User talk:Martinphi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greetings

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~~~~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Have fun! --Jiang 22:11, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Paranormal

The word paranormal consists of two parts: para and normal. In most definitions of the word paranormal, including the ones you linked to, it is described as anything that is beyond or contrary to what is deemed scientifically possible. Going off the two part word, it is implied that the scientific explanation of the world around us is the "normal" part of the definition and the "para" part makes up the beyond, contrary, or against part of the definition.

That's why I'm saying it's the Latin use of the prefix para. Paranormal isn't along side or parallel to the normal because, in the definition, normal means the scientific worldview. Paranormal is not along side of the scientific worldview. If the paranormal is real, it breaks down our assumptions of what is real according to what we know through science. It is opposed to the normal. It's outside of the normal. Or beyond it.

Going off the Greek use of para, we would be saying that the paranormal, something that dissolves the norm if it is true, exists along side of the norm like paramilitary exists along side of the military. Paramilitary fits the Greek use completely. Although it technically isn't the military, it acts like the military, looks like the military, and does some of the things the military does. That's "along side of". The paranormal doesn't look like the normal, doesn't act like the normal, and in fact is contrary and opposed to the normal.

The normal would say that, for example, that precognition or ESP can't exist because of known physical laws and the nature of time saying you can't know the future because it hasn't happened yet. The paranormal possibility of ESP flies in the face of that worldview. It doesn't look, act, or resemble the normal at all.

That's why I say it's the Latin use.

Cheers --Nealparr 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I recently had an edit conflict while cleaning up the parapsychology article, so I merged our changes. Through viewing the page's edit history, I've noticed how much you've contributed to it. Hopefully you'll find my changes to be helpful to the article's grammar, links, and overall clarity. --neptunius 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Paranormal

Hi! I had to remove your addition to the Project page, but I wanted to let you know why. Firstly, your first two headings already have a place, the ToDo list on the Project Talk page. Secondly, we have a list of all articles currently tagged as being under the aegis of the project, here. Sorry for any confusion! --InShaneee 05:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, the Ass'n is an affiliate of AAAS - that may illustrate more their eagerness to be open to new ideas than their leaning towards believing there are credible, repeatable experiments. In the parts of science I know better, there are usually people on one side and on the other of an issue until a lot of repeated experiments validate one or the other view, or an error is caught. When Joe Weber claimed to detect gravitational waves, many competent people got intrigued if not always convinced. His paper appeared in a prestigious, refereed journal. Eventually he was found to be wrong, and people are still looking, with far more sensitive apparatuses. His being wrong was probably due to his being carried away with enthusiasm - for example, he thought he saw "coincidences" with other detectors overseas, but they were reporting to him on an incompatible time basis. He was tricked. Other objections to his reports are in [theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~kinzel/qm/monopole.pdf]. You can see "wishful thinking" on the stock market (and related ones like commodities and real estate), in war, etc. Wishful thinking helps terminal cancer patients face life (and death), and stimulates a lot of good research. What is lacking in parapsychology are controls and demands of repeatability. I would be agreeable or even enthusiastic if someone demonstrated a "psi" phenomenon so well it could be published in Nature or Science for example. I am waiting. Meantime, one might ask why Dr. Charles T. Tart (mentioned on the Parapsychology page) has to post on [1] ways to reach him by e-mail, or why he even needs a web page - can't he do it all with psi powers? Carrionluggage 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked up Dean Radin on the web. Interesting the first thing that came up was "Down the Rabbit Hole" because my poor wife said she was going down a rabbit hole in the months before she committed suicide. Maybe that's a clue - there are a lot of mentally disturbed people in this psi business. Now about books - they aren't refereed as well as papers in professional journals. There are so many, many examples! Some are published by vanity publishers and some preposterous books are published by university presses and other major publishers. Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" was published by Macmillan. Tom van Flandern [2] has a new crackpot book: "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets" published by North Atlantic Books in Berkeley, CA. Chariots_of_the_Gods by Erich Von Däniken was originally published by G. P. Putnam - generally respectable. (It is a crank or crackpot book. I have read it. It even has a ridiculous misprint for the Relativistic_rocket equation.). On Oct 5th I put some comments in on the parapsychology talk page about Susan Clancy's book - she used a sample biased by some issues I discuss there. Also see The_Amityville_Horror - maybe you rate the original account as credible but in the lawsuit there was a lot of evidence it (hauntings, etc) was all cooked up. The upshot is that a lot of publishers will publish books that will sell, even though they could not pass any capable review panel. So I am not convinced that anything has been discovered in the field. Carrionluggage 06:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Magicians and parapsychology. I am all ears

I have read many books and articles written by parapsychologists and magicians. I can think only of examples back beyond seventy five years ago where parapsychologists sought any advice from magicians, listened to them, and especially thanked them for an explanation that may have slipped by. If something does slip by parapsychologists and the error is pointed out by a magician, usually the magician is bad mouthed and called a DEBUNKER, SKEPTIC, ATHEIST, or worse and the error denied. (Can you say Milbourne Christopher, Martin Gardner, James Randi and Ray Hyman?) If I have missed something, say in the last seventy five years, which I am sure can easily happen; I would be glad if you pointed it out and cited these specific examples. I am always curious, willing to learn, flexible and thankful for new data to examine. Love a historical puzzle! User:Kazuba 18 Oct 2006

==Nice to hear from you== I am what you see. There is no snide attitude. But I am terrible with words. You are right about being careful about making generalizations. Cognitive distortions(another hobby of mine) If you have read any of my junk you should know by now I prefer to think of myself as a genuinely curious amateur historian. I dislike the the label "skeptic" because the only opposite I can come up with is being "non skeptical". These labels, at least to me, are accusing someone of being an extremist. You did well on the quiz. You found four magicians: Lamont, Hyman, Wiseman and Randi. I do not know much about Lamont except he is a fine historian, parapsychologist and magician. He states psi "amounts to no more than a significant deviation from what would expect from chance". Hyman's name is still mud when bringing up the subject of the Ganzfeld experiments and remote viewing. If I get it correctly it was the government who asked for Hyman's evalution of remote viewing not any parapsychologist, and again they were not thrilled by his criticisms. Wiseman's failure to duplicate the Ganzfeld experiments is not earning him any gold stars. Randi is rude. That is just the way he is, even when it has nothing to do with the paranormal. He is not the easiest person to like. Some mentalists see Randi as just an angry old man endangering the mentalists' "is this for real?" art and income. Randi is highly regarded for his ethics and vast knowledge of conjuring and deception by the high mucky mucks of the magic community. He is very good in his evalution of quackery or parapsychology when it has become disturbingly SLOPPY. (It is not always sloppy). But its poor record does speak for itself. Look at its minimal progress in about a hundred years 5%-15% OVER chance. This is not very impressive, at least to me. Perhaps I am wrong and magicians (the masters of deception) have won some of the respect they deserve from parapsychologists. Found your stuff at one of my favorite ladies Eusapia Palladino. What a woman! Nice puzzle. User:Kazuba 18 Oct 2006

RE:Parapsychology

I'd first like to note that your accusation made against me of vandalism^[3] is a gross bad faith assumption. I am only interested in keeping the article in line with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia guidlines and policies. If you are uncertain as to what vandalism is, please read WP:VAND.

Second, your implication that the article is exempt from WP:RS holds no water here. Quite the opposite is true: articles on controversial topics are in the most need of pervasive citations. I've tagged Talk:Parapsychology with {{controversial3}} in order to make this perfectly clear to everyone. Furthermore, the length and/or technical nature of a work does not make it inelligible for inclusion as a citation in an article. Articles on highly technical or specialized topics require highly technical or specialized citations.

We do not keep unsourced and original research material in an article until someone can add proper citations. I'm willing to see that parapsychology is whittled down to even stub length in order for it to be in line with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. If you are resistant to the idea, then further sanctioned steps to achieve this will be necessary. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Furthermore, the length and/or technical nature of a work does not make it inelligible for inclusion as a citation in an article."

I never said that it did. I said that there are no uncontroversial sources in parapsychology, so one cannot cite definitive articles.

I quote: "The nearest thing to 'reliable sources' are papers such as http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html, but they are too long and technical for Wikipedia."

As far a neutral point of view, you deleted most of the balance of the article.

I disagree that the article had a proper balance of presentation in the first place, but I acknowledge that my deletions did bring it a little more out-of-wack. Further deletions (or restoration of content plus citations) will rectify this.

Don't be threatening. You have no special rights on Wikipedia. I can see why you might be angry that I thought your edit was vandalism, but that isn't any reason to threaten. You may likely say you are only enforcing the rules, but there is something to be said for being nice.

What I was "threatening" to do was to use avenues available to all members of Wikipedia, including seeking a third opinion and, if it came to it, a request for comment. I apologize if my statement read in an unduly hostile way.

There is something I don't understand: I thought that the talk page was not an encyclopedia article. Therefore, I don't understand why additions to it need citations etc. Yet the sign seems to only be for talk pages.

If you are referring to the {{controversial3}} tag, then the sign is placed on talk pages. The advice given on it applies to a talk page's corresponding article (unless noted otherwise, such as the request give reasons on the talk page for any changes).

One final thing: I see you are restoring content with citations, and it is already improving the article. However, personal websites are almost never to be considered reliable sources. See WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. I deleted the additions that contain such citations. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Parapsychology, Status of field question of sources

I think maybe you didn't like my Dean Radin references. He's one of the primary researchers, so either his books or his site ought to work.

You say the blockquote comes from Radin, but provide no reference. That is why I deleted it.

Also, the example of a skeptical attack from the Skeptic's Dictionary. That doesn't need authoritative sources, as it is only an example, and is composed of a quote. Or is analysis forbidden?

This is a work published by a lay critic, not a scientist. If you wish to have a criticisms in popular culture section, that's fine, but as it currently stands, it only serves as a straw man of more defensible arguments against parapsychology.

And the UNLV site ought to be fine http://twm.co.nz/FAQpara3.htm.

I note that this is not, in fact, a UNLV site (http://www.unlv.edu).

Some time this week I am going to reduce the article to little more than its introduction and lists of parapsychologists & critics. From there, any statement or set of statements (plus source) you wish to introduce should be first posted on the talk page where a consensus can reached. This is how things are (properly) done on the more articles (see, for example intelligent design and its talk page. Also, please keep these types of posts on the talk page of the article, not our user talk pages. This way others can participate in the discussion. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Magicians who endorsed psychic phenomena

I am very familiar with this list. It is not exactly as truthful as it could to be. It is often times selective in unusual ways. The author and I talked about it long ago. There were things the author (I hope) was not aware of. (I can be very, very thorough when it comes to investigating something that intrigues me.) Hansen has never revised the list since it appeared in The Linking Ring. Also remember there are magicians who have endorsed things that other magicians exposed. The other magicians were just not qualified to solve the problem. It takes a specialist. They seem to be rare. Houdini, Milbourne Christopher, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman and Randi have been the most recent specialists. User:Kazuba 22 Oct 2006

Randi

Randi is difficult to understand because he is very suspicious. But I do think he has a great love of science if it is performed well. Years ago Randi put out a book published by Dover for testing PSI in your home. I am pretty sure (this was long ago) I asked him if he had ever gotten any response and he said no. If a person who can control psi (turn it on and off at will) encounters Randi I think he will be fair. Way back (here we go again) a fellow claimed he could identfy the names of classic music from a certain era by looking at the grooves on a record. Randi was suprised as hell when the fellow really did it. Randi's fair. Randi and I have known each other off and on for at least twenty five years. He is a very interesting person to watch. Once I asked him when he was going to write an autobiography. The next thing I see is Teller, the smart half of Penn and Teller, writing Randi's biography. Randi told me it will available to the general public. Not a special magic book that is very expensive and for rich collectors. (There are some very wealthy people who are into conjuring.) I have nagged him about his childhood. How much will he divulge?

Parapsychology Revisted

Wow! Restoring and repairing Parapsychology is a HUGE task. But I'll take a shot at it for a while. It may take a lot of digging. User:Kazuba 23 Oct 2006

The wife said

Stay out of it! The new page will have to write itself. Perhaps this time adding the sources for the new material. Kazuba and wife like to have fun. User:Kazuba 25 Oct 2006

RE: Theory of runs

Sorry, but I didn't add that. I don't know anything about the theory of runs. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP

Hi, Martinphi, I moved the disputed paragraph to the talk page per WP:V, please see my comments there. -THB 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Parapsychology, mediumism

Hi Nealparr,

Yes, mediumism is covered, but if there's a problem it might be that (I believe) according to the PA, things like mediumism aren't any longer part of parapsychology, in the scientific sense (that's why it's in the historical glossary). I think really there's a distinction between what Rhine tried to make parapsychology and what it traditionally has covered. Basically, they gave up on mediums. You're correct, of course, but I'm not sure someone won't call you on the sourcing here- without historical background distinguishing modern from historical parapsychology.

Has there every been any significant study of paranormal vanishings or stigmata? Martinphi 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I was coming more from a technical perspective trying to remove redundancy. I don't have that much of an attachment to the parapsychology article as it seems to be a controversial one. So whatever you guys want over there, it's fine by me. Recently I was looking to improve some of the paranormal articles on Wikipedia and after fixing up anomalous phenomena, I gravitated to parapsychology. Realizing that it might take a lot of effort to work on that article with so many people involved, I gave up and went back to working on the paranormal article. My approach so far has not been to present everything there is to present on something, but more to provide the basic information about a subject. So the first approach I'd take is to organize the article and remove redundancy. That's probably my biggest criticism of the parapsychology article. A lot of information is repetitive and a clear organization might improve that. I just don't think I can get away with clearing up that particular article so I'm moving on : ) But that's the reason for the edit. I didn't think that mediums required a special exception to the three class scope.--Nealparr 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did a lot of great work, and I see from some of your edits that you have access to an encyclopedia of parapsychology (I can't get to a library). I'm planning to put up a page about skeptical objections and responses, and It would be extremely valuable if you took a look at it when I get it up, and see if you can help source it. Or add to it of course. Martinphi 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Friggin $400! two volume set called the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology by Gale Research. I first came across it in college and it is the most comprehensive encyclopedia I've ever seen on the subject. I found it indespensible to my hobby of writing about the paranormal, so I bought a copy. I have the 1996 version and I use it when I write for a blog called Paranormal Magazine in my spare time. Over there, I don't have to worry about POV disputes : ) You can probably find a copy of the encyclopedia in larger libraries in the reference section. Like I said, it is indespensible. It not only covers obvious subjects like parapsychology (including the histories that I've been quoting), but little known obscure topics as well.

Hey, that's a great script you have to get the mag right in anyone's page. If I every get my page up I'll probably use it. Fits with all the CSS formatting I've got and everything. Yeah, I'll get the encyclopedia if I every have $400 pocket change |:> Aren't we supposed to edit talk pages at the end? Martinphi 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I'm not that fluent on wikietiquette and forgot that talks go to the bottom. In my day job I'm a web designer which is why I took the extra time on the CSS. Feel free to use it. Before the end of the year, I'm switching to a better system that allows other people besides myself to contribute. You're welcome to jump in. Just join the mailing list (it's only used to send a list of weekly articles) for notification of when I open it up for submissions.--Nealparr 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice Fix

The section on parapsychology we fiddled with looks fine, now. Thanks. I note that Mr. David Hess is at Rensselaer. His credentials look very good. I have a science medal from RPI in the 1950's, by the way. Carrionluggage 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your changes (claim -> say) are kind of monotonous. I would respectfully suggest that you sometimes use "say," sometimes "assert" and other times "claim." To give a frank opinion, an involved discussion of points for and against parapsychology largely or entirely written by a "pro-parapsychology" person almost has to seem artificial. The dialogues of Socrates read well, though you can always discern Socrates' own opinions early on. Nevertheless, he usually presented both sides of an argument in a terse, readable and balanced way. Hardly a soul lives today who can come close to Socrates' (or Plato's) style. Good luck. Carrionluggage 05:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghost

Hello. I wandered into Ghost from the List of haunted locations page. I'm trying to source that article and broaden its worldview as it suffers horribly from systemic bias. I was hoping to get some information for it from other language Wikipedias to ease the bias some, but it doesn't have interwiki links. I thought Ghost would be a place to start looking. When I got to Ghost I thought it was horribly short on content, so I expanded it using information from the French Wikipedia (the only language other than English that I can actually read). Then I took a look at the talk page and figured it must have had more content in the past, so I dug through the history and found that quote. If you look, the quote says what chapter it is from. My guess is that it is taken from the Mozi, a "philosophical text compiled by Mohists from Mozi's thought". Not having access to that text I don't know for sure though. However, if it was taken from anyplace else I would think whoever first inserted it into the article would have said so. It's obvious that whoever first put it in the article thought that giving the chapter and the name of the translator was adequate sourcing; similar to saying "Genesis 20:12 NKJV" to source a quote from the Bible.

A quick Google search based on the name of the translator gave this page, which might be helpful. Also, this same quote is here, about half-way down the page, with identical sourcing information (perhaps that's where the original contributor got it from?)

Anyway; does that do anything to awnser your question, or am I just rambling? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally; my reasoning for moving the definition is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and to me that looked and felt like a dictionary. I'd rather see some sort of prose introduction that summarizes what will be discussed later in the article. Not necessarily what I butchered in my attempt to translate it from French (I realize that was awful); but something that doesn't look like it belongs on Wiktionary.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job re-writing the lead and finding an on-line copy of the book!~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ford, James Pike, and the Houdini Code

I don't know how long this will take. I research and work at a snail's pace. But this one intrigues me. Just check on the slow development of Arthur Ford and you will see my reasons. Yipe!! I love it! Check out Houdni biographies and further reading. Good mystery. Life is stranger than fiction. Older books are forgotten. User:Kazuba 20 Dec 2006

Style

Yes, I know it doesn't do much for style. And I wouldn't do it with a less controversial subject. But I'm trying not to fall afoul of

[4]. As far as being pro-paranormal, I doubt that has made much of a difference. These are some of the major skeptical objections, and some of the major parapsychological answers. If I didn't present them fairly, they should be edited. And I expect more objections will be contributed. Someone already did one, the last under General Criticism. I thought it was Plato who wrote those dialogues? In Socrates name? Of course I'd do a more readable job if I weren't more concerned with ease of use and POV. Martinphi 06:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC) I thought that Plato wrote down some dialogues attributed to Socrates, but I don't know so I left it a vague combination of two kinds of contribution.

I was suggesting the variation in usage to avoid repetition, which is a turnoff for readers, whatever it says

in [5]. You could use the stronger terms in cases where the opposition was more vehement. Just a stylistic suggestion - sorry if it did not "click" with you. Have a nice holiday season. Carrionluggage 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right of course, and I'll do it if I think of a way I can get away with it. As far as vehement, I'm not sure I know which arguments are the most important in the skeptical community. They all seemed to have some merit, or I would have ignored them (unless they were very widespread). Happy holidays to you as well (: Martinphi 06:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and Responses

Thank you for your response to my skeptical addition. There's another one above it now in need of your attention. Merry Christmas fom London Rikstar 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

New parapsychology criticism

Hi, There's a really good criticism of parapsychology newly contributed here, and I don't have sources to be able to answer it. I was wondering if your $400 encyclopedia could do the job, or if you have any other sources? The criticism is untrue I think, in physics you wouldn't notice the experimenter effect unless you were looking for it, and unless you were measuring it in relationship to a lot of human subjects for the experimenter to effect. But I just don't have a sources. Merry Christmas, Martinphi 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The section on parapsychology does deal with criticisms, but since it's just an encyclopedia and not a stand-alone book, it doesn't delve into it too much. The criticisms it covers are mostly objections raised by CSICOP dealing with fraud. It points out that any scientific field where competition is high is beset by fraud and even points out a case where CSICOP was busted publishing a fraudulent report. It says that even after the fraud was pointed out to them, they republished with the same bogus findings! LOL.

Anyway, in regards to this specific criticism, I'm not sure what quote you can find to back it up, but the isolation of parapsychologists from other fields of study is an imposed isolation. It is true that "physicists have seen no need to invoke 'experimenter effects'", but that is not because they can't benefit from it, it's because they don't want to acknowledge human consciousness interacting with a subject. In a large part, consciousness is seen by mainstream scientists to merely be biochemical processes in the brain. There is no mechanism in science for consciousness to interact with what is being observed. However, the possibility that consciousness defines what is observed is covered greatly in quantum mechanics. For example in the wave-particle paradox, a photon is both a wave (energy) and particle (matter). It only collapses into one or the other at the moment it is observed (See also: Schrodinger's Cat). Many physicists believe that it is consciousness that ends up choosing which it collapses to, or at least the interaction of consciousness on the subject causes the collapse. Of course such a thing if it were true would obviously fall under the realm of parapsychology. But physicists either interpret what is going on differently (must be some other mechanism going on), or simply call it a consciousness interaction and then leave it be with a big question mark hanging over it.

Where they could have turned to parapsychology, they either weren't aware of parapsychology or chose to not turn to it.

I would also look into the Sheep Goat Effect which is the name given to the effect the researcher's beliefs have on the outcome of the research. This not only influences the results of studies in parapsychology, but also conceivably effects the results in physics studies, especially at the quantum level. This is a another area of research that could benefit physics.

So basically what I am saying is that it's not really a criticism of parapsychology that other fields haven't turned to it for answers, it's more a criticism on them, especially when those answers were readily waiting for them had they decided to. A criticism would be if mainstream fields won't turn to parapsychologists because they have nothing to contribute. This isn't the case. Right or wrong, parapsychologists do have answers to some of the questions in physics. Maybe that's the way you should approach the rebuttal. Good luck! --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the reply to the skeptical claim on the parapsychology page (:. If I can't source it maybe I'll put it up and see if anyone else can. I think you were right, basically they haven't been looking, and I also think that they would have to have a bunch of subjects to influence. In other words, if you have a subject trying to influence an RNG, the experimenter effect occurs when the researcher influences the subject to have less effect. Since minds are easier to influence than RNGs, the researcher's attitude has leverage. But if you have a skeptical physics researcher, he is likely to be unable to do a whole lot of influencing of his data, unless he's reaaaaaally psychic, because he'd have to do all the influencing himself. But, this is based on classical assumptions... Martinphi 01:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt a response to the criticism backed with references... wish me luck : ) Btw, you can change your signature by clicking "my preferences" at the top of the page and adding some code to the signature field.

Here's the code for mine, just change the username and color codes. The color codes can be any hexidecimal html color code.

'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="background:#000;color:#fff">~Nealparr~</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Nealparr|Contribs]])</sup>

code

Thanks for the code Martin^phi ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice! --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to New parapsychology criticsm

Interesting... the 'big guns' were wheeled out for this one. The response, though valid, raises separate issues for skeptics to target i.e. the general use made of quantum physical explanations for psi. I'll be back with an edit, no doubt...Rikstar 14:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revised response

See discussionRikstar 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note context and detail added to my Persi Diaconis quote in 'State of the controversy'Rikstar 08:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many excellent contributions to the parapsychology article as well as your many contributions to the area as a whole. - Solar 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

paragraphs

Yeah, it helps, and your refs sure do. This and the Claims article are what need most work. Do you know if it is possible to rename a page? I want to rename "Claims of parapsychology" to "Research results of parapsychology" Think this is a good idea? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought they might help. They're very neutral paragraphs as well. You can most definitely rename a page. It's called "moving" a page, though, and is done by clicking the "move" tab at the top of the page. It'll ask you for a new title and the reason for the move. I don't know if it's a good idea or not but that's how it is done. Personally I don't see why anyone would object to the new title except that maybe super-skeptics probably want it to say "Claims" because it sounds less valid : ) --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rhine

Thanks. Moved criticisms to Rhine page. I just couldn't leave out Mina Crandon and Lady the "talking" horse. User: Kazuba 6 Jan 2007

Fraud in Parapsychiogy

To state that critics of PSI claim positive results are most likely due to fraud because this is easier to accept, than PSI is real is simply wrong. This a distortion and certainly a generalization. Not all critics of parapsychology are extremists. This is original research. I saw no a citation indicated. This does not belong here. It is error they are talking about not deliberate fraud. The Fraud in Parapsychology section should remain blank until something is offered that is more substantial. That is why I entered Error in Parapsychology in its stead. User:Kazuba 7 Jan 2006

Ghost again

Noticing your latest edit of the ghost article, I decided to comment on the part about the Gallup poll. I think your work in that part was very nice - I like seeing actual numbers. What I wanted to ask about is whether "supernatural" really ought to be designated "(and thus unreal)," since supernatural doesn't necessarily mean "unreal" in that sense. My proposition is that we have it say simply "...do not believe in ghosts," as that's really all the source says about the respondents' answers. Cheers! V-Man737 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I was taking my definition that "supernatural" cannot be "real" from a previous version of the supernatural page, which said that supernatural things "are not observable in nature," which is the same as saying that they don't exist, since if they were observable, they would be part of nature. As of now, it says "are not subject to normal natural laws", which of course leaves open the possibility that they are subject to abnormal natural laws, lol. I think that page is screwed, but we might as well not mess up the Ghost article because of it (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mina Crandon and Robert Williams Wood

Added cute little tale at Mina Crandon. I think you'll get a kick out of it. One of my favorites. User:Kazuba 14 Jan 2007

JREF and mediums

Ooooo! Saw this: [6]! Tell me more! What happened? Dreadlocke ☥ 04:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I just read the cause on the Project Paranormal page, JREF is only concentrating on high-profile subjects now. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that another "project paranormal" editor is putting the JREF challenge back into articles. I disagree with his doing that. Check it out: Changes to the JREF challenge. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediumship

I'm the one who created the article on mediumship in response to an attack by skeptics on the information that started off in the Medium (spirituality) article but is now included in Mediumship. The skeptics were desperately trying to delete the information on types of mediums, saying that it merely said mediums were a real phenomena - you know the drill. I also felt there was a sufficient difference in scope of subject matter to warrant two separate articles - one the broader and more historical "mediumship" and the other the more specific article on Mediums. I've been in discussions with other editors about merging the two. It also seemed to me that while Mediums can easily attacked, the overarching Mediumship should be harder to assail. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You copied my comments from your talk page to the mediumship talk page? I answered here for a reason... Dreadlocke ☥ 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good reason for putting it under parapsychology rather than spirituality. Parapsychology is a scientific field, so you don't have to present the opinion of everyone, but only the scientific consensus (or debate I guess) within the field. This prevents skeptics from putting in weasel words or from having a field day with the main article. And you can simply point this out, and then say that the skeptics ought to create articles like "Skeptical view of medium," and put their full and complete arguments there. In such an article, it is NPOV to present the skeptical consensus, without more than a mention of the pro side. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but do you think it will really work that way, or will the skeptics only find more firepower by attacking parapsychology (and therefore mediumship) as a "pseudoscience" and using the mainstream scientific community's majority to really rule and attack a now "more scientific" article on mediums? I'm also concerned that the creation of "skeptical viewpoint" articles will only result in a POV fork that is not allowed. Can of worms... Dreadlocke ☥ 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My thought was that the statement "Spiritualists say that.." in the Physical mediumship sub-section was reduntant, because the section starts off with that phrase, and specifically mentions "Physical mediumship". Also, I got the Ectoplasm definition using the word "held" from Websters definition of ectoplasm, there can be no argument with the wording from that... ;) Nice work, by the way, once "spiritualists say that..xxx" was added, that effectively ended any pov issues...Dreadlocke ☥ 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Medium (spirituality) and Randi's challenge

Thanks for requesting a non-self-published source for the mention of the JREF challenge on Medium (spirituality). Next time, please replace my signature with your own so people don't get the two of us confused. =) Thanks! — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elembis (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh, sorry about putting your signature on that. Just looked like a bunch of code to me. My point in putting in the citation request, and in putting the same supercilious ("factual") phrase "To date, no one has passed the challenge" on the Zammit one, was just that these are not genuine objections to the reality, or unreality, of paranormal phenomena. Randi's done a lot of good in putting the frauds on the run, but at the same time, in a more serious debate such as an encyclopedia, I'm not sure that the challenge, as opposed to Randi's other work, deserves mention. But if you really think we have to have them, let's give them equal footing. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives