Talk:Scientific investigation of telepathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Selmo, looks good. I got tired of the "page is too long" warning. -THB 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Changes 2 Citation 3 Another citation needed 4 Methodological failures

[edit] Changes

I've made some major changes. The main reasons were that 1) the page was (and is) biased against the existence of telepathy in both tone and content. 2) There were some biased sources-- it's great to have the skeptical POV, but only as such; also, Randi et al aren't as close as we can come to objective-- it's better to cite people like Hyman, Wiseman, and Truzzi 3) Randi's challenge isn't really a scientific investigation. It's debunking from a debunker, and deserves mention only in something like the "See Also" section which I added. 4) There were some unsourced seemingly POV assertions, such as "These were supposedly caused by a subject who didn't like him guessing incorrectly on purpose in order to spite him."

Martinphi 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits appear to be appropriate and NPOV to me. -THB 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

I've been doing a lot of editing, which is mainly POV. This is a good article, but needs sources which I don't have. I've put in a lot of ^{[citation needed]} requests. I might delete some of the stuff in the end, if it doesn't get sourced.

I'm planning maybe to move the Soal experiment part to a "Fraud in Parapsychology" article. This is due to the fact that fraud is not really a significant part of the scientific investigation of telepathy, but at the same time, there should be an article on fraud in parapsychology. Any objections?

BTW, skepdic.com is a good source only for a skeptical opinion. Martinphi 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another citation needed

unsed Soal-Goldney experiments:

• This experiment was offered by Alan Turing when questioned on why he believed in telepathy, saying that this had proved it.[citation needed] He was apparently unaware of the significant evidence of fraud in the experiment.[citation needed]

According to Alan Turing: The Enigma, by Andrew Hodges, page 416, it was J. B. Rhine's work that impressed Turing, not this one. Bubba73 (talk), 01:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methodological failures

"Such methodological failures have been cited by skeptics as evidence of the probability that most if not all parapsychological results derive from error or fraud."[17]

I don't see that this quote is backed by the citation referenced; rather that the link (to www.banachek.org) references Project Alpha itself. The quoted statement above not only needs referencing itself, but moreover qualifying: how many skeptics have made this comment? One or two? Any notable ones? I have moved the reference insertion point to the proceeding sentence, and have added a fact template to this one. — BillC ^talk 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This statement is undoubtedly true, and could be sourced. But one would have to have at least two people saying this. And, it doesn't say much for the quality of skepticism (though the common reader would take it to mean that parapsychology is riddled with fraud- thus, it is an unsupported slur). Why don't you take it out? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)