Talk:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry article.
Article policies
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Paranormal Portal
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.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Should Josephson be described as a parapsychologist?

This is the first section under the ground rules I suggested above. I'll start with a summary of the arguments made above.

  • Everyone agrees that a parapsychologist is a researcher into paranormal phenomena. The question is whether Josephson is a researcher.
  • In support, Davkal has cited the following.
  • Publication: 'The paranormal: the evidence and it's implications for consiousness'
  • Publication: 'Biological Utilisation of Quantum Non-Locality'
  • Job title: director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, a project concerned primarily with the attempt to understand, from the viewpoint of the theoretical physicist, what may loosely be characterised as intelligent processes in nature, associated with brain function or with some other natural process and including aspects of what are considered to be paranormal phenomena.
  • Third party description of him: Physics World said in an article about Josephson "Most controversially, as far as physicists are concerned, he carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena, a field known as parapsychology."
  • Askolnick countered that none of the articles Josephson has published have been actual research; they have been polemics, or have been articles published in news magazines.

1

I agree with Askolnick that to call Josephson a parapsychologist we must have evidence of research papers. Via Josephson's home page I found this article: [1] which was published in Foundations of Physics. This does look like parapsychology research to me; it argues for quantum mechanics as an explanation for psi phenomena. See section 6, for example, where he mentions "psi functioning". This was published in "Foundations of Physics". My physics training was many years ago, and I can't tell you whether that's a highly respected journal, but from looking briefly around for references to it, it seems so. Askolnick, would you comment on whether this qualifies as a parapsychology research paper?

It also appears that Josephson characterizes his "Mind-Matter Unification Project" as a parapsychology research effort. It's a research institute at a well-respected university; he runs it; and "parapsychology" is one of the header links. Askolnick, could you comment on whether this counts as evidence that Josephson is a parapsychologist?

The FoP paper cited above is the only actual research paper I could find; everything else appears to be discursive or polemical in nature. Given that many scientists write occasionally on topics outside their primary field, without being regarded as having changed fields as a result, I don't think the FoP paper is conclusive. The MMUP seems stronger evidence to me as it seems to characterize Josephson's daily work, which is relevant.

Comments, please; and Karl & Davkal, I will check your respective talk pages for your comments until your blocks expire. Mike Christie (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike, this is an outstanding analysis and summary of the issues. Some points:
Your comment about scientists who write occasionally on topics outside their primary field is an excellent point. One notable example was Lewis Thomas, author of much brilliant writing, including his award-winning book, Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. Thomas was a physician, a clinician, a medical researcher, medical author, and hospital administrator. He was not a biologist. He described himself as a "biology watcher" because he studied and described the work of biologists. He did not do the work of a biologist. He did not warrant that title, which belongs to those that do original research in biology.
As a Nobel laureate, Josephson is a celebrity and along with his celebrity status, he has tenure, and the support of wealthy believers in ghosts and ghoulies, and other things-that-go-bump-in-the-night. So he's allowed to do his own thing at prestigious Cambridge, which he calls the "Mind-Matter Unification Project." As far as I can tell, the only mind-matter unification this project has achieved has been to turn Josephson's mind into a dense and unbudgeable rock. From his perch in this ivory tower he snipes at skeptical scientists and gives lectures to New Age audiences about how quantum physics supports their paranormal beliefs. I haven't searched for any published research performed by any others at the M-M Unification Project (if there are any) because that's not really necessary. It is inconceivable that any research done there could ever be published without the "director's" name on it. No original scientific studies on paranormal phenomenon conducted by Josephson have ever been published in any peer-reviewed science journal, that I (or Davkal) can find. As a Nobel laureat, Josephson has been able to get a few articles published in which he speculates about a connection between quantum physics and phemomena that most scientists do not believe exist (an intellecutal pursuit that is much like describing the physical features of an invisible black cat in a pitch-black room; which requires a lot of imagination rather than observation). These few writings resemble more the writings of some who like to speculate how the Big Bang theory can be interpreted as evidence for their belief in God. Sorry, but belief in God is outside the realm of science. It's theology, like writings and speculations about other non-falsifiable beliefs. Theologists who use natural observations to speculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are not doing science, no matter how many scientific references they quote to support their speculation. That's why that science news magazine described Josephson as "carrying out speculative research." He doesn't research, he speculates. He also, as his Wiki biography states, advocates. Other respected sources do not describe him as a parapsychologist. For example, here's how the Encylopedia Britannica identifies him:
"Brian David Josephson British physicist whose discovery of the Josephson effect while a 22-year-old graduate student won him a share (with Leo Esaki and Ivar Giaever) of the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics." Nowhere in the short online biography is he described as a "parapsychologist."[2]
As for the paper you cite, Mike take a closer look at it. Does it report any new information which Josephson has discovered? All it does is describe selected observations of other scientists and makes an argument that this information strongly suggests the existance of a mystical connection between mind and matter though which paranormal phenomena occur. This kind of writing is no different from what I did for nine years, when I published more than 230 peer-reviewed articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association. I researched published literature, gathered together other information, and then presented it according to my perspective on the issues. That was research and it was research published in a leading peer-reviewed medical journal. But it was not science research and I was not a scientist. Just like Josephson, I wasn't doing original research. What I was doing is called science and medical journalism. And I would be deceiving people if I ever tried to pass myself off as a scientist. The few occassions in which I've done some does not qualify me to claim the title. And Josephson is a Nobel prize-winning physicist. The fact that he's a Nobel laureate doesn't give him carte blanche to wear the title of cardiac surgeon, psychiatrist, anthropologist, microbiologist, cryptozoologist, or parapsychologist.
Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't identify him a parapsychologist, the Wiki biography Brian Josephson doesn't identify him as a parapsychologist, and neither do I. I strongly agree with his Wiki biography, which identifies him as a physicist and "one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena." But advocacy is not science. Science, as opposed to pseudoscience, is not an enterprise that advocates beliefs. Science is an enterprise that is supposed to challenge beliefs. It's an enterprise that generates hypotheses about our universe, tests them carefully, and when the results come in, throws out all beliefs that no longer fit our growing body of knowledge. It has been said that science advances primarily, not by the will to believe, but by the will to doubt. By the willingness to question beliefs, science is able, as Bacon wrote, to put Nature on the rack and force Her to bear witness.
By the way, that speculative paper you cited was published 15 years ago! Can Davkal cite anyything more current? Can he cite anything that has original research in it?
Oh, if someone would like to argue that the Theory of Relativity was developed, not by a physicist conducting original research, but by a Swiss patent office worker who conducted thought experiments in his head, let me cut him off. Einstein WAS a physicist. While working in the patent office to pay his bills, he researched the latest findings in physics and, with the help of his thought experiments, created a whole set of original mathematical equations as proofs of his new theory, which for the first time fit all the known observations. And more importantly, his new theory generated entirely new hypotheses that could be scientifically tested and proven or disproven. That's science. Einstein didn't sit in an ivory tower and "speculate" how physics might explain why psychic surgeons are able to remove malignant tumors from people's bodies, nor did he traffic in non-falsifiable hypotheses. There's little these two men have in common other than their Nobel prizes in physics. Unlike Josephson, whose only major accomplishment was his discovery of the quantum tunneling phemonmenon when he was a 22-year-old grad student almost a half-century ago, Einstein produced an astounding string of truly monumental discoveries. Most people are surprised to learn that he didn't receive his Nobel prize for his theory of relativity. He received it for another great discovery involving the statistical proof of the atomic theory and for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Unfortunately that brilliant work has been eclipsed by his two theories of relativity that turned our understanding of the universe inside out.
Back to the bottom line: If Josephson is a parapsycholgist and the Mind-Matter Unification Project is "a parapsychology research" project, where is the parapsychology research that has come out of their efforts? I don't see anything but polemics and "speculations." Hell, even I can do that because I'm no scientist. Askolnick 17:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick, thanks for the detailed reply. I'm going to respond with a comment about civil language first, and then go on to your arguments. I'm not picking on you at all, but I think that, given the frayed tempers here, we all need to try to be as polite as possible. So with that in mind, could I ask you to be a bit cautious about saying things like "believers in ghosts and ghoulies, and other things-that-go-bump-in-the-night"? When you say things like that, you know you're going to irritate Davkal, and that just makes it more likely he'll respond in the same tone. We already know that's not going to get us anywhere. Word choices like "snipe" instead of "criticize" are also likely to inflame passions; or commenting that Josephson's mind has been turned to rock. This might not be uncivil in the letter of the policy, but I hope you'll agree that it is really rhetoric more than it is argument -- if we truly are going to be rational about this, we'll have to discount the tone and connotations of those terms anyway. I do understand that a negative term can serve as a compressed signal of a criticism that would take longer to spell out politely; concision is important, but (because of the history of these edits) politeness is at least as important.

I will make similar comments, if appropriate, after posts by others, too, unless you all tell me I'm overdoing it. I'd encourage everyone to police each other for this kind of civility slip too -- if I find you and Karl suggesting politer wording to each other, I'll know we've crossed an important civility hurdle. It's a bit trickier for you two to correct Davkal's usage, and for him to correct yours, so please be very cautious (and polite!) if you try that.

Let's back up and look at why we care about the term "parapsychologist". The two alternatives are "advocate for paranormal beliefs " and "parapsychologist". I think the value (to those who support Josephson) of the distinction is that the former term leaves open to the reader the possibility that Josephson is a full-time professional physicist who, in his private life, happens to believe in the paranormal. The latter term has the implication that parapsychology is Josephson's fulltime interest, which (in at least some readers' minds) will give him a little more authority.

I think all your points above are well-taken; the FoP paper is more synthesis than research, after all. But the Mind-Matter Unit does seem to be Josephson's full time job. I know he can always be described as a physicist, because of his past work, but I can't see any evidence that he still does mainstream physics research. It appears that whatever he does on a daily basis is done under the aegis of the Mind-Matter Unit. I think, for the purposes of the general reader of this article, that calling him a parapsychologist is a bit closer to representing that state of affairs accurately than just saying he is an advocate of the paranormal.

Some caveats:

  • if we can find another term that describes his work better than parapsychologist, we can use that instead
  • if we can find evidence of what actually goes on day-to-day in the Mind-Matter Unit, then that may change the description. For example, if a statement exists somewhere saying that the job of the Unit is for media education on possible scientific explanations for the paranormal, that would imply a description like "advocate" or "media analyst" or some such phrase.

What do you think? And Davkal, Karl, I will check your talk pages if you decide to respond there. Mike Christie (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just two comments. One: I calls 'em like I sees 'em and as long as I'm not personally attacking Wiki community members, in violation of Wiki rules, I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em. Two: the fact that you one doesn't know what the so-called Mind-Matter Unification Project does does not mean it does parapsychology research because it claims to be doing parapsychology research. To be doing parapsychology research, one must be publishing parapsychology research. The only reason we're having this battle is because no one can find any parapsychology research that he's published, yet one editor insists on identifying him as that. Let's not build in back doors to the definition of parapsychologist. Someone who does not conduct scientific research is not a scientist. Someone who does not conduct parapsychology research is not a parapsychologist. It's that simple. The only way that we should agree on calling Josephson a parapsychologist is to show that he's published a body of original research in the field. All the "Mind-Matter Unification Project appears to be is a advocacy office for paranormal believers, quacks, and charlatans that is run by a Nobel laureate. You hit the nail on the head when you said you can't find any evidence that he's done research in physics in a long time. He hasn't done research in ANY field of science for a long time. He abandoned science for pseudoscience and mysticism a long time ago. Anyone who has any doubt should look at Josephson's CV. He hasn't published original research in any peer-reviewed science journal in ages.Askolnick 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you are calling them as you see them; I think you are being quite straightforward, and in some ways I really appreciate your directness -- I certainly don't have to guess what you think! The point I was trying to make is that we'll get to the end of this process faster if we can use neutral terms in our discussion. I don't want you to change your opinions or refrain from expressing them fully; I just want you (and the other participants) to consider, for everything you post, not only whether you are right, but also whether your post is the quickest way forward.
With regard to the MMUP, I have another idea. Why don't we replace "The well-known advocate for paranormal beliefs" with "Josephson, the director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project", and provide a footnote linking to that page? It's undeniably true, it doesn't assert any particular research status for Josephson, thus avoiding the WP:V issue, and it gives the reader a place to go to make up their own mind. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Mike, there would be nothing wrong with identifying Josephson as director of U. of Cambridge's M-M Unification Project. It is both truthful and relevant. But if we pad his credentials any more in the article, we need to also identify Ray Hyman's and Richard Wiseman's academic titles. (Or skip everyone's.) What would be wrong, however, would be to withhold the fact that Josephson is a well-known promoter of paranormal belief. Josephson is not attacking CSICOP from a neutral scientist's point of view. It would be false to describe him that way. In fact, he has been the subject of much criticism by CSICOP and its fellows, and has long been antagonistic towards CSICOP and skeptical scientists in general. To fail to describe his role in the promotion of paranormal belief is to add an unacceptable POV to the article. Wiki's biography describes him as "one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena." That's clearly a relevant fact that should not be omitted in a section that descibes Josephson's accusations of scientific misconduct against CSICOP researchers. Askolnick 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
With regard to credentials, the Nobel Prize clearly warrants mention; and some statement of his current academic work is appropriate; if Karl and Davkal are OK with mentioning his MMU role instead of describing him as a parapsychologist then we may be close to consensus there. And perhaps a parenthetical note on Hyman saying something like "Professor of Psychology at U of Oregon") would be worthwhile also. I think it should be considered that Josephson's celebrity status, while not making him any more likely to be right, does make his academic status of more interest to the reader. I also think that we have to recollect that this section is about criticism, and it is not automatically unbalanced if we end up with more words on the side of the critics than on the side of the defenders. Other sections can be less parsimonious about the word count. So I don't think Hyman's credentials have to be mentioned, but I think it is harmless to do so. I'll wait to hear from others on this one.
The issue of POV is more complicated. Hyman's article describes him as a noted critic of parapsychology. The relevance of Josephson's advocacy is that the reader, in noting the advocacy, may decide to regard Josephson as biased. Does this also apply to Hyman? Should we also describe Hyman as "a well-known critic of the paranormal"? One fair answer would be to go through and tag everyone who has a well-known public position in this way. If that's the consensus, let's do it; but I don't think that it represents much gain for the reader, who, I feel, is likely to assume that the critics of CSICOP are proponents of the paranormal, and that CSICOP's defenders are critics of the paranormal. So I would suggest we drop the phrase for Josephson, and not add one for Hyman. I'm not expecting immediate agreement here! I look forward to the responses.
One last comment: I said above that I would start other threads in parallel with this one, to address Karl's (very valid) concern that we are going very slowly indeed. I will try to do that later today; I have an obligation that will take a good deal of time today, but I'll do my best to be back here frequently. Mike Christie (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Mike, you ask if noting Hyman as a critic of parapsychology would be relevant. Of course, that's why Josephson is attacking him (and Wiseman). I think it is important for readers not familiar with this subject to know that both Josephson and the skeptical researchers are in opposing camps which have long criticized each other's views. That Hyman is a critic of psi should come as no surprise to readers of this article. After all, he's described as a research fellow of CSICOP - the subject of the article which is clearly described as critical of paranormal claims.
What's wrong with the reader knowing the truth about the other side of the issue? It's obvious that CSICOP researchers are biased against the claims of psychics and spoon benders. That Josepshon is biased towards belief in the paranormal is not a closely kept secret. But it would be nice that less knowledgeable people, who turn to Wikipedia to learn more about the world, can also learn what's going on. If informing the reader about Josephson's biases is wrong, then why even include this section which consists of little more than Josephson's accusation that the CSICOP researchers are so biased they are willing to cheat a teenage girl. Sorry, but I can't buy this double standard. I don't believe it is good scholarship to withhold important information of relevance because it might tip the article against of the minority view. Wiki policies say not to give minority views equal weight. Maintaining a NPOV does NOT mean balancing information so that two sides are even. It means being neutral in representing the amount of reputable evidence available. The only reason that Josephson is getting this undeserved amount of attention is that nearly 50 years ago he was awarded a Nobel prize for totally unrelated research. And critics of CSICOP are trying to boost the credibility of Josephson's ad hominem argument by the equally false fallacy of argument from authority. The fact that he won a Nobel prize nearly half a century ago in a different field does not make his arguments valid. What would be more relevant would be to compare the number of original research articles on the paranormal that Josephson has published with the number published by the three CSICOP researchers. What I'm fighting here is an attempt to push misleading and deceptive information into this article. Josephson is a well-known advocate for paranormal beliefs. He is not known as someone who conducts original research in the field. For an encyclopedia to misrepresent him as such would be very wrong.
I've stated repeatedly that I would withdraw my opposition to identifying Josephson as a researcher in the paranormal if any articles from peer-reviewed science journals could be cited showing that he ever conducted orginal research in this field. I just completed an exhaustive search of the University of Cambridge's Theory of Condensed Matter web site, including Josepson's web site and the so-called Mind-Matter Unification Project's web site (which turns out to be Josephson's web site! - he appears to be the project; along with other listed "activities" of the "Mind-Matter Unification Project" are photographs that Josephson took of comets!). I found no evidence that Josephson ever published any orignal research on paranormal phenomena. Actually, there's not much research listed there in any area of science that has been published in the past quarter century. One finds mostly talks, papers, letters, and articles in science and lay publication in which Josephson advocates belief in the paranormal and criticises science and scientists for rejecting those beliefs. I posted a lengthy analysis of all the publications I found on those web sites on my talk page[3] Askolnick 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Askolnick, thanks for doing the work to find those articles and document what you found. Obtaining information from secondary sources is one of the keys to reaching consensus, and I'm grateful for your investment of time.
I do have some comments and questions about the points you raise, but first I want to ask a quick question about the scope of this discussion. I had intended for this section to discuss whether the word "parapsychologist" was suitable as a description of Josephson. The inclusion of the paragraph itself had, I believe, been previously agreed by Karl and Davkal; the debate was only over the wording of the paragraph. Can I ask you if you are in agreement that the paragraph should be included? I get the impression that you don't think Josephson's criticisms are very notable, and I don't want to debate wording if you really want to go back and revisit the question of whether this criticism should be included at all. So I'll hold off till I hear your response -- I'm trying to get to a focused discussion, and I want to make sure we're really all talking about the same thing. I would be disappointed to hear we were moving to a discussion of the notability of the criticism, as I'd thought we were closer to agreement than that, but if that's where we're going to go we shouldn't hesitate to get there and settle that question. Mike Christie (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Mike to confuse you about this. That's not what I meant. I am NOT opposed to including a paragraph describing Josephson's dispute. The article section is on criticism, Josephson is one of CSICOP's more well-known critics, therefore his criticism can be included.
But with that said, we need to decide which of his criticisms should be included. If it weren't for a news report on Josephson's attack in the respected Times Higher Education Supplement, I would be opposed to including ANY of his criticisms in the CSICOP article because there wouldn't be a reputable source for them. Josesphson self-published his charges of deception and misconduct on his own web site. Therefore this information is not from a reputable source according to Wiki guidelines. The Times HES published his less outrageous accusations. I think it therefore would be appropriate to include those criticisms in the Wiki article. However, that's not good enough for Davkal who is insisting on adding charges that Josephson made that never went through any kind of editorial review or fact checking. And that's what is so troubling. Josephson's charges were never reviewed by an editor or checked for factual accuracy. That's should be especially alarming because these charges are potentially defamatory. According to Wiki guidelines, it's the independent fact checking process that makes a source reputable. Keep in mind, if a Nobel laureate uncovered evidence of scientific misconduct, he would have NO trouble getting it published in a reputable science or lay publication. The fact that Josephson self-published his attack piece on his own web site should tell us that what is written there is not worthy to be published in any reputable forum. Wiki editors have to be cautious about using such a dubious source, especially since it involves unsubstantiate charges of scientific misconduct. If you include those defamatory charges, you need to carefully include the responses of the people he's attacking. And I happen to have one right here.
I took the time to find and provide you all that information about Josephson because you seemed to be leaning toward writing in a degree of authority he clearly doesn't deserve. People shouldn't be told that Josephson is a "director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project" without knowing that this "project" consists of one guy who hasn't published very much science in the past quarter century and nothing at all containing original paranormal research. Askolnick 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick's suggested response is the very definition of an ad hominem argument. Written out in the format of the Wiki page on ad hominem arguments:

1. Josephson argued that CSICOP were engaged in poor/fraudulent science,

2. Jospehson himself has not conducted any science for years.

3. Josephson's arguements are false.

I do not think it is Wiki's job to include such obvious logical fallacies. Rather, I think a summary of Josephson's criticism of CSICOP should be included, along with CSICOP's response. (We already have all this.) On what we should call J. It is also of little consequence that Askolnick has conducted some original research and has come to certain conclusions about Jospehson - my conclusions about J given the body of work cited be Askolnick are rather different but that is also irrelevant. The fact is that we have several articles from physics jornals/magazines detailing Jospehson's work, and that of the MMUP, in which it is clearly stated that he is engaged in paranormal research. In conclusion, then, I think J should be described as a "paranormal researcher". We can even cite the claim and link to the article in Physics World. That is, "paranormal reaearcher" as I have been arguing, and not "the director of the Mind-Matter Unfification Project" as Askolnick suggests I now want to include. Davkal 06:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Let's try to stay focused on what is being discussed here and not mix things up. What is being discussed is how to identify Josephson and his relevant credentials in the CSICOP article. Therefore arguing against listing false or misleading credentials is clearly not an ad hominem argument. Encylopedias are not supposed to inflate or falsely describe the credentials of people. That should be an indisputable point which no editor would challenge.
Davkal, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you wanted to include his being a director of the M-MUP. And for your claim that Physics World identified Josephson as a "paranormal researcher," that turns out not to be true.
More importantly, the point that the Mike, Karl, and I have made must not be ignored. For Wiki to describe Josephson as a "paranormal researcher," there has to be evidence that he's conducted and published original paranormal research. The record on his own on web site shows that he hasn't. The list of his publications on U. of Cambridge TCM's site shows he hasn't. And you have not been able to cite any peer-reviewed pubication of his original psi research. So "paranormal researcher" is out. Continuing to beat this dead horse won't get us across the finish line. Let's move on. Askolnick 11:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Askolnick's work in identifying the set of papers that Josephson has published is not original research; a listing of the secondary sources is more analogous to a bibliography. The conclusions Askolnick draws are his interpretations of the data. Not every interpretation of data is regarded as original research; if you read the Wikipedia policy you'll see that the objection is to "any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or [. . .] that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
So does Askolnick's interpretation fall under this definition? It's not enough to say that Davkal disagrees with him. If we had evidence that Josephson was generally referred to in the scientific journals as a parapsychologist (I've no idea if this is so) then that would be a prevailing interpretation of the data. If a notable source denies that he is a parapsychologist, that also can be mentioned. Or if the MMUP is generally described as a research institute that would be relevant.
And, conversely, if Josephson is generally described as an advocate, but not as a parapsychologist, that would be the prevailing interpretation and we should go along with that.
Determining which of the above is the case is likely to be difficult without further original research, however. In most cases there is a neutral description that suffices for all POVs involved in a discussion; here we have not found such a description. So we're stuck.
I think it's time to suggest a compromise. I would like to propose the following sentence, which represents a departure from what both Davkal and Askolnick wish to see:
'In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." Josephson, the director of the Mind-Matter Unification project and a well-known advocate for paranormal beliefs also . . .'
  • Eliminating the contentious term "parapsychologist" represents a step in Askolnick's direction; he does not want Josephson characterized as a researcher. This statement neither asserts nor denies that he is a researcher.
  • Including the MMU as a link to a (so far nonexistent) Wiki article provides a way for a reader to rapidly find out what the project is, without requiring us to describe it in this article in any way. The MMU seems notable enough for a brief article, because of Josephson's involvement. The reference to the MMU substitutes for the term "parapsychologist" and is a step in Davkal's direction in that it gives Josephson's current academic status. (A footnote ref linking to the MMU home page would also be provided.)
  • We retain the phrase "well-known advocate for the paranormal beliefs" which is Askolnick's preferred description, and which I understand is not controversial.
I would like to hear comments on this. Please remember that a compromise satisfies no-one. I am not proposing this because I think it meets everyone's goals; I'm proposing it as a middle ground that meets more reasonable goals than any other suggestion yet made. So I would ask you both to consider agreeing to this (or some similar formulation) in the spirit of working cooperatively to find the best article we can.
I have more comments of a different nature, as a mediator. First, I have changed my mind about starting fresh threads. Until all our posts get more concise, I won't have the bandwidth to handle any more traffic on this talk page. I would urge everyone to post more briefly. If it would be useful, I'll formulate compressed versions of a couple of recent posts. Remember that length does not equal force in an argument; often the reverse is true. In addition, there is still a tendency to drift off topic; again I can provide examples. If everyone tries to post more concisely we will move faster.
Second, as you know I am watching everyone's talk page for relevant comments; particularly Karl's and Davkal's as they have been blocked and unable to post elsewhere. Davkal has an exchange on Askolnick's talk page with Bishonen in which it appears that Davkal doesn't know how to post a "diff" of a particular comment Askolnick made which Davkal feels violates WP:NPA. My position as a mediator is that I will report violations of policies such as WP:NPA when I feel I need to, but I will try to manage the discussion without asking for administrator intervention when possible. In the case of the comment that Davkal refers to, I was aware of it and did nothing except exhort everyone to be more polite. I don't propose to make any report now, but in the spirit of giving Davkal the tools to make his own decision, I am willing to explain to him what Bishonen means by a "diff". Davkal, if you would like me to do so, leave a note on my talk page and I'll walk you through the process. I would also add that all the main participants in this discussion have been seriously uncivil at different times, and I personally would prefer to see everyone commit to polite behaviour, and by and large things have improved a little. I hope it stays that way.
Finally, I want to say a word about confidentiality. I will not, generally, open discussions about this mediation with anyone else on Wikipedia. If I am contacted I will avoid saying anything I would not say on Wikipedia openly. However, if a party in this discussion (or anyone else) wants to contact me directly, via Wikipedia email or IRC, they are free to do so. If there is some value in having one-on-one discussions between me and individuals in this discussion, in order to reach consensus on difficult points in a step-by-step way, I'd be happy to do so. I can provide instructions on how to use IRC or Wikipedia email if necessary; just leave me a note on my talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Mike, I'm 100 percent in favor of your suggested sentence.
'In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." Josephson, the director of the Mind-Matter Unification project and a well-known advocate for paranormal beliefs also . . .'
Good job at herding mongooses and cobras. Askolnick 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Except we'd need to say : "...at University of Cambridge's Condensed Matter Group's Mind-Matter Unification Project...". Askolnick 12:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Either way would work for me; I'll wait for Davkal's comments.
I've also just realized my comments about confidentiality above are not completely clear; let me clarify one thing. If I talk with someone on a confidential channel, I commit that I will express the same views and positions that I would on Wikipedia. However, the communications themselves will remain confidential if you request they do so; if anyone wants to talk to me confidentiality I will fully respect that. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I would be happier if "well known advocate of paranormal beliefs" could be sourced and the source cited. Davkal 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. I think either a single reputable source that describes him in this way would suffice, or two quotes in prominent sources such as reputable national newspapers that show him advocating paranormal beliefs. Askolnick, do you feel that's a reasonable standard? Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the only source for that wording I'm aware of is Josephson's Wikipedia's bio, let's use the following wording instead, based on how the Times Higher Education Supplement article describes him:
"Josephson, the director of the Mind-Matter Unification project, has been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal."[4]
Please note that the Times Higher Education is a highly reputable publication. And note that this ref link is to the copy of the article on Josephson's own web site.
I'm glad Davkal brought this problem up and Mike agrees. This is a more informative statement than the previous one and from a much more appropriate source. According to Wiki guidelines, Wikipedia may not serve as a reputable source for information in other articles: "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference." wp:rs Askolnick 14:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Three points.

1. That quote is just as easily true of a praspychologist/paranormal researcher as it is of an advocate of the paranormal. Therefore it no way supports the contention under consideration.

2. Here is a quote from Askolnick about my reasons for wanting to describe Josephson as a paranormal researcher:

"And for your claim that Physics World identified Josephson as a "paranormal researcher," that turns out not to be true."

Now, the quote from the article in Physics World stating precisely what I claim has been cited on this page a number of times prior to Askolnick's point. Here it is again: "Most controversially, as far as physicists are concerned, he carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena, a field known as parapsychology." (My emphasis)

In addition, the title of the article is "Pioneer of the paranormal" and the summary at the start says "Brian Josephson has studied the brain and the paranormal for 30 years".

In what sense, if any, can Askolnick possibly be right about this? None! And yet nothing more than this type of repeated claim to the contrary requires us all to compromise and not use such well sourced, cited, verifiable facts. Why?

3. The Times HES also contains Wiseman's quote that there is nothing wrong with asking someone to agree to a set of conditions...(that should just about cover the CSICOP response to Jospehson), then we can have Rennolls' response to Wiseman (surely a most inappropriate surname)that Wiseman's response shows a complete lack of understanding about how experimental data should be interpreted statistically. Shall we have these plus the woefully inadequate experiment point as well. Davkal 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Answers to those points:
1) I can make no sense out of the first point.
2) It is false to say that Physics World called Josephson a "paranormal researcher." None of the expressions used by the news magazine necessarily mean "paranormal researcher," which we have agreed means someone who conducts original research on paranormal claims. A "pioneer of the paranormal" does not mean the same as "paranormal researcher." Neither does "conducting speculative research" mean conducting "scientific research." "Speculative research on the nature of things" is what philosophers and theologicans do, not scientists. We need to note that Physics World was very careful to not simply describe him as a "paranormal researcher" and neither should we for the good reason that he isn't one if there's no evidence he's carried out original research in the field.
3)Davkal has apparenly lost sight of the fact that we're trying to decide how to identify Josephson in the article, not Wiseman. We've reached an overwhelming consensus not to identify Josephson as "parapsychologist" or "paranormal researcher." Davkal raised the point that we don't have a Wiki-appropriate source for describing him as an "advocate for paranormal belief." Therefore, we best go with how the respected Times Higher Education Supplement describes him. After all, it is our only reputable source for information on this dispute. Askolnick 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick, you had previously agreed to this text:

'In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." Josephson, the director of the University of Cambridge's Condensed Matter Group's [Mind-Matter Unification project]] and a well-known advocate for paranormal beliefs also . . .'

This was the result of a rather difficult consensus, as I'm sure you'll agree. Can I ask you to consider again whether you really feel it is necessary to change it as you now propose? I don't want to address the points you raise unless you have definitely changed your mind on the acceptability of the above text.

If it can be sourced, or if Davkal agrees to include without a source, would that suffice? And Davkal, regarding the source, although you are within your rights to request a source, can I suggest that it is not a controversial statement, and not one likely to mislead a reader? Please let me know, both of you.

Incidentally, although the tone of both your posts hasn't exactly been friendly, I want to thank you both for sticking reasonably closely to the topic at hand, and not posting direct incivility or personal attacks in your last couple of posts here. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike that was before Davkal and you raised the valid point that we had no reputable source for that description. Wiki guidelines say that Wiki articles cannot be used as a source. Therefore, we need to use the only well-sourced description of Josephson's involvement with paranormal claims that we have. And it is also the most relevant source since it's the article in which the dispute was reported.
So I suggest we vote on the following version and then move on:
In 2004, CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct over its involvement in Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." Josephson, the director of the Mind-Matter Unification project, who has often been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal,[5] questioned the researchers' motivations and alleged that the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic."[1]
Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, published a response to this and other criticisms. He noted that their decision to use a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which is appropriate when testing unlikely claims.[6]] He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers.[2]
The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health also published a detailed response to these and other objections.[3]
Otherwise, if the Times Higher Education Supplment is not reputable enough to support the description of Josephson, we should consider deleting the whole section on the Demkina test, which depends so much on this source. Wiki's WP:RS guidelines make it clear the a person's self-published web site cannot be used as a reputable source of information about other people. So it's either go with the Times Higher Education Supplement or delete the whole section. That's my vote. Askolnick 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If there is no way that complies with WP:RS to assert that Josephson is a "well-known advocate of the paranormal", then I agree the statement should not be included. I don't think we have yet all agreed that there is, in fact, no way to comply with WP:RS; the question has been raised, but I haven't yet heard Davkal say it is not a sourceable statement. What I meant to ask was: if it can in fact be sourced in a way that complies with WP:RS, would you still agree with that wording? (I also asked if Davkal would be willing to include it without sourcing, but as you evidently would not agree, that is apparently not a possible answer.) So could you let me know whether that wording, given compliance with WP:RS, would suffice? I ask because I don't want to start us on a review of your current suggestion without knowing that the prior consensus is definitely dead. Mike Christie (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes Mike, the prior consensus is quite dead. Perhaps Davkal should have quit while he was ahead and not forced me to look for sources to back up the statements he doesn't like. Every time I have to do that, I uncover more reasons why this whole affair is unworthy for inclusion in an encylopedia. It is solely a self-published defamatory rant by a crank scientist who according to the Times Higher Education Supplement is "widely scorned by his colleagues." That's how the respected news paper of higher education described him. There is no reason for withholding this fact from Wiki-readers - unless one is trying to dishonestly slant the article in favor of the widely scorned scientist.
You can't unring a bell. It's clear that the previous version was not supported by a useable source. I didn't bring this up, Davkal did. There is no reason to not go with the well-sourced description - which is used IN THE ACTUAL ARTICLE that reported this "scientific" dispute in the first place. There can be NO denying that it's a reputable and respected source - even Josephson has it on his web site. What's more, it truthfully describes the facts: Josephson is widely scorned by physicists for his crackpot statments about the paranormal. The only reason to keep this fact from Wiki readers that I can see is for the purpose of dishonestly slanting the article.Askolnick 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I just thought of something rather amusing: Do you know that I've had more than 10 times the number of articles published in a renowned peer-reviewed journal than Josephson has over the past 20 years? And I'm not even a scientist:-) Askolnick 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Askolnick, I'm really sorry about this, but evidently I didn't manage to ask the question I wanted to. Let me try and rephrase this again; I'm sorry to be stuck on this point, but I can help the mediation best if I understand exactly what is going on, and right now I'm still not clear on something. I think, in order to make sure I don't miscommunicate, that I'd like to do this in smaller steps. Here's step 1.
You say "the previous version was not supported by a useable source". That's correct; it was not. However, we haven't yet (as a group) agreed that no such source exists. I understand that you feel that the case is closed; personally I haven't even looked yet, and may not, as I am not on either side in this discussion. Would you agree that describing Josephson as "a well-known advocate of the paranormal" would be compliant with WP:RS IF a reputable source can be found that describes him in this way? Also, would you agree that the description is compliant with WP:RS if two or more prominent sources can be found which quote him advocating the paranormal?
I understand that, even if these descriptions could be compliant with WP:RS under those circumstances, you might still prefer a description derived from the THES quote you give above. That's a separate issue (and I promise to get to it!). Would you let me know your answer to the two questions above? And I want to reiterate that I have no sources in mind; I'm solely trying to understand the positions and beliefs of the disputants here. Thanks for your patience. Mike Christie (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Mike there is NO need to try to find sources for the older statement, since there's a clearly better statement which is solidly sourced. The very article that enables Josephson's dispute to be included in the CSICOP article is a solid source for the newer, better description of Josephson. I don't know why we need to argue about this any more. We all agree that the older statment is unsourced. The replacement statement is in the very same source that allows Josephson's dispute to be included. If you're trying to say that the source is not a good enough, then everything about Josephson needs to go. If it is a good enough source, then what's the problem? I just don't see why we're still haggling over this nor any reason to try to resurrect the older statement. There's no source for it. We've now got a much better version. It has a very good source that's the same source for the whole section. Unless there's a good reason why the replacement statement is not acceptable, I suggest we use it and move on.

Why has askolnick been arguing for the last five days that a description should be included that he now admits has no reputable source, and arguing that the description I wanted to include from a reputable source should not be included. Indeed, he has spent much of the time simply denying that the source exists - which is clearly not the case, it has been cited again and again. What is Askolnick's point here? Anybody?Davkal 23:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why, Davkal? Because you asked for a source for it. When I checked, I realized that I only had the Josephson's Wiki biography. Wiki guidelines do not accept Wiki articles as a reputable sources. Please read the guidelines. It's very difficult carrying on these discussions with someone who has not read them carefully.
And let's not start beating this dead horse again: your description is simply inaccurate and misleading, and the sources you cite don't really back you up. Askolnick 03:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick also argues that (talking about the Times HES) "we need to use the only well-sourced description of Josephson's involvement with paranormal claims that we have." Askolnick seems to forget, even though it has been cited and quoted on numerous occasions, that we have the article from Physics World in which Josphson's invlovment with the paranormal is decribed perfectly well and in far more neutral terms. That is, it says (again), "Most controversially, as far as physicists are concerned, he carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena, a field known as parapsychology." The only argument Askolnick has offered against this quote is that he believes it to be false on the basis of some peculiar definition of research that is clearly not shared by the authors of Physics World. Even without recourse to such singular defintions it is pretty clear that a number of arguments could be produced to show that the claim from THES is not true. Not least Rupert Sheldrake's published letter in THES in which he talks about the open bias of the article. If Askolnick can find a similar letter in Physics World lambasting them for the inaccuracy of their description then perhaps he can claim that it is contested. As things stand we have a perfectly good account of Jospehson's involvement with the paranormal, contested by nobody but Askolnick, which we are being asked to reject in favour of a description which was criticised as biased in the same place that it was published only a few days after it was published. What, exactly, is the problem here?Davkal 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a perfectly straightforward decsription of Jospehson's involvement with the paranormal: He carries out speculative research in this area. The description is well sourced and is considered controversial by nobody but Askolnick. So what, that is simply Askolnick's opinion and as such it carries no weight. If Askolnick wishes this point to be excluded he should provide a source which says that Jospephson does not carry out research into the paranormal. Askolnick has not done so. What he has done is provide a source which does not describe J's involvement with the paranormal at all, but which describes the opinions that certain unnamed colleagues hold regarding his involvement. But: a) that source is entirely consistent with the Physics World article; and b)the negative views expressed were heavily criticised for bias in the same source almost upon publication. In conclusion, then, we have a solid source for an uncontroversial description of Josephson's involvement with the paranormal, and we have solid source for a controversial view about what others might think about Josphson's involvement with the paranormal. Given that we are trying to characterise J's involvement with the paranormal (not how others view his involvement), should we not simply use the former and forget the latter and move on? Davkal 11:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to Mike for his patience!
The problem with describing Josephson as a "parapsychologist" or "paranormal researcher" is that is leaves the reader with the impression that Josephson regularly does the sort of experiment Hyman, Wiseman, ans Skolnick did with Demkina, or more sophisticated ones. There is no evidence that he ever did, and that's the point Askolnick emphasizes. Hyman and Wiseman, on the other hand, are very experienced in such experiments and in evaluating them. So, both "parapsychologist" and "paranormal researcher" as descriptions of Josephson in this context are unacceptable. That Davkal was able to find interpretations of those words by which Josephson fulfils the definition is beside the point. Using the words in this context would lend inappropriate credibility to Josephson.
(For some reason, people think that parapsychologists know what they are doing. I disagree. For me, calling someone a parapsychologist actually detracts from his credibility because they have consistently missed crucial systematic type-two errors in their experiments for decades. Josephson fits right in that bunch. But the public thinks otherwise, and that's the important point.)
BTW, he is definitely not a "pioneer of the paranormal" - he's born a hundred years too late for that.
How about not using any description of Josephson at all? Mentioning his Nobel smells of an argument from authority, and mentioning his belief in the paranormal smells of ad hominem. And we can hardly give him justice with one or two sentences anyway. Anybody who wants to know who he is can click on the link.
'In a self-published commentary, physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive" and . . .'
I think "physicist" is okay to give a general idea, but I don't insist on it. --Hob Gadling 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Askolnick's main point now seems to hinge on the notion of research. Very well, let us be done with it. Let us say, "Nobel Prize winning Physicist Brian Josephson, who now carries out sepculative research into the paranormal, said ..." We can now take the exact words from Physics World and use them to characterise J's involvement. There can surely be no disagreement here. Sourced, quoted as is, verifiable.

On the other hand, I sort of like Hob Gadling's approach where Jospehson is introduced as neutrally as possible.

So, my way just above, gives a sort of "authority" balanced by "ad hominem" in a very brief scene setting way (which may be important) and Hob's just throws all this out (which may be better). I think both work OK. Davkal 11:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It would have been pleasurably uncharacteristic of you not to ignore my main point, which was the bold text and the text around it. The word "research" in this context makes people wrongly think of Josephson actually testing actual paranormal claims. So, disagreement is far from nonexistent - it was right in front of your eyes when you wrote that it can't possibly be. Also, fallacies don't cancel each other - two wrongs don't make a right.
But I'll stop quibbling now, given that a compromise is in the wake. What do the others think? --Hob Gadling 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion would take a more pleasant turn if every post was not laden with personal comments and assumptions about the other editors like, for example, "It would have been pleasurably uncharacteristic of you", or like the characterisation of me above as trying to "find [misleading] interpretations" which, if you think about it, is not really what I have been doing at all. I repeat, I simply took a quote from a reputable source and suggested we use that. If you check above you will see that I acknowledge the fact that "parapsychologist" may be slightly misleading and this is precisely why I suggested "paranormal researcher" instead. It seems clear, then, that I have been trying to find a well sourced, non-misleading, non-pejorative description of Jospehson's involvement with the paranormal for the best part of a week. I think, then, that I should be forgiven for responding to the implication that I have been trying to pull the wool over the readers' eyes. I have not.Davkal 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I should point out though, in response to Hob, that he is the one trying to "find interpretations." I simply took a quote from a reputable source (a science journal dealing with a science issue) and suggested we use the description found there here.Davkal 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Hob has made an admirably neutral suggestion. To be completely clear, here's the old and new text:
Old text:
In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." The well-known advocate for paranormal beliefs also questioned . . .
Hob's suggestion (I've added a comma after "inconclusive"):
In a self-published commentary, physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive", and questioned . . .'
Given that Davkal seems to agree to this wording, I'd like to hear from Askolnick (and Karl, too -- are you still involved, Karl?). Mike Christie (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Davkal, Hob is right. What you've been doing is cherry picking through everything you can find to try to prove that Josephson conducts ressearch on paranormal phenomena - which the record shows is clearly false. The section that you insist on adding is based on a report in the respected Times Higher Education Supplement. Therefore we should use the description of Josephson from the actual source, not on the most misleading ones you could come up with in your search.

While I think the last version I presented is more informative (most readers wouldn't have a clue who Josepshon is, nor would they know that his allegations are only the latest of Josephson's attacks on scientists who dismiss his paranormal beliefs - which clearly is important information), Hob's accurate description is better than the misleading ones Davkal keeps insisting on. But I still strongly believe that readers need to have the "5 W's" of good reporting: Who, What, Where, When, and Why. If something isn't important enough to describe clearly and accurately, then it isn't important enough to describe at all. Askolnick 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Askolnick, don't know how I missed your note when I just posted mine. I'll leave the notes where they are; Askolnick, would you reply either above your last note or below this one to the suggested compromise? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike, I'm totally baffled why you would represent our choices as between Hob's suggested version and an old version that has NO useable source - as if you've decided that the version I'm in favor of is not on the mediation table. Well, that has killed the last shred of patience I've had left. I'll leave this table to you and Davkal.Askolnick 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I misrepresented the situation -- I was really just trying to get your feedback on Hob's suggestion. You've indicated that you no longer find the one-time consensus acceptable -- I respect your comments; though I would have liked to understand your thoughts on it a little better. With regard to your suggested wording: of course it's still on the table. There has been no consensus to dismiss it. If Hob had not posted I would have initiated a review of your wording next; Hob's comments seemed like an attempted compromise, and as Davkal agreed, I felt it was appropriate to check your opinion on that version before going on with a discussion of your suggestion. After all, it was already clear that Davkal had objections to your version, and that would have required discussion. If you had no objections to Hob's version, we would have been done. I hope this clarifies what I was trying to do. You've indicated you are leaving the discussion; that's up to you, but if you stay I know that with your knowledge of the subject you would be able to contribute a good deal to this article.
By the way, one of your comments implies you may not be convinced that I am acting neutrally. Would you let me know if that is the case? As mediator I would prefer to act completely neutrally, and of course I want to have the trust of all participants.
I won't be able to post again till this evening US time, except possibly for short notes, so I will hope that y'all can come up with a consensus during the day. See you all later. Mike Christie (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mike, I did not mean to imply that I think you aren't acting neutrally, because I don't think that at all. However, I am concerned that you may be motivated more towards reaching a consensus than toward producing the best article we can. I don't care a fig for reaching a consensus unless the consensus is over the best article we can produce. This mediation process is being bogged down by a steady stream of false and misleading comments, obfuscations, and sophistic arguments. My patience for dealing with this is all but gone. Take for example, Davkal's latest attempt to dismiss the version I've proposed. He falsely stated that he searched and could find no evidence that Joesphson is scorned by colleagues accept by one CSICOP fellow. That was a double falsehood. We already have excellent evidence in the very source that we're using for this part of the CSICOP article on Josephson's criticisms. And that so-called CSICOP fellow is NOT a CSICOP fellow. Mike, the act of throwing up false and misleading arguments to overpower an opponent in a debate is called sophistry. Arguing against sophistry is a notorious waste of time. And I've already wasted far too much of my time on this.Askolnick 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I have been cherry-picking my sources then let Askolnick produce the sources I have ignored which describe J's involvement with the paranormal rather than sources which describe (controversially) the attitude of unnamed others towards that involvement. If Askolnick truly has all these sources that say that J is not a paranormal researcher, or which describe him as a "well known advocate of the paranormal", or some other such thing, then he let him cite them here and the issue will be closed.Davkal 12:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I have also been trying to find some evidence that J has indeed been scorned by his colleagues. I did find one colleague who had openly criticised J for a commentary he wrote intended to be included with a set of commemorative stamps. The critic was physicist, speculative advocate of time-travel, and CSICOP fellow, David Deutsch.Davkal 13:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I greatly resent how much time I've had to spend looking up and correcting Davkal's many falsehoods and mistatements. I just wasted five more minutes checking out his latest false claim: Physicist David Deutsch is NOT a CSICOP fellow.[7] Even more frustrating is the fact that he's continued to falsely describe me and Balles as "members" of CSICOP. I've explained to him repeatedly that CSICOP does not have members, it has fellows. And neither Balles nor I are fellows. Like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and similar science organizations, CSICOP calls subscribers to its publications "associate members." Neither "subscriber to publications" nor "associate member" means "member." Nevertheless, he continues to deceptively call Balles and me CSICOP "members." And here he falsely calls David Deutsch a CSICOP fellow. I'm really tired checking out and correcting these false and misleading statements. Making a false statement once may be innocent. But repeating it after being corrected is dishonest. David Deutsch is NOT a CSICOP fellow. And I am not a CSICOP member. My only formal relationship with CSICOP is that I susbscribe to its magazine. Repeatedly portraying me as a CSICOP member is dishonest.

Another deception in his statement above is his claim that he's not been able to find any other evidence that Josephson's colleagues scorn him. The evidence is right here in the Times Higher Education Supplement that is the basis for including anything about Josephson's complaints in the CSICOP article. The respected source of higher education news describes Josephson as having often been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal. This is pretty solid evidence that his colleagues scorn him for his enthusiam for the paranormal.Askolnick 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that I was wrong about Deutsch - he is not, as far as I can tell, a csicop member or fellow. My apologies to Deutsch for suggesting that he was. Askolnick and Balles are members though; as Askolnick pointed out above, they are "associate members" - the word "members" sort of giving the game away.Davkal 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We're treated once again with this tortured bit of logic. Seeing it yet again, reminds me of the chronically wrong-headed college student who kept insisting that one of his answers on the history exam was right, not wrong. The student had answered "Johnson" to the question, "Who was President during the American Civil War?" With tenacious sophistry, the student kept arguing with his teacher that he deserved partial if not full credit, because Johnson WAS Vice-President during the war. Hey, little words like "Vice" and "associate," they only get in the way when trying to make a point. Who needs them? Askolnick 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a tortured bit of logic. It is Askolnick's argument that is tortuous since his analogy doesn't hold and even if it it did it would be irrelevant. It doesn't hold because words like "vice" or "deputy" before a person's position denotes the fact that they do not hold the full position. "Associate" is not necessarily such a word, especially before a word like "member" which has none of the connotations of uniqueness which a title such as president has. Even if that's wrong, the point is irrelevant since my argument doesn't turn of the specific use of the word "member" any more than "associate member" - in my argument, using Askolnick's disanalogy, the word "vice-president" would work just as well as "president". That is, CSICOP awarded the Balles prize to CSICOP fellows Hyman and Nickell and to CSICOP associate member Skolnick, for their reports on CSICOP's testing of Natasha Demkina as published in CSICOP's magazine SI. Or even, CSICOP awarded the Balles prize, judged by CSICOP associate member Balles, to CSICOP fellows Hyman and Nickell and to CSICOP associate member Skolnick, for their reports on CSICOP's testing of Natasha Demkina as published in CSICOP's magazine SI. Any way you look at it, everyone involved in setting up, awarding, and winning the prize, is formally associated with CSICOP and so, in effect, CSICOP awarded itself the prize.

I should also point out on a factual note, that CSICOP uses the terms "associate member" and "member" interchangeably - as I do. For example, from the CSICOP website, "Become an associate member or renew your existing membership."

Re the poor analogy: an identical case can be made re Askolnick's argument above about speculative research not being research. It is: it is research that is speculative!Davkal 11:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Davkal's logic: Magazine subscriber = formally associated.
I never knew that. I guess this means I can add my "formal association" with the New York Times to my resume. I think I'll go see whether I can subscribe to any newsletter put out by the White House. I'd love to be able to claim "membership" in the Bush Administration, wouldn't you? Askolnick 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary of Askolnick's non-logic: "My only formal relationship with CSICOP is that I susbscribe to its magazine" stated above by Askolnick. When is a formal relationship not a formal relationship? When Davkal uses the terms.Davkal 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
When Davkal's words fail the test of logic, he tries to put them into the mouths of others. I never said I have any "formal relationship with CSICOP." Indeed, I've said the exact opposite: I have no formal relationship with CSICOP. I said I subscribe to its magazine - as do about 70,000 other people. Davkal's many arguments on this page suggests that he subscribes to Humpty-Dumpty's claim: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean." As a subscriber, does that mean Davkal has a "formal relationship" with Humpty-Dumpty?. (Don't you just love such Wonderlandish logic?) Askolnick 13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You said exactly what I said you did (and you are once again engaging in almost non-stop personal attacks). You said you had a formal relationship with CSICOP consisting of the fact that you subscribe to its magazine. Look, here are your very words: "My only formal relationship with CSICOP is that I susbscribe to its magazine." Please note that you are saying, in a very straightforward manner that you have a formal relationship with CSICOP, you describe this formal relationship with CSICOP as your only formal relationship with the organisation. If you wished to say that you have no formal relationship with CSICOP then it would a simple enough matter to write, I have no formal relationship with CSICOP, I merely subscribe to their magazine". But you didn't, you described your subscription to the magazine (your associate membership of the organisation) as a "formal relationship." Which it is.Davkal 13:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I found this interesting post on another website relating to Demkina. It was posted by Archangel in response to Askolnick's arguments:

"Nah, you’re more like “Humpty Dumpty”, skolnick. As a matter of fact, you are almost a perfect mirror of Humpty in his conversation with Alice.

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Read the whole conversation between Humpty "Skolnick" and Alice. It’s uncanny how much Humpty sounds like Skolnick! Humpty makes misleading statements, takes things out of context, unreasonable accusations, insults, misrepresenting the meanings of words, even a bitchy argument over math! Read it! Pure Humpty-skolnick!"

Never let it be said Askolnick doesn't learn from his mistakesDavkal 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking words out of context to misrepresent what was said is dishonest. This is what I wrote: "And I am not a CSICOP member. My only formal relationship with CSICOP is that I susbscribe to its magazine. Repeatedly portraying me as a CSICOP member is dishonest." Your repeated discription of me as a "member of CSICOP" because I subscribe to its magazine is dishonest, both in the spirit and letter of the words' meaning. Askolnick 13:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes exactly, you said you had a formal relationship with CSICOP, which is what I claimed, and you denied, only a few seconds ago.

On the point of "associate member" versus "member", it is of little consequence since: a) CSICOP uses the terms interchangeably so I don't see why it so dishonest for me to do so; and b) my argument never hinged in any way on any meaningful difference between the terms even if such a meaningful difference could be shown. That is, my point was always that you, and Balles, have a formal relationship with CSICOP (i.e., you are associate members/members of the organisation). And so, especially when the setting of criteria, and judging of the prize by CSICOP, and the fact that two of the three winners were CSICOP fellows, is added to the equation; in effect, CSICOP awarded itself a prize.Davkal 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the CSICOP website uses my choice of words when describing the prize itself: This prize has been established through the generosity of Robert P. Balles, an Associate Member of CSICOP, and the Robert P. Balles Endowed Memorial Fund, a permanent endowment fund for the benefit of CSICOP."

Are CSICOP using tortuous logic here? Davkal 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So when I subscribe to the "Skeptical Inquirer", I become a committee member? Wow. Well, as long as we know what we are talking about, we can avoid misunderstandings.
Askolnick, I'd really like to know: Is the Balles prize winner selected by Balles, as you say, or by CSICOP, as CSICOP says [8]? You can see above that Davkal admitted an error (I praise him for it), and for the sake of the discussion climate here it would be great if you were wrong so you could do it too. If you are right it's okay too, because in that case CSICOP would have to admit an error and that would improve the climate too, but we should have a clarification in any case. --Hob Gadling 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hob, that web page is wrong. I haven't had time to contact the web master. I've been kept too busy cleaning up after Dakval's false and misleading droppings. Honestly, I've spent many hours this past week tracking down information to correct all the false and misleading claims comments he's posted. This was the first time the award was given. (Balles also established an award in contributions to mathematics, which is presented by a mathematics group.) Here's how the process worked. Robert Balles established the Robert P. Balles Prize and asked CSICOP to handle the presentation and to nominate suitable published articles for him to judge. CSICOP's executive director Barry Karr nominated three works published in 2005 that he thought are worthy of Balles' award. Two of those nominations were for authors not connected in any way with CSICOP (including a federal court judge). That's all I can remember. If you want more information, it's in the news section of the May/June issue of Skeptical Inquirer, which I don't believe is online. Askolnick 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a point: Askolnick knew that the web page said what it did in April when an identical discussion took place on the talk page of the Demkina article (now archived). Askolnick made slightly different points then though: he claimed there that the prize was judged by the administrators of the Balles endowment fund. So which is it, Balles, the fund administrators, or (as the CSICOP website would have it) CSICOP itself that sets the criteria, decides on the winner(s), and awards the prize?Davkal 12:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A few comments: Davkal, I said nothing about you intentionally finding a misleading interpretation, and I said nothing about you pulling any wool anywhere. If that's how you interpreted my words, I am sorry for my poor wording skill. What I think you tried to do is pretty much what you said you tried to do: "find a well sourced, non-misleading, non-pejorative description of Jospehson's involvement with the paranormal". But all you came up with was a "well sourced, non-pejorative description of Jospehson's involvement with the paranormal" that was misleading, and that's what I said.
But I have to defend my claim that you ignored my main point. I explained why "parapsychologist" or "paranormal researcher" is "unacceptable", giving a reason, and as a response you suggested to use "research into the paranormal" in direct contradiction to what I said. I couldn't make out any "acknowledgement" of the misleadingness in that response. Perhaps it was the "sepculative" part? Maybe your wording skill is a fault here.
I disagree with Askolnick's interpretation though. We are just coming from different directions: Davkal primarily wants to avoid "pejorative" characterization, and the opposite side primarily wants to avoid "misleading" characterization (in the sense I explained). Unfortunately all descriptions we came up with had either one property or the other. That's why I suggested omitting both. --Hob Gadling 13:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the weeks have taken their toll. If that's what you really meant Hob then my apologies. I genuinely didn't see it that way. Davkal 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think it's really difficult for everybody to see things from the other side's perspective, and it's really difficult to write (or talk) in a way that avoids every conceivable misunderstanding. See Deborah Tannen. --Hob Gadling 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I thanked Askolnick and Davkal earlier after an exchange in which I felt the level of civility had improved; I'd like to do the same for Hob and Davkal here. The more friendly exchanges like this we have on this page, the easier it will get to write a good article. Thank you both. Mike Christie (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communications approach

I would like to raise a communications option as a possibility for this page, in the hope that it will improve the speed and efficiency of communications here. I hope and believe that I am still on good terms with all three of the main editors involved here. Would it be more efficient for me to start three sections on this page, one for each editor, and for the conversations to be between me and each editor in those sections? That way we could all see what everyone is seeing, but there'd be no back and forth exchanges between pairs of editors who are not likely to convince each other of their viewpoint. If editor X doesn't like what editor Y and I are talking about, they could post a note in the editor X section about it, and I would reply there. (Though I hope the structure would discourage too much crossposting.) At points where a possible consensus is up for discussion I would post identical notes in each section. At other times, when trying to understand individual points of view, I would carry on individual threads with each editor.

This is just an idea; I'm happy to carry on as we are if there objections. If Davkal and Askolnick both agree, I'll establish that structure; when Karl returns to editing we can see what he says. If one of you does not agree, we'll continue as we are.

By the way, I'm going to archive more material soon -- probably everything up to the start of the Demkina discussion. Let me know if that's a problem. Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No Mike, I don't think this is a good idea. I'd prefer not to give up the option of replying directly to Davkal's misstatements and attacks, rather than through a mediator or in a section separated from the actual attacks. Askolnick 03:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Further note on time commitment: I have a house guest for a couple of days and will be very limited in my ability to post. Naturally I assume you will have all reached consensus when I next check in. Also, just FYI, I plan to post a note about the goals of the mediation, in response to a comment from Askolnick about the difference between the best article and a negotiable consensus. That'll be a couple of days away, at least. See you all then. Mike Christie (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to Demkina?

Trying to move the discussion to the bottom... that chapter is becoming too long.

I am trying to find out how relevant the "CSICOP member definition" debate is to the article, but I find it a rather difficult quest. Am I right when I state that the question is whether the Balles prize is "meaningless back-slapping nonsense", and this is somehow relevant for deciding whether to include a statement about the prize?

For the first question ("is the prize meaningless?"), Davkal says that it is because, essentially, CSICOP is "awarding the prize to itself" because everyone involved is a subscriber of Skeptical Inquirer. I find that hard to accept because the letters in SI show that its readership is pretty inhomogeneous - a substantial amount of subscribers (or ex-subscribers who cancel their subscription in the published letter) seem to belong to "the opposite side".

Let's assume that, e.g. both Brian Josephson and Uri Geller subscribed to SI in order to know what "the enemy" is doing (which is not unthinkable), and Josephson gives a prize to Geller. According to Davkal's logic, that would be "CSICOP backslapping" because both are "associate members".

In any case, connecting the different definitions to the use to which one wants to put them is more fruitful than purely academic definition questions. On top of that, I'd really like to know: Which edit of the article depends on the question? If the answer is "none", shouldn't we rather drop that subject and go on with the Demkina paragraph? --Hob Gadling 13:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I think your analogy fails because as CSICOP's website states clearly: CSICOP sets the criteria and decides who gets the prize. It then awards the prize to two of it's own fellows and one associate member (and big-wig of CSICOP's sister organisation CSMMH which shares the same headquarters and staff but has a different mandate - ie. a big-wig from a branch of CSICOP/CSMMH/Centre for Inquiry) for a report on a CSICOP test published in CSICOP's journal. If anyone genuinely can't see why this might appear to be a case of mutual back-slapping nonsense then that person should not object to the prize, and its award to Hyman et al, being described in a manner similar to the way I have just done, since presumably anyone reading it will be free to come to the same conclusion.Davkal 14:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hob you raise an interesting point. In fact, many Woo-woos and Woo-woo sympathizers do subscribe to CSICOP's magazine. According to Davkalogic, this means CSICOP has many "members" who are Woo-Woos and Woo-woo sympathizers. There goes their complaint that CSICOP is an orgaziation that consists only of skeptics and non-believers. Your other point is even more important. No, it doesn't matter to the existing versions of edits. So in the interest of getting back to working for a consensus on the edits, I'd like to discuss my recently proposed version and Hob's:
In 2004, CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct over its involvement in Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." Josephson, the director of the Mind-Matter Unification project, who has often been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal, questioned the researchers' motives and alleged that the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic."
Hob proposed omitting most of the desciptive information about Josephson:
In a self-published commentary, physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." He questioned the researchers' motives and alleged that the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic."
I agree with the editors of the Times Higher Education Supplement that the information on Josephson is important to the article. Withholding that information to please CSICOP's critics would shortchage Wiki readers by denying them the information they need to make sense of the "he-says-they-say" dispute. I'll provide a different example: a description of the dispute between "historian" David Irving and author Deborah Lipstadt, that didn't point out how a British court found Irving to be an anti-semetic Holocaust denier, would be seriously flawed and inaccurate. Describing Irving just as a historian would be seriously misleading because it would present his professonial credentials as if they weren't seriously compromised.
The editors of the Times Higher Education Supplement thought it was important to tell its readers that Josephson is a Nobel laureat who has often "been scorned by his colleagues for enthusiasm for the paranormal." They were right to do so. And it's important for Wikipedia to provide readers with suitable background of this dispute and not to mislead them into thinking Josephson's self-published attack is the view of a respected physicist. The truth is Josephson stopped publishing research in physics decades ago. And he's published very little except for his "speculations" ever since. According to this respected newspaper that covers higher education, Josephson is scorned by many fellow scientists. This news report is the source upon which this section in the CSICOP article is based. I see no good reason not to summarize the whole report or to cherry pick the facts for the sake of reaching a compromise acceptable to all editors.
I'd be happy to consider sound arguments for not using this version.Askolnick 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us summarise the whole controvesry in the Times HES. Let us have your description of J. Let us also have Sheldrake's complaint of obvious bias. Not forgetting Rennolls' description of the experiment as "woefully inadequate" and Wiseman's responses as betraying a total lack of understanding of how experimental dat should be interpreted statistically. Let us further follow your lead and attribute none of these points to anyone but as actual facts. So, we would have something like:

In 2004, CSICOP was again guilty of scientific misconduct over its woefully inadequate experiment to test the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. Criticism from Nobel prize winning physicist Brian Jospephson, who has been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal, initially brought the controversy to light. The main controversy was caused by CSICOP's failure to deem the results of the test inconclusive. In the circumstances CSICOP's interpretation of the data was unscientific and unethical, and showed that the experiment was a plot set up by CSICOP to discredit Demkina. CSICOP's Richard Wiseman, who co-designed the test, rejected these points, which are scientifically and statistically accurate, because Demkina, a 17 year old Russian girl with no scientific background, had agreed to the test conditions in advance. Wiseman's response, however, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how experimental data should be interpreted statistically.

How about it - looks good to me - and all from the highly respected Times HESDavkal 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mediation is possible with someone who is intent on disruption

It is now obvious that mediation with Davkal is a frustrating waste of time. The whole process has been made pure torture by his constant misrepresentions, distortions, falsehoods, made-up definitions, ad hominem arguments, and now these rabid, personal attacks and refusal to resume negotiations. By now, Davkal knows he is a minority of one here and is unable to obtain the consensus he needs to edit the article the way he wants. He tried an edit war, which only got him blocked - for the third time. Apparently, he is now intent on disrupting the mediation and all the efforts of others working to improve the article. He's leaving us no option other than to file an RfC. Askolnick 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is disrupting the mediation is your constant refusal to accept anything other than your own opinion and your constant personal attacks. Davkal 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike, if it's not amply clear that no sucessful mediation is possible with someone who is so intent on disruption, please see how this disruption has spread to other articles:[9] [10] Administrator Bishonen just blocked Davkal for these multiple, obscene personal attacks. Bishonen is generally known as being opposed to blocking editors for personal attacks. However, she notes in her message on Davkal's talk page that his personal attacks were so extreme, she has blocked him for a week. And she'll block him for an entire month if he makes personal attacks like those again. This is now the fourth time he's been blocked by three different administrators in a little over 2 months![11] On a positive note, with this disruption removed, we can finish our editing of this article together in peace. Unless of course, anyone would prefer to wait a week for Davkal to return and resume his disruption. In that case, you'll have to go on without me. Askolnick 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working on the article

I'll just ignore the non-serious non-attempts at improving the article and go on trying to find a solution. As Askolnick said, we have the following serious contenders (Davkal's last one was obviously a sick joke):

In 2004, CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct over its involvement in Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." Josephson, the director of the Mind-Matter Unification project, who has often been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal, questioned the researchers' motives and alleged that the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic."

And mine:

In a self-published commentary, physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." He questioned the researchers' motives and alleged that the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic."

Askolnick, you do have a point - dropping all the information may not be an optimal solution. I hoped that it would be half-way acceptable to everybody, but it doesn't look like it. For me, both versions are acceptable now I know your reasoning.

Davkal, would you please give us a version you would accept? It seems (I'm not sure because you write such a lot of things having nothing to do with the purpose of this page, so extracting your wishes is difficult) that you still want to include that Josephson does "speculative research in this area". This is unacceptable to Askolnick and me, for the reasons given far above. How about using something like "regularly writes about paranormal subjects"? That avoids the word "research" and should be uncontroversial and so obviously true that it does not need sourcing.

I guess that language should be rich enough to provide some wording we can all agree with. --Hob Gadling 12:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that it probably will matter much, I'd change "regularly" to either "often" or "frequently." As the online list of his publications show, he's not writing in any regular fashion. Two or three years since 1993, he hasn't published anything. Askolnick 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your (Hob's) version is OK. I said this many moons ago. But my objection to the "scorned by colleagues" version is that this tells us nothing about J's involvement with the paranormal but tells us instead what some others reportedly think of something or other he has said/done, which as far as I can see, consists mainly of a controversy which arose over a commentary Josephson wrote for a set of commemorative stamps. If we go down that road, then there are plenty other quotes that could be produced criticising the criticism and so on. I still think though, that we can have a descriptive version which portrays things fairly neutrally. Indeed, I don't see what is wrong with with "carries out speculative research into the paranormal" which is a stright quote from a reputable source. Davkal 12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hob, I have also asked you before not to comment on me personally. To say that I write such a lot of things that have no bearing on the article is simply false. On the odd occassion where I have, it has been in response to direct personal attacks (e.g. this little paragraph here which is in resposne to your last piece of personal criticism).Davkal 12:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, please learn the difference between personal attacks WP:NPA and criticizing an editor's writing or arguments. Failing to recognize this distinction is a major cause of disruption in Wikipedia. Hob, thanks for your comments. But I'm done discussing anything more with Davkal, until he stops his personal attacks and other forms of disruption. Since I view further attempts at negotiation against this disruption as hopeless, I've returned to making small, non-contentious edits to the article. I've polished and tightened the wording in a number of areas and corrected, clarified or refined a number of statements. I've added no new claims or information. The changes are all minor and should not be inflammatory. And they're not changes to the criticism section whic is under dispute here. If you disagree with any of the changes, please let's discuss. That's a plural you, which includes Davkal, but only if his disagreement is 1) not a personal attack; 2) not based on anyone's irrelevant opinions; 3) not utterly inconsistent with known facts or reputable sources, such as definitions not found in a reputable dictionary. Such disagreements are a waste of everyone's time and are disruptive. Askolnick 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us discuss reputable sources. Let us discuss Physics World. Let us discuss the direct quote "carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena". Let us further discuss the sources (reputable sources) you have so far failed to provide where this quote (or the point of the quote) is discussed and dismissed. Let us discuss the dictionary defintions you have so far failed to provide for "speculative" and "research" such that together they mean "publication" and/or "experiments" and/or "publishing the results of experiments". Then, when it becomes clear that J is engaged in speculative research into the paranormal, let us put that in the article and be done with it.Davkal 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Davkal, but these comments fail two of the three criteria for discussion. No doubt a comment that fails the third will soon follow. Askolnick 13:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


No they don't cos I'm bigger than you.Davkal 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, frequently" is better.
"Hob, I have also asked you before not to comment on me personally. To say that I write such a lot of things that have no bearing on the article is simply false." - That was not a personal comment, it was a reason why "extracting your wishes is difficult". Also, it is not false. You have been discussing for ages, together with Askolnick and me, which I forgot to add, what a "member" is. But it turned out that the answer is not relevant to the article.
On the other hand, Mike, Askolnick, and me have been inserting possible versions of the Demkina paragraph from time to time. You haven't been doing that, except in the sick joke above. That's why I said it was more difficult to find out what you want. But this is again not relevant to the article, so I will stop discussing it now.
OK, so you like my version. But Askolnick does not, that's the problem. He wants details, and I think he has a point. Don't you have a version of your own? I mean a complete paragraph? That would be helpful. Then we can look at the differences and suggest alternative wordings. If you don't accept any versions except mine, we have a real problem. But I don't think so, since you started talking about "research" again.
As I said before, "research" is not acceptable because it gives the wrong impression. We don't need to look at dictionaries or research papers for that. It is perfectly clear that many people would think that Josephson does psi experiments if we wrote "research", speculative or not. Why don't you just accept as a fact that "research" will not end up in the article? You don't even have to understand why we don't like it. Further attempts of forcing "research" into the paragraph are a waste of time.
There are so many possible words! Why does it have to be exactly that one? "Publishing theories about the paranormal", "publishing speculations about the paranormal", "writing parapsychology articles", "doing theoretical work on psi". All those do not give the false impression that Josephson does experiments, and all those are therefore better than "research".
@Askolnick: "Scorned by colleagues" is too far removed from the subject for Davkal. So we have to find another wording. Is it uncontroversial that Josephson is a "proponent of the paranormal"? Do we really need to add that he has been "scorned" for it? --Hob Gadling 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Hob, I'm very happy to continue working with you, Karl, and other editors, but as I indicated above, I'm through responding to the demands of an editor who posts obfuscations, distractions, personal attacks and other disruptive tactics to get his way. I have no interest in appeasing Davkal. A consensus does not mean unanimity. Wikipedia articles never represent unanimous opinions.
And I do think it is necessary to add that information for the same reason that the Times Higher Education Supplement included it. The information is needed for readers to understand what lies behind this dispute. The only reason the Demkina test controversy can be included in the CSICOP article is because of the Times Higher Education Supplement. It's the only reputable source for anything about Josephson's attack. This section could not be based on Joesphson's self-published attack because Wiki guidelines regard it as an unreputable source. If we're basing this section on the Times Higher Education Supplement's report, we should include the most important information. The editors of this respected newspaper on higher education considered that information important. I do too. Askolnick 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with something like "doing theoretical work on psi" but I don't think there is much difference between that and "conducting speculative research". If you feel that tere is then the former is a perfectly acceptable description from my point of view.Davkal 16:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "doing theoretical work." Is that work that in theory, is work, but not really? "Work" is too fuzzy a word. When words grow fuzz, it's time to toss them into the spoiled word bin and look for something more wholesome. Askolnick 16:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So "work" is too fuzzy a word for you - how unfortunate. But since everyone else knows exactly what it means perhaps there is a better candidate for what should go in the bin. Davkal 02:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Writing papers on psi theories"? "Theorizing about psi"?
Look, if we don't find a solution accepted as tolerable by everybody, the alternative is an edit war with a locked article afterwards. I'd like to translate the article for the German WP, which does not have a CSICOP article yet but some red links to it, and I wanted to wait until the mediation is over. I won't do it if there is no solution because I don't want to repeat the fighting there. I want to be able to say: in the English WP, there was a very hard and very long discussion that ended up with this version, so please do not destroy it. --Hob Gadling 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well Hob, despite our requests to see a third option, there's only two versions to choose from. If you agree to go with mine, then we have our consensus, not unanimous, but the only one that can be reached when the dissenting party will not contribute anything but disruptive comments. We could also ask Karl and other editors who took part in this debate earlier if they agree.
As for fearing an edit war, that's not too much of a problem. Being the only hold-out, Davkal would soon be blocked if he launches another disruptive war. Considering his block track record already, he's at risk of being blocked indefinitely.Askolnick 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, I will have time to return to Wikipedia this weekend; definitely tomorrow and perhaps this evening. I hope we can reach a consensus on the Demkina paragraph that everyone finds acceptable. I also plan to post a short note describing the goals of the mediation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


I've already accepted two versions by Hob not even mentioned by Askolnick in his two versions to choose from claim. I have said I am happy with either the non-descriptive version and the one with "theoretical work on psi" or some such thing used as the decsription of J's involvement with the paranormal. The fact is that it is Askolnick, not me, who is rejecting anything but his own version on the basis of some spurious arguments about the fuzziness of every word in the English language except the ones he wishes to use. Davkal 14:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now let's get that consensus

Now that this page will be free from disruption for the next several days, let's finish reaching a consensus on the CSICOP article. Mike, Hob, Karl, and Bubba, shall we resume discussing Hob's version and mine? Or consider another version? Askolnick 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm here. Bubba73 (talk), 14:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as the two proposed paragraphs at the top of the previous section, either one seems OK to me, except that I think the "scorned" sentence should be toned down a little. "rejected" might be better than "scorned", for instance. Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the first of those two, perhaps with "criticized" in place of "scorned"; I thought Hob's was a little abbreviated. I also like the one currently in the article, which has the advantage of mentioning the responses to the criticism. However, in the version above, both Josephson and his argument ("should have been called inconclusive", which appears to be all he said once you strip away the ad hominem and rhetorical flourishes) sound so weak that they don't really require any response. KarlBunker 16:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
"scorned" needs to be replaced by something more neutral. Bubba73 (talk), 16:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Guys, here's my thinking on it: The purpose of putting anything about Josephson's attack into this article is to provide examples of what CSICOP's critics have to say. As far as I'm concerned, nothing Josephson says in his self-pubilshed attack is rational or honest criticism. It's an adhominem attack from start to finish, wrapped in false and misleading statements about the choice of P values. I wouldn't put this into the encylcopedia except -- for two reasons: the dispute was reported in a respected news publication and Davkal demanded that it be included. As long as it is included, I think the actual dispute should to be fairly represented, and not misrepresented as a calm and fair scientific dispute, because it's not. Josephson, who knew nothing about Demkina, used the test as an opportunity to attack Richard Wiseman and Ray Hyman and CSICOP in general (at the time, he didn't have a clue who I was). Josephson accused the CSICOP researchers of deliberately setting out to cheat this innocent young girl and tricking her into agreeing to a level of statistical significance that was set dishonestly too high. Stripping away the ad hominems and his deceitful argument about the use of 0.02 instead of 0.05, and only saying that Josephson claimed the test should have been called inconclusive, would be a misrepresentation of Josephson's criticisms. I don't believe editors are supposed to sanitize either side of a dispute. I believe they need to represent both sides as fairly, accurately, and as clearly as possible. Josephson made claims and a personal attack. The Times Higher Education Supplement's editor thought it was important enough to tell readers that Josephson is "scorned by his colleagues." I don't think we should choose a more neutral word - like "criticized." Criticized is not what the Times HES said. And Josepshon did not accuse CSICOP researchers of error in claiming the test as conclusive. He accused them of cheating, of tricking Demkina and setting up a test that she could not past. This is nonsense. However, as editors we have a choice of either not including it because it's disreputable nonsense, or else report it clearly, fairly, and accurately, along with the opposing side of the controversy - that Josephson's colleagues think he's a wacko woo-woo. (That's the technical term;The Times HES used less techical jargon, calling him "scorned" by colleagues.)
So my recommendation is to either not include anything about Josephson's self-published accusations, or else to stick closely to the Times HES report and describe Josephson as the newspaper does. In fairness, I would also be in favor of including more of Josephson's charges from his web site than the Times HES reported. So here's the whole paragraph I'm suggesting again, followed by the 2nd and 3rd sentences are different in the version Hob suggested:
In 2004, CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct over its involvement in Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." Josephson, the director of the Mind-Matter Unification project, who has often been scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal,[18] questioned the researchers' motivations and alleged that the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic."[11]
Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, published a response to this and other criticisms. He noted that their decision to use a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which is appropriate when testing unlikely claims.[19]] He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers.[12] The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health also published a detailed response to these and other objections.[13]
Hob's suggestion would replace only the second and third sentences with these:
"In a self-published commentary, physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive." He questioned the researchers' motives and alleged that the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic." Askolnick 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, if "scorned" is to be used, quote the source. I would prefer not to have Josephson in there, since it isn't legitimate criticism. But I have a feeling that if it is taken out, anti-CSICOP people will put it back in. Bubba73 (talk), 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

With a footnote citing the The Times Higher Education Supplement article. I'd accept "scorned." It would be best if that article is available online, but it can of course be cited even if it isn't. KarlBunker 23:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Righto. that ref 18 in the above is a citation to the Times HES article, and it is available online - thanks to Josephson - he has the entire article on his web site. Bubba, that's my thinking too. It's best to confront such ad hominem criticisms head on. Because the dispute was reported in the Times HES, the existance of the dispute was legitimatized, even if Josephson's criticisms were not. At least we can make that clear, the anti-CSICOPers certainly won't.
Would also like Hob's thoughts. Mike is remaining neutral and closing the mediation since Davkal will no longer take part. Davkal says he is going to request formal arbitation. Askolnick 05:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with any of those. What you say about Josephson sounds reasonable if a bit polemic. --Hob Gadling 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Given that the Demkina para has now been edited (and reverted) on a number of occassions by editors unconnected with the debate here, is it not clear that the "consensus" reached above is simply a POV edit with the opinion shared by a few likeminded indivduals. I think we should look seriously at addressing the stuff in the Demkina para and trying to get a neutral version otherwise the future seems likely to be filled with constant editing and reverting - something that should probably be avoided.Davkal 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If there weren't good reasons to think that all two of these anon editors who support you are in fact all sockpuppets of you, I'd almost agree with you. KarlBunker 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well they aren't my sock-puppets or meat-puppets or anything to do with me at all. They are, presumably, merely interested parties editing Wiki in the normal manner.Davkal 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, you refused to engage in a civil and constructive effort to reach a consensus paragraph. Your disruptive conduct and obscene personal attacks led to your week-long block, during which you told the mediator you have no intention to take part in any consensus attempt. Free of your disruption for the week, we, the remaining four editors, reached a consensus paragraph. Now you return and say "we should get a neutral version" of this paragraph (meaning one that presents your point of view). You follow that with an implied threat of "constant editing and reverting" if we don't bend to your demands. Davkal, if you continue this kind of behavior, you will be blocked a whole lot longer. Askolnick 00:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


I am pointing out that the version you placed in the article based on the "consensus" is so obviously biased that within a few days of it being there it has been amended by various editors (not me) to the extent that Bishonen has had to partially proptect the page to prevent anyone else changing the stuff you came up with. So much for your efforts at neutrality without me. Isn't it time to simply put a neutral version into the article and settle for that instead of the silly Jospehson-bashing version that you favour?Davkal 00:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation?

With Davkal blocked, I don't propose to participate in the discussions on this page; though I will keep it on my watchlist and I'd be happy to comment if you'd like my opinion on anything.

If and when Davkal returns, I will be glad to continue mediation if there is a consensus that it is useful. If both Davkal and at least one editor who disagrees with Davkal want me to continue, I will; otherwise I see no point, as there is a clear majority of opinion in one direction.

I hope I was able to be of some use to y'all. Have fun with the article. Mike Christie (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for all your hard work and fair dealings. However, speaking just for myself (although I'd be suprised if there is much disagreement here), negotiating with Davkal is frustrating waste of time. I will not tolerate any more of his disruptive conduct. The only good way to deal with such conduct is to request an administrator to block him again. Are there any other editors here who want to continue negotiating with Davkal? Askolnick 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To answer your last question: I don't. Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Nor me (as I said a while ago). KarlBunker 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, I did have the impression that he temporarily became a bit more reasonable last week. But it's still not fun, so "want to continue negotiating" is the wrong wording for it - no, I don't really. --Hob Gadling 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a decision then. I've let Davkal know I won't be participating any more; I'm going to close down the mediation case. I'll leave this page on my watch list for a week or two, but don't expect to edit here again. (I may come back and archive more of the vast talk page debates, though.) Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. Considering what you had to deal with, I think you did a very commendable job. Askolnick 14:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This case is still listed as "open". I will close it; let me know if it needs to be reopened. --Ideogram 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Often?

I note the quote from the THES is "scorned by colleagues" and this has been magically transformed into "often scorned" in the article. Please remove this obvious piece of POV and settle for what you have actually got evidence for - even if the evidence only relates to the fact that a few scientists made a big deal (and were heavily criticised in return) about a commentary Jospehson wrote for a collection of commemorative stamps. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.Davkal 20:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, you are misrepresenting the facts. Many scientists have scorned Josephson for the crackpot things he has said in defense of psychic charlatans and pseudoscientists going back more than 30 years, when he publicly defended the spoon-bending charlatan Uri Geller. Your claim that only a "few scientists" ("the bottom of the barrel" as you called them) scorned Josepshon is false. Askolnick 03:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so let's put "widely criticised" before every mention of the Demkina test since to pretend that only BJ saw anything amiss is about as clear a misrepresentation as it gets. And I note that some other editor has changed the scorned attack and it has had to be reverted by Bishonen (who has a peculiar role re this article - anyone other than me who edits it in line with my thinking gets their edits reverted and warned about something or other).Davkal 10:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Davkal, you have been blocked now four times by a variety of administrators. Yet you continue to ignore what they tell you is proper and improper conduct for an editor. Bishonen clearly explained her revert of the anonymous editor's deletion. You again choose to ignore the instructions of an administrator (one who is very well respected by other administators) and attack her. I advise you for your own good not to continue attacking her personally unless you want other administrators to come down on you even harder. If Bishonen were "out to get you," she would not have deleted your most outrageous attack - the one where you call her a "meatpuppet" - from your talk page so other administrators will not see it. If I were her, I wouldn't be trying to protect you from yourself.Askolnick 13:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Hey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And often I sees 'em right! Davkal 13:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is amazing- I made an edit to parent article on 21 July of this year. Since then, countless words were added to this talk page and almost 200 edits were made to parent. I comparing the latest version to the edit I made, and found that not much has changed! Has this article become a test of that ancient "what happens when an imovable object meest an irrestible force" thought experiment? So I had an idea for mediation- both of you just stop editing. Hey, it may be a silly idea, but I thought it would be worth a shot. You could both stop editing the article, but name proxy editors who agree with your individual POV's to watch the article and enforce the armistice. Brothers- just lay down your arms! Consult your magic 8-ball and local palm reader or even that 1-800 psychic-chat lady, but please think about it. Adelord 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
After much thinking about it, I have to agree with you. It is a silly idea. But tomorrow, I will go get a live chicken, slit it open, and consult its entrails. No sense making such an important decision without seeking guidance from the supernatural. If you see me continuing to edit, you will know that the chicken guts also didn't agree with your proposal. Askolnick 04:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSICOP Charter

Re point 6 in the charter, I have written: "Do not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully" which is the precise wording from the website except the website says "does not" at the start because of the particular way it is written. The same slight alteration is made to all 6 statements in order to maintain consistent grammar, e.g., "maintain" in the article versus "maintains" on the website. Bishonen suggests that point 6 is currently "incoherent". Perhaps she could explain here how this is supposed to be so.Davkal 07:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "antecedent to inquiry" is the problem. Can one inquire into something, either a priori or objectively, before the inquiry? Moriori 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it says not to reject the claim before looking into it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, how do you reject a claim before "looking into it"? Moriori 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I take "looking into it" to mean trying to determine if it is true or not. To reject a claim before looking into it would to be reject it upon hearing the claim, whithout any examination into evidence, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fellows

Does anyone know how the fellows are chosen, what the criteria are, whether they must accept or are awarded anyhow, etc.? Info is not available on website and cannot find it elsewhere. -THB 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "citation needed"

WP guidelines recommend that a citation be provided with "text that is, or is likely to be, disputed." THB has added "citation needed" tags to the following two statements:

In addition to "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," another maxim occasionally exercised by CSICOP {{fact}} is H. L. Mencken's "one belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.

Thanks to the awkward placement of the "fact" tag, it's not clear what THB thinks requires a citation here. That this other maxim is occasionally exercised by CSICOP? If that's the meaning, then THB is asking for a citation that proves that CSICOP articles occasionally engage in humor. I submit that this is specious. The other statement is:

An axiom often repeated among CSICOP members {{fact}} is that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

Again the "fact" tag is awkwardly placed, but apparently the citation being asked for is to demonstrate that this particular quote has been used by CSICOP authors. This is almost equally absurd. The phrase occurs often in SI/CSICOP articles, and there is nothing in the least contentious about asserting this. THB, if you can take some time out from calling people vandals because they happen to disagree with you, perhaps you could clarify what you're asking for with these tags. KarlBunker 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fact tags

Because User:KarlBunker has repeatedly vandalized this article by removing requests for citations, giving as an excuse that the statements are not contentious, ALL unsourced statements need to be removed from this article. This is directly per Wikipedia policy and editors have been requested to do this. -THB 20:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it, THB, why don't you remove every trivial statement in all of Wikipedia that isn't sourced? I'm sure the administrators will appreciate your enforcement of the guidelines. KarlBunker 20:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Please see: [12] for relevant policy:

"Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."

-THB 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest being careful throwing around the term "vandalism". You guys have a content dispute; to accuse an established editor of vandalism is a personal attack. Please tone it down. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I am removing my response to your statement since it appears from your talk page that KarlBunker is trying to enlist you in his harrassment. -THB 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    • WP:AGF. I am not here to harass anyone; you've accused another editor of vandalism, and now of harassment. I don't know about the second, but as I said, your accusations of vandalism are personal attacks. Desist. And if you wish to accuse me of personal attack, as you did in your stricken comment, go right ahead; WP:RFC/USER is right over there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
THB, I'm not sure I quite understand how the second clause of your sentence above (after "since it appears") follows from the first; perhaps you could clarify. Does this mean that you're apologizing for calling me a vandal? If so I happily accept your apology. KarlBunker 22:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How can it possibly be the case that the mere accusation of vandalism, irrespective of whether the accusation is well-founded and in good faith, is a personal attack. What is one supposed to do if an "established editor" is in fact guilty of vandalism? Do or say nothing or else be guilty of a personal attack. What nonsense! Davkal 15:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, Jpgordon meant that inappropriately accusing an editor of vandalism is an attack. KarlBunker 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, really. Insert "unfounded" if you will. (Surprised I omitted it, too; my usual formulation is "unjustified accusations of vandalism are personal attacks". Sorry if anyone was confused.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mencken qoute

The H. L. Mencken quote seems to be "horse-laugh", not "belly laugh" - see that article. Also, CSICOP feller Martin Gardner uses that on page xvi of his book Scicnce: Good, Bad, and Bogus. Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly why statements need to be sourced in the first place! -THB 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're so right, THB! I only wish this hideous, appalling error had been caught earlier. By now there are probably whole generations of WP readers wandering around, not knowing the difference between a belly and a horse. Oh, the humanity!!! KarlBunker 10:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I hear the "CSICOP maxim" I am reminded of one of the maxims of Charles Hoy Fort: "what we call knowledge is ignorance surrounded by laughter" - CSICOP exemplifying this perfectly. Perhaps we should add Fort's insightful point immediately after the Mencken quote. Davkal 09:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

THB: you know, you could look these things up for yourself. Bubba73 (talk), 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe THB did look it up and found that the only link this maxim has re CSICOP is that Martin Gardner wrote it in a book that may or may not have been written in relation to his membership of CSICOP. Maybe THB then thought that given this it is hardly appropriate for an article on CSICOP to include this maxim as if it is CSICOP's motto or something, rather than simply something one of their members said at one time or another. And maybe he then thought something like the following: if the passage relating to this maxim is to be kept then we need a source identifying it as in some way important to CSICOP the organisation, rather than, as noted, simply a one liner used once by somebody who happens to be in CSICOP. What next: some CSICOP members drink tea!Davkal 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bubba, while Davkal has a colorful way of stating things, & I'm not so brilliant as to have gone through that entire chain of thought, he's correct in what he says. My opinion is that the CSICOP article was poorly organized (still is, but is getting better) and unencylopaedic in content and tone. It's not supposed to be a PR release. It is essential for an article on a skeptics' organization to be 100% factual and well-sourced or risk hypocrisy. (It is humorous, though, good for a belly or horse laugh, whichever.) -THB 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disputed edit

THB, this is an edit which I don't see the point of, as I stated in my summary comments. I would like you to explain and justify this edit. If you refuse to discuss this, and persist in reverting my edits with an utterly dishonest "rvv" summary, then your edits are disruptive and not good-faith. KarlBunker 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think THB's edits make perfect sense. Perhaps KB would like to explain (rather than merely assert) his contrary (in both senses) viewpoint.Davkal 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, I feel uncomfortable responding while I am being threatened. I explained my reasoning in the edit summary (the first time) and no one has stated any objection and they have even restored my version. -THB 17:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, since THB appears to be afraid to talk to me, perhaps you could ask him who is threatening him with what? Thanks. KarlBunker 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
<Sigh>. Much as I hate to break with the longstanding tradition connected with this article, I'm going to do something mature: I withdraw my objection to this edit. It was a minor point, and I was reacting more to THB's style of interaction than with the content of the edit. For the most part, THB's edits have been pretty good, IMO. The next mature thing I'm going to do is take this article off my watchlist. The amount of energy I've invested in this article is absurd, and all the more so for the fact that 99% of that energy has not gone into improving the article, but rather into interacting with/putting up with/making fun of a couple of personalities whom I find grating beyond description. I invite everyone here to laugh at me, because I am truly an idiot for the time and energy I've spent on this article.
Bye! KarlBunker 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milbourne Christopher

Milbourne Christopher is listed in the "see also" (as well as being a feller). The article about him says that he is a co-founder of CSICOP. The article only lists Paul Kurtz as the founder. Should M.C. be listed in the first paragraph along with Kurtz (and removed from See Also)? Are there other founders or co-founders that should be listed? Bubba73 (talk), 04:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Have we any sources for MC as a founder member - none of the articles I have read about the formation of CSICOP mention him in this capacity.Davkal 08:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Milbourne Christopher says it, but I don't know where that came from. Bubba73 (talk), 23:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It might be more accurate to list him (and others) as founding members: "I invited several dozen critics of the paranormal to Amherst, New York, to an open conference to develop an organized opposition to the uncontested growth of belief in the paranormal. These included some well-known popular critics, such as Martin Gardner, Milbourne Christopher, Marcello Truzzi, Ray Hyman, James Randi, and others. I also invited some distinguished philosophers and scientists, such as Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook, and W. V. Quine to endorse the statement of purpose which I had drafted." from this. Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing MC from the intro and writing a short "formation of CSICOP" section to go into the main body of the article - probably just after the intro. I will leave MC where he is for the time being and will post the new section here for comments first - hopefully tomorrow and hopefully not at all controversial. Davkal 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I emailed CSICOP a few minutes ago to see if they could shed some light on it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring warning

User:KarlBunker and User:THB are both aware of WP:3RR and need to stop this revert war immediately or both will draw blocks. I'm imposing WP:1RR for the time being; work this out on the talk page or I will simply protect the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I opened a discussion of the edit I'm in favor of long ago (see above); I'm still waiting for THB to respond. KarlBunker 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Davkal has offered a third opinion above on the opening paragraph. (I agree with JP on 1RR). Thatcher131 16:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I welcome the 1RR as well. Thanks, Jpgordon. It will almost eliminate the difficulties as of late. -THB 17:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently on 0RR on the CSICOP page since someone was in the huff that someone left so I think your both very lucky. Anyway, I think THB's point (as stated in his edit summary) is that all the stuff about JREF and the other skeptic groups should not be in the intro. I have nothing against a very brief statement about CSICOP's connections with the wider skeptical community appearing in the intro but tend to agree that the main part of this should be in the main body of the article. Yes/no??Davkal 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. -THB 12:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Is anybody still questioning the neutrality of this article or can the tag be removed?Davkal 11:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


If there are no views on this posted in next few days I will remove the tag.Davkal 08:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I support you in that. -THB 12:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tag now removed.Davkal 10:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article be in the Paranormal project?

Should this article be in the paranormal project (which was added today)? I don't think so since it is not a paranormal topic. Do others have opinions? Bubba73 (talk), 21:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think CSICOP should be part of project paranormal; it seems more appropriate that it be part of project rational skepticism. The goals of CSICOP are much more in line with those of the wikiproject rational skepticism. I guess the question could be posed differently: Should all pages that deal with purportedly psi phenomena be included in the rational skepticism project? Edhubbard 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I added the tag. Obviously, I do think it's relevant to our project. CSICOP has helped shape much of the public's perception of various paranormal phenomena, and discussions about the committee are ubiquitous in pro-paranormal writings as well as skeptical writings. Don't worry, we're not going to stick in arguments in favor of UFOs, ghosts, etc -- I just think it would be valuable for us to keep tabs on it. Rational Skepticism can add it to their article list, as well. Zagalejo 22:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
And also, if aircraft accidents can be included in the paranormal project, then maybe CSICOP is just the ticket to give it balance. Moriori 22:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not even that someone might try to stick in one POV or the other (a quick look at the history of arbitrarions and the like on this page shows that there's no lack of that!) but rather, that calling it part of either project seems to suggest that the particular project is in some way responsible for the content of the entry. I think that Moriori raises a good point... this seems to be the far extent of excessive project tagging. Edhubbard 23:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
More... I tried to look up aircraft accidents, Moriori, and couldn't find it, so you must be thinking of specific accidents. However, in looking at some of the other tagged pages listed here [[13]], I was suprised to find such topics ball lightning and the movie GhostBusters. I don't want to turn this into a referendum on every article tagged by another project, but why should those articles be tagged as part of the wikiproject paranormal. It seems to be going too far. Edhubbard 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
To far? There seems to me to be no limit to how woo wooism has spread in Wiki. And yes, I meant specific air accidents, not an article called air accidents. Moriori 01:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
At present there is a large arbitration case named [Pseudoscience]. I though that might become a referendum over the pro-pseudoscience in Wikipedia, but it looks like it is confined to the actions of individual editors, and they said that they won't decide on content. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what aircraft accidents we're talking about, but those associated with the Bermuda Triangle (Flight 19) or UFOs (Mantell Incident) probably fall under our scope. The movie Ghostbusters isn't tagged as part of the project, and I don't think it should be, as it is a purely fictional work. "Ghostbuster" is tagged, but that's currently just a redirect and we should probably reevaluate that one. Ball lightning has been a focus of paranormal research because some people think the balls possess intelligence or a sense of purpose. Indeed, for a long time the only people who payed serious attention to ball lightning were the anomalists. Most paranormal encyclopedias (like Jerome Clark's Unexplained!) have an article on it, so I think it's relevant to our project. This article should give you a taste of some of the stranger things people have been reporting.
We're not claiming responsiblity for these articles; we're just watching them. We're not trying to advertise ourselves, either; it's just helpful for us to have a list of subjects that fall within our scope. I really don't see how having the tag hurts anyone. It's on the talk page, so the casual reader probably won't look at it anyway. Zagalejo 03:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Possible compromise How about this: I removed the tag and manually categorized the article as part of our project. Is that okay? Zagalejo
I've readded the banner; guys, we're not making any claims about the content of the article. The banner just means it's one of the articles that we've chosen to work on. Our content included anything relating to the paranormal, so this really shouldn't be a big deal. --InShaneee 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The "P" in CSICOP stands for "Paranormal". I don't think we really need look any further than that to see why it should be included in Wiki Paranormal project. Davkal 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's hard to argue with that. It can be part of more than one project, anyhow. -THB 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The stated purpose of the project is "comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal". CSICOP is not paranormal. And the person that put it in there decided to take it out. Bubba73 (talk), 23:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
They investigate things said to be paranormal. Either way, it's not hurting anything. --InShaneee 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That's where I disagree. I've stated my concern above, and nothing that anyone on the Paranormal project has said has in any way allayed that concern. In my opinion, yes, it is hurting the very credibility of the entry, in that it makes it seem as if the entry, supposedly about the Committee to Investigate Claims of the Paranormal is being maintained by the very project that, in the wider world, they would be Investigating. Doesn't that strike anyone else as an apparent conflict of interest? A conflict of interest, which hurts the credibility of the entry certainly is hurting something. Edhubbard 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing on the talk page is considered to be part of the article, and thus cannot, by definition, hurt its credibility (hence why an editor can't be punished for putting incorrect information on a talk page). The name (WikiProject Paranormal) is just that; a name. We're a group of editors who want to improve the quality of a specific set of articles; that's the important part. --InShaneee 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand things, and the article at present seems to support this: CSICOP is, to some extent, engaged in the scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal. Now, unless that's just a front, this means that CSICOP clearly falls into a category covered by the Paranormal Project.Davkal 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I also note that CSICOP is about the only article in the Wiki Rational Skepticism project that is actually ABOUT rational skepticism - the rest all appear to be in some sense paranormal. Sauce for the goose and all that. Davkal 00:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't just take your word for it (I'm a skeptic, after all), but even if it true I don't see us putting banners on *any* articles. So, your sauce seems to be falling off the plate. Edhubbard 00:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest! Lot's of other projects do, you can see them all over the place. Davkal 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention there's been much talk of merging the two projects, as they SHOULD have similar goals. --InShaneee 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any such talk... Edhubbard 00:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not going to happen tomorrow or anything, but I have heard some strong feelings from outside both projects that they need to be merged. --InShaneee 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From an outside viewpoint, it looks like this article should be in the paranormal project. A WikiProject is still part of Wikipedia so should respect the overarching NPOV policies. That means WikiProject Paranormal should not advocate that paranormal events are true (or false), merely cover topics of significance relating to them. In fact the existence of both WikiProject Paranormal and WikiProject Rational Skepticism is a POV fork of this section. The existence of 1 project where believers and skeptics work together is much more in keeping with production of quality coverage of this topic. Having two projects is a serious mistake, it gives the illusion that WP Paranormal is promoting belief in the paranormal and RS in its debunking, neither should be true. I notice that it is argued above that this is outside the stated scope of WP Paranormal. This appears to be true, however this subject clearly should be within that scope. I urge the Paranormal project to rephrase the scope of the project to make it more clear to indicate that skepticism IS a part of that projects scope, and in addition possibly review the project banner to ensure that the phrasing is neutral. Remember the activities of the paranormal project are to improve Wikipedia's coverage of matters relating to the paranormal, not try to debunk or prove paranormal events; Wikipedians report on believers and skeptics, but in the articles present the facts neutrally.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Nilfanion, as you will from the above discussion page, and from the repeated edit warring, is that this article becomes a flash-point between people who are pro-Paranormal and pro-Skepticism. We'd all like to believe that, in the ideal world, wikipedia editors all strive for neutrality. However, as is amply documented on this page above, many of the people that have edited this page are striving for their personal POV rather than for neutrality, leading to mediation, and even various members being blocked, banned or leaving wikipedia. Given the already highly contentious nature of this page, it seems that one or the other party laying claim to it, as it were, by putting a banner on it, simply exacerbates the problems already seen on this page, and in the edit history of the article. Project paranormal's banner on a contentious page is, in a sense, an attempt to push a particular POV. Edhubbard 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This article may be a flashpoint between the two "camps" but that should not matter to a banner. The problem here is the perception that the Paranormal tag is in any way POV. WP Paranormal should be NPOV and have editors with both personal POVs (and others from "in the middle") contributing to it. That provides effective cooperation between both believers and skeptics. The reason there is this edit war over the banner its a perception that WP Paranormal is for believers, its not. If you are interested in the paranormal, from any perspective you should participate in the Paranormal project.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's all well and good to say how something should be, in an ideal world, but this is not that ideal world. As it currently stands, the Paranormal project is composed of members with one POV, and the Rational Skepticism project is composed of members from the opposite POV. Sometimes, editors from the different POVs can and do work well together, and sometimes not. This is not merely a matter of perception but of the current status of the projects. Thus, although you might wish for a day in which the Paranomral project banner does not inherently promote a point of view, today, the day where the banner is present, it does. As such, it seems especially inappropriate on such a contentious page. Edhubbard 01:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
So editors in both camps join both projects. Both projects should work towards a merger.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Which is where the talk I mentioned is coming from, incidentally. Every paranormal article needs a skepticism/criticism section, anyway. --InShaneee 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To mention a block is considered a personal attack. Davkal 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it as a personal attack on anyone, but as an example of the highly tenditious nature of the editing on this page, and the reason that the addition of banners representing one of the factions might be especially likely to elicit a negative response here. I've removed my comment. Edhubbard 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, as noted above, the "P" in CSICOP stands for "paranormal", case closed. Davkal 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What point of view does the mere presence of the banner promote? As far as I can see there is a paranormal project in wiki that is interested in producing top quality articles that deal with paranormal related topics. Since this is clearly one such article the banner merely identifies it as such.Davkal 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above to Nilfanion, the presence of the banner promotes a pro-psi view of paranormal experiences, events, and so on, rather than a skeptical view because the members of the paranormal project take a pro-psi view. It could be argued that this is not an inherent feature of the project, but rather a contingent one, based on the people who comes to the two projects, but the fact of the matter is that the current status of the project is pro-psi (not neutral). This has been my point all along. It seems inherently contradictory that a pro-psi project would place a banner of a skeptics group. Edhubbard 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The banner doesn't 'promote' anything but membership in our project; we do not push any specific point of view, pro or con, and thus do not have this 'failure' you are trying to assign. After all, we have, as part of our scope, proven hoaxes that were once considered paranormal occurrences. --InShaneee 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What it's meant to indicate is that there is a group of editors that wish to give this article some editing attention. --InShaneee 01:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And given that that group of editors are coming from a certain POV, opposing the one promoted by the organization in question, I worry that it will be the beginning of another round of edit wars, mediation, and blocks, as this page has seen before... there were a few weeks of relative quiet, but I fear that all that is coming to an end. Edhubbard 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That's where you're sorely mistaken. Wikiproject Paranormal has no POV; we exist to improve paranormal related articles, period. No article would make it to GA or FA without a good criticism section, which we do as well. We want to improve entire articles, and saying that every one of our members is a POV pusher is a blatant attack. --InShaneee 01:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You're making assumptions about us. I'm not a debunker, but I definitely consider myself a skeptic. I'm not going to go out of my way to prove that UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc exist because it's just too difficult to take that stand. Really, I don't care if they exist; I just think the reports are interesting as folklore. And honestly, the main reason I joined WP:Paranormal instead of WP:Rational Skepticism is that I thought the former would be more fun. Nothing more to it than that. Zagalejo 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be part of the paranormal project, nor do I see any reason why editors of different projects can't work together in good faith to build a better article which represents all views in a manner in keeping with our neutral point of view policy. I think there are legitimate concerns expressed here, but I think it might be prudent to put them to one side now and start working together. If a POV dispute does occur, we have resolution guidance, but I think it's best to wait for a dispute to start before we start discussing it. Hiding Talk 08:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we just had a huge POV fight over this article that went to mediation. Bubba73 (talk), 14:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And is related to this issue in what way? Hiding Talk 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I have no objections to seeing it as a part of the Paranormal project, as it clearly and explicitly deals with paranormal subjects. However, I think it might help a little if the banner were rephrased to say that an article "falls within the scope of" the project rather than saying "is a part of" the project. Doing so might help eliminate any concerns that the project is claiming ownership over the article, and make it a bit clearer that other projects could "cliam" the article as being within their scope as well. Badbilltucker 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
While "is part of" seems to be the standard WikiProject Banner phrasing, I don't disagree with you. I've went ahead and adjusted it. --InShaneee 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formation of CSICOP

I have drafted the following, it needs a bit of work, for a proposed new section about the formation of CSICOP which, I think, should go immediately after the intro and before Activities.

In the early 1970s, there was a significant upsurge of interest in the paranormal in the US(HANSEN). It was against this backdrop that CSICOP was officially launched by philosophy professor Paul Kurtz at a specially convened conference of the American Humanist Association at the Amherst campus of the State University of New York at Buffalo on April 30 and May 1 1976.(HANSEN). In 1975 Kurtz had previously initiated a statement, "Objections to Astrology," which was endorsed by 186 scientists and which, according to Kurtz, was sent to every newspaper in the United States and Canada (KURTZ). The positive reaction to this statement encouraged Kurtz to invite "as many sceptical researchers as [he] could locate" to the 1976 conference with the aim of establishing a new organisation dedicated to critically examining a wide range of paranormal claims (KURTZ). Amongst those invited were Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, James Randi, and Marcello Truzzi, all members of the Resources for the Scientific Evaluation of the Paranormal (RSEP), a fledgling group with similar objectives to those CSICOP would adopt (HANSEN). Kurtz was successful in his aims; RSEP disbanded and its members, along with others such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and Philip Klass joined Kurtz to form CSICOP (CSICOP WEBSITE).

Comments please. Davkal 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems quite factual and NPOV. -THB 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll add the section now. Davkal 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uri Geller adjectives

Claimed, self-styled, soi disant psychic are okay. Self-proclaimed sounds like he's now the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in his own mind. There must be a neutral way to state that he claims to be a psychic. -THB 06:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Phrases with "self" in them such as "self-styled", "self proclaimed" or even "self-identified" are used to suggests that an individual's view of himself is somehow at odds with something in a far more singular way than is the case with Geller. These phrases are used to mark out something quite distinctive (e.g, David Icke, self-proclaimed Son of God and such like) which have no relation to Geller. It is simply not enough to point out that Geller has claimed, or has attested to the fact, or has identified, that he himself is a psychic because that is simply not what such phrases mean - they mean something more besides, and that "more besides" is missing in this case. Now, there is nothing in the least bit pro-paranormal-pov-pushing about using "claimed psychic"; it makes no claims about the genuineness of the phenomena, or Geller, or anything else, and simply states very plainly that, in this case, someone, Geller, claims to have psychic powers. There is simply no need to say any more here.Davkal 13:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think that it is a bit off to use Randi's website as a source of information of about Geller. Randi, as a representative of CSICOP, was the main target of Geller's animosity and vice versa (the peace waas only made between Geller and CSICOP when Randi was forced out). It also has virtually no information about the lawsuits themselves (some of which were succesful against Randi but CSICOP managed to distance itself from him sufficiently to be cleared), only one is briefly mentioned, and so it is not clear that this is an appropriate link for this particular piece of info about Geller. I have changed it to asummary article about the whole sorry state of affairs.Davkal 13:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General criticism

The point made in the paragrapg dealing with the general criticism is a summary of the following. Please note the criticism listed here is not from organisation dedicated to investigating the paranormal, but from individual scientists an sociologists interested in investigating CSICOP. It is therefore quite wrong to portray this as coming from the ASPR, the article containing the following paragraph is from George Hanses and was merely pulished in ASPR' sjournal.

"It is not surprising that the Committee has been involved in a number of heated controversies. These produced internal schisms and provoked rebukes from outsiders. A few examples will give a flavor of some of the disputes. In examining the scientific status of CSICOP, sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984) described the Committee as a “scientific-vigilante” organization (p. 539). Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna (1984) wrote: “One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition” (p. 12). Engineering professor Leonard Lewin (1979) noted that in SI articles “the rhetoric and appeal to emotion seemed rather out of place” (p. 9). Rockwell, Rockwell, and Rockwell (1978b) called CSICOP members “irrational rationalists” (see also Kurtz, 1978b; Rockwell, Rockwell, & Rockwell, 1978a). Sociologist Hans Sebald (1984) described contributors to SI as “combative propagandists” (p. 122). Adams (1987) compared CSICOP with the Cyclops; Robert Anton Wilson (1986) labeled CSICOP the “New Inquisition,” and White (1979) called them “new disciples of scientism.” McConnell (1987) wrote: “I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology and parapsychologists” (p. 191). Clearly, CSICOP has its share of detractors." Davkal 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. I was just looking over the edits made by you (Davkal) and Bishonen, and was going to suggest that an actual list of the people doing the criticism, as well as the actual words of criticism, be inserted as a way of avoiding vague or passive statements. -THB 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm happy to include the quotes but I don't think others would be. The fairly benign point made in the article was the only one allowed passed the censors at the last mediation session. The reason given, as best I remember, was that the actual quotes showed CSICOP in an unfairly bad light. The whole of the above article can be found by entering CSICOP, Hansen & skeptics into a search engine.Davkal 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism made by credible sources with appropriate references may certainly be included in an article. POV primarily refers to editors inserting their own POV and biases. Review WP:NPOV. What was their objection? Are those editors still active? -THB 05:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

All but one is still active. The argument was that there would be too much critcism and it would skew the article unfairly against CSICOP. My wording would be something like the following:

"On a more general level, CSICOP has been accused of an overly dogmatic and arrogant approach based on a priori convictions(ref: Hansen - Truzzi, Roy ) combined with an almost religious zeal(ref: Lasagna, Wilson). It has been argued that their aggressive style of skepticism actively discourages scientific research into the paranormal(ref: McConnell, Hansen)."

The Truzzi and Roy refs are not in the Hansen article.

Davkal 10:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bishomen's point about cutting out the weasel words and say who makes the criticism. If you don't want to say that the ASPR did it, either say that members of the ASPR did it, or list people who said it and say that it was published by the ASPR, or something like that. Bubba73 (talk), 15:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to say that the ASPR did it. The point is that the ASPR didn't do it. The criticisms listed above are from a variety of sources, sociologists (of science), medical & engineering professors, parapsychologists and others, which were then drawn together by Hansen and published in an article about CSICOP in the ASPR journal (peer review journal by the way). The passage as it is in the article now is Karl Bunker's benign summary of that article - I opposed it initially for being mere fluff designed solely to pave the way for Carl Sagan's response, but you (Bubba) and others backed it as it is! Maybe you should take issue with Karl, and yourself, about the way it's written. For my part, I am happy to change it but I just wanted to take out the false claim that Bishonen had inserted about the criticism being made by the ASPR. I therefore reverted to the original for the time being. Davkal 15:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and at some point in the past this article read like an advert. for CSICOP. A paragraph or two of criticism is not out of balance, especially considering that the sources of criticism, such as the Scientologists and Uri Geller are not scientifically credible. I doubt CSICOP takes their criticism seriously on an intellectual level. -THB 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced weasel word paragraph

Paranormal proponents often advocate a less stringent standard of evidence, arguing for a preponderance of evidence and offering as proof of paranormal phenomena such evidence as eyewitness testimonies, historical quotations, informal experiments, anecdotal evidence, and inference. These lines of evidence are typically published in popular sources and are not subject to formal criticism or peer review. [citation needed]

I've moved it here in both the letter and spirit of WP:V as a temporary compromise to deleting it on sight vs. leaving a controversial weasel-worded unsourced statement in an encyclopaedia article. This paragraph has actually been the source of disagreement some time ago but references were never given and the weasel words were never eliminated. -THB 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I think my main points then were that it was simply speculation about a theoretical position, and that it may not even work, and is seriously misleading, if used as a supposedly accurate contrast here. That is, all the "bad" things proponents of the paranormal are supposed to do can equally apply to CSICOP - anecdotes, non-peer-review, superficial studies, preponderance of evidence used etc. Davkal 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found sources for some of those things, but no single source for the entire paragraph. Bubba73 (talk), 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You probably wouldn't find a single reference and that's not necessary. Part of problem is with "often" and "typically" and the failure to give specific examples of the accusations. A combination of examples, elimination of weasel words, and references will take care of the problem. -THB 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Try this: Members of CSICOP often argue that proponents of the paranormal advocate a less stringent standard of evidence for their claims. CSICOP members say that proponents point to a preponderance of evidence rather than studies conducted using standard scientific practice, and that they offer eyewitness testimonies, historical quotations, and informal experiments as proof of paranormal phenomena. But such evidence is anecdotal evidence, and thus of lesser quality as valid scientific evidence. [citation needed]
It still needs sources. I think the last line about no peer review was simply false, unless you count CSICOP members as the only peers in question. The whole paragraph would be false, if not presented as a claim.
Someone might consider archiving this page, I can hardly load it

Martinphi 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

I removed this sentence "Thus, even the acronym for the name of the organization — CSICOP — is a pun on "Psi Cop"." from the Humor section. According to James Alcock, who was there, in Skeptical Odysseys, page 42, it isn't true. He says that it was unintentional. Bubba73 (talk), 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! I really liked that. It worked so well.

Martinphi 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another problem

Image:weasel_martinphi.jpg

Don't you think there is also a problem with this:

Since paranormal claims are potentially revolutionary scientific discoveries that by definition run counter to the established body of scientific knowledge, CSICOP members argue that nothing less than the strictest standards of scientific scrutiny should be accepted as convincing. Such standards include well-designed and controlled scientific experiments published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, followed by independent replication by other researchers.

It basically assumes, without argument, that 1) paranormal science doesn't meet the strictest standards, which is very debatable in the case of parapsychology. 2), it basically says that there are no reputable peer-reviewed journals in paranormal fields. It impugns, for instance, the Journal of Parapsychology.

Martinphi 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but the paragraph could be improved. Parapsychology is not accepted outside the field of parapsychology. Bubba73 (talk), 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the statement is that it simply does not apply in the way it is applied in the article. For example, parapsychologists do actually do exactly what CSICOP supposedly espouses - they conduct well designed, properly controlled scientific experiments, and publish their results in peer-review journals. Most organised skepticism on the other hand, certainly CSICOP's particular brand, consists of armchair speculation, superficial investigations and experiments (e.g, Joe Nickel takes time out from holidaying in Argentina to "debunk" a haunted cemetary, expose a few miracles, and suck the blood from the Chupacabra myth[14] - all in a day's work eh!), which are then published in general interest publications. The point being that there is nothing wrong per se with Sagan's mantra; but it simply doesn't apply in the way it is extended and explained here.Davkal 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Parapsychology, or paranormal belief, has a lot of acceptance in the sciences. It's just not professionally espoused, because you'll get tarred and feathered over it, because there's little lab proof, and because there's no theory (see parapsychology page). But, anyway, I agree with Davkal, that's the problem with the paragraph.

Martinphi 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide some backup for Martinphi's point: you can find this on the Skepdic website, "according to a survey of 1100 college professors in the US, 55% of professors in the natural sciences believe "telepathy is either an established fact or highly likely". Davkal 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't quote Wikipedia. It's ESP, not Telepathy. Modern figures taken from Stanford show that a mere 1% believe in telepathy. Intelligent scientists don't believe in that hocus pocus. There is nothing assumed there. It is stating the beliefs of the organization. It is very POV to misrepresent the organization's views. Furthermore, no rigorous scientific evidence for the paranormal has ever been done.

Davkal making an appeal to popularity and quoting a misquote he found on Wikipedia doesn't mean much.

It's from Attitudes Of College Professors Toward Extra-Sensory Perception.

-Nathan J. Yoder 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hocus Pocus wow talk about neutrality. This statement leaves no room for other viewpoints. Clearly a POV situation Magnum Serpentine (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not a Wikipedia article. And yes, editors have points of view. Even you.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the name of all that's Holy

Here I am going on and on for weeks, months (what seems like years) claiming that CSICOP is a misnomer because they're not really interested in scientific investigation of claims of the of the paranormal but are pushing one particlur (ultra)skeptical line; only to be met with howls of derision about this being my POV only, and (un)righteous indignation at the mere suggestion that CSICOP is not the most bona fide SCIENBLOODYTIFIC organisation, inetersted in scientific inquiry in the superscientific manner suggested by his holiness Carl Sagan when, what do you know, CSICOP changes its name and gets rid of the "scientific" part. As Jimmy Saville so eloquently put it, "now then, now then, now then, 'ows about that then guys and gals uuaoouuaoouuaoo" - not sure how you spell his trademark noise.Davkal 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gonna to get someone KILLED

CSICOP keeps saying about Bigfoot and the like:"Bring in a BODY". That will only get some ass in some costume killed, and CSICOP may be implicated in homicide. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

I'm not sure we should simply print almost verbatim a section from what appears to be a CSICOP press release about their name change. For one thing it includes a number of demonstrably false claims - for example, the claim that "after three decades of baring questionable fringe and pseudoscience claims to the objective eye of the scientific method." might suggest to a reader that CSICOP actually engaged in and/or supported scientific investigations into claims of the paranormal. As has been pointed out time and time again here, there is no evidence that they have done anything of the sort, and much evidence to suggest the opposite, e.g, scientific studies of the paranormal conducted by CSICOP - no, serious scientific research into the paranormal sponsored or supported by CSICOP - no, scientific articles on the paranormal published in peer-review journals under the auspices of CSICOP - no, superficial investigations published in general interest magazines - yes, members appearing on TV as experts on paranormal issues - yes, publicity stunt experiments for TV - yes.

In contrtast to this, the article dealing with the name change (you get it by following the new CSI link at the bottom of the article) gives more information which could be summarised in a far more neutral way. The main reasons given there being: a) a media friendly shortening; b)a move away from the confusion caused by the inclusion of the word "paranormal" which made CSICOP appear to some to be an organisation that supports the paranormal instead of one that investigates it (with apparently no sense of the obvious contradiction this might lead to if unbiased research was undertaken); and c)a desire to broaden the scope of the name to cover the broader issues actually dealt with by CSICOP. Davkal 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's like printing an advert. Go for it. -THB 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it's blatant PR. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that it has been changed, I have added in a brief summary from the CSI lead article about the name change. Hope this fairly summarises the points.Davkal 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Other CSI include:

Bubba73 (talk), 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to change article title

It's time to change this article's title to Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and leave a redirect here. The whole article needs to be gone through for relevant places to update the name. -- Fyslee 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go through the article and update this afternoon (not sure how to do the redirect so will leave that to others). I think we should say "CSI, formerly CSICOP,..." in the first line and leave it like that for a good while. Yes, no?Davkal 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good. The old name should still be mentioned in some places, and with time can be phased out and left only in the historical parts. -- Fyslee 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The move and redirect are now done, with double redirects taken care of. It remains to edit the article accordingly. --BillC 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I too think the CSICOP name should be mentioned (i.e. "formerly CSICOP"), because it is going to take some time for people to learn that, including me. I know when I hear "C.S.I." I'm going to think first of the TV show. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have in many places CSICOP to CSI. Most of the ones I have left relate to things that happened within the "CSICOP" timscale and where the formation of the organisation is being discussed. It may need more changed though but I think it's a good start.Davkal 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it the change has now been implemented?? The first line of the Name Change section should probably be amended.Davkal 15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It has. Their website has already been updated. --BillC 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

article now updated.Davkal 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent teamwork, everyone! Looking good! Dreadlocke ☥ 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on a job well done! Where else but Wikipedia can it be done so quickly? -- Fyslee 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's OK that i made a minor edit to tighten up the name change section. The actual organization is more interesting than the history of it's names and acronyms imho. In a year or so, one paragraph would likely suffice. JeanKorte 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change "Humor" to "Sarcasim and Ridicule..."

The particular example of the trophies is clearly sarcasim - a type of humor funny only to the teller. While this may betray my personal belief concerning csicop, it certainly can't be aruged with that such displays are obviously biased.

I wonder when CSICOP will rebuke the Pope for perpetuating the irrational belief in the transubstantiation. I wonder when they'll go to Mecca - let the pilgrims know that big rock isn't from Allah afterall.

CSICOP claims these paranormal situations have no power over people; I wonder how true that assumption really is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T.C. Craig (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I think there is a serious point here inasmuch as many critics have pointed out that CSI(COP) does indeed often resort to sarcasm and ridicule rather than what could really be described as humour. Indeed it is one trait that has actually led some who agree with CSI's philosophical position to be critical of the organisation. It might be worth noting this in the paragraph in question. Davkal 07:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed T.C. Craig

The big problem with noting that in the text is that you invoke POV when you characterize it as sarcasm and ridicule. Doczilla 06:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help with "CIIS" article"

A dispute has emerged over the article for CIIS (The California Institute of Integral Studies) as to whether the school can be said to have "rigorous" academic standards, or is "flaky" and "marginal" within academia. The school offers degrees in psychology and the humanities, with numerous courses on subjects like astrology. (My favorite: "Menstruation: Blood, Bread, and Roses," taught through the medium of "ritual".) It is regionally accredited, and its psychology program is subject-accredited. Anyway, please have a look at the article and its discussion. Thanks! ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.169.210 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Why are Skeptics so abusive ?!

Read the archives about someone who nearly got shot by a Bigfoot witness because skeptics accused the Fouke
witnesses of being drunk, on dope, fucking the monster, being idiot hillbillies, worse.

Also seen on the Paranormal talk page regarding supression of evidence of criticisim of skeptics, especially of Philip Klass.

My Church preacher says that "all unbelievers" will be damned to The Lake of Fire. 65.163.113.231 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn glitches. 65.163.113.231 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CIA Front ?!

Holy shit !!!! Is THAT True ?! "Some guy who was in "Intelligence" said that this org was a CIA front as well." Seen that on the UFO Talk page some time back. The implication is that this org was part of the Robertson Panel and/or the Operation Mockingbird guidelines to keep people quiet about UFOs and the like. 65.173.105.118 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV series?

Wasn't there a fictional late-night television series about this show? I'm pretty sure there was. Does anyone remember it?--Howdybob 02:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It's called Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal. It follows the actions of the OSIR (The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research). And, very strangely indeed, neither the show, or even its fictional organization is mentioned in this article to spite the fact they are both obviously based directly on CSICOP. I can't believe that nobody picked this up before, or even mentioned the fact that an entire TV series was devoted to CSICOP, but just under a different name. Dark Observer 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: I did not say that Psi Factor is the really taking first-hand accounts of CSICOP, rather simply, that the show derives extremely similar characteristics as to this skeptical foundation, which is involved in paranormal research. Dark Observer 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The main difference being, however, that CSI(COP)has never really been involved in paranormal research. That is, their main aims are, and always have been: a) to offer non-paranormal explanations to the media whenever some new paranormal claim is made (for example, if a UFO sighting takes place CSI spokespeople will soon appear in the media reciting their swap gas/weather balloon/misidentification etc. mantra); and b) to take the media to task over their "sensationalist" approach to the paranormal in terms of both fictional and non-fictional output (e.g. moaning about programmes like the X-Files, Buffy and, no doubt, The Psi Factor, as well as non-fictional stuff like newspaper horoscopes). I hardly think the sorry tale of a few scared and angry old men, upset that not everyone buys their peculiar world view, would make a very good drama series and, from what I can see, the makers of the Psi Factor thought likewise.Davkal 15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So, do you agree or disagree? The similarities are quite apparent, all it is, is really just a re-formatting of the basic concept of CSICOP. To disprove paranormal claims. Have you even seen Psi Factor for yourself? It's very close to this. Dark Observer 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have talked to a few CSI members and they feel that everything related to UFO's etc does not exist and they even told me that their goal was to make sure that such was forgotten by the main stream media. Not sure if they were pulling my leg but looking at the situation today, seems they have almost met their goals... Magnum Serpentine (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)