Talk:Marcello Truzzi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marcello Truzzi article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
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. See comments


Contents

[edit] "Extraordinary claims require ..." quote

I added a citation flag [citation needed] to this famous quote in the article because elsewhere on wiki at the article for Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal they are claiming that Carl Sagan coined it. Personally I don't care who originated it. I just want this issue cleared up. Permission is granted to delete this comment (send it to the archive) by any editor if this problem is resolved. 5Q5 19:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sagan used the phrase but I'm pretty sure he didn't originate it. Bubba73 (talk), 21:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, I think that one of the Truzi obituaries (maybe the one by Paul Kurtz) gave Truzi as the originator of the phrase (although it is similar to the one of Laplace mentioned in the article). Bubba73 (talk), 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I found an article by Truzzi in which he claims to have coined the phrase and then Sagan popularized it. I referenced it in the main article. Easy to find by doing a search on Google for "Extrordinary claims" Truzzi. I began this section. 5Q5 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, it is good for that to go in. However, his phrase is basically the same as the principle of Laplace, which is mentioned in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] skeptic's skeptic

In what sense was Truzzi a "skeptic's skeptic"? Is it because he was skeptical of skeptics? When you say that someone is a "man's man", it is a man that other men admore or would like to be like. A "songwriter's songwriter" is a songwriter that other songwriters like. That sense doesn't seem to apply here. Bubba73 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The "skeptic's skeptic" label is actually a quote from the obituary Paul Kurtz wrote for Truzzi. The person who wrote that section of the article was, as you correctly pointed out, wrong in calling him "a skeptic's skeptic" because Kurtz referred to him not as such, but instead as "the skeptic's skeptic," a descriptive phrase possessed of connotations entirely different. Batman Jr. 08:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote source?

Does anyone have a source for ""They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly."? The quote is under discussion at the CSICOP article's talk page, and we'd like to source it if possible. Thanks. Mike Christie 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that there are some statements at least similar to that in his book The Blue Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime, which I have. It would probably be difficult to find though. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I spent a few minutes using the index to see where it might be, and I didn't locate it. Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ganzfeld experiments

I'm not very happy with the accusation that he exaggerated Ganzfeld experiment success. We cannot confirm this because there is no link to the source. Is there a more NPOV way to state that claim or is there someone who has the actual referenced article and can cofnirm that it characterized him in that way? If he did and the article proves it, then quote the article in block text, don't characterize what it said. Also the Detroit Free Press doesn't strike me as a terribly reliable source. WHat was there primary source? DFP is no more reliable than say The Los Angeles Weekly, another free paper supported by ads and handed out at record stores and coffee shops. A better source would be helpful. I'm sure there must be one available. LiPollis 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Sense

The paragraph about Blue Sense is highly problematic. It does not at all reflect what the authors write in the book, and it doesn't give any source for the "this is said to be typical of Truzzi's approach" statement (which, by the way, came from a highly biased comment by Robert Todd Carroll). On page 284, Lyons and Truzzi state: "We unearthed evidence supporting both sides in the controversy. We hope to have shown that much of the debate has been extremely simplistic." I tried to add this quote but somebody reverted it, saying it wasn't there. But it is. I did a scan of the page, so don't tell me it isn't there: http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005394598451549665 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.225.44 (talk • contribs)

I have the book, and that is on page 251 of my book (the hardback edition). Amazon lists only one edition. Is yours the paperback? You can restore it. Bubba73 (talk), 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
On the next page in my copy, they say "And the evidence of the blue sense does not yet meet the heavy burden ofproof many scientists demand for validation of what they see as such extraordinary claims." Bubba73 (talk), 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
PS, I'm sorry for reverting your edit, but I saw this edit from an IP address that has had only two previous edits, and those were months ago. The statement was made that it was on page 284 of the book. I turned to page 284 of my hardback edition, read it twice, and it wasn't on that page. I thought it was a form of vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 02:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible use here?

This is copied from the Debunker article. Maybe some of it can be used here:

  • Debunkers are often controversial because their critiques of such things as religion and pseudoscience may offend believers. Some, such as Marcello Truzzi (who self-identified as a skeptic), maintain that some skeptics go too far and assert negative claims, and thus are not true skeptics but "pseudoskeptics". According to Truzzi,[1] genuine skeptics are neutral or agnostic, often critical of extraordinary claims, but do not make negative claims by denying them. Instead they "demand extraordinary proof"[2] before they will accept extraordinary claims as proven.

-- Fyslee / talk 04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "On Pseudo-Skepticism: A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi" from Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987
  2. ^ Marcello Truzzi: "And when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof." Editorial in The Zetetic (Vol. 1, No.1, Fall/Winter 1976, p 4). This statement is often abbreviated to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
It seems OK to me. But if someone makes a claim based on some reasoning or evidence, and someone examines that claim and shows flaws in it, that is debunking. That isn't asserting a negative claim, it is demanding proof of a positive claim instead of accepting it on faith. Bubba73 (talk), 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)