method and conforms to established experimental controls, this has not always been the case, but today with figures such as Daryl Bem and Charles Honorton etc., that does seem to be the case. These are examples of scientists who are 1 in 1,000 and who simply don't follow common sense or the scientific method when doing research. I need to see some basis to your position, I have shown that eminent scientists and by extension the institutions they work for such as Cambridge University and Cornell University support this area of research These universities that support such pseudo scientific research have received vast criticism and there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed scientific study actually showing "paranormal" things such as psychics to exist that didn't have methodological flaws. I have also shown that while affiliation with the AAAS may not prove a 'scientific' approach it does support the fact the area is respectable to a major organisation, and it seems unlikely they would deal with a pseudoscientific organisation. This is actually a fallacious appeal to authority. I do not accept your accusation that this is an ‘appeal to authority’ as I am simply establishing the range of individuals, organisations and institutions that do not support the claim you are making. Claiming that since the AAAS has that association as an affiliate they thus aren't "pseudo scientific" is absolutely an appeal to authority. It doesn't matter what they AAAS believes. Moreover the lists you give that are examples of "pseudoskepticism" really aren't. For instance "The tendency to deny, rather than doubt," This is simply semantics. In many cases "deny" and "doubt" are synonymous. If I "deny" the assertion that "The earth is flat" that does not make me a pseudo skeptic. And "Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate," This doesn't make sense either. Discrediting assertions is part of how science works. For instance if someone publishes a study making some absurd assertion then that scientists peers can 'discredit' his assertions and experiments. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikidudeman, we must keep this relevant to the article, you say that parapsychology does not follow the scientific method, not parapsychology has used poor methods on such and such experiment with a citation, but simply parapsychology does not use correct methodology with nothing to back up such a claim. That kind of blanket dismissal just looks unreasonable and untenable in terms of the article, which must include all significant views fairly. If we were to say parapsychology is a pseudoscience when clearly the article on the subject does not take this position and even major sceptics like Randi don't make that assertion, this would totally bias the article away from NPOV, I'm sure you can see that? In your next points you claim universities like Cambridge have received "vast criticism" for supporting these areas of research. Cambridge is generally considered, along with Oxford, the best university in the UK, you are welcome to add any criticism related to Cambridge to the relevant section or article as long as you can cite sources. As far as your comment about methodological flaws, this is an opinion, some say studies are flawed some say they are not, the evidence is lacking on this point, so for NPOV we should include both sides. As we cannot do original research on wikipedia we have to draw upon the opinion of experts, organisations and institutions, this is the only option we have to establish significant support and is a normal process on WP. There are very few ways to truly show that something is scientific beyond the opinion of scientists within WP policy. Beyond that we can read the paper on a particular subject and if we find that the experiment was double blind, the conditions were fully controlled, etc., that's as far as we can go. As I have said before please supply something to support your blanket dismissal. Well, you may also disagree with the definition of pseudoskepticism but this is the most widely known definition as defined by Marcello Truzzi founding co-chairman of CSICOP, so my statement was accurate and your definition is not the established view. You seem to take a stance against a whole range of positions including those of major sceptics and do not give a single citation or reference beyond your personal opinion for why this information should be included in the article or even taken seriously. Unfortunately this debate has now become somewhat disruptive, it should not be continued on an article talk page. - Solar 12:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology - An Overview

Why is this listed as a reference for the statement that certain psi phenomena is "well established scientifically"? I've read the paper, but can't see how it applies. Perhaps I've missed something. Could some quote the relevant part? Otherwise, it should be removed. Ersby 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

SOLAR, some skepitcs like james rani] think that parapsychlogy is science. Smith Jones 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ersby, I don't know which article you read, However, one article says:

"If Schmeidler's questionnaire study (Schmeidler, 1971) can be considered as representative then it appears that the members of the Parapsychological Association at least concur that ESP is a proven phenomenon and that there is no reason to provide again and again new evidence"

And the statement is also sourced to the Parapsychological Association website. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the citation be changed to: "Parapsychologists' opinions about parapsychology", Schmeidler, G., 1971, J.o.P, 1971, 35, 208-218, cited in "Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology - An Overview" By Bauer E., European Journal of Parapsychology, 1984, 5, 141-166, Retrieved February 09, 2007 Ersby 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Smith Jones. James Randi does NOT believe parapsychology is a field of science.
Replying to Martinphi, Since parapsychology is not a field of science. You can't argue that any consensus within parapsychology is a "scientific consensus".Wikidudeman (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
REPLYING TO WIKIDUDEMAN parapsychology is considered af ield of sicnece by many people inlcuding james randi read his article he does not agree with their findings but ebleives that many of the psycologyists behave in goodfaith. maybe you should read it more thoroughly afterwards. Smith Jones 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Smith Jones, How many people believe in parapsychology is irrelevant as is how many people believe it's a science. James Randi might assume some of these parapsychologists work in 'good faith' and really believe what they are doing but he in no way believes it's a field of science. Not for a second. Parapsychology fits the definition of 'pseudo science' not 'science'. Read about the scientific method here science. Parapsychology does not fit that definition.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Smith Jones, I must agree with James Randi, parapsychology is not a pseudoscience. Lets quote Randi so Wikidudeman can get this straight, "If Stanovich is referring to parapsychology as a pseudoscience, I disagree. It has all the structure and appearance of any other science, and must be respected as such.". Clear? - Solar 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You're taking him out of context. That quote comes from here [[5]] where Randi says " If Stanovich is referring to parapsychology as a pseudoscience, I disagree. It has all the structure and appearance of any other science, and must be respected as such. The fact that differentiates it from other sciences is largely that it has no history of successful experiments upon which to base conclusions." He's saying that "parapsychology" Wikidudeman (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Wikidudeman, that does not change the meaning, Randi says parapsychology is not a pseudoscience, that's what we are talking about. His opinion is also that it has not produced results, but that's another matter. And I would also dispute this and say that odds such as 29 quintillion to one in the Ganzfeld tests for example is a successful experiment, but we all have our POV, that's why Wikipedia shows more that one opinion, so readers can form theirs. - Solar 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/s/y/Talk%7EPsychic_Archive2_1cb4.html"