Talk:Society for Psychical Research

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

In the Orient (this includes India & its neighbours, other ASEAN member countries, Korea (both of them) and Japan psychical research has been going on for countless centuries. The only reason this has never been publicly disclosed is the taboo associated with the worh "Psychic".

The so called scientific community that harps on its open minded approach does not take kindly to such research and that is the only reason for this esoteric science being driven deeper into hiding.

The enormous power of the human mind in it's supra-conscious state is but known to a very few adepts who live in isolation. Supra-conscious state is a state in which the body, mind and the spirit are one with the supreme being. In Indian philosophy, this state is called NIRVANA by some, Nirvikalp Samadhi by some and Moksha by some.

There are different schools (panthas) each with its own methods & practices to achieve the ultimate blissful state of the mind where the Human mind and the Supreme Being are ONE. Each School of Psychical Practice (Yogic Kriyas) however has it's ultimate goal of liberating the soul from all ties (physical, emotional or otherwise) by unique methods/kriyas.

Readers can refer any book on Patanjal Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Kriya Yoga, Buddhism, Jainism, Sufism, etc., for more information.

Question: how is this a "secret" society? They have a web page, which includes a street address, phone number, and a link to a membership page. Should they be described as a secret society? What are they keeping secret? Jonathan Versen 09:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fact tags and sources

There are now so many fact tags the article is almost unreadable. Much of the information comes from the SPR itself and given that it is an academic institution there is no reason to doubt its veracity. For example, an organisation's mission statement is as good a place as any to get info about the what the organisation does. It can also be corroborated in a number of other places. It's not exactly a secret society so there isn't really any dispute here. Re the journal, it is peer-reviewed (numrous sources including the SPR can be found for this) but again it is not a contentious issue but simply a mundane fact. The journal is also respected in the field of parapsychology. To quote Edinburgh University is to miss the point: Edinburgh University is an example of what is said about the journal and not the end of it. It is an example of what being respected in the field of parapsychology means.Davkal 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"respected in the field of parapsychology" is an opinion - statements like that should be direct attributions, not general statements like that. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, I put those tags in because the intro was obviously -I think- written to discredit, as were other parts. I haven't looked, but I very much doubt that the SPR says it investigates the "supernatural," or "magical" for instance; this made me wonder if the other things were accurate. Indeed, it is not possible to scientifically investigate the supernatural, as the society no doubt would know. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So could one of you explain why "respected in the field of parapsychology" was replaced? I don't see why a vague, unsourced POV statement is better than a direct quote attributed to the source. Please explain. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced means having no source and there was a source (Edinburgh Uni) which you refer to yourself????? Also, the source described the journal as publishing "scholarly reports of a high standard" which is a clear indication of respect, meaning the source supports the claim by demonstrating it rather than simply saying it. The problem with quotes on such points in general is that they tend to mischaracterise the nature of things. That is, the point is that the (J)SPR is respected widely and one quote makes it look like it's Edinburgh and Edinburgh only. We don't, however, want to have a long list of testimonials in the article on so simple a point and so the simplest way is to do away with the testimonials and summarise what they obviously mean. Here's another, for example, from the "Skeptical Investigations" website, "The Society does this by promoting and supporting important research and by publishing scholarly reports. It [...] publishes a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Which again demonstrates a level of respect for the (J)SPR not attributed to almost any other such society. I would ask you (Milo) what you would accept here, but the last time I did that you changed your mind as soon as I provided it and claimed you had been talking about something else. Davkal 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, please assume good faith. WP says to avoid general peacock terms like "respected widely" and to attribute specific comments to specific sources. "What they obviously mean" is open to interpretation so "summarizing" them to a much broader statement is completely POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask to include "widely" in the article. Respected in the field of parapsychology gives something of the journal's status as probably the most respected in this field.Davkal 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Widely" or not, it's unsourced POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is the sourced claim unsourced. The source doesn't use exactly the words that appear in the article, but it's absolutely obvious from the quote that the JSPR is held in high regard by The PS unit at Edinburgh Uni. What would you accept, an EVP recording of Carl Sagan saying it? What?Davkal 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You answered your own question: "The source doesn't use exactly the words that appear in the article". Sorry, but you don't get to put words in the mouth of a source. And WP says you generally shouldn't use descriptions like "respected" at all as general statements, they must be attributed to the source. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you get to paraphrase and summarise or else the whole of Wiki would be in quotation marks.Davkal 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the points about the journal not being vetted since no sources have been provided even though the editor who added those points says he has the sources but will not cite them (see EVP talk page). Davkal 10:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritualism

A quick google gives some links between the SPR and spiritualism, the RS status of these links though are debatable: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], etc. Shot info 02:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about what I deleted? Well, they did originate with interest in spiritualism. I just deleted it because it had no citations, and I don't know if it was right. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your deletion, but the deletion was "no sources", so I thought I would do the exercise to see if there were any sources. There are some, but some of them are doubious. Unfortunately, the society is dubious as well, as well as the subject matter, so I think we're stuffed either way :-( Shot info 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, there are lots of sources- the PA website I think has all we would need. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)