Talk:Bélmez Faces
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. |
[edit] Rewritten article
Last year I rewrote a previously POV article. The previous incarnation of this article leaned toward the paranormal interpretation disregarding all data from the various skeptical investigations.
The images of the cement blocks of the faces called "La Pava" and "El Pelao" can be seen in the photo. A neighbor of María Gómez took me this photo. "La Pava" is the one embedded in the wall. The small photo above it is how the same face looked originally in the early 1970s.
Together with Luis Ruiz-Noguez and several Spanish skeptics we debunked the case. My publications on this case appeared in the Skeptical Inquirer and in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
—Cesar Tort 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citation needed?
Re Rockpocket’s request in edit summary for citation in this paragraph —:
- an advantage of this and other cases of ostensible thoughtographic appearances is that, as the paranormal interpretation is falsifiable, it is not a pseudoscientific hypothesis. [citation needed]
—the article merely tries to convey the well-known fact that parapsychology is pseudoscientific because, as readers of Skeptical Inquirer know, “the most common characteristic of a pseudoscience is the unfalsifiable hypothesis”. Parapsychology is pseudo since the anecdotes of ghosts, etc, are not falsifiable. But fixed “phantom portraits” such as those at Bélmez are an exception to the rule! The paranormal claims are falsifiable, and have been already refuted. Therefore, though the paranormal hypothesis has been proven false, it’s not a pseudoscientific one (basic Karl Popper stuff about falsifiability). I don’t think we need all of this Popperian reasoning in the article. —Cesar Tort 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The standard answer to such a response to a citation request is: "if it is a 'well known fact', it should be simple to source per WP:V." It reads like reasoning to me (albeit perfectly logical reasoning) and our job is not to reason, but to report the reasoning of others. Rockpocket 03:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I see the WP policy. I’ve added citation. —Cesar Tort 06:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In-universe
Dead people after seeing digital pictures of the faces? I'm deleting this; it's stated without any kind of citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.77.106.236 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
