User talk:Martinphi/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Come play

LOL! I love it! Love the sandbox too, what a cool idea! Yes, I'd love to play! Fantastic! Hey, what happened to your barnstar? Dreadlocke ☥ 06:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of the bandwidth problem? I see. Heck, I'm hoping for more barnstars myself...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] parapsychology as a science

All the proof that is needed is the fact that the AAAS is partnered with a noted parapsychology research group.

If America's most prestigious scientific scientific grouping supports the scientific nature of parapsychology research, then it is clearly and undeniably a science.

HOWEVER, while parapsychology is a science. Not all of its research/finding are scientific or supported by science. For example, the existence of EVP can be researched using science, and anomalies have been found using scientific methods for finding anomalies, it absolutely has not been rationalized using science and is not accepted as proven by science.

perfectblue 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the AAAS supports the validity of parapsychology as a research field is all the proof that you need that it is a science. Else, try looking up the Ganzfeld experiment. It's had more mainstream coverage than most.

perfectblue 07:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You could try looking at "An Introduction to Parapsychology" by Harvey Irwin. Irwin has lectured in parapsychology as a scientific field for 25 years at the university of New England and has a lot to say. Try reading chapter 17. It deals with both efforts to establish parapsychology as a science, and mainstream sciences reactions.

Also try looking at J B Rhine's efforts to ensure that parapsychology experiments were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, and that they used credible methodologies.

perfectblue 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You might also like to point out that parapsychology is "the scientific study of ....", not the "search for proof for.....". This means that mainstream scientists who uses science to debunk something paranormal, or to prove a previous parapsychology experiment is flawed, are themselves conducting a parapsychology experiment.

perfectblue 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP IV

Told ya I didn't like the EVP article nor it's editorial disputes, and your last comments are exactly why. The entire thing is horrible, that's why I always stayed away from it. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

2:51am eastern standard time here. No idea why I'm still up. I'm just a Wikimaniac, I guess...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"Casters of pearls", oh, man, I just cannot stop laughing about that one! LOL!!! Dreadlocke ☥ 08:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you could come back to the EVP talk page and point out some weasel words and incoherent statements. I'm showing them a few, but it would be great to have your assistance...Dreadlocke ☥ 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got to go to the store. Can we remove the tags for now, and if the issues aren't addressed, then put them back? This seems to be a huge sore point with them. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have an objection, since we're actively discussing the issues you raised, I'll temporarily remove the tags and put them back if they're not addressed to your satisfaction. Let me know if this is not ok. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No probs, the EVP article has been a bit of a problem even more than most. It seems tht we have been going round in circles for months and the different senses of EVP seems to never get resolved. I'm not at all sure how we're going to get the thing into a reasonable state.Davkal 02:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, to your point about someone not liking "is defined as", I don't see any problem with it. The skeptics will have a problem with it, because it's a clear statement, without skeptical qualifieres; but a clear statement from all views is absolutely necessary for NPOV - and since the actual basis for EVP is indeed from the view that it exists, and is from a paranormal source - that is the significant definition to start the article with. From the skeptical viewpoint, EVP is a mirage, false, and so EVP doesn't exist, thus there would be no article. Secondly, EVP hasn't been proven false. You can't base an article on those negative assumptions. That's what their entire argument started with, "nothing in science, therefore only popular culture can be used". Well, pop culture thinks it exists. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

Thank you for the magnificent, moving barnstar!!! WOW! How did you know I've always wanted one of those! Really appreciated man...now, I'm getting tired...oh, wait..am I allowed? Do I lose my "tireless" barnstar if I get tired? Augh! Sincerely, thanks...! 08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward

Nice analysis of Belbo's position! I think you clarified it nicely. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't we get the John Edward pic back?
I'm working on it. The original [1] was put up by Elembis and disputed by wikidudeman. It's in licensing limbo at the moment. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Till the next mediation over that word.
Definite word, man. I'm sure it's not over, the 'other side' won't give it up until it says "John Edward is a fraud and a fake". Never ending battle for truth, justice and NPOV!! Dreadlocke ☥ 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the photo? I scanned it in from the book I own. Hard to get the colors right on it....Dreadlocke ☥ 08:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John_Edward_Crossing_Over_Cover_Face_1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:John_Edward_Crossing_Over_Cover_Face_1.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User_talk:Martinphi/parascience

Well heck, I was just arguing a point that I thought was valid without realizing that others already had that idea and were talking about it. So far I've been asking where does it say that parapsychology must produce positive results to be a science, and here you go and find sources about that very thing! This would be a great contribution to the article! Great job. If anything, it will help the mediation which is probably where this is heading. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extrasensory Perception

On User:Kazuba (which I update too frequently) I have decided to open the file drawers belonging to Dean Radin at Extrasensory Perception. (Start from the beginning of the section.) There are a few citations missing. I hope to find these sources again. But I haven't made up my mind how hard I want to search. Here too, I tried to clarify my use of terms relating to mental health and the mind. It is not name calling. It is a somewhat educated observation. There is too much paranoia on the Wikipedia. "When you attack my beliefs you attack me." What's with that? Everything is an attack there are no such things as disagreement and challenge? I have seen you use the "us" and "them" labels, a bad sign. Perhaps you will be entertained by my weird style of magic. User:Kazuba 26 Feb 2007

[edit] Parapsychology article

Would ArbCom take the case (I mean, after mediation)? Aren't their decisions binding? I want a ruleing on parapsychology as a science for the purposes of Wikipedia. Failed science or no. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Neutrality is number 2 on the 5 pillar list Wikipedia:Five pillars. Number 5 is that there's no hard rules. So while I'm not totally familar with it, I doubt anything is actually "binding". What I'm shooting for is number 2. By attributing the definition to the Parapsychology Association, it is neutrally put. That is, you can either agree with the Parapsychology Association or not. With deeply controversial topics (like I said, the same debate going on here has been going on since the 70s), it's up to the reader to decide for themselves. We'll see how it goes. Are you happy with the current opening?
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Parapsychology a Science?

I second much of what perfectblue has to say. Between the AAAS membership and the Ganzfield debate appearing on the pages of Psychological Bulletin, parapsychology should be permitted to call itself a science in the realm of Wikipedia.

Thanks so much for the tips that you left on my user page.

--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ray Hyman came to my university once, and after a lecture I asked whether or not he accepted parapsychology as a science. He responded somthing to the effect of, "give them about another 50 years, and they might just have something to show for themselves."

I think that the questioners are a small, but vocal minority. As it stands, much of the parapsychology article caters too much to this minority. The tone is too defensive. Hopefully, once I get my bearings about here, I'll be able to help restructure a few things. I think that removing the apologetics will help to stabilize the article in the long run.

When do you plan to take this case to the arbitration committee? Let me know if you need the help of any PA members. Some of them have been taking an interest in Wikipedia lately.

--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't help but overhear. ^_^ By way of advice, I wouldn't invite others into a debate for the sole purpose of supporting your view; the opposition will yell "meatpuppet!!" very loudly. That said, good luck! V-Man737 04:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not planning anything like that. This case can win on its merits. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the case could certainly win on it's own merits. I didn't mean to suggest that we invite others into the debate, only that I know some people that you could solicit for advice on the matter. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please refrain from making edits that slant articles to a particular point of view, as you did by changing "proported psychic medium" to simply "psychic medium" here at John Edward. Also, please mark your edit summaries clearly instead of covering a controversial edit by only mentioning a non-controversial edit done at the same time, as you did in that same edit. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psi

The psi page contradicts itself. It first says "It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms." Then it gives the PA definition as "paranormal processes and paranormal causation". : )

In both cases it claims that something anomalous is going on, which isn't everyone's opinion about it. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science?

Nealparr, didn't mean to piss you off. There isn't really anything different about this position than I told you to begin with. It will be just as difficult to maintain the definition of parapsychology as a science in the first sentence as to maintain that position in the whole article. Don't goway mad. I know you want to make things nice, and I also think you probably feel I am over-militant. But I think the article should be what an objective observer would think is fair, not what the JREF would accept. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not pissed by any means. I just don't have the time to work on a constantly disputed article. I am hoping that we (as in everyone involved) can come to a compromise on an approach that will allow the article to be stable. Probably the big compromises there would be for Wikidudeman to cut back on the hard-pseudoscience issue and for you to cut back on the hard-consensus in the field issue. It's a science to be sure, but the consensus in this small field opposes the consensus in the much larger sciences. There's no way a stance like that can remain stable without locking the article down, which won't happen, or writing it in a way that allows readers to make up their own minds. In doing so, you attribute each claim to the claimant and let the reader judge who's more believable. I personally can't put in an other way, so if it's not that way, someone else will have to write it. In any case, it's better organized now, so that's a start.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I said on the talk page, I think it wouldn't change much were my position to be the one represented by the article. So there is really no reason for you to stop. And to me, the "consensus" part is secondary, and even has some ambiguity of sources. It is the "scientific field" part that matters. If we can have that, there is then a differentiation between snipers and scientists. Parapsychology itself is respected. As it is, parapsychology has no respect at all, it is in the pseudoscience category, literally, with the little green men.

BTW, reading your web page... can't hypnotism leave physical marks? So then possession would be able to also (assuming it is not from a demon). Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, which article was that? I don't support half the stuff I write about, just reporting : ) But to answer your question, in poltergeist studies many believe in the idea that the activity centers around a particular person in the household that is psychically gifted and just doesn't know it. Instead of spirit activity, they say, it is really a case of psychokinesis. Considering that a great number of poltergeist cases involve some sort of physical harm, cutting, scratching, etc. a case could be made that psychokinesis can leave physical marks. Now, that's all external mind stuff. If that's possible then yes, certainly hypnosis can leave physical marks because it's internal. In fact, it's the basis of hypnotic physical therapy which has a lot of support. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Were you talking about the Popo Bawa post? That one's generally thought to be a version of the Old Hag Syndrome (sleep paralysis) despite sightings often occuring during daylight hours away from the bedroom.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you on that. I was talking about the woman raped by ghosts, who couldn't move as she was going to sleep (I got it off the feed, not on your site). You said something about possession leaving physical marks. And I just though, well, it doesn't have to be a ghost -an external source- if hypnosis leaves marks. Then again, how does hypnosis leave marks? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh that one. That's a really sad story but common in Old Hag, sleep paralysis, etc. experiences. Many of those experiences involve some sort of sexual encounter where the victim is unable to fight off the attacker because they are unable to move. The paralysis part (body becomes immobile at the onset of sleep) and even the encounter part (lucid dreams commonly occur in the first minutes of sleep) is fairly understood and explained by sleep disorder. The physical marks are what makes it paranormal. I can't explain it. They can't explain it. It just gets brushed under the carpet and called sleep disorder. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I have heard of blisters also. And the marks of stigmata, and cuts and bruises from possession. And with multiple personalities, physical changes such as not needing glasses. Nealparr, do these things occur in real life, or are they exaggeration or baloney? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's the question isn't it : ) I can honestly say that people report these things. People believe these things. There's evidence of these things in pictures, videos, and things like that. But is it real? That's the question.
If you're asking me what I believe, I'm agnostic. Not in the religious sense, but in the true sense. I believe some things are unknowable. I don't have actual numbers, but it's probably somewhere around 99% of paranormal reports are spontaneous, unexpected, and unreproducible. That rules it out as scientifically testable to determine the reality. So what other ways are there to question reality?
Well, I have a theory on that. It has to do with Santa Claus and black holes : ) Santa Claus and black holes have two things in common. No one's ever seen either. Both exist. That sounds like a load of crap, huh? It's not. In 1897 an editorial was published in the New York Sun. It's a famous editorial that tries to make a case for the existence of Santa Clause: Yes Virginia There Is A Santa Claus. The author wasn't trying to suggest that Santa was physically real. Only that Santa was real in terms of the effect the idea of Santa Claus has on the world. He pretty much said Santa Claus is real because you can see the effect of having someone so generous in the minds of people every Christmas (this was in the 1800s, not the commercialized Christmas of today). Santa, physical or not, inspires people and thus there is a real (and probably measurable) effect.
Likewise, a black hole can only be predicted to exist by its effects. You can't see a black hole because its gravity is so powerful it sucks in everything that we need to see it. The way we know it is there is by the effect it has on the things around it. A star in close proximity, for example, can be seen to be moving towards it. Like Santa Claus, you know its real because it has an effect on the things around it.
Paranormal is the same. I don't know if it will ever be possible to measure paranormal in a conventional sense of pinning it down in a lab and quantifying it. I don't really care if it ever is. The effects a paranormal experience has on one's life is completely life-altering. One experiences a NDE and their life is forever changed. One sees a ghost and their whole worldview alters (I sometimes wonder why people are afraid of dieing in a horror movie - if the ghost is real, dying's not so bad because it's not the end). One experiences synchronocity and they conclude that life has meaning. One sees a UFO and their view of the world's problems are put into the perspective of the entire cosmos. These are no small things. They are radical. They are revolutionary. They are subversive of the status quo.
These things exist, the life-altering changes. It doesn't matter (to me) if the phenomena is real because the changes in one's life are visibly real. They can be measured in the normal sense. Because the effects are real, like Santa Claus and black holes, paranormal is made real through the effects it has on the experiencer's life.
Is any of that science? Is any of that objective? Nah, it's art. Paranormal is properly and more effectively studied through art theory. While art can be objectively studied, it's most interestingly studied subjectively. That's the book I would write.
One last thing. I'm a true paranormalist. I accept paranormal defined as "unexplainable by science" and still believe in it anyway.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is awesome that you wrote that after I added myself to the list of Wikipedians who believe in Santa. V-Man737 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL, can anyone truly deny synchronocity? --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 05:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold?

Are you suggesting that I should be more bold, or that am being too bold? --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 06:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward

Apparently, they're just trying to destroy the Edward article. Making it into an attack on him and not allowing any pictures. Guess I'll have to take this to mediation again. It's sick. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is 4:2:1 a supermajority? What, did they have a thirty-second timeframe for this supposed consensus? Sheesh. What a pile of crap that one is! Dreadlocke ☥
That's what happens to a lot of paranormal articles, they gang up on you and wheel war you to death, until you get tired and give up. Then they make it into a skeptical article, with no real concerns with NPOV. I'm tired of it too. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's start. How do we change the context and turn a negative into a positive? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that 3RR block really took the wind out of my sails. I tried to show the blocking admin my perspective, but he doesn't appear swayed. Seems that "mediation is no excuse for 3RR", which really wasn't my point at all. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By the way...

... what's the story behind your name bro? At first I thought it was MartinPsi, which would make sense because of your interest in parapsychology articles, but then I noticed it was phi. Is it something completely unrelated? – Lantoka (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
I started out way way back editing the philosophy article, because that's what I majored in in college. It was just a stub then. So the phi stands for philoslphy. You know what? The Wikiproject I would have been most attracted to sight-unseen would have been Rational Skepticism. But that's 'cause I'd have assumed they were rational. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess that solves the mystery then. I've been meaning to study philosophy for awhile but I haven't been able to find the time. The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant is sitting on my desk for when I finally do, though. A friend recommended it to me, so I'm hoping it'll be really good.
Anyway, I'm still willing to retrieve articles from the Journal of Parapsychology for you. Just let me know which ones you want, and I'd be more than happy to oblige. And also, you may want to swing by Talk:John Edward, where we're incredibly close to reaching a consensus.
Take care man. – Lantoka (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boxes

NPOV

[edit] Incredible!

That lede in John Edward is pure genius. No one else was able to think of anything like it!

What an incredible comment! What an awesome compliment! Thank you so much!! It took me a bit to figure it out, something I did on the fly and with my comments on the talk page! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the extra kind words in your consensus vote. I wish I could have done more to defend the most excellent "performs" version - perhaps I'll take up that banner again one day. It was just too perfect! Your analysis of what happened, is, as usual, right on the money. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

I think we agree that the parapsychology needs some serious restructing. Come on over to my sandbox and what we can work out.--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 07:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Compliment

I would also like to thank Lantoka for his consensus building and unswerving civility

Thanks for your compliment man. I've worked really hard to try to contribute to that discussion, and it feels really good to see that my efforts were noticed and appreciated. My compliments also go out to you for perservering as long as you have, despite some major blows on both the John Edward and Psychic pages. I love that we can have extensive debates on these subjects, sometimes take opposing views, and still come out of it as comrades (and even friends!) in the end. – Lantoka (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack warning

From the John Edward talk page:

  • I can live with this lead. It is clumsy, but it is the best that can be done. I would like again to register protest at the non-logical, uncivil and non-consensual tactics which were used to try and change this introduction; Wikipedia and all its responsible citizens deserve better than this reprehensible behavior. I would also like to thank Lantoka for his consensus building and unswerving civility, Dreadlocke for his brilliant changes in the introduction, Stevertigo for his neutral mediation, and Belbo Casaubon for his efforts at consensus and for noticing that this argument is not worthwhile. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If you really feel that "rephrehensible" behaviour took place, take it to an admin or RfC. Otherwise, I'll ask you to quit making personal attacks - the means of putting in the previous edited version were conservative if anything, and I will not stand for false accusations of "non-consensusal tactics". It's very disappointing to see editors taking potshots at other editors just because they didn't get their way, especially continuing to go on about an issue in the past when we seem to have agreement and resolution. As WP says, comment on the contribution, not the contributor. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
To which contributors are you referring, Milo? I was merely saying what I though of tactics used. I didn't name anyone. I said the tactics, not the editors, were reprehensible. However, putting personal attack warnings on my and Dreadlocke's pages concerning this might in itself be considered a personal attack- especially seeing you were not named, nor were you personally attacked. And since Wikipedia is ongoing, it is not all in the past.

Left on my talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: John Edward. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack personal attack

Lantoka, Dreadlocke doesn't have time to pursue this, but shouldn't we contact an administrator about this? Who should we contact? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I already talked to him about it. Considering that we've achieved consensus on the John Edward page, I think it'd be best to just drop it. Trying to get each other in trouble is only going to create more problems and stress for everybody, over what is essentially a moot issue. – Lantoka (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-Mail

I've sent you an e-mail. – Lantoka (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)